Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2013, 02:38 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(14-11-2013 02:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-11-2013 08:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What is wrong with young people dying if those young people live on in the afterlife?


And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the understatement of the week.

Please substantiate the existence of a paradise in the afterlife (or indeed, of any afterlife) BEFORE you start to use it to argue for divine benevolence. Dodgy

You silly-nannies are the ones claiming that even if the Christian God exists He isn't omnibenevolent because He lets young people die. Well if you're going to assume for the sake of argument that Christian God exists, then you need to assume the whole kit and caboodle....which includes afterlife. You can't assume for the sake of argument that certain aspects of the Christian God exists while not assuming others if you want to make a persuasive argument.

Why is letting young people die a problem if everyone lives on in the afterlife?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 04:14 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(14-11-2013 02:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-11-2013 02:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the understatement of the week.

Please substantiate the existence of a paradise in the afterlife (or indeed, of any afterlife) BEFORE you start to use it to argue for divine benevolence. Dodgy

You silly-nannies are the ones claiming that even if the Christian God exists He isn't omnibenevolent because He lets young people die. Well if you're going to assume for the sake of argument that Christian God exists, then you need to assume the whole kit and caboodle....which includes afterlife. You can't assume for the sake of argument that certain aspects of the Christian God exists while not assuming others if you want to make a persuasive argument.

Why is letting young people die a problem if everyone lives on in the afterlife?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that 'the ends justify the means' applies to a being that is supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

This goes back to just how inept and inadequate this ancient god concept is in its modern interpretation. Just like how I am more moral than your god, because I care enough that if I had the power, I would stop all rape. Not a denial of 'freewill', just simple intervention. An omnipotent god could do this, an omnipotent omnibenevolent god would; yet we live in a world with rape (which incurs the violation of the freewill of the victim).

Simply put, any sufficiently powerful and caring being wouldn't have made this world . It could have made a world without hurricanes, or made us immune to their power (he could have made us impervious, unable to suffocate, or otherwise indestructible and instead just die after a set amount of time). It could have created a universe free of suffering, a universe in which its intervention was no longer needed or sought after creation. Unfortunately we live in a universe were people pray to their imaginary friends to change the things they are powerless to stop, like natural disasters, war, and famine. The fact that we can imagine a better place than our own reality speaks only to the absolute absurdity of the omnibeneveloent god concept, not it's existence in our reality.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-11-2013, 04:30 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(14-11-2013 04:14 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-11-2013 02:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You silly-nannies are the ones claiming that even if the Christian God exists He isn't omnibenevolent because He lets young people die. Well if you're going to assume for the sake of argument that Christian God exists, then you need to assume the whole kit and caboodle....which includes afterlife. You can't assume for the sake of argument that certain aspects of the Christian God exists while not assuming others if you want to make a persuasive argument.

Why is letting young people die a problem if everyone lives on in the afterlife?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that 'the ends justify the means' applies to a being that is supposedly omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

This goes back to just how inept and inadequate this ancient god concept is in its modern interpretation. Just like how I am more moral than your god, because I care enough that if I had the power, I would stop all rape. Not a denial of 'freewill', just simple intervention. An omnipotent god could do this, an omnipotent omnibenevolent god would; yet we live in a world with rape (which incurs the violation of the freewill of the victim).

Simply put, any sufficiently powerful and caring being wouldn't have made this world . It could have made a world without hurricanes, or made us immune to their power (he could have made us impervious, unable to suffocate, or otherwise indestructible and instead just die after a set amount of time). It could have created a universe free of suffering, a universe in which its intervention was no longer needed or sought after creation. Unfortunately we live in a universe were people pray to their imaginary friends to change the things they are powerless to stop, like natural disasters, war, and famine. The fact that we can imagine a better place than our own reality speaks only to the absolute absurdity of the omnibeneveloent god concept, not it's existence in our reality.

Why does omnibenevolence require God to make the world to you specifications? That seems to be your argument. "God didn't make the world the way I would have made it so He isn't all good".

The purpose of the world is going to dictate its specifications....not your desires.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 04:56 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(14-11-2013 04:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Why does omnibenevolence require God to make the world to you specifications? That seems to be your argument. "God didn't make the world the way I would have made it so He isn't all good".

The purpose of the world is going to dictate its specifications....not your desires.

And you are required, by the state of the world we do find ourselves in, if you want to be taken seriously then you must posit a god concept that doesn't fly in the face of all perceptible reality. This world is simply at a cross purpose with planned benevolence in so far as we can explore our reality, and positing a magical realm that we can only explore after we're dead and is entirely unverifiable does not fix that. If heaven is better than this reality, then that means this one could be better. Positing it isn't because of heaven means fuck all in the face of no evidence for existence of heaven.

That's like telling a homeless person to be happy and things are going to be better, because if they ask you nicely you'll give them an imaginary check for a million dollars...

I don't require that a god make the world to my specification. I do require that when you make a claim for the existence of your creator god, that it's specifications match our reality. We can't verify your god, but we can verify our reality. What we see is a reality filled with untold needless suffering, and no purpose or justification for it outside of blind natural processes and competition. In light of this reality, positing an omnibenevolent god with nothing else to support it other than our current reality is simply groundless and laughable in the extreme.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 05:53 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(14-11-2013 02:38 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-11-2013 02:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the understatement of the week.

Please substantiate the existence of a paradise in the afterlife (or indeed, of any afterlife) BEFORE you start to use it to argue for divine benevolence. Dodgy

You silly-nannies are the ones claiming that even if the Christian God exists He isn't omnibenevolent because He lets young people die. Well if you're going to assume for the sake of argument that Christian God exists, then you need to assume the whole kit and caboodle....which includes afterlife. You can't assume for the sake of argument that certain aspects of the Christian God exists while not assuming others if you want to make a persuasive argument.

Why is letting young people die a problem if everyone lives on in the afterlife?

You misunderstand argumentation. This might explain many of the problems in communicating with you.

We don't assume your god to be true - ever. We say, for the sake of argument, if your god existed we end up with logical inconsistency. And assuming, for the sake of argument, that such a god exists we still see no evidence - evidence that should exist.

All of your god tales are made up. They're in your head, not in the world.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-11-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
Nah he's too busy jerking off to gay porn.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 08:08 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
Let's forget "young people dying in a typhoon" for a second. How about the many young people who are abducted into the sex trade? The horror they face, . . . the pain from disgusting men abusing them, . . . the anguish of wanting to go home to their mommy and daddy, . . . . . and your god ALLOWS this to happen????? Your "god" is non-existent. . . . . . or is an EVIL monster. No other way to put it. If I were a god, . . . . things like this would not happen.

As for the Typhoon, . . . the point is that death, being natural, doesn't have to be laced with suffering and pain to that level. If people lived a decent life, slipped out of consciousness [with their family present], and allowed for a more acceptable ending of their life, . . . AND this is how the god planned it, then you might have an argument. Losing a family member through violence, suddenly, . . . is something that should be prevented . . . if you are able.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DeavonReye's post
14-11-2013, 08:27 AM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2013 08:32 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
HJ,

The. world. is. exactly. as. you. would. expect. it. to. be. if. there. was. no. God.

If. there. was. a. god. it. is. surprising. to. find. he. would. choose. to. make. one. precisely. this. good. and. this. bad. Why not make the world better?

The relevance of a typhoon is that free will played essentially no part in this tragedy. All of the arguments that justify suffering based on it being "our fault" as sinful humans, or necessary to permit free will... these arguments fail. All that you are left with is the terrible argument you are presenting. Let me read it back to you.

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenovolent god exists.
2. The universe exists as it does.
3. Therefore this is the best possible universe to achieve the legitimate goals God created this universe to achieve.

It is a bad argument because it states its conclusion as one of its premises. It is a bad argument because it fails to follow the evidence to where the evidence actually leads. It is a terrible defence against the problem of evil/suffering. It does not effectively deal with the question.

If you want to make the argument work, then at least please present a workable model for what God's legitimate goals for the universe are and how this event furthered those goals. If you are to make a moral case that God's violence against his human captives is acceptable at any kind of human level then you must show what God's moral framework is in a manner that we can buy into it as humans. You can't leave that moral framework a mystery and at the same time claim that the moral framework is good. Let me put your argument another way.

1. God's moral framework is unknown and/or otherwise incomprehensible to humans
2. You know as a human and have properly evaluated that God's nature and moral framework are good
3. Therefore all of God's acts of violence or inaction in the course of natural violence and calamity must be justified and morally correct and valid.

Or... I don't know what god's legitimate goals for the universe are or what his moral reason is, therefore I know that god's goals are legitimate and his actions perfectly morally reasoned.

Either you understand and accept God's moral framework and can argue for it specifically, or you do not understand God's moral framework and are unjustified in claiming it as good. If God's moral framework is incomprehensible then there no justification for claiming it is good. How did you determine it was good? How did you determine that God is the good one and Satan is the evil one? How did you determine that God was pure and we are the corrupt ones? How did you determine these things when God's evil is apparently as great or greater than our own limited human evil? How did you determine these things when Gods actions produce as great a level of suffering as any human action? What do you mean by "good" and how do you put aside your morality your conscience, your humanity long enough to make these claims and these arguments with a straight face? What does the argument you are making say about you and your moral reasoning?

A good god where "good" corresponds to a human understanding of morality is inconsistent with the universe we live in. Saying that is not to try and take the place of God. It is not to stand in judgement (ooh, we'd better not stand in judgement!) over God. It is to stand as human beings and to apply the moral reasoning we are endowed with. If God's morality is not able to stand up to the rigours of mere human moral reasoning, if God's morality cannot be summed up in a manner that facilitates human understanding then he is either not real, has no interest in communicating his message to us, or is in fact simply not "good".

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
14-11-2013, 11:22 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
There is outrage at God's allowing a typhoon.

Are you admiring of God for allowing beautiful babies to be born, too?

Do you take such severe offense at the Filipino home builders and their government who allowed substandard, shoddy buildings such as would never have been built in the US or UK to "stand"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2013, 11:23 AM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
Quote:The relevance of a typhoon is that free will played essentially no part in this tragedy. All of the arguments that justify suffering based on it being "our fault" as sinful humans, or necessary to permit free will... these arguments fail. All that you are left with is the terrible argument you are presenting. Let me read it back to you.

Do you take such severe offense at the Filipino home builders and their government who allowed substandard, shoddy buildings such as would never have been built in the US or UK to "stand"? Didn't the builders and others who failed to protect their countrymen use their free will?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: