the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2016, 07:42 AM
the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 06:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The problem of evil is only dependent on the belief in the existence of such a God, not on this belief being true.

Hence why the OP can propose it while not believing that such a God exists himself.

No, the belief in god creates the belief that there is the problem of evil.

Without a god, there is no problem.


Than clearly you don't understand the problem of evil. The problem of evil, is a formal argument that suggests that it's contradictory to believe in a God whose omni-benevolent, and all powerful, that allows evil to exists.

The only requirement to make that argument is that the person it's being directed to, holds such a belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 07:57 AM
RE: the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 06:10 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I am criticizing people such as yourself who call rape an action of "communal cohesion". People who call such actions moral.

Says the guy who thinks it okay to drug woman to take them to bed. See what I did there?

Yes it's one of several logical fallacies, possibly more than one at once. I would say that it's false equivalency to start. I have not condoned rape of any sort, so equating me with a modern rapist is simply false. It's also borderline ad hominem, but not quite, so it's just you trying to push buttons.

Maybe I hit a nerve? Maybe you're getting tired of typing the same shit over and over and over and over... I dunno.

(16-06-2016 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Since you're referring to actions in the bible, done by civilizations of the past, you are referring to their actions, and the fact that I don't criticize such actions as immoral.

Here is what I was referring to, (so you can't lie about what you "didn't" say)...

(15-06-2016 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 07:36 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Rape, incest, murder, slavery, infanticide and more are all justified in the bible.

Are you saying that it was all ok because god said it was?

No I'm stating that I don't find anything in the bible morally apprehensible, regardless if the stories are true or not, but then again I'm not a liberal minded-humanist either. You may judge such actions a morally bad, I don't.

We'll come back to this in a minute...

(16-06-2016 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What you're referring to as the practice of rape, is most likely in regards to these civilizations taking virgins, unmarried woman of their enemies they've defeated in war, for themselves as wives, given time to grieve the loss of their families etc....

(bolding mine)

Given time to grieve???? Shocking
How much time would be appropriate to grieve?
Before you are raped by the people who murdered your family, stole your lands and annihilated your people?

How many days or weeks should the victorious wait before they start raping the victims?

The depths that you sink to in your apologetics is truly appalling.
Your own words say more about your (lack) of character than any insult I could make.

(16-06-2016 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you're referring to some other aspect of the Bible as endorsing "rape" as you put it, then I have no idea what passage you're referring to. But this seems to be the common one atheists appeal to in regards to endorsing rape.

Well allow me to correct your ignorance:

Quote:City Rape
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Country Rape
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -- Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Of an unbetrothed virgin
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Of prisoners of war
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18

The "unbetrothed virgin" rule is interesting because it involves the father selling the raped daughter to the rapist, because she is "devalued".


So, not only does your moral book have rules for slavery, but it also has rules for rape.

And you have stated that you don't think any of that is morally bad. (see above.)

All of this is relevant since:

Quote:Gospel of Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven

More here:
OT:Law still binding?

To be fair, there are a number of references that say OT law is no longer valid. But that's fairly typical of the collection.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-06-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, the belief in god creates the belief that there is the problem of evil.

Without a god, there is no problem.


Than clearly you don't understand the problem of evil.

Reread what I wrote.

Quote:The problem of evil, is a formal argument that suggests that it's contradictory to believe in a God whose omni-benevolent, and all powerful, that allows evil to exists.

The only requirement to make that argument is that the person it's being directed to, holds such a belief.

Which is part of what I just said. Facepalm

The other part is that there is no actual problem of evil if there is no god.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-06-2016, 09:30 AM
RE: the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  The other part is that there is no actual problem of evil if there is no god.

And that's it, right there. No one can explain just exactly what this "god" is, or what exactly its attributes are, except in very vague and often shifting terms. Even the term "evil" itself is problematic, as it's a highly subjective term that shifts every time you try to examine it. I still use the term to describe certain malicious actions of certain humans, but it's not something I can define as a tangible concept.

IF you say "god" is all-benevolent (as many do), then we have some issues in the form of the Problem of Evil. I'm just taking your explanation and hashing out why it seems implausible, as you have asserted it. All the excuses made for why God wants everyone to have free will run into the problem of the other attributes assigned to this "god" concept, and it's trivially easy to point this out, as has been done since Epicurus, at least.

To me, the far more likely explanation is that humans make up all stories/attributes about gods, and they don't really exist. The world appears to be running 100% on natural phenomena because it really is running that way. There is no god and therefore no expectation that it should be different than it is.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-06-2016, 09:39 AM
RE: the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 09:30 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  The other part is that there is no actual problem of evil if there is no god.

And that's it, right there. No one can explain just exactly what this "god" is, or what exactly its attributes are, except in very vague and often shifting terms. Even the term "evil" itself is problematic, as it's a highly subjective term that shifts every time you try to examine it. I still use the term to describe certain malicious actions of certain humans, but it's not something I can define as a tangible concept.

Refusing to even define the terms like "evil" is even worse.

Using subjective morality as an escape clause is pathetic. It's bad enough to make claims and not produce evidence. But to make vague claims and then deny anyone the right to question them is the height (or depth?) of intellectual dishonesty.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-06-2016, 11:14 AM
the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 09:39 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Using subjective morality as an escape clause is pathetic. It's bad enough to make claims and not produce evidence. But to make vague claims and then deny anyone the right to question them is the height (or depth?) of intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not sure why individuals like yourself are claiming that I oppose you raising question, I'm just pointing out your objections are meaningless, since whatever moral judgements your appealing to, in your own words are "subjective"

At best all folks like you self are suggesting when raising the problem of evil, expressing your own particular distaste. Which should mean as much to a theist with differing taste, as differences in musical preferences.

That's your entire argument in a nutshell, how such and such offend your delicate liberal humanistic temperaments.

It's not that you can't raise your objections, but that your objections lack any backbone, that for someone such as myself it's like swatting a fly. A meaningful of a criticism as you don't like my man-bun.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 11:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 09:39 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Using subjective morality as an escape clause is pathetic. It's bad enough to make claims and not produce evidence. But to make vague claims and then deny anyone the right to question them is the height (or depth?) of intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not sure why individuals like yourself are claiming that I oppose you raising question, I'm just pointing out your objections are meaningless, since whatever moral judgements your appealing to, in your own words are "subjective"

At best all folks like you self are suggesting when raising the problem of evil, expressing your own particular distaste. Which should mean as much to a theist with differing taste, as differences in musical preferences.

That's your entire argument in a nutshell, how such and such offend your delicate liberal humanistic temperaments.

It's not that you can't raise your objections, but that your objections lack any backbone, that for someone such as myself it's like swatting a fly. A meaningful of a criticism as you don't like my man-bun.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its part of the problem is when you bicker about what evil to be to someone else is subjective yet ignore the point again that i brought up of, what it would be in an objective case... that you seem to ignore is it's asking the hypothetical IF it was objective and not otherwise people may view the proposition... That's why it's not just an objective case,

Just like the problem of evil being a question of the problem in the view of a god type in an objective moral case with supposed benevolence. It doesn't matter if the person arguing believes subjective morality. If they are in the argument point of discussion of what if scenario to what the other point may be. Just like you are arguing for with the problem of evil.. yet somehow viewing these scenarios differently as it suits you.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 12:30 PM
RE: the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
I just love it when theists claim their scripture contains "objective" morality when

1) half the stuff in every book of ancient scripture contains "morally objective" ideas that are rejected by every modern society, such as slavery, inferiority of women, and sexual repression, which go against everything we have learned in the past 300 years, and

2) every one of them has a different "objective" moral code, conflicting with the others in significant ways, and agreeing only in places where every working society on the planet (including atheistic ones) agree as well. Murder bad! M'kay?

It is hilariously obvious that all morality is subjective. All Christians seem to mean when they say "objective" morality is "the morality the ancient priests and prophets told us was moral, in the name of our god". It's just another way of saying that their religion is right and aaaaallllllllllllll the others are wrong. Tribalism in a nutshell. It's pretty much the opposite of objective.

You haven't got any more of a leg to stand upon. Less, actually, since you're forced into a position which we're not: you must decide what parts of your "objective" scriptures to reject and which to continue to try to advocate for, in light of people getting sick and tired of your telling people that they're "sinful" when they're demonstrated by actual scientific research to be perfectly normal human variation, such as gay and trans people. I'll happily accept the mantle of "subjective", if my reasoning is based on respect for my fellow human beings and the evidence provided by the Scientific Method.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-06-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 11:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not sure why individuals like yourself are claiming that I oppose you raising question, I'm just pointing out your objections are meaningless, since whatever moral judgements your appealing to, in your own words are "subjective"

[Image: Cutest-Beating-Dead-Horse-GIF_zpssr3sayg9.gif]

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-06-2016, 02:16 PM
the contradiction of the all powerful and good god
(16-06-2016 12:30 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I just love it when theists claim their scripture contains "objective" morality

Since it appears that I'm the only theists here responding, let me make this clear. I neither claim not believe that objective morality is contained within scripture.


I would point out that when folks who claim that morality is subjective, speak of honesty, and reason in regards to moral positions, accusing those who don't subscribe to their own moral standards as not being honest with themselves, referring to moral responsibilities and duties, it becomes apparent that even those who believe morality is subjective, don't seem to really believe it is either

The reality of our moral language is that, is that if morality is not truly objective, we're to the illusion that it is





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: