>God is all good, but it's not stated in the Bible.
Mark 10:18 >The epicurean paradox, assumes that someone who is "All good" would actively try to end up suffering. >Wich is a lie.
Massive respect that you realize this.
This is in itself a small success for the proponent of the argument because it locks the theist into supporting libertarian free will and shuts down other unrelated theodicies which require compatibilism.
Why do we need to prove the ability to obey if god already knows if we will or won't and designed the world with the result in mind?
why would that world not have meaningful free will or purpose? What makes it impossible for an omnipotent god to create a world with meaningful free will and no evil.
Not a tu quoque, I have actually read it. Plantinga uses the argument featuring supernatural entities causing natural disasters in his response to the problem of natural evil and suffering.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>appeal to mockery
????
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>um actually now that I think about it more, it is perfectly reasonable that earthquakes are caused by demons :))
I'm sure Plantinga would be glad that you've come around.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>more appeal to mockery
?????
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, you should be mocked for treating a particular position as ridiculous and then completely changing your mind when you find out that I was telling the truth about it being the idea of a guy you're shilling.
The problem of evil is an internal critique. Intelligent theists realize this and attempt to mount appropriate theodicies, low IQ theists miss this fact and strawman the argument.
Has always bugged me how, atheists, assume that an Omniscient and Omnipresent God, would have the same morals and values as some mere mortals, who are relatively ignorant and limited.
Even when I was an agnostic, I felt this argument was weak af.
The problem of evil is an internal critique. Intelligent theists realize this and attempt to mount appropriate theodicies, low IQ theists miss this fact and strawman the argument.
The argument borrows the definition of evil from the particular theist that it's aimed against. Unless the theist concedes that on his view, there is no evil, the argument proceeds.
Because of a false attribution?
Yes.
The all Good God of the bible doesn't exist.
Yes, there are theological arguments made by the christian founding fathers that say that God is all good, but it's not stated in the Bible.
Even at that, The epicurean paradox, assumes that someone who is "All good" would actively try to end up suffering.
Wich is a lie.
There are things are that not God's responsibility.
I could literally talk about it for hours
>God is all good, but it's not stated in the Bible.
Mark 10:18
>The epicurean paradox, assumes that someone who is "All good" would actively try to end up suffering.
>Wich is a lie.
Massive respect that you realize this.
Thanks, and thanks for correcting my mistake.
This is in itself a small success for the proponent of the argument because it locks the theist into supporting libertarian free will and shuts down other unrelated theodicies which require compatibilism.
Why do we need to prove the ability to obey if god already knows if we will or won't and designed the world with the result in mind?
why would that world not have meaningful free will or purpose? What makes it impossible for an omnipotent god to create a world with meaningful free will and no evil.
The face that makes someone with a brain laugh.
Christ is king, he died for you.
?
>uh earthquakes and deadly diseases are created by demons and shit
King midwit.
>genetic fallacy + ad hom
??
>t. haven't read plantinga's argument
The more midwits the merrier.
>tu quoque
???
Not a tu quoque, I have actually read it. Plantinga uses the argument featuring supernatural entities causing natural disasters in his response to the problem of natural evil and suffering.
>appeal to mockery
????
>um actually now that I think about it more, it is perfectly reasonable that earthquakes are caused by demons :))
I'm sure Plantinga would be glad that you've come around.
>more appeal to mockery
?????
Yes, you should be mocked for treating a particular position as ridiculous and then completely changing your mind when you find out that I was telling the truth about it being the idea of a guy you're shilling.
demons have never created
Earthquakes and diseases are only evil relative to pleasure or convenience.
They're not evil, they're inconvenient and produce suffering.
But there is many things that are good and inconvenient, as well as things that produce suffering and are good.
So then, Earthquakes and diseases are only evil relative to those.
So we know that convinience and pleasure are not objective measures for good and evil.
So Earthquakes and diseases are not necessarily evil.
The problem of evil is an internal critique. Intelligent theists realize this and attempt to mount appropriate theodicies, low IQ theists miss this fact and strawman the argument.
This.
Has always bugged me how, atheists, assume that an Omniscient and Omnipresent God, would have the same morals and values as some mere mortals, who are relatively ignorant and limited.
Even when I was an agnostic, I felt this argument was weak af.
The argument borrows the definition of evil from the particular theist that it's aimed against. Unless the theist concedes that on his view, there is no evil, the argument proceeds.
Literally who