Be honest, am I going to hell for "my" atheism?

[dyresand]

A question for you Lek.

Suppose you have trapped your leg in a machine at work.

Now I see that you're caught and with the simple flick of a switch I could release you from your suffering.

But instead I say that the pain and subsequent loss of your leg will make you a better person.

And you might even end up as a world champion in the disabled Olympics.

What would you think of me?

First of all, you seem to be assuming that God wouldn't flick the switch to save your leg.  Anyway, what if you tell me I have a destiny to fulfill for the good of mankind, and it can only happen if I lose my leg?  But afterwards I will be given a new, perfect body and will live happily for eternity?  You know, I've always dreamed of winning a gold medal in the Olympics.

So you choose to loose a body part.. if i get that right 

[Esquilax]

First of all, you seem to be assuming that God wouldn't flick the switch to save your leg.

Hey, you're the one saying that god allows suffering if good comes of it. Why are you backtracking now?

Anyway, what if you tell me I have a destiny to fulfill for the good of mankind, and it can only happen if I lose my leg?  But afterwards I will be given a new, perfect body and will live happily for eternity?  You know, I've always dreamed of winning a gold medal in the Olympics.

Well, if you want to make an accurate representation of the god thing there, you should add that the person watching while you lose your leg also has the power to ensure that all the good stuff happens to you without necessitating all the suffering... but that's just not what he's doing. He can just give you the good things, but he prefers that you suffer, by his own choice, first.

I mean, if you wanted to be truthful, that's what you'd have to say.

[Lek]

Hey, you're the one saying that god allows suffering if good comes of it. Why are you backtracking now?

Well, if you want to make an accurate representation of the god thing there, you should add that the person watching while you lose your leg also has the power to ensure that all the good stuff happens to you without necessitating all the suffering... but that's just not what he's doing. He can just give you the good things, but he prefers that you suffer, by his own choice, first.

I mean, if you wanted to be truthful, that's what you'd have to say.

I said that God allows suffering to occur and that good can come from suffering. But that doesn't mean that God never intervenes to prevent suffering. There may be times when suffering is necessary and other times when it's not . There are other times when the suffering is caused by the individual himself and is not necessary, but God allows it to happen. I'll grant you that God could stop suffering it he wanted to, but allows much suffering to occur--and I myself can't say for sure why. All we have experienced is our existence in the physical universe and have no understanding of eternity. We don't know how it all fits together within our entire existence.

---

So you choose to loose a body part.. if i get that right 

Yeah. I'd choose to lose a leg for a good enough reason. How about you?

[Zen Badger]

A question for you Lek.

Suppose you have trapped your leg in a machine at work.

Now I see that you're caught and with the simple flick of a switch I could release you from your suffering.

But instead I say that the pain and subsequent loss of your leg will make you a better person.

And you might even end up as a world champion in the disabled Olympics.

What would you think of me?

First of all, you seem to be assuming that God wouldn't flick the switch to save your leg.  Anyway, what if you tell me I have a destiny to fulfill for the good of mankind, and it can only happen if I lose my leg?  But afterwards I will be given a new, perfect body and will live happily for eternity?  You know, I've always dreamed of winning a gold medal in the Olympics.

You didn't answer my question.
What would you think of me if I just stood there and let you suffer?

[robvalue]

If suffering is necessary to a goal, God is not omnipotent. An omni God could achieve the same goal without the suffering.

I'll give you my advice: drop the idea that God is omni anything. It makes it too easy for atheists to find inconsistencies.

[dyresand]

If suffering is necessary to a goal, God is not omnipotent. An omni God could achieve the same goal without the suffering.

I'll give you my advice: drop the idea that God is omni anything. It makes it too easy for atheists to find inconsistencies.

What about the omnipotence paradox? That already beat's god by the way and another thing to add to god cannot be omni anything. 

[robvalue]

Oh yeah for sure. Being omni creates many paradoxes, but that doesn't seem to bother theists very much. Probably because the disconnect between what they imagine they are describing and what the thing would actually be is so huge. I've tried that path on here, but the nearest anyone has come to conceding the point is "he can do anything logically possible". In fact, professor admitted his omnipotence is restrained by his benevolence.

Whose word do we have that anything is omnipotent? The thing itself. If God was right here in front of me, it would be literally impossible for him to demonstrate he is omnipotent.

It's an absolutely ludicrous claim, and theists would be wise to drop it in my opinion. It's just this idea that if he can create something like the universe, he can do anything! Doesn't follow.

[Mystic]

It really depends on how you define omni.

[Esquilax]

I said that God allows suffering to occur and that good can come from suffering.  But that doesn't mean that God never intervenes to prevent suffering.  There may be times when suffering is necessary and other times when it's not .  There are other times when the suffering is caused by the individual himself and is not necessary, but God allows it to happen.  I'll grant you that God could stop suffering it he wanted to, but allows much suffering to occur--and I myself can't say for sure why.  All we have experienced is our existence in the physical universe and have no understanding of eternity.  We don't know how it all fits together within our entire existence.

---

So basically you have no answer to my point, but you refuse to concede because you're clinging to ignorance and just assuming that you're right anyway. That's some real great argumentation, there.

[dyresand]

It really depends on how you define omni.

There is no defining it when you say god is omnipotent and is all know and all powerful, god would have obvious paradoxes.
1. Can god create a boulder so heavy that he can't even lift it. 
2. omnipotent being is an entity that can be omnipotent for a temporary period of time, and then becomes non-omnipotent. Ergo god isn't omini anything. 
3. Is god simple or complex. if god is complex where is his creator. Literally the watch maker argument can be applied here against god when its used on atheists.