(November 25, 2015 at 5:27 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: But that's cissexist. If God is an agender pansexual non-binary espresso coffee machine complete with dual-action hydraulic processor, who identifies as "ze", you're being cis scum calling ze "he".

Lol. I don't know where you get these, but it gets me every time

(November 25, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Don't you believe that your god created nature?

I believe He created the concept and let nature takes its course. I believe in evolution.

What does that mean?

I could create the concept of "flurgibernigits" but unless I actually engage in some action to bring flurgibernigits into existence then they don't actually exist as anything but an idea.

We all agree that nature actually exists, yes?  So how did nature happen if all your god did was think of the idea of nature but didn't actually create anything?

(November 25, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(November 25, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I believe He created the concept and let nature takes its course. I believe in evolution.

What does that mean?

I could create the concept of "flurgibernigits" but unless I actually engage in some action to bring flurgibernigits into existence then they don't actually exist as anything but an idea.

We all agree that nature actually exists, yes?  So how did nature happen if all your god did was think of the idea of nature but didn't actually create anything?

Oh yes, I believe at some point He put something into motion. And from there just let things happen as they would, knowing what would come of it all. That's what I meant.

 You seem to like polls an awful lot.

Anyway, I voted God is improbable.

(November 25, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Thena323 Wrote:  You seem to like polls an awful lot.

That reminds me....Where is the 'fuck all polls' option? >:c

(November 25, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 25, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: What does that mean?

I could create the concept of "flurgibernigits" but unless I actually engage in some action to bring flurgibernigits into existence then they don't actually exist as anything but an idea.

We all agree that nature actually exists, yes?  So how did nature happen if all your god did was think of the idea of nature but didn't actually create anything?

Oh yes, I believe at some point He put something into motion. And from there just let things happen as they would, knowing what would come of it all. That's what I meant.

So...

Your god created a concept and then created the thing he conceptualized which then proceeded forward in time with matter organizing and ultimately forming gas clouds, galaxies, stars, planets, and humans who would build their homes in the shadows of geologically unstable hillsides, just as your god foresaw happening back in the conceptual phase... but he can't be held responsible for the death and destruction resulting from the inevitable landslide because he just came up with the concept?

I feel like that's like saying that I can conceptualize a 70-story building made entirely of dried spaghetti noodles, build it, lease the office space and then, when the building inevitably fails and the occupants unlucky enough to be in it at the time die, I can get off scot free because all I did was come up with the idea and build it. It's not ultimately my fault that the building I created killed people and I foresaw it happening, it was just the natural outcome of events. YAY! I can't get sued!

(November 25, 2015 at 6:00 pm)Vic Wrote:

(November 25, 2015 at 5:57 pm)Thena323 Wrote:  You seem to like polls an awful lot.

That reminds me....Where is the 'fuck all polls' option? >:c

I'll try and remember this the next time I post a poll

(November 25, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 25, 2015 at 4:11 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Ok, but if he's omniscient, then he would know in advance that creating nature would result in cancer eventually, so he's still responsible for the existence of cancer any way you slice it. If your Gaud is all-powerful and created everything with full knowledge of how it would unfold, then he is personally and solely responsible for everything that happens in the entire Universe, beginning to end. Suffering, evil, disease, death...all of it.

1. As far as suffering and death go, I have already explained what I believe God's thoughts are on those. It was on my post to Simon Moon. 

2. As far as God's responsibility for death and suffering goes, yes, we believe He created the world and knew ahead of time what would happen with everything. So if you want to say that He is "solely responsible" for those, I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't word it that way and I don't think of it that way, but it's just a matter of semantics I think. 

Anyway, the belief goes that even with all the suffering we feel on earth, in the end, everything will be made right. The good that will come of it all will surpass and overcome any pain and suffering we endure in this world. We believe that God, through his omniscience, can see this and that is why He still chose to create us and this world we live in. 

And you can't forget that we believe He suffered with us too. He made Himself man and died the most painful and unjust and horrific death. The belief goes that He felt more physical pain than any other human ever will. And His Mother, not only lost her child (the absolute worst thing a person can go through), but she had to watch him suffer the worst death imaginable.    

That was God's way of saying "yes, I understand and I feel your pain and your suffering. I suffer with you. And my Mother suffers with you too. But in the end all will be made right, and the good will surpass and overcome the bad."

3. Now as far as evil being God's "responsibility" as well, that is where I object. Per our beliefs, evil is the absence of God. We believe God is love and kindness and mercy and goodness, etc etc. Evil is the absence of those things. And that happens when a being makes the conscious decision to turn away from those things. Hate and disregard for others. Vengeance. Cruelty. That's evil.  

Anyway, those are my views, and how I understand it. I hope that sheds some light.

I'm aware you've addressed it already, and I'm saying that regardless of how Gaud "feels" about death and suffering, the point is that an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful Gaud should have been able to create reality without those things, but didn't, ergo he wanted those things to exist and be inflicted upon us, ergo he either does not truly love us, or he is not powerful enough to prevent our suffering.


"Oh, but suffering just makes us stronger, so by allowing us to suffer he's actually helping us."



Ok, but that still leaves us with the fact that he's all-knowing and all-powerful and supposedly designed the system to include the imperative that suffering breeds strength (which it doesn't always, by the way). He could have just as easily created a reality with all the same rules, except that all personal growth is caused by joy instead of suffering and suffering doesn't exist. If he couldn't do this, then he's not all-powerful, and if he could have done it but chose not to, he's not all-loving. It's really quite simple.


As for your definition of evil: it's incorrect, and it's underhandedly designed to preclude your Gaud from the possibility of being described as evil. Evil is the opposite of good. It is commonly defined as profound (and usually deliberate and unabashed) immorality, depravity, and/or wickedness. Because your Gaud is a murdering, genocidal, selfish, rapacious monster, he is evil.


You know what? Let's ditch the word evil for this one. Let's say "sin" instead. Sin is definitely a thing that (according to your Bible) exists, is clearly defined, and is definitely not the "absence" of anything; rather, it's the committing of any action or thought to which Gaud takes offense. The Bible treats this idea as synonymous with evil, but we're going to stick with "sin" instead because it will keep you from weaseling your way out of the problem by bandying semantics over a word that means one thing to theists and another to non-theists.


So according to your Bible, sin is a thing, and according to logical necessity, Gaud is personally and directly responsible for every single sin ever committed by anyone (Satan, humans, doesn't matter). By creating the system with full knowledge that it would produce agents who would sin, and by doing nothing to alter the design, and by not foregoing the creation of the system, Gaud assumes personal responsibility for everything the system does and everything its parts do (including sins). There is no getting out of this. If your Gaud created everything with full knowledge of what it would do, he has no right or reason to grow angry or punish anyone else when his own actions turn out exactly as he knew they would.


That would be similar to me designing a building that I know will collapse in the rain, making a bunch of slaves build it to my exact whims regardless of said knowledge or anyone else's protests, then sentencing those same slaves to death when it inevitably rains and the building inevitably crumbles to mud. I could have changed the design at any point, decided not to build the thing, or any number of other solutions that would prevent the building from falling down, and that makes me completely and solely responsible for the failure even though the slaves were technically the ones doing the building.

(November 25, 2015 at 3:59 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

---

(November 24, 2015 at 7:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think tsunamis are evil. I don't think death, in and of itself is evil. I believe evil acts committed by conscious people, are evil. And that is entirely our own free will.

---

Quote:Let's try out cancer, then. It's not a nice, clean death. You waste away, in pain, sores suppurating on your skin, literally shitting yourself at the end of it and actually wishing to be dead.

Who chooses cancer?

Who invented cancer? Was he conscious?

The real problem of evil is not asking how evil can exist if your god is good.  The real problem of evil is how anyone who invented leukemia or Alzheimer's can be regarded as "good".

You believe that evil acts committed by conscious people are evil.

If your god inflicted my son's mother with breast cancer -- something she certainly didn't choose from her own free will -- how can you say that that act is good?

To forestall an ugly conversation, please don't appeal to "he was using the disease to teach her something". Firstly, she learnt very little from it; and secondly, shouldn't an omnipotent god be better able to find a way to teach someone something than to, you know, give them a fucking fatal disease?

Your god invented cancer. The Problem of Evil is not that it exists in the world -- that's very explainable -- the Problem of Evil is that it exists in the god you Christians claim is the Perfectly Good Creator.

A Perfect Carpenter doesn't build a crooked cabinet.

Your comments are a weak argument.  There's been a lot of nasty diseases man has eliminated or learned how to control.  Remember polio and smallpox?  One day man may very well learn how to eliminate cancer.  He already knows how to control it although the control mechanism isn't perfect.  If you were properly motivated you could discover how to eliminate it or some other disease.  Instead you want some invisible magic being to make everything good for you.  

Look at the bright side.  The omnipotent god character didn't give you a disease that turns your bones into powder overnight.  So that's a good thing, right?

For whatever reason or how it happened, man is supposed to be an intelligent creature who has the wherewithal to solve most of his problems if he will get off of his ass and work on them.  So when you have a problem do something that will solve it instead of just complain about it.  When you get hungry you are supposed to be smart enough to eat.  Don't complain because your body has the capability to experience hunger.    

(November 25, 2015 at 5:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 3. Now as far as evil being God's "responsibility" as well, that is where I object. Per our beliefs, evil is the absence of God. We believe God is love and kindness and mercy and goodness, etc etc. Evil is the absence of those things. And that happens when a being makes the conscious decision to turn away from those things. Hate and disregard for others. Vengeance. Cruelty. That's evil.  

But who is in charge of where there will be evil and where there will not be? Frankly I don't really believe in evil as a thing.

So do you (and Catholics generally) subscribe to all the omni- powers for God as you view him? All knowing, all powerful, all good .. am I leaving any out?

(November 25, 2015 at 5:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(November 25, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: What does that mean?

I could create the concept of "flurgibernigits" but unless I actually engage in some action to bring flurgibernigits into existence then they don't actually exist as anything but an idea.

We all agree that nature actually exists, yes?  So how did nature happen if all your god did was think of the idea of nature but didn't actually create anything?

Oh yes, I believe at some point He put something into motion. And from there just let things happen as they would, knowing what would come of it all. That's what I meant.

This would be compatible with God being a mindless creature of gargantuan proportions who shat galaxies.  Perhaps that is all the involvement He has or wants to have with his scat creations.