Ham, do you think it would be a good thing if we were all born into solitary confinement prisons? Hypothetically speaking, if that's just how the world was. If we were all born into our own little box where we couldn't touch anyone else or go wherever we wanted. Do you think that would be a good thing?

(May 17, 2018 at 11:07 am)Khemikal Wrote: How are those kids gonna get their golden ticket if they don;t get raped?

Yes that is the position. That God decides it is worth it in the long run because there will be a 'net good' later on.

But also, free will is supposedly so beautiful and important that it's also worth allowing people to do the most horrible things to each other including innocent children and animals . . . I beg to differ.

The idea that a supreme being is perfectly good is perhaps even more problematic than the idea of a supreme being. If a supreme being exists it is either supremely evil or supremely indifferent.

---

(May 17, 2018 at 11:32 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ham, do you think it would be a good thing if we were all born into solitary confinement prisons? Hypothetically speaking, if that's just how the world was. If we were all born into our own little box where we couldn't touch anyone else or go wherever we wanted. Do you think that would be a good thing?

No not at all but there are definitely worse things in the world. Child rape being one of them.

And of course with or without free will we don't need to limit anyone's physical freedom. The idea that because of the ability to do otherwise that God wouldn't be doing a good thing if he intervened to prevent cruelty to children and animals is absurd. Would it not be a supremely good action on his part to prevent all such things from happening? Is it not a supremely evil action on his part to sit back and allow such things to happen all over the world when he is perfectly capable of preventing it at any time in an instant?

Or maybe it just can;t stop us.  Elephant in the room.

I believe it;s rob that usually points out that god prevents us from jumping to the moon...so I guess that's more important than preventing us from raping children.

(May 17, 2018 at 11:34 am)Hammy Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 11:07 am)Khemikal Wrote: How are those kids gonna get their golden ticket if they don;t get raped?

Yes that is the position.

No, it is not my poistion. I don't expect Khem to care that it isn't my position. But considering how much you and I have talked regarding Khem's bullshit, I would expect you to.

(May 17, 2018 at 11:38 am)Khemikal Wrote: I believe it;s rob that usually points out that god prevents us from jumping to the moon...so I guess that's more important than preventing us from raping children.

LMAO that's a great one! So true.

Kind of frustrating, really, because I;d love to jump to the moon..but I;ve never wanted to rape a child.  Oh well.

(May 17, 2018 at 11:34 am)Hammy Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 11:32 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ham, do you think it would be a good thing if we were all born into solitary confinement prisons? Hypothetically speaking, if that's just how the world was. If we were all born into our own little box where we couldn't touch anyone else or go wherever we wanted. Do you think that would be a good thing?

No not at all but there are definitely worse things in the world. Child rape being one of them.

And of course with or without free will we don't need to limit anyone's physical freedom. The idea that because of the ability to do otherwise that God wouldn't be doing a good thing if he intervened to prevent cruelty to children and animals is absurd. Would it not be a supremely good action on his part to prevent all such things from happening? Is it not a supremely evil action on his part to sit back and allow such things to happen all over the world when he is perfectly capable of preventing it at any time in an instant?

So if us all being born into solitary confinement would prevent child rape 100%, why don't you think being born into solitary confinement would be a better option? Are you saying you support child rape because you don't support us all being imprisoned in such a way that would prevent It?

(May 17, 2018 at 11:21 am)Hammy Wrote: This has got nothing to do with belief or unbelief in God. So the idea of it being incredulity as an excuse to not believe is absurd. This has everything to do with if God exists He's clearly a moral monster.

Again, this is not a logical problem. That has been demonstrated time and time again. Objecting to the existence of God based on theodicy is, and always will be, an argument from incredulity. It requires the person making the objection to prove that God could not have had good reasons for allowing evils as opposed to the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds. No Christian is surprised by terrible diseases, horrific catastrophes, or heinous acts of violence and depravity. Skeptics citing extreme examples, like child abuse or flesh eating bacteria, only confirms in my mind how desperately in need of a Savior we are and our duty to serve as the Body of Christ in this world. You can choose to believe what you want but don't fool yourself into believing it is a rational choice.

-Complains that people misrepresent her, immediately proceeds to babble about solitary confinement. 

(May 17, 2018 at 11:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 11:34 am)Hammy Wrote: Yes that is the position.

No, it is not my poistion. I don't expect Khem to care that it isn't my position. But considering how much you and I have talked regarding Khem's bullshit, I would expect you to.

But I don't understand what you think I am misrepresenting. Okay let me try and be very clear by answering the following questions:

(1) God could choose intervene to stop innocent children and animals being harmed by people at any time. Yes or no? (2) God chooses not to intervene because he has a plan that makes not intervening during such things worth it in the long run because there will be an overall 'net good'. Yes or no?

All I said what you were saying is what you had told me. That God must have a good reason for allowing it to happen rather than intervening to prevent it. I also mentioned how you said there will be a 'net good'. Which is a term you literally used yourself right there in the post. I can't fathom what you think I am supposedly misrepresenting. It's almost like you don't really like your own position. You appear to be the one obfuscating here. I can literally say what you said and you don't like to hear it. So can you please answer my two direct questions above that I put in bold?

And what part did I say that supposedly misrepresents your position?