Sure, but I doubt that a god would care, and if we annoyed it with that, it;d just drown us in a flood or whatever the fuck it whims on that day. How much thought do you give to an ant?

Bunnies are my moral superior, if they;re moral agents. I don;t care, into the stew pot they go. We are allegedly created in the image of god......so......

(May 17, 2018 at 11:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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

I do think us all being born into solitary confinement would be a better option. Not so hard for me to answer was it? Somehow my guess is that that's not going to happen. God could do it though. Or better yet: God doesn't have to choose between two awful options like that. He could pick a better one. Like giving people 'free will' but intervening to prevent people harming children or animals... at the very least.

Again, this is a strawman because lack of free will has absolutely nothing to do with solitary confinement. I think I do genuinely understand your position as you have articulated. You have said on multiple occasions that God must have a good reason for not intervening when such awful things happen. Even that alone is an immoral position as far as I am concerned. The only other thing I said was that you mentioned that there must be a 'net good' in the long run in the supenatural realm. And you did say that as well. So perhaps you can tell me what I'm misrepresenting?!?!

I don't believe in free will at all but I do believe solitary confinement for everyone is awful. But still, not as bad as everyone being raped as a child. (I could be wrong on that one they're both very awful... but regardless it's both a false dilemma and a strawman).

We have better options, one presumes a god has even better options than we do.  Or not..again with the elephant.

(May 17, 2018 at 11:54 am)Khemikal Wrote: I understanmd that I have a way of framing the uglier or sillier parts of something that people say in a way that makes them reel against it.  That;s not unintentional, not even a little bit.  

In my case you just go on digressions that have nothing to do with my actual points. That's different to painting the same points in an ugly light like you are doing here.

Quote:In any case the solitary confinement dodge is pointless. 

It's a strawman because it's not the same thing as lack of free will and it's a false dilemma because God doesn't have to choose between that and rape.

Quote: We try to prevent child rape, and we don;t do so by placing everyone in solitary.  It;s idiotic on it;s face and it;s own grounds.  Unless god is far less competent than we are, and that's the only solution -he- can think of.....I have no idea why anyone would utter the first word of it.

It's just an example of a really awful thing that God allows if he is capable of preventing it and if he exists.

Animal cruelty is another example. We could just as easily talk about that instead. Why does not God intervene to violate the free will of sadist who harm innocent animals because they enjoy doing it? 'Free will' is worth this? And that only violates free will in the compatabilist sense. The same sense in which a police officer violates a criminal's free will when the criminal has committed a severe enough crime. It's surely worth it then and it's surely worth it when paramedics intervene to save the lives of people too. Why would it not be a supremely moral act by God to prevent all of those things?

---

(May 17, 2018 at 12:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: We have better options, one presumes a god has even better options than we do.  Or not..again with the elephant.

Look Khem, if we're asking about what Christians believe we are obviously going to start from their premise that God exists. Talking about the 'elephant in the room' that God doesn't actually exist is irrelevant to this matter. This is not about what we believe this is about what they believe. They believe that God allows these things with a good reason and that God both exists and is perfectly capable of choosing to intervene to prevent them. So quit digressing with the "But he isn't capable" part!

Who said god didn;t exist?  I just said it might not have better options than we do. Or, as you propose..maybe it is capable..it just doesn;t wanna. How would I know, never met the guy, lol.

Christian belief and magic books actually do include things god can;t do, in any case. I don;t see why suggesting that this thing is one of those things would be out of bounds.

(May 17, 2018 at 12:02 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Sure, but I doubt that a god would care, and if we annoyed it with that, it;d just drown us in a flood or whatever the fuck it whims on that day.  How much thought do you give to an ant?

This is just another one of your red herrings. Again, we are starting from the premises that (1) God does care. (2) God is all powerful. (3) God exists.

So my point is that if we assume all three are true, the fact that God allows such things to happen either invalidates (1) [God does care] or God does care but in a negative way: He cares about his own sadistic enjoyment. He either doesn't care or He's evil.

Quote:Bunnies are my moral superior, if they;re moral agents.  I don;t care, into the stew pot they go.  We are allegedly created in the image of god......so......

They are morally superior to most humans as most humans tend to cause more harm. In fact, humans are far more immoral than all other mammals, most likely.

But again, this is irrelevant. I'm asking questions towards Christians who believe that God has a good reason to not intervene to prevent these awful things from happening, and these Christians believe God is capable of intervening it and simply chooses not to.

(May 17, 2018 at 12:17 pm)Hammy Wrote: So my point is that if we assume all three are true, the fact that God allows such things to happen either invalidates (1) [God does care] or God does care but in a negative way: He cares about his own sadistic enjoyment. He either doesn't care or He's evil.

The trouble may be your assumptions.  God had trouble with alloy rims.  Maybe child rape is the moral equivalent of alloy rims. It;s not really your fault or my fault or anyone elses fault that believers have painted themselves into an impossible corner in complete contradiction with their own "holy" texts.

(May 17, 2018 at 12:15 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Who said god didn;t exist?  I just said it might not have better options than we do.

You suggested that God may not have better options. You said 'again with the elephant' and you had previously spoke of the elephant in the room being that God isn't actually real . . .

If God has better options he wouldn't pick the option of not preventing the kind of suffering that even us humans know should be prevented. He's already picked an option and it's a terrible one, that's the point.

 

Quote:Or, as you propose..maybe it is capable..it just doesn;t wanna.  How would I know, never met the guy, lol.

The point is that if he doesn't want to he either doesn't care about the suffering (he has other priorities) or he is evil.

Quote:Christian belief and magic books actually do include things god can;t do, in any case. I don;t see why suggesting that this thing is one of those things would be out of bounds.

Irrelevant again. The Christians we are speaking to certainly believe God can at least do anything logically possible. More digressions from you.

(May 17, 2018 at 10:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because preventing that from happening would require divine supernatural intervention. This is a natural world where God allows nature to take its course, not a supernatural one like the next one will be. For whatever reason, God has chosen to keep it that way.

As I've said before, It's fascinating how when Christian's talk, their God's lips move.

I suggest you take it up with Neo, who, if I understand correctly, thinks that the order in the universe is an effect of God constantly maintaining it.

(May 17, 2018 at 12:19 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(May 17, 2018 at 12:17 pm)Hammy Wrote: So my point is that if we assume all three are true, the fact that God allows such things to happen either invalidates (1) [God does care] or God does care but in a negative way: He cares about his own sadistic enjoyment. He either doesn't care or He's evil.

The trouble may be your assumptions.  God had trouble with alloy rims.  Maybe child rape is the moral equivalent of alloy rims.  It;s not really your fault or my fault or anyone elses fault that believers have painted themselves into an impossible corner in complete contradiction with their own "holy" texts.

You're the only one making assumptions here, Khem. This is all irrelevant assumptions about what I'm saying. The point is that God either doesn't care about it happening or he is evil.

It doesn't matter what God thinks is wrong this is about what is actually wrong. If God can't even get the basics of morality right then he's hardly our morally superior.