(October 2, 2026 at 2:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Muslims are pretty good at thanking god when things go wrong.  Christians, not so much.  They often have to be reminded that mamaws death, little girls broken ankles, and cancer...are all of part of gods great plan.

That's why Islam is better than Christianity...

(October 1, 2026 at 9:11 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

(October 1, 2026 at 8:49 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You just slipped from “the doctors couldn’t save them” to “God killed them.” That’s a claim, not an argument.

So establish the link: how did you determine that God killed the person rather than the doctors simply being unable to prevent their death?

Well, it isn't the doctors that give people cancer.

And why would I thank a god that isn't there? Should I thank any other figments of my imagination?

Quote:The Grand Nudger:
Well, it isn't the doctors that give people cancer.
And why would I thank a god that isn't there? Should I thank any other figments of my imagination?

Silas Vane:
I didn't ask whether the doctors gave them cancer, and I didn't ask whether you believe God exists.
You claimed “God kills your loved one.”
Make the argument to prove that claim. How did you establish that God killed the person?
Stay with your own claim. 

And what if the person's own choices substantially increased their cancer risk? People smoke, abuse alcohol, expose themselves to carcinogens, ignore symptoms and take known risks. Are you still going to skip over every human and natural cause and simply announce, “God killed them”?

You don't get to erase personal responsibility where it exists just because blaming God suits your argument.

Come on, baby boi. You made the claim. Give me a rational argument establishing “God gave them cancer.” So far you've given me hollow arguments except evidence for the claim you actually made.

(October 2, 2026 at 3:46 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 2:14 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Muslims are pretty good at thanking god when things go wrong.  Christians, not so much.  They often have to be reminded that mamaws death, little girls broken ankles, and cancer...are all of part of gods great plan.

That's why Islam is better than Christianity...

Quote:The Grand Nudger:
Muslims are pretty good at thanking god when things go wrong. Christians, not so much. They often have to be reminded that mamaws death, little girls broken ankles, and cancer...are all of part of gods great plan.
That's why Islam is better than Christianity...

Silas Vane:
“Islam is better than Christianity” is another claim you've thrown out without establishing it. You love to say things but can't back it up can you?
Better by what standard?
Define the standard of "what is better" and defend it. Then we can test Islam against your own standard—including what you think about Muhammad and the traditional Islamic accounts concerning his marriage to Aisha.

You're missing the point. God doesn't exist to give anyone anything.

(October 2, 2026 at 9:47 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 1, 2026 at 9:11 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Well, it isn't the doctors that give people cancer.

And why would I thank a god that isn't there? Should I thank any other figments of my imagination?

Quote:The Grand Nudger:
Well, it isn't the doctors that give people cancer.
And why would I thank a god that isn't there? Should I thank any other figments of my imagination?

Silas Vane:
I didn't ask whether the doctors gave them cancer, and I didn't ask whether you believe God exists.
You claimed “God kills your loved one.”
Make the argument to prove that claim. How did you establish that God killed the person?
Stay with your own claim. 

And what if the person's own choices substantially increased their cancer risk? People smoke, abuse alcohol, expose themselves to carcinogens, ignore symptoms and take known risks. Are you still going to skip over every human and natural cause and simply announce, “God killed them”?

You don't get to erase personal responsibility where it exists just because blaming God suits your argument.

Come on, baby boi. You made the claim. Give me a rational argument establishing “God gave them cancer.” So far you've given me hollow arguments except evidence for the claim you actually made.

Getting just a bit hostile there, aren't you Big Boi?  Seems that since you are so sure of your god, you wouldn't get so easily riled.

(October 2, 2026 at 10:17 am)awty Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 9:47 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Silas Vane:
I didn't ask whether the doctors gave them cancer, and I didn't ask whether you believe God exists.
You claimed “God kills your loved one.”
Make the argument to prove that claim. How did you establish that God killed the person?
Stay with your own claim. 

And what if the person's own choices substantially increased their cancer risk? People smoke, abuse alcohol, expose themselves to carcinogens, ignore symptoms and take known risks. Are you still going to skip over every human and natural cause and simply announce, “God killed them”?

You don't get to erase personal responsibility where it exists just because blaming God suits your argument.

Come on, baby boi. You made the claim. Give me a rational argument establishing “God gave them cancer.” So far you've given me hollow arguments except evidence for the claim you actually made.

Getting just a bit hostile there, aren't you Big Boi?  Seems that since you are so sure of your god, you wouldn't get so easily riled.

Of course I’m passionate about what I believe. Strong conviction can produce strong responses when those beliefs are discussed.

But your reply assumes that because I’m “riled,” this somehow counts against my confidence in God.

So make the connection: how does being “riled” logically undermine confidence in what I believe?

(October 2, 2026 at 11:40 am)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 10:17 am)awty Wrote: Getting just a bit hostile there, aren't you Big Boi?  Seems that since you are so sure of your god, you wouldn't get so easily riled.

Of course I’m passionate about what I believe. Strong conviction can produce strong responses when those beliefs are discussed.

But your reply assumes that because I’m “riled,” this somehow counts against my confidence in God.

So make the connection: how does being “riled” logically undermine confidence in what I believe?

Calm confidence would indicate that you have nothing to yell about or call people names.  But you flex those typing fingers...someone might just be impressed.

(October 1, 2026 at 2:06 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 1, 2026 at 8:49 am)Silas Vane Wrote: You just slipped from “the doctors couldn’t save them” to “God killed them.” That’s a claim, not an argument.

So establish the link: how did you determine that God killed the person rather than the doctors simply being unable to prevent their death?

If you have the means and opportunity to prevent or mitigate a crisis, there is a moral (and sometime legal) affirmative duty to do so. Whether God deliberately kills the patient or commits a failure to intervene to save the patient, the moral failing is the same.

Since God knows the suffering that will result from the death of the patient and deliberately chooses to let the patient die, God has effectively killed the patient.

Boru

Your argument appears to rely on this principle: if you have the means and opportunity to prevent harm, you have a moral duty to intervene.


But ability alone doesn't establish responsibility. A UFC spectator can physically intervene in a fight. A boxer can refuse to inflict further harm. A soldier may be capable of intervening but have no duty or authority to do so.

And you've skipped an even bigger question: what exactly makes God morally responsible for outcomes produced by people's own choices?

You've assumed God must intervene while ignoring other possibilities. What if intervention requires overriding someone's choices? What if someone rejects God's help? Does respecting that choice suddenly make God responsible for its consequences?

You can't simultaneously demand human freedom and then declare God morally guilty whenever He doesn't override it.

So establish the missing principle: what turns “God could have prevented it” into “God was morally obligated to prevent it and therefore bears responsibility for it”?

(October 2, 2026 at 12:09 pm)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 1, 2026 at 2:06 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If you have the means and opportunity to prevent or mitigate a crisis, there is a moral (and sometime legal) affirmative duty to do so. Whether God deliberately kills the patient or commits a failure to intervene to save the patient, the moral failing is the same.

Since God knows the suffering that will result from the death of the patient and deliberately chooses to let the patient die, God has effectively killed the patient.

Boru

Your argument appears to rely on this principle: if you have the means and opportunity to prevent harm, you have a moral duty to intervene.


But ability alone doesn't establish responsibility. A UFC spectator can physically intervene in a fight. A boxer can refuse to inflict further harm. A soldier may be capable of intervening but have no duty or authority to do so.

And you've skipped an even bigger question: what exactly makes God morally responsible for outcomes produced by people's own choices?

You've assumed God must intervene while ignoring other possibilities. What if intervention requires overriding someone's choices? What if someone rejects God's help? Does respecting that choice suddenly make God responsible for its consequences?

You can't simultaneously demand human freedom and then declare God morally guilty whenever He doesn't override it.

So establish the missing principle: what turns “God could have prevented it” into “God was morally obligated to prevent it and therefore bears responsibility for it”?

1. Yes.

2. Wrong and off point.

3. Yes, I skipped the ‘bigger question’ because the Free Will Debate is outside the scope of my response. Feel free to start another thread.

4. I don’t

5. I did.

Boru

Addendum: Can I interest you in an introduction thread at all? Tell us a little (or a lot - dealer’s choice) about yourself!

(October 2, 2026 at 11:54 am)awty Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 11:40 am)Silas Vane Wrote: Of course I’m passionate about what I believe. Strong conviction can produce strong responses when those beliefs are discussed.

But your reply assumes that because I’m “riled,” this somehow counts against my confidence in God.

So make the connection: how does being “riled” logically undermine confidence in what I believe?

Calm confidence would indicate that you have nothing to yell about or call people names.  But you flex those typing fingers...someone might just be impressed.

Interesting. Now I’m apparently “yelling” and “calling people names.”


Let’s take those one at a time.

First, what exactly did I write that constitutes “yelling”?

And since you brought up name-calling, does calling someone “Big Boi” qualify?

Commit to your standard first.