(October 2, 2026 at 12:38 pm)Silas Vane Wrote:

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

I was just repeating your dumb ass lashing out...big boi, are you 12?

Keep on with your big boi bad bold words.  You sure have made an impression.  

You are just one of many who come here to get mad because we don't share your little friend.

(October 2, 2026 at 12:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

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

“Yes,” “wrong,” and “I did” aren't arguments—they're assertions.

You agreed that if someone can prevent harm, they have a moral duty to step in. God can prevent the harm, so by your own principle, God has a moral duty to step in.

But when I said, “You've assumed God must intervene,” your answer was “I don't.”

Those two positions are contradictory. If your principle gives God a moral duty to intervene, how can you then say you don't assume God must intervene?

Which part are you rejecting? Make the argument.

Sidestepping like he's on the dance floor.

(October 2, 2026 at 12:55 pm)awty Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 12:38 pm)Silas Vane Wrote: 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.

I was just repeating your dumb ass lashing out...big boi, are you 12?

Keep on with your big boi bad bold words.  You sure have made an impression.  

You are just one of many who come here to get mad because we don't share your little friend.

You dodged both questions and replaced an argument with “dumb ass,” “are you 12?” and “little friend.”


That’s interesting from someone whose entire point was that my language supposedly demonstrated I was “riled.”

So let’s make this easy: by your own standard, what does your language demonstrate about you? Hahahahaha

(October 1, 2026 at 2:52 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(October 1, 2026 at 8:49 am)Silas Vane Wrote: So establish the link: how did you determine that God killed the person rather than the doctors simply being unable to prevent their death?

Who created everything, including all the laws of nature that gave your neighbour cancer? Who could create a reality where people dont get cancer caused by random mutation in 66% of all cases, but only due to their own behaviour? Who is the only entity who had an effect on the randomness of cancer?

You're skipping the part you actually need to prove. 

How does “God created a universe with natural laws” logically establish that God caused this particular person's cancer?

(October 2, 2026 at 12:58 pm)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 12:55 pm)awty Wrote: I was just repeating your dumb ass lashing out...big boi, are you 12?

Keep on with your big boi bad bold words.  You sure have made an impression.  

You are just one of many who come here to get mad because we don't share your little friend.

You dodged both questions and replaced an argument with “dumb ass,” “are you 12?” and “little friend.”


That’s interesting from someone whose entire point was that my language supposedly demonstrated I was “riled.”

So let’s make this easy: by your own standard, what does your language demonstrate about you? Hahahahaha

That I think you are a punk kid with nothing better to do than to stomp your feet and be mad.

Knock yourself out, Skippy.

(October 2, 2026 at 1:02 pm)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 1, 2026 at 2:52 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: Who created everything, including all the laws of nature that gave your neighbour cancer? Who could create a reality where people dont get cancer caused by random mutation in 66% of all cases, but only due to their own behaviour? Who is the only entity who had an effect on the randomness of cancer?

You're skipping the part you actually need to prove. 

What part do you think i have to prove? What claim do you think i made? Do you know what a "?" is? Because i ended all three of my questions with them. You may be under the wrong impression that my questions were rhetorical? They werent.
It was you that claimed stuff about being justified to thank something else (your god) for doctors work or "hell, i dunno". Dont pretend that would not have been the end of your argumentation!

(October 2, 2026 at 1:02 pm)Silas Vane Wrote: How does “God created a universe with natural laws” logically establish that God caused this particular person's cancer?

I dont know, because i didnt make that claim.

Please  start honestly answering my questions, i am trying to moderate/debrief you and show you where you thinking is flawed. You are always assuming im asking rhetorical questions in the attemt to get ahead of my argument which you demonstrably havent understood, yet.

So: Who created natural laws that result in 66% of cancer being random, and in no way cause or deserved by humans. Who is the only entity who has and had an influence on the 66% rate (natural laws), and who could have created other laws, without unnecessary suffering?

Hint: In your world view (and that means i am doing internal critque) its a simple fact that your god is the only one who could completely abandon unnecessary suffering, who could possibly be blamed if your neighbour gets some random cancer. What you have no evidence for (just wild ass claims) is that he is the one thing that added to medical science, if your neighbous cancer is going into spontaneous remission.

You would have any reason to blame your god for unnecessary suffering and no reason to thank him for any random medical "miracle" (without having any evidence) , in your own world view.

(October 2, 2026 at 12:56 pm)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 2, 2026 at 12:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 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!

“Yes,” “wrong,” and “I did” aren't arguments—they're assertions.

You agreed that if someone can prevent harm, they have a moral duty to step in. God can prevent the harm, so by your own principle, God has a moral duty to step in.

But when I said, “You've assumed God must intervene,” your answer was “I don't.”

Those two positions are contradictory. If your principle gives God a moral duty to intervene, how can you then say you don't assume God must intervene?

Which part are you rejecting? Make the argument.

Response #3 includes two of your paragraphs. Sorry, I should have been clearer. #4 is directed at 

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

I don’t demand human freedom. But again, that’s the ‘free will’ question.
Boru

(October 2, 2026 at 1:02 pm)Silas Vane Wrote:

(October 1, 2026 at 2:52 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: Who created everything, including all the laws of nature that gave your neighbour cancer? Who could create a reality where people dont get cancer caused by random mutation in 66% of all cases, but only due to their own behaviour? Who is the only entity who had an effect on the randomness of cancer?

You're skipping the part you actually need to prove. 

How does “God created a universe with natural laws” logically establish that God caused this particular person's cancer?

If God created the universe, then God - by definition - created every single thing that exists. Cancer in a particular person is a thing that exists, therefore, God created ‘this particular person’s cancer’.

Boru

Silas Vane, do you have a definition of God in which he is not responsible for what exists and what happens? More like the God of Deism or Providence than the Yahweh who forms the light and prosperity as well as darkness and calamity (Isaiah 45:7)?