Server timed out when I tried to post my response. It completely destroyed my will to type it again.
The main idea was that a world with less suffering is imaginable. Following Rhythm's rules for a better universe, we could expect to see much of the suffering that exists dissipate.
Sufferings aren't needed simply because this world calls for them with its laws and could be eliminated in large part by a change to human nature and/or to necessary living conditions.
Also, I said it was bullshit that God didn't create the thing that destroys and that lack of existence isn't really "evil".
Sorry for being too lazy to retype the whole damn thing.

(July 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm)Skepsis Wrote: Server timed out when I tried to post my response. It completely destroyed my will to type it again.
The main idea was that a world with less suffering is imaginable. Following Rhythm's rules for a better universe, we could expect to see much of the suffering that exists dissipate.
Sufferings aren't needed simply because this world calls for them with its laws and could be eliminated in large part by a change to human nature and/or to necessary living conditions.
Also, I said it was bullshit that God didn't create the thing that destroys and that lack of existence isn't really "evil".
Sorry for being too lazy to retype the whole damn thing.

Thats fine, I had afew things Fr0d0 said I wanted to put under a microscope anyway.

---

"As I already said, the two are linked. Without suffering there cannot be love. Without death there cannot be life. Without disasters there would not be life on earth. I've presented my case. You're dismissing mine without reason."

Hi again Fr0d0, there were quite afew things that didn't add up in your argument but I won't overload you with all of them. Just a few questions if you'd be so kind. :-)

Explain the notion "Without death there cannot be life." and what evidence you have of this.
Also if God is living but is eternal doesn't that mean he doesn't die? Isn't claiming the existence of such a being that cannot and will not die a direct contradiction of this notion?
Also I'd like to establish if God in your view is capable of suffering.

Hey Skep. I wrote a reply and couldn't post last night. Looked like the forum was being attacked. I was guessing at what you might have meant to say. I'm thinking that was ridiculous, I need to wait for you to make a point. So I'll wait for you to answer properly.

First, this

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nothingness is what we might denote as evil, bad, decay etc.. As you've mentioned (I think), the default state things should return to.

Contradicts this

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Now the creator didn't create nothing.God didn't create nothing, he created something. God is something. Gods opposite > evil > gravitates towards nothing.

It is contradictory because God created the potential for nothing, which is effectively creating nothing. Practical nothing.
You are equivocating the word "nothing". Things don't tend toward absolute nothing; they tend towards a practical nothing.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Can I just point out: Christians don't go along with the definition of God as omnibenevolant AFAIK. Benevolant, yes.

News to me. I was under the impression that the reason the argument from evil/suffering had such a foothold was due to that very belief.
Oh, and by the way, you just conceded the argument. I'll still argue against benevolence, but for all intents and purposes omnibenevolence was the target. The reason people don't like to relinquish omnibenevolence is due to the fact that, once omnibenevolence has been taken out of the picture, so has the notion of a "perfect God".
But you and "Christians" don't go along with that.
And that's fine.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: All I can understand from that is that God could have created nothing and spared us all the suffering. To me that reads: God could have left evil (nothing) in place and done nothing constructive. (unintentional pun).

Nothingness isn't evil. Nothingness is nothingness.
Your God is capable of anything that is logically possible. Not creating a universe is logically possible and doesn't contradict any of his attributes, except for the one you made up- he doesn't have to create a thing.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So Yes, God created a world with no unnecessary suffering: this one.

This world is full of unneeded suffering. If there could be a potential world with less suffering, this world has too much.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 2. Now I can think of an answer: God had to create the world because it was in his nature to do so. Being a creator is part of what makes him him. He couldn't not create.

Your God couldn't resist the will to create? Why? I thought the strongest thing in the universe was God's will. Being a creator is one of his assumed attributes which I grant for the sake of argument, but it is by no means an integral part of a God's nature. He has the power to create, and so he has to?

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The situation with the militia is a end point of a series of events that inevitably ended up here. No chance involved. It is merely a playing out of parts.

In this world. In another world nearly identical to this one, a God could have easily made that woman live and her child survive.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The child suffers and dies because of the situation it's born into.

And God doesn't care. Scary, huh? How he could have made a world without the death of the child?

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I see no unnecessary sufferring. The events led to the outcome. Events took on their natural course and what was always going to happen, happened. It's very sad from the mothers POV and from a human POV. But what has that got to do with the balance of nature that governs all of this? Is nature not playing it's part fully? No, nature is acting out the play just as it should. It can do no other. Action is producing reaction, the necessary course of events always happens.

Once again, in this world.
Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating the world as he wants, just as he is incapable of withholding the will to create?

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes, my God created everything. He didn't create nothing, however.

Nope, just the potential for nothingness, the potential for decay. I still think this violates your logic that a creator God can't destroy, because he is responsible for all decay and death and suffering and destruction due to the fat that he created a universe in the state that it exists now, with its laws and inherent properties as they are.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It is impossible to create nothing, which also has to apply to God.

The "nothing" that exists before God created was evil, if I recall. If one can't create nothingness, why is there decay?
This is why you denote change in the meaning a single word like "nothing".
God created the potential for decay and a practical "nothing".

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: That's convenient to change what I said to "all". Poor point, poorly executed

Creation of everything entails decay of everything, once again creating a state of nothingness. Atoms would be separated by miles.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There is satan in christian dogma of course. But did satan pre-exist or co-exist with God? No, God is superior, because satan is a lesser force: a force that had to have something to subtract from.

So Satan is responsible for decay? God is responcible for Satan.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You might think that something could destroy nothing.

I don't.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But then we couldn't have nothing. We would have to live in a world where something was the default position. Like solid is what all things decay towards. the universe would be setting like a large jelly. In this scenario, nothing would have to be the creative force. Nothing God was nothing and he impacted nothingness all over reality ...except that doesn't quite work.. because to create something he'd have to leave a little bit of solid, which would be the bad stuff he existed to get rid of in the first place. And how can nothing be existant??

This is a whole lot of nothing.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Hopefully that serves some purpose lol!

Maybe for someone, but not for me.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You state it, but I've never seen it explained.

Remind me what "it" is please. Forgot. LOLOLOL.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: As you can see from my address of your African example, I don't accept your point at all. It doesn't explain "unnecessary" at all.

Your answer, in effect, is "The world works like it does because the world works like it does." The laws themselves are subject to change by God, so your defence is paper thin and meaningless.

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm sorry, I've missed the part where you came up with a better model for reality.

Any model without unneeded suffering.
Unneeded suffering is suffering that could be averted if God had created the world in a way contrary to this one, where limited sufferings occurred.

1. All life will end in peace and prosperity and the end result is for each life to be without suffering.
-Will it now, and here I thought that all life would end in death, with a pretty healthy mix of peaceful and horrible.

2. Honour and Value is a worthy goal of suffering for a period, given that life will end in peace and without suffering.
-Sounds life a value judgement to me, which I don't personally agree with. Also, if suffering is the only tool by which you could learn these things see below, if it isn't..then we come full circle...

3. In order to create some suffering that would bring about honour and value, some suffering would not.
-I'm guessing you're on-board with suffering being the only teaching tool then..sounds like an excuse for an inept tutor/creator imho.

4. There is wisdom in enriching the sentient honour and value experience with different type of suffering in the system.
-Oh yeah? Again, if suffering were the only way of doing this it wouldn't be a display of wisdom, but ineptitude. We don't beat the ABC's into our own children now do we?

5. Honour and Value gained through the system of struggle and suffering, cannot be given without such a system.
-Why?

6. Therefore over all system of suffering could have been created to enrich sentient life experience.
-Don't get me wrong, for the purpose of argument it -could have been- but that doesn't really jive with what you're hoping to establish in the next line and is again a massive display of ineptitude from a being that I would expect much more out of, personally.

7. A benevolent Creator therefore seems compatible with the world we live in.
-Not even close. This isn't even an issue if we're willing to say -The creator did his best- lulz. Maybe we're very friendly towards this creator, and we propose that it at least got close. Horseshoes and hand grenades. Now, lets throw the hail mary -could we do better? Seems so, and if your creator were benevolent, don't you think it might be willing to give it's creations an audience, lend that godly might? Or are there things which, once done, cannot be undone, even by this creator?

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote: First, this

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nothingness is what we might denote as evil, bad, decay etc.. As you've mentioned (I think), the default state things should return to.

Contradicts this

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Now the creator didn't create nothing.God didn't create nothing, he created something. God is something. Gods opposite > evil > gravitates towards nothing.

No it doesn't lol!

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote: It is contradictory because God created the potential for nothing, which is effectively creating nothing. Practical nothing.
You are equivocating the word "nothing". Things don't tend toward absolute nothing; they tend towards a practical nothing.

Excuse me for finding that stupid. "Creating the potential for nothing". That's a hard belly laugh joke right there

Ok back in the room.

What's the difference between a practical nothing and nothing? lol. Sorry... that makes everything into joke material. You're not serious right? And you're accusing ME of equivocating here?!?

Sorry for that. Perhaps you could explain that better. Because it just looks like nonsense.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Can I just point out: Christians don't go along with the definition of God as omnibenevolant AFAIK. Benevolant, yes.

News to me. I was under the impression that the reason the argument from evil/suffering had such a foothold was due to that very belief.
Oh, and by the way, you just conceded the argument. I'll still argue against benevolence, but for all intents and purposes omnibenevolence was the target. The reason people don't like to relinquish omnibenevolence is due to the fact that, once omnibenevolence has been taken out of the picture, so has the notion of a "perfect God".
But you and "Christians" don't go along with that.
And that's fine.

Yay! You won!

If you address a subject, you should address it exactly, or else you might not end up answering the question. Accuracy is all important.

This "all good" you make it into, is innacurate. If you can't get over that, then I guess you're whistling in the wind. If this makes your argument innefective to you, then you have to move on.

God is perfect. Sure. But God is love; and God is a loving God. I don't know where you get "all loving" from that. If you could explain, with references, then I'd be happy to concede the point. No hard and immovable stick in the mud here. I presume your enquiry to be ernest. *shakes hands and welcomes Ernest*

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: All I can understand from that is that God could have created nothing and spared us all the suffering. To me that reads: God could have left evil (nothing) in place and done nothing constructive. (unintentional pun).

Nothingness isn't evil. Nothingness is nothingness.
Your God is capable of anything that is logically possible. Not creating a universe is logically possible and doesn't contradict any of his attributes, except for the one you made up- he doesn't have to create a thing.

Erm... which one did I make up?

I'm presenting you with a logical position > nothingness = evil, to help you to understand my POV.

If we strip it down to basics, it seems quite clear. And I don't see that you have any objection. But then I'm used to people refuse to accept the most basic facts just to avoid conceding a point.

Let me try one more time.

1. Nothing < this is before the begining
2. Something < the begining has happened.
3. Nothing < the end. Something was removed.

Now this is our (theoretical) universe. It's all that it ever contained. 'Something' is good. Good because it is a positive. What created it must've been good also. Because only a positive force could have spawned 'something'.

Once positive is established, in 'something'. Then what detracts from something is negative. Negative = destruction = bad (for this reality, because the reality will cease to exist if the negative force causes 'something' to be 'nothing' again.

---

Not creating Something is nothing to consider. God could have created Nothing. Erm.... sure...

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So Yes, God created a world with no unnecessary suffering: this one.

This world is full of unneeded suffering. If there could be a potential world with less suffering, this world has too much.

then please give a working example. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just need to be shown how. If you can't think of one, please just say.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 2. Now I can think of an answer: God had to create the world because it was in his nature to do so. Being a creator is part of what makes him him. He couldn't not create.

Your God couldn't resist the will to create? Why? I thought the strongest thing in the universe was God's will. Being a creator is one of his assumed attributes which I grant for the sake of argument, but it is by no means an integral part of a God's nature. He has the power to create, and so he has to?

God is creator. It's a pretty major attribute that is widely accepted in major religions, yes. I don't know why or how you find this surprising. God is an irresistable creative force, yes. It is in his nature to create, and therefore he creates. One of Gods strongest attributes is love. "God is love". Love boils down to the positive force.

Yes, creation is an integral part of God's nature.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The situation with the militia is a end point of a series of events that inevitably ended up here. No chance involved. It is merely a playing out of parts.

In this world. In another world nearly identical to this one, a God could have easily made that woman live and her child survive.

Then that would be the natural logical progression in that reality. Gazillions of other permutations. So what? So you think that in one possible permutation no one dies? Quickly the food and water runs out. What permutation kicks in then to prevent death? Does everyone die happy by some coincidence?

Nature works because of the cycle that you seemingly despise and hold God to account for. I hold that this POV of yours is in fact the entertaining of a fantasy, which is unhealthy when this reality is perfectly beautiful as it is. Maybe that's my perspective kicking in. Factoring in a loving God, the world makes sense from a positive point of view.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The child suffers and dies because of the situation it's born into.

And God doesn't care. Scary, huh? How he could have made a world without the death of the child?

How do you know that God doesn't care? Why should God care? What priorities should God have?

If God is good and loving, as in my construct; then what should he be doing differently to make this situation any better?

Can you define your example more so that I can have more to get my teeth into? Would God have to prevent all death? How does that work?

I think to hold your POV, you have to see God as causing unjust death. Now God is the only perfect judge, knowing everything

(God is Just. God is all knowing)

If people commit murder, then that is people choosing to do bad things. Victims of murder are the victims of an unjust act.

God is not involved in peoples choices. People choose to be like God or not. They choose to be good or bad. The question is why.

God's judgement would find the child innocent and the murderer guilty. Justice is served.

Why did God have to let his creations have the ability to choose? why didn't he create humans with no choices.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote: Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating the world as he wants, just as he is incapable of withholding the will to create?

God cannot create square circles.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It is impossible to create nothing, which also has to apply to God.

The "nothing" that exists before God created was evil, if I recall. If one can't create nothingness, why is there decay?
This is why you denote change in the meaning a single word like "nothing".
God created the potential for decay and a practical "nothing".

Ok I see what you mean. Nothing then isn't evil. But the force back to nothing is. Destruction. decay... how are these not negative forces? Loosely, negative = nothing.

Evil only existed after something was created. Nothing is exactly that. Nothing.

Evil is the sun block. Sun shines down on us until something gets in the way. Darkness isn't caused by the sun, but by the lack of sun. The sun shines on regardless. Likewise evil is the absence of God. Gods love carries on regardless.

In my understanding, factoring in God, all things lead to him > we end up with a positive conclusion to everything. All souls are saved, all evil is defeated. Love wins.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote: Creation of everything entails decay of everything, once again creating a state of nothingness. Atoms would be separated by miles.

Creating everything doesn't entail the creation of nothing. Because nothing didn't need creation to create it. Noting pre exists everything, unless you suggest the there never was a nothing in the first place.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There is satan in christian dogma of course. But did satan pre-exist or co-exist with God? No, God is superior, because satan is a lesser force: a force that had to have something to subtract from.

So Satan is responsible for decay? God is responcible for Satan.

Ugh, lol.

Satan is a negative force. I'm not into studying satan so I'm no expert. Same logic as above applies though.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You might think that something could destroy nothing.

I don't.

Good

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But then we couldn't have nothing. We would have to live in a world where something was the default position. Like solid is what all things decay towards. the universe would be setting like a large jelly. In this scenario, nothing would have to be the creative force. Nothing God was nothing and he impacted nothingness all over reality ...except that doesn't quite work.. because to create something he'd have to leave a little bit of solid, which would be the bad stuff he existed to get rid of in the first place. And how can nothing be existant??

This is a whole lot of nothing.

LOL

Hurt a guy why don't you!

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Hopefully that serves some purpose lol!

Maybe for someone, but not for me.

Fair enough. I tried.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You state it, but I've never seen it explained.

Remind me what "it" is please. Forgot. LOLOLOL.

Hey, you chopped off the original line - you go looksie hehe.

*shouts for Rayaan the search ninja*

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: As you can see from my address of your African example, I don't accept your point at all. It doesn't explain "unnecessary" at all.

Your answer, in effect, is "The world works like it does because the world works like it does." The laws themselves are subject to change by God, so your defence is paper thin and meaningless.

No. You didn't address my point. My point is that meaningless is not inferred from what you said. If you could prove meaninglessness, then we'd have a start.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(July 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm sorry, I've missed the part where you came up with a better model for reality.

Any model without unneeded suffering.

Easily said. Square circle in practice.

---

(July 24, 2012 at 9:36 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

---

"As I already said, the two are linked. Without suffering there cannot be love. Without death there cannot be life. Without disasters there would not be life on earth. I've presented my case. You're dismissing mine without reason."

Hi again Fr0d0, there were quite afew things that didn't add up in your argument but I won't overload you with all of them. Just a few questions if you'd be so kind. :-)

Explain the notion "Without death there cannot be life." and what evidence you have of this.
Also if God is living but is eternal doesn't that mean he doesn't die? Isn't claiming the existence of such a being that cannot and will not die a direct contradiction of this notion?
Also I'd like to establish if God in your view is capable of suffering.

---

Hey Raph. Look at you getting all reasonable! Damn - I might have to un-block you! Glad I clicked anyway .

Life & death. Go together don't you think? This is a material presumption, as it's based on real life. Plants die, their nutrients are broken down and they contribute to new life forming.

Correct on God. He is eternal. Dr Who but with extra powaz. Also... it's life Jim but not as we know it. God is a temporal being, and not a corporeal one. Hence God getting to exist before time. Beat that damn Dr! Grr!

God weeps. Didn't you see it raining? Jesus suffered. If God is love, then not love isn't nice for God. Not that I think that can deter God. God is life in perfection. Life in perfection doesn't make mistakes. What would sufferring entail? Interesting question. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Dr. Who being the most accurate description of god I've ever seen you offer amigo. :claps:

Quote:God cannot create square circles.

Then God is not all-powerful. Simple as that. Nothing should be impossible for a being with the pretensions to call itself all-powerful. If God exists and he is all-powerful, then the only reason suffering is 'necessary' is because God wants suffering to take place. If you dispute this, then you deny the omnipotence of God.

So, we have a paradox, and the only way to resolve it short of denying the existence of God is to deny that God is loving, caring or in any way sympathetic to humanity as a whole. At best, he picks people, with no apparent bias towards those who believe in him, to be the beneficiaries of capricious acts of positive effect.

In short, God cannot be all-powerful AND all-good. The world we live in contradicts this. That sort of God would not have let me suffer a paper cut because suffering would be anathema to such a being. It is to the presumably much less perfect me.

You are equivocating "nothing" because you stated that it would be "evil" for God NOT to create a universe, or to be more accurate, to leave the universe in its evil state. You then said that "evil" is the cause of the reversion of material back to nothing.
You basically cited two different "nothing"s. The first is an almost true "nothing", in that only a God existed during said time.
The second is a practical "nothing", where there exists things other than God, but they have no definable attributes. Atoms are separated by trillions of miles in this "nothing".
So which is it? Which "nothing" is evil?
This is why I have a hard time following you sometimes.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: This "all good" you make it into, is innacurate. If you can't get over that, then I guess you're whistling in the wind. If this makes your argument innefective to you, then you have to move on.

This makes the argument unnecessary. You conceded that an all-loving God does not exist. That is the point of the rhetoric employed.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God is perfect. Sure. But God is love; and God is a loving God. I don't know where you get "all loving" from that.

Guess it's my turn to get a hearty laugh from what you have to say.
So God is perfect. As an attribute, this translates to perfection on all fronts, including a moralistic one. You then concede that God is literally love, at least as a rule of a part of himself.
How the hell does this NOT translate to "all loving"?

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Erm... which one did I make up?

"God is necessarily a creator"

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm presenting you with a logical position > nothingness = evil, to help you to understand my POV.

Let me try one more time.

1. Nothing < this is before the begining
2. Something < the begining has happened.
3. Nothing < the end. Something was removed.

Perfect example of the equivocation of the word "nothing".
Before anything there was true nothing. After creation there is no longer a chance of there being "nothing" ever again, according to the laws of the universe which you tout as unchangeable (I guess, because every time I bring up the idea that universal laws could have been altered to fit life better and restrict suffering, you always say "no, because universal law dictates this suffering").

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Now this is our (theoretical) universe.

+ your fallacy of equivocation.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's all that it ever contained. 'Something' is good. Good because it is a positive.

Why is "something" good? Because it is positive. Why are positive things good? Because they are something. Why is "something" good? Because...
One of your premises needs to be validated before I take you seriously. The positive side of a AA isn't "good", and shouldn't rightly be thought to be so. It is what it is, not good nor evil unless specifically derived to be so. Adding a cup of acid to a dish and a cup of water to another, while both "positive" in the sense that they add to the nothing in the dish, aren't identical in content. This has been the argument, that a God had the capacity to filter the acid of this world into the nearly pure water of another.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What created it must've been good also. Because only a positive force could have spawned 'something'.

What created it must have been positive. You can't derive "good" from "positive" in the sense that you are using the two words.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Once positive is established, in 'something'. Then what detracts from something is negative. Negative = destruction = bad (for this reality, because the reality will cease to exist if the negative force causes 'something' to be 'nothing' again.

Your God wound up the universe and set it loose. He gave it a limited amount of energy. To give it this limited energy is to knowingly set it on a course for destruction. If the rules of the universe are such that the universe will dissipate eventually, then God is the cause of the dissipation.

Answer my questions.
What is the negative force, how does it operate, and is it necessary that it does so?

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Not creating Something is nothing to consider. God could have created Nothing. Erm.... sure...

God could have witheld creation. This isn't the same as "creating nothing".

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: then please give a working example. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just need to be shown how. If you can't think of one, please just say.

Any world that follows Rhythm's rules for a ratchet and rancorous existence would do as a better model for a universe.
Better distribution of goods, better human nature, better resource management- things like that would drastically reduce sufferings.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God is creator. It's a pretty major attribute that is widely accepted in major religions, yes. I don't know why or how you find this surprising. God is an irresistable creative force, yes. It is in his nature to create, and therefore he creates. One of Gods strongest attributes is love. "God is love". Love boils down to the positive force.

Yes, creation is an integral part of God's nature.

I'll give you that, because I don't feel it's my place to tell you what God is and isn't.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Then that would be the natural logical progression in that reality. Gazillions of other permutations. So what? So you think that in one possible permutation no one dies? Quickly the food and water runs out. What permutation kicks in then to prevent death? Does everyone die happy by some coincidence?

I don't have to affirm any of that. My point was, God is a prick is he fails to create the best conceivable world. If there is even one improvement that can be conceived, then God has failed to be moral because it shows that he arbitrarily picked a world with more or less suffering that the "perfect" model.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nature works because of the cycle that you seemingly despise and hold God to account for. I hold that this POV of yours is in fact the entertaining of a fantasy, which is unhealthy when this reality is perfectly beautiful as it is. Maybe that's my perspective kicking in. Factoring in a loving God, the world makes sense from a positive point of view.

Entertaining of a fantasy? That's rich, coming from a theist.
Why can't there be a world devoid of suffering? God can change the laws in any way he wants, allowing for a perfect world. Why not make that one?
In the context of your God, this reality is moral devoid of value and disgusting.
In the context of a physical universe devoid of the supernatural, this world is a beautiful and wonderful place, nearly full to the brim with wonder with the occasional side of suffering- however, for some it is a hell and for others still it wasn't even a glimpse of beauty.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: How do you know that God doesn't care? Why should God care? What priorities should God have?
If God is good and loving, as in my construct; then what should he be doing differently to make this situation any better?

Easy. If he was good and loving, then this world wouldn't exist. That is what he would be doing.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Can you define your example more so that I can have more to get my teeth into? Would God have to prevent all death? How does that work?

Any sufferings would have to be eliminated, through any means necessary. That would make the universe pure.
I have a question for you that will solve any ills you may have.
Is heaven devoid of sufferings? Do people in heaven have free will?
If you answered yes to both, why no make the world like heaven?
If no, why not make a place like some believe heaven to be like?

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think to hold your POV, you have to see God as causing unjust death. Now God is the only perfect judge, knowing everything.

Remember, I don't believe there is a God at all. My POV doesn't include an unjust God or any God at all.
I know what you are saying, however.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If people commit murder, then that is people choosing to do bad things. Victims of murder are the victims of an unjust act.

God is not involved in peoples choices. People choose to be like God or not. They choose to be good or bad. The question is why.

God's judgement would find the child innocent and the murderer guilty. Justice is served.

Why did God have to let his creations have the ability to choose? why didn't he create humans with no choices.

Again, what is heaven like? Is there free will? Is there suffering?

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God cannot create square circles.

I haven't voided a single logical premise anywhere with anything I said in your response.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ok I see what you mean. Nothing then isn't evil. But the force back to nothing is. Destruction. decay... how are these not negative forces? Loosely, negative = nothing.

God isn't "leaving the universe in a state of evil" if he were to decide against creation.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Evil only existed after something was created. Nothing is exactly that. Nothing.

Evil is the sun block. Sun shines down on us until something gets in the way. Darkness isn't caused by the sun, but by the lack of sun. The sun shines on regardless. Likewise evil is the absence of God. Gods love carries on regardless.

Evil overpowers God, then? It keeps God from making contact in any meaningful way.
If evil only existed after creation... God created evil. Necessarily. By your own logic.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: In my understanding, factoring in God, all things lead to him > we end up with a positive conclusion to everything. All souls are saved, all evil is defeated. Love wins.

Like a fairytale!
Eherm.
If everthing ends up peachy-keen, why not make it that way from the start?

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Creating everything doesn't entail the creation of nothing. Because nothing didn't need creation to create it. Noting pre exists everything, unless you suggest the there never was a nothing in the first place.

"Creation of everything entails the decay of everything".
I never said it entails the creation of nothing in the sense you are using the word. You already conceded this point!!
Creation entails decay. God creates "nothing" (the decay of matter to an undefinable state) in this way.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Ugh, lol.

Satan is a negative force. I'm not into studying satan so I'm no expert. Same logic as above applies though.

God created the thing that destroys. God created the conditions and the crane for destruction and decay.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Hurt a guy why don't you!

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. You didn't address my point. My point is that meaningless is not inferred from what you said. If you could prove meaninglessness, then we'd have a start.

Holy crap. I am driving in circles.
God could have made this event NOT HAPPEN. The laws of the universe didn't NEED to be like they were. Therefore, God allowed this. Therefore, it is needless suffering.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:22 am)Skepsis Wrote: Any model without unneeded suffering.

(July 25, 2012 at 3:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Easily said. Square circle in practice.

Once again, what of your heaven?

(July 25, 2012 at 5:11 pm)Skepsis Wrote: You are equivocating "nothing" because you stated that it would be "evil" for God NOT to create a universe, or to be more accurate, to leave the universe in its evil state. You then said that "evil" is the cause of the reversion of material back to nothing.
You basically cited two different "nothing"s. The first is an almost true "nothing", in that only a God existed during said time.
The second is a practical "nothing", where there exists things other than God, but they have no definable attributes. Atoms are separated by trillions of miles in this "nothing".
So which is it? Which "nothing" is evil?
This is why I have a hard time following you sometimes.

It's late so let me just address this part for now (I haven't read any further yet. If what you've written qualifies this further, I will address it next post )

Am I not allowed to change my mind? Or hone my argument? Theists seem to be accused of being too rigid. Cut me some slack here!

Yes I have two nothings going on. I'm changing from "nothing = evil" to "evil is the reduction to nothing".

Nothing existed in #1. God isn 't physically existant
#2: I don't get your "practical nothing". There is no space between anything afaik. Just less matter. And for there to be the smallest particle anywhere means there isn't nothing everywhere