thanks, god.

[LukeMC]

You're assuming a lot though, and nothing backs up your logic, apart from superstition.

Eh?
- People claim God spared their lives
- If so, God must have made a decision to spare them
- If God decided to spare some people, he had an active role in choosing who
- God is powerful enough to successfully save whoever he chooses (christian assumption)
- Some people died
- God chose not to save some people

Highlight the superstition please, fr0d0. Sometimes I really don't know what goes through your mind when you make posts... =p

What you're really saying is: "The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen ...and I'm sad as a human at the sad stuff". I think that's all you can rationally say. God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

I'll break this one down too then, stating any assumptions.

- God created the universe [christian assumption]
- God is all-powerful [christian assumption]
- God is all-knowing [christian assumption]
- God created the universe how he wanted with full knowledge of the consequences including all of the evils
- God is responsible for the evils in the world.

You can only get out of this by altering your christian assumptions. Even so, you lose at the first premise. Why?

- God created the universe
- There is evil in the universe
- God created the evil in the universe
OR
- God created a universe in which evil would come to exist and God knew this, therefore he is responsible as he planned for this evil to come about.

You haven't even made an attempt at justifying your side of this debate. You just keep dismissing my points or making feeble comments which contribute nothing to the discussion, such as:

You're assuming a lot though, and nothing backs up your logic, apart from superstition.

I assumed the position of those stating God had an active role in their survival. Your response doesn't fit my post.

God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

You haven't displayed to me how God is all good, only said that God has nothing to do with disaster- without justification of any form. Then you say I don't define God accurately enough, but you give no accurate definition of your own to show what I should be saying. You leave the debate criteria vague, giving you opportunity to move the goal posts if I do get close to an accurate definition.

I think you can't have it both ways. Either you're a miserable git because shit happens, or you're a happy camper accepting that the universe is beautiful.

Nice conversing with you :Wink:

This was an upsetting response. I attempted to articulate how God can be seen as the cause of evils and instead of countering my claim you presented a false dichotomy which if accepted, has nothing to say about the nature of God or the debate we're having. If I accept that you can be happy that the universe is beautiful, this doesn't make God less evil, more evil, the colour pink or similar to the shape of a unicorn. It just means I accept that the universe is beautiful.

You next sentence is in a style that implies the debate has reached its end. It hasn't- you haven't shown your point to hold true yet.

Hard for God to do yet possible for chance? That doesn't work. But I think we're both talking about the same thing. For this physical universe to be what it is, those things you describe as horrific have to be a part. Given other permutations: other outcomes would result. Would they be less or more horrific? I don't agree with the notion that God should have made a cotton candy world where everything would be nicey nicey and sadness wouldn't exist. To me that would be the grotesque reality over this one.

*Strawman argument
*Pointless tautology
*This is besides the point and does not strengthen your argument

In the context of our debate, each example I've quoted is a complete dodge of the main topic.

You also make statements such as:

If God created this existence then he's responsible for the natural laws that sustain it and play out throughout time. In this scenario God is ambivalent.

This statement simply refutes your main premise! If God is even capable of experiencing ambivalence he is not all good! I then go on to tackle your "he's responsbile for the natural laws" statement by talking about his plan, his omniscience, etc, and how responsibility STILL lies with God. And your response?

It's an altogether different level of responsibility though isn't it. I think it's in line with nature's responsibility for the weather.

Any level of responsibility is still responsibility- but God's level is HIGH. He made the game and the rules, he knew the outcome and he watched it happen. In and of itself, the weather comparison is a bad comparison. I explained why it is a bad comparion and you simply replied by saying God put in the ingredients and let things go. This was void of critical analysis, because if God put in the ingredients and let things go, but KNEW what would happen (om-ni-sci-ence) then he was again responsible for the many evils.

As is evident, you are yet to provide any form of logical deduction of God being "all good". The exchange has been pretty fun, but you've used some weak arguments, fell to fallacious means and tried my patience a great deal by defending your point so badly and with so little effort to address what I was saying.

So fr0d0, for the nth time, refute my points.

God created the universe
God created the universe exactly the way he wanted to
God knows everything that will happen as a result of his creation
God knew that he would kill millions of people in various painful ways
God decided to go ahead with the plan
God is responsible for suffering- he caused it
God is capable of evil
God is not all good

Please, show me where my arguments fails and present me with a sound, logical decuction showing God to be all good.

Thankyou.