RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
January 20, 2015 at 10:45 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2015 at 10:49 pm by Magilla.)
The problem as I see it is that "God" as perceived by Christians, for example, is straight-jacketed by their definition of "him". "God" has various omni-... characteristics, and various absolute characteristics, and they cannot be transgressed by "God", because if any one, (or all of them), are transgressed by "him", then their "God" does not exist, (ie. "God" is NOT what the Christians say). Then, "God" would have to be re-defined, and the theology would need to be made different.
Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) said:-
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The analogies about rusty cars and lighting with shadows behind, are, it seems to me, puerile and meant for the unsophisticated to accept. What Turek is doing is discussing is the universe, (world), as it is, and not as it could be if it was created by an omnipotent and benevolent god. I see no reason why there could not be a universe without evil, if "God" so wished it. As it is, according to theology, we have to put up with the universe the way it is, because "God" decreed that it should be so. I fail to see how a universe without murder, for example would spoil anything in any way. An omnipotent god could have made humans, with minds which never contemplate doing murder.
On the other hand, as I understand it, the Christian believes that they will go to "heaven", after they die. In this supposed heaven, all will be well, love will pervade, there will be no pain or evil. On that view then, it is possible to have a place without evil. Now a Christian counter-argument might be that "hell" is the evil part, which is necessary to contrast with the light of the good of their "heaven". But there is another option open to "God" if "he" so wished, and that is to do away with the supposed place called hell, and when any unrepentant sinners die, just let them cease to exist. So the good guys get into heaven and know it, and so appreciate it. The sinners get nothing, (after death). Of course, all I am doing is giving "God" a few tips here. But if there is no god then giving tips to it, makes little sense, except that I can still point out ways things could be, if "God" existed, and if "he" so wished.
But the point I made earlier is that if we accept the existence of "God" we have to take things the way "God" made them. So if "God" wished to have no evil - period - "he" could have it that way, and what we want would be just too bad. In any case we wouldn't know, (have direct experience of), the difference.
Turek also says that if atheism is true, the atheist needs to sit in the lap of "God" to make any discussion about evil. I say: "Of course we don't". We simply do away with the religious concept of evil, and derive our own concepts of what counts as good and bad.
What I am doing is saying that theism defines "God" into existence, and theism defines evil into existence as well. Just as theists can discuss the ins and outs of these concepts, so too can atheists. To me they are just conceptions being discussed. So I can be sitting in the lap of reality - so to speak - discussing what it would be like to be in the lap of "God", if "God" was real, whilst all along it is quite logical to be able to dos so, if "God" is not real, and even if there be NO god(s).
Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) said:-
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The analogies about rusty cars and lighting with shadows behind, are, it seems to me, puerile and meant for the unsophisticated to accept. What Turek is doing is discussing is the universe, (world), as it is, and not as it could be if it was created by an omnipotent and benevolent god. I see no reason why there could not be a universe without evil, if "God" so wished it. As it is, according to theology, we have to put up with the universe the way it is, because "God" decreed that it should be so. I fail to see how a universe without murder, for example would spoil anything in any way. An omnipotent god could have made humans, with minds which never contemplate doing murder.
On the other hand, as I understand it, the Christian believes that they will go to "heaven", after they die. In this supposed heaven, all will be well, love will pervade, there will be no pain or evil. On that view then, it is possible to have a place without evil. Now a Christian counter-argument might be that "hell" is the evil part, which is necessary to contrast with the light of the good of their "heaven". But there is another option open to "God" if "he" so wished, and that is to do away with the supposed place called hell, and when any unrepentant sinners die, just let them cease to exist. So the good guys get into heaven and know it, and so appreciate it. The sinners get nothing, (after death). Of course, all I am doing is giving "God" a few tips here. But if there is no god then giving tips to it, makes little sense, except that I can still point out ways things could be, if "God" existed, and if "he" so wished.
But the point I made earlier is that if we accept the existence of "God" we have to take things the way "God" made them. So if "God" wished to have no evil - period - "he" could have it that way, and what we want would be just too bad. In any case we wouldn't know, (have direct experience of), the difference.
Turek also says that if atheism is true, the atheist needs to sit in the lap of "God" to make any discussion about evil. I say: "Of course we don't". We simply do away with the religious concept of evil, and derive our own concepts of what counts as good and bad.
What I am doing is saying that theism defines "God" into existence, and theism defines evil into existence as well. Just as theists can discuss the ins and outs of these concepts, so too can atheists. To me they are just conceptions being discussed. So I can be sitting in the lap of reality - so to speak - discussing what it would be like to be in the lap of "God", if "God" was real, whilst all along it is quite logical to be able to dos so, if "God" is not real, and even if there be NO god(s).
There are no atheists in terrorist training camps.
