RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
January 21, 2015 at 7:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2015 at 7:25 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(January 20, 2015 at 9:44 pm)Jenny A Wrote: We know evil is a social problem for human beings. A really omnipotent god could have eliminated evil. Yet we still have evil. Therefore, if there is a god, he is not a good god.
Maybe it's good, but not omnipotent. The poor thing might be doing the best it can.
(January 20, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Magilla Wrote: 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.
Or bodies incapable of carrying it out, which would no more hinder our free will than not being able to phase through walls whenever we wantl does.
(January 21, 2015 at 12:07 pm)Darkstar Wrote:Frank Turek Wrote:We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can't be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can't be evil without good.This is a poor analogy. In both a world of pure good and pure bad, people would have no basis for comparison. However, a lack of pleasure is not the same as pain just as a lack of pain is not pleasure. Even if all that existed was evil it would not follow that the suffering that arose from this would somehow be negated since there was nothing to compare it to. Pain is pain. A world of pure good would be the same in this regard. The people would prefer pleasure to lack of pleasure just as those in the evil world would prefer lack of pain to pain.
Not to mention, there CAN be darkness without light (and there necessarily would be darkness under those conditions). Shadows are defined as regions where existing light is obstructed, so Turek knew what he was doing (and was being dishonest) when he used shadows as an example. Using darkness as an example makes his error plain. There was a time when there was no visible light in the universe, and there will come a time when that is true again. The darkness will not prove light then (nor does it now).
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
