(February 8, 2015 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: So again when I say a rose by anyother name would smell just as sweet... (No matter what you call 'God' he is defined by his actions.) Now if your definations force you to make the determination That God is evil, then perhaps it is how you define the actions of God that should be questioned.You have admitted that god defines good by virtue of being god. Therefore, his actions defy conventional definition to those who want to defend him. Now, for the person who says that any action sanctioned by god is good there is at least the benefit of consistency, even though it makes god out to be the most terrifying person to ever possibly exist.
For the typical theist --and that includes many here-- there are absolute morals, and there are god's actions, which can be moral or immoral. Good or evil. Some of those theists will attempt to place god on a separate moral plane, which is essentially the argument in my previous paragraph and leaves us with the same problem: that a god capable of any action but incapable of differentiating good from evil can and will do horrifically terrible things to people all the time, and their only recourse will be to praise him for it.
You guys may wonder why I hate your mythical god. I don't. I'm just glad he doesn't exist. Because I don't think that human imagination could conjure up a scarier monster than that.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould