(February 13, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Nestor Wrote:None.(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Are you arguing my recall of the account or the truth of the account?I'm trying to figure out what relevancy you believe ancient Mesopotamian myths have on the issue of your God being too powerless or apathetic to correct his mistakes while people gratuitously suffer.
(February 13, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Nestor Wrote:Please clarify your argument.(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: So that I can understand you, are you now changing your argument from 'cancer and disease are evil' to 'the effects of cancer and disease are evil'?How can you even conceive of the notion of evil apart from the afflictions imposed upon sentient creatures? Your question doesn't make sense.
(February 14, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:No, that is not my idea of justice.(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: ...Right, because Adam and Eve sinned, little babies, who had nothing whatever to do with that, get bone cancer. You seem to imagine that if someone does something wrong, then it is right to punish people for it who had nothing to do with that wrong. If someone else commits murder, would it be just to lock you up in prison or execute you for it, if you had nothing to do with the murder? Is that your idea of justice?
Sure it does, and for the previously mentioned reason.
(February 14, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:That's my point. According to the atheistic worldview, disease were not caused by an intelligent being, and are therefore amoral. How can you assign a moral value to an amoral entity?(February 13, 2015 at 5:06 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: According to your worldview it is.
That is hilarious, coming from you, given that you previously posted:
(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: ...
Secondly you'll have to prove that diseases and cancer are evil to make your argument. Are not chemical reactions amoral?
...
(February 16, 2015 at 10:22 am)Tonus Wrote:You could choose to look at it that way. You could also choose to see it as a consequence of an action.(February 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: In the initial creation account (where 'God created all things' comes from) there were no diseases. He did create them in a different sense later on as a consequence of sin, not of His initial creation which He deemed good.Doesn't that make him seem petulant?
(February 16, 2015 at 2:02 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Being the creator of everything makes one responsible for everything.Are you then not responsible for your own actions?
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?