Argument from evil, restated

[Origen]

I, as a Christian, know this because I believe in the teachings of Christ. I believe Christ was the son of God because of the resurrection. I believe in the resurrection because of the witnessing unto death of the apostles. They all died proclaiming Christ's resurrection, there was nothing to gain by doing this but a hard life and early death, this witness is good enough for me. Other deists believe in the immortality of the soul for other reasons. We each get to God by different paths, but we all know one thing by his or her (since god is a unique being) very nature god is beyond our full understanding, but our experience of life has led us to an encounter with a divinity beyond the limit of space and time. I'd be very special indeed if I knew how god interacts with those who die in tragedy, but I do know he does. I've already said you're welcome to your despair and nihilism, why do you feel so threatened by belief in a god you believe does not exist. I'm not trying to convert you, I just want you to be aware that religion is not as easily dismissed as saying if god existed nothing bad would ever happen. That is the argument of a child, I won't believe 'cause life is shit. Read Sartre, he might help you.

Oh, so circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works, right?

Just so I know we're on the same page.

Please, do go on, you were assuming (asserting) I'm [we're] living a life of despair? I do so like being told what im thinking/feeling.

Read up on the word 'parody', it might help you.

You can't just make a vacuous statement like "circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.." You need to demonstrate the circularity of my position.
I assumed you were lliving in despair because you seemed so concerned about all the evil in the world that god would prevent if there were a god. But your argument was just a parody?? Of what, of whom. Are you saying that you rage at the unprevented deaths of thousands as a means of mocking a god you don't believe in; that you really don't care about the sufferings of this world; that you use tragic deaths as a jest. So why do you really not believe in god?

[Esquilax]

You can't just make a vacuous statement like "circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.." You need to demonstrate the circularity of my position.

I, as a Christian, know this because I believe in the teachings of Christ.

"I know that christianity is true because I believe in the teachings of Christ."

I assumed you were lliving in despair because you seemed so concerned about all the evil in the world that god would prevent if there were a god.

Are you telling me you aren't concerned with all the bad things in the world?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh, so circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works, right?

Just so I know we're on the same page.

Please, do go on, you were assuming (asserting) I'm [we're] living a life of despair? I do so like being told what im thinking/feeling.

Read up on the word 'parody', it might help you.

You can't just make a vacuous statement like "circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.." You need to demonstrate the circularity of my position.
I assumed you were lliving in despair because you seemed so concerned about all the evil in the world that god would prevent if there were a god. But your argument was just a parody?? Of what, of whom. Are you saying that you rage at the unprevented deaths of thousands as a means of mocking a god you don't believe in; that you really don't care about the sufferings of this world; that you use tragic deaths as a jest. So why do you really not believe in god?

I think esquilax has made a pretty good reply to you. It seems odd that you ask for clarification of the circularity of your own point when it is so glaringly obvious. Curious, no?

But I'm sure you're very well versed in the finer nuances of debate, naturally, so asking me to demonstrate the obviousness of your own statement was, what, simply a little game you were playing? It was rather funny.

Anyway, it would appear that one needs to clarify also what I said when I indicated that you should look up the word 'parody'. Allow me to reference your earlier point made on page 14:

I've already said you're welcome to your despair and nihilism, why do you feel so threatened by belief in a god you believe does not exist.

You infer of the mark that we are somehow threatened by a deity we have no belief in. You do so again above ^^. I believe the issue is that you have mistaken parody for sincerity; I can assure you, nothing is further from the case. Believers in all the myriad of deities that have existed and exist to day often place facets of emotion, or philosophy, political science, desire, abilities and so on onto said deity. For example:

I said God works through us, helping us to make good choices.

God transforms the pain of those victims in his eternity.

God is not limited by our time and space

Now, naturally, as a believer you believe these things are true on faith, correct (for fear of putting words in other's mouths and assuming something that would be impossible to know)? As a person who lacks any belief in your chosen deity, including all the abilities you infer are true and correct (because of your faith - unless you have evidence?), it is easy to parody these beliefs into a way that both demonstrates our lack of belief and equally the absurdity of the initial inferences of, as above, feelings, emotions, abilities and so forth.

So no, in answer to your rather leading and way off the mark question that concludes your rather odd reply. 'Parody' good sir, shows that we are indeed concerned with the death in the world, and that we take it just as, if not more seriously, than a person who seeks to explain it away as the grace/will/side effect of creation of an invisible but all powerful deity this has, thus far (this can be changed, natirally), no evidence to support it. In parodying the beliefs, we raise objections and contentions about the beliefs and, importantly, the believer.

That you would assume that we feel nothing towards the deaths of people, including the deaths of people who we are close to and love, is another notch of the post that is labeled "beliefs and emotions that im going to mistakenly infer on someone else with poor judgement due to my desire to belittle those who disagree with me."

Will there be anymore? Who can tell. Perhaps your god?

[Sal]

What kind of free existence would we have if God held up his hand and stopped all natural things from happening?

For one thing, there wouldn't be atheists.

[John V]

Assuming God exists:

1. Natural disasters and death are both real.

No, if god exists, death isn't real in the sense you use it. It's a transition.

[little_monkey]

Assuming God exists:

1. Natural disasters and death are both real.

No, if god exists, death isn't real in the sense you use it. It's a transition.

There could be a God, but no afterlife.

[Ryantology]

Assuming God exists:

1. Natural disasters and death are both real.

No, if god exists, death isn't real in the sense you use it. It's a transition.

That's rather beside the point. You may not view death as final, but it is still the end of everything you knew, the end of all relationships with people you loved, and, apparently, the end of free will.

[Zarith]

God created a world where both evil and free will supposedly exist. The typical "free will defense" maintains that the existence of free will is super important, more important even than the non-existence or eradication of evil.

Yet I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that there can be no evil in heaven, thus there can be no free will there. If free will did exist in heaven, how would it not just be earth 2.0?

So which is it? Which place is a more desirable place to be, and why do we have both of them when one of them has to be better than the other? Why should I want to go to heaven if this world is better, by virtue of containing free will in addition to evil?

If the ability to choose is so important, why then do I end up in a place where I have no choice, if I make the right choice the first time? Free will is the most important thing ... but only up to a point?

If god desires for people to choose to love him, then why is there an expiration date on this offer? Surely if hell existed, it would be filled with people who would make a different choice if given one more chance. Don't you think?

Why would a just and loving god, seeing his creations burn in hellfire, and desiring that they would have chosen to love him, not avail himself of this opportunity?

[Godscreated]

God created a world where both evil and free will supposedly exist. The typical "free will defense" maintains that the existence of free will is super important, more important even than the non-existence or eradication of evil.

Yet I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that there can be no evil in heaven, thus there can be no free will there. If free will did exist in heaven, how would it not just be earth 2.0?

So which is it? Which place is a more desirable place to be, and why do we have both of them when one of them has to be better than the other? Why should I want to go to heaven if this world is better, by virtue of containing free will in addition to evil?

If the ability to choose is so important, why then do I end up in a place where I have no choice, if I make the right choice the first time? Free will is the most important thing ... but only up to a point?

If god desires for people to choose to love him, then why is there an expiration date on this offer? Surely if hell existed, it would be filled with people who would make a different choice if given one more chance. Don't you think?

Why would a just and loving god, seeing his creations burn in hellfire, and desiring that they would have chosen to love him, not avail himself of this opportunity?

Man you are really mixed up when it comes to what the scriptures teach, just the basic teachings of scripture negate everything you said, o before you make such incorrect assumptions go study scripture.

Welcome to the forum Zarith, welcome.

[Zarith]

God created a world where both evil and free will supposedly exist. The typical "free will defense" maintains that the existence of free will is super important, more important even than the non-existence or eradication of evil.

Yet I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that there can be no evil in heaven, thus there can be no free will there. If free will did exist in heaven, how would it not just be earth 2.0?

So which is it? Which place is a more desirable place to be, and why do we have both of them when one of them has to be better than the other? Why should I want to go to heaven if this world is better, by virtue of containing free will in addition to evil?

If the ability to choose is so important, why then do I end up in a place where I have no choice, if I make the right choice the first time? Free will is the most important thing ... but only up to a point?

If god desires for people to choose to love him, then why is there an expiration date on this offer? Surely if hell existed, it would be filled with people who would make a different choice if given one more chance. Don't you think?

Why would a just and loving god, seeing his creations burn in hellfire, and desiring that they would have chosen to love him, not avail himself of this opportunity?

Man you are really mixed up when it comes to what the scriptures teach, just the basic teachings of scripture negate everything you said, o before you make such incorrect assumptions go study scripture.

Welcome to the forum Zarith, welcome.

Thanks for the welcome.

Do you think you could uh ... vague it up a bit more for me?