by having made decisions that relegate one to an environment where that and a whole lot more is the norm
For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
That doesn't make any sense. Babies do not choose to be born in earthquake prone areas, yet they are killed by earthquakes. Please think before you post.
there is the whole issue of the living entity appearing in the material world (which affords mortality at every step of the way, earthquake zone or no) which you are conveniently avoiding .....
please think before you post
Welcome to my ignore list. Life is too short for your mumbo-jumbo.
kinda like when i post in the science forums?
(not totally ignorant, but close enough to count)
thats his answer to everything..ignore everything that doesn't line up with his own beliefs..
(sounds like what he accuses theists of)
Apparently the brevity of your life only becomes a problem if you die from earthquakes ....
:shrug:
You might want to consider why everybody is not immortal, assuming that it is within God's power to make them so.
I think it's fairly clear why he doesn't see that. He is operating out of a God-the-vending-machine notion of God.
For him, God would be God, if there would be no evil in this world.
Why people (theists or atheists) operate out of a God-the-vending-machine notion of God - that is the interesting question!
You could answer my question James.
How does free will get people killed and maimed in natural disaters, or get them cancer, or see them have congenital medical problems?
An omnipotent creator God need not test people with such things, but supposedly chooses to make people suffer.
And don't try and sell me some holistic 'God moves in mysterious ways', 'Big picture' crap, when people are dying painfully from cancer.
phlogistician:
And you could answer mine.
It doesn't.
Who said anything about testing people?
And you could answer mine.
It doesn't.
Who said anything about testing people?
James, stop with the diversions. We are discussing the quote attributed to Epicurus at this point.
Oh, and I'm not answering your questions here, have you forgotten that? This isn't a debate, it's where I ask you questions about your God, and you answer honestly. You keep trying to make this a debate, but that's yet again another dishonest deviation.
Oh, and I'm not answering your questions here, have you forgotten that? This isn't a debate, it's where I ask you questions about your God, and you answer honestly. You keep trying to make this a debate, but that's yet again another dishonest deviation.
Back onto what you have said on topic.
then I asked:
"Just how does 'Free Will' get someone killed by an Earthquake? Or make them prone to anaphylactic shock when they get stung by a wasp?"
And you said
So God does not prevent the natural disaster, because of free will, but then you contradict yourself when I ask you how free will gets someone killed in said natural disaster.
then I asked:
"Just how does 'Free Will' get someone killed by an Earthquake? Or make them prone to anaphylactic shock when they get stung by a wasp?"
And you said
So God does not prevent the natural disaster, because of free will, but then you contradict yourself when I ask you how free will gets someone killed in said natural disaster.
I haven't said that at all. I wouldn't arrive at the conclusion there must be a God is I saw no evil or suffering, it's a non-sequitur.
I am questioning omnipotence and omniscience, and the notion of a loving God.
Epicurus makes a simple argument. Please, if you have something to say on that argument, say it, but do not put words into my mouth.
You are putting words in my mouth.
I said:
For him, God would be God, if there would be no evil in this world.
Ie. if there would be no evil in this world, then you would consider that God (if God existed) would be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
For you (and Epicurus), the existence of evil is proof that either God doesn't exist at all, or God exists, but is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (and in that case, not worthy to be considered God, ie. omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent).
No I wouldn't, so stop putting words into my mouth.
Well, you get to the ramifications of the quote in the end,.... 'God' as described, clearly isn't some perfect being, so isn't God. The concept is logically self defeating.
The concept of God is "logically self-defeating"
only
if we posit that this world and life as it is usually lived are
the necessary and sufficient
measures of God's nature.
phlogistician:
I never made the claim that God does not prevent disasters because of free will. Nor have I contradicted myself at any point in this thread.
Here's what I said:
And a little later:
I never made the claim that God does not prevent disasters because of free will. Nor have I contradicted myself at any point in this thread.
Here's what I said:
And a little later:
James, I asked you how free will gets someone killed by an earthquake, and you said 'it doesn't' but you also said one of the reasons God doesn't prevent such is because of free will. That means free will is the ingredient getting people killed, and you have contradicted yourself.
As you say, I said one argument for why God might be unwilling to act concerns free will. That argument is not likely to be applicable to an earthquake.
So, there must be some other reason God might be unwilling to act to prevent earthquake deaths. Of course, that's assuming that he doesn't act to prevent some deaths, which remains to be proven.
Have you thought of any reasons why God didn't make everybody immortal yet?
As for the contradiction thing, obviously you're wrong again. I never mentioned free will as the relevant "ingredient" in earthquake deaths.