Theodicies. Have the Christians any answers to the problem of evil? (Page 124) mrsmargaret48: Did you read my post Belgian lol, it appears not. I dont need to read about the "camera obscura" and the human eye was created by my God. As for my family members its very relevant as they are involved in politics and clearly have a far greater knowledge of Irish/British politics than your good self. I didn't say the institute was Marxist, social Darwinist yes but that is evident even to a kindergarten student. Rand would hardly have called herself a socialist, she expounded a brainless red in tooth and claw, dog eat dog philosophy I couldn't make much sense of your paragraph on Keynes but Keynes was a liberal because that's what he was. How could he influence the foundation of the welfare state by the fact that he did. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes I would stick to the pseudo science of evolution Belgian your on safer ground.  ghostgeek: mrsmargaret, you can, of course, prove that the human eye was created by your God? Or is it just an opinion that you've repeated so many times it seems to you to be a fact?  BelgianStrider: That you have far greater knowledge in British politics (and pls take "Irish" away: Eire is already some decades independent from the UK and still belongs to the EU - moreover what about the Welsh and the Scotch then? ) is possible: though, you did not SHOW it. I can claim to know quite pefectly QM without SHOWING anything! I won't and never will claim that: because I know I am telling at that moment a lie !!!! 𝘐 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵, "𝘚𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘈𝘺𝘯 𝘙𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘐 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘬 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴." Of course you can minch now on your own words !!!! And for your info: you might better consult the "camera obscura"and "the human eye's structure" before claiming something totally "untechnical" thus unscientific about some superior ID perfectly designing the human eye as factual!!!!!! a: YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED any question b YOU PRETEND TO HAVE ANSWERED C YOU ARE CLEARLY DOING A z DANCE (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: For me it is clear what you represent. Just another complete indoctrinated anti-scientific fundamental religious literal fairy-tale believer! YOU gave enough evidence of that in this convo !!!! (Edited by BelgianStrider) BelgianStrider: The danger is factually not you: the danger are the organisations that make you (and z, and bs, and jx, and axo, and ..., and ..., and ...) so! (Edited by BelgianStrider)  harpalycus47: This 'debate' has been transferred here as Blackshoes arbitrarily decided that it was religious and 'off topic', disregarding the fact that it was concerning a refutation of a claim to absolute truth, which is, indeed, part of the evolution debate, in that Zeffur insists of demanding absolute truth harpalycus47: harpalycus47: Zeffur. Glancing through the latest exchanges I see that when reminded that there is no such thing as absolute proof your answer, is one that you have used before as 'proof' of 'absolute proof' "So if your head was cut off, you would not physically die, huh??" Your argument is so simplistic as to be embarrassing. But at least it is an answer which you absolutely refused to give me. You can't 'absolutely prove' something by prediction. By saying, 'The sun will rise tomorrow' is not proof that it will. Nor does saying that it always has before. That is the problem of induction. No matter how many times a thing has been repeated there is no absolute guarantee, no absolute proof, that it will happen next time. But, for the sake of argument I will allow the thought experiment. You go to cut off my head to prove that I will physically die, and do so. Well, the patron saint of Paris, Saint Denis was decapitated and did not die. He picked up his head and walked off delivering a sermon. OK, I don't believe it either, but, as you constantly tell us, God can do what he wants to do for reasons that we cannot know. So why can't God simply reattach my head, apologise for your behaviour and give me a cup of tea? You believe in the existence of God, so you tell me why this can't happen. And there goes your absolute proof. There is none. zeffur: That ^^ is all completely ABSURD & you know it. Soon after your head is detached from your body, you will be physically dead. You are no saint & God will not reattach your head. You will ABSOLUTELY die. All the delusions & all the atheist men will not put atheist humpty dumpty (YOU) back together again... & lest you delude yourself that some miracle surgeon might come to your rescue, let's perfect the destruction & instead of just cutting off your head with a guillotine, let's also crush your head in a 50 kton press at the same time the blade falls. Got any other ridiculous notions about how you will survive? Of course you don't, because you would ABSOLUTELY be dead in reality--no matter what fantasies you imagine--none of them will work to save your life in reality. harpalycus47 (Post deleted by Blackshoes a few seconds ago) zeffur: Why would God save an atheist liar like you, who ardently goes about trying to deceive people to believe the exact opposite of how God actually created life & how kinds actually function vs the lunacy that you peddle in vain about bio-evolution that you have not & cannot prove is true or has ever occurred?? Absolute truth exists for everything that can be proven true. Watching your head cut off & squashed to pulp will be the end of your life--there would be no other reality for you in that situation. None of your fantasies/delusions will save you from death or from facing God on judgment day. FergusMcSporran: Zeff gets a lady boner when he thinks of cutting off your head zeffur: Apparently that ^^ is the effect absolute proof of truth has on you. I only use that example to demonstrate what a complete moron harp obviously is with his irrational & false beliefs--which only exist as a stupid, dishonest, & feeble attempt to try to evade his burden of proof for his imaginary & indefensible evo cult fiction beliefs. harpalycus47: How do I know? More to the point, how do you know? When I ask you why God made a wing for a kiwi, a flightless bird, the wing so small it can't be seen beneath the kiwi's plumage and not made of flight feathers, you say God can do whatever he wants and we don't know the reason why. So what allows you to see into his mind and know why he does things. If you can do this, say so. If you can't, then how can you say that God would not do whatever God does.. It will be noted that you have avoided answering the question. Which of the three possibilities is it? Or can you come up with a fourth?. Simply asking why should God bother is NOT an answer. It is a question. Perhaps he will do it to demonstrate to someone that the idea of absolute proof is simply silly. Which of the three alternatives is your answer? harpalycus47: You can describe it as stupid, dishonest and feeble, but it is a valid question so give an answer that demonstrates it is stupid, dishonest and feeble. zeffur: It isn't a valid question. Your whole tactic is completely stupid. We can change the scenario to destroying you within the blast zone of a nuclear detonation. Are you going to survive that situation too?? What delusion will you offer for that scenario that won't result in absolute proof of your death?? You're SOOO dishonest because you can't bear the reality that your evo delusion is FALSE & your whole worldview is nothing but a stupid lie & scam for delusional idiots. harpalycus47: Are you saying that God could not cause me to survive a nuclear blast? That it is beyond his omnipotence? Then you say it isn't a valid question. Give a reason why it is not valid. That is typical Zeffur. Make wild assertions without any justification then refuse to answer any objection. Because I will predict now that there will be plenty more hand waving obfuscation but no answer as to why the question is invalid. zeffur: God will not do anything for your kind. Absolute proof of your death will be clear to anyone who sees it--no matter what the scenario is that effectively ends your life. harpalycus47: So you claim to know what God will do and will not do.? Do you know the Greek term hubris and its consequences? zeffur: God will not save your kind of lying atheist--of that reality, anyone can be certain. harpalycus47: It won't be proof at all if God simply recreates me, no matter what scenario you come up with. Are you also saying that you can create something that God is incapable of overcoming? harpalycus47: And you know this how? zeffur: Dead is dead. One version of you would have been more than enough--no doubt. harpalycus47: So when you are dead, that's it. No resurrection for Zeffur? harpalycus47: You really are a heretic aren't you? zeffur: Your fantasies & delusions won't produce any reality---when you push the button to detonate the nuclear blast---you will be vaporized in less than a microsecond. zeffur: You really are an imbecile, aren't you? You aren't zeffur. Zeffur doesn't represent your endless lies & countless deception of ignorant people that have been impacted by the evil untruths that you spread. harpalycus47: Not at all, but you're not doing a bad job showing that you are. Are you really saying that you know what God will do and that God is incapable of doing certain things? zeffur: We know what God will do. It is clearly specified in The Bible. Liars will not be saved. harpalycus47: Where, in the Bible does it say that God will not step in to protect an unbeliever, for whatever unknown divine reason God might have. Which chapter and verse. And how do you know that the Bible is from God. And are you claiming to be able to interpret the Bible with absolute accuracy. Your powers grow by the minute. zeffur: I'm asserting that you are a delusional nut job who will not admit the reality that you will die very quickly after you detonate a thermonuclear bomb that you are 1 ft from at the time of its detonation. You are the moron who has a delusion that God will save a lying atheist like you... Good luck with that fantasy/delusion. There is no reason that God would prevent your death. harpalycus47: You silly man. Of course I will die after a nuclear explosion in my immediate vicinity. Do you not understand argument at all. I am saying that, according to your own beliefs, it is not certain as it is possible that God would protect me. On your own frequent admissions that we do not know why God does things, how can you say he wouldn't? According to your own beliefs there is no absolute proof that a nuclear explosion would kill me. For goodness sake grow a brain.. harpalycus47: How do you know there is no reason for God to prevent my death. Again you are claiming knowledge of the divine mind. zeffur: You are an idiot. The absolute proof of your death by nuclear blast as I described it above is 100% certain. Absolute proof is therefore not just possible--but, it is a reality for every real event that occurs in which there is such proof available. harpalycus47: So God cannot prevent it. He is not omnipotent at all. zeffur: You are an idiot. The absolute proof of your death by nuclear blast as I described it above is 100% certain. Absolute proof is therefore not just possible--but, it is a reality for every real event that occurs in which there is such proof available. harpalycus47: You say absolute proof is 100% certain (giving no evidence) and from that conclude that therefore absolute proof is a reality. Ever heard of begging the question? You really do not understand argument at all, do you. zeffur: No evidence is required to describe such a scenario. Only honesty & a modicum of intelligence is necessary--& you apparently lack both of those things! harpalycus47: So now we are back to assertion and abuse. So can we conclude that you consider that God is not omnipotent as he could not save me or that you are omniscient as you infallibly know the mind of God. Which? Or both? zeffur: Dude, what is your mental defect?? If I witness you being vaporized by a nuclear blast--that is absolute proof of your death. That isn't a fallacy of ANY kind. You're just a completely irrational & dishonest idiot who can't/won't grasp that reality. harpalycus47: You deliberately miss the point. You would not witness me being vapourised by a nuclear blast if God chose for it not to kill me. So if you are saying this is impossible is it because God could not do it (is not omnipotent) Or would not do it (which would require you to know the mind of God) Which. Or both? harpalycus47: There is the question. Stop avoiding it and answer it. zeffur: You have no valid point, OBVIOUSLY. You believe that there is no such thing as 'absolute proof' & I just gave you a perfectly clear example of absolute proof of your death & you can't/won't accept it because you are irrational & dishonest. God will not save you. You will instantly die. End of case. You are WRONG & a stupid evasive liar... harpalycus47: So if you are saying this is absolutely proven (could not be otherwise) is it because God could not do it (is not omnipotent) Or would not do it (which would require you to know the mind of God) Which. Or both? zeffur: God will not save you. You will instantly die. End of case. You are WRONG & a stupid evasive liar... harpalycus47: How do you know God will not save me. How do you know the mind of God. You will avoid the question yet again of course. harpalycus47: You cannot admit that you are wrong. As simple as that. zeffur: God revealed to us in The Bible that liars will not be saved. You are a liar. If you have any active gray matter left in your brain, you should be capable of understanding... I'm not wrong--you are just a dishonest & evasive weasel who will never admit that you are wrong because you cannot handle the consequences of what the truth means to your erroneous worldview... harpalycus47: So, how do you know God revealed that to you? Whichever way you turn you meet one horn of the dilemma. Either you claim to know something you can't - with absolute certainty ie you are omniscient or you agree that God is not omnipotent. You really believe that liars will not be saved?? That's odd. zeffur: Your endless stupidity bores me. I'm out! harpalycus47: Where does he say that liars will not be saved? There is no forgiveness and salvation for any liar? Aren't we back into heresy? zeffur: Revelation 21 harpalycus47: Having not answered the question and therefore having not proved that there is absolute proof, though I have no doubt that you will claim that you have the next time the question comes up. You always do. That bit about God not saving liars is interesting, though. harpalycus47: Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. harpalycus47: "God revealed to us in The Bible that liars will not be saved." Where is it written that liars WILL NOT BE SAVED?, Zeffur.. Chapter and verse as it 'was revealed to us in the Bible" So Peter, for one, would not be saved? No prizes for those who predict this will not be answered. ALL THE ABOVE DELETED BY BLACKSHOES BelgianStrider: BS isa dictator: he showed it multiple times by misusing his power! He clearly is guilty of sencorship - this time he did it, because you put the omnipotence of his deity in doubt and did, in his opinion, "blasphemy". What is a clear evidence of cencoring other possible opinions!!! Definitively one of the reasons I stopped to intervene there! z is totally unable to have a decent conversation without any insulting reply: the more he gets cornered, the more he be comes an insulting devil in holy water. Definitively a second reason to stop! Their claims to be neutral and unbiased is pure rubbish (Edited by BelgianStrider) harpalycus47: Blackshoes red crayon Again Blackshoes uses the delete button without any justification. You can work out was said in the first post of which I did not take a record. Blackshoes you deleted the fact that you didn't care about evidence and argument when you yourself have said I going to settle this once and for all evolutionists are all dead wrong! I'm right !Deal with it ! harpalycus47: Blackshoes you deleted the fact that you didn't care about evidence and argument when you yourself have said I going to settle this once and for all evolutionists are all dead wrong! I'm right !Deal with it ! What else can that mean? So you're still at it. Deleting anything that you don't like. You said You were right and we were dead wrong.. In which case you cannot be prepared to look at evidence and argument as it is dead wrong according to you. You can't make claims like that and expect no-one to criticise them You said You were right and we were dead wrong.. In which case you cannot be prepared to look at evidence and argument as it is dead wrong according to you.. Explain why this is wrong and should be deleted. How can it not be personal when you say something like that. If you are prepared to say that you are right and everybody else is dead wrong then expect them to point out that this means that you are unwilling to look at evidence with an open mind. So what is the FALSE accusation? So when I ask a question as to what evidence of yours was referred to, a perfectly reasonable question as you said 'they cannot stop making false accusations as if I haven't presented mountains of evidence, you deleted it.. Nothing like this was said. All the above was deleted without explanation. ghostgeek: He sometimes pops up here: "Most atheists dont know about science", but be warned, he loathes giving straight answers to straight questions.  Troublinn: The title of this forum is an interesting question as I have often wondered the alternative viewpoint, have atheist any answers for goodness? It appears to me that evil is the stumbling block of Religious faith and good seems to be the stumbling block of Atheism  Troublinn: Blackshoes answering questions? Where, when? This I gotta see! Blackshoes actually answering a question, would be about as likely as another poster here, flying a balloon to the moon! BelgianStrider: My best answer is "there is no good, nor evil"! I can best compare it with the Corean-Chinese-Japanese philosophy of Ying-Yang (the symbol seen on the South Corean national flag): - + <-> - - fire <-> water - land <-> air - proton <-> electron - happiness <-> sadness - vegetarians <-> carnivores - health <-> sickness - life <-> death - immense big <-> incredible small Everything has an opposite so "good<-> evil" is what we feel,what we think to be; nature has, factually, no feelings. The concept "good-bad" has no sense in nature. There is an equilibrium that nature probably will conserve. Like an energy level of"zero". That's how I see "bad-evil" Of course that does not give us "carte blanche" for doing bad things and acting against you consciousness. As atheist I am also more responsible about my actions:nobody is thee behindme to forgive my "bad sinfull actions" and giveing factually a free card to continue. Those godfathers of "la causa nostra", went every sunday to church to confess getting a piece of "bread", sins were forgiven and again the ones disturbing them could disappear in concrete. About human religious hypocrisy !!! Troublinn: Is badness such a problem? And how do we determine what is bad? I mean if we have no source but our own conscience. If I say murder is bad but someone meets me and says murder is good how o we determine which is correct? BelgianStrider: Now: that is my own personnal point of view of course; no one has to agree with me about that. BelgianStrider: That is a good question Linn: though that is a little beyond my own head. I have my own ideas about what is "good" and "bad". What a "society" thinks what is "good and bad"; has to do with quite more factors that I even have any clue about. That question might be answered by a "sociologist" and "history". In 4 words: "I do not know". I think the pesonnal notion "good" - "bad" is just dear personnal and completely pesonnal. People like psychopats who has no notion of empathy or belonging to any society( as they feel themself quite above the law) has a total different notion of "bad": murder is the most simple and effectif solution! Your question also confirms a little my opinion: "good"- "bad" is a concept of "humans". Or to be more correct: creatures living in a "kind of society": it has been observed that that wolves, chimps, gorillas, cetaceans do have those notions of "bad" (and good) when it is nefast for the entire group. So what is consciousness? May be the common sense what is good for your "pack"!May be killing another that acts nefast, and thus is beneficiary for your "pack" is in any consciousness not "wrong"? Is consciousness related with "pack living"? I define this "consciousness" the notion of "good" - "bad". Not in the sence of "being sentient". BelgianStrider: Determining what is "bad" or "good"? You have the law Some will swear on religion Though religion is in my humble opinion not a warrant for "being good"; neither is the law! Even that is also very relative: what is ok and polite in one culture is extremely impolite in another. So yeah: determining what is "good" might be as important as determining what is "bad" (Edited by BelgianStrider) | Religion Chat Room 44 People Chatting Similar Conversations |