Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philo,
So now you are claiming God actually threw a meteorite at Siberia?

No wonder you're an atheist.

Out of curiosity do have any evidence for such a claim?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

philechat

SOMMS:
If an omniscient God knew beforehand that the metoerite will hit Siberia, or an earthquake would hit central Taiwan, doesn't he have the power (given his omnipotence) to:

1. Move the metoerite away from earth to "genuinely uninhabited" places like Venus.

2. Move the earthquate to genuinely uninhabited land, so less people would die.

3. create a piece of aircraft and transport people to the aircraft when earthquake hit.

4. destroy the metoerite in air before it falls onto the ground.

5. Or was he too lazy to do any of these?

And take notice that God knew all of these natural disasters would happen when He created earth.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Datheron

SOMMS,

Although most here have already answered sufficiently, since it was addressed to me, I guess I'll have to go through the routine regardless.

We would not do that if God wasn't defined both as omnipotent and omnibenevolent! If God is defined to be in control of everything and all-good, then by definition there can be no evil in the world. Simple, really, and there have been no good theist answer for this contradiction.

Nor can I credit God for the Holocaust, which killed a lot of Jews, but didn't tell all of them, right?

Giving God credit for good is already done by definition. As a matter of fact, many already do - credit God for their athletic abilities, for their survival, etc. We're actually trying to balance the scales.

Then again, we can use that same reasoning for anything good we credit God, right?

- God bless America, but he could do something about the economy too, right?
- God save the Queen...well, she passed away recently, that's moot.
- God created us, then sacrificed himself to save us from our sins, but still we have to go through human life, the dying of thousands daily and the birth of thousands more that populate the planet, making it less and less habitable. Hm...more effort?

And so on and so forth. On both sides (good and evil), there is a line of infinite length that we can draw that showcases what God could have done, as of course he's omnipotent - just as he could have done a lot worse, he could have also done a lot better. The lack of evidence for both counts suggests that he isn't even there.

(and considering all the non-answers and diversions that you have given to the other honest inqueries and valid complaints on this thread, I don't expect much)

Philosoft

Translation: I have no recourse but to do the lamest thing possible and pretend Philosoft's use of figurative language in his rebuttal was actually literal.

(Oh, that's not what you meant by your last post? I'm sorry, perhaps if you weren't trying to be the World's Biggest Pedant(tm), I'd be able to see an actual answer in there somewhere.)

Please. I don't care what mechanism you think God created to fling big rocks at the Earth. The only painfully obvious implication is that he is responsible for such rock-flinging because he created the mechanism. Further, flinging rocks at uninhabited portions of the earth's crust doesn't serve any purpose.

Look, you maintain that a space rock that hits some remote forest in northern Asia is a "good" act by God because he didn't cause it to hit Vladivostok. Is this a "good" act as judged by God's allegedly objective standard or is it a "good" act in relation to allowing the space rock to hit Vladivostok?

tronvillain

SOMMS:
While you may believe that free will explains why there is evil, it actually fails as an explanation. No coherent definition of "free will" permits the free will defense of evil. It is only when "free will" remains an undefined nebulous concept that it can act as a sheild for theism.

Ender

Not at all. The argument is designed to assess the attributes of the creator based on the evidence in its creation. So, it has everything to do with the topic of Natural Evil. I assumed the design argument for your sake.
Yup. 'I surprised' that "modern" theists still use that inconsistent, contradictory, and vacillating theodicy as a cop-out when the tough questions come around. Leibniz has no longer any real import these days. More on this below.
In other words you are saying that suffering or evil is necessary for the greater good, which has its echoes in Leibniz' theodicy. Your answer amounts to a rationalization of evil- that the suffering subject's pain has a "morally sufficient reason." Since it is clear that most intense suffering is not a result of human free choice, we can rule out the "free will" defense and go to the heart of the matter- that you "know" what is the "morally sufficient reason" is for natural evil or pain. Do you know what the greater good is, or what evils are prevented by each instance of intense human/animal suffering? Are you God? Another troubling point- aren't you contradicting your own religious tradition that in this life it is not given to us to know God's purpose in allowing particular instances of suffering, much less than a generalizing rubric of your own invention? Your defense, according to the basic beliefs of theism, is contradictory and does not succeed.

Since the going is getting tough, will you stand your ground this time, or will you just run away like the last several times?

~WiGGiN~

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

You are the one who claimed that God threw a rock at Siberia...not me.

Neither. I don't claim it 'good' or 'bad'...whatever those terms mean.


I simply claim that IF you hold God responsible for everything, if you blame every bad thing on God then you must 'blame' every good thing on God as well. If 'good' to you means 'asteroid not hitting city' then you must give God the same credit here as you do when you claim 'God sent a hurricane to Atlanta.'

It is illogical to blame *only* the 'bad' stuff on God and not any of the 'good' stuff.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

How does it fail as an explanation?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Ender,
Uh no.

I'm simply saying that evil does not contradict a loving God if there could be a morally sufficient reason for God allowing it.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Coljac

Think of the implications. That's the same as saying God wasn't powerful enough/smart enough/industrious enough to engineer the universe in such as way so that he could achieve his good/godly ends without all this suffering in the meantime. Again a contradiction if you think god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. Sure, sometimes humans have to be cruel to be kind, but like all such analogies do, this one breaks down when applied to an infinite, insubstantial, supernatural entity.

Coljac