This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[BLUE COLLAR]

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of my faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

 

[ding]

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

 

[ding]

But putting faith aside... reality tells us that good comes from bad. We can see it with our own eyes. We live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. Error eventually fails and truth is discovered. From tragedies lessons are learned. Good coming from bad.

So to make the argument that there should never be any bad is to make an argument that there should be no learning.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

 

[buttercup]

I believe that we are yet to learn how it all got started.

You are unwilling to acknowledge the overwhelming likelihood that a higher being created this universe and everything within it.

How does this work? The higher being created everything, and then left us in tremendous confusion, except for those who believe in Jesus???
Right???
Why do we have to go through all kinds of trials and tribulations on personal and global levels?
Why does it not provide us the way to peace?

Trials and tribulations are opportunities to learn, grow, and gain wisdom and strength. And God absolutely does provide us the way to peace. Unfortunately many people never get there because they love darkness more than light, so they can continue doing what they want to do.

 

[ding]

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

But more important than that is you revealing the true reason your mind is closed to God. And that reason is illogical. You can see with your own eyes that good comes from bad. You don't need a religion to tell you that.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

But putting faith aside... reality tells us that good comes from bad. We can see it with our own eyes. We live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. Error eventually fails and truth is discovered. From tragedies lessons are learned. Good coming from bad.

So to make the argument that there should never be any bad is to make an argument that there should be no learning.

Ding, you should retire from this, there is no profit in it. I'm going to guess that you are a good person, but you need to appreciate that not everyone buys your faith and that they have good cause.

Faith is not fact.

That doesn't make you wrong for believing. Leave it at that.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I believe that we are yet to learn how it all got started.

You are unwilling to acknowledge the overwhelming likelihood that a higher being created this universe and everything within it.

How does this work? The higher being created everything, and then left us in tremendous confusion, except for those who believe in Jesus???
Right???
Why do we have to go through all kinds of trials and tribulations on personal and global levels?
Why does it not provide us the way to peace?

Trials and tribulations are opportunities to learn, grow, and gain wisdom and strength. And God absolutely does provide us the way to peace. Unfortunately many people never get there because they love darkness more than light, so they can continue doing what they want to do.

What you are saying is that God created some people without a capacity for light.

You cannot sensibly assign the origin of everything to a creator and absolve the creator for the inherent flaws in the creations.

If you excuse the creator, there must be a defense aside from the creator's apparent need of evil and suffering to accomplish a plan. What kind of God is that?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

So what you are saying is that your God is imperfect. On merit of some of what goes on in the world, I'd agree that your definition of God is erroneous. -thanks

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

But more important than that is you revealing the true reason your mind is closed to God. And that reason is illogical. You can see with your own eyes that good comes from bad. You don't need a religion to tell you that.

You failed to identify the error in the Paradox.

As to what I underscored, thanks for the naked opinion of me. Is this what you pass off as logic?

 

[buttercup]

The problem with your argument here is that, and let's assume God created everything, that either God was created from nothing, or God wasn't even created.

So, if God wasn't created, then things being created from nothing is more plausible than something not even being created.

If God was created, then God was created from nothing. Which means things can be created from nothing, which means you don't need a God.

Or, God was created from something, who created God? Another God? And who created that God?

Your belief system is just as wacky, if not more so, than atheists' belief system.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm amazed that anyone is even asking that question ("who created God?") let alone a few people. It shows a blatant lack of understanding on the entire concept of God. God is the First Cause, which has to be eternal. The Creator is uncreated. The buck stops there.

You said that both theism and atheism are wacky, well I agree with you on the latter. To me what is truly wacky is to believe that everything - all of creation, which clearly shows order, design and complexity - is the result of dumb luck, no intelligence. That's like believing the Sistine Chapel could put itself together, with no architect or artist, just pure luck! And some atheists call our beliefs magical? What could be more magical than something (everything) coming from nothing, all by itself? As I always say, I'm awed by the faith of atheists. Personally I could never have that much faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

You defined what is perfect. I don't recall even using the word.

There is no logical fallacy in insisting that one who tolerates evil and suffering is not God in the sense of a compassionate omnipotent. I am prepared that you will dodge the compassion issue by suggesting something on the order of God's Plan, that he works in mysterious ways. "In God We Trust", right?

I won't answer your lengthy post as I have another life. No offense, but this is not the medium for dissertations.

However, I allow for your right to faith. You need to do the same for me. The reality is that you have no proof, and I have no disproof (the latter a logical fallacy).

That's exactly what you are insinuating with your logical fallacy that God cannot exist unless this world meets your standard of perfection. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Of course I have proof. Existence is proof. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. What evidence were you expecting to find? You want God to do some magic for you or something?

There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.

How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?

I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.

But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.

Sorry but I cannot judge what I cannot see (God). I judge your perception of him because it does not match the realities of the world all around us.

If God is truly compassionate, when comes evil and why?

Btw, I don't necessarily believe that there is no creator. I just don't buy the fairytale that you are selling.

Dear BLUE COLLAR
Regarding evil there is individual fear/ignorance/greed/anger that causes suffering, some we can change some we cannot if it's chronic and involves greater sickness or personality disorders, or just selfish refusal or fear of changing. Some sickness or disease is natural or unnatural, like cancers that can heal or others that are terminal.

There are collective mentality levels of both good and evil that come from individual influence combining and escalating to a bigger scale.

And in addition to that, there are dark forces and energies that attract and attach themselves to these levels and create even more violent disruptions based on individuals and groups acting on negative impulses and motivations.

Why do these levels exist?

Humans have free will and ability to make decisions by reasoning, by learning from experience, and comparing cause and effects with good and bad consequences. This way, we choose to change our behavior and relations based on mutual maximum benefits, that are more effective and sustainable to secure our health, freedom and sense of justice peace and truth.

When we choose negative or unhealthy imbalanced ways, these attract or invoke negative energies and consequences, causing conflicts to escalate with stress, disease, damage or death.

These negative consequences motivate us to study what are the causes, what are the levels? How much was us, how much was from others, what was unnatural or natural?

When we forgive the wrongs and clear our minds, we can focus on causes and cures of problems.

So the three levels exist to teach us why we focus individually first, solve problems there within our reach and choice to change. And this in turn affects the other levels to reduce, correct or prevent harm instead of escalate.

We will never be perfectly omniscient and see all things coming to prevent them in advance. If humans had that, we would spend all our energy obsessing instead of enjoying life even with human flaws and quirks in nature where things can happen beyond our control. The point is to forgive and let go of fear of controlling everything. The things we CAN help, and do more to fix or prevent, forgiving helps clear our minds and communicate better to solve problems within our control. The things we cannot foresee or control, we learn to put these in perspective.

The whole learning processes uses both good and bad consequences for good and bad intentions and causes.

Good and evil forces merely follow the laws of cause and effect, which Buddhists call laws of karma, and Christians and natural laws call justice or Jesus (as God's authority of Justice embodied in man to fulfill the laws by recomciling in truth man's laws of justice with God's laws where these agree in Christ or by conscience).

 

[buttercup]

I believe that we are yet to learn how it all got started.

You are unwilling to acknowledge the overwhelming likelihood that a higher being created this universe and everything within it.

How does this work? The higher being created everything, and then left us in tremendous confusion, except for those who believe in Jesus???
Right???
Why do we have to go through all kinds of trials and tribulations on personal and global levels?
Why does it not provide us the way to peace?

Trials and tribulations are opportunities to learn, grow, and gain wisdom and strength. And God absolutely does provide us the way to peace. Unfortunately many people never get there because they love darkness more than light, so they can continue doing what they want to do.

What you are saying is that God created some people without a capacity for light.

You cannot sensibly assign the origin of everything to a creator and absolve the creator for the inherent flaws in the creations.

If you excuse the creator, there must be a defense aside from the creator's apparent need of evil and suffering to accomplish a plan. What kind of God is that?

No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying, at all. We all have free will. We all have the ability to make choices. It is not God's fault if some people make bad or selfish choices. From a Christian perspective, God makes it very clear and simple what we need to do. So it just comes down to whether we trust and obey God, or go our own way. I have realized time and time and time again that choosing the latter is extremely unwise and it's like shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[ding]

But putting faith aside... reality tells us that good comes from bad. We can see it with our own eyes. We live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect. Error eventually fails and truth is discovered. From tragedies lessons are learned. Good coming from bad.

So to make the argument that there should never be any bad is to make an argument that there should be no learning.

Ding, you should retire from this, there is no profit in it. I'm going to guess that you are a good person, but you need to appreciate that not everyone buys your faith and that they have good cause.

Faith is not fact.

That doesn't make you wrong for believing. Leave it at that.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to buy my faith. I never have. I couldn't care less what you believe. You posted a paradox challenging the validity of what Christians believe. So this hasn't been me trying to get you to believe what I believe this has been me correcting your errors on the validity of what Christians believe. In the process you revealed that the reason you don't believe in God is because in YOUR estimation an omnipotent and compassionate God would not allow any suffering whatsoever. Which is not a good reason to not believe in God.

If I were trying to get you to believe what I believed I would have posted a paradox about atheism and attacked your beliefs like you attacked mine.

The other part of this conversation centered around evidence. Because you kept contending there is no evidence. I wholeheartedly disagreed and presented my evidence. Predictably you dismissed it. But unlike you I actually presented evidence for my beliefs, logical and empirical.

So when you say faith is not fact, your faith is certainly not fact as you have presented no evidence. Whereas I presented evidence as fact.

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

So what you are saying is that your God is imperfect. On merit of some of what goes on in the world, I'd agree that your definition of God is erroneous. -thanks

No. The error was in the paradox. Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

 

[ding]

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

But more important than that is you revealing the true reason your mind is closed to God. And that reason is illogical. You can see with your own eyes that good comes from bad. You don't need a religion to tell you that.

You failed to identify the error in the Paradox.

As to what I underscored, thanks for the naked opinion of me. Is this what you pass off as logic?

Sure I did. Let me add emphasis to where it did.

Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.