Posted: Aug 12, 2017 8:50 am
Necessary for what? Each time you break the surface you simply take up where you left off, as though you're responding for the first time and your arguments weren't just demolished by practically everyone here.
Heh. None of my loved ones are believers, so even if by some weird happenstance I were to find myself in heaven, I certainly would not be experiencing joy. I would be extremely depressed at the thought of being separated from them for eternity.
You would find new loved ones. Anyway, once their brutal ordeal in the fires of hell is over - and they are purged of their sins - you will be reunited with them.
You're sailing dangerously close to the wind here regarding the FUA. You're beginning to set off my trolling spidey sense now.
You don't get how this works, do you. Either that, or you very much want to give the impression that you don't get how this works. You are not recognised here as an authority on what freedom means. This being the case, you need to provide evidence for your views regarding freedom, not simply make more assertions. Not that it really matters. Despite your self-professed stealth reading, you have spectacularly failed over a number of months to cotton on to the fact that every single claim you make about the way the world is set up can be totally swept aside by three words, namely 'God is omnipotent'. All you do in response to these words is to make yet more assertions about how certain things are not possible. This is because that is the only place you have to go.
Just because God is omnipotent, doesn't mean that he has to create a world as we would wish it to be. And if he permits human and natural freedom of action, through which we give so much value to, then he also permits suffering to occur as that is the inevitable consequence of freedom of action.
Squirm, squirm, squirm. Yes, well done for finally catching up with what is being said in this part of the discusdion. That is what we are talking about - what he chooses to do, not what he has to do. Thank you for admitting that he allows suffering because that is his choice. Unfortunate for you, I guess, that your apologetics are so inept that you ended up refuting your own argument.
I have asked you previously how long you wish to continue circling this particular mulberry bush. The answer appears to be very long. Very well. If God wanted to, he could have set the universe up so that one can have perfect freedom without freedom to kill, because...(drum roll) HE IS OMNIPOTENT.
All you are doing here is whining why God didn't create a world without suffering.
The least you could do is to try and keep up with the discussion if you are going to take part. You claim this God is omnibenevolent. You are asked the question if this is so, why has he chosen to allow suffering. I dunno, maybe some water got in your ears last time you dove gracefully below the waves, but you do seem to have managed to accidentally on purpose get the impression that this discussion casts you in the role of patient teacher to a roomful of petulant children. No, dear. This discussion is you making a stupid claim which you know is stupid, and then just puking up increasingly stupid apologetics when challenged, rinse, repeat. No one who can manage to string a sentence together like you can (excluding really simple errors like 'contradiction in turn'
) could possibly think they were making valid points by now, so you either have a blind spot the size of Everest or you are trolling. After this last post from you, my money's on the latter.I have argued that, in the case of heaven/paradise, he may well have done.
Do stop being silly. You haven't argued anything, and you know it. Saying the first stupid thing that comes into your head is not an argument.
However, for the joy of heaven/paradise to have any meaning, there has to be a world where we are put to the test and can learn the value of good and evil and experience all that there is to be experienced.
God is omnipotent. If God had wanted us to learn and experience everything without being put to the test he could have set things up that way.
I'm trying my best here, but it seems that you are still struggling to understand basic ideas. Tell me what would help you to grasp what I'm saying. Bold font? Pretty colours? I notice later in your post you go on to drag out the tired 'God is omnipotent except when it could mean bypassing logic [which he created]' 'argument'. All the more ironic that you appear so willing to eschew logic in your defence of him. If God prevents suffering, that means God prevents any living being from suffering, spiders included.
And, being omnipotent, God is able to create spiders and predators. But he can't create predators that don't predate. That would be logically incoherent which is not included in the meaning of omnipotence.
Please feel free to troll harder, it's quite entertaining. Yes, I think that everyone has understood from the beginning that God is omnipotent except when this would sink your 'argument'. Sit down.
And a-stultifyingly-boringly-gain, God is omnipotent. Spiders cannot exist by eating grass because God designed them that way. They are predators by DESIGN from your viewpoint. God chose to make their survival dependant on the suffering and death of another species.
Yes, and they serve a purpose in the ecosystem of controlling fly populations. If there were no predators, the flies would overpopulate and destroy their own environment. Yours is an argument from ignorance about the greater good that God is concerned about.
Yes dear, of course it is. How long do you intend to troll? Because unless you are almost done, you're going way too heavy on hubris and are likely to blow your cover entirely with everyone sooner rather than later. You probably won't get banned, as the mods are currently doing a good impersonation of a deistic god, but you might find that the number of people willing to engage you decreases. But maybe not. Some massive trolls are managing to keep it going after months and years. I guess there's only one way to find out, right?
Aww, poor God. Imagine little old me being able to deny him the right to create predators. This is like Stockholm Syndrome. You are willing to come up with any old shit to defend the indefensible, and hang what it makes you look like. With every word you type, you reinforce my view that this God of yours is so pathetic it's really very lucky for him that he doesn't exist, because if he did he'd be in a perpetual state of being unable to do things. That sounds pretty much like a failing human being to me. As I said, what a shit god you have there.
Spiders have every much a right to exist as you do. If a spider kills and eats you, then perhaps God has decided that it is time for you to move on to another plane of existence where you will learn new things.
Whoops! Urgh, that was pretty clumsy, Wortfish. I wasn't expecting you to abandon all pretence of reasoned discussion so early.
This is pretty sad. You're prepared to make just about any excuse to explain away the endless problems with this god thingy. He's OMMMMMMMMNIPOTENT. Say it with me. OMNI...POTENT. If he wanted fewer flies, he could have just preset them to the number he wanted. If he had wanted spiders to just be cool, he could have created them to not need to eat anything. Do you mean to tell me that he never thought of these things? Am I cleverer than god? Some god...
Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. It isn't possible to have predators that don't predate, and it isn't possible to allow freedom and deny the exercise of it at the same time.
Aww, look at you. No. Omnipotence means unlimited power.
No, no - you are confusing 'that doesn't mean...' with 'it would completely sink my lame argument if...' Do you really think we are this stupid? How offensive. Who do you think came up with logic? According to your world view, I mean. Who was it? The word 'omnipotent' is quite specific. It refers to unlimited power. You know - power WITHOUT LIMITATION. To be frank, it is beyond me why you think you are qualified to explain God to anyone, given the tenuous grasp you appear to have on the party line.
No. Omnipotence does NOT mean having no limitations whatsoever. God creates laws that need to be obeyed, even by himself. By creating a universe, he imposed limits on his own actions. Just because a king can kill all his subjects, doesn't mean that he would ever be in a position to do so.
No. Omnipotence means unlimited power. Just look at what you're prepared to say to keep this charade going. Just because a king can kill all his subjects, that doesn't mean that he can kill all his subjects. In 50 words or less, I want you to tell me why you think I should accept your claims as anything approaching credible. I'm interested to see what you can come up with.Ah, hilarious. We know the natural world isn't omnipotent, dear, no one suggested it was. You are pretty much hell bent however on missing the point by a country mile that your God, having created every single thing, including logic and 'natural law', had free rein to design everything in whichever way he wanted, and as such, the natural world is limited and fallible BECAUSE GOD SPECIFICALLY SET IT UP THAT WAY.
We live in an imperfect world, imperfect because it cannot be perfect like God is. Hence, we shouldn't expect everything to be 100% joyous.
God is omnipotent. Had he wanted to make this world perfect, he could have done so. Looks like I have more faith in your God than you do.
You are all over the place. Either God is perfect, created the world the way it is in order to put us to the test and omnipotence still means unlimited power, or he is imperfect, gave up his omnipotence when he created the universe, can no longer prevent suffering and omnipotence means power to do only the logically consistent in accordance with the laws of nature. For fuck's sake choose a line of apologetics and stick to it.