Answering Atheists

[syo]

If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

What evil? What is evil? An example of evil?

 

[Polymath257]

The proof is in the pudding.
Do Atheist make the argument that God is immoral, a monster, wicked, etc.?

Search these forums. I rest my case... and I'll enjoy the pudding.

Is Voldemort evil in the Harry Potter books? Do you have to believe that Voldemort actually exists to say yes?

From an atheist perspective, the Bible is (partly) a work of fiction. One of the fictional characters is YHWH. Some of us find that character to be evil *in the context of the book*.

 

[Polymath257]

How?
So, a man who fathered a baby boy, fathered a thief, if the son becomes a thief, and a mother who gave birth to a baby girl, gave birth to a drug addict, if the girl becomes one.
Is that what you believe?

The father is not all knowing, or all powerful.

If the father *was* all knowing and all powerful, then yes, the father created a thief.

What if he did not. How would foreseeing make him the creator of Satan?

Did God know ahead of time what Satan would do? If so, and God allowed Satan to come into existence through processes that God created, then yes, God created Satan.

Why not?
You are saying I cannot choose to want beef instead of fish?

No, I cannot. I can choose, based on my wants, whether to obtain fish or beef. But I do not choose which one I actually want.

Why do you believe that?

If God is *all knowing* and *all powerful*, then anything that derives from God's actions is the responsibility of God. That includes the formation of Satan. If God allowed Satan to come into being, knowing Satan would be evil, then God shares in that evil.

 

[HonestJoe]

The OP does not say the argument is specific to Atheists.

Why refer to atheists at all then, other than to create unnecessary division and conflict? Just raise the argument on it's own merits.

My fundamental point was that definition of God wasn't created by atheists, it was created by certain believers who present it (typically as an unquestionable definitive truth). The logical point addressing it is based on those asserted premises and the self-contradictions they create.

Just be? Do you mean like magic, as we see on television... "Abrakadabra" "BRAM!".. that sort of thing?

Essentially yes. If we're proposing a truly omnipotent God, existing outside time and space, none of our human concepts of wanting, choosing or causing things to happen over time apply. Such a God would be entirely beyond our temporal thinking and from our point of view, anything they created would just exist (and will have always existed). It is a more difficult concept to wrap your head around than most believers (and non-believers) care to imagine.

Is that argument logical?

Yes. The problem is that you're applying the limited concept of human perfection. Omnipotent perfection would be literally infinitely beyond that. It isn't even really the same concept. Again, very difficult to wrap your head around.

The underlying point is that there is literally nothing an omnipotent God couldn't do, nothing about the entire universe they couldn't shape to exactly how they want it be, past, present and future (since they're all the same to God). Therefore, whatever actually exists could only be exactly what God wanted to exist.

If existence doesn't appear perfect from our point of view, either our perception is flawed or, of course, a "morally perfect", omnipotent God can't actually exist.

So while the first man and woman were perfect when God created them. Their perfection was conditional. They were subject to defect if they failed to listen and obey.

If they were capable of such mistakes, they weren't perfect. You can't have conditional perfection, it's a simple binary.

If God had really wanted them to "listen and obey", they would had done. They behaved exactly how God created them to and exactly how he knew they would. If suffering happens as a consequence, that could only be because God wanted that suffering to happen.

The rest of your post is applying limited human thought and principles which are totally inappropriate in the context of an all-powerful and all-knowing being. The very flaws of humans you're trying to account for here are the reason we're not comparable to your image of God.

 

[Nimos]

I don't know that God decided "that lifeforms should eat each other to survive". Or that "natural disasters should wreck the lives of innocents". I never read that anywhere. Where did you get that?

When talking about the new Earth that will eventually come, where there is no suffering and where the lamb will play with the lion etc. (Revelation) then its seems possible that God could have made it so live forms don't eat each other. Because even with humans best intentions there will always be suffering. Only God could make it so there is none.

But he didn't for whatever reason.

He still did not create everything, as you suggested. That doesn't change based on how you define "created everything".

He did according to the bible, before there was anything the only thing that existed was God and Wisdom. So if God didn't create it or allowed evil, who did? And God say repeatedly that he does not like evil. Yet he won't or can't get rid of it? Which could suggest that whatever created evil or that evil is just as powerful as God is, or that God created evil.

So again, did God decide how nature should work, like there being earthquakes? Tsunamis? Viruses? etc. or could he have made it so these weren't there? and therefore natural evil wouldn't exist?

Not really? How is cause something, and allow something, "not really" different?

Imagine you are standing at the train station at night, a person have fallen on the tracks and injured their legs so they can't get up. They are begging for you to help them, yet you decide to do nothing despite there being lots of time to help them and instead you just watch as the train runs them over.

Would you call your lack of help an evil act? or since you chose to do nothing you are free of any blame and can happily get on the train as if you did nothing wrong?

 

[nPeace]

We're responsible for the foreseeable, avoidable consequences of our actions. For an omniscient being, every consequence is foreseeable. For an omnipotent being, every consequence is avoidable.

We? The angels aren't? The angels are omniscient?
We are not getting mixed up with what we are asking, are we?
Your words... "You said "Satan," but didn't Satan ultimately come from God?"
My response says that children are responsible for their own thoughts and actions.
I get the impression that you are somehow making the angels God, or not separate entities from him. Are you doing that, or am I misunderstanding what you asked?

If Hitler's parents knew that their child would murder millions of people, and if they had the power to make it so their child didn't murder millions of people, but they chose to have a child who they know would murder millions of people anyway, then Hitler's parents would be responsible for those millions of murders.

If Hitler's parents wanted a robot who would only do what Hitler's parents wanted, and Hitler's parents had the power to make Hitler a robot, sure, Hitler's parent would make him a robot, and program him not to murder.
However, if Hitler's parents did not want a robot, but wanted a normal human being who could make his own decisions for himself, then No. Hitler's parents would not make him a robot, and No. Even if they knew that he would murder millions, Hitler's parents would allow Hitler to make his own choices, and face the consequences... knowing full well that they have the power to undo the damage that Hitler caused.
Hitler's parents would know that making robot is not the solution to the problem of evil.
No. For emphasis. Hitler's parents would not be responsible for Hitler's actions. Hitler would be responsible for the problems he caused.

Wait. What do we know about Hitler's parents?
We don't even know if Hitler's parents were wise. However, if they were wise, that's what they would do.
God is wise - all wise.

I'm asking what you mean.

Okay.

"Adam's sin" points to an imperfection on God's part.

Please explain.

As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The quality of the creation reflects on God's skill as a creator. If we're all "pots" and God is the "potter" - to use a Biblical metaphor - then our flaws are evidence of deficiencies in God's skill or care.

So you are telling me that I the potter cannot make a piece of pottery for a specific use, that does not require it to have the same quality as the finer pieces?
Is that what you are saying.

From what you said:

"God's allowing suffering accomplishes a number of things. [...] One of them, is allowing us time to demonstrate what we really are, on the inside."

I can't fault you for reading that as you did. I take the blame.
It's not meant to say, this is a reason why God allows suffering. It's saying that God's allowing suffering accomplishes a number of things, one of these being, allowing people to demonstrate which side they are on, and thus allowing people to have the privilege extended at 2 Peter 3:9.

So that I don't confuse you any further (my apologies)... God allows suffering to settle an important issue raised - an issue that cannot be ignored, because it involves God's name and reputation, and it involves the affairs of humankind. It's a universal issue.
Allowing suffering however, accomplished additional things, including benefits right now, to mankind who "make the right choice". Yes, it involves choices. For more details, if that's not clear, see here.

You changed your mind?

Edit: or are you splitting some hair about "testing" vs. "demonstrating"?

Nothing like that. probably not choosing my words correctly. that happens when one is a bit... limited.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.

Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.

Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?

The problem of evil is a strawman argument. The omnipotence as per antichrists is a definition from magicland (anything is possible). The Omnipotence as per Christians is from supernaturalism (only things that are possible via both seen and unseen agencies). There is no omnipotence (as per agnostics) in naturalism (only what can be observed).

How can evil be removed? In magicland, poof (silly but antichrists believe in magic). In supernatural and natural world, destroy one side or remove free will. The natural world chose both options, kill (not completely) and suppress (ineffectively with state power). The supernatural world as per Bible, the former is expounded. The unbelievers chosing "do as thou wilt" will surely die (Adam died after 900+ years of living) and be forgotten. The believers chosing the Tree of Life will live on and be remembered. Problem of Evil is logically solved by Jesus in the end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-

"atheist arguments"?
I don't follow.

Let's just move along...

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.

Euh... No. I don't see why a god would have to be any of those things. I leave it upto theists who believe in said god, to define said god.

1. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

Hmm.
I think I can't agree here. I think I'ld have to change the wording into "...then God has to power to prevent all evil".

"Evil", is a label we use to make moral / ethical judgement calls concerning certain actions or behavior of sentient moral agents - humans.

To "eliminate" evil in that context, doesn't really make sense.
As that would mean to "eliminate actions". Those aren't things that can be "eliminated", since they would need to occur first. So one can only prevent them from occurring whenever a moral agent decides to engage in such and then also actually does.

1. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.

Again, same as above. "evil" is not something "exists". It's a qualification we attach to an action.
So to rephrase again: "...then God know when evil occurs"

1. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.

Mmmm, no.
First, I'm not even sure what "morally perfect" really means. I'll just assume that it means that -since one is all knowing- one is perfectly equipped to make moral judgements of actions and behaviors, since one knows all possible consequences and intentions on and of those involved.

So, that just means that he's simply never wrong when it comes to making a moral judgement.
That doesn't mean that he has a "desire" to act on it

1. Evil exists

Evil occurs.

If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.

I guess.

Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Doesn't follow, since I disagreed with the point that "being morally perfect" doesn't necessarily include any inner "desire" to prevent evil.

Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.

Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.

Well, while I disagree with the ending of how you formulated it... it does show that if those premises are correct (he's all powerfull, all-knowing, moral,...) then he should have the ability to intervene to prevent evil.
So, assuming that the premises are true, one can only conclude that he simply doesn't want to. For whatever reason.

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?

Well, for starters, this very argument itself posits this god as ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING.
Meaning, other then capable of preventing evil from occurring, he would also be capable of granting / conjuring up permanently lasting freedom from corruption without any suffering.

Meaning that he, on purpose, has chosen to do it WITH suffering.
That was his choice. So.... yes.... IF you grant those premises... Then the universe being as it is, that kind of makes this god immoral as he is ultimately responsible for everything. Including the billions he supposedly sends to hell.

It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?

No. An all knowing and all powerfull god who cares about morals, is not going to choose the path that includes untold calamity and suffering.

 

[nPeace]

Well, here's an example that comes to mind. There was a thread yesterday about a lion who killed and ate 3 small children. Would you say that is an evil act, or an act by an Apex predator to eat and survive? You and I can both agree that it's tragic, and horrendous, and regretful, but is it evil? The lion sees humans as meat, and they don't hold us in any special regard like we do. Now, imagine if it was a man instead of a lion. Would that be evil? Add the human element into the act, and it becomes "evil."

You see, that's just one way that the term is loaded. On top of that, it's a term that is often conflated with religious undertones and the concept of sin and guilt. It's also something that changes depending on the culture of the people who designate what is and is not evil. In some cultures, promiscuity is considered evil, while in others it's a cultural norm.

Outside of the human world, there is no evil. It's a creation by humans for humans; a construct. It's no more real than any other concept that only exists in the human realm, like "justice" or "righteousness." None of these things exist in the same ways between cultures, and all of them change according to what humans want to make them. Sometimes cultures even combine those themes, and don't make any distinction between them at all.

We like to complicate things.

Thanks for trying to explain.
What came to my mind when you made the comparison with humans, is that the reason why there are people who make gated villages, is due to the danger of predator such as lions, searching out food... in those villages.
So they know that is is important to protect their livestock, and their own lives, and the lives of their children from... an "unfortunate accident".

On the other hand, when one lives in a gated village, and an "animal" on the inside seeks out - not food, but a "baby", in order to carry out an act that is harmful to, not only the child, but the parents, that's not something people call. an "unfortunate accident".

That's why people refer to it as evil. It was an intentional act carried out - not by instinct, but by intelligent intent, to harm.
People see the two as different... well at least people who have not adjusted their beliefs from what was considered normal.... and this is the crux. Who can deny that people adjust their thinking, and ideas?

It is a fact that people choose what they prefer; what they like, etc., and oftentimes, their choices are not based on any principles or standards. They simply are personal preferences.
If religion is involved, it not necessarily worst than non religious ideas, but like non religious ideas, they become "something that should be accepted".
In fact, that is our world today... accept whatever people do, because it's their culture.

I suppose that is the consequences of our fore parents rejecting the true God. Now, it's every man to his own god.

I understand you likely don't believe this, but SigurdReginson, there must be a right way, and a wrong way. The laws of the universe tells us that.
Or maybe, that's just my imagination, and there is no god.

 

[Magic Man]

Omnipotence has nothing to do with how something is done. Unless... Is there a dictionary that says that? No. God did not snap his finger to create the universe. Did you read that, or do you just think that's how it was?
Jesus did liken God's active force to his finger though. Snapping it is not what he had in mind. Luke 11:20

Then how did he create the universe? Yes, obviously the "snap his fingers" wasn't meant to be literally accurate. The point is there's never a description of how God did anything. He just did it. So it's kind of weird to ask how he'd do something else. He's omnipotent, right? Then he'd just do it.

I did not compare you nor any human to God. I used a situation that a human can relate to, in order to help them get the point.
Apparently you didn't... or did you?

You used a situation which compares a human to God. I got the point, which is why my comment responded directly to it. Your comparison missed the whole fact that a human doesn't have the power God does. I have very limited control over my children. I can help mold them, but ultimately they'll be their own people. God has 100% control over everything, which makes it two complete different situations. Now did you get my point?

Perhaps this is what you were told, taught, or maybe you believe this, but that is not true. Nowhere does the Bible say that.

God created a heavenly family of spirit sons. He did not create Satan.
One of God's sons chose to become Satan the Devil - that is Opposer, and Slanderer.
One who tells wicked lies, and opposes their father, is not created or made that way. It's a choice.

Nowhere does the Bible say God created his children, "knowing what would happen".
In fact, the Bible reveals the opposite. Read Genesis 3. Also consider that God allowed his creatures their freedom of choice, so that he did not get to know "what they would do". See Genesis 22:12 for example.

OK, so in your opinion God is not omniscient. That's fine, but it's not the typical conception of the Christian God. If all God did was create the universe and let it go without knowing what would happen, then he's not omniscient, but he's also more of a deistic god than a theistic one.

However, you just admitted God created Satan. If God created everything, then he created Satan.

When the angel became Satan, and opposed and challenged God's sovereignty... slandering his great name, God could have destroyed him immediately. However, that would only show one thing... that God can exercise his power against anyone who opposes him.
It does not address the real issue, or issues involved.

You blame God. Okay, but people wrongly blame others everyday. How does that matter in this conversation?
Does it not only highlight the fact that people make accusations oftentimes because they are simply against something or someone they don't like?
(Matthew 5:11) “Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake.
(1 Peter 4:3, 4)

3 For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have done the will of the nations when you carried on in acts of brazen conduct, unbridled passions, overdrinking, wild parties, drinking bouts, and lawless idolatries. 4 They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you.

If the accusations were well founded, you would have an argument, but as it stands, you have not shown that God is to blame, especially with wrong presuppositions.

I don't "blame God". I point out that given the proposition of the typical conception of the Christian God, he's responsible for everything that happens in the universe. If your comments were well-founded, you would have an argument, but you don't. All you've done is try to use irrelevant flowery descriptions to distract from the actual point. The fact remains, an omnipotent omniscient being is responsible for everything in the universe it creates. If the being is not omnipotent or omniscient, then their responsibility is more limited.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Well, the general theist believes there is free will. Maybe you are a hard determinist.

I feel like free will seems to be a concept without much value. We are a product of our environment. Where is the freedoms in being able to choose anything if we are driven by factors like instinct, life experiences, culture, bio chemistry and psychologically driven tendencies, our epistemological toolsets, and various other factors that inevitably make us choose the decisions that we are bound to make. I'm not just going to do something that's outside of my character, so then my choice isn't really all that free, seems to me.

Thats exactly the opposite to the question I asked from you.

But I suppose that's my takeaway. Suffering is inevitable. It's going to happen. It's a natural thing, and it was never introduced; like everything else in nature, it just is. To apply an extra label to it transforms it into something else... Something not all that useful. It adds baggage that doesn't really need to be there, because then it relies on other presuppositions that no one else will ever be able to agree on.

Why should I believe in the concept of evil when it complicates matters and only serves to muddy the waters rather than adding clarity? What's the point of including things into my epistemological toolset that only serve to add more baggage, and don't add more accuracy in the ways that I perceive the world?

 

[firedragon]

I feel like free will seems to be a concept without much value.

See, I dont want to address values. And if you think its without value, its your personal view. It does not apply to a being conceptually in the folds of an ontological argument.

But I suppose that's my takeaway. Suffering is inevitable. It's going to happen. It's a natural thing, and it was never introduced; like everything else in nature, it just is. To apply an extra label to it transforms it into something else... Something not all that useful. It adds baggage that doesn't really need to be there, because then it relies on other presuppositions that no one else will ever be able to agree on.

Why should I believe in the concept of evil when it complicates matters and only serves to muddy the waters rather than adding clarity? What's the point of including things into my epistemological toolset that only serve to add more baggage, and don't add more accuracy in the ways that I perceive the world?

These are all your emotions. I respect that, but again, its not addressing as I said "a being conceptually in the folds of an ontological argument".

 

[firedragon]

What evil? What is evil? An example of evil?

When you order a burgher with cheese and the deliver one without cheese, that's evil. They should go to hell.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Thanks for trying to explain.
What came to my mind when you made the comparison with humans, is that the reason why there are people who make gated villages, is due to the danger of predator such as lions, searching out food... in those villages.
So they know that is is important to protect their livestock, and their own lives, and the lives of their children from... an "unfortunate accident".

On the other hand, when one lives in a gated village, and an "animal" on the inside seeks out - not food, but a "baby", in order to carry out an act that is harmful to, not only the child, but the parents, that's not something people call. an "unfortunate accident".

That's why people refer to it as evil. It was an intentional act carried out - not by instinct, but by intelligent intent, to harm.
People see the two as different... well at least people who have not adjusted their beliefs from what was considered normal.... and this is the crux. Who can deny that people adjust their thinking, and ideas?

It is a fact that people choose what they prefer; what they like, etc., and oftentimes, their choices are not based on any principles or standards. They simply are personal preferences.
If religion is involved, it not necessarily worst than non religious ideas, but like non religious ideas, they become "something that should be accepted".
In fact, that is our world today... accept whatever people do, because it's their culture.

I suppose that is the consequences of our fore parents rejecting the true God. Now, it's every man to his own god.

I understand you likely don't believe this, but SigurdReginson, there must be a right way, and a wrong way. The laws of the universe tells us that.
Or maybe, that's just my imagination, and there is no god.

Hmmm... Let me tell you another story. Have you ever seen the documentary about Richard Louis Proenneke? It's a good watch, and I highly recommend it! He lived an interesting life of seclusion in the Alaskan wilderness. One time he was out walking around and be stumbled upon a freshly killed mountain goat in the middle of a field. He had determined, through examining all the bite marks, that this goat had been killed by wolves for fun, and just left there to rot. Not for food, not for anything else, just for pleasure.

Is that evil? He certainly seemed disgusted, and he took the goat home, butchered it and cooked it so it wouldn't go to waste. Now, imagine if some guys got drunk, walked into some woods, and just shot a deer for fun. They aren't hunting for meat, they just wanted to have some fun and so they shot the deer and left it. Is that evil? See... Some people would say yes in this predicament, as they value animal life highly. Others would say it was despicable, but not quite bad enough to say that it was evil. Hell, some might even say "what's wrong with guys just going out and having fun?" In this case, it is negotiable.

So, where does the value of the inclusion of the concept of evil come in? There are things we consider right and wrong, but those things are often times opinions based on what the individual thinks.

I think the act in both cases, whether the perpetrator is human or animal is wasteful and detestable. Intentional acts carried out don't seem to quite be a determining factor in this case, either. I don't really see how evil fits in there.

 

[SigurdReginson]

See, I dont want to address values. And if you think its without value, its your personal view. It does not apply to a being conceptually in the folds of an ontological argument.



These are all your emotions. I respect that, but again, its not addressing as I said "a being conceptually in the folds of an ontological argument".

Interesting. Where does the emotion come in?

 

[firedragon]

Interesting. Where does the emotion come in?

Brother, when you make an emotional argument, its an emotional argument. See, I am glad you have emotions and I wish all the people in the world were the same. So I am not making any derogatory statement. Please do not misunderstand me okay mate?

 

[SigurdReginson]

Brother, when you make an emotional argument, its an emotional argument. See, I am glad you have emotions and I wish all the people in the world were the same. So I am not making any derogatory statement. Please do not misunderstand me okay mate?

Oh I didn't think that! I appreciate you though, man!

I guess I'm just ignorant in the matter. How can something be an emotional argument if emotion has no part in it? I'm not basing my ideas on emotion, but prudency.

Everything has intrinsic value, no matter what it is, because humans give it that value. Now, we can become convinced that things have more or less value. Why should anyone give the concept of evil value? What are the returns in it's inclusion into one's epistemological toolset?

 

[firedragon]

Oh I didn't think that! I appreciate you though, man!

I guess I'm just ignorant in the matter. How can something be an emotional argument if emotion has no part in it? I'm not basing my ideas on emotion, but prudency.

Everything has intrinsic value, no matter what it is, because humans give it that value. Now, we can become convinced that things have more or less value. Why should anyone give the concept of evil value? What are the returns in it's inclusion into one's epistemological toolset?

The evil argument is predominantly an atheistic argument. This argument is presented as an internal contradiction, not a contradiction to human values which then is a whole different debate which one will have to establish philosophically. So you have to decide which path you are taking.

I dont know what else to say.

 

[People_Lack_Integrity]

That's a rather simplistic reply that didn't actually address the central point, but I'll address that in a moment. Not all of humanity wants peace. As we both know there are those born as psychopaths, those that become greedy or power hungry and will do anything to achieve that. That's simply human nature, but let's be real, that's not the majority. The majority just want to live good, peaceful lives and will indeed help those in need and not ignore suffering when they see it. That wasn't the central point though, which you seem to miss. The point was that we as humans do more than this supposed god. Not being dramatic, but I've been in this situation where a life was on the line and me and others who didn't know each other, jumped in and saved a woman from being crushed. None of us knew each others religion, or background or anything...but we all saw a person in need and helped. Meanwhile, there are people in literal chains around the world...children even being abused sexually...and no help is coming because they are held in secret. What about Frauline Fritzl who was was held in a dungeon for over 20 years by her father where she was raped practically every night...and was finally freed by a good samaritan who noticed something off and called police. Imagine how many times this woman and others like her prayed...begged for help...and still had to wait over 20 years to be freed while enduring torment. Your god (assuming it exists)...watched this for over 20 years and did nothing.

Here's the real points and questions:
How could anyone...ever respect such a being who has the power to stop this sort of suffering...who has the ability to cure children with cancer.....but yet does nothing at all?
How could anyone...ever respect a god who forgives rapists, murderers and pedophiles so long as they believe and beg forgiveness.....but will send a person who's never committed a crime, who helps his fellow man, who feeds the homeless and does nothing but good....to a fiery place of eternal torment.....all because they didn't believe in this same god.

To my eyes...this god, the god of the bible...is arrogant and evil and he cares nothing for human suffering and only actually cares if you worship him. That sounds a lot more like what the devil is described as and not a god.

 

[SigurdReginson]

The evil argument is predominantly an atheistic argument. This argument is presented as an internal contradiction, not a contradiction to human values which then is a whole different debate which one will have to establish philosophically. So you have to decide which path you are taking.

I dont know what else to say.

Yah, that's a good point. Alrighty then, it's been a pleasure talking over these things with you!