The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Atheists are folk who simply don't believe in any god. It's really as simple as that.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-
Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Evil exists.
- 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.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
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?
So you don't believe rape or murder or anything else like that is evil? hmmm
but we know God did not create ISIS bombs, or the atomic bomb, etc.,
Probably, but haven't you ever ridden you favorite roller coaster more than once? Or watched your favorite movie again?
It's quite simple actually.Another way of looking at the Problem of Evil:
Is the state of the world aligned with God's will?
- if yes, how does all the evil and suffering in the world reflect on God's will (and on God's character)?
- if no, then where did all the evil and suffering in the world come from, and how do they reflect on God's ability (or lack thereof)?
And of course, even this question - like the original PoE can be seen as one special case of a much larger question:
Why is it that God's behaviour, in every way we can observe or measure, is entirely consistent with God not existing at all?
The OP does not say the argument is specific to Atheists. Nor does the title.
Answering Atheists arguments, refers to just that - answering Atheist's arguments.
One of the Atheists argument is as follows
I am an atheist. I have never said "If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." For one thing, Apollo was not considered to be omnipotent or omniscient. What I might have said is that many Christians believe their god is omnipotent and omniscient.
You do understand the difference, don't you?
It does not mean that Atheists created the argument, and incorporated it into an anthem. It just means Atheists use it, and they do.
I am an atheist. I have never said "If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." For one thing, Apollo was not considered to be omnipotent or omniscient.
What I might have said is that many Christians believe their god is omnipotent and omniscient. You do understand the difference, don't you?
According to the Bible. Adam sinned, a sin deserving of death. God did not go against his standards of justice, and righteousness, by reversing the death penalty, even though Adam's sin brought suffering on all his children.
No offense, but you clowns never shut up about how you "disbelieve" whatever any theist says they believe in. We've all heard it a thousand times What we don't hear, ever, is what you DO believe. Because that you'd have to defend; and defend by the same criteria that you demand the theist defend his beliefs. And it's a very rare atheist that's willing to do battle on an even playing field. Or that even COULD.
That is not what is meant with God creating everything. But rather that God deciding that lifeforms should eat each other to survive. That natural disasters should wreck the lives of innocents. Giving people the option to do evil and even allow it in the first place.Yes. If God created everything, but we know God did not create ISIS bombs, or the atomic bomb, etc., so that alone tells us, we should not conclude that God created everything, right?
Not really when you are God I would say, he is not facing a dilemma or having to live by certain rules as he created them himself. A psychopath might have been born with some urges or lack of compassion, that might cause them to do evil things to others. Could God with the blink of an eye make sure that he/she is cured? And if he doesn't and this person shoot up a childcare is God then not partly to blame for not doing anything?God allows evil, but there is a big difference between allowing something, and causing it, right?
I don't think they areSo, apparently, your argument is missing a lot, if it is supposed to stand.
To your question... No. Aborted souls do not go to heaven, according to the Bible. I haven't read it anywhere in there.Do aborted embryos's souls go to Heaven? If yes, then in order to have a permanent lasting freedom it is not necessary to suffer, since we know that human fertilised eggs do not have a nervous system.
Therefore, your defence does not obtain.
Ciao
- viole
So you do believe there is evil, and that takes you away from God? Or do you mean there is no evil, just paths that lead in different directions?There is only grey, in my view. It's not black and white. I don't live or think in the good/bad Abrahamic model. There is that which takes one away from God, and that which takes one closer to God.
If this is "the best argument" against "classical theism", then .Well, you may think it is not sound (perhaps not convincing), but many theologians say this is the best argument argument against classical theism, and indeed, theologians and apologists made up a new field to study theodicies (basically, to make excuses that explain evil), and the literature (of back and forth arguments) is huge and complex.
If this is "the best argument" against "classical theism", then .
That is actually a way to know you were Christian by name only. Worst yet not a follower of the Christian faith, of which Jesus heads.You know, I suppose you aren't wrong in my case (though I have yet to find an opinion that isn't rooted in some kind of bias). I utilized a lot of mental gymnastics to keep my faith afloat when I was Christian, and in moving away from that, I've shed more and more of that and left it behind. My world view now is extremely simplified vs. what my world view before used to be.
Your argument fails on the the first premise -- atheists do not make that claim. Atheists don't believe in a god. If I don't believe in the existence of something, then I obviously do not believe it has any attributes, either.One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-
Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Evil exists.
- 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.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
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?
Having pointed out that your argument is not what atheists think, let me now clear up what our argument -- in this particular context -- actually is: and it is simply this:One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-
Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Evil exists.
- 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.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
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?
Does it matter?I don't think I was clear. I mean they consider it to be a serious and hard argument (so much so that they even invented a whole new field of theological study to try to deal with it). Some educated theists even admit not to have any good refutation of it. There are entire books dedicated to discuss the argument. So, I don't think a shallow objection warrants the judgement that the argument is unconvincing.
I don't expect you to understand. It is very difficult to understand the dharmic paradigm looking through Abrahamic glasses. I'm pleased that you're willing to admit you don't understand. Far too many people say they understand when they don't. So thank you for that. But this will go nowhere, as I don't know how else to explain it.So you do believe there is evil, and that takes you away from God? Or do you mean there is no evil, just paths that lead in different directions?
I'm not understanding.