This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

[Greatest I am]

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.

This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.

God then is clearly evil.

Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?

Regards
DL

[trotsky]

1. You should probably state exactly what you think the Golden Rule is.

There are several variations on it, each with slightly (or considerably) different meanings.

[Bretton Garcia]

18. Here, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

[trotsky]

19. That's probably the most common, but there is a problem with it.

What if someone is a masochist? How should they treat others?

[hrmjustin]

2. Oh OK!

[rug]

14. This thread is the equivalent of running around a room while your underwear is burning.

[hrmjustin]

33. Well this room is usually entertaining.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Epicurus asked:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[guillaumeb]

6. If you believe in the God of the Abrahmaic tradition,

you also accept the concept of free will. And free will means exactly that.

[trotsky]

9. No it doesn't.

Particularly if you believe in heaven. "Because free will" is the lamest, most ridiculous cop-out ever for theodicy.

[guillaumeb]

10. Well, do you not believe in free will?

Are you a believer in pre-destination?

I would not have thought so.

But whether you do or not, my comment concerns the concept of free will as it is generally understood in Christian theology. The idea that the Creator created with the idea that sentient beings were free to act as they wished.

[trotsky]

15. "Free will" vs. "pre-destination" is such a simplistic, binary view.

It's a far more complicated and nuanced issue than most believers seem able or willing to process, because they need that simplistic view on which to build their theology.

To explore the limitations of what you consider free will, just answer me one question: will everyone have free will in heaven?

[guillaumeb]

22. I believe that all sentient beings have free will.

And I asked if you believe in free will. And was not answered.

[trotsky]

52. My answer is that it's too complex of a question for such a simplistic answer.

To help you understand WHY I think that, I asked you a question. Care to answer it?

[guillaumeb]

58. If I were currently living in heaven I would certainly answer it.

But if I were, it might be impossible to access DU.

So we will both have to wait.

[trotsky]

62. Let's put it this way, then.

Are the people in heaven sentient beings?

[guillaumeb]

65. One assumes so. If the soul is a reflection/aspect of intelligence........

But again, not currently being anywhere but here, I cannot say what any afterlife existence might be.

[trotsky]

71. Well then, you've answered the question.

Since you've claimed that sentient beings have free will, then you appear to believe that people have free will in heaven.

Now an easier question: is there suffering in heaven?

[guillaumeb]

73. Again, you are asking me to speculate on something I have never experienced.

Perhaps ask next about the number of angels that can dance upon a pin?

Pointless.

[trotsky]

87. I'm just asking what you believe. Just to understand what you think "free will" means.

You admitted you believe in the traditional Christian view of heaven.

You admitted you believe that souls in heaven have "free will."

Now I'm simply asking if you believe souls in heaven ever suffer. So, do you?

[guillaumeb]

91. You are mixing many things.

I define free will as the ability to act freely. And I believe that the Creator created. So the logical corollary is that the Creator intended that sentient beings have free will.

Insects, reptiles, and many animals have behavior that is controlled by instinct.

And if heaven is seen as a place of peace, a place where souls exist apart from the cares of existence, would there be a place for suffering, and what would that suffering entail? Nostalgie pour la boue? A longing for one's roots?

[trotsky]

95. You're the one who believes in all this stuff.

I can't help that there are so many questions.

What I find fascinating is that on the one hand, you claim suffering (or "evil" if you prefer) is a necessary result of free will (your post #6 on this thread). But on the other, you claim there is a place where we can have free will without suffering. So suffering ISN'T a necessary consequence of free will.

Well done! Now about that apology you owe me...

[guillaumeb]

99. I also find some of your responses to be "fascinating".

As to your claims here:
What I actually said is that evil is a societal determination.

I also said that I believe that the Creator intended for sentient creatures to have free will.

So I made no linkage between free will, evil, and suffering. That connection is yours.

And I further said that I know nothing of heaven, but that in my opinion, it represents a place free from care.

You are possibly a bit confused about what I said. Understandable because we have all said a lot. And your conclusions that you drew here are based on what you (incorrectly) claim that I said.

[trotsky]

108. No, I'm not interested in your red herring to distract and wiggle out of the contradiction.

Either bad stuff happening is a NECESSARY consequence of "free will," or it is not.

You've made both claims, directly contradicting yourself. It shows your lack of understanding of what you actually mean with the phrase.

[guillaumeb]

118. My challenge to you is to post my alleged "contradictions".

And "bad stuff happening", or "evil", if you prefer that term, is a social invention. You do not seem to understand that evil is not a scientific term. It is a value judgement.

But to make it even clearer, if a being has free will, that obviously means that being has the freedom to act. Which has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a deity. A fallacy that the original poster obviously embraces.

As to evil being "a NECESSARY consequence of free will", I suggest that you explore the difference between necessary and potential and reexamine your statement.

[trotsky]

126. I just did.

You started in this thread declaring that the problem of theodicy is solved by "free will." Then you go on to display you have no idea how free will works.

Congrats, well done dispatching your own position once again.

[guillaumeb]

131. Your ability to dismiss what you disagree with is great.

And there is no problem of theodicy. Theodicy is a logical fallacy.

But you are free to avoid these issues.

And well done in displaying your style again.

[trotsky]

134. Well yeah, when you help me so effectively.

Sorry you're bitter about losing a discussion again.

[guillaumeb]

137. Bitter and losing are the terms that apparently help you.

Still waiting for you to post my abundant contradictions in this thread.

Anticipating a long wait.

[trotsky]

141. Just as insulting others and making false accusations apparently help you.

Your repeated attacks on my intelligence and ridiculous accusations are pathetic. You don't deserve serious replies until you apologize for your horrible behavior.

FWIW, I posted exactly how you contradicted yourself on this thread. Instead of addressing it, you attempted to derail into a discussion of what "evil" is. I didn't fall for it, so you fall back into attack mode once again.

Confirming, also again, what an exemplary Christian you are. Try apologizing and acting like a "Christian" is supposed to. You might just be surprised.

Or continue with insults and attacks. Your choice.

[guillaumeb]

142. I clicked, hoping for a list of my many contradictions, and found a repeat.

Very disappointed. Well, somewhat disappointed.

I do not attack your intelligence. I do question why you apparently feel the need to misstate what I actually say. This is not a commentary on your intelligence, but a commentary on your tactics.

As one example among many, when I frequently state that I can only define Christianity for myself, you will often insist that I am setting myself up as the arbiter of what it is to be a Christian. So after reading that a number of times from you, I can only conclude it is a tactic you use.

[trotsky]

143. You've made your choice. The attacks continue.

So I will continue to call out your atrocious behavior.

You have repeatedly insulted my intelligence and implied I'm stupid. You have repeatedly made false accusations against me. Apparently your version of Christianity means you can treat people as horribly as you want when you think they deserve it. Just like Jesus did, right?

You will not get any of your demands from me until you retract your false claims and apologize.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218240164#post51

Try it and see what happens. If you dare.

[guillaumeb]

145. Ah, a clue.

From my post:

I would never, (well almost never), say that any poster posts something merely in an attempt to frame a simple narrative of religious people as being intolerant. I accept that all posters in this group are motivated by an attempt to understand the issues so we can all grow.
But any posts that attempt to characterize "Catholics" as a homogenous group of intolerant right wingers is doomed to fail because of its gross oversimplification. So in the spirit of growing our group knowledge, I present this post for consideration

.

Of your posts that I have read, most seem to concentrate on intolerance, but only on intolerance when there is a connection, however tenuous, to religion. I cannot claim to have read all of your posts, or even a majority of your posts. My judgement is limited to those of your posts that I have read.

In this particular case, I was responding to a post that was titled along the theme of Trump should thank Catholics for his election.

And as part of my response to what I considered to be a simplistic message, I wrote, in part, what I included above. And part of my post WAS:

But any posts that attempt to characterize "Catholics" as a homogenous group of intolerant right wingers is doomed to fail because of its gross oversimplification

And I stand by that. If the title included the words "some" in it that would be more accurate. The Catholic vote roughly split, if memory serves, on a 52/47 line between Trump and Clinton respectively. So Catholics obviously mirrored the electorate in this election.

Calling the post and/or the accusation simplistic is not the same as calling the poster simple. Your intelligence is evident in your posts, but in my opinion your debate tactics leave much to be desired.

[trotsky]

146. You mischaracterized my post (which wasn't even my words), and attacked a straw man instead.

NO ONE "characterize(d) 'Catholics' as a homogenous (sic) group of intolerant right wingers". That was your claim, and it was FALSE.

Retract and apologize. Fucking show just a shred of honesty and decency. Just TRY. Quit doubling down with insults and attacks. Apologize already.

[guillaumeb]

147. You decided to post it. You could have qualified it with a comment, if you had wished to do so.

But you did not. You allowed the post to stand as written. Why?

So when something is written to the effect that "Trump should thank Catholics" for his election, some people just might feel there is a certain bias being exhibited toward religious people, and Catholics in particular.

And your lack of response to the rest of what I said is interesting, but given your signature line and the general theme of those of your posts that I have seen, I understand why you did not attempt to refute or rebut what I said.

[trotsky]

149. I see absolutely no reason to respond to any of your distractions.

Not until you retract and apologize.

At long last, just show a little bit of decency.

[guillaumeb]

151. See post #150. eom

[trotsky]

154. Irrelevant.

Retract and apologize.

Show some decency. Just try it. Show me what a "good" Christian can look like.

[trotsky]

148. Oh, and another thing you're dead WRONG about.

Catholics did not "mirror the electorate".

Catholics, as you admit, broke about 52-47 for Trump.

The general electorate went 48-46 for Hillary.

So yeah, you're wrong, and you continue insulting and being dishonest instead of admitting it. You attack others for their "tactics" or motivations (as you decide them) and you exhibit such repulsive behavior.

Isn't there a relevant bible verse to help you out here? Remove the plank from your own eye first?

[guillaumeb]

150. If memory serves, 47% of Catholics supported Clinton.

And 48% of the general electorate voted for Clinton.

Now, explain how 47% Catholic support for Clinton represents a significant difference between the 48% of the general electorate. Nearly identical. I said roughly mirrored.

[trotsky]

152. Catholics voted for Trump, 52-47.

The general electorate voted for Hillary, 48-46.

No, you can't just pick out one half of those numbers and say they're the same.

Catholics voted for Trump.

The electorate as a whole voted for Hillary.

No amount of your spin or parsing will change that. I'm so very sorry.

[guillaumeb]

155. The spin or parsing is all yours.

If 47% of Catholics voted for Clinton, and
if 48% of the general electorate voted for Clinton,

anyone can see that there is a negligible difference between the general electorate and the Catholic vote. So to repeat that Catholics voted for Trump is simply misleading. And this misleading argument is evidence to me of an agenda.

[trotsky]

157. I can't put it any clearer than this:

Trump won Catholics.
Clinton won the overall vote.

If your defense is to call that "spin," I can't help you. I'm done.

[guillaumeb]

159. Again, it is not clear and the lack of clarity is yours.

The Catholic vote roughly mirrored that of the general electorate. Clinton was supported by a nearly identical percentage of voters irrespective of religious affiliation. Your framing supports your agenda, but your agenda is not supported by the facts here.

[Dorian Gray]

207. While I don't agree with Trotsky

on a lot of things, you are being very disingenuous with the numbers here. (I am a practicing Catholic.)

52% of Catholic voters voted for Trump. How does that roughly mirror the 46% of the general electorate that voted for him?


Having said that, the rest of your debate I've read with interest. I disagree with the insistence of a Christians being held to a higher standard than a non-Christian debate partner. Christians can be just as stubborn and sarcastic and unapologetic as non-Christians.

[guillaumeb]

209. I am presenting my view of what the numbers represent.

If we can believe polls,
46% of voters overall voted for Trump, versus 48% who voted for Clinton. A 2% spread.
52% of Catholic voters voted for Trump, and 47% voted for Clinton. A 5% spread, and a 3% between the two comparisons.

So Clinton received 48% of the overall vote, and 47% of the Catholic vote. I still feel that roughly mirrors the general voting pattern.
For that matter, white women supported Trump at much higher levels than did Catholics.

And my point, when referring to the post that framed the issue as: Trump should thank Catholics for his win, was that to single out one group that did not strongly support, much less overwhelmingly support Trump, says more in my opinion about the motivation of the poster than it does about the Catholic vote.
.

[muriel_volestrangler]

167. The difference was significant enough for Trump to win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania

and thus the election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

He won Michigan by 0.23%; Pennsylvania by 0.73%; and Wisconsin by 0.75%.

They have Catholic populations of at least 30%: http://www.gallup.com/poll/12091/tracking-religious-affiliation-state-state.aspx

So those differences are equivalent to about 0.8%, 2.5% and 2.5% of the Catholic vote. In the exit poll (adjusted since Hillary's national popular vote win has become apparent at about 2%), Catholics voted 50% Trump, 46% Clinton - ie a 6% difference from the national average.

If Catholics had voted on average the way the whole electorate did, and that had included a similar 6% change in the Catholic votes in those 3 states, Hillary would have won the electoral college too.

That's how significant the Catholic support was for Trump. They won it for him.

[guillaumeb]

171. And did Trump win these states solely because of the Catholic vote?

Or did he win also with a combination of votes from many different sub-sets of voters, as well as voter suppression and voting roll scrubbing?

Non-Catholic evangelicals also voted for Trump. As did nearly half of women. So how do we apportion blame and causation?

[muriel_volestrangler]

175. It's a significant difference from the overall vote, and you asked for an explanation

of why the Catholic lean to Trump was significant. You had been trying to pass it off as not significant.

[guillaumeb]

181. Significant is your term.

And trying to pass off a small difference does not really help in the analysis of why Trump won. The title of the post was intended to single out Catholics as responsible for the Trump win. If the title had suggested that Trump should thank women for his win I suspect the responses would have been different.

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. No, you introduced 'significant' in #150

That was why I replied to that post. I'm explaining why the difference of the Catholic vote from the overall one is significant (which you asked for). If Catholics had voted the same way as people in general, Clinton would have probably won (you might get into arguments about white Catholic v. Hispanic Catholic votes, and if the latter carried any states; but I think 'probably' is justified by the effect on the 3 states listed).

If you'd asked why the more pro-Trump male vote was significant, I would have explained it in the same way. Of course, women were more likely to vote for Clinton, so I would have said "no, Trump cannot thank women for his win" if you'd asked about that. But no, the title was not meant to single out Catholics; it was meant to answer your specific question.

[guillaumeb]

183. First, my apologies for attribution.

If white women had voted the same way as people in general....Clinton would have won. And the op I was referencing was not your post, it was another post in this group, so neither of us can say with certainty what the intent of the original poster was.

So in apportioning blame for the Trump win, we can safely say that white women, Evangelicals, white males, Catholics, and older voters who actually voted supported Trump. And given that 41% of registered voters did not vote weighs heavily also.

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. Yes, all those groups are significant in his win (nt)

[guillaumeb]

188. I forgot to add:

Nice signature line. I would have added misogynistic to the list of Trump's accomplishments.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. It's not just about the acts of sentient beings, though

Consider disease that has caused suffering and death to billions of humans and animals, over millions of years. "The Creator" was free to prevent that, if it still has power. Eventually, humans managed to eradicate smallpox, when a "Creator" apparently just let it continue to kill.

[guillaumeb]

26. And how does this relate to sentient beings having free will? eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I'm talking about what's in the OP

"God kills when he could just as easily cure"

That's the point - it's not just about free will. The charges against 'God' are far wider than that.

[guillaumeb]

29. The charges rely on a human vision of what a Creator "must" be.

Thus this speculation is based on a human understanding of what a non-human Creator must be. So the charges have no relevance except in the context of human behavior.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. That's a get-out that would work for religions that don't claim humans were made

in the image of their god, I suppose. If 'God' doesn't share the basic human idea of what is bad, then the way the OP puts it - that God does not live by his 'Golden Rule' has been admitted. He's an alien, to whom humans cannot look for moral guidance.

[guillaumeb]

37. "Made in the image" refers to sentience, not physical appearance.

And free will means just that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Yes, that's my point; free will is about sentience, and a religion that believes

human sentience is in the image of their god's can't turn around and say "our human vision of the Creator is flawed; we don't understand him, so his concept of 'evil' doesn't have to match with ours". The charge is that God is uncaring in terms that humans understand; and the evidence of the universe, is that, if 'God' exists, he is - or extremely restricted in power.

[guillaumeb]

42. Sentience is self awareness.

So a self aware creature could be living on another planet. Or in another universe and still be sentient without that sentience following any type of human development.

Again, why assume that humanity is the model? In a multiverse there could be millions of sentient models. All created by the Creator.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Why indeed? The religions that claim humans are made in the image of 'God'

have just asserted it without reason. If you believe in the God of the Abrahmaic tradition, as you put in it #6, your God is guilty as charged. Or you have to face up to your religion just making up their idea of God.

Have we reached agreement?

[guillaumeb]

45. Not likely.

Image and likeness of God is generally interpreted as having sentience, self-awareness.

And I do believe in the Creator, and I try to follow the example of Jesus, putting me in the Abrahamic tradition. So we agree on that part.

And again, the arguments here are based on the presumption that a God or a Creator must conform to human expectations and exhibit human behavior and motivation. A house built on sand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. So you see 'the Creator' as different from Jesus - Jesus exemplified following the Golden Rule

and is understandable by humans, while God the Creator is beyond human ideas of good, bad, suffering, compassion etc.?

That would raise the question of why Jesus does not intercede with the Creator to lessen obvious suffering.

[guillaumeb]

59. The Jesus/Creator/Spirit question is a different issue.

And if Jesus is an aspect of the Creator, your question implies that the Creator is interested in "running the show", so to speak. And if the Creator wishes to direct things that means that free will is not really free will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. Again, this is not just about 'free will' - it's about human and animal suffering

that a god could prevent, but does not. Like disease. If "the Creator" wanted to direct things, he could still allow free will, but he could have eliminated the unnecessary suffering and deaths of billions of humans and animals.

The Abrahamic religions claim God intervenes anyway, so they don't have this idea of a god that doesn't direct things. So their god is uncaring or severely limited in power. And with your belief in Jesus, that seems to be your god too.

[guillaumeb]

64. Let us examine this a little:

When you said:

If "the Creator" wanted to direct things, he could still allow free will, but he could have eliminated the unnecessary suffering and deaths of billions of humans and animals.

First, outside direction and free will are antithetical concepts. Either sentient beings are directed or they have free will.
Second, what is "the unnecessary suffering and deaths of billions of humans and animals"? Death itself?

And when speaking of "the Abrahamic Religions" remember that there are three main religions with numerous variants. So your comment is too general.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Do you think that eliminating smallpox got rid of free will?

Of course not. So a god could have got rid of, or never allowed, smallpox, and prevented much suffering, without affecting free will. But no god did that. Humans did, eventually. And I've repeatededly made clear the unnecessary suffering is from disease.

Not everything in the universe is a sentient being. A god can direct what some of happens to organisms, sentient or non-sentient, without affecting free will.

All the Abrahamic religions claim their God intervenes. That's not 'too general', it's just accurate.

[guillaumeb]

68. If one believes that the Creator created, and allowed that creation to continue,

all that evolved from that initial creative impulse evolved.

And your comments about what a Creator could do are based perhaps on what you would do. But you are a human, with human motivations and limitations. Or so I assume. So why do you feel any special insight into what the Creator might feel is necessary to do?

It is a projection based argument that you make here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. But the Abrahamic religions don't believe the Creator just allowed everything to continue

There is, for instance, the story of Abraham. There is the Judaic idea that God promised the Israelites land, the Christian idea that he sent Jesus, or the Muslim idea that he inspired Mohammed.

You can make up a new religion that doesn't have such a god if you want (including it not caring about humanity), but with the Abrahamic ones, you've got to deal with the reality of what they say. The 'projection' comes from the authors and followers of the Abrahamic religions.

[guillaumeb]

70. Inspiration is indeed the word. Or revelation if you prefer.

And your comments about what the Creator should do are simply projection.

And the Bible does talk about God promising land to the people of the covenant. And that Jesus came to renew that covenant. But nothing about that says anything about evil being abolished.

And after Jesus came with the message, Christians believe that the Creator DID allow everything to continue, including the crucifixion and all that came afterward.

Allowing for free will has nothing to do with caring about what was created.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. "Allowing for free will has nothing to do with caring about what was created" - that's the point

so your talk of free will, in a thread about whether gods care about humanity, is a red herring.

The point of the OP is that a 'Creator' is not caring for the world. Unlike the Abrahamic claims.

Christians believe God still intervenes. hence the praying, the claims of miracles, etc.

[guillaumeb]

74. My talk of free will is simply discussion of what free will entails.

And it means that humans are free to act as they wish with no divine coercion. The Bible is full of stories of people acting as they wish.

And the point of the OP is that the existence of "evil" is proof of the non-existence of the divine. A distortion of logic and words.

The only thing that the OP proves is that the poster apparently believes what was posted.

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. Sigh. Theodicy never gets seriously addressed by believers.

I suppose it was over-optimistic of me to think it might happen this time, but all you've done is repeat 'free will' in the hope that will look like an argument.

No, the OP is not about the non-existence of the divine. It actually claims 'the divine' is evil, because "God kills when he could just as easily cure". I've lost all hope you'll try to address that.

[guillaumeb]

78. I will not address it because nothing is proven here.It is a statement of belief.

And an attempt by a human to frame the Creator using human logic.

And the "God kills" argument is nonsense. If the Creator gave his creation freedom, anything that results from that freedom is not the result of an action by the Creator.

IN the world you are attempting to argue for, the created would be puppets because certain actions would be impossible. The antithesis of free will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. For someone unwilling to address theodicy, you've spent a hell of a long time on a thread about it

You follow, in some sense, a religion that claims humans were created in God's image, and that says God lived as a human, whom you have explicitly praised. But the moment the claimed behaviour of that god is questioned, you say humans shouldn't try to frame him using human logic.

And you now say that getting rid of suffering caused by disease makes beings puppets. So you are saying the eradication of smallpox has decreased human free will. I'm not sure you've ever though about what 'free will' is, really, apart from a convenient red herring in religious discussion.

[guillaumeb]

80. Not exactly:

You said:

But the moment the claimed behaviour of that god is questioned, you say humans shouldn't try to frame him using human logic.

What I said was that any attempt by a human explain the motivations of a non-human Creator is simply projection based upon one's feeling of how a Creator should behave. I also said that humans are so far from the Creator that attempts to dissect motives is another form of projection.

And this from you:

And you now say that getting rid of suffering caused by disease makes beings puppets. So you are saying the eradication of smallpox has decreased human free will. I'm not sure you've ever though about what 'free will' is, really, apart from a convenient red herring in religious discussion.

Please point out where I said that eradicating disease makes anyone a puppet. I cannot recall saying anything like that, but please feel free to point to where I said anything remotely like that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. Here's where you said that:

And the "God kills" argument is nonsense. If the Creator gave his creation freedom, anything that results from that freedom is not the result of an action by the Creator.

IN the world you are attempting to argue for, the created would be puppets because certain actions would be impossible. The antithesis of free will.

The world I attempted to argue for, following on from the OP's "God kills when he could just as easily cure":

So a god could have got rid of, or never allowed, smallpox, and prevented much suffering, without affecting free will.

and similar points. Time and again, I've pointed to disease. And you've robotically replied 'free will'. Which is why I think you may not even understand what 'free will' is.

I also said that humans are so far from the Creator that attempts to dissect motives is another form of projection.

But you pointed to Abrahamic religions, and Jesus, so you don't actually believe humans are 'so far from the Creator'.

[guillaumeb]

82. Actually what you presented does not suppport your claim.

But let us take your argument and expand on it. By your logic, the existence of roses, or thistles, or any sharp edged grass is "proof" of the non-existence of a Creator because someone could get hurt by touching these things.

And death under your logic would also be "proof" because death is the ultimate in injury.

Poisonous plants would also constitute "proof" for you. I could continue, but the point is made that in any universe there will be sharp things, and things that eat other things, and things that fall on things, and things that fall. All of these things can lead to injury. So in your quest to convince others that there is no Creator, you suggest that any created universe must be a perfect place where everything lives forever. And you have the right to make any argument you wish, but it proves nothing about the existence or non-existence of a Creator. And it proves nothing about the motives of the Creator.

And nothing in the Abrahamic religions suggest that humans are close to the Creator in ability or understanding. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. "God created man in his own image", and as you said, that's about sentience

That's in the foundational text for 2 out of 3 of the Abrahamic religions (and I suspect there's something similar in Islam).

If you think that thorns are comparable with, say, 1 million deaths per year from malaria, and hundreds of millions suffering from that one disease, for millennia, let alone all the others, then there won't be much point in continuing the conversation. If a Creator were following his Golden Rule, he'd have looked at those deaths and how to prevent them. If he's completely alien to human ideas of empathy - fine. That's what would make him 'evil'. A Creator of this universe cannot be said to be benevolent.

Coincidentally, I read this today:

Children were crying as horrible diseases stripped them of any hope of joy.
Vibrant active young adults became crippled and died by every manner of injury and disease.
Mental illness played a changeling game with entire personalities, leaving behind strangers who couldn’t cope.
Cancerous evil that was devouring individuals, families and communities seemed to be everywhere.
...
I understood he was just parroting what he had been taught. This was, after all, the worldview of my church and the majority of evangelicalism. Placing evil in the context of God’s will was a coping mechanism that shut out the human voices of pain and reduced responsibility. But what sickened me was that everyone I knew agreed with this twisted view of God and human suffering. So I decided right then and there that this had to stop. I would find a resolution to The Problem of Evil that would answer my own nagging doubts and quiet the human voices that had kept me awake for so long, even if it killed me. And it nearly did — “Till human voices wake us and we drown.” T.S. Elliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.

That day was followed by many years of reading books, journals, and essays from every theological and philosophical perspective possible. For my seminary master’s thesis, I argued that God wasn’t involved or even concerned about individual suffering. Instead, he allowed a specific kind of suffering for the purification of the church, his new Israel. It was a good piece of work but, in the grand tradition of theology, was complete rubbish when it came to the real world. So I continued to struggle with the issue after seminary and for many years after leaving the ministry. Obsessed, I truly felt that although human voices had awakened me to a major problem with the Christian view of God, I was now drowning in a murky sea of theology and philosophy with no lifeline in sight. I grew increasingly depressed and mentally exhausted with what became my personal “koan” (a Zen problem, riddle or puzzle that cannot be resolved by rational thought), until, like a Zen student, I let go, realizing that, like any good koan, the answer is in the riddle itself.

Why does an all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good God allow evil? He doesn’t, because he doesn’t exist. After all, where was he while I so fervently sought the Holy Grail? You would think defending himself would be one of his major concerns.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2016/12/help-castle-haunted/

[guillaumeb]

84. Evil is a social construct, not a condition.

Viruses are not evil. They are life forms. Lions are not evil because they eat other things. Lions are simply eating to survive.

Evil presumes an intent and a motivation to do harm. If you can convincingly demonstrate how any of these things have intent and motivation that would be something to consider.

And again, with this excerpt, you are presenting a human attempting to analyze the motivations and behavior of the Creator of existence. I understand the need to anthropomorphize in this case because it makes it easier to relate, but it does not make the attempt logical. The author has apparently self-convinced, but that is merely a personal success, if you will.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. The question is whether 'God' is evil

The OP talks about whether God chooses to cure, not to abolish 'evil'.

If we want to look at what Epicurus said, we have it only second-hand via Lactantius, and in Latin, in which he refers to 'mala' ("deus aut vult tollere mala et non potest&quot - a neuter plural noun, translated as

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=m%C3%A1lum&la=latin evils, mischiefs
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malum evils, misfortunes, calamities, harms, injuries

Your argument seems to be that a 'Creator' is neither good nor evil, because 'the golden rule' has nothing to do with such a creator. OK, that doesn't apply to the Abrahamic conceptions of God, for whom goodness is claimed, despite the evidence against that. If you think Jesus is associated with God, you need to explain that God's failure to follow the golden rule.

[guillaumeb]

89. The function of the Creator, or one of the possible functions, is to create.

And in my belief the Creator created. But to be a Creator is not necessarily to be a director, or a being moving puppets on a stage.

And evil, being a social construct, cannot be cured. If evil were a universal constant, all cultures would recognize the same behaviors as evil. And even dealing with this planet, all cultures do not and did not have the same conception of what evil is.

My argument would be that calling the Creator good or evil is a human interpretation only.

As to the Golden Rule, where in the Bible does it state that any such rule can be used in judging the actions of a Creator? "Do unto others" was presented as the behavior pattern to be used in human interactions. It obviously does not apply to non-human animals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. It's not about 'curing evil'. It's not about 'evil' as a social construct.

The OP is about God killing when he could cure. Epicurus talked about 'mala' - 'evils', 'calamities' etc. - harmful events that could be prevented - not the social construct 'evil'.

A human interpretation is the only interpretation we can have. A god that is claimed to be the sentient pattern for us, and that is claimed to have incarnated as a human, can be judged by human moral standards - eg 'evil'.

[guillaumeb]

93. And human standards of "evil" and "good" are variable.

Calling something good or evil is making a social value judgement.

Tornadoes, and earthquakes, and electrical storms, and cold, and heat can all cause harm. So can gravity when someone falls. Do you call all of these things evil?

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. 'Calamities', 'misfortunes', 'bad things' - yes, I think they come under 'mala'

So those are the kind of things Epicurus was talking about (assuming he was correctly reported). Now, a god might have to be particularly powerful to create or run a world where they don't exist, rather than the easier task of getting rid of deadly diseases (which we've started on ourselves, seeing as no god is going to do it). But someone who believes in a god powerful enough to create a universe might want to think if they do have the power to prevent such random events that cause misery, regardless of human behaviour. I'd hope they'd have the curiosity to think about it.

But remember, you're still using the word 'evil' in the wrong place. The question is not whether events are 'evil'; the question is whether God is 'evil'. Do you really need this explained to you again?

[trotsky]

53. "try to follow the example of Jesus"

What about when you insult people or make false claims against them? Do you apologize and try to be a better person?

[guillaumeb]

97. Sometimes I do take offense when people claim that I am saying the opposite of what I said.

And you? Have you ever mischaracterized what another has said? And if such mischaracterization is pointed out, do you apologize and try to do better?

[trotsky]

109. Thank you for illustrating again exactly what kind of Christian you are.

When you decide to apologize and retract your false claim about me (and you very well know the one), please feel free.

Until then, everyone else also can see what kind of follower of the "Prince of Peace" you really are.

Go ahead, try and turn this back on me instead of doing the right thing. Further cement my impression of what a Christian you are.

[guillaumeb]

119. And thank YOU for illustrating the kind of person that YOU are. eom

[trotsky]

127. Yeah, the kind who requests an apology from someone who has made a false accusation.

I apologize for being that kind of person.

[guillaumeb]

132. Given the number of times you have "restated" my actual positions,

I will take that into consideration.

[trotsky]

135. Making Jesus proud! n/t

[guillaumeb]

138. Making deGrasse Tyson proud. eom

[Bretton Garcia]

17. The biblical God made us imperfect

In that way, he predestined us - or caused us - to inevitably sin and err.

[trotsky]

20. More problematically...

the Christian god created us without the ability to know good from evil, and then punished us when we couldn't tell good from evil.

[guillaumeb]

43. The Creator created.

And free will allows for free development.

It also allows people to vote for Trump. But what humans do with the free will is up to them.

[Bretton Garcia]

110. So what's the use of free will?

It allows us to err

[guillaumeb]

120. You freely chose to type those words.

And freely choose to engage in conversation. Every time one chooses to do anything, that action might lead to an error. So is the choice to live and act, or to sit in a closed room to avoid error?

[Bretton Garcia]

194. Or? Always do the right thing automatically

If only we had been made that way

[guillaumeb]

197. If there were only one definition of "the right thing" for every potential action,

that might be a valid point. However.........

[Bretton Garcia]

200. But surely a God could show us the best thing?

[guillaumeb]

203. A question:

Your house is on fire. On the second floor is your elderly mother. On the ground floor is your infant child. The house is filled with flames and smoke and quite hot. Do you attempt to go upstairs for your mother, or do you first take your child out, knowing that if you do that you may not have the time to go back?

So what is the best thing?

And all of this line of argument centers around the idea of a deity as a cosmic director of a play.

[Bretton Garcia]

205. So God doesn't help us

What is good and true - or merely "best" - is logically imponerable. Even for God.

But if Logic, imponderabilty, thereby trump God? Then why not dispense with God? And openly go with Logic?

I've heard all the main arguments of modern liberal Christianity. I was never a fundamentalist; as a child I raised myself as a modern Christian. However, I noted eventually that after all, a theology like your own (liberal agnosticism?), note, is already halfway to atheism. Since Logic, ethics examples of moral ambiguity, are trumping simple rules from God.

So why not be honest about that? And carry things to their logical conclusion? Why not go with Logic, ethics, and the atheists?

You are basically a very typical, very liberal Christian, or agnostic. But since you have progressed so far from fundamentalism? Why not begin the next leg of the journey you have already begun.

[guillaumeb]

208. I believe that the Creator created.

I imagine that people could ask "why" the Creator created, but that would be projection and would reveal only how those asking feel.

And I believe that the Creator created sentient beings, with free will being an essential component of being created in "the image and likeness" of the Creator.

So if we stipulate that the Creator created sentient beings with free will, there is no reason to assume that the Creator directs the play, so to speak.

And free will would not be free will if people were compelled to believe.

[Bretton Garcia]

211. I'm not arguing there is no free will

I'm arguing that if Christianity is true, then free will was a cruel gift. God gave us a power that would damn trillions of us.

So developing from but extending that model, it would be better not to have free will. It would be better to have been deterministically created to be good.

[guillaumeb]

212. Are you arguing for immortality?

Is life a cruel gift because it ends?

Is happiness a cruel gift because sometimes we are unhappy?

Is health a cruel gift because sometimes we are sick?

Are you familiar with Isaac Asimov's rules for robots?

[Bretton Garcia]

214. Should we be grateful for a free will, if it ...

1) Allows us to turn away from good. And

2) ruins our lives, possibly forever?

Here, it might be better to be made to do only good.

[guillaumeb]

215. Arguing for a lack of free will?

Arguing against choice?

As a philosophical exercise?

[Bretton Garcia]

216. As an undesirable logical outcome of Christian thinking

And as a matter of fact? Christian dogma, "training," programming, often created "self"-annihilating "will"less automatons. Or robots, dutifully following very strict rules, laws.

In the name of free will, ironically, it worked steadily to extinguish it.

[guillaumeb]

218. A logical outcome of Christian thinking?

If it were in fact "an undesirable logical outcome of Christian thinking", as you hyperbolically claim, all Christians would have to adhere to it. Reality refutes your logic.

As well to say that the existence of a legal system turns all citizens into robots because the laws inhibit creativity and the free exercise of will.

[Bretton Garcia]

220. Many Christian preachers do become moralistic, robotic dogmatists

The law is so far, actually a little freer than what our priests and ministers asked for.

Say the "our Father" a hundred times - and tell me it's not robotic and mind-numbing.

[guillaumeb]

222. Many is not all, or even most, but yes, many are dogmatists.

Repeat your Pledge of Allegiance a hundred times and explain to me how secular dogmatism differs.

Or repeat a Zen koan.

[Bretton Garcia]

224. I stopped all oaths

By the way, the Bible said to do that.

[guillaumeb]

226. What is the purpose of repetition of a phrase/prayer/word sequence?

To me, it is one form of meditation. Perhaps a "setting the mood" type of action in order to think. It can also be a way of stirring a crowd, as in the repetition of a team chant.

One of my cousins said that prayer was a way for her to open her mind to the influence of the divine. Also a way of reaffirming what she believed.

Some people have physical gestures, such as tapping or rocking that are also used to calm.

[Bretton Garcia]

228. It's mind deadening. Which is comforting in the same way

... as frontal lobotomy.

[guillaumeb]

230. Is meditation mnd deadening, or is it a relaxation technique

to open up the mind?

I must meditate on that for a while.

[Bretton Garcia]

234. The type of meditation known as rational "thinking" is extremely useful.

The other forms though, not so much.

Recall the recent medical study that found that brains in religion, were like brains on endorphins, or opiates.

[guillaumeb]

235. Rational thinking is a judgemental term.

And rational choices to situations can vary from society to society.

[Bretton Garcia]

23. When God sent an evil spirit to destroy someone...

It didn't sound as if they, and any free will they might have, had much chance of successfully resisting the will of God.

When the Lord put a lying spirit in the mouth of many, that looks clearly forced on them by God (2 Ch. 18.22. C.f. 1 Sam. 16.14-23, 18.10, 19.9).

[guillaumeb]

27. Are you a Biblical literalist or a believer in the Bible as metaphor?

If you are a literalist it would be better to make this argument with a literalist.

[Bretton Garcia]

48. Metaphorically, symbolically, evidentially?

These passages are among thousands of others that hint that God is not entirely Good.

[guillaumeb]

55. Again, you are judging a Creator by your human standards.

Do you assume that a Creator must share your worldview and beliefs?

[EvilAL]

88. God's standards and worldview suck then.

He created leukemia knowing it would kill millions of children.
Humans are always trying to eradicate gods lovely little diseases. God created them knowing they kill humans. Humans are better than this god.

[guillaumeb]

92. Pure projection. As well to say that because the Creator created roses that the thorns are evidence

of evil intent.

[Bretton Garcia]

98. But if God does many, many things that seem evil?

Doesn't that suggest that something might be awry? That you might be following say, a false God; a false Christ.

Keep in mind that the biblical God is not supposed to be entirely beyond our understanding. But close, nearby, and understandable in at least some ways.

Among other things? We are supposed to often see visible evidence that following him is materially say, "fruit"ful. Such evidence, "signs," are supposed to verify a real God.

So your ineffable God who never results in verifiable good, is not really God.

[guillaumeb]

102. One key word is "seem".

Evil is a word often used to describe behavior, but the word can mean many different things in many cultures. Evil is not a scientific description of anything, it is a judgement.

[Bretton Garcia]

111. So your Christianity abandons the Bible

Much of which takes great care to define evil.

[trotsky]

115. Like most modern Christians,

he abandons the bible when it becomes inconvenient to acknowledge it. It's entertaining though to see Christians acknowledge that there is a moral standard not contained within the bible that we must use to study its content. They're acknowledging and fully endorsing the superiority of secular morality (and thus trashing the whole purpose of their religion) without even realizing it.

Good times.

[guillaumeb]

121. Your second sentence confirms my point about evil being a social construct.

And your first sentence is simply your opinion.

[trotsky]

130. Everything you have said in this thread has been "simply your opinion."

Even the parts where you contradicted yourself.

[guillaumeb]

133. Again, feel free to point out what you find confusing, or contradictory.

And I will wait for these 'inconsistencies" to be noted.

[trotsky]

136. Again, I already did.

Please keep up.

[guillaumeb]

139. A weak try. But I understand. eom

[EvilAL]

164. How is that projection?

It's not.
Assuming the god of the bible exists..
--Did God create the diseases that kill children and babies?
Yes.
--Do humans struggle and strive to eradicate these diseases that God created to create a healthier and better world for other humans?
Yes.
-- Can god eradicate these diseases as easily as he created them?
Yes.
-- Does he?
Nope.

Humans are better than god at caring for other humans.
God could snap his fingers and do it.. but he doesn't. That makes us better than him.

Why? My guess is either he doesn't care at all about his creation or he likes seeing us suffer.

It's even more evidence that the bible wasn't written by god, inspired, whatever flavor you choose, because god would have mentioned why he created these diseases that kill us. Like every other time he's had us slaughtered, he made sure we knew it was him. Only the writers of the bible didn't know about viruses and germs and how all that works, so it was never mentioned.

[guillaumeb]

169. I can only answer with my beliefs.

Very briefly summarized:

The Creator created all of existence and then allowed what was created to evolve. Or proceed.

Free will is a concept that relates. If the Creator had created a heaven-like universe there would be no growth. As to why the Creator chose to create in this way, I can only speculate.

So your examples of disease and death and injury and natural disaster all came about in the evolutionary process.

[Bretton Garcia]

206. It's odd we are allowed to err, in order to grow

Why not just be made wholly good from the start? Why do we need free will?

Here you admit you have no clear answer, and can only speculate.

I'd suggest that the lack of a clear answer, tells us that the whole notion of God, and say his allowance of free will, does not clearly work at all.

Who would need to "grow," if we could have been created perfect from the start?

[guillaumeb]

210. If you were perfect, there could be no growth.

A static universe. No evolution, no creativity, no error it is true, but what you are describing exists nowhere.

[Bretton Garcia]

217. So God is bad, since he can't improve, or grow larger.

[guillaumeb]

219. Bad is a social construct.

And given that I can know nothing about the Creator's abilities, other than the obvious ability to create existence, your statement does not in my view apply.

[Bretton Garcia]

221. So neither can we call God "good."

[guillaumeb]

223. Perhaps another Creator could.

To me, good and bad are social constructs and social concepts. What is judged good or bad varies among human societies.

But as to the Creator/created situation, would the tree call the carpenter ant bad?

Would a virus call a human bad?

Given the tremendous separation in ability and perception between them, what can one really say about the other?

[Bretton Garcia]

225. So they're irrelevant to each other

[guillaumeb]

227. If you believe that one created the other not really irrelevant.

And given how universal the idea of religion seems to be, at least on this planet, could it be argued that humans are generally hardwired to believe?

But the point of this post is that the poster initially posited that the mere presence of evil, also defined here as "bad things happening", is incontrovertible proof that a god cannot exist.

If it were incontrovertible, there would have been no discussion on the merits of the proposition because it would be incontrovertible. So the very fact that the poster decided to post this post is proof that the post is fallacious.

[Bretton Garcia]

229. It might be incontrovertible to logic

Only those who are illogical/faithful contest it.

[guillaumeb]

231. To paraphrase Pilate,

what is logic?

[Bretton Garcia]

232. Logic is best defined as formal logic

It really helps clarify our thoughts, and sharpen arguments

[guillaumeb]

233. Sometimes people use the word "logic"

as a synonym for "in my opinion".

[DeadEyeDyck]

34. Dawkins says free will is an illusion. Nt

[guillaumeb]

39. Dawkins might be deceiving himself.

Unless he is claiming to be infallible as well as intelligent.

[Dorian Gray]

86. Tell that to Rush.

(The band, not limbaugh!)

[immoderate]

105. Free will? -- We have no choice!!

Credit to Christopher Hitchins for pointing out the nuttiness inherent in the concept. It is the stuff red herrings are made from. Free will has apparently been imposed on us. But unknown by what.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

106. Would you choose otherwise to be a puppet?

But yes, you had no choice other than (presumably) to be born human.

[immoderate]

107. You were predestined to say that.

How could you know that you weren't? That's rhetorical. However, since reality is not subject to my will, it remains to be seen how "free" it is. There's a term needing a definition.

Ultimately, this (apparent) free will that we enjoy, is exactly the freedom you would expect in a universe with no creator, right?

--imm

[guillaumeb]

123. I am not a believer in predestination. It conflicts with the idea of free will.

And given that you are a human living on earth, you are obviously limited by your physical and mental abilities, as well as other limitations imposed by your environment.

And yes, you can choose to believe in a Creator or to not believe. Another exercise of your free will.

[immoderate]

166. And if you didn't have free will, would you know it?

It's an absurd concept, useful only in apologetics. It's a kind of solipsism.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

170. Are we simply playing a part directed by a non-human director?

Or am I the only actual entity here and your part is merely a fiction supplied by my consciousness?

If number two, this is certainly a vivid dream/nightmare.

[immoderate]

172. If any of those scenarios are true, we wouldn't know it. Dreams, delusions are there...

while we are experiencing them. Reality gets presented to our senses, and goes through several layers of filters, and by the time it reaches our consciousness, it's already a memory.

Pragmatically, I accept reality for what it seems to be, and do what my will tells me, because there is nothing else. It's enough to keep up with things that actually manifest, rather than search for those that don't.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

173. One way to approach things.

Whatever works for each individual. I do not have any inclination to convince or convert.

[immoderate]

174. ...for each individual, as long as it doesn't impose on others.

Which is hard to do for religions. "Convince and convert" is what they do. They have no alternative.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

180. Grow or die?

But is that not also applicable to any type of belief system? If Dawkins or Mahar or deGrasse Tyson speak to an audience about their non-belief, are they not also preaching their own gospel?

[immoderate]

184. C'mon now.

Atheism is not a belief system. It's a rejection of claims that can't be validated. It's the same position you take on most religions.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

186. Now we return to the question of atheism.

If atheists believe that there is no god, deity, higher power, then atheists are demonstrating their own beliefs. It does not matter if there is no formalized atheology, so to speak, because atheists still believe that there is no deity. And that belief is unprovable.

As to religions, I fell that there are obviously many religious paths and some non-religious paths.

[immoderate]

189. So you believe in every unproven supernatural entity?

Atheists believe you haven't validated your claim. You haven't.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

190. No, I said that I believe that there are many paths.

No matter what any of us believes, the fact that we believe demonstrates that what we believe is not proven, or unprovable.

I believe in a Creator.
I know that water freezes at sea level at 0C. No belief is necessary.

[immoderate]

191. What water does is observable.

How is your creator different from a make-believe creator?

--imm

[guillaumeb]

192. Belief. Make believe refers to the act of deliberately pretending to believe.

And that is the difference. As I am certain you know.

[immoderate]

193. Sure. Beliefs are involuntary. I understand.

But they might give way to the cognitive dissonance they raise. There is a whole menagerie of imaginary beings that can't all be real. Yet there are believers. It's not because they are real.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

196. I disagree. I feel that believing or not-believing is a deliberate act.

But belief in the unprovable does not mean that the unprovable (by humans at least) does not exist.

[trotsky]

116. There's a middle ground between being a puppet, and having perfect free will.

The world is just simply far more complex than the black-and-white worldview you espouse.

[J_William_Ryan]

4. There is no "god" as perceived by theists

...evil or otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

5. There is proof in the scientific sense, and proof in the personal sense.

My personal belief is that you have confused the two. As "proof" I refer to your post.

[Ron Obvious]

7. What's the difference, exactly?

Is "proof in the personal sense" merely a lower standard of evidence, or is it something else?

[guillaumeb]

8. Proof in the scientific sense is one thing.

But "proof" in the personal sense really means faith. And faith is seen by some believers as "proof" that what they believe is true. I should have written proof as "proof" in my response to clarify.

[Ron Obvious]

11. OK, fair enough, but I'd say you're abusing the language.

Do you accept that your faith might be wrong? What would it take to convince you that you are?

That's a question scientists ask themselves about scientific theories (i.e. "falsifiability&quot , but I've rarely met a theist who was willing to admit the possibility.

You don't have to answer if you don't want to; just curious.

[guillaumeb]

24. The problem with this particular format of write/wait/respond is that of nuance.

As I understand it, science generally considers something to be proven if it is verifiable and testable.

But with faith, which depends on a decision to believe, scientific proof is not part of the belief process.

And given that I am fallible and human, of course I do not feel that what I say must be true. But none of us can state that there is a god or there is no god with certainty. Which leaves us with faith, or no faith in the existence of a Creator.

[Bretton Garcia]

32. But "faith if it has no works is dead." So real faith produces physical works.

Which in turn would be necessary physical, empirical evidence that your faith was justified and good.

[guillaumeb]

38. No, faith without works is generally interpreted to mean

that a believer should live her/his beliefs.

[Bretton Garcia]

49. Including physically helping poor people (James 2.14-26).

So finally? Things taken on faith are not to be considered good ... until they produce real physical, material results.

[guillaumeb]

56. I feel you are confusing issues.

If you believe that charity is a good thing (in theory) without ever engaging in charitable acts, does that make you uncharitable?

And this entire post presumes that the Creator acts for human type reasons. An enormous presumption/speculation upon which to build any argument.

[Bretton Garcia]

96. Yes, if you support something with your mouth, but not deeds?

That is not really support. That is hypocrisy, or lip service.

As for assuming God acts like a human? The Judeo Christian God is famously anthropomorphic. He is angry and jealous, he lives, and has many human feelings. And he has a very human seeming son.

We could, in your modern religion, say these are all just metaphors for an ineffable, complex God, who is not human at all. But if he is inhuman, why follow him or speak about him at all? He has nothing in common with us.and cannot help us.

So your modern, metaphorical God has about as many problems as the old one, and the old literalism.

[guillaumeb]

101. Humans generally do anthropomorphize when speaking about an unknown entity.

That is understandable. Being human, we generally seem to feel that non-human entities behave similarly to us. Whether that anthropomorphizing involves animated Disney features, or movies about extraterrestrials, or our various holy books, humans do approach these subjects assuming that the various objects that are the focus of our attention must be similar to us.

So this tendency explains why we do what we do, but it does not prove anything other than a tendency to make assumptions about non-human entities.

[Bretton Garcia]

112. If your god can't really be spoken of in human terms...

Then why talk about him at all? Since all our terms are completely inaccurate.

[guillaumeb]

122. Our terms represent our attempts to understand the nature of a deity.

Or a Creator. Our holy books are a codified form, a history, of that understanding.

[Bretton Garcia]

195. Then something useful CAN be said about God?

In that case he is not ineffable.

And now you have dogmas.

As for example, your emphasis on "faith."

[guillaumeb]

198. Anything that humans say represent what humans feel is true.

However, that does not mean that those humans have correctly interpreted what the Creator is thinking. Or what motivates the Creator.

[Bretton Garcia]

201. So your defense of "faith" say, Is unreliable....

[guillaumeb]

204. I am not defending faith.

I am defining faith as the wiling suspension of disbelief. Nothing more. If you cannot willingly suspend disbelief, if you cannot have faith in the unsee-able, I understand.

[Bretton Garcia]

213. You 1) seem to have an emotional attachment to faith

So it's not just an academic matter for you.

In any case, 2) if faith means embracing the unforseeable, then it means embracing the irrational. Which leads to problems.

[Bretton Garcia]

21. That's not the universal biblical or dictionary definition of faith

Which is called faith, not really proof. Faith being moreover defined in dictionaries as in part, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary., 11th Edition).

In the Bible, Jesus at least once uses "proof" in the scientific sence. When he tells someone he healed to present himself to the priests as proof - physical evidence - they were healed. No reliance on faith there, at all.

[guillaumeb]

25. I disagree.

I defined faith as a willing suspension of disbelief. What you posted is a corollary of that, not a refutation.

And as to healing the blind man, yes that would be demonstrable proof. So I fail to see your point.

[Bretton Garcia]

30. It means that your religious definition of proof as in part faith...

Doesn't correspond to the Bible very consistently. Nor to the normal ddictionary definitions.

Next therefore? If "faith" is the willing suspension of disbelief, then it is not really asking for proofs in the proper Biblical sense and scientific sence at all. In fact it is doing the opposite of that. It is asserting that one should not entertain disbelief; which implies the end of doubting. And therefore of asking for proofs.

If one does not doubt, there is no need to ask for proof m, in the accepted senses of proof.

So your assertion that faith is proof, seems to be contradicted by both 1) dictionaries, and 2) even many Bible passages.

Faith 3) even in your own definition means not asking for - or I'd add, having - proofs.

[guillaumeb]

36. Non-overlapping magisteria.

And you apparently misread my posts.

I said, numerous times and in many threads, that faith does not require proof. So you are arguing against a position that I have never actually taken.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. Non-overlapping magesteria?

Pro-tip: if your deity supposedly interacts with the material world, our magesteria overlap. Verily.

[guillaumeb]

54. we are talking about scientific proof versus religious faith.

And because we live on this planet, our dialogue takes place here. Not quite the same.

[Act_of_Reparation]

63. I know very well what we're talking about.

I'm telling you non-overlapping magisteria is extremely problematic, and only applies when religions are answering "religious" questions.

The trouble is, as I noted, religions routinely stray beyond the bounds Gould prescribed for them. Which is why, in 2016, evolution is still a controversial topic.

[guillaumeb]

66. Agreed.

And the concept of evolution is indeed controversial, but mainly among those who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[Bretton Garcia]

50. I'm focusing on your notion of faith as "proof":

"'Proof" in the personal sense really means faith. And faith is seen by some believers as "proof" that what they believe is true. I should have written proof as "proof" in my response to clarify.'

Yes, you should put quotes around proof, if you're going to twist it around to the exact opposite of its accepted meaning.

[guillaumeb]

57. Faith needs no science.

And science needs no faith.

And this entire post is built on the assumption that the poster has defined the Creator and can thus make judgements.

[Bretton Garcia]

100. Faith needs no science.

But religion, the Bible, God, does. Dan. 1.4-15 KJE; 1 Kings 18.20-40.

[guillaumeb]

103. No, religion might reference the physical world, and recognize certain things about that world,

but science is not necessary to have faith.

[Bretton Garcia]

113. Much of religion rejects, even "hates," the whole "world."

But if it references the world in any at all positive way, it 1) accords it some importance.

And? Its 2) magisterium or jurisdiction begins to overlap with materialism, and science.

[guillaumeb]

124. There is no overlap that I can see.

Religion, for me, defines the relationship of man and Creator. Nothing else.

My very limited knowledge of science defines my relationship to creation.

So I fail to see any overlap other than the "I" at the center of both things.

[trotsky]

117. "science is not necessary to have faith"

Clearly that's one of the problems with it.

https://creationmuseum.org/about-the-museum/

[DeadEyeDyck]

35. Can you prove something is beautiful?

[guillaumeb]

40. Define beauty in such a way that every person agrees to the meaning.

If you find a particular song to be beautiful, you have partly defined beauty. For yourself.

[Iggo]

12. First I'll need incontrovertible proof of the existence of God.

Then I'll consider your incontrovertible proof that God is evil.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. God is not evil.

He doesn't exist.

[DetlefK]

51. Santa is also evil. And the Tooth-Fairy is evil. And the real monster is Dr. Frankenstein himself.

God is evil for killing people.
Santa is evil for furthering an authoritarian system of blind obedience.
The Tooth-Fairy is evil for supporting a system that delivers gratification for doing nothing.
Dr. Frankenstein is evil because he was so arrogant and narcissist, he treated the "Monster" like shit until it turned from child-like innocence into a murderous sociopath.




@Greatest I am:
What you did there is intellectual masturbation. It makes you feel good, but it won't convince anybody who isn't already convinced. Religious people don't care about philosophic proofs.

[nil desperandum]

60. Well now,

[Angry Dragon]

75. The god of the Bible is a vengeful and jealous god

[ymetca]

77. From the Gnostic perspective

God is, indeed, evil, imprisoning what he did not create in a false paradise. Then when Adam and Eve were wised-up by Satan (aka Lucifer, or the "light-bringer&quot , he got all vindictive about it ever since.

We all still reside in what Philip K. Dick described as the Black Iron Prison --a prison of our own ignorance toward the true nature of reality (which is an ever-evolving, relativistic thing). Thus, he stated that "the Empire never ended", meaning that we are all still bamboozled by the "High Priests" of society, who serve only to reinforce hierarchy, and mass self-delusion.

Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson explored these themes as well, poking fun at the Conspiracy of Dunces that continues to run the world.

Leary's genius, perhaps, was in posing the question "Who is the master who makes the grass green?" in more modern terms, suggesting that it is DNA that is alive, and we are merely its latest set of exploratory probes.

The objective of Gnosis, or Enlightenment, is to achieve escape velocity from our womb planet. Escape from the Planet of the Apes. Even Carlos Castaneda, with his Great All-Consciousness-Devouring Eagle, suggested that the Eagle lets a few escape in order to expand consciousness. But of course that lucky few are never you or me individually. Tragi-comedy at its finest.

The DNA-designed purpose of global telecommunication, the Internet, etc., is to hasten this Gnosis in as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. The largest prison break in human history. Our "transmigration" into an extraterrestrial species. We all become X-persons of some sort, physically completely different from our planet-bound forbears.

All stuff that makes religious zealots' heads explode.

Oh, and yes, nothing that I have stated here is true.

[RKP5637]

104. What god? Guess what, there isn't one! n/t

[hrmjustin]

114. This certainly turned out to be an interesting thread!

[nil desperandum]

125. Well

it certainly turned out to be something indeed...one might suspect that God is not bound by the same rules he creates for his subjects...thus one set of rules for thee, and another for He(She?)...but it was fun to watch for certain.

[hrmjustin]

128. These are questions that have been asked for a long time and will continue to be.

[nil desperandum]

129. Indeed....

and no doubt by folks who've spent far more time researching and articulating their views than a bunch of us on a relatively anonymous internet site.

[guillaumeb]

140. Interesting is one way to describe it.

Predictable is another.

The "I found a sharp stone and this proves there is no Creator" argument again. And argued no better than it ever is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

144. I don't think you've bothered reading the OP

because you have not got a clue what it says. In fact, you haven 't got a clue what the thread title says. How can you criticise anyone for their arguing style when you haven't even read what anyone says?

[guillaumeb]

158. A baseless claim.

What the OP says:

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.

This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.

God then is clearly evil.

Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?

Regards
DL

What is irrefutable is that this is a simple restatement of the theodicy argument. And my refutation what I see as the weakness of the theodicy argument is apparent in numerous of my posts. Which leads me to wonder why you felt it was necessary to respond at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

162. Yet you think that can be summed up as "this proves there is no Creator"

when it plainly says God is evil, not non-existent.

I respond to you because I still hope (I have blind faith, by now?) that you will start thinking about the subject of the thread.

[guillaumeb]

168. The "God is evil by reason of non-interention" argument falls under the whole concept.

Unprovable because we can only know what the Creator chooses to reveal.

[hrmjustin]

156. Well these questions bring up a lot of emotions and feelings and some people

express themselves differently on it.

To be honest I really don't bother myself with these questions too much. Life is what it is and I just live it. I always look as God as a guide and a companion and God's ways are on a different level than mine.

[HassleCat]

153. God is not evil.

A being that does not exist cannot be evil.

[Aviation Pro]

160. Or maybe God....

...has had enough of humanities bullshit and sent POTUS-e as an Extinction Level Event.

[RelativelyJones]

161. Weird post

[rzemanfl]

163. How can you get away with saying "God" is male when I get fried for calling Pamela Taylor

what she is? Not gonna say it, wouldn't be prudent

[nycbos]

165. George Carlin would agree with you

&t=58s

[cornball 24]

176. Numero uno-who the hell is DL? As a mere mortal, I pose this question. If mankind has been

in existence for millions of years, why haven't we progressed intellectually, morally etc. to a degree in tandem with the time we have been in existence. In short, we ain't any smarter! Thusly, there must be some phenomenon that is making it possible for us to keep on keepin' on-perhaps a superior entity? It sure as heck ain't us!

[immoderate]

177. Check your reasoning. Humans go back about 100-200,000 years.

And we're pretty smart. Monkeys have been around for 25,000,000 years -- not so smart. Alligators for way more than 100,000,000 years. Dumb as logs.

We are the top of the hill. There just isn't anything smarter. At least for now.

--imm

[cornball 24]

178. Homo group-2 million years. Check your facts.

[immoderate]

179. Sorry, off by an order. My error.

Homo habilis goes back about 2M years. Homo sapiens appeared about 200k years ago.

But my argument stands.

--imm

[Act_of_Reparation]

187. Define "smarter"

Individually, we're leaps and bounds smarter than our progenitors. I know, for example, to wash my hands after taking a shit. They did not.

[cornball 24]

199. Comparative degree of "smart". Thanks for sharing your hygienic routine. Our progenitors

would be so very proud!

[Act_of_Reparation]

202. I could go on.

But if you're already convinced that mankind has made no intellectual, moral, or ethical progress since we first came down from the trees I doubt any of it would have much of an affect on you.

You know, while you sit at a computer exercising free speech.

[Bradical79]

236. God can't be evil

At least in context of Christian mythology that Jesus's quote is from. The golden rule as we call it is in context of Jesus talking to humans. In this Christian mythology that the "golden rule" comes from, it's usually viewed as evil specifically being defined as going against God's will.