It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is God Evil???

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



sounds like you didnt navigate them, you skirted them. feel free to share your answers if you are so confident.


It appears you're confused. Part of that might be my fault, so let me help you out. I responded to an argument you posted, as an argument, because, well it was an argument. You then dodged my questions and critique of the argument by falsely claiming it was "just questions". Being charitable I let that pass. Perhaps you thought I really believed that your argument (s) were "just questions". My bad. Might have given you a little false hope.

Allow me to elaborate.



"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?"


The above is called an argument by rhetorical question. Notice the leading and loaded questions, followed by conclusions. What you have above is most definitely not "just questions" as you inaccurately claimed.

So actually, given that I critiqued and asked some questions about an argument you posted, it would be your turn to answer the questions that I asked about the argument you posted. You know, the questions I asked and you skirted


If you want to discuss in more detail why the argument you posted doesn't have the devastating affect you think it ought to, I'm game. Same deal if you want to have an honest discussion about the questions included in your argument, as legit questions rather than rhetorical devices, I'm game, though I've already alluded to where I speculate those answers lie.

But if you won't/can't admit/recognize that what you posted and I initially responded to is an argument, then I don't think there's much point in continuing our conversation.

Call it a litmus test.




edit on 10-6-2017 by imwilliam because: the usual, spellin




posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam


The above is called an argument by rhetorical question. Notice the leading and loaded questions, followed by conclusions. What you have above is most definitely not "just questions" as you inaccurately claimed.


when those words were originally recorded, yes they were rhetorical questions. but it would be unfair to assume that those rhetorical questions dont have answers. perhaps you would oblige.


So actually, given that I critiqued and asked some questions about an argument you posted, it would be your turn to answer the questions that I asked about the argument you posted. You know, the questions I asked and you skirted

"I don't think there's anything compelling in the sort of thinking illustrated in your quote; if one reasons from the premise that God is eternal and that we're meant to join him in eternity. Seems to me, it's only going to resonate with someone who is reasoning from the premise that God isn't eternal and neither are we, that the life we have here on earth is all there is.

It carries no force for anyone not already convinced of the conclusion. Circular reasoning even, no?"


eternity is not the issue at hand. epicurus asks a few questions of himself and provides a few reasonable answers.


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.


is he wrong? how so?


Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.


is he wrong again? how so?


Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?


another good question. perhaps you can enlighten us.


Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"


something of a clincher in my mind. but perhaps you have spotted something i didnt. and while you are at it, maybe you will recall the other questions from my first post here. you are welcome to have a swing at those too if you like.


But if you won't/can't admit/recognize that what you posted and I initially responded to is an argument, then I don't think there's much point in continuing our conversation.


i was willing to break down the argument for the sake of discussion, though i didnt actually break it down. i have done so now.
edit on 10-6-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm




especially those who get rich and fat on pretending to be selfless and pious.


Typically you just demonstrated egotistical perfectly by your own judgement.


we have judged so many tyrants throughout history and deemed them worthy of being hunted down and persecuted, if not executed. so many influential figures who exercised abhorrent morals with unquestionable authority and left mass graves and haunted nations as reminders of how thin it is, the line that separates men from monsters. we have regarded it as our duty to hold them accountable and make an example of them. the christian god is just one more.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



we have judged so many tyrants throughout history and deemed them worthy of being hunted down and persecuted, if not executed. so many influential figures who exercised abhorrent morals with unquestionable authority and left mass graves and haunted nations as reminders of how thin it is, the line that separates men from monsters. we have regarded it as our duty to hold them accountable and make an example of them. the christian god is just one more.


We? Let me be sure of what you're saying here. You believe God
should be hunted down and executed as a tyrant? Right?
And this is your judgement only, no one elses, of our Creator God?
edit on Rpm61017v45201700000008 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX




originally posted by: TzarChasm we are the height of intelligence? no, no we are not.
Yes we are..we are absolutely the height of intellect on earth (that we are aware of anyhow). What we choose to use that intelligence on may be open for debate, but not the physical reality of it all.

It's funny, (no it isn't,) but where I live, there are plenty of bins for people to put their trash in. Bins by the side of the road, bins in neighbourhoods, bins in parks.
You'd be amazed at how much rubbish there is scattered about the place. In the childrens' park alone, a huge pile of cans and sweet wrappers and mcdonalds related sh*t, rolling tobacco filter tips. There is a bin not 8' away from the swing/slide play area.
People are constantly telling me how much more children are clued up these days with global warming and climate change and environment respect, etc. I call 'BULLSH*T'. Never has a generation been more aware of and 'indoctrinated' on the whole 'save the planet' mentality than the one currently at school. We decry the ignorance of previous generations with regard to such matters. Everyone knows about AGW nowadays.
And yet.....
I cannot think of a generation that is less aware of the symbiotic relationship we have with earth than we have now.
We have a generation that shares no real sense of affinity with or comprehension of earth and nature.
You can try and call me out on the big picture stuff, but if it aint happening at the molecular level, it aint happening at all.
Too many young people don't care and don't care why they should care. Education is abundant, concern, personal responsibility and empathy is impalpable.
Just my thoughts based on sad observation in my area of planet Earth.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: TzarChasm
we are the height of intelligence? no, no we are not.

Yes we are..we are absolutely the height of intellect on earth (that we are aware of anyhow).
What we choose to use that intelligence on may be open for debate, but not the physical reality of it all.


but i will grant you that we might be the most egotistical and self serving.

All lifeforms are self serving..its how species stay alive.
Egotistical is also shared with our mammal friends..watch a lions den..one alpha lion amid many lioness. alpha lion won't allow for other males because its his den, his women, he gets to eat first, etc...thats pure egotism


it depends on how you define intelligent. personally, i think dolphins, cats, ravens, and chimpanzees at the very least should go above humans on the intelligence scoreboard.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm



we have judged so many tyrants throughout history and deemed them worthy of being hunted down and persecuted, if not executed. so many influential figures who exercised abhorrent morals with unquestionable authority and left mass graves and haunted nations as reminders of how thin it is, the line that separates men from monsters. we have regarded it as our duty to hold them accountable and make an example of them. the christian god is just one more.


We? Let me be sure of what you're saying here. You believe God
should be hunted down and executed as a tyrant? Right?

And this is your judgement only, no one elses, of our Creator God?


hunted down and persecuted. execution is a little heavy handed, wouldnt want to lower ourselves to his level. judge and jury, no executioner. that means he gets a trial. which wont be nearly as straight forward as it was in roman times. i wonder how they would make him swear his oath? at the very least, he would be regarded as a global security risk. interrogating and cross examining a being who can read your mind and knows the future is very tricky business.

i very much doubt im the only person who thinks it is a good idea to detain god for interrogation and potential containment or deportation. to get all of the world authorities on the same page, if nothing else. its past time to clear up all of this religious nonsense and get straight to brass tacks. hard to do that unless you have the horse by its balls.
edit on 10-6-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

NUmber 3. God Knows the future is never set in stone due to giving humans free will. The future changes constantly on a individual level.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




it depends on how you define intelligent. personally, i think dolphins, cats, ravens, and chimpanzees at the very least should go above humans on the intelligence scoreboard.


Well, that's it for me!



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




we have judged so many tyrants throughout history and deemed them worthy of being hunted down and persecuted, if not executed. so many influential figures who exercised abhorrent morals with unquestionable authority and left mass graves and haunted nations as reminders of how thin it is, the line that separates men from monsters. we have regarded it as our duty to hold them accountable and make an example of them. the christian god is just one more.

What is your pragmatic criteria for judging abhorrent morals and questionable authority?
If we can at least agree on that, we might have a starting point to discuss this further.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood
a reply to: TzarChasm




we have judged so many tyrants throughout history and deemed them worthy of being hunted down and persecuted, if not executed. so many influential figures who exercised abhorrent morals with unquestionable authority and left mass graves and haunted nations as reminders of how thin it is, the line that separates men from monsters. we have regarded it as our duty to hold them accountable and make an example of them. the christian god is just one more.

What is your pragmatic criteria for judging abhorrent morals and questionable authority?
If we can at least agree on that, we might have a starting point to discuss this further.


genocide, slavery, internment camps, etc. unquestionable authority is pretty self explanatory. thats not a perfect picture but it will do for a start.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Parents plan their children's lives but ultimately don't control their children
Hence why God is called father

It's not that hard if you just apply a little common sense



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Parents plan their children's lives but ultimately don't control their children
Hence why God is called father

It's not that hard if you just apply a little common sense


then why call him god and not just father. maybe allfather like odin.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



when those words were originally recorded, yes they were rhetorical questions. but it would be unfair to assume that those rhetorical questions dont have answers. perhaps you would oblige.


It's unfair to miss characterize an argument you put forward as merely questions to escape your obligation to defend that argument. More importantly it tends to obfuscate the truth. It's bad form.



eternity is not the issue at hand.


Eternity is the issue that the argument you quoted turns on. I'll try and explain my rational for believing that's the case.




Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.


You can say that God hasn't prevented all evil, you can't know what evil he has prevented or the ratio of allowed to prevented. You also can't know if he self constrains, and I don't believe self constraint necessarily diminishes his omnipotence. (And off the cuff, I do believe God self constrains)




Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.


Maybe he isn't operating on your timetable. The show isn't over.



Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?


This isn't difficult, I confess I don't understand why it's so difficult for those who don't see it to understand. No opportunity to do good if there isn't an opportunity to do wrong. Love, can't exist if no love I isn't a possibility. Or at least the nobility of "love" and "good" can't. How this is difficult to understand, how it doesn't make sense, I would appreciate someone cluing me in on. I just don't get it.



Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?


Good question, kind of like a prosecutor describing the heinous details of a crime, before establishing the guilt of the defendant. It's manipulative. Get back to me when you've proven that God is neither able nor willing.

For the sake of argument, I'll concede that all of these conclusions are properly reached of a theoretical God in a theoretical universe where sufficient finality exists and sufficient knowledge exists to reach an accurate and complete judgement. However, I maintain that we have neither sufficient finality or knowledge.

We don't exist in that universe.

Notice that though it is structured in such a way as to lead the reader to conclude this is our universe, rather than a theoretical one, it doesn't actually provide a warrant for that conclusion. Now, as someone who reasons from the notion of an eternal God and that existence goes on after death, it's clear to me that at least the "finality" required to draw these conclusions is missing in our universe, I think sufficient knowledge as well. But I'm guessing that for someone that reasons from the premise that there is no existence after death, no eternal God, that this is less clear.

So, I imagine that if you believe that there is no existence after death, then any injustices left uncompensated for at the time of death remain uncompensated for, period. Based on that premise, no existence after death, I think this is sound reasoning.

But if you reason from the premise that even after death existence continues, then you can correctly reason that death isn't the cut off point for compensation. It's not the cut off point for judging whether God has been just in any particular case or in regards to any particular person.

In a nutshell, the conclusions can't be valid unless we're at the end, the proverbial fat lady has sung. For me, and for those that reason from the premise that existence continues after death, we're not there yet. I can sort of understand how someone that believes death is the final act can reason otherwise.


So thus far, at least existence after death for some time, now on to eternity, which I'll keep short.

I asked what percentage of eternity was made up by the lifespan of a man. I think it's fair to say miniscule. And so any suffering, any injustices we endure, we endure for less than the blink of an eye, if our perspective is eternal. Our compensation/comfort is infinite.

I understand that is not the case if you don't reason from the premise of eternal existence.

But that's the point I'm making, it's more about a difference in premises than it is faulty logic or the like. The conclusions asserted in the argument just aren't arrived at via that argument. That argument is a defense of conclusions reached in some other manner.


















edit on 10-6-2017 by imwilliam because: spellin



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

So from an evolutionary standpoint, how is it bad when survival of the fittest is the raison d'être for any species?
You want natural selection AND morality?
Again, what is your PRAGMATIC CRITERIA for judging behaviour? And who are YOU to suggest any of it is wrong?
You speak of 'unquestionable authority'......do you consider yourself to be of a highly evolved opinion that you can questions all these attributes found in humanity for the last 3,000 years, and are therefore in a position to determine what is morally right and wrong?
REMEMBER.....we are just accidental stardust that brought us where we are. Now put a consisten morality upon that. Otherwise you are of a post modern ideology that will bend and change with the whims and trends of time and society If morality cannot be consistent, the idea that it is valid for NOW is a nonsense and I refuse to live under it...and you are in no position or authority to tell me I can't.
Unless, of course you are INTOLERANT.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The westbro baptists are doing it wrong, they are full of hate when they should be full of love.

So I don't agree with there way but as to your thread title NO or not every God, at least not Jesus or his Father or the Holy Spirit.
In Jesus there is forgiveness and mercy but without him the universe is built upon a structure and God's law is part of that, the law is a mechanism it has no compassion or mercy and it is also not God just the mechanism upon which thing's work.

But what about other's version of God and there experience.

Watch then think, there are probably counter video's that claim the opposite but.















So which God are you talking about?.

IS non existence better and preferable to existence?.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I enjoyed hearing her (Megan Phelps-Roper - women's names matter too!) on Sam Harris' podcast:

www.samharris.org...

"God' is just an idea - not a reality. It is an idea that is beyond our comprehension.

'God' can be neither good nor bad. But our concept of 'god' or 'gods' can be good or evil or a combination of both - such as when we collectively athropomorphize this idea.

Humans have a need to explain/justify 'things' and belief in a higher power gives us an easy answer to the endless questions of life.

We, humans throughout time, make our gods in our own imagine, and attribute to that god human characteristics or 'superpowers' that we 'dream' of having seeking to 'control' our lives and experiences in a fundamentally unstable world.

If we think 'god' is evil - then we will see evil in our experience - if we think our higher power is good - we will see good.

So rather then debate the external, work on your own concept and relationship with a 'diety' and your self.

A quote from a book I just started on this morning:

"The Road Home" by Ethan Nichtern

"In psychological terms, this space of basic awareness, the home for all our subjective experience, is called the mind. In more romantic terms, it's often called the heart. The totality of our personal experience ... awareness ... involves our cognitive, emotional and intellectual processes, all at once. For that reason, the path of awakening views our intellectual intelligence and our emotional wisdom as completely entwined, existing in a unified space of consciousness that needs to be experienced and developed in an integrated way. "Mind" alone doesn't seem like a sufficient word for this space and neither does "heart." Let's instead talk about the "heartmind," and how to learn to live there.

Or heartmind is where we will always live, where we will always come home. Whether we live well in our awareness, or whether we trash the place, is quite another story, but the fact is that our heartmind is where we must lay out the welcome mat. What could possibly be more important than taking care of our true home?"

Ethan is a frequent speaker on the "Meditation in the City" podcast.






edit on 10-6-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Heaven and Hell are 'states of mind'.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.



You can say that God hasn't prevented all evil, you can't know what evil he has prevented or the ratio of allowed to prevented. You also can't know if he self constrains, and I don't believe self constraint necessarily diminishes his omnipotence. (And off the cuff, I do believe God self constrains)


what is the point in being omnipotent if its only selectively applicable? being all powerful is only as good as what you choose to do with it...and inversely, what you choose to not do with it. with great power comes great responsibility. that includes the cases in which injustice occurs because you held back.


Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.



Maybe he isn't operating on your timetable. The show isn't over.


the show is over for many who suffered unjust fates for no justifiable reason.


Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?



This isn't difficult, I confess I don't understand why it's so difficult for those who don't see it to understand. No opportunity to do good if there isn't an opportunity to do wrong. Love, can't exist if no love I isn't a possibility. Or at least the nobility of "love" and "good" can't. How this is difficult to understand, how it doesn't make sense, I would appreciate someone cluing me in on. I just don't get it.


according to the official narrative, someone up there is deciding who suffers and who doesnt. who lives and who dies. who was a worthwhile person and who was not. i feel there is a certain irony in having the most cosmically massive ego of all presiding over whose soul deserves which fate. but more than that, there is a distinct unease surrounding that concept that is best described as "who watches the watcher"? ultimate power is an abomination in my opinion. and whoever wields it will inevitably succumb to the dark side of the force. no one has proven to me that he has not already.

remember my earlier questions?

"if there is a god who is omnipotent, how do you prove they are not a threat?

if there is a god who is omniscient, how do you prove they are unable to lie?

if there is a god who is omnipresent, how do you prove they are actively helpful and not negligent?"


no one has answered yet. i wonder why.


Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?



Good question, kind of like a prosecutor describing the heinous details of a crime, before establishing the guilt of the defendant. It's manipulative. Get back to me when you've proven that God is neither able nor willing.


that tells me you dont have a good answer. didnt think you would, but i figured it was worth a try.


So, I imagine that if you believe that there is no existence after death, then any injustices left uncompensated for at the time of death remain uncompensated for, period. Based on that premise, no existence after death, I think this is sound reasoning.

But if you reason from the premise that even after death existence continues, then you can correctly reason that death isn't the cut off point for compensation. It's not the cut off point for judging whether God has been just in any particular case or in regards to any particular person.


so...long story short, all scales will be balanced but we have to die first. that is awfully convenient. emphasis on awful.


I asked what percentage of eternity was made up by the lifespan of a man. I think it's fair to say miniscule. And so any suffering, any injustices we endure, we endure for less than the blink of an eye, if our perspective is eternal. Our compensation/comfort is infinite.


"if our existence is eternal" that is a pretty huge assumption you are making, especially since we are talking about scales being balanced in the afterlife for injustices and suffering happening in the here and now. reminds me of that dude from the popeye cartoon who is always promising to pay the cook next week for a meal today. does he ever pay up? i think thats the joke. kinda like what you just explained. a sad joke that describes a lot of people, praying for a better tomorrow instead of making a better today. maybe god is cutting corner by giving up on this world and making a new one for all the people who are "worthy". but who elected him? no one. he elected himself. thats not due process. thats not democracy. and who is making sure that he keeps his word? who is making sure he plays fair? i wouldnt blindly trust a cosmic arbitrator whose sense of conscience is literally the only thing between this planet and utter oblivion. as bruce wayne says... "if there is a 1% chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty". and as lex luthor says "you don't need to use a silver bullet. but if you forge one, you dont need to depend on the kindness of monsters."

as far as comic book movies go, that one was pretty iffy. but i cant deny that it makes some fantastic points about freakishly powerful beings from other worlds. especially one is who hellbent on being our judge jury and executioner, and not just a magical fireman of sorts.
edit on 10-6-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: JoshuaCox

don't blame God for crazy people who misapply the bible because they don't rightly divide as they claim they do.

Applying OT laws for Israel to themselves is their first mistake and not following the commands of Christ is their second. Then add in a little daddy worship and incest and you have Westboro baptist church.

But don't blame God for them it is their own doing not his.


Actually according to the grand daughter they didn't have any incest , childmolestation nor violence at all.

It was 100% voluntary with excommunication the only penalty..

They wanted the government to change the law to allow stoning, not to break the law by stoning as the law presently prohibits it..


Which is still creepy , but an interesting window into their minds.


The thread is more about her reason for leaving.. that of penalizing those who follow your plan with eternal torture .




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join