http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html

God doesn't exist.

Prove me wrong.

Unless you're going to admit that your faith is fundamentally flawed.

I don't understand, which argument would you like for us to comment on? 'Us' as in the collective term used to describe the My God forum, I'm no theist. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Basically the first 7 under "Foundational Essays". Although, certain common arguments used to try and refute those are countered in the smaller essays.

God can neither be proved or disproved...it is merely a question of faith....

I personally consider myself an agnostic but why do people always feel the need to disprove God?

quote:glutamate antagonist doesn't exist (he just thinks he does) -God

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

http://ww w.ebonmusi ngs.org/at heism/index.html (http: //www.ebon musings.or g/atheism/ index.html )

God doesn't exist.

Prove me wrong.

Unless you're going to admit that your faith is fundamentally flawed.

PLEASE JUST PICK ONE!!!

quote:Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

God can neither be proved or disproved...it is merely a question of faith....

I personally consider myself an agnostic but why do people always feel the need to disprove God?

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/necessityofatheism.html

God can't be disproved, but that's no reason to assume he exists, or that he might.

An invisible purple cow which is orbiting Alpha Centauri can't be disproved. Does that mean we should assume it may exist?

quote:Originally posted by Magnus_Ungermax:

PLEASE JUST PICK ONE!!!

Ok, this:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html

It refutes all major 'logical' arguments for a god.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:



An invisible purple cow which is orbiting Alpha Centauri can't be disproved. Does that mean we should assume it may exist?

Well, that's up to you but that hardly ansers any kind of pressing question.

For many people the belief in god comes from questions about "Who we are". Questions of consciousness, and it's relation to everything else. Hardly much to do with purple cows, but a lot to do with everything as a conscious whole.

Once again it merely comes down to Faith

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Well, that's up to you but that hardly ansers any kind of pressing question.

For many people the belief in god comes from questions about "Who we are". Questions of consciousness, and it's relation to everything else. Hardly much to do with purple cows, but a lot to do with everything as a conscious whole.

It doesn't answer anything? Well that can be fixed.

The cow not only orbits Alpha Centauri, but it is responsible for our consciousness and "who we are" because it is our creator. He, the almight purple cow, also answers to the name "Bob".

Anything else?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It doesn't answer anything? Well that can be fixed.

The cow not only orbits Alpha Centauri, but it is responsible for our consciousness and "who we are" because it is our creator. He, the almight purple cow, also answers to the name "Bob".

Anything else?

Thank you Rust.

Have a Gmail invite:

http://tinyurl.com/8pcy4

Thanks, but I already have it, that and 50 invitations to hand out.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

An invisible purple cow which is orbiting Alpha Centauri can't be disproved. Does that mean we should assume it may exist?[/B]



If it's invisible how could it be purple?? Therefore I don't believe that cow exists.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

He, the almight purple cow, also answers to the name "Bob".

But only when said backwards

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:



If it's invisible how could it be purple?? Therefore I don't believe that cow exists.

lol... nice "observation".....



Stoopid flood control.. and now it went up like gas prices.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It doesn't answer anything?



Whether true or not, there are answers and explanations.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The cow not only orbits Alpha Centauri, but it is responsible for our consciousness and "who we are" because it is our creator. He, the almight purple cow, also answers to the name "Bob".

To say "a purple cow is responsible for our consciousness, doesn't answer anything.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

To say "a purple cow is responsible for our consciousness, doesn't answer anything.

It doesn't? Then please tell me what would and then please insert it into the cow scenario.

It's a hypothetical scenario that can be edited at whim. What are you arguing about? Any "flaw" you find, or anything you don't agree with, be it the vagueness of his dealings with our creation or consciousness or his involvement with spirituality, what have you, can be fixed.

The fact is the purple cow can be edited to be exactly as the Christian god, or any god, and it would still show the foolishness of believing in something that has no evidence.

Your just concentrating on petty things which are inconsequential to this debate, since, again, it is a hypothetical scenario.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Your just concentrating on petty things which are inconsequential to this debate, since, again, it is a hypothetical scenario.

No I'm not. You don't know what's in my head and what my beliefs are. And what i said was completely consequential to the person who i addressed.

The purple cow argument is completely ridiculous and I aint gonna get involved in an endless argument. So let's leave it at that.

I'm sick of these dumbasses, mainly Atheists and Christians, who keep trying to change people's faith based on such elementary arguments.

There's a reason it's called a faith, man.

There isn't any proof either way, so Atheists and Theists are on the same ground, it's all just a matter of time, waiting to see which one's right.

Some people do believe cows are holy, think Hinduism.

Those "proofs" don't disprove G-d's existence in any way. For instance it claims to be based on science...well so was the assumption that the Earth was flat, or more recently, every single deffinition of light, which have all been disproven (we have none currently. Almost all science is a matter of convienience, no different then what many atheists say about theism, just because we aren't totally sure how it works we assume something that makes sense to us. Next time you look in a science book, look at the number of theories, Tectonic Plate Movement, Evolution, Almost all of Chemsitry, etc etc.

Scientific "facts" change constantly. The rest seem to be just a defense of an atheist's morality so thats not really even relevant to the discussion.

I'll quickly and easily refute his "a ghost in the machine" essay.

In the essay, the author claims that "there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain," and goes on to give examples of how certain areas of the brain control speech, writing, and soforth, and how damage to said areas will destroy the victim's ability to do the action associated with the region of the brain destroyed. However, he glazes over an extremely importaint point: morality. There is no region of the brain that control's one morality; there is no specific kind of brain injury that causes one to lose all moral thoughts. I presume the author is an arrogant, self-righteous prick.

I read the WHOLE essay, and can conclude that it is strands of truth interwoven with a hell of a lot of ambiguous statements and outright bullshit. Logical fallacies are a dime a dozen in the world of Mr. Ebonmusings, it seems.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

Originally posted by AnAsTaSiO:

God can neither be proved or disproved...it is merely a question of faith....

I personally consider myself an agnostic but why do people always feel the need to disprove God?

http:/ /www.ebonm usings.org/atheism/necessityofatheism.html (http: //www.ebon musings.or g/atheism/ necessityo fatheism.h tml)

God can't be disproved, but that's no reason to assume he exists, or that he might.

An invisible purple cow which is orbiting Alpha Centauri can't be disproved. Does that mean we should assume it may exist?

No, but logically we should not disbelieve in it, if there is such a word. Rationally, we should fully accept the possiblity of a giant purple cow who can devour our souls with the word "kazoo." It, too, is a matter of faith. And I'm being god-damned serious.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

No I'm not. You don't know what's in my head and what my beliefs are. And what i said was completely consequential to the person who i addressed.

The purple cow argument is completely ridiculous and I aint gonna get involved in an endless argument. So let's leave it at that.

That's the point, it IS ridiculous to believe in a Christian god that has no evidence, and not in a purple cow. They are BOTH ridiculous. If you think not, then that only stems from your dislike of cows and/or the color purple. The rest, how he created us, why, when, with what purpose, ALL of that, could be the same as the Christian god or any other god since it is a hypothetical scenario that can be changed, moved, manipulated, updated, maintained, etc, all to fit our desire.

There is no endless argument because there is nothing left to argue. It is as ridiculous as believing in any other god, be it Christian, Hindu, Norse, or any other you could imagine; save for any bias you may have against the color purple and/or cows. Period.

P.S. What do your beliefs have anything to do with what I'm arguing? I said these things were petty not because I feel spirituality or whatever you believe in is humbug, which I do, but because they are irrelevant to the purple god scenario: they do not serve to refute or undermine it.

Why not? Because if you say "Hey that purple cow doesn't explain consciousness or our meaning in life!" then I can modify the cow scenario to fit something that would explain consciousness or our meaning in life.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sentinel owl:

I'll quickly and easily refute his "a ghost in the machine" essay.

In the essay, the author claims that "there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain," and goes on to give examples of how certain areas of the brain control speech, writing, and soforth, and how damage to said areas will destroy the victim's ability to do the action associated with the region of the brain destroyed. However, he glazes over an extremely importaint point: morality. There is no region of the brain that control's one morality; there is no specific kind of brain injury that causes one to lose all moral thoughts. I presume the author is an arrogant, self-righteous prick.

You can presume anything you want but that was not a refutation. There's no such thing as "moral" thoughts. Morality isn't an entity to be found in the brain. Also, read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance

And also "The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick" from the same site.

quote:Originally posted by glutamate antagonist:

http://ww w.ebonmusi ngs.org/at heism/index.html (http: //www.ebon musings.or g/atheism/ index.html )

God doesn't exist.

Prove me wrong.

Unless you're going to admit that your faith is fundamentally flawed.



Right now, i'm going to stay clear of the "unmoved Mover" that you picked, and try to work on the "All Possible Worlds

The problem of evil" alittle bit:

In section 2, the author gives this outline as the "atheist killer arguement":

Assumption (1): God exists.

Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.

Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.

Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.

Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.

Premise (2): Evil exists.

Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.

Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.

Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.

Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))

Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))

Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))

Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))

in conclusion 6, it states that "Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))".... this is a leap of logic. The Bible does not deny the existence of evil. And neither do 1,3,4,5.

(1) God exists..

but as already pointed out, His Word says that evil exists.

(3) An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil...

if His Word says that evil exists, then He must be aware.

(4)An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil...

the fact that evil exists does not mean that He can not eliminate it. It only means that He has not eliminated it yet. In fact, in His Word, He has stated that He has set the time and day. He has also said that He is the One who made evil. However, He does not say that made us choose evil.

(5) A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil....

If He says in His Word that He has set the time and day, it means that He does desire to eliminate evil.

None of these establish conclusion 6. Because conclusion 6 has not been established, there is no "Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))". If that contradiction has not been established, then conclusion (7) is a leap in logic. If 7 is not established, then conclusion 8 has not been established.

Also (although this is weak), assumption (1c) presumes that humans have a complete concept of "all loving".

The real question is not "Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil" (as hinted at in the articles next few paragraphs); But rather, "WHY would a perfectly loving AND all knowing God, create evil in the first place?"

My answer is, "I dont know".

Maybe we might be able to get some hints from looking at the theodicies (or, maybe not).

In the begining of the second paragraph of "The Justice Defense" the author states quote:The major problem with this explanation is that it fails the test of common experience; evil is plainly not distributed fairly.

however, in the last sentence of the same paragraph, he says, " quote:The indiscriminateness, the sheer randomness of suffering refutes this explanation."

Although this is a good arguement against the "Justice Defence" it does not refute it. The author notes that the writer of Psalms 73 recognized the 'phenomenon'.. infact, he wrestled with it. The author of the article fails to point out that the writer of Ps 73 comes to the conclusion agreeing with the "Justice Defence" ("JD")... God allowing Evil to exist for the sake of allowing the proud enough rope to hang themselves (Ps 73:17,18).

The next two paragraphs discuss the book of Numbers chapter 31. Although i disagree with the article's points about the "JD" in these 2 paragraphs; instead of pointing out why i disagree with the author, i would like to point out some things about the Bible account that it seems as though the author may have overlooked (or was willingly ignorant of):

quote: However, this facile explanation fails to account for the fact that the male children were specifically marked for death. If any Midianite children were to be saved, why was it only the females? The text strongly implies that the true motivation behind this selective mercy was not the administration of justice - after all, if female children cannot commit a sin worthy of death, surely male children cannot either - but something less savory, as suggested by Moses' instruction to his soldiers to keep the females alive for themselves.

One possible reason for killing the young males would be for the purpose of illiminating the possible 'claims of heir' for their people. Also, by killing all the non-virgin females, the Isrealites would have quashed the "hell hath no fury as a woman scorned" problem... remember, if they were not virgins, their 'husbands' would have been already killed in battle or excecuted afterwards. The only logical choice of mercy, would be the female virgins. Whether that 'mercy' was due to mercy or horniness does beg the question, but the elimination of the rest, does make sense.

I mentioned "begging the question". I found this in Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

Num 31:13-18 -

The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times, as to captives. In the course of providence, when famine and plagues visit a nation for sin, children suffer in the common calamity. In this case parents are punished in their children; and for children dying before actual sin, full provision is made as to their eternal happiness, by the mercy of God in Christ.



I'm going to stop here, as i've other things that need doing before the new week of work (when i havent time to do them).

I'm just going to conclude my ramblings reguarding the authors arguement about the "JD" by stating that the Bible does point out that sometimes God uses calamities for the purpose of Judgement/Justice... but His Word also points out that sometimes "the rain falls on both the just and unjust".

I want to point out that science is almost totally faith based. 1+1=2...why? Cause it does. Science is nothing but a series of arbitrarily assigned values and measurements to help us attempt to comprehend a massive universe with our feeble minds. Much like religion.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

in conclusion 6, it states that "Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))".... this is a leap of logic. The Bible does not deny the existence of evil. And neither do 1,3,4,5.

(1) God exists..

but as already pointed out, His Word says that evil exists.

(3) An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil...

if His Word says that evil exists, then He must be aware.

(4)An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil...

the fact that evil exists does not mean that He can not eliminate it. It only means that He has not eliminated it yet. In fact, in His Word, He has stated that He has set the time and day. He has also said that He is the One who made evil. However, He does not say that made us choose evil.

(5) A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil....

If He says in His Word that He has set the time and day, it means that He does desire to eliminate evil.

None of these establish conclusion 6. Because conclusion 6 has not been established, there is no "Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))". If that contradiction has not been established, then conclusion (7) is a leap in logic. If 7 is not established, then conclusion 8 has not been established.

Also (although this is weak), assumption (1c) presumes that humans have a complete concept of "all loving".

Read what it says again. The argument is EXACTLY the same as the one that has been used here time and time again. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god cannot allow evil ti exist, since if he does, he either is not omnibenevolent, or does not exist. That's exactly what that argument says.

There is no leap in logic, since it only enumerates the Judeo-Christian claims of what a god is, and then shows how the existence of evil, which exists according to you and the bible, would mean how he either is not benevolent, (and thus not existing the way the Christians define him), or simply does not exist period. That's not a leap in logic by any stretch of the imagination.

quote:The real question is not "Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil" (as hinted at in the articles next few paragraphs); But rather, "WHY would a perfectly loving AND all knowing God, create evil in the first place?"

My answer is, "I dont know".

The answer isn't "I don't know" that's a cop out and a terrible one at that. The answer is, "He wouldn't for if he would, then he is not benevolent".

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The answer isn't "I don't know" that's a cop out and a terrible one at that. The answer is, "He wouldn't for if he would, then he is not benevolent".



Not true, G-d allows evil to exist as a way to test us. What good would getting a 100 on a test be if it was a multiple choice test with only one answer to choose?

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Not true, G-d allows evil to exist as a way to test us. What good would getting a 100 on a test be if it was a multiple choice test with only one answer to choose?

Wrong. If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to test us without having to allow the existence of evil.

To use your analogy, he has the power to test us just as well with only one answer to choose from, however illogical that may sound, because if he didn't he wouldn't be omnipotent.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. If he's omnipotent, then he has the power to test us without having to allow the existence of evil.

To use your analogy, he has the power to test us just as well with only one answer to choose from, however illogical that may sound, because if he didn't he wouldn't be omnipotent.

I disagree, on the fundamental principle that he gave us free will as part of his design, and as such evil was a necesary creation. Had he used another system to design us, then maybe that would be true, but considering the way he chose to create us, it is the best method of testing. Though he could have used another method, it is important to realize that it is in this sense that our powers are limited so only certain methods can be used to test us, not because those things that would allow another method are beyond G-d's reach, but because they are beyond ours.

The 'one answer test' removes free will.

JewDude, god is omnipotent meaning it can do anything. Even remove evil and maintain free will, if it can't do that then it's not omnipotent.

A being with omni-max powers can't be contrained by logic.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Though he could have used another method, it is important to realize that it is in this sense that our powers are limited so only certain methods can be used to test us, not because those things that would allow another method are beyond G-d's reach, but because they are beyond ours.

Wrong, god is omniscient as well. It must know of a better way to 'test' us and since it's benevolent it must implement said way.

[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 08-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

JewDude, god is omnipotent meaning it can do anything. Even remove evil and maintain free will, if it can't do that then it's not omnipotent.

A being with omni-max powers can't be contrained by logic.

Originally posted by JewDude:

Though he could have used another method, it is important to realize that it is in this sense that our powers are limited so only certain methods can be used to test us, not because those things that would allow another method are beyond G-d's reach, but because they are beyond ours.

Wrong, god is omniscient as well. It must know of a better way to 'test' us and since it's benevolent it must implement said way.



Haven't you ever played the game where you pretend the ground is lava and you "can't" step on it, even though it is well within your abilities? G-d limited his own power by his decree.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Haven't you ever played the game where you pretend the ground is lava and you "can't" step on it, even though it is well within your abilities? G-d limited his own power by his decree.

So it's not benevolent?

And even up to this point NOBODY has pointed out that these do not refute Theism, just Christianiy. That must be a record.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Haven't you ever played the game where you pretend the ground is lava and you "can't" step on it, even though it is well within your abilities? G-d limited his own power by his decree.

We play "pretend" games like these, to amuse ourselves. So, the same can be said with God?

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

So it's not benevolent?

How is limiting ones power not benevolent, he is allowing us to grow and learn, the greatest gift he could give us. In fact now that I come to that, that could simply be the reason, its a chance for us to grow as humans, which is a good and benevolent thing, so even though we have to undergo some unpleasantness we grow as humans.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

How is limiting ones power not benevolent, he is allowing us to grow and learn, the greatest gift he could give us. In fact now that I come to that, that could simply be the reason, its a chance for us to grow as humans, which is a good and benevolent thing, so even though we have to undergo some unpleasantness we grow as humans.

An omniscient being has to know of a better way than evil to make us grow, an omnipotent being has to be able to implement that way while maintaining free will an and all-loving being must do it.

To get technical about it, it would have to know an infinitely better way.

quote:

We play "pretend" games like these, to amuse ourselves. So, the same can be said with God?

[/B]

Why not?

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

An omniscient being has to know of a better way than evil to make us grow, an omnipotent being has to be able to implement that way while maintaining free will an and all-loving being must do it.

To get technical about it, it would have to know an infinitely better way.

What if it is the best way?

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

What if it is the best way?

Then it's not all-loving! If it freely allows evil to exist then it's not all-loving. This type of benevolence isn't just sometimes good sometimes bad it's supposed to be good ALL THE TIME!

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Then it's not all-loving! If it freely allows evil to exist then it's not all-loving. This type of benevolence isn't just sometimes good sometimes bad it's supposed to be good ALL THE TIME!

Define evil.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Define evil.

Evil is subjective, if I see evil then evil exists, to me. I guess a better term would be 'suffering'. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Evil is subjective, if I see evil then evil exists, to me. I guess a better term would be 'suffering'. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Is suffering always bad?

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Is suffering always bad?

To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment.

Yes, unless you're kinky and get off on that, which I'm cool with. But for a being that is supposed to be all-loving to allow suffering to exist is absurd. Unless of course we're trying to define a being we know nothing about...

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment.

Yes, unless you're kinky and get off on that, which I'm cool with. But for a being that is supposed to be all-loving to allow suffering to exist is absurd. Unless of course we're trying to define a being we know nothing about...

But if he were to make suffering gone, then we would be incapable of evil, then he would be limiting our free will, which is an evil.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

But if he were to make suffering gone, then we would be incapable of evil, then he would be limiting our free will, which is an evil.

An omnipotent being can do anything, no matter how unlogical it is, it can take away evil and still maintain free will, if it can't do that it's not omnipotent!

It can't be constrained by logic or reasoning.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

An omnipotent being can do anything, no matter how unlogical it is, it can take away evil and still maintain free will, if it can't do that it's not omnipotent!

It can't be constrained by logic or reasoning.

By your logic, then this whole argument is null and void, because both of us are trying to apply logic.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

By your logic, then this whole argument is null and void, because both of us are trying to apply logic.

What I'm saying is the supreme being as we define it can't be true based on how we define said being. It's either not benevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient. It can't be all three or suffering wouldn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

What I'm saying is the supreme being as we define it can't be true based on how we define said being. It's either not benevolent, omnipotent, or omniscient. It can't be all three or suffering wouldn't exist.

Maybe he knows something we don't know about the combination of the three, as would be supposed by omniscient.

Well about the evil thing. I think it is a test but also we can choose to do evil or good. God might know what path we'll take but we still have to go through the journey and learn for ourselves. Btw, my beliefs are restricted to christianity but also stuff more like Buddhism and Hinduism also.

Ps: something I havent figured out yet but havent really thought about is some big spiritual indian guy or something(forgot what he was, a swami maybe or a yoga master) said god is also evil too)

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

I disagree, on the fundamental principle that he gave us free will as part of his design, and as such evil was a necesary creation. Had he used another system to design us, then maybe that would be true, but considering the way he chose to create us, it is the best method of testing. Though he could have used another method, it is important to realize that it is in this sense that our powers are limited so only certain methods can be used to test us, not because those things that would allow another method are beyond G-d's reach, but because they are beyond ours.

The 'one answer test' removes free will.

Again wrong. He MUST have the power to leave free will intact, even if he removes evil, for if he does not, then he's not omnipotent.

Moreover, this cannot be the "best" form of testing, for he must have the power to create an even better form of testing. If he does not, then he is not omnipotent.

So which one is it? Is he not omnipotent or is he not benevolent?

---

I'll take the liberty of replying to what you said to Paradise Lost (and only things I feel may not have been covered above), since I assume that's the same thing you're going to reply to me.

quote:Haven't you ever played the game where you pretend the ground is lava and you "can't" step on it, even though it is well within your abilities? G-d limited his own power by his decree.

If his power is limited then he is not omnipotent is he? Moreover if he deliberately limits his own power, and the result of that limitation is the continued existence of evil, then he's not benevolent either!

quote:Define evil.

Evil is already defined in the bible.

Even if we use what I would define it as, which is that evil is subjective, then the point still stands. His still must have the power to remove any form of evil, even if evil is subjective and there are an infinite amount of definitions/forms, since if he didn't he wouldn't be omnipotent.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-15-2005).]

quote: Again wrong. He MUST have the power to leave free will intact, even if he removes evil, for if he does not, then he's not omnipotent.

Moreover, this cannot be the "best" form of testing, for he must have the power to create an even better form of testing. If he does not, then he is not omnipotent.

So which one is it? Is he not omnipotent or is he not benevolent?

By your logic, then G-d could have done nothing, as there would ALWAYS be a better way to do it, hence countering the combination of benevolence and omnipotence, however if he were omnipotent he must have the power to be both. If he is omnipotent he must have the power to be both benevolent and allow evil, earlier posts of both Rust and Paradise Lost indicated that if he is omnipotent he must be able to do anything, even if it defies logic.

quote: If his power is limited then he is not omnipotent is he? Moreover if he deliberately limits his own power, and the result of that limitation is the continued existence of evil, then he's not benevolent either!

However if he is truly omnipotent, he has the power to limit his power. The “can G-d create a mountain even he could not move.”



[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 08-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

By your logic, then G-d could have done nothing, as there would ALWAYS be a better way to do it, hence countering the combination of benevolence and omnipotence, however if he were omnipotent he must have the power to be both. If he is omnipotent he must have the power to be both benevolent and allow evil, earlier posts of both Rust and Paradise Lost indicated that if he is omnipotent he must be able to do anything, even if it defies logic.

Yes, yet if there is STILL evil, then he is "both" in name only. It doesn't remove the very thing that he defines as evil, which he supposedly does not want us to do.

That either means that the existence of evil is still an argument for not adoring him as a god, or that "evil" isn't something that he is against.

Both serve as an argument against Judeo-Christian theistic thought.

quote:However if he is truly omnipotent, he has the power to limit his power. The “can G-d create a mountain even he could not move.”

He either ceases to be omnipotent then, or remains both omnipotent and and not omnipotent (something illogical). Either way it works in my favor.

If he's not omnipotent period, then the god we're speaking of doesn't exist.

If he's both (something illogical) then the argument then assumes he can do illogical things, which then leads us to the argument above.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-15-2005).]

quote: Yes, yet if there is STILL evil, then he is "both" in name only. It doesn't remove the very thing that he defines as evil, which he supposedly does not want us to do.

That either means that the existence of evil is still an argument for not adoring him as a god, or that "evil" isn't something that he is against.

Both serve as an argument against Judeo-Christian theistic thought.

But he is still both. And I don’t believe that he is against the existence of evil, I stated that earlier. Also Judaism, specifically Kabbalistic Judaism, would not be touched by that statement as it specifies that G-d has no direct will.

quote: He either ceases to be omnipotent then, or remains both omnipotent and and not omnipotent (something illogical). Either way it works in my favor.

If he's not omnipotent period, then the god we're speaking of doesn't exist.

If he's both (something illogical) then the argument then assumes he can do illogical things, which then leads us to the argument above.

Yes he can do illogical things hence the definition of an infinity, something we can’t understand, illogical. How does that lead to the above argument

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:



But he is still both. And I don’t believe that he is against the existence of evil, I stated that earlier. Also Judaism, specifically Kabbalistic Judaism, would not be touched by that statement as it specifies that G-d has no direct will.



He being both is irrelevant if we're still affected by the things that make him not omnibenevolent. Again, he would be "both" in name only. Moreover, it's not just "he being against the existence of evil", it's him being in favor or against people doingor being evil. If he has nothing against someone being/doing evil, then again that serves as an argument against a religion with that kind of god. Not to mention that it would refute the bible god who supposedly does not want us to be evil.

As for "Kabbalistic Judaism" if god doesn't have a direct will, then he is not omnipotent. If he's omnipotent then he must CHOOSE to not have a direct will, which then means he does have one.

quote:

Yes he can do illogical things hence the definition of an infinity, something we can’t understand, illogical. How does that lead to the above argument

Because if he can do illogical things, he can be both, and if he can be both... "if there is STILL evil, then he is "both" in name only. It doesn't remove the very thing that he defines as evil, which he supposedly does not want us to do.

That either means that the existence of evil is still an argument for not adoring him as a god, or that "evil" isn't something that he is against. Both serve as an argument against Judeo-Christian theistic thought."

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-15-2005).]

Propaganda is a twoway street.

Glutamate, sorry to tell ya but YOU didn't give anything to prove. You posted a link.

How about using your OWN brain, and telling us what you think about atheism, or about that site ?

I am sick of parrots. Hiding behind memorized lines...not thinking for themselves.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Glutamate, sorry to tell ya but YOU didn't give anything to prove. You posted a link.

How about using your OWN brain, and telling us what you think about atheism, or about that site ?

I am sick of parrots. Hiding behind memorized lines...not thinking for themselves.

Something like christians quoting the bible? Don't be a hypocrite, this is not an one-way argument.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am sick of parrots. Hiding behind memorized lines...not thinking for themselves.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The fact is the purple cow can be edited to be exactly as the Christian god, or any god, and it would still show the foolishness of believing in something that has no evidence.



What's foolish is arguing about other people's religon. If you don't believe in it, congratulations, now leave them the fuck alone. They believe it because they want to.

Hahah. This ( http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/10c.html ) is awesome.

But seriously, the whole religion thing is retarded. You know there's a part of the brain that, when stimulated, gives the sensation of "a presence"? That strict atheists have had this part given a slight shock and "saw god" in a lightbulb? Knowing this, can you seriously think that the idea of a god isn't just something biological?

The bible was written by either someone with this part of their brain damaged/malformed somehow, or a bunch of stoners recording their latest rants. Those are the only two theories about it I can think of or have heard (omg it was by ONE stoner?!?!) that aren't so utterly retarded that the utterer literally deserves to be killed the really really slow Chinese way. (The one with ropes.)

quote: He being both is irrelevant if we're still affected by the things that make him not omnibenevolent. Again, he would be "both" in name only. Moreover, it's not just "he being against the existence of evil", it's him being in favor or against people doingor being evil. If he has nothing against someone being/doing evil, then again that serves as an argument against a religion with that kind of god. Not to mention that it would refute the bible god who supposedly does not want us to be evil.

First sentence contradicts itself, clarify your thoughts. He is still both. Explain how it serves as such an argument, you are displaying a major fallacy, stating something as fact without stating proof or any support whatsoever.

quote: As for "Kabbalistic Judaism" if god doesn't have a direct will, then he is not omnipotent. If he's omnipotent then he must CHOOSE to not have a direct will, which then means he does have one.

If he is omnipotent he doesn’t have to do anything at all now does he. You are constraining an omnipotent being, which is of course, impossible.

quote: Because if he can do illogical things, he can be both, and if he can be both... "if there is STILL evil, then he is "both" in name only. It doesn't remove the very thing that he defines as evil, which he supposedly does not want us to do.

That either means that the existence of evil is still an argument for not adoring him as a god, or that "evil" isn't something that he is against. Both serve as an argument against Judeo-Christian theistic thought."

And what are these terms “omnipotent” and “benevolent” in context but names, so being these “in name only” in this context is being them in totality. Such is “infinity”, a name for something we can’t understand. It is infinite in name only, it could have an end just not one we understand.

Yet again back up those arguments of yours. That’s a bad habit you might want to break out of.

quote:Originally posted by pianoSpleen:

Hahah. This ( h ttp://www. ebonmusing s.org/athe ism/10c.html (http: //www.ebon musings.or g/atheism/ 10c.html) ) is awesome.

But seriously, the whole religion thing is retarded. You know there's a part of the brain that, when stimulated, gives the sensation of "a presence"? That strict atheists have had this part given a slight shock and "saw god" in a lightbulb? Knowing this, can you seriously think that the idea of a god isn't just something biological?

The bible was written by either someone with this part of their brain damaged/malformed somehow, or a bunch of stoners recording their latest rants. Those are the only two theories about it I can think of or have heard (omg it was by ONE stoner?!?!) that aren't so utterly retarded that the utterer literally deserves to be killed the really really slow Chinese way. (The one with ropes.)

I see a severe lack of proof here, you are declaring things as fact without any backing it up, fine if it is for your own personal belief but if you want to argue well at all, you might want to bother with a little fact here and there. Show me evidence.

And let me just cut you off before someone tries to turn this around on the argument for G-d. I am asking that he show proof for something he is passing as scientific fact, which most of us agree is quite a different subject than theology; the essence of the request is that he show proof in the realm he is arguing, it would be like saying the bible says something and not having any evidence of the bible saying this, and no citations of the verse, obviously a major flaw in an argument. He is stating something as though it is considered scientific fact; however, he shows no proof, neither scientific nor empyrical.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

First sentence contradicts itself, clarify your thoughts. He is still both. Explain how it serves as such an argument, you are displaying a major fallacy, stating something as fact without stating proof or any support whatsoever.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

It most certainly does not contradict itself, it just shows how it being "both" is meaningless because the things that would refute his benevolence still exist.

And I don't have to show any evidence that it could be an argument against such a religion, unless you're suggesting that someone could not say "Hey that god still allows evil to exist, so I won't believe/worship in him". Is that what you're saying?

quote:If he is omnipotent he doesn’t have to do anything at all now does he. You are constraining an omnipotent being, which is of course, impossible.

You're constraining him in the first place by saying that he doesn't have any will!

quote:And what are these terms “omnipotent” and “benevolent” in context but names, so being these “in name only” in this context is being them in totality. Such is “infinity”, a name for something we can’t understand. It is infinite in name only, it could have an end just not one we understand.

Yet again back up those arguments of yours. That’s a bad habit you might want to break out of.

You avoided the argument completely. If there still exists evil, even if he is both, then he being both does not remove evil and as such it serves as an argument against the worship ofthat deity.

Also, it's pathetic how you result to such weak idiotic straws.

Two can play at that game. Back up these:

"Some people do believe cows are holy, think Hinduism.

Those "proofs" don't disprove G-d's existence in any way. For instance it claims to be based on science...well so was the assumption that the Earth was flat, or more recently, every single deffinition of light, which have all been disproven (we have none currently. "



"Almost all science is a matter of convienience,"

"I want to point out that science is almost totally faith based. 1+1=2...why? Cause it does. Science is nothing but a series of arbitrarily assigned values and measurements to help us attempt to comprehend a massive universe with our feeble minds. Much like religion."

See how fucking idiotic it is to ask for evidence in these cases? These arguments are based on reason and reason only. You prove me wrong by showing how my reasoning is wrong. Now if I had said, "In 1983 god died" or some such verifiable fact, then you could ask for evidence, and reasonably so, but these things are arguments base on reason and therefore fail only because of a lack of reason.

If not, then please proceed to back up what I listed above (among other things I haven't listed); seeing as you said those things first, and I said it second, I don't see why I need to back up anything first...



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2005).]

quote: It most certainly does not contradict itself, it just shows how it being "both" is meaningless because the things that would refute his benevolence still exist.

And I don't have to show any evidence that it could be an argument against such a religion, unless you're suggesting that someone could not say "Hey that god still allows evil to exist, so I won't believe/worship in him". Is that what you're saying?

But he is still both…I think we are just operating on different wavelengths in this case.

You are saying the could be arguments against Judeo-Christian Theology. I was asking for you to show me howso.

quote: You're constraining him in the first place by saying that he doesn't have any will!

I will concede that and withdraw the kabbalistic view that he has no will. I would have it noted that that was not and is not my point of view.

That still leaves constraining an omnipotent being as impossible. You shifted the argument more than responding to it at all.

quote: You avoided the argument completely. If there still exists evil, even if he is both, then he being both does not remove evil and as such it serves as an argument against the worship ofthat deity.

Now I see were you are coming from, the way you had phrased it earlier it had come across as though this was an argument against his existence, not worshipping, if you wish to think like that. I would say that if he is benevolent as is assumed in this specific argument, then we must assume it is in our best interest, and therefore I see how it is a reason not to worship him.

quote: Also, it's pathetic how you result to such weak idiotic straws. Oh…nOOO…he called me a mean name, moommmmyyyy !!

quote: Two can play at that game. Back up these: Ok

quote: "Some people do believe cows are holy, think Hinduism. I think that is pretty well backed up in general knowledge, but if you want more evidence: http://www.hinduism.co.za/cowsare.htm http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa101800a.htm http://www.experiencefestival.com/hinduism_and_cows I hope this will suffice.

quote: Those "proofs" don't disprove G-d's existence in any way. For instance it claims to be based on science...well so was the assumption that the Earth was flat, or more recently, every single deffinition of light, which have all been disproven (we have none currently. " http://www .answers.c om/main/nt query;jses sionid=1d7 aiiwavl2ai ?method=4& dsid=2222& dekey=Wave-particle+duality&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b&linktext=wave%20theory%20of%20light Theory number one http://www .answers.c om/main/nt query;jses sionid=1d7 aiiwavl2ai ?method=4& dsid=2222& dekey=Quantum+mechanics&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b&linktext=quantum%20theory Theory number two http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method The light paragraph contains links to these two pages and mention of two other theories, particle theory and wave theory. http://www.answers.com/theory The definition of theory, showing its unproven nature.

quote: "Almost all science is a matter of convenience,"

Lets take physics as an example, look at these lists and see how many are laws and how many are other things.

quote: "I want to point out that science is almost totally faith based. 1+1=2...why? Cause it does. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=number definition of numbers

“one of a series of symbols of unique meaning in a fixed order that can be derived by counting.” One symbol could just as easily be substituted for another.

quote: Science is nothing but a series of arbitrarily assigned values and measurements to help us attempt to comprehend a massive universe with our feeble minds. Much like religion." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=units Definition of units

1. A precisely specified quantity in terms of which the magnitudes of other quantities of the same kind can be stated.

The reasoning behind these assignments are for convenience only.

quote: See how fucking idiotic it is to as for evidence of such things? These arguments are based on reason and reason only. You prove me wrong by showing how my reasoning is wrong. Now if I had said, "In 1983 god died" or some such verifiable fact, then you could ask for evidence, reasonably so, but these things are arguments base on reason and therefore fail only because of a lack of reason.

If not, then please proceed to back up what I listed above; seeing as you said those things first, I don't see why I must back up anything first.

Exactly and as such one should be able to provide their reasoning, didn’t your math teacher ever tell you too show your work? I can’t argue your reasoning if you don’t show it. I have backed up mine, now its your turn.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

But he is still both…I think we are just operating on different wavelengths in this case.

You are saying the could be arguments against Judeo-Christian Theology. I was asking for you to show me howso.

How so? I do not want to worship a god that, even though he is benevolent, he is in name only, and allows evil to exist even when he does not want to. That's the argument against it.

quote:I will concede that and withdraw the kabbalistic view that he has no will. I would have it noted that that was not and is not my point of view.

That still leaves constraining an omnipotent being as impossible. You shifted the argument more than responding to it at all.

Who shifted it in the first place by mentioning something irrelevant? You did.

Yes, you're correct that he cannot be constrained, fine, that then refutes your claim that he does not have a will.

quote:Now I see were you are coming from, the way you had phrased it earlier it had come across as though this was an argument against his existence, not worshipping, if you wish to think like that. I would say that if he is benevolent as is assumed in this specific argument, then we must assume it is in our best interest, and therefore I see how it is a reason not to worship him.

So then it does serve as an argument against it, and I was correct? Great.



quote:

Exactly and as such one should be able to provide their reasoning, didn’t your math teacher ever tell you too show your work? I can’t argue your reasoning if you don’t show it. I have backed up mine, now its your turn.

I did provide my reasoning, that you couldn't understand it is another story.

"Reasoning" is MUCH different than "evidence"...

If you want the reasoning, ask for the reasoning. Do not ask for "evidence" when you haven't provided any yourself. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[I'm ignoring the rest since not only di you not "prove" anything, but what you wanted is my reasoning behind the argument, which I did in fact provide. If you want me to explain myself in more detail then ask for that.]

quote: How so? I do not want to worship a god that, even though he is benevolent, he is in name only, and allows evil to exist even when he does not want to. That's the argument against it.

I just don’t see the logic in that, if he is benevolent it is obviously for our betterment, like a shot.

quote: Who shifted it in the first place by mentioning something irrelevant? You did.

I don’t think your lack of proof is irrelevant at all.

quote: Yes, you're correct that he cannot be constrained, fine, that then refutes your claim that he does not have a will.

For someone who yells at people for not reading you don’t do much of it yourself. I said I conceded the point, and yes that would be what to concede means. How did you make it past high school? If you admit that then you admit that your points about him having to have a will are just as invalid because that is a constraint. He is also beyond the constraint of your definition of good and evil.

quote: So then it does serve as an argument against it, and I was correct? Great.

You see there is this wonderful little thing you seem to ignore called an antecedent. Can you say “antecedent”, good, an antecedent is the word that a “pronoun” refers to. When someone doesn’t make clear what antecedent the pronoun refers to, that is called a grammatical error. You see, this error allows for people to interpret the sentence in many ways, and allows for one to suddenly change the meaning of this pronoun. Funny thing is in this case you change the antecedent from G-d’s existence, to a reason to adore G-d, to quite different things.

quote: There is no leap in logic, since it only enumerates the Judeo-Christian claims of what a god is, and then shows how the existence of evil, which exists according to you and the bible, would mean how he either is not benevolent, (and thus not existing the way the Christians define him), or simply does not exist period. That's not a leap in logic by any stretch of the imagination.

existence and benevolence…got it

quote: That either means that the existence of evil is still an argument for not adoring him as a god, or that "evil" isn't something that he is against.

Well look here, looks like something changed on us, this something just might be the “antecedent”. Maybe it’s the antecedent of the word “it”. Come on now basic grammar how the heck did you pass through 5th grade, forget about high school.

quote: I did provide my reasoning, that you couldn't understand it is another story.

You’re right, I should be able to understand that a blank spot on the screen represents a deep complicated thought process. If your process is like that, you must be using chaos theory.

quote: "Reasoning" is MUCH different than "evidence"...

Very true…either would be nice from you.

quote: If you want the reasoning, ask for the reasoning. Do not ask for "evidence" when you haven't provided any yourself.

Are you freaking in love with that smiley? Do you think it adds anything to the conversation? Sorry but it seems you often times use that in place of thought.

And I do believe I have provided rather extensive evidence and reasoning in my previous post. Where’s yours?

quote: [I'm ignoring the rest since not only di you not "prove" anything, but what you wanted is my reasoning behind the argument, which I did in fact provide. If you want me to explain myself in more detail then ask for that.]

I’m glad you have fully developed the effective and respectable debate method known as the “NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” method. Yet again if that’s all your reasoning, I’m concerned. And yes, I would like you to post some reasoning, anything is better than the empty logic you have been posting. On a different note, how did you become a moderator, did you just stick around long enough that they had to give it to you? Or is intelligence just not required?

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

I just don’t see the logic in that, if he is benevolent it is obviously for our betterment, like a shot.

It most certainly is not obvious. If evil exists, and he has the power to remove it, all while leaving everything else (free will, life, etc.) intact, then it most certainly is not obvious he's doing it for our betterment. In fact, it's the contrary of obvious since we've already established that he is also not-benevolent, which would mean what he does is also not for our betterment at the same time.

That's illogical. I don't consider illogical acts as obvious.

quote:I don’t think your lack of proof is irrelevant at all.

What does that have to do with what you just quoted? I was talking about you mentioning Kabbalistic Judaism.

Moreover, it is irrelevant if I do not lack proof, which I do not. Again, we're arguing arguments of reason, which do not need proof, other than it being based on reason. And I most certainly did provide the reasoning behind the argument, however vehemently, yet erroneously, you might cry.



quote:For someone who yells at people for not reading you don’t do much of it yourself. I said I conceded the point, and yes that would be what to concede means. How did you make it past high school? If you admit that then you admit that your points about him having to have a will are just as invalid because that is a constraint. He is also beyond the constraint of your definition of good and evil.

"Oh…nOOO…he called me a mean name, moommmmyyyy !!"

I'm reiterating my position, that has nothing to do with a lack of reading ability.

quote:You see there is this wonderful little thing you seem to ignore called an antecedent. Can you say “antecedent”, good, an antecedent is the word that a “pronoun” refers to. When someone doesn’t make clear what antecedent the pronoun refers to, that is called a grammatical error. You see, this error allows for people to interpret the sentence in many ways, and allows for one to suddenly change the meaning of this pronoun. Funny thing is in this case you change the antecedent from G-d’s existence, to a reason to adore G-d, to quite different things.

Show me where I have not made it clear.

Regardless, the reality is that if you have any doubts of what I said, then it is up to you to bring that forward. If you do not, then you have nobody else to blame but yourself.

quote:Well look here, looks like something changed on us, this something just might be the “antecedent”. Maybe it’s the antecedent of the word “it”. Come on now basic grammar how the heck did you pass through 5th grade, forget about high school.

I'm sure you're happy with the high you get for criticizing someone who has English as his second language. You must feel very good about yourself.

In any case, you've failed miserably in showing any grammatical error. How laughable that you speak of not providing evidence in the same post that you don't provide evidence yourself.

quote:You’re right, I should be able to understand that a blank spot on the screen represents a deep complicated thought process. If your process is like that, you must be using chaos theory.



"Oh…nOOO…he called me a mean name, moommmmyyyy !!"

quote:Are you freaking in love with that smiley? Do you think it adds anything to the conversation? Sorry but it seems you often times use that in place of thought.

And I do believe I have provided rather extensive evidence and reasoning in my previous post. Where’s yours?

Where's mine? I've already provided it. I have provided the reasoning behind my argument, that you do not understand it does not mean I did not provide it.

quote:I’m glad you have fully developed the effective and respectable debate method known as the “NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” method. Yet again if that’s all your reasoning, I’m concerned. And yes, I would like you to post some reasoning, anything is better than the empty logic you have been posting. On a different note, how did you become a moderator, did you just stick around long enough that they had to give it to you? Or is intelligence just not required?

Pathetic. How is it wrong to ignore something you've already establish is irrelevant?

Evidence of what I said, IS NOT the same as the reasoning behind it. You just said "Exactly and as such one should be able to provide their reasoning, didn’t your math teacher ever tell you too show your work?"; thus what you wanted to see is the reasonign behind it. Hence, why I ignored the other arguments you made, which were now irrelevant as they had nothing to do with the reasoning behind my posts.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by kaos_ill:

What's foolish is arguing about other people's religon. If you don't believe in it, congratulations, now leave them the fuck alone. They believe it because they want to.

1. Who's arguing about other people's religion? I'm defending the original question.

2. Let's apply your logic here:

"What's foolish is arguing about people arguing about other people's religion. If you don't believe it's right, congratulations, now leave them the fuck alone."

quote: It most certainly is not obvious. If evil exists, and he has the power to remove it, all while leaving everything else (free will, life, etc.) intact, then it most certainly is not obvious he's doing it for our betterment. In fact, it's the contrary of obvious since we've already established that he is also not-benevolent, which would mean what he does is also not for our betterment at the same time.

We have not yet established that he is not-benevolent, that is what part of this debate is about. If he is benevolent which seemed to be the concurrence we had come to, previous to your latest post that is, then everything has to be for our good, even evil, therefore it is for our good.

quote: What does that have to do with what you just quoted? I was talking about you mentioning Kabbalistic Judaism.

Yet again an example of an unclear pronoun-antecedent that left an ambiguous meaning.

quote: Moreover, it is irrelevant if I do not lack proof, which I do not. Again, we're arguing arguments of reason, which do not need proof, other than it being based on reason. And I most certainly did provide the reasoning behind the argument, however vehemently, yet erroneously, you might cry.

Fine then I would like to see proof of reasoning . If you believe you have already stated it, could you perhaps restate it in a clearer manner?

quote: "Oh…nOOO…he called me a mean name, moommmmyyyy !!"

I'm reiterating my position, that has nothing to do with a lack of reading ability.

Should I be honored by you quoting me? I don’t see where I called a mean name, but alright then. Its redundancy, which is usually considered a bad thing in debate.

quote: Show me where I have not made it clear.

Right there.

quote: Regardless, the reality is that if you have any doubts of what I said, then it is up to you to bring that forward. If you do not, then you have nobody else to blame but yourself.

And I have brought those forward, and you have done nothing to ameliorate the situation. So who do I have to blame now?

quote: I'm sure you're happy with the high you get for criticizing someone who has English as his second language. You must feel very good about yourself.

Your right, because as anyone would, I know your entire life story, including your origin and educational roots. I apologize if I hit a particularly sensitive point, however that does not change the nature of the point, only the manner in which I would have chosen to put the idea forward.

quote: In any case, you've failed miserably in showing any grammatical error. How laughable that you speak of not providing evidence in the same post that you don't provide evidence yourself. [quote]

I believe I did provide my proof, or wait…was it reasoning?

[quote] Where's mine? I've already provided it. I have provided the reasoning behind my argument, that you do not understand it does not mean I did not provide it.

Well then provide again like you keep saying you will. As an opponent in debate with me, it is as much your responsibility to present the mater in an understandable manner as it is mine to understand it.

quote: Pathetic. How is it wrong to ignore something you've already establish is irrelevant?

Just because you have said something does not mean it is established.

1. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.

2. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.

Neither have been done, thus it isn’t established (from dictionary.com)

quote: Evidence of what I said, IS NOT the same as the reasoning behind it. You just said "Exactly and as such one should be able to provide their reasoning, didn’t your math teacher ever tell you too show your work?"; thus what you wanted to see is the reasonign behind it. Hence, why I ignored the other arguments you made, which were now irrelevant as they had nothing to do with the reasoning behind my posts.

Alright, I think we are calling the same thing different names. Please restate your reasoning .

quote: 1. Who's arguing about other people's religion? I'm defending the original question.

2. Let's apply your logic here:

"What's foolish is arguing about people arguing about other people's religion. If you don't believe it's right, congratulations, now leave them the fuck alone."

For once Rust, I agree whole-heartedly. Well put.

Also I do want to point out that both you and I are attacking one another personally a lot more than is necessary, in fact it isn’t really necessary at all. I acknowledge it is as much my fault as yours if you will acknowledge the same thing. At this point we are doing nothing but really detracting from the point at hand and just bashing each other. Soon this post will be much better for SG or BaM. I apologize for those things I have said that were an open attack of your character and hope you will accept my apology.

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

Originally posted by JewDude:

Haven't you ever played the game where you pretend the ground is lava and you "can't" step on it, even though it is well within your abilities? G-d limited his own power by his decree.

We play "pretend" games like these, to amuse ourselves. So, the same can be said with God?





I should assume so. He must have been rather lonesome and bored when there was nothing but some water and darkness.

There are many things that are not neurological entities that still exist. Unless you are argueing that morality does not exist. Or love. Or any of those other things.

In any case, Mr. Ebonmusings can suck my cock. Gestalt pwns his loser-ass.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:



We have not yet established that he is not-benevolent, that is what part of this debate is about. If he is benevolent which seemed to be the concurrence we had come to, previous to your latest post that is, then everything has to be for our good, even evil, therefore it is for our good.



We did establish it when your response to how he could be benevolent while evil exists is that he could be both. Be both what? Both benevolent and non-benevolent. Or are you now changing what you said?

quote:Fine then I would like to see proof of reasoning . If you believe you have already stated it, could you perhaps restate it in a clearer manner?

Of what exactly? Tell me what part you need it stated in a clearer manner.

quote:Right there.

Where? I don't see it. Where does "there" point to? Are you leaving things unclear...

Sorry, but your argument is petty; the "it" can be certainly arrived at by just reading what I was replying to, just like the "there" can be arrived at by seeing what you were replying to and quoted.

quote:And I have brought those forward, and you have done nothing to ameliorate the situation. So who do I have to blame now?

You brought alleged doubts without citing anything in specific. We have you to blame for now.

quote:Your right, because as anyone would, I know your entire life story, including your origin and educational roots. I apologize if I hit a particularly sensitive point, however that does not change the nature of the point, only the manner in which I would have chosen to put the idea forward.

It is exactly that reason, that you don't know my life story, which makes it completely foolish and idiotic to bring up my level of education, and me "flunking the 5th grade". Your attack of my grammar is completely justified, so long as there is something that hinders you from understanding what I said. I'm did not mention my English as a second language for that reason, I mentioned it to show how idiotic those insults were.

quote:I believe I did provide my proof, or wait…was it reasoning?

You didn't at least not that I could see. Can you please quote what you think has an antecedent problem (you need to quote two things) and highlight the pronoun you say causes it.

quote:Well then provide again like you keep saying you will. As an opponent in debate with me, it is as much your responsibility to present the mater in an understandable manner as it is mine to understand it.

See above. Tell me what exactly you want me to explain again. We've debated various things, and I'm not omniscient.

quote:Just because you have said something does not mean it is established.

1. To cause to be recognized and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.

2. To prove the validity or truth of: The defense attorneys established the innocence of the accused.

Neither have been done, thus it isn’t established (from dictionary.com)

You said that is not what you wanted (i.e. you wanted reasoning not evidence), therefore it automatically becomes irrelevant. Whether "established" was a good choice or not, the point still stands.