Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Somewhere, obviously. What kind of question is that?
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    So I'm stumped.

    If God is all-loving, then why am I an atheist to rot in the fires of Hell?

    If God is all-knowing, wouldn't he know the outcomes of all these 'tests' he incites, thus making them pointless and really just another instance of needless suffering on the pile?

    If God is all-powerful and all-good, then how is there the Devil, something all-bad?

    Could someone clear this up for me? And if you have time, there's always Epicurus' questions.

    "Is your god willing to stop evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is your god able to stop evil, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is your god both able and willing? Then from whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why do you call him God?"-Epicurus.

    I can't wait for what's given back. Thanks everyone!
    Logic is not turning your back on religion; it's simply deducing it's wrong. A blind eye to religion is like getting in a boat while you know others are drowning. You're supposed to turn back around and say, "No, you can't teach these people lies!" Else, you're watching and not acting makes you someone who will accept without questioning-the very premise of religion.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by TRYING
    If God is all-loving, then why am I an atheist to rot in the fires of Hell?
    Because all loving doesn't mean you abandon justice.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...Z1ZOmQE#t=403s
    (Mice and men final scene, Lenny kills a woman and is shot by his best(only) friend as a consequence.
    was there no love in that scene?

    Quote Originally Posted by TRYING
    If God is all-knowing, wouldn't he know the outcomes of all these 'tests' he incites, thus making them pointless and really just another instance of needless suffering on the pile?
    Wouldn't it be unjust of God to hold things against you that you had not ACTUALLY done? Would it be just to hold you responsible for things that had not actually occurred?

    Quote Originally Posted by TRYING
    If God is all-powerful and all-good, then how is there the Devil, something all-bad?
    Because God loves us, and if he never allowed anything other than perfection we would not exist.

    ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    Then from whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why do you call him God?"-Epicurus.
    Because any time free will, power and responsibility are given, the possibility for evil is a logical necessity. That God can love and save even creatures that posses those 3 things, and indeed because God gives those three things to any creature, is why He is deserving of being called God.
    To serve man.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Because all loving doesn't mean you abandon justice.
    What have atheists done to deserve punishment? How is this administration of justice?

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by ABUT
    What have atheists done to deserve punishment?
    Why single out atheists?
    All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
    The wages of sin is death.

    Quote Originally Posted by ABUT
    How is this administration of justice?
    Giving what is earned/deserved is the definition of justice.
    To serve man.

  5. #5
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Well, everyone being born in sin (it being a part of our very nature), is already on their way to spiritual death (separation from God, which is what Hell is). It's the love of God that rescues people from that eventual destination. God doesn't send anyone to Hell, it's the nature of humankind to go there by default. God doesn't want our own nature to take over and lead us down a path without Him, thus, God's love through the Jesus' sacrifice is what is offered to all of humanity.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Why single out atheists?
    The OP referred specifically to atheists going to hell, and your response was that this was administering justice. Just being inquisitive.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by ABUT
    The OP referred specifically to atheists going to hell, and your response was that this was administering justice.
    Yes, of course.
    But what I mean to do is point out that the qualifier of "being atheist" is not a very distinguishing qualifier in relation to the answer. The answer regarding them, is not different than any other person. Which is..
    All have sinned and fallen short and earned death.
    To serve man.

  8. Likes Mr. Hyde, Apokalupsis liked this post
  9. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Well, everyone being born in sin (it being a part of our very nature)...
    ...God doesn't send anyone to Hell, it's the nature of humankind to go there by default.
    How can you know that? What's the support?

    It's the love of God that rescues people from that eventual destination.
    (Presuming God exists for the sake of this point, since that is another debate. For the record, I am atheist)
    So either everyone goes to heaven (which is the alternative to hell that must be the destination of he who is subject to God's love, which you claim rescues people from going to hell) or God is not all loving (because they will evidently not have received his love as you say it prevents them from going to hell). Seeing as there are abundant biblical quotes describing people going to hell (and, I presume that, as a Christian, you believe the bible to be accurate), the first option is not possible. Thus God cannot be all loving, unless there is another option which I have failed to acknowledge.

  10. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by abut
    Thus God cannot be all loving, unless there is another option which I have failed to acknowledge.
    Option #2
    God's love offers salvation to everyone. Thus God's love is evident to all men and He is properly called "all loving".

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut
    The problem of evil remains a pretty big obstacle for theists.
    The problem of evil(so called) has a legitimate reasonable answer.
    To serve man.

  11. #10
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    How can you know that? What's the support?
    Do you mean scripturally and doctrinally?

    (Presuming God exists for the sake of this point, since that is another debate. For the record, I am atheist)
    So either everyone goes to heaven (which is the alternative to hell that must be the destination of he who is subject to God's love, which you claim rescues people from going to hell) or God is not all loving (because they will evidently not have received his love as you say it prevents them from going to hell).
    Well, it's not an issue of reception, but rather offering. We can choose to receive it or not. For example, your love for another is not evaluated by whether or not they are receptive to what you are offering (gifts, friendship, care, etc...)...instead, it is evaluated on what you offer. People choose to receive that or not...they are receptive to it or not. Them not doing so in no way changes the existence of love for them which is seen in the form of that offering in question.

    Seeing as there are abundant biblical quotes describing people going to hell (and, I presume that, as a Christian, you believe the bible to be accurate), the first option is not possible. Thus God cannot be all loving, unless there is another option which I have failed to acknowledge.
    No, you misunderstood. It is not the case that 100% of all people go to Heaven or 100% of all people go to Hell. It is the case that through God's love no one need be damned. We are all damned by default due to the nature of sin, it is in our "core" if you will. It is what causes that separation between man and God. God desiring that there be no such separation, offers a way to bridge that gap, making it so we are not born of sin, but born of Christ. This offering to us, is due to God's love for mankind. There will be some who are receptive to it, some who are not. The fact that some are not, in no way diminishes God's love, power, or knowledge. It just reveals the depravity and stubbornness of mankind.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Well, it's not an issue of reception, but rather offering. We can choose to receive it or not. For example, your love for another is not evaluated by whether or not they are receptive to what you are offering (gifts, friendship, care, etc...)...instead, it is evaluated on what you offer. People choose to receive that or not...they are receptive to it or not. Them not doing so in no way changes the existence of love for them which is seen in the form of that offering in question.
    If God were infinitely loving, why would he stop at some feeble and ignorant rebuttal of assistance, knowing that salvation will, in the long run, be for the best? Would he be all-loving and omnibenevolent if he left us on a path in life that he knew would result in eternal suffering? How do you know that everyone has even been presented with this offering?

    ---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

    The fact that some are not, in no way diminishes God's love, power, or knowledge. It just reveals the depravity and stubbornness of mankind.
    Why did he create mankind like this then? Why doesn't his superior love, knowledge and power lead him to impose his salvation? If man is too ignorant and stubborn to refuse this, then why doesn't God help man, and show all people (including atheists) why his way is best?

    BTW, I don't think the problem of evil is the best argument against theism. Furthermore, this whole debate is built on the assumptions of God's existence (of which there is no evidence) and the afterlife (of which there is no evidence), which need to be supported.
    Last edited by Abut77; April 1st, 2013 at 02:50 AM.

  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Somewhere, obviously. What kind of question is that?
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because all loving doesn't mean you abandon justice.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...Z1ZOmQE#t=403s
    (Mice and men final scene, Lenny kills a woman and is shot by his best(only) friend as a consequence.
    was there no love in that scene?
    No, I don't think you understand the question. I was not asking Why will I be punished?, I was asking Why is God not trying to help me turn away from punishment?. I've seen no reason to believe in him-it's almost as if he's not trying to make me believe, so he could then later punish me.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Wouldn't it be unjust of God to hold things against you that you had not ACTUALLY done? Would it be just to hold you responsible for things that had not actually occurred?
    Alright. Let's change it up then..."Wouldn't it be unjust of the police to hold things against someone they know for certain is going to commit murder before this person ACTUALLY does? Would it be just to hold this person they are one hundred percent certain will commit murder responsible for things that had not actually occurred?" Isn't that the very premise of terrorist prevention? And the police don't even created the terrorist. It's like God is creating me, in an all-knowing state, to go against him. Isn't that a little...oxymoronish?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because God loves us, and if he never allowed anything other than perfection we would not exist.


    How is evil perfection, A, and how can we not exist without evil, B?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because any time free will, power and responsibility are given, the possibility for evil is a logical necessity. That God can love and save even creatures that posses those 3 things, and indeed because God gives those three things to any creature, is why He is deserving of being called God.
    Wha...what the hell? How is evil "a logical necessity."? That's almost like saying, "Hmmm, we're going to leave little Johnny at home, but we're going to leave the matches out so there's the possibility of evil, as it is a logical necessity." Who does that?

    I'm sorry, could you elaborate the second sentence? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "three things."

    ---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Well, everyone being born in sin (it being a part of our very nature), is already on their way to spiritual death (separation from God, which is what Hell is). It's the love of God that rescues people from that eventual destination. God doesn't send anyone to Hell, it's the nature of humankind to go there by default. God doesn't want our own nature to take over and lead us down a path without Him, thus, God's love through the Jesus' sacrifice is what is offered to all of humanity.
    So you're telling us that the thing that created us would instill in us a natural failure that would in turn send us to the place he doesn't want us to go? That's on par with a man having a child, saying he doesn't want that child to go the bar, and says that every day after to school, if the child isn't able to find a place to go, they have to go the bar by default.
    Logic is not turning your back on religion; it's simply deducing it's wrong. A blind eye to religion is like getting in a boat while you know others are drowning. You're supposed to turn back around and say, "No, you can't teach these people lies!" Else, you're watching and not acting makes you someone who will accept without questioning-the very premise of religion.

  14. #13
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by TryingAtLogic View Post
    No, I don't think you understand the question. I was not asking Why will I be punished?, I was asking Why is God not trying to help me turn away from punishment?. I've seen no reason to believe in him-it's almost as if he's not trying to make me believe, so he could then later punish me.
    Well, there are a number of possibilities. Your own heart could be closed off to the idea. You yourself can't get there, people come to God because they are moved by the Holy Spirit to do so Romans 3:10-11, 8:7; John 6:44. God's Law, what God wants of us, is contrary to human nature (because of our imperfection). So I think the first step is simply having that open heart, perhaps even doing what you are doing now (engaging in Christians, being aware of their beliefs, why they became Christian, etc...).

    You could be simply resisting the idea...deciding that it isn't true before even considering the plausibility (I know that used to be the case for me anyway). And while the Spirit is strong, it is not so strong that it is irresistible. That is, if you are closed off to God, then you'll never know Him (or at least, not while you are resistant, closed off). God doesn't force anyone to consider or follow Him.

    I don't know that you will find God on a debate site however. A debate by definition pits 2 competing arguments together, so there is a natural barrier to reception from the beginning. Sure, a stronger argument will rise to the top, but usually that just means that the other person will regroup and/or attack in a different way, with a different argument. Debate forums rarely lead to conversions. We have had conversions here at ODN however...some moving from theism to atheism and agnosticism, and vice versa. But in general, a debate IMO, isn't going to result in many changed hearts, and it is why after 15+ years of doing this, I'm taking a break and slowing down to focus on a different approach. I see debate as 2 competing gladiators equipped with sword and armor, in a constant battle. But that isn't what Christ wants IMO (at least, not as the primary method of outreach). Christ did debate when it was necessary, but not to lead people to Him, to show the error of the hypocrites who confronted Him. Instead, Christ led by example and by love, and people flocked to Him. He captured their hearts with love, not by sword or forced compulsion.

    Another possibility is that perhaps the Holy Spirit just hasn't spoken to you yet, but will. Many people, like myself, were pretty hardcore atheists or agnostics for years before we learned to open up to the possibility of God (of the Bible). It allowed us to have a different perspective than those who have always believed and never had to question their faith or be familiar with the arguments or reasons against it (I know I'm unique in that way with my smaller study group, some of whom always believed, some who didn't care one way or another but eventually became Christian, but none who actually argued against Christianity).

    But God will not make you believe...and you will not make yourself believe. One must be receptive to the Holy Spirit, and it is through the Spirit that one grows in their faith.

    ---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by TryingAtLogic View Post
    So you're telling us that the thing that created us would instill in us a natural failure that would in turn send us to the place he doesn't want us to go?
    No. We are affected by sin, but it is the sinning that separates us from God. The ability to freely accept or reject God's ideals is what was instilled in us...and it is the action, or that choice itself, that results in the separation.

    ---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    If God were infinitely loving, why would he stop at some feeble and ignorant rebuttal of assistance, knowing that salvation will, in the long run, be for the best? Would he be all-loving and omnibenevolent if he left us on a path in life that he knew would result in eternal suffering? How do you know that everyone has even been presented with this offering?

    Why did he create mankind like this then? Why doesn't his superior love, knowledge and power lead him to impose his salvation? If man is too ignorant and stubborn to refuse this, then why doesn't God help man, and show all people (including atheists) why his way is best?
    See my previous post to Trying.

    Also, the fact that many people do believe tells us that it is not the case God hasn't helped man to understand God. That some DO reject God is not evidence that God is unloving or has not reached out to man.

    I think your line of questioning is the same as Trying's and as such, it's probably answered there.

    BTW, I don't think the problem of evil is the best argument against theists.
    I don't know if there is a "best argument" against theists. It isn't like all theists are equally knowledgeable and/or share identical beliefs. One theist may not be able to respond to the moral argument, while another may not be able to respond to an epistemic one. It's like saying that no atheists can respond to the KCA, Ontological, or Teleological arguments. 1) some can, some cannot, 2) some do so in stronger measure, some do so in weaker, 3) which version of each argument (as there are dozens of each) are we talking about here? To make such broad statements requires a huge burden that not even the most educated and compelling atheists can lift (which is probably why the most educated and compelling atheists (or of any group) never use such broad statements).

    Furthermore, this whole debate is built on the assumptions of God's existence (of which there is no evidence) and the afterlife (of which there is no evidence), which need to be supported.
    No one is claiming that God does exist in this thread, for the purposes of the discussion/debate, it's a given. Much like if we were to discuss the nature of the unicorn, we need not prove a unicorn's actual existence to evaluate or discover its traditional properties. As such, there is no need to support the existence of either, that is a separate argument.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    That some DO reject God is not evidence that God is unloving or has not reached out to man.
    I have met numerous atheists who have devoted ernest effort for many years to try and reach God. I have met some who have devoted entire swathes of their life. But they have not succeeded. What do you say to them? Have they not tried hard enough? If not, and seeing as they have put in their greatest effort to reach God, how on Earth are they supposed to receive this offering?

    But God will not make you believe...and you will not make yourself believe. One must be receptive to the Holy Spirit, and it is through the Spirit that one grows in their faith.
    Why not? If he does make us believe (which we must presume his nature renders possible, since he is omnipotent), then we shall be saved from hell. Surely his supreme moral outlook will lead him to know that by imposing his way, people will be far, far, far better off in the long run?

    Also, the fact that many people do believe tells us that it is not the case God hasn't helped man to understand God.
    I am not closed-minded. I simply haven't received any 'message' from God. Is that because he is waiting for the right time? Why, then, would he let me waste my life under a petty delusion when he could correct it in a flash?

    Another query... sometimes even the religious and the devout are subject to terrible catastrophe and suffering, something which surely a God of such prowess and caring would correct? What on earth is going on when people get cancer? I know that this is a frequently used argument, but nonetheless...

    Much like if we were to discuss the nature of the unicorn, we need not prove a unicorn's actual existence to evaluate or discover its traditional properties
    But the entire debate could be a complete and utter waste of time since there is not even any circumstantial evidence that a unicorn exists or has existed. The debate may be very interesting from a philosophical perspective, but for it to have any relevance, the unicorn ought to be shown to exist.

    The ability to freely accept or reject God's ideals is what was instilled in us...and it is the action, or that choice itself, that results in the separation.
    So then God permits some of us to suffer for making the wrong choice, maybe by not knowing the other side at all, or by being indoctrinated in another religion, etc. It seems a bit like a cruel game, by not helping these people.

    Could you please reread the inquiries I made in my previous post, as not all of them were responded to.

  16. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Abut, you are asking many good questions, but questions that I believe to be outside the scope of this thread, which addresses the issue of the problem of evil. As explained in a recent announcement thread, my time here as a participant is limited and my interest is waning. I post specifically to address a specific issue that I have interest in. I think we've gone off-topic. As such, I'll let others address your questions (most of which have been addressed in previous threads). If you have questions or issues regarding specifically, the problem of evil (which is what the op is trying to address), I'll try to tackle those...but anything outside of that will have to be addressed by other participants.

    There is one exception however...

    But the entire debate could be a complete and utter waste of time since there is not even any circumstantial evidence that a unicorn exists or has existed. The debate may be very interesting from a philosophical perspective, but for it to have any relevance, the unicorn ought to be shown to exist.
    This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of debate, reason, and philosophy IMHO.

    In a debate, we tackle an issue with both interlocutors agreeing to certain terms and necessary presuppositions. You need not accept them as truth statements that correspond to reality, but you do need to accept them for the purposes of the debate. This is true not only for informal debate, but formal as well. A good example would be a debate about whether or not God is "all-good." If the Christian God is being evaluated here, then based on what is known about the Christian God (as described in the Bible), we can come to conclusions about the Christian God, and no party at any time actually needs to believe in the existence of the Christian God. It's assumed for the purposes of the discussion that all parties have agreed that it is a non-issue. That's how debate works. There's an agreement to certain presuppositions by all participants when they enter the debate/discussion within the arena of the debate/discussion (not the arena of the actual world). The issue of God's existence is an entirely different issue than the nature of God's moral leanings.

    The philosophical value of course, is the exploration of values, attributes, relationships, and potentiality. That you may not see value does not mean that 1) no one else sees value nor 2) that there is no actual value.

    In addition, I disagree that there is no evidence of God's existence. There are numerous threads about that very issue in this forum (search for Moral Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, etc...). Post in those threads if you wish to address God's existence. You may get some bites.

    Lastly, the moral value or leanings of God is an argument that as explained above, can be explored by those who do not necessarily accept God's existence...but it can be also explored by participants who do already believe or accept God's existence. You are speaking from a very narrow, egocentric perspective here when you say it has no relevancy. A more accurate statement would be "I don't understand how it would be relevant to me." And if that is the case, then you should only participate in threads that specifically address God's existence. If you cannot agree, as all other interlocutors do in a discussion/debate, that what is being discussed are particular attributes of a particular God and all else is irrelevant for the purpose of said discussion/debate, then you should consider limiting yourself to only discussions/debates concerning the existence of God and nothing more. Everyone else has moved far beyond that and has come to a rightful agreement so that other issues can be discussed.

    For more info on presuppositions, please see here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The universe...
    Posts
    81
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    But the entire debate could be a complete and utter waste of time since there is not even any circumstantial evidence that a unicorn exists or has existed. The debate may be very interesting from a philosophical perspective, but for it to have any relevance, the unicorn ought to be shown to exist.
    I did not mean to say that abstractions are not worth debating, and are not interesting and useful, just that we should (as with anything) be skeptical of their validity. They can be useful to understand things, even if not real, such as the Bohr model of the atom, which is not perfect but useful in many scenarios, and I think that there's nothing at all wrong with debating abstract things, like unicorns, as long as we realise that they are not real or at least unproved. We can debate away about unicorns, but just we must at least realise that the assumption of their existence for the sake of debate is just that; an assumption. The debate may be irrelevant. It may not. I'm fine with most of what you have said, I just have not expressed myself well.

    Just my lingual sloppiness

    This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of debate, reason, and philosophy IMHO.
    Sweeping ad hominem

  18. #17
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Abut77 View Post
    I'm fine with most of what you have said, I just have not expressed myself well.

    Just my lingual sloppiness
    I understand.

    Sweeping ad hominem
    This is not true. Are you aware of the requirements of an ad hominem fallacy (to have taken place)? If not, I can explain. If so, then please support that it was an ad hominem fallacy using the necessary requirements (qualifications) of an ad hom.

    I think you just had a knee-jerk reaction to something I said and didn't carefully think it through.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  19. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,052
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    All have sinned and fallen short and earned death.
    All? How can a six-day-old baby have sinned?

  20. #19
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    All? How can a six-day-old baby have sinned?
    I think "all" has the qualifier of referring to "moral agents." It's why children under the age of accountability are considered "innocent" and are not judged.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  21. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,052
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A Few Questions (Similar to Epicurus' Questions)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Because any time free will, power and responsibility are given, the possibility for evil is a logical necessity.
    The interesting question isn't "Does the logical possibility of evil have to exist in order for 'free will' to exist?" The question is "Does so much evil have to exist for 'free will' to exist?" and I think you answered that question by implying that "no, it doesn't."

    The logical possibility of evil doesn't mean that evil will ever actualize. My jumping over the moon is a logical possibility but one that almost certainly will not actualize. God could make evil that way; that is, God could make it so that even though doing evil were possible, evil were virtually never done. Yet, clearly, if God exists, he didn't make the world anything close to that way. Instead, he made a world in which evil is widespread. He made that world, he made conditions that were conducive to evil doing, that almost guaranteed that evil would be done . . . and then he turned around and blamed it all on the people he himself created.

    It's like surrounding an alcoholic with alcoholic friends who do nothing all day long but drink and then blaming the alcoholic when he falls off the wagon. If you want an alcoholic to stay on the wagon about the last thing you do is surround him with friends who do nothing but drink all day long.

    Here's a pretty good illustration of what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY

    Even if free will requires the logical possibility of evil (which is itself arguable), it in no way entails that evil will be done, much less that it will be done on such a wide scale.

    ---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I think "all" has the qualifier of referring to "moral agents." It's why children under the age of accountability are considered "innocent" and are not judged.
    Thanks, Apok.

    Do you (or does anyone) know what particular "age" that one must reach to reach the "age of accountability" and what happens to those who die before they reach that age? Do they get a free pass to heaven or are they held in perpetuity in Limbo or does something else happen to them?

    Does scripture support this view?

    I know Apok's time is limited so if anyone else can jump in and answer these questions, I'd appreciate it.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for HCabret
    By Someguy in forum Formal Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 7th, 2013, 01:15 AM
  2. Sorry I have so many questions!
    By AlexanderWright in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2008, 11:40 AM
  3. Is it right to keep asking questions?
    By Supaiku in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 24th, 2006, 04:39 PM
  4. Questions
    By Brittany in forum Religion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: April 20th, 2006, 12:01 PM
  5. Any questions?
    By mrs_innocent in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 25th, 2004, 12:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •