Joshthefirst:
First, where's everyone from the good old days? Jack Nozzle(LB), amanfrommars, plaetton, deep sight, etc? How're you all doing? It's literally been years.



To the topic then:
One common question from sceptics; if there is a God, why is there so much evil in this world. But what is good? And what is evil? We cannot define these terms without an objective transcendent moral standard. Thus recognition of evil serves to confirm you reasoning of the morality behind the events of the world around us.

Without God, there is no real good and evil, only evolutionary figments of the imagination, and whatever suits anyone. Therefore the question of evil in the world affirms the existence of a creator who has made moral beings.

Actually a god and evil can simultaneously exist if you allow for certain characteristics of the god. Like if the god itself were evil or the god doesn't really care about what happens to the universe or even that the god itself is compelled by forces beyond its control.

The last one is encapsulated in the Euthyphro dilemma, simply rephrased as is something good because it is commanded by god or is commanded by god because it is good. Which is truly a dilemma because in the first case good is not intrinsic but a product of a god's commands which leads us to conclude that it is indeed subjective. The second case leads us to conclude that the god is compelled by forces beyond it because it merely reiterates what is intrinsic. In which case the god is likely not to be essential in discovering what is good.

Ola17:


Even in lesser evolved animals, like say a pack of wolves, you hardly see them kill each other. It is natural that every member of a society be it humans or wild animals behave in such a way that will guarantee the survival and prosperity of such a society, else the individual will be treated as a societal misfit/criminal.

Forget this comparison, morality is a human issue. We don’t question why lions kill new born deer or baby elephants do we? Do we eat our young? Do we sacrifice the weak for the strong? Animals do these things, but I wonder how you’d feel if humans did it.

What if I wanted to preserve the survival and prosperity of my family so I stole millions from the national coffers? Would that be “natural”

How does intuitively knowing Right and wrong = appealing to something other than ourselves? That is counterintuitive.

Don’t be dishonest. Intuition is the ability to instinctively understand something without even consciously analyzing it.

You imply that morality is the result of individual preference on one hand and suggest it is an intuition on the other hand? You, my friend, are contradicting yourself.


One question: Is rape completely and intrinsically wrong?

Joshthefirst:
Forget this comparison, morality is a human issue. We don’t question why lions kill new born deer or baby elephants do we? Do we eat our young? Do we sacrifice the weak for the strong? Animals do these things, but I wonder how you’d feel if humans did it.

What if I wanted to preserve the survival and prosperity of my family so I stole millions from the national coffers? Would that be “natural”


How does intuitively knowing Right and wrong = appealing to something other than ourselves? That is counterintuitive.
Don’t be dishonest. Intuition is the ability to instinctively understand something without even consciously analyzing it.

You imply that morality is the result of individual preference on one hand and suggest it is an intuition on the other hand? You, my friend, are contradicting yourself.


One question: Is rape completely and intrinsically wrong?

What do you mean by "morals"? Is it: what is written in a Holy Book of your choice under the heading "behave like this" or you go to hell? Or "correct behavior" as it is expressed in any group of animals such that certain deviant action will relatively and consistently be "punished" by other individuals? Let’s not muddy things up.

As for lions killing baby deers or humans eating their young, I can show you videos of a lioness not only refusing to kill a baby buffalo but saved it from the other members of the pride! Humans have been recorded to eat their young or the weak during severe famine/war.

You stealing from the national coffers to ensure the survival of your immediate family is antithetical to the survival and prosperity of the society at large. Hell, even individual ants or squirrels in a colony/family are smart enough not to steal or fritter away their winter food/nuts stash. How can rape not be wrong when even wild animals have an elaborate courtship and mating ritual?

Ps: You may want to go through my posts on this thread, I never said morality is a personal preference, rather I implied that morality is simply intrinsic values we act out to ensure the survival of the larger human society.

budaatum:

A figment of the imagination that we read about in books.

What or who is God to you?

The divine consciousness... That everything emanated from...

Joshthefirst:
First, where's everyone from the good old days? Jack Nozzle(LB), amanfrommars, plaetton, deep sight, etc? How're you all doing? It's literally been years.

To the topic then:
One common question from sceptics; if there is a God, why is there so much evil in this world.

This question is only directed to theist who claimed the god or a god is actively involved in the affairs of his subjects and having attributes such a being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

So!
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"

The argument from the sceptic tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of God and evil, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenelovent God with the evil evident in the world.

So since it is evident evil exist in the world, this said God can't exist.

I hope you get it?

But what is good? And what is evil? We cannot define these terms without an objective transcendent moral standard

Good and evil are products constructed through human interaction and coexistence, hence as a byproduct of
culture, custom, societal norms on a societal level to foster coexistence build upon selection, acting on the societal level. Murder and theft( or any vice) tend to be socially destabilizing. So societies that don't discourage this behaviors die out more easily than those expressly forbidding them. Think of any moral obligations, they are all beneficial to the long term survival of the society. This selection pressure condition members or new members (children) to abide by this rules to ensure continuity of the society.

So goodness is inculcated not inborn likewise evil.

This why, morals, good/evil tend to evolve or change/tilt in accordance how it its benefit/affect us.

Thus recognition of evil serves to confirm you reasoning of the morality behind the events of the world around us.
Without God, there is no real good and evil, only evolutionary figments of the imagination, and whatever suits anyone. Therefore the question of evil in the world affirms the existence of a creator who has made moral beings.

if the god had approve of torture as good and disapprove of helping our neighbors as bad.

Can we hold on to such as torture (good) or helping neighbour (evil)?

If you think good/evil and morals is/should be the product of a transcend source (God), then you have no right to deny/falsely killing, rape, torturing... if they claimed God told them they are good behaviors worthy of doing since you are not one to define what is good or bad to God.

Or if I tell you god told me to kill, would my action be good or bad?

Joshthefirst:
Yes. God can bring calamity and evil upon people. He brought a flood that reduced human population to 8 people, as someone pointed out. This doesn’t mean that good is evil and evil is good. That doesn’t make sense. This very verse you posted gives a clear distinction between good and evil, light and darkness.

Exactly. The bible doesn't make sense. Neither does the description of God.

The verse also confirms that God is responsible for both good and evil. Didn't you see that part?

sonmvayina:


The divine consciousness... That everything emanated from...

As in, the mind. The one in which you create figments of the imaginations and understanding. And since we do not all have the same minds, a consciousness subjective to each and every individual subject.

That's what makes morals subjective. Just that many subjects form our collective morals (don't steal, don't kill), and some then claim they were objectively derived, which they may be, as in we may have discarded subjective emotions and come about them objectively, but subjectively all the same since they are derived by subjective subjects, and for their own subjective good.

Therefore the Bible is The Weapon, Language, Religion and The Spirit that Created The Crisis at The Cross.

orisa37:
Therefore the Bible is The Weapon, Language, Religion and The Spirit that Created The Crisis at The Cross.

Prayer is The Bible, Key, Weapon, Language, Tribe, Time, Delay, Speed and Spirit to Bell The Cat at The Cross roads.

hahn:


Exactly. The bible doesn't make sense. Neither does the description of God.

The verse also confirms that God is responsible for both good and evil. Didn't you see that part?

What are you saying? Refer to my description of judgement. God bringing evil upon someone does not mean He is an evil God. He brings evil on evil doers, it’s not always straightforward though, I’d love to teach you a lot about biblical wisdom and the concept of justice and tribulation, but you’re a skeptic and a mocker.

Joshthefirst:


What are you saying? Refer to my description of judgement. God bringing evil upon someone does not mean He is an evil God. He brings evil on evil doers, it’s not always straightforward though, I’d love to teach you a lot about biblical wisdom and the concept of justice and tribulation, but you’re a skeptic and a mocker.

You are the one that is not getting it. God said in his own word(s) that it created evil. All those other things are simply you tying to twist his words to fit your own idea of an all good God.

Honestly, there is so much stupidity in the bible it is hard not to make mockery of it and those who actually believe all that nonsense and who fail to just take the bible for what it is.

Trash

Reality11:


This question is only directed to theist who claimed the god or a god is actively involved in the affairs of his subjects and having attributes such a being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

So!
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"

The argument from the sceptic tries to show a logical impossibility in the coexistence of God and evil, it is improbable that there is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenelovent God with the evil evident in the world.

So since it is evident evil exist in the world, this said God can't exist.

I hope you get it?

It isn’t me that doesn’t get it, it’s you, and I’ll show you.

Reality11:
Good and evil are products constructed through human interaction and coexistence, hence as a byproduct of
culture, custom, societal norms on a societal level to foster coexistence build upon selection, acting on the societal level. Murder and theft( or any vice) tend to be socially destabilizing. So societies that don't discourage this behaviors die out more easily than those expressly forbidding them. Think of any moral obligations, they are all beneficial to the long term survival of the society. This selection pressure condition members or new members (children) to abide by this rules to ensure continuity of the society.

So goodness is inculcated not inborn likewise evil.

This why, morals, good/evil tend to evolve or change/tilt in accordance how it its benefit/affect us.

If good and evil are human products, and humans change over time, then what right do you have to say God and evil cannot coexist, when good itself is a subjective human construct. Why do you use subjective human construct that even changes over time to suddenly deny the existence of an objective being? How immature is that? “My version of morality says there is evil in this world, how can a God allow my definition of evil to exist, therefore there is no God”. Does this sound sensible to you? This can only be sensible, if you agree that good and evil are not just subjective whims but are objective values that apply to God, who is an objective being, i.e, Your version of morality which is objective says that there is intrinsic objective evil in this world, how can a good God allow this to exist...etc. But we both know why you can’t say this, abi?

Your argument is dead on arrival.

Reality11:
if the god had approve of torture as good and disapprove of helping our neighbors as bad.

Can we hold on to such as torture (good) or helping neighbour (evil)?

If you think good/evil and morals is/should be the product of a transcend source (God), then you have no right to deny/falsely killing, rape, torturing... if they claimed God told them they are good behaviors worthy of doing since you are not one to define what is good or bad to God.

Or if I tell you god told me to kill, would my action be good or bad?

@ the bolded, on the contrary, it is only when I lay claim to an objective morality that I claim rape and torture is intrinsically evil, irrespective of individual whims or subjective or environmental upbringing. For example, you cannot tell me rape is evil, when according to my upbringing we rape women to teach them humility. That is my own subjective morality, and you cannot impose your subjective whims on mine, see?

You cannot truly call anything intrinsically good or evil when you hold to the notion that good or evil is subjective. And if you dare say good and evil are objective, you must agree to a transcendent Entity who defines these objective morality in the universe.

This is the argument for God from morality.

hahn:


You are the one that is not getting it. God said in his own word(s) that it created evil. All those other things are simply you tying to twist his words to fit your own idea of an all good God.

Honestly, there is so much stupidity in the bible it is hard not to make mockery of it and those who actually believe all that nonsense and who fail to just take the bible for what it is.

Trash

Okay, suit yourself, as I already implied, you are a mocker. It’s awfully hard to win people over to your side by mocking them though. I know that by experience. I can easily mock your beliefs and show it to be the truly idiotic trash, but I won’t, I’ll rely on arguments and respectful debate.

Ola17:


What do you mean by "morals"? Is it: what is written in a Holy Book of your choice under the heading "behave like this" or you go to hell? Or "correct behavior" as it is expressed in any group of animals such that certain deviant action will relatively and consistently be "punished" by other individuals? Let’s not muddy things up.

As for lions killing baby deers or humans eating their young, I can show you videos of a lioness not only refusing to kill a baby buffalo but saved it from the other members of the pride! Humans have been recorded to eat their young or the weak during severe famine/war.

You stealing from the national coffers to ensure the survival of your immediate family is antithetical to the survival and prosperity of the society at large. Hell, even individual ants or squirrels in a colony/family are smart enough not to steal or fritter away their winter food/nuts stash. How can rape not be wrong when even wild animals have an elaborate courtship and mating ritual?

Ps: You may want to go through my posts on this thread, I never said morality is a personal preference, rather I implied that morality is simply intrinsic values we act out to ensure the survival of the larger human society.

Okay, thank you. Now, we both agree here that morality is intrinsic meaning it’s objective and not determined by personal whims.

And we agree rape is intrinsically wrong.

But I disagree with what you give as the purpose for morality, I think it’s reducing morality to a survival naturalist concept, no wonder you compare us with animals.

Let me ask you one question to show my point.

What if I stole from my neighbor who is a rich man, so rich he wouldn’t even notice I stole from him?

Another one, what if we got with of all old people, and all disabled people? It would mean more resources to spend on those who actually have positive economic potential.

Would these be wrong or right?

LordReed:


Actually a god and evil can simultaneously exist if you allow for certain characteristics of the god. Like if the god itself were evil or the god doesn't really care about what happens to the universe or even that the god itself is compelled by forces beyond its control.

The last one is encapsulated in the Euthyphro dilemma, simply rephrased as is something good because it is commanded by god or is commanded by god because it is good. Which is truly a dilemma because in the first case good is not intrinsic but a product of a god's commands which leads us to conclude that it is indeed subjective. The second case leads us to conclude that the god is compelled by forces beyond it because it merely reiterates what is intrinsic. In which case the god is likely not to be essential in discovering what is good.

I mean a good God. The conclusion “God(a good God) cannot exist because there is evil in this world” is dead on arrival because your recognition of evil is only legitimate if evil is not a term defined by you, but defined by God. Thus acknowledging a good and evil acknowledges the existence of God, the transcendent moral arbiter.

Joshthefirst:
I mean a good God. The conclusion “God(a good God) cannot exist because there is evil in this world” is dead on arrival because your recognition of evil is only legitimate if evil is not a term defined by you, but defined by God. Thus acknowledging a good and evil acknowledges the existence of God, the transcendent moral arbiter.

The dilemma doesn't posit that the god is evil. It posits that either morality is subjective in which case we can go on to define our own morality or it is intrinsic and we can discover it. In either case the usefulness of a god is diminished.

LordReed:


The dilemma doesn't posit that the god is evil. It posits that either morality is subjective in which case we can go on to define our own morality or it is intrinsic and we can discover it. In either case the usefulness of a god is diminished.

And the point of this thread is that one cannot on the basis of subjective morality deny the existence of God, who by nature is an objective being. Agreed?

Joshthefirst:
And the point of this thread is that one cannot on the basis of subjective morality deny the existence of God, who by nature is an objective being. Agreed?

Of course. I already said as much. Morality and god are not synonymous. Us having morality doesn't prove god does or doesn't exist.

LordReed:


Of course. I already said as much. Morality and god are not synonymous. Us having morality doesn't prove god does or doesn't exist.

Finally, we agree on something.

Although much is to be said about the bolded.

What do you think? Is morality subjective or objective? Is Rape intrinsically wrong?

Joshthefirst:
Finally, we agree on something.

Although much is to be said about the bolded.

What do you think? Is morality subjective or objective? Is Rape intrinsically wrong?

Morality is the product of our consciousness. We do not observe that the universe holds any intrinsic moral values nor can any be demonstrated.

I have come to understand a different meaning of the phrase objective morality as opposed to what I now understand, that when people say objective morality they may actually be referring to an absolute morality. That is, they believe that there is a clear delineated structure of morality. I of course disagree with this. Objective morality in my understanding, is a moral structure that is focused on attaining a goal(s) and as such gives room for growth, change and new understanding. It also allows for what some have described as inter subjectivity.

That said, rape cannot be said to be intrinsically wrong however for us conscious creatures a number of factors make this kind of act wrong to us. Things like the pain and anguish, the damage both physically and mental and the aftermath, make it such that we require a reckoning.

LordReed:


Morality is the product of our consciousness. We do not observe that the universe holds any intrinsic moral values nor can any be demonstrated.

I have come to understand a different meaning of the phrase objective morality as opposed to what I now understand, that when people say objective morality they may actually be referring to an absolute morality. That is, they believe that there is a clear delineated structure of morality. I of course disagree with this. Objective morality in my understanding, is a moral structure that is focused on attaining a goal(s) and as such gives room for growth, change and new understanding. It also allows for what some have described as inter subjectivity.

That said, rape cannot be said to be intrinsically wrong however for us conscious creatures a number of factors make this kind of act wrong to us. Things like the pain and anguish, the damage both physically and mental and the aftermath, make it such that we require a reckoning.

We are unique, yes. It may not always be clear, that’s why I asked the clear question about rape:

And the bolded as your reply is quite shocking.

If rape is not intrinsically wrong, then one can come along to argue that for him, rape is right. For example, what if I rape people and drug them so they never know they were raped? And there are no consequences to them? Will it be right then?

The problem with subjective morality is that nothing is intrinsically wrong, so any civiliztion can change morality to suit their whims.
Is there (in your words on objective morality) a moral structure that is focused on attaining a goal(s) and as such gives room for growth, change and new understanding, where rape would be right?

Joshthefirst:
Okay, thank you. Now, we both agree here that morality is intrinsic meaning it’s objective and not determined by personal whims.

And we agree rape is intrinsically wrong.

But I disagree with what you give as the purpose for morality, I think it’s reducing morality to a survival naturalist concept, no wonder you compare us with animals.

Let me ask you one question to show my point.

What if I stole from my neighbor who is a rich man, so rich he wouldn’t even notice I stole from him?

Another one, what if we got with of all old people, and all disabled people? It would mean more resources to spend on those who actually have positive economic potential.

Would these be wrong or right?

Intrinsic = subjective.

We are just going in circles.

Joshthefirst:
We are unique, yes. It may not always be clear, that’s why I asked the clear question about rape:

And the bolded as your reply is quite shocking.

If rape is not intrinsically wrong, then one can come along to argue that for him, rape is right. For example, what if I rape people and drug them so they never know they were raped? And there are no consequences to them? Will it be right then?

The problem with subjective morality is that nothing is intrinsically wrong, so any civiliztion can change morality to suit their whims.
Is there (in your words on objective morality) a moral structure that is focused on attaining a goal(s) and as such gives room for growth, change and new understanding, where rape would be right?

But this is exactly what we find. Societies amend their moral values according to their understanding. Indeed nothing is intrinsically wrong or right but we as conscious beings impose value on the universe due the workings of our minds and we cannot be satisfied with such a state of affairs. Our minds demand that we evaluate everything, put value and make moral judgements of our actions. Especially was we have seen that all actions have consequences. Those detrimental to survival of the group tend to bring the ire of the group upon the individual(s) who so jeopardize it.

There is nothing shocking about it, it's the hard truth. However I understand your sensibilities. We have grown in a society that has taught us rape is wrong and even interacting with a rape victim and getting to know the pain and anguish is enough to make you understand why the mind screams offense at the thought of rape. Still doesn't make in intrinsically wrong or right. Instead we protect our own and we make rules to ensure our survival.

One can come along and argue for almost anything but others must evaluate your arguments to see whether they find it acceptable or not. This is where intersubjectivity kicks in. No man is a moral island because you live in a society and your actions have an impact on the survival of others. Escaping the consequences of your actions does not automatically make your action right. See Bill Cosby, it only delays the reckoning.

I have no doubt that we as a species will continue to see rape as wrong because of the impact to the victim. However on a purely speculative note, yes you could design a moral system were rape is ok, just like there were moral systems which condoned slavery.

Joshthefirst:
It isn’t me that doesn’t get it, it’s you, and I’ll show you.

If good and evil are human products, and humans change over time, then what right do you have to say God and evil cannot coexist, when good itself is a subjective human construct. Why do you use subjective human construct that even changes over time to suddenly deny the existence of an objective being? How immature is that? “My version of morality says there is evil in this world, how can a God allow my definition of evil to exist, therefore there is no God”. Does this sound sensible to you? This can only be sensible, if you agree that good and evil are not just subjective whims but are objective values that apply to God, who is an objective being, i.e, Your version of morality which is objective says that there is intrinsic objective evil in this world, how can a good God allow this to exist...etc. But we both know why you can’t say this, abi?

Your argument is dead on arrival.

I think I've made it clear by saying sceptics use the argument against Theist who hold on to the ideas that the God is benevolent, omnipotent and he is willing to stop evil?

The theist defined evil(rape, murder), then went ahead an say this God is omnipotent, omnibelenovent and omnivolent.

Since the world is filled with suffering and evil(evil here according to the theist), then God with the aforementioned attributes can't exist, since God(omnipotent, omnibelenovent, omnivolent) is mutually exclusive with the suffering and evil.
So the existance of this god is logically impossible!

My problem here is that the theist had already defined what evil is, then gave attributes(omnipotence, omnibelenovence, omnivolence) to this Supposed God. If so why evil and suffering in the world?

Is it a matter of debate that with the suffering/evil in this world a God with such attributes can't exist?

However don't get me wrong, I don't go about arguing with deist that, with the suffering/evil in the world so God(s) cant or don't exist.

Besides what does the existence of a god has to do with suffering or evil

on the contrary, it is only when I lay claim to an objective morality that I claim rape and torture is intrinsically evil, irrespective of individual whims or subjective or environmental upbringing. For example, you cannot tell me rape is evil, when according to my upbringing we rape women to teach them humility. That is my own subjective morality, and you cannot impose your subjective whims on mine, see?

You cannot truly call anything intrinsically good or evil when you hold to the notion that good or evil is subjective. And if you dare say good and evil are objective, you must agree to a transcendent Entity who defines these objective morality in the universe.

This is the argument for God from morality.

And yes evil and good are subjective so it cant or shouldn't be used to deny the existence of a God. In fact I've always argued with atheist/sceptics that argue this due to the very reason I bolded up.

Moreover I'll like to know what you called God or what it is.

Joshthefirst:


Okay, suit yourself, as I already implied, you are a mocker. It’s awfully hard to win people over to your side by mocking them though. I know that by experience. I can easily mock your beliefs and show it to be the truly idiotic trash, but I won’t, I’ll rely on arguments and respectful debate.

What am I trying to win you over to exactly? Atheism has no heaven, no Paradise, no heavenly rewards etc. Lol

And I don't have beliefs. I "disbelieve" the things you believe in. How hard is that to understand?

Ola17:


Intrinsic = subjective.

We are just going in circles.

No. intrinsic = objective. Nawa for you oh.

Reality11:


I think I've made it clear by saying sceptics use the argument against Theist who hold on to the ideas that the God is benevolent, omnipotent and he is willing to stop evil?

The theist defined evil(rape, murder), then went ahead an say this God is omnipotent, omnibelenovent and omnivolent.

Since the world is filled with suffering and evil(evil here according to the theist), then God with the aforementioned attributes can't exist, since God(omnipotent, omnibelenovent, omnivolent) is mutually exclusive with the suffering and evil.
So the existance of this god is logically impossible!

My problem here is that the theist had already defined what evil is, then gave attributes(omnipotence, omnibelenovence, omnivolence) to this Supposed God. If so why evil and suffering in the world?

Is it a matter of debate that with the suffering/evil in this world a God with such attributes can't exist?

However don't get me wrong, I don't go about arguing with deist that, with the suffering/evil in the world so God(s) cant or don't exist.

Besides what does the existence of a god has to do with suffering or evil



And yes evil and good are subjective so it cant or shouldn't be used to deny the existence of a God. In fact I've always argued with atheist/sceptics that argue this due to the very reason I bolded up.

Moreover I'll like to know what you called God or what it is.

My definition of God is of the uncreated creator, the uncaused cause of all things. The eternally existent one.

As to the bolded, the problem of evil ceases to become a problem when you consider God created beings with free agency, and promises to one day judge all evil completely.

This promise of a new completely good creation is also a promise of judgement on the beings who side with evil. Thus the Christian message of repentance and warning.

hahn:


What am I trying to win you over to exactly? Atheism has no heaven, no Paradise, no heavenly rewards etc. Lol

And I don't have beliefs. I "disbelieve" the things you believe in. How hard is that to understand?

You do have beliefs, aren’t you an atheist?

Let’s not go there shaa

Joshthefirst:
You do have beliefs, aren’t you an atheist?

Let’s not go there shaa

You mean you still don't understand the definition of atheism?

*Facepalm*

You can print and hang the screenshot on your wall

Joshthefirst:
My definition of God is of the uncreated creator, the uncaused cause of all things. The eternally existent one.

Source and prove your claim

As to the bolded, the problem of evil ceases to become a problem when you consider God created beings with free agency, and promises to one day judge all evil completely.

This promise of a new completely good creation is also a promise of judgement on the beings who side with evil. Thus the Christian message of repentance and warning.

What is my business with what your religion teaches or what your version of god says.

Besides you don't follow what other Gods say neither to what their religion teaches.


So you agree with me that a God that is omnipotent, omnibelenovent and who is willing to stop evil/suffering is mutually exclusive with the evil/suffering in this world. It is either this God doesn't have these attributes, incompetent or it doesn't exist at all

Is this your God omnipotent, omnibelenovent and willing to stop evil?

Reality11:


Source and prove your claim

source is myself and the Christian doctrine.
I’m not proving. It will be a waste of my time.

What is my business with what your religion teaches or what your version of god says.

Besides you don't follow what other Gods say neither to what their religion teaches.

I thought we are having a discussion? You asked a question and I answered and you’re exploding with “what is your business”? Are you okay?

And why should I follow other religions please? I already have a religion.

So you agree with me that a God that is omnipotent, omnibelenovent and who is willing to stop evil/suffering is mutually exclusive with the evil/suffering in this world. It is either this God doesn't have these attributes, incompetent or it doesn't exist at all

Is this your God omnipotent, omnibelenovent and willing to stop evil?

I just answered your question with my explanation of why there is evil in this world and what my God will eventually do and you subsequently exploded in my face.

Joshthefirst:
source is myself and the Christian doctrine.
I’m not proving. It will be a waste of my time.

don't you wanna save an atheist? So you thought I'll believe it just because some book says it?

I thought we are having a discussion? You asked a question and I answered and you’re exploding with “what is your business”? Are you okay?

And why should I follow other religions please? I already have a religion.

The reason was because what you wrote has noting to do with what I asked.

I just answered your question with my explanation of why there is evil in this world and what my God will eventually do and you subsequently exploded in my face.

I didn't asked you why there is evil in this world and what your God would eventually do

This was my question, answer it.