11 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzUh, Scott, Hal's not here, dude.
Glad to see debating at its finest.
Actually, Hal, I'm happy to see that I've got you so worked up. All you've done recently is attack me personally, rather than actually challenge my points. And YOU are the one who always complains about this type of thing. Funny how you've got no problem when it's you doing the attacking.
No, Hal, you made th ...[text shortened]... at individual people are evil (not just suffering some type of psycological problems).
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are among the cadre of people here who continually/constantly bring up physical suffering as though it is the death knell of a moral God.
You do realize that your statement is a complete non sequitur. I made no such assertion nor can it be reasonably implied from my posts. Your lack of reading comprehension skills is "unbelievable".
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAt 02:38, today, you posted:
Actually the argument I was making in the last few pages was the EXACT OPPOSITE.
"Your God seems very far from reality in my view; an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good entity that nonetheless allows massive amounts of suffering capped off by punishment meted out to vastly inferior creatures."
It was that post to which I responded.
11 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour concept of God is not the only possible "moral God", Freaky.
At 02:38, today, you posted:
"Your God seems very far from reality in my view; an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good entity that nonetheless allows massive amounts of suffering capped off by punishment meted out to vastly inferior creatures."
It was that post to which I responded.
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrI believe suffering and the word unnecssary are like apples and
What part of "unnecessary for some greater good" do you not understand?
oranges when it comes to your test. You could for example witness
someone for no good reason get hit in the face by someone who
was just spoiling for a fight, the pain and suffering caused by the
blow would be a necessary result in being hit, a simple cause and
effect we have nerve endings that pickup on being slapped, they
work.
Kelly
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou are telling me that it is only a point of view that has someone
good and evil are only points of view, not real things at all. A person who, for example, rapes a child does so not in the belief that they are doing any thing wrong, unless they have severe mental defiencies. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour in the long term, with just a little short term unavoidable nastiness to reach those goals. Roads to hell and all that...
calling protecting and feeding their children a good thing while at
the same time it is only a point of view that someone who likes to
rape and cause pain a bad thing?
Kelly
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by KellyJayRight, you don't understand the term 'necessary'. Feeling pain from being hit is not logically necessary. In fact, it's not even nomologically necessary. It is merely an empirical generalization, and generalization of this sort are irrelevant to the argument from evil (as numerous people here have pointed out, over and over again).
I believe suffering and the word unnecssary are like apples and
oranges when it comes to your test. You could for example witness
someone for no good reason get hit in the face by someone who
was just spoiling for a fight, the pain and suffering caused by the
blow would be a necessary result in being hit, a simple cause and
effect we have nerve endings that pickup on being slapped, they
work.
Kelly
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOk , so you have got as far as maybe realising that the concept of eternity is more rational than the concept of something from nothing. Where you take this is your concern...but why give theists a hard time when our reasoning for postulating eternity is sound enough?
Yes and obviously so do you.
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by bbarrIf it's merely an empirical generalization, then are you asserting that there isn't a causal relationship between being hit and feeling pain?
Right, you don't understand the term 'necessary'. Feeling pain from being hit is not logically necessary. In fact, it's not even nomologically necessary. It is merely an empirical generalization, and generalization of this sort are irrelevant to the argument from evil (as numerous people here have pointed out, over and over again).
What's "nomological necessity" anyhow? You keep using this term in many contexts. Could you give an example?
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying that it is rational to think that eternity is the only viable solution to this problem but you don't think it exists. Have you got as far as realising that there are only 2 possible logical solutions to this problem a) something from nothing b) eternity? One of these two must be true logically...have you done that bit yet?
No, it isn't.
No, I don't.
I merely said the "concept of eternity was rational", not that something actually IS eternal.