Last Person To Post IV

Debating if I should reply to that or not. I don't really want to get into that arguement but I know quite a good explanation for your arguement that's in favour of god. Not saying it proves anything but it's a decent explanation as to why there could be suffering and a god. Thing is, I know you Makaze, you'd post in reply to me and expect me to follow it up which I don't particularly want to do. I'm not even particularly religious, I'm agnostic, he could exist but he might not. I'm not particularly bothered either way, so I'll leave the arguing to the proper believers.

 

It's not that he's not any of those or he's not stopping it. He's letting Satan at the try he asked for, letting him show Satan that the way Satan wants to rule things, will never work. That's what the Bible says. (obviously not word for word)

but then again, facts can't alter opinions in this way. We'll all believe what we believe. I choose to believe God exists. nothing wrong with that.

 

Correct. And the free will argument fails for reasons explained in the note.

That does not sound benevolent, and it is a fact that he is not stopping it. 'Letting' Satan have his way is 'letting' it happen. The reasons are irrelevant, because a benevolent being would want the best for all of his subjects. Letting Satan do harm would neither be a service to Satan or the people that he was harming. Everyone would suffer, but God. That is not benevolence. And assuming that he created Satan and the impulses that make him, he did not just let it happen, but he designed it so that it would.

No such argument exists. At the end of the day, the only defense that anyone has had for this argument is that they simply denied it. God just is, and we cannot understand him, he defies logic. That is the only end that I have seen anyone come to, and I have argued it many times. If you think otherwise, then I suggest posting it, and I will go over it calmly and explain why it fails to satisfy the paradox.

 

And that's what it is. It is a test and a lesson. Teaching Satan he is wrong, and for everyone who remained faithful, it was a test of faith. Satan was originally an angel. But when God told him to bow to humans (or his "creation"), he refused, thus disobeying God, and was sent to Hell. He from then on tried to get his way, and God basically said, "Fine, if you think you can do it better, try." (again, not word for word) As little sense as it makes, you have to be bothered to have faith to really see it. Which is why I really dislike arguing about opinions. Nobody wins.

 

You did not acknowledge anything that I said. You have to explain how it was benevolent of him to do those things, or your argument has nothing to do with mine. You are denying logic and it seems that you will say anything is a matter of opinion if it means that you can ignore it. Furthermore, I presented the argument that Satan's choices were a result of the impulses that God gave him when he created him. His wish to be free is like a human's wish to be free of pain, and God designed our bodies with that impulse, so Satan's wish, that God granted, was created by God. All of Satan's tendencies were not decided by him because he did not create himself, so his very nature was of God's design. Ergo, if the result is not benevolent, then neither are the means. God could have designed things such that they would experience no suffering, and more, that they did not have to suffer for any sense of satisfaction; that is what being omnipotent means, being able to manipulate the basic rules that bind reality and people, along with everything else, including what people 'need' to be good. No matter how you look at it, a test that involves suffering is not as benevolent as one that does not. It is the same principle behind arguing that a child will be better off if made to sit in the corner than to experience pain. If a child can learn without experiencing pain, then it is a benevolent choice to give that to them. If God is omnipotent, then there is nothing stopping him from having people learn without pain. This means that he could do things in a more benevolent way, but he did not. Address my arguments without citing sources such as the Bible, because I am not making an evidence based argument, but a logical one, and you cannot counter a logical argument with a story.

 

Okay, knew you'd do that and I really don't want to get into this arguement so I'm not going to post it but I've a challenge for you. Prove god doesn't exist, for once take the challenge of proof off of them and try to prove why god can't exist.

I should say, I can't care less about your answer, I just wanted to try and challenge you as all the arguements as to why god can't exist I've seen don't work. Though saying that, none of the arguements as to why god does exist work either.

I find this arguement rather pointless because both sides are going to believe what they believe regardless and no one has any proof either way that actually works. And that's the whole point of faith anyway, believing when there is no proof.

 

Srs bsns? In mah Spam Zone?

Tsk.

 

Apparently you do understand the nature of this argument. It does prove that God cannot exist. It is a complete argument until it is countered, and I have already made my side clear. I would need a counter argument in order to continue, because it is the best possible answer while using Occam's Razor. If you are going to deny the paradox, then you need to do so, because the paradox is proof in itself until further notice. All paradoxes are.

 

I'm actually not going to continue. I'll just quickly state that the Bible is where we get all of our facts about God from. it is impossible to use anything else. It's what I believe is true vs what you do. There is no winner to this debate. Logic or not. Benevolent or not. This discussion has absolutely no power to change anyone's mind here, or prove anything to anyone, or anything else in that matter.

This. ^

 

Oh just shut up, you're making my head hurt. You're a real slippery devil. It is not definate proof around it because to be honest I don't believe there is any definate proof that exists and honestly I don't care. And I'm defending god again, I don't even understand why as I'm not religious, I think it's as I'm so used to disagreeing with you and not being able to argue my side. Ah well. It's too late for all this god stuff. Like I said before the debate is pointless as either side will beleive whatever regardless, and I'm going to bed. I hope you weren't expecting anything like a debate from me. I've said so many times I'm not argueing with you, though inadvertedly I think I am and I'm tired. Goodnight and I hope you've enjoyed bragging that you're the best debater and making everyone feel stupid.
PS. I have not got into an arguement with you therefore you have not won as there was nothing to win.

 

Not quite, logic comes first. If you Bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, it would be incorrect. One must think before one even considers the notion that something might be true. All facts, all evidence, but me checked against logic. Once you determine whether or not something is paradoxical, then you can argue about whether or not it is true, because it could either be true or not true. If something is found to be paradoxical, then it is not up for debate, because it will always be impossible. It is like me trying to argue that I am not here, while I have to be here in order to argue it. Paradoxes must be acknowledged if you wish to find any truth, no matter how simple it may be.

You are denying logic. I told you that it would come to this...

 

I know I said I'd gone to bed but I just want to add this for the hell of it 2 + 2 = 5 could be right. See 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, correct? And if you round these numbesrs up to one significant figure you get 2 + 2 = 5 ^,^ Just saying.

 

You have gotten into an argument with me about whether or not this is a matter of belief. I am not arguing evidence, or what I believe might be true about the world. I am arguing that a certain belief is paradoxical and cannot exist in this universe. It is a universally accepted notion that paradoxes are impossible and that they are where you start on your way to truth. When you eliminate the impossible, then you can start debating about the remaining possibilities. I already said earlier that evidence itself always leaves room for doubt, and so I believe that a god could exist. However, these specific attributes of god are paradoxical and thus a god that holds these attributes cannot exist in our universe. I am an agnostic because I can argue either side when it is an evidence based argument. However I will not argue for a paradox. It is folly, and it fails every single time, no matter how many times you try to shrug it off as a matter of belief or opinion.

 

dadkahduqgy2urqbyiu aiud dwk diagd i

 

Makaze, you're shooting holes in something that was likely exaggeration or hyperbole from the very beginning. You don't need to look at the real world to see that suffering exists. It exists in the Bible, and is carried out by God himself. Seventh plague, that sort of thing.

The Bible doesn't attempt to support the all-good statement, as presented. Therefore it's fair to assume that the all-good statement was not intended to be taken literally.

Adding to that, Christians take their beliefs from the entirety of the Bible, not just that one line. Simply refuting a single line that held little water in the first place does very little to shake their beliefs.

There, my attempt at countering your logic with a pro-Christian spin.

 

I made that argument the last time I start a thread about this, too. I used 2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6. Bad example, perhaps, but if you really wanted me to, then I could drag up the logical axioms for why the whole numbers will always come out to the same result. It sounds like you do not want to bother with it, but I might do it anyway if you asked me. Let me give a better example, one that works like a paradox. Rejecting a paradox is like claiming n - n = 1, or any value other than zero. It just does not work that way no matter how you try to solve the equation. The only way out is to say that equations are invalid, which is ridiculous and insults the one speaking it. The very notion of something being invalid is based on logic and the definition of an invalid answer can be summarized as logic that does not add up, or giving the wrong answer to an equation. Using logic as a means of disproving logic is a paradox in itself, and you should be able to see why.

This would solve it if Christians would acknowledge your point, but they do not; so far, all have stood by that one line and claimed that God is both all-loving and all-powerful. If anyone had suggested that God lacked either of these qualities, then they would have satisfied the contradiction, thus shattering the most common notion of God, but not one did, except for you. Therefore, you are not aiding these other Christians in their plight, but proving my point for me by bending the Bible into logic's sway. I am not trying to prove that a God does not exist, but that he cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving at the same time. You have not refuted my claim, and so my claim stands unhindered.

 

Of course I'm denying logic. This is logic vs faith. Faith =/= logic. therefore by me being on the faith side, I am denying logic. and since denying logic is illogical, this whole debate is like this math equation -> |4x+5|= -10
Impossible to solve.
Impossible to win.
I do not HAVE to believe in logic.
I do not HAVE to believe in God.
I CHOOSE to believe what I want.
You cannot argue against that.

But if you're so self absorbed that you MUST hear it. Makaze, you're argument is perfect, and I cannot counter it. Whoopdy doo. Congrats. you win the grand prize of nothing.

 

Ah, I see. You're simply trying to prove that one point.

Anywho, refuting your current claim (he cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving at the same time) is easy enough, as you've left a loophole.

I put forward the suggestion that God is not omniscient, and is ignorant of our suffering. Thus he can both be able and willing to end our suffering. He just doesn't know about it.

It's still not an argument a theist would accept, and you can patch over it fairly easily, but you have to change your initial argument.

 

This is what I have to deal with.

So, in the end, you are willing to admit that you believe what you believe just because you believe it, and that is is not better than any other belief in any way, or you believe it for no reason at all? Because if you believed it for a reason, then you should look to that word, reason, and think about how logic applies to reasoning itself, and then reconsider whether or not you are denying logic. Because if you have any reason at all to choose your belief over another one, then you have logic to thank for that reason, because there is no reason, without logic.

Correct, making it a paradox, or rather, your equation is invalid it works much like your argument for God does. Think about what you have just done. You have tried to illustrate that logic is invalid by claiming that an equation is invalid. How did you come to the conclusion that it was invalid? You were using logic, I would have to think. You see, it is not logic, but your equation, that is flawed. You cannot accept that your equation for god does not work out, so instead you argue against logic, when it was your equation that was faulty the entire time.

Why did you make that choice? If you thought that the choice was more valid than another, then you used logic to arrive at your conclusion, because validity is a logical concept, not a faith-based one.

That does not work unless you acknowledge that your own argument is flawed. I am not trying to prove myself right so much as prove you wrong.

Not necessarily. Omnipotence implies an ability to perceive, or else your powers would be limited. Omniscience is a superfluous concept if one is omnipotent. That is why it was not included in my argument.

 

If logic can "prove" the faith wrong, then I am indeed denying logic.

Oh but my equation is not flawed. It is indeed an equation that can be used. The answer is as I simply stated. No solution. And it was referring to this debate. You cannot win, I cannot win. There is no such thing as a first place position in an argument using anything other then logic vs logic. This is logic vs faith.

I made the choice because I made the choice. You are implying logic in places that do not benefit your argument in the slightest.

My argument is flawed. But I believe anyway. Faith.

So you can go ahead and "win" this debate. But you don't exactly "win" until you've changed my mind. That will not happen. I admit "defeat". now let's not f*** this thread up anymore. Feel free to "counter" anything else to "finish your argument and 'win'" I will gladly not respond.