You are overlooking the obvious. God tells us what he wants in the Bible. We might not know WHY God wants us to do certain things, but the Bible tells us what he wants.

Not even close.

The "gross stupidity" of the Bible can't be called stupidity, because you...never mind.

Nope, not even close.

I know I've made myself clear on this subject, I'm not going to try it any more. Believe what you will, but I think if you would carefully read my posts, you would finally grasp the irrationality of assuming a perfect, all-knowing being exists, but question his behavior.

Assuming the premise that the omnigod exists, and assuming that the Bible is the word of that 'God', then spider has a point.

I call it the transcendental safety net - none-the-less, he does have a valid argument, which is more than I could say for some.

Of course, I would also add that Epicurus effectively refuted the omnigod long ago by demonstrating how the existence of 'evil' cannot coincide with it.

The validity of Spider's argument demonstrates exactly how an argument can have a valid form, yet still be false. It also highlights the importance of having factual premises.

Well that is what I am saying Spider.

If you (Abra) don't believe in the God, it is pointless to question Its/His behavior. (And yes, to him it is a phantom or a hypothetical character.)

Exactly what I was saying. In order to speak of a God's behavior you have to assume the premise that the God exists, at least for the duration of the argument.

If the only way you can justify a book is by appealing to an idea that there exist explanations that aren't in the book, then you haven't justified the book at all.

Period amen.

Pretending to hide behind an idea of some 'god' that exists seperate from the book doesn't cut it. By doing that, all you've done is agree with me that the book alone cannot justify itself.

So we seem to be in agreement on that point.

Contrary to what you might think, I accept the possibility that some supreme being may very well exist. However, I see no reason whatsoever to associate that supreme being with a book that contradicts it's own claims.

Why bother?

Epicurus ignored important factors, which means his conclusions were invalid.

As CS Lewis pointed out, it is possible to imagine a world in which God prevented all evil, but such a world would also lack free-will. God's plan includes his creations having free-will, therefore such a world would not be one created by God.

Epicurus fell into the same logical trap that most non-Christians make for themselves, they look at God's character, but ignore God's plan.

Spidey wrote:



Show me.

That's NOT what I'm saying. LISTEN. Stop saying you agree with me and understand my argument. It's gone over your head and Abra isn't even in the same ballpark. It's really sad, because it's not a hard idea to understand.

Poor Abra keeps saying that I'm suggesting there is another God...that's just delusional. I've said nothing remotely like that.

If you two want to have an intelligent conversation, then go back and read what I've posted and understand that your interpretation (that it's irrational to argue about the behavior of a God you don't believe in) and Abras interpretation (that there is some other God behind the Bible that should be believed in) is so far from what I'm saying it can't be possible that you have actually read my posts for more than a sentence or two. It shows such an incredible lack of reading comprehension that I can't imagine that two intelligent and rational people would come to those conclusions. Neither of you is as far off track as WUX, who I just plain feel sorry.

I have been very clear and restated the argument several time, CS gets it. How come you guys don't? There is something else going on here and it is really confusing. But I've said my peace to you two and anyone else who can't understand this simple and logical argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil


This argument ignores the fact that God allows evil to exist, in order that free will exists. Without free will, the good of the world is God's good. God wants mankind to do good on their own and that requires free will. Epicurus ignored this, therefore his logic is critically flawed and his argument is fallacious.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam have all refuted Epicurus with the same argument, because Epicurus (like so many others) assumed that that Judeo-Christian/Islamic philosophy insisted that God created the universe with no plan other than creating a perfectly good and happy place to live.

I don't know if you just plain don't get it or you are pretending to not understand the argument. Either way, I wish you well, but I have no interest in discussing this issue with you until you actually understand my argument. It's not even a big point, just a minor detail. I cannot believe that this point is somehow flying over so many people's heads.

The first thing we need to do is address Epicurus' claim, not some other which is not nearly as sound an argument.

Here it is...

“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 whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

But that's the very crux of your argument.

Without that you have nothing.

You're attempting to argue that God's knowledge is infintely greater than ours, and thus if we had access to that greater knowledge we could see why the Bible actually makes sense.

All you're doing there is confessing that the Bible, as a mythology in its own right, makes no sense on its own without access to that additional infinite knowledge. So you're in agreement with me on that point.

Actually from there it doesn't really matter where you go with your arguments because you've already agreed with me that the Bible makes no sense on its own.

So have fun with wherever you're going after that. You've already confessed the point that I've made.

That was the very crux of your arugment.

Just a note: "Able but not willing" could mean he's simply "indifferent" and not necessarily "malevolent".

Anything other than benevolent refutes benevolence.

And anything other than malevolence refutes malevelolence.

Thus, indifference refutes them both.

only your analogies make sense i suppose. nevertheless, it was you who said one couldn't question a being's behavior who knew better than you about doing something. the something could be creating a universe or flying a boeing to chicago. sure you might be able to put in decades of training and experience into learning to fly but at the time i walked on the airplane drunk the fact is you at that moment cannot fly your way out of a wet paper bag. so your logic says that you cannot question my behavior at that time.

we don't get it because a thing called science keeps getting in the way. you've made nothing that resembles a logical argument as regard scientific metodology. science requires evidence that can be tested to show repeatable and predictable results. you have not and i suspect will not ever produce such evidence. testimony whether from the bible or church teachings is not evidence that can withstand such scrutiny. the issue here is science as far as the majority here are concerned. either argue your point with that in mind and leave the scriptures in your bible bag or know that you sound rediculous.