Schn;6336892:
My argument stems not from that, but an all powerful god. It would take finite effort to fix this world is, and since he has infinite capability he would be expending zero percent of his total effort. To not improve the lives of so many when it costs you nothing is malicious. Please point out why this logic is flawed, instead of ad hominem. .
You are assuming that the world is “fixable”, i.e. that all the physical evil in the world is not only excessive but unnecessary. And what is that but a demand for a feasible Utopia?
You have to remember that infinite capability is dealing with a finite universe in which there is bound to be imperfection. A paradise on earth is wishful thinking. You are presuming to improve a world you could not even design. The piecemeal “improvements” of the human race have almost succeeded in making this planet uninhabitable and probably will do so in the not too distant future. So much for the ingenuity and wisdom of mankind, not to mention the folly and wickedness…
It’d also be nice to cut back on the sarcasm.
Why should atheists have all the fun? We get incessant sarcasm from them.
Nope, as I say, sometimes people don’t believe even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Even sane people can do it (all the time).
Do sane people behave as if they don’t believe in gravity? If earthquakes constantly occurred all over the world **except **where people live don’t you think it would be observed and questioned? Wouln’t scientists would seek an explanation in vain and have to admit that it is scientifically inexplicable? How could anyone deny that something very odd is happening? And not only odd but specifically to
protect us from the ravages of natural forces? That certainly would demand a supernatural explanation… of benevolence…
I mean, you must think I’m pretty dumb not to accept the ‘overwhelming evidence’ of god, and me to you, but I think I am sane and you think you are sane. It stands to reason that even in a flawless world, some people may not believe in god.
For one thing the evidence for God is not “overwhelming” to the extent that people are compelled to believe. Otherwise every sane person would be a believer.
For another the absence of natural disasters would not make the world flawless. What about all the other physical evils in the world?
And really, if God wants only those with the capability to have faith in the face of no evidence, well, I wouldn’t want to live in that ‘society’.
Now you are going to the other extreme! From “overwhelming” to none!
There is a vast difference between a theory and a disaster-free, accident-free world…
But the levels of evidence would be approximately equal.
You are (or were) comparing the speculative theory of evolution with the incontrovertible fact of a disaster-free, accident-free world which encompasses you on every side.
The least you could expect is a world that doesn’t run on suffering, but pain and suffering is the motivator of pretty much every animal.
This argument is as old as the hills! Pain is a necessary defence mechanism. Suffering is the result of weakness, failure, frustration, interference, competition and conflict, all of which are inevitable in an immensely complex, physical universe where there are billions of sentient beings pursuing different goals. So in effect you are demanding a paradise - for which you need to supply a feasible blueprint in order to substantiate your criticism…
That we should be thankful for what we have sounds good on paper, but what it actually means is that every one except the single most downtrodden unhappy human should not wish for anything more. I differ.
You’re twisting my words to make them mean what you want them to mean. I mean exactly what I have written. You take the good things of life for granted and refuse to accept the fact that every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. In a word you want everything for nothing.
And as for “the single most downtrodden unhappy human”, who is responsible for that? His fellows couldn’t care less about whether he is alive or dead. Who controls events in human society? Who has polluted the world? Who is responsible for all the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering?
And the ad hominem nihilism. You can cut that out too, thanks.
Not an ad hominem but a logical implication of your assertion that there is an immense amount of unnecessary, pointless and meaningless suffering in the world - which entails the belief that every single one of us is a victim of a indifferent, Godless universe in which goodness, justice, freedom and love are no more than figments of the imagination and all our hopes of happiness and fulfilment are doomed to be frustrated and destroyed by death. For you the rest is silence… nothingness… for all eternity…
You’re living in a dream world. You expect everything for nothing. No disasters, no disease, no deaths, no decay, no decadence, no disappointments… In a word, non-sense!
