There is an Evil God, irony of the God debate

[Qoeleth]

This leads nowhere. You keep dragging in new unsuppoted ideas, like “soul” and “eternal”. The effects of love would be visible here and now if existed. Love does not say: “I will give you good things when you die”, real love gives the good things both here and now, and in the hereafter (if there is such a thing). Real love is not aloof among the clouds, it would be visible every day. Now you are going to bring up “excuses” why it ain’t so. Don’t bother. You can say nothing that I have not heard thousands of time before.

This is called “looking for excuses”. What does it mean: “evident but not scientifically evident”? If one takes the words of Jesus seriously, then you “ask and you will be given”, “knock on the door and it will be opened”. Yes, in this sense God is PROMISED to be a “vending machine”. The really funny part is that these are the answers I keep getting when I express by desire to find God (which I would really like to find). The apologists insist that I keep asking, keep knocking, and SURELY I will get my answer. When I ask “when”… guess what, a new evasion comes up: “in God’s time”. So, according to you, God is a vending machine… except he is a broken vending machine. You keep on throwing in the divine currency (prayer) or keep on pounding on that (non-existent) door, and the “machine” does not work.

Face it, buddy. None of you has ever come up with anything but evasion, lame excuses and empty promises.

Both sides are looking at things too literally. Religious discourse consists of verbal images which offer some existential wisdom, part of a narrative which gives meaning to life. Of course it is not logical- why should it be? Does a poem need to be logical?

A monk asked Joshu, “With what intention did Bodhidharma come to China?” Joshu answered, “The oak tree in the front garden.”

Words do not express fact,
Phrases do not reveal the delicate motion of mind.
He who accepts words is lost,
He who adheres to phrases is deluded.

 

[Serious]

The minute God prevents someone from acting on their free will he has taken their free will away. That is determinism. We become unable to love freely. There can be no free will without the ability to chose to act for good or evil.

You contradict yourself. This is what you said before:

The victim’s free will is still intact. She is not predestined. Free will is not about controlling what happens to us but about what we do to others.

The victim’s ability to carry out her desire is prevented by the attacker. Therefore her free will is taken away.

Yes, God does have an undo command. God can heal perfectly. All those who suffer from injustice will be comforted and receive justice.

Justice is not “undo”. Undo would make what happened, “unhappen”.

 

[Serious]

but the relationship we have with God is one of parent and child. If your child rejects you would you in turn reject that child? Or would you still desire to reconnect? And you would not be throwing your child into everlasting torture. Your child chooses to go there of their own free will.

God keeps his promises and will respect our choice to love or not love him. What greater torture or hell can you imagine than one where you stand in the presence of God at your judgement only to be sent away forever?

You contradict yourself again. On one hand you said: “Your child chooses to go there of their own free will.” - which is, of course total nonsense (No one would go and bang on the door of hell demanding admittence to be tortured forever). On the other hand you say: “…only to be sent away forever?”. Can’t have it both ways. I am so very tired of these self-contradicting posts.

 

[itullian]

i think there’s a good argument for an evil or at least an indifferent God.

all the suffering, torture, illness etc begs the question.

 

[tonyrey]

i think there’s a good argument for an evil or at least an indifferent God.

all the suffering, torture, illness etc begs the question.

“all the suffering, torture, illness etc begs the question” begs the question!

It doesn’t explain how all evil could be avoided.

 

[itullian]

“all the suffering, torture, illness etc begs the question” begs the question!

It doesn’t explain how all evil could be avoided.

with God all is possible,no.

 

[vsedriver]

You contradict yourself. This is what you said before:

The victim’s ability to carry out her desire is prevented by the attacker. Therefore her free will is taken away.

There is no contradiction here. Free will is about choosing to do right or wrong. A victim isn’t choosing anything.

The attacker is not taking a moral choice away from the victim, therefore the victim’s free will is intact.

I believe you are confusing free will with the freedom to perform a physical act.

 

[vsedriver]

Justice is not “undo”. Undo would make what happened, “unhappen”.

let me explain it another way. The damage done from the horrible experience will be healed perfectly as if it had never happened.

 

[vsedriver]

You contradict yourself again. On one hand you said: “Your child chooses to go there of their own free will.” - which is, of course total nonsense

 

[Gorgias]

I believe you are confusing free will with the freedom to perform a physical act.

Yes… This. :clapping:

vsedriver:

It is for you to show that this is nonsense.

Yeah, I’d been meaning to ask this of Serious, too.

Serious, since you assert, without substantiation, that our claims are “nonsense”, would you mind demonstrating this as an argument. (Remember – that means not just saying, “this makes no sense”.) Thanks!

 

[Serious]

I believe you are confusing free will with the freedom to perform a physical act.

I am not confusing anything. A “will” without the ability to carry out that “will” is called “fantasizing, daydreaming or wishful thinking”.

And you are totally wrong if you think that only morally charged “wishes” count. As long as you have a desire to do something, even if it is a mundane wish - there is free will, as long as it can be carried out, and there are at least two different ways and means to do it. If you wish to dress up, and you have two ties to choose from, there is free will.

 

[vsedriver]

I am not confusing anything. A “will” without the ability to carry out that “will” is called “fantasizing, daydreaming or wishful thinking”.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not confusing anything. A “will” without the ability to carry out that “will” is called “fantasizing, daydreaming or wishful thinking”.

You keep trying to assert this false dichotomy. It’s not that ‘will’ and ‘act’ have no connection; trying to remove ‘act’ and then making a statement about ‘will’ changes the fame so fundamentally that any assertions you make about this new world have no bearing on reality!

However, even though ‘will’ and ‘act’ are connected through causal relationships, this doesn’t imply that ‘free will’ is located in both!

It’s as if you’re saying that ‘thinking’ resides in the head and in the body and I’m saying it resides in the head alone. Then, you propose chopping away my body from my head, saying that, by showing that I no longer think, you’ve proven that the body is involved in the act of thinking! Of course, that’s sheer idiocy: by decapitating me, you’ve only demonstrated the ability to destroy the system within which thinking takes place! You haven’t, of course, demonstrated that head + body is the locus of thought!