CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
An omnibenevolent God would not create Hell, aka eternal damnation
The concept of Hell cannot co-exist with the concept of an omnibenevolent God. A being with infinite love and infinite forgiveness would not create a place in which his creations are tortured for an eternity. It is a logical fallacy.
Either Hell exists and God is not omnibenevolent, or God is omnibenevolent and Hell does not exist.
This is so stupid, who said God is "omnibenevolent"? I believe that rubbish was promoted by a Catholic guy named Aquinas or something like that. It's not in the Bible, the Bible is very clear that God cannot be good to evil as evil cannot see God as being good.
It is good to know God will purge all of Creation of evil and keep in the confinement of the consuming fire of Hell and their cries will not be heard by the living and the living will not have to tolerate their silly attempts to annihilate God. It's good to know that only the smoke of their torments will rise from the Lake of Fire where evil doers will be confined forever while their sin is forever consumed by the fire of Hell which it feeds.
This is true........yet you being evil you cannot see God as being good, He cannot be good to you because you are blind and while He is good you will always perceive Him as not being good.
People who want God to be "omnibenevolent" want to believe God will not hold them guilty and leave them in Hell forever. The Catholic church takes this concept and teaches that Hell is not forever for sinners, but rather that eventually all will be forgiven and released from Hell and allowed to enter Heaven. It's not in the Bible, it's the wishes of sinners who want to believe they do not have to burn in Hell forever.
He is good you will always perceive Him as not being good.
You perceived Him as not being good. Not me. This is about you not believing He is good. You are the one who said He wasn't good.
People who want God to be "omnibenevolent" want to believe God will not hold them guilty and leave them in Hell forever
That's irrelevant. You said it wasn't in the Bible.
Catholic church takes this concept and teaches that Hell is not forever for sinners, but rather that eventually all will be forgiven and released from Hell and allowed to enter Heaven.
You aren't a viable source of information. I don't believe what you say.
It's not in the Bible
You don't have a great track record so far with this statement.
Omnibenevolence is not in the Bible. God is good to all, yes, but that does not mean he is good to evil. Evil cannot see God as being good.
If you use your brain here, you might notice the whole point of saying God is "omnibenevolent" is an attempt to deny that God has the right to punish sin withe eternal condemnation in Hell.
Yes God is good to all and it is good to know that His enemies will be confined in the fire of Hell forever and never disrupt the harmony of Heaven
Here ya go, Fartman, the Catholics trying to do double talk and backtracking trying to undo what Pope Francis said about everybody eventually going to Heaven and no eternal damnation in Hell for anybody.
You can fill yourself full of confusion as you love it. Go on and follow the disinformation of sites like this.
But again, I must say I'm glad you finally realized that God is good.
Disclaimer: The following Catholic dogma is firmly denounced by me as being contrary to Bible doctrine. I do not recommend any Catholic teaching or reasoning. Catholic dogma is not Biblical and in no way promoted or upheld by the Bible nor by me.
. Okay, okay, here is what Pope Francis really said, in part, yesterday:
“On the contrary, the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in our heart: Do good and do not do evil. The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, what about the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us first class children of God! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, with everyone doing his own part; if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of meeting: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good! We shall meet there.”
As the Roman Catholics uphold the Roman Pope being infallible, go ahead and read the linguistic gymnastics they do trying to obscure the Pope's teaching of universal salvation while at the same time not saying the Pope was wrong.
All religions including Catholicism and Islam teach that everybody eventually goes to Heaven or what they might call Nirvana or whatever. God says His enemies will be in the lake of fire forever, which is the second death, and the smoke of their torments will rise forever. Catholicism is an idolatrous pagan religion with many idol gods. Reality and religion are two different things. Jesus Christ is God the Creator who became the Savior of all who receive Him by faith in His sinless blood. Those who will not repent and believe on Him will be in the lake of fire forever. And if you think you can prove me wrong, go ahead and try and see if you don't find yourself frying like an eternal sausage. I would much prefer that you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved but I doubt that you will. Like all other fools here, you are too proud, you think you are as good or better than God.
Google it, idiot, find out for yourself what the Catholic Church now teaches about universal forgiveness. Quote me your source if you say I'm wrong......you can't find one. You don't know what you are talking about.
This does not say God is omnibenevolent. A policeman (assuming it is an honorable policeman as most of them are) is good to all but a criminal does not see the policeman as being good. While the policeman is good, the criminal cannot see him as being good. To the criminal the policemen cannot be good. If the criminal repents he can see that the policeman is good, and it was good for the policeman to stand against the evil of the criminal. To evil the policeman is not good even though the policeman is good. The policeman must be against evil, he cannot be good to evil.
Your analogy fits, but it does not strengthen your argument.
A policeman is not omnibenevolent. They are good (mostly) but they are not all-good.
If God is supposed to be an infinite being, then He is infinitely good, beyond the goodness reachable by any humans in one lifetime.
Comparing God to a policeman diminishes what God is. God is not an enforcer of laws, He is the creator of the universe, and this implies that he would create the afterlife. However, if God were infinitely good and infinitely forgiving, then Hell would not exist, because God's infinite goodness would prevent him from damning any of His creations to eternal torture.
Who are you to say that God cannot be good to evil? This completely contradicts the idea of God being omnibenevolent. It is irrelevant if someone is evil; if God has infinite forgiveness then He would forgive evil without question.
The truth stands without argument. You are arguing against the truth.
If God "has infinite forgiveness" and you think He should forgive without question, why do you have to die? If you are forgiven, why can't you get out of dying? You are in condemnation now, you are a dead man walking on death row and you can't get yourself out of it; you need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, receive Him by faith as your Savior or you will be as you are now, dying, with no countdown to finality in the lake of fire. Your sins are not covered by His blood if you will not agree with God that He has the right to leave you in condemnation forever because you are a sinner unworthy of being with the Lord in Heaven. You are not thinking realistically. You are in your sins now, in condemnation dying, you are not forgiven if Christ is not your Savior, if you have not received Him in reality as your Savior, the Living God Jesus Christ, you are in condemnation under the curse of sin and death and you won't get out of it. Saying you think it's not fair will not persuade God to let you off the hook.
Again, "omnibenevolent" is not a characteristic of God, it is an invention of evil people who want to get away with their evil without it being paid for. If God had infinite forgiveness Christ would not have had to die for our sins and you would not have to die for your sins. He took your place in death to be your Savior in life as He is risen from the dead willing to forgive all who believe on Him but you are going your own way, rejecting Him, not wanting Him to rule over you, you want to do your own thing your own way possessed by your own lusts and it's taking you to the fire of Hell and you'll never get out if you will not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I wish I could make you see but you have to see for yourself and if the only way you will believe Hell is forever will be to find yourself there unable to get out then that is the way you will have it.
God is indeed The Enforcer of Law, His law, and you have broken it and deserve to die and be left in Hell forever. You can be saved but you do not want God's rule, His law, to be over you. You are trying to kill the policeman and making a fool of yourself
I am not making an argument, I'm stating the truth and you are trying to argue against God. You can't win against God.
Preaching is speaking the truth about reality. I like the truth, and I don't think of it as preaching. You don't like it so you call it preaching as if their is something wrong with stating the truth.
If this is not a church, why did you make a discussion trying to invent a God who does not care about right and wrong, and why are you spending so much time trying to twist your version of reality to convince yourself that you have the right to exist outside of Hell.
You are making this to be your church with yourself as the minister and you have no authority as you reject the truth.
Why not answer the simple questions I pose which show your logic is unrealistic?
If God is as you want Him to be, "all forgiving", why do you have to die?
If God is not the enforcer of His Law, why can't you get out of dying?
Do you think that you earn exoneration by death? Do you think you get out of reality in death? Do you think death excuses your sin?
You make all kinds of assertions without rationale but rather based on your own wants. You're going your own way against God and God will let you go all the way to Hell because you reject His love, you reject His authority to govern His creation and creatures. He loves you so much that He died for you so that in His resurrection He can take you though death giving you eternal life but you are too proud and you get too much pleasure from your sinning so you go your own way and that is the truth. You are trying to deny reality. God loves you and will let you have what you really want, and what you really want is a reality where you cannot know that God loves you.......and that reality exists only in the fire of Hell. You are exercising your freedom to go your own way and God will not deny you of your freedom. Love and freedom are two sides of the same coin. If you will not be reconciled to Him through the blood of His Son which was shed to cover the sin of all who believe on Him, God gives you the freedom to go your own way in eternal dying as you are dying now except the time never counts down to zero in the fire of Hell as your time is counting down now.
You are creating a thing which is not God and promoting it religiously in hope of keeping yourself out of Hell. I know you are not God, and I know that you do not know God by the way you talk against Him. God wants you to know Him personally but you prefer your sin which separates you from Him. God loves you. You can believe it and you can know it......but I doubt that you will as you are too busy trying to create a god who does not punish evil nor care about right and wrong.
Doesn't matter if you believe sin is against God or not, you are still held by sin dying and will wake up in Hell if you reject the Savior, you will be rejected from life by the One who took your place in death and you say..."Nah, I don't wnat that, I don't believe it, I'll go my own way" and all you have in it is death because the soul that sins shall surely die.
It's you who is mindless in being unable to handle the truth.
You don't know why you can't get out of dying because you deny that you are a sinner under condemnation for breaking God's Law. Yes, to me it is a stupid question because I know the answer...but to you it is an unanswerable question because you are in denial of the truth.
If this is not a church, why did you make a discussion trying to invent a God who does not care about right and wrong, and why are you spending so much time trying to twist your version of reality to convince yourself that you have the right to exist outside of Hell.
You are making this to be your church with yourself as the minister and you have no real authority in it as you deny God is the enforcer of His Law.
I'm not the one preaching and telling people they deserve to die and burn in Hell.
I'm simply debating - you're trying to force beliefs on people. You've told me multiple times that I'm going to burn in Hell if I do not repent for my sins. That's not an argument, that's a threat.
You are indeed preaching your phony little namby pamby God who does not enforce His law and does not punish evil. You created this debate as your own little church with your own little invented God and yourself as the high priest of your religion.
Ok, you are not really preaching but you are debating because preaching is proclaiming the truth and you don't want the truth....but you are making yourself the minister and god of your religion pretending you keep yourself alive and out of Hell.
If you feel threatened when you are told that sinners fry like eternal sausages in their sin forever in the fire of Hell, you might want to talk to God about that and come into agreement with Him regarding His right to punish you and your need of His mercy to be saved from Hell.
How in the world can you feel threatened by Hell if you think you are not a sinner? Something is not adding up in the calculator of your mind.
I do not believe in God. I accept the possibility that one exists, however, I am not "preaching" to try and convert people to my "beliefs" (why would I try to convert people to something I don't believe myself?)
Ok, you are not really preaching but you are debating
Yes. Well done; I am debating. This is a debate site, after all.
you are making yourself the minister and god of your religion pretending you keep yourself alive and out of Hell.
I do not believe in heaven nor Hell. The point of this debate wasn't to assert that God exists, but Hell doesn't, it was to argue that God may or may not exist however if he were omnibenevolent, Hell would not.
Hell could very well exist for all I know and care. But my point is that if Hell exists, then an omnibenevolent God does not.
You are preaching that there is no Hell and you are trying to convert people to agree with you. You are doing this because it helps to alleviate your guilt. The only reason you really are not really preaching is because you are proclaiming lies...you are preaching lies and that is not really preaching as preaching proclaims truth.
You are indeed creating here your own little religion to promote your religious beliefs and you are making yourself the head minister of your own little religion here, a religion against God and in favor of death.
If you want a debate, which apparently you do not, the opposite position to your OP is that God is good and it is good to know God will forever confine evil in the fire of Hell where it belongs.
If God does not separate evil from the living, He would be no good at all as He would be indifferent toward the effects of evil. If God caused evil doers to go out of existence, He would be denying that He was good when He created them Your argument is not against God, it is against a thing you imagine which is indifferent and uncaring.
As long as you try to say God is indifferent and uncaring, you are basing everything you say on lies trying to fool yourself into believing you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner.
The twisted reasoning used in this kind of evil....and this kind of rhetoric is indeed evil as it encourages people to be hard in their defiance toward God resulting in them being permanently separated dying in their sin leading to Hell.
You take this kind of rhetoric and use it to spin around in circles because the center of the circle is a thing which is uncaring and indifferent to evil and that thing cannot be God because God is caring and is against evil. All you are doing is creating a straw man which is not God and then showing how the character flaws of your straw man prove it cannot be God. Duhhhhhhhh.....it's good you have figured out that the thing you created to be uncaring and indifferent toward evil cannot be God.
You created this debate to try to force your beliefs on everyone. The opposing point of this debate is that Hell is real and forever burning in God's wrath against sin as sin in it's passion burns against God. You want a debate but you don't want to hear the opposing side? Then you should ban me as I ban the fools who annoy me.
I made this debate for the very purpose of debating... because I enjoy it.
I do not enjoy exasperating die-hard theists who, instead of actually arguing and debating, only post about how I'm in denial of the "truth" (which you have no basis for claiming) and that I'm going to burn in hell.
Why did you join a debate site if all you wish to do is attack people and tell them they're going to Hell? Seems pointless to me. You're not going to convert anyone with an attitude like yours.
repenting of your sins won't keep you out of Hell. You need to receive Jesus Christ as your Savior, trust Him to keep you out of Hell. Only the Savior can keep you out of Hell, repenting won't keep you out of Hell. If you really believe on Jesus and receive Him by faith as your Savior, you will have a change of heart and you will side with God against your sins.
I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You have to see for yourself that the water is good and you have to taste it for yourself. God will not force you to believe He is good, He will not force you to trust Him to save you from Hell. You can believe whatever you want to believe. The truth is the best thing to believe. I wish I could make you see, but you have to see for yourself.
Wow dont you insult my boy Aquinas, the greatest thinker of all times!!! (^^)
Morover I think you have the wrong guy , I believe Aquinas said that since God is absolute justice he punishes and rewards people according to their deeds
The belief of the non existence of hell because god is benevolent is rather new in the catholic church, this idea has been going around since Vatican II because of all the crappy modernist popes we had since
It's a great topic and best put by thinkers of the past and updated for modern times the reasoning by rationalists is thus ....
Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[20] the logical argument from evil is as follows:
If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2]
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).
Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the logical problem of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositions lead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 3 and 6), with defenders of theism (for example, Leibniz) arguing that God could very well exist with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.
If God lacks any one of these qualities—omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence—then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit God's omnipotence and/or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology). Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good.
It's interesting to note that Leibniz ( a believer ) believed god allowed evil for a greater good which makes little or no sense if god is allegedly omnibenevolent .
Maybe god ( if one existed ) is an evil god as professor Stephen Law has a brilliant argument for
Your "thinkers of the past" had some screws loose. God is 1) omnipotent 2) Omniscient and 3) Omnipresent. Omnibenevolent is not a charateristic of God.
The argument is flawed from the start as it's basic premise is false. The fact that God now allows evil in the world does not mean He will always allow evil in the world. You should be able to figure this out for yourself since you are dying and cannot remain in this world.
Sure it's easy to invent these kind of straw man arguments and say the god you are imagining cannot be good because of this, that and this. Of course your straw man is not god and not real.
this stuff is so stupid it's amazing that people promote it and act like it's intelligent. If God were to not allow evil he would have to make robots. God is good so he gives freedom to chose His way or your own way which is evil.
I've seen this thing a hundred times and it's always amazing how stupid people are trying to make something less than God and say that it cannot be good therefore it cannot be God.
There is logical contradiction in this stuff because it is based on false premises so of course it is going to be self contradictory.
You and professor Law think it's brilliant to call God evil because you are evil at heart and you cannot see God as being good. You are wrong, God is good and it's you who is full of evil.
Your "thinkers of the past" had some screws loose. God is evil .
The good god argument is flawed from the start as it's basic premise is false. The fact that God now allows good in the world does not mean He will always allow good in the world. You should be able to figure this out for yourself since you are dying and cannot remain in this world.
Sure it's easy to invent these kind of straw man arguments and say the god you are imagining cannot be evil because of this, that and this. Of course your straw man is not god and not real.
this stuff is so stupid it's amazing that people promote it and act like it's intelligent. If God were to not allow good he would have to make robots. God is evil so he gives freedom to chose His way or your own way which is evil
I've seen this thing a hundred times and it's always amazing how stupid people are trying to make something less than God and say that it cannot be evil therefore it cannot be God.
There is logical contradiction in this stuff because it is based on false premises so of course it is going to be self contradictory.
You and professor Law are brilliant to call God evil because you are evil at heart and you cannot see God as being good. You are right , God is evil and it's you who is full of evil
Ok, the topsy turvy backwards kid has now made it clear that he is convinced nothing is true and the opposite of everything is just as untrue as everything else. The kid lives in a nonsensical world with a nonsensical reality which is not really real. We all know the kid is pretending to be logical while claiming it is illogical to say anything is logical since the opposite is held up by the kid as being equal to logic. The way this kid calling himself Dermit talks and acts, I'm guessing he is around 13 and beginning to realize that he thinks he knows everything as he has decided that everything is untrue and illogical.
Children generally start playing this game around 8 years old, (unless of course they have good parents who will not allow time to be wasted on such silliness) and I think dermit must have been playing for five years or so so I'm guessing him to be around 13.
You have one tiny passage from the old testament? Before Christ followers of God went to heaven if they followed the Torah that changed with the birth of Christ. Lesson 1 of Christianity you fake.
17hrs ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
JatinNagpal(781) 1 point
Insulting you would require that you be smart enough to at least understand them.
You're an idiot than which can no greater idiot be conceived.
I wonder how you can even use this website. If people in ancient Israel programmed a chatbot, it'd be smarter than you.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Isaiah 45:7 in context:
"4For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. 5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 8Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. 9Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?"
It is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.
The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
It is good to know that God will not allow evil to go unpunished. God is not "omnibenevolent", He cannot be good to evil or He would not be good and if He is not good He cannot be God.
All this double talk rhetoric in the pseudo-intellectual assertion that Hell and God cannot both exist starts with the false premise that God is not good regardless of whether Hell is real or not. If you can make yourself believe that God is not good, then you can make yourself believe you have the right to live and to exist outside of Hell....fooling yourself. That's why Psalm 14:1 says an atheist is a fool and their is no such thing as a good atheist.
The statements above are fully in line with Biblical reasoning and in agreement with me as I agree with God. Some of the teachings of the website I took a large part of this post from are not in line with the Bible so I will not quote the source as I do not want to promote sites with heretical ideas.
God created good and evil . Look at the logic: how could God allow for evil without the potential for good that's why he gave you free will ,yet people still defy him and do good
Look, if god is a petty tyrant who simply wants his way because he's god and will subject you to brutality if you don't comply then he's a bully. He's the type of bully that would still do whatever he wants to you even if you spend a lifetime kissing up to him. Which would mean he isn't any more worth worshipping than the old pagan gods.
And if instead god is an all knowing and very loving god then he would consider all the circumstances of your life, would take some credit or blame himself for having created you, and wouldn't all terrible things to be done to you. Which would mean no hell.
This isn't hard to figure out. Quite frankly the only people who don't figure this out are those who are so thoroughly brainwashed by the Bronze Age literature of simpler men that they can't possibly contemplate this dilemma themselves.
Agree with everything you've said. Someone/something which threatens you with eternal damnation if you do not obey its exact commands cannot by any logic be "loving".
By the way, you wouldn't happen to be the same Grenache whom frequented YickYak.com would you?
AR has two near equivalents on this site - FromWithin and SaintNow / Nowasaint. They've got the ultra conservative ultra religious angle covered already.
You cannot obey God's commands because you are a sinner. Trying to obey His commands won't get you out of dying and won't keep you out of Hell. You have to from your heart believe that He died for your sins and rose from the dead to justify those who trust in Him to save them from Hell. If you believe on Him He will give you a new heart which causes you to desire to honor and obey God thankfully for his mercy. What you are doing is making up your own commandments for you to follow telling yourself that you are exonerated in death and do not have to serve eternity in Hell as a sinner. You are claiming you have a license for sin and clinging to it not wanting to obey God.
Because you do not want to obey God, you do not want Him to be your Savior, you do not want Him in your life.....how you can expect to remain outside of Hell is not rational when you are in rebellion against God.
GOOD GOD! THIS IS STUPID! Seems I remember a story about killing all the first born (Biblical abortion so to speak). About turning a woman to stone for looking at something (because she used her "God given" curiosity! Then, more recently there was 9 killed in a "House of God", Worshippers crushed in a church under an avalanche, etc., etc.. A "God of Love"?? If he created a place of eternal damnation he should take up residence! Hopefully he will have a change of heart, repent, and start saving a few lives!
The Bible doesn't say God has "infinite love and forgiveness". He isn't an absolute zero robot. He is what He is. Now define "Hell" from the Biblical perspective.
I would say that the idea that hell exists and that God is omnibenevolent can coexist. It follows that if God is omnibenevolent, He cannot allow evil into heaven. This conclusion also follows from all loving nature. Based off this, that would make your choices a false dichotomy
You make a good point. However, even with God separating the good from the evil, this would not make him omnibenevolent. For him to be truly all-loving he would not wish for the evil (and the sinful - the two are not often related. Homosexuals and unbelievers would be sent to Hell, for example, regardless of their deeds) to be tortured for an eternity, he'd simply make a separate heaven for the sinners away from the "good".
Goodness would be moral purity. A good person is one who commits objectively "good" actions, such as forgiveness. Obviously objective goodness is impossible to prove, however, I think we can all agree on certain actions which are universally "good".
Therefore:
A good person is kind
An infinitely good person is infinitely kind
A good person shows forgiveness
An infinitely good person has infinite forgiveness.
God is infinitely good, so therefore He would have infinite kindness and the ability to infinitely forgive.
Therefore, Hell cannot exist; an infinitely good being would not torture creations for an eternity. It would forgive them, as it has ultimate forgiveness and ultimate kindness.
evil
Evil is the absence of good. An evil person is one who has no or very little capacity for goodness.
sinner
Sin is like the "crime" of the Bible. A sinner can be anyone, from a teenage girl to an elderly man.
There is a huge difference between someone who is sinful and someone who is evil. An evil person kills and harms maliciously without regret and emotion.
A sinner, however, could actually be a good person. A homosexual would be considered a sinner, for example, even if they are both kind and forgiving. This means that they would be sent to Hell.
Here lies a huge issue: sinners such as the unbeliever and the homosexual are sent to Hell, according to scripture. However, if God were truly all-loving and infinitely good, then this would not make sense. An infinitely good being would not condemn a good person to eternal damnation for a factor which is out of their control. In fact, if there is a God and he created humanity, homosexuality would be HIS creation and therefore He is condemning a group of people for his own actions.
Will people willingly choose to be with God? Wouldn't Gods all-loving nature require that something be done about sin instead of just leaving it be? Would an all-loving God make His creations robots or allow them to freely make decisions of their own volition, even if it means that they make the wrong decision and are separated from Him?
God's prevention would likely be in the form of religious experience. Evil people being "visited" by God and turning good.
There are cases where people have religious epiphanies, however surely if God were unbiased and infinitely loving he would give ALL evil doers this sort of awakening.
Nevertheless, this isn't relevant. God would not have created evil in the first place if he were the three omni's, so he would not need to give people religious experiences.
God will one day suddenly purge evil from Creation and confine it forever in the fire of Hell. If He did that today as you seem to think He should, you would be burning in Hell now unable to publish any more accusations against God.
God gives you time because He is merciful and wants you to come to repentance to be in agreement with Him so you can be forgiven. If you won't agree with God you cannot be forgiven and God will let you go forever away from Him in Hell. You are arguing against your own life, trying to blame God for your own downfall.
I think you would have to clarify a few things. Lets say God give evil people a religious experience or epiphany. What evidence do you have that people would consider it to be God or want more evidence? Also, what three omni's are you referring to? I imagine we were talking about the omnibenevolence and omnilove. What would be the third?
I think you would have to clarify a few things. Lets say God give evil people a religious experience or epiphany. What evidence do you have that people would consider it to be God or want more evidence? Also, what three omni's are you referring to?
I'm an atheist. It's irrelevant to me whether or not someone considers a religious experience to be God. However, people tend to attribute these sorts of epiphanies/experiences to God (generally when they themselves are already a believer) so that would be my "evidence" if you could call it such.
Also, what three omni's are you referring to? I imagine we were talking about the omnibenevolence and omnilove. What would be the third?
Omnibenevolence and "omnilove" (this isn't a thing, omnilove is just omnibenevolence) are the same thing.
The three omnis are:
omniscience
All knowing.
omnipotent
All powerful.
omnibenevolent
All loving.
There is also omnipresent (all present) but that's not necessarily relevant to this debate.
I'm an atheist. It's irrelevant to me whether or not someone considers a religious experience to be God. However, people tend to attribute these sorts of epiphanies/experiences to God (generally when they themselves are already a believer) so that would be my "evidence" if you could call it such.
Except you just can't make an assertion and then not back it up. It sounds like you may have not thought this one through that much
The three omnis are:
omniscience
Omniscience implies that there is a morally sufficient reason for allowing everything to happen, even if its not immediately apparent to us
omnipotent
All this means is that He can. It seems like you're assuming that because He can, that means that He is some how obligated to act on that
omnibenevolent
How do you know that it is more loving to act in the way you would want Him to? Do you have more knowledge than an omniscient God?
Except you just can't make an assertion and then not back it up. It sounds like you may have not thought this one through that much
I don't see what point you're trying to make here... I'm not trying to prove religious experiences. I simply stated that some people attribute religious experiences to evil converting to good. I think you've completely misunderstood me.
Omniscience implies that there is a morally sufficient reason for allowing everything to happen, even if its not immediately apparent to us
It also implies that God should be able to think of a way to eliminate evil without impeding free will. If he were all-loving, this would be a preferable option to him.
All this means is that He can. It seems like you're assuming that because He can, that means that He is some how obligated to act on that
I don't think He would be obligated to do anything if he were solely omnipotent. I'll come onto that later.
How do you know that it is more loving to act in the way you would want Him to? Do you have more knowledge than an omniscient God?
Are you implying that letting children starve and die, letting women be raped, letting entire groups of people be persecuted against, letting innocent people get murdered every single hour, letting natural disasters ruin people's homes and livelihoods, etc... is more loving than not letting all these things happen? Oh, silly me, I'm just incapable of understanding God's "plan" which means He must commit these atrocities.
I am not disputing God's existence. However, claiming he is the 3 omni's is a logical fallacy.
If God were omniscient, He would know of a way to eliminate evil without impeding free will. If God were omnipotent, He would have the power to do this. If God were omnibenevolent, he would be willing to do all of this.
If God were omniscient and omnipotent, but not omnibenevolent, then he would know how to stop evil and have the power to, but may not be willing to do so. This is personally my favourite scenario. Well, not favourite, but most likely.
If God were omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent, then he would know how to stop evil and be willing to do it, but would not have the power to do it. This does not make much sense, however, because surely a being with the ability to create an entire universe would be omnipotent nevertheless.
If God were omnibenevolent and omnipotent, but not omniscient, then he would have the power to stop evil and be willing to, however he may not necessarily know how to eliminate evil without also eliminating free will.
Have I finished clarifying now? You seem to be vigorously attempting to pick holes in my arguments.
I don't see what point you're trying to make here... I'm not trying to prove religious experiences. I simply stated that some people attribute religious experiences to evil converting to good. I think you've completely misunderstood me.
You made the assertion that God's prevention would likely be in the form of religious experience. Evil people being "visited" by God and turning good. I asked you to back it up and you couldn't do that. As of right now, all that is is a baseless assertion. If you can't back it up or simply don't want to, why are you making any kind of claim?
It also implies that God should be able to think of a way to eliminate evil without impeding free will. If he were all-loving, this would be a preferable option to him.
You're right. It does imply that. However, you're assuming that the plan that is already put in place isn't the best one. How is it that you know better than an omniscient God? Do you know something He doesn't?
Are you implying that letting children starve and die, letting women be raped, letting entire groups of people be persecuted against, letting innocent people get murdered every single hour, letting natural disasters ruin people's homes and livelihoods, etc... is more loving than not letting all these things happen?
It still sounds like you think you know better than an omniscient God. Why do you want God to operate under your thinking? You also didn't answer my question. How do you know that it is more loving to act in the way you would want Him to?
I am not disputing God's existence.
I never claimed you were
However, claiming he is the 3 omni's is a logical fallacy.
Whats more fallacious, replacing the truth with a false dichotomy or backing up claims with assumptions you can't prove?
You made the assertion that God's prevention would likely be in the form of religious experience. Evil people being "visited" by God and turning good. I asked you to back it up and you couldn't do that. As of right now, all that is is a baseless assertion. If you can't back it up or simply don't want to, why are you making any kind of claim?
I made that claim because that is the only concept I have seen in this world which hints towards God's intervention. God revealing Himself is, by definition, a religious experience. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if He were to actively prevent evil, he would so so with a religious experience.
You're right. It does imply that. However, you're assuming that the plan that is already put in place isn't the best one. How is it that you know better than an omniscient God? Do you know something He doesn't?
This is a classic scapegoat argument. "You don't know God's plan, therefore you cannot argue against it."
Yes, I can argue against it perfectly well. However, no matter how valid and effective my arguments are, you will always reply with "but God has a plan". It has never been, and never will be, a good argument.
How do you know that it is more loving to act in the way you would want Him to?
Easy. Children not dying of starvation > children dying of starvation. Under no circumstance is letting innocent children die more loving than not letting children die. Sorry, I thought it was obvious?
Oh, wait, I'm sorry, how could I forget? It's all part of God's plan! So silly of me.
Whats more fallacious, replacing the truth with a false dichotomy or backing up claims with assumptions you can't prove?
Everything regarding religion and philosophy can be described as "claims with assumptions you can't prove". What's the point of any of this if you believe this to be fallacious? Why are you here?
The entire point is to debate things we cannot prove. I do not claim to know anything. I simply claim to believe and estimate.
I made that claim because that is the only concept I have seen in this world which hints towards God's intervention. God revealing Himself is, by definition, a religious experience. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if He were to actively prevent evil, he would so so with a religious experience.
Then my original question still stands. What evidence do you have that people would consider it to be God or want more evidence?
This is a classic scapegoat argument. "You don't know God's plan, therefore you cannot argue against it."
And its still something that you have yet to refute
Yes, I can argue against it perfectly well. However, no matter how valid and effective my arguments are, you will always reply with "but God has a plan". It has never been, and never will be, a good argument.
How does complaining about an argument that you don't like somehow make the argument any less truthful or reasonable?
Everything regarding religion and philosophy can be described as "claims with assumptions you can't prove". What's the point of any of this if you believe this to be fallacious? Why are you here?
Even all of your claims? If everything from those two fields are claims with assumptions that we can't prove, how can I trust anything you say about them? It follows that your claim is just a claim with assumptions you can't prove which gives you no logical basis for making it
The entire point is to debate things we cannot prove. I do not claim to know anything. I simply claim to believe and estimate.
If you don't actually know anything, how did you come to know that?
Then my original question still stands. What evidence do you have that people would consider it to be God or want more evidence?
Because these people have literally gone on record saying they have witnessed God and it has given them new meaning. What are you trying to do here? This part isn't up for debate, it's literal fact that some people attribute moral conversion to God's presence.
And its still something that you have yet to refute
Because no matter what I say, your reply will be "you just don't understand God's plan".
Well, let's attempt this, shall we? If God's plan is to let innocent people die despite the fact that He can easily prevent it, then God is cruel and not all-loving. I do not care what his plan is.
How does complaining about an argument that you don't like somehow make the argument any less truthful or reasonable?
Because it's not a valid argument. It's like if someone poisoned a child's food, killing them, and you tell me I can't object because I don't understand the poisoner's "plan". I could not care less what his plan is. I'm still not going to support the death of an innocent child.
It follows that your claim is just a claim with assumptions you can't prove which gives you no logical basis for making it
Funny, because the last time I checked, your claim is just a claim with assumptions you can't prove which gives you no logical basis for making it, too.
Once again, the point of philosophy isn't to know, it's to debate. I never claim to know anything, because I would be lying if I did. Of course all my claims are arguments which I cannot prove. I never said I could prove them. Stop trying to run circles around me and trap me, because it's not working.
If you don't actually know anything, how did you come to know that?
Know what? Know my beliefs? I don't. That's why they're called beliefs, not facts.
Because these people have literally gone on record saying they have witnessed God and it has given them new meaning. What are you trying to do here? This part isn't up for debate, it's literal fact that some people attribute moral conversion to God's presence.
So now that you yourself have said that only some people attribute this to God, now you understand the point of the original question. Now you can effectively answer it
Because no matter what I say, your reply will be "you just don't understand God's plan".
I don't understand Gods plan either. It also sounds like you're putting words in my mouth
Well, let's attempt this, shall we? If God's plan is to let innocent people die despite the fact that He can easily prevent it, then God is cruel and not all-loving. I do not care what his plan is.
What have you done to prevent innocent people from dying?
Funny, because the last time I checked, your claim is just a claim with assumptions you can't prove which gives you no logical basis for making it, too.
What I said was a logical deduction from what you had stated. Showing what logically follows from a statement is not a claim
Once again, the point of philosophy isn't to know, it's to debate.
I would ask you how you know this, but I know you're just going to come up with some cop-out about how we can't actually know anything
I never claim to know anything, because I would be lying if I did.
You lied by making this sentence. When you say you can't know anything, you just showed you did. By merely stating this claim, you're claiming its true and we can know it to be true that we don't actually know anything. If thats the case, it follows that your claim that we can't know anything is a lie
Of course all my claims are arguments which I cannot prove. I never said I could prove them. Stop trying to run circles around me and trap me, because it's not working.
You already trapped yourself when you started talking. All I'm doing is pointing it out. If you cannot actually prove anything, then it logically follows that I can't trust anything you say because all you have are assertions and not actual arguments
Know what? Know my beliefs? I don't. That's why they're called beliefs, not facts.
So based off of our convo we've been having, you've shown you know as an absolute fact:
-the difference between a belief and a fact
-that you don't actually know anything
-philosophy and religion can't be proven
As mentioned earlier, this would be a logical deduction based off what you had said. Or you could say a logical conclusion based off evidence, but you would probably stick with the false notion that we can't know anything except that we can't know anything
So now that you yourself have said that only some people attribute this to God, now you understand the point of the original question. Now you can effectively answer it
I'm making that claim because that's the only way I know of which a religious moral conversion has happened.
I don't understand Gods plan either. It also sounds like you're putting words in my mouth
How do you know he has one, then?
What have you done to prevent innocent people from dying?
When did I imply that I have done?
I am not God. I do not have that responsibility to bare. However, given the chance I would gladly help prevent innocents from dying.
What I said was a logical deduction from what you had stated. Showing what logically follows from a statement is not a claim
You claim that God has a plan which I do not understand. That claim is just a claim with assumptions you can't prove, which gives you no logical basis for making it. :)
I would ask you how you know this, but I know you're just going to come up with some cop-out about how we can't actually know anything
Because if the point of philosophy was to empirically and objectively know things, then we would not be having this debate. We would be able to know that God exists or doesn't exist. What on Earth are you waffling on about? You seem to be trying to trap me in some sort of logical paradox.
"You lied by making this sentence. When you say you can't know anything, you just showed you did. By merely stating this claim, you're claiming its true and we can know it to be true that we don't actually know anything. If thats the case, it follows that your claim that we can't know anything is a lie"
???
When I say "I never claim to know anything" I'm very obviously referring to talk about God, not just generally not knowing anything. Please - you know this perfectly well. Don't act the fool.
"You already trapped yourself when you started talking. All I'm doing is pointing it out. If you cannot actually prove anything, then it logically follows that I can't trust anything you say because all you have are assertions and not actual arguments"
So you're saying that we can't argue about God, because we can't prove anything? Have you been reading some A.J. Ayer recently by any chance?
-that you don't actually know anything
*regarding religion
I'm entirely uncertain what your approach is here. You seem to be arguing with me about my assumptions of God as if you don't agree with them, yet you are also extremely pro-fact and refuse to acknowledge things which cannot be empirically proven. Care to elaborate on what your stance is? I can better understand and answer your questions if I know your personal alignment.
I'm making that claim because that's the only way I know of which a religious moral conversion has happened.
I understand that. It seems like I missed something though. How does that answer the question?
How do you know he has one, then?
Not only from the bible, but it logically follows from the omni's we were talking about earlier
When did I imply that I have done?
You haven't. Except all you've done is bash on God for not helping yet it seems like you've done nothing yourself. If you haven't done anything to help, why are you bashing someone who you say hasn't helped?
I am not God. I do not have that responsibility to bare. However, given the chance I would gladly help prevent innocents from dying.
Who says you needs to be God to help? What responsibility are you referring to? Have you helped prevent innocent people from dying before?
You claim that God has a plan which I do not understand. That claim is just a claim with assumptions you can't prove, which gives you no logical basis for making it. :)
When did I make that claim? I remember saying I didn't when you made the statement.
Because if the point of philosophy was to empirically and objectively know things, then we would not be having this debate. We would be able to know that God exists or doesn't exist. What on Earth are you waffling on about? You seem to be trying to trap me in some sort of logical paradox.
How did you come to the conclusion that we can't empirically and objectively know things through philosophy? It sounds like you know this empirically and objectively
When I say "I never claim to know anything" I'm very obviously referring to talk about God, not just generally not knowing anything. Please - you know this perfectly well. Don't act the fool.
Earlier, you had stated I do not claim to know anything. without any mention of God, religion, or anything else. If you want me to portray your views rightly, don't stop short. Why do you resort to name calling when you know this to be true?
So you're saying that we can't argue about God, because we can't prove anything? Have you been reading some A.J. Ayer recently by any chance?
You're the only one saying we can't argue about God. I never even implied what you say I did. You said I never said I could prove them. which is what lead me to make the statement I did. I'll say it again, if you cannot actually prove anything, then it logically follows that I can't trust anything you say.
regarding religion
Why didn't you clarify earlier? If you're gonna claim you did, show me where you did and I will believe you
I'm entirely uncertain what your approach is here. You seem to be arguing with me about my assumptions of God as if you don't agree with them, yet you are also extremely pro-fact and refuse to acknowledge things which cannot be empirically proven. Care to elaborate on what your stance is? I can better understand and answer your questions if I know your personal alignment.
You seem to be under the impression that dealing with peoples assumptions is the opposite of being "pro-fact" as you call it. How did you come to this conclusion? Is it a fact that you can't know that philosophy is empirically and objectively wrong? Also you've mentioned, in one way or another, that things need to be empirically proven, it seems like you are a man of science. Am I right in saying so?
I understand that. It seems like I missed something though. How does that answer the question?
You've asked a lot of questions. Specify.
You haven't. Except all you've done is bash on God for not helping yet it seems like you've done nothing yourself. If you haven't done anything to help, why are you bashing someone who you say hasn't helped?
Are you putting me on the same level as God? I'm flattered, luckin!
God is all-loving (allegedly). I am not. It transpires that an all-loving, all-powerful being has more responsibility to help the innocent than I, a mortal and flawed person does.
Your assertion is completely inane. You can't tell an ant that they have the same responsibility to save lives as a human. Assuming God does exist, we are the ants.
Have you helped prevent innocent people from dying before?
I donate to charity, which is as much as someone my age and status can do to save lives. Do you expect me to learn kung-fu and kick the shit out of ISIS with my bare hands? As amusing and as fun as that would be, it's not realistic, is it?
When did I make that claim? I remember saying I didn't when you made the statement.
It's the point you're using to try and refute my claims of God not being the three omni's.
How did you come to the conclusion that we can't empirically and objectively know things through philosophy? It sounds like you know this empirically and objectively
Can you personally prove morality or God?
Earlier, you had stated I do not claim to know anything. without any mention of God, religion, or anything else. If you want me to portray your views rightly, don't stop short. Why do you resort to name calling when you know this to be true?
Considering the entire conversation prior to and following that comment, I think it's blindingly obvious that I was not literally saying I do not know anything. Anyone should be able to figure that out, and I think we both know that you knew perfectly well what I was talking about; you're just desperately trying to trap me for some reason.
You're the only one saying we can't argue about God.
No. I am saying we cannot prove God. That does not mean we cannot argue and debate about religion. Do not put words in my mouth.
Also you've mentioned, in one way or another, that things need to be empirically proven, it seems like you are a man of science. Am I right in saying so?
Thinks need to be empirically proven to label them as facts. I certainly support science, because science is a source of fact.
However, that does not mean I refuse to speak about anything related to religion and philosophy, and such other subjective topics. We can discuss things and form opinions, as long as we do not label them as fact without proof of them being such.
I do not state that my theories and beliefs are objective fact. That would be ludicrous without proof. But it is also ludicrous to say that we cannot debate without having empirical evidence.
The original question I had about how you know people would do something. You had said in a previous reply that only some people would accept something as a religious experience. You gave another answer that seemed like it didn't answer the question, however, I may have missed something. Thats why I asked you to elaborate
God is all-loving (allegedly). I am not. It transpires that an all-loving, all-powerful being has more responsibility to help the innocent than I, a mortal and flawed person does.
It doesn't follow that because God is all-loving and all-powerful that He is somehow more obligated to help or has more of a responsibility to.
Your assertion is completely inane. You can't tell an ant that they have the same responsibility to save lives as a human. Assuming God does exist, we are the ants.
We may not have the same capabilities as God, but it doesn't follow that we aren't just as responsible. All that means is that God can do more than we can. Does an ant have the same ability to think things through like we do?
I donate to charity, which is as much as someone my age and status can do to save lives. Do you expect me to learn kung-fu and kick the shit out of ISIS with my bare hands? As amusing and as fun as that would be, it's not realistic, is it?
Good. How about you keep it up and volunteer to do things like soup kitchens and other stuff like that
Can you personally prove morality or God?
For morality, there are things that everyone would consider to be objectively wrong. If there is something objectively wrong, then it follows that there is objective right. If there is something objectively right, then it follows that there is an objective moral law for which you can differentiate between right and wrong. If there is an objective moral law, then it follows that there is an objective moral law giver which is what you are trying to disprove instead of prove.
Considering the entire conversation prior to and following that comment, I think it's blindingly obvious that I was not literally saying I do not know anything. Anyone should be able to figure that out, and I think we both know that you knew perfectly well what I was talking about; you're just desperately trying to trap me for some reason.
You let that comment I mentioned before stand on its own without context and used it as a separate argument. If that was not your intention, why did you make it seem that way?
No. I am saying we cannot prove God. That does not mean we cannot argue and debate about religion. Do not put words in my mouth
You said,"So you're saying that we can't argue about God, because we can't prove anything?" Even if it was part of a question, you still said it
Thinks need to be empirically proven to label them as facts. I certainly support science, because science is a source of fact
Is that a scientific fact?
However, that does not mean I refuse to speak about anything related to religion and philosophy, and such other subjective topics. We can discuss things and form opinions, as long as we do not label them as fact without proof of them being such.
What do you mean by subjective?
I do not state that my theories and beliefs are objective fact. That would be ludicrous without proof. But it is also ludicrous to say that we cannot debate without having empirical evidence.
I agree we can continue to debate with one another, but is there an end to it? Or is this simply to broaden our respective world views?
The original question I had about how you know people would do something.
Would do what? I'm sorry, but you severely lack clarity. I have no idea what you are talking about.
"It doesn't follow that because God is all-loving and all-powerful that He is somehow more obligated to help or has more of a responsibility to."
The owner of a business has the responsibility of making sure that business does not collapse. The workers passively help it not to collapse, but that is not their responsibility.
God is allegedly the creator of the world. If he is all-loving, he would want to help out because he loves all his creations. If he is all-powerful, then he has the POWER to help out. People with the power to do something have more responsibility to actually do it than someone with no resources and no opportunities. That's just common sense.
Does an ant have the same ability to think things through like we do?
Do we have the same ability to think things through like God does?
Good. How about you keep it up and volunteer to do things like soup kitchens and other stuff like that
I'm going to assume from your moral high horse that you do a lot to help people out?
For morality, there are things that everyone would consider to be objectively wrong.
No there isn't. Name one. Then prove it empirically and objectively. Otherwise your claim is just an assumption you can't prove. :)
If there is an objective moral law, then it follows that there is an objective moral law giver which is what you are trying to disprove instead of prove.
No. I said prove morality or God. These are just claims of assumptions you cannot prove.
You let that comment I mentioned before stand on its own without context and used it as a separate argument. If that was not your intention, why did you make it seem that way?
I didn't make it seem that way. You're just not paying attention.
Even if it was part of a question, you still said it
Jesus. It's comments like this that make me think you're trolling.
Anyone with a decent brain can acknowledge that the comment you're referring to was a question aimed at you, not me specifically stating it. A question you have yet to answer, in fact - are you saying that we cannot argue about God?
Is that a scientific fact?
Is the fact that information needs to be proven for them to be labelled as facts a scientific fact? By definition, yes.
What do you mean by subjective?
subjective
səbˈdʒɛktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
You can use Google yourself, you know?
I agree we can continue to debate with one another, but is there an end to it? Or is this simply to broaden our respective world views?
My world views cannot be broadened when you have not explained in detail yours. You know a lot about my views - I know fragments of yours.
You seem to be a theist, for example... yet you're pushing a pro-fact pro-analytic pro-cognitive agenda? Doesn't make much sense.
Would do what? I'm sorry, but you severely lack clarity. I have no idea what you are talking about.
It kinda sounds like you're playing dumb just to get a reaction
The owner of a business has the responsibility of making sure that business does not collapse. The workers passively help it not to collapse, but that is not their responsibility.
You’re assuming that the people can’t think for themselves and can’t act of their own volition
God is allegedly the creator of the world. If he is all-loving, he would want to help out because he loves all his creations. If he is all-powerful, then he has the POWER to help out. People with the power to do something have more responsibility to actually do it than someone with no resources and no opportunities. That's just common sense.
Again, it doesn't follow that people that can do more have more of a responsibility or obligation to help. Common sense would say that
Do we have the same ability to think things through like God does?
We don't, but that not only doesn't mean we can't think things through, it also means that it's not an excuse to be lazy
I'm going to assume from your moral high horse that you do a lot to help people out?
High horse or not, if you aren't doing something to help people, you can't get mad at God for not doing something
No there isn't. Name one. Then prove it empirically and objectively. Otherwise your claim is just an assumption you can't prove. :)
You mean like you just did?
No. I said prove morality or God. These are just claims of assumptions you cannot prove.
The moral argument is a logical deduction. If you don't like it, deal with it logically. Don't object to it just to object
I didn't make it seem that way. You're just not paying attention.
It seems like the only one here that isn't paying attention is you
Anyone with a decent brain can acknowledge that the comment you're referring to was a question aimed at you, not me specifically stating it. A question you have yet to answer, in fact - are you saying that we cannot argue about God?
Regardless, you still said it. What do you mean by argue?
Is the fact that information needs to be proven for them to be labelled as facts a scientific fact? By definition, yes.
So if I were to go to any lab, I can scientifically test what you said there?
subjective
səbˈdʒɛktɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
So how can using this mindset be effective in a debate when, by virtue of participation, you are assuming that this mindset is objectively true?
My world views cannot be broadened when you have not explained in detail yours. You know a lot about my views - I know fragments of yours.
What lead you to think that you need to hear someone else's views for yours to be broadened? Are you not capable of answering questions about your beliefs?
You seem to be a theist, for example... yet you're pushing a pro-fact pro-analytic pro-cognitive agenda? Doesn't make much sense.
What gave you the idea that a theist can't have facts, be analytical, or think cognitively, or any combination of the three? Also, what makes you think its an agenda? Do you know this to be certain?
It kinda sounds like you're playing dumb just to get a reaction
I'm not playing dumb, I'm trying to decode your very lazily put and unclear question. Just ask the question without any stupid comments, so I can answer it.
You’re assuming that the people can’t think for themselves and can’t act of their own volition
No I'm not. A worker can, if they wish to, help the company and the owner. However, they do not fully bear that responsibility and have no obligation to. They may do it if they wish, or they may not. There is no difference, apart from the fact that they are not being forced to do either.
Again, it doesn't follow that people that can do more have more of a responsibility or obligation to help. Common sense would say that
The wealthiest man in the world is asked to donate to charity.
The poorest man in the world is also asked to donate to charity.
Speaking from common sense, who has the larger moral obligation to help the needy?
I am not saying that the person with resources MUST or WILL perform their moral obligation. However, that obligation is still there, and if the richest man in the world refuses to donate even a tiny amount of money to that charity, then what does that tell you about his character?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
We don't, but that not only doesn't mean we can't think things through, it also means that it's not an excuse to be lazy
It is not an excuse to be lazy. We can do whatever we want, whether it be nothing or everything. The point is that we do not have the obligation to.
High horse or not, if you aren't doing something to help people, you can't get mad at God for not doing something
Good job avoiding my question. In fact, dodging my question tells me the answer. Thanks.
I am not mad at God for not doing something. I do not believe in Him. My point is that if He exists, He is not the three omni's, otherwise he would do something. You hammering home the point that God doesn't have an obligation to help actually supports my point. So thanks.
You mean like you just did?
I didn't. Morality is equivocal. You stated that there is a universal morality, which there isn't.
A universal morality implies that everyone thinks that murder is wrong. They don't. Look at Hitler. Or Anders Behring Breivik. Or the thousands of other examples of murderers who show no remorse for their crimes.
A universal morality implies that everyone thinks that rape is wrong. I don't even need to give examples to prove that this one is wrong.
A universal morality implies that everyone thinks that homosexuality is wrong (or right, alternatively, but let's assume we're talking about religious morality). Shall I give myself as an example? I don't think that homosexuality is wrong. I don't know anyone, in fact, who is opposed to it (in real life).
I could go on and on, but I'll spare you that. Aren't I kind?
The moral argument is a logical deduction. If you don't like it, deal with it logically. Don't object to it just to object
A logical deduction is not proof. It is a claim of an assumption of which you cannot prove... just with "logic" thrown in (it's hardly even logic, since I've shown in my previous rebuttal that morality is not universal and therefore there is not a universal moral law giver).
It seems like the only one here that isn't paying attention is you
Mature. A classic "I know you are, but what am I?" statement.
Regardless, you still said it.
Are you dim? What is your point? Any one with half a mind can figure out that the statement was me asking you whether you thought that, not me actually arguing for it.
By your logic, if I ask someone "do you like rape?", it means that I like rape. Absolutely absurd.
So if I were to go to any lab, I can scientifically test what you said there?
Even easier. Use a dictionary. It's called the English language.
So how can using this mindset be effective in a debate when, by virtue of participation, you are assuming that this mindset is objectively true?
Using a subjective mindset? It's effective because it allows us to look at things from multiple perspectives.
What lead you to think that you need to hear someone else's views for yours to be broadened? Are you not capable of answering questions about your beliefs?
Of course I am. But it's nice to hear other people's beliefs, too. It'd also prevent you from waffling on endlessly like you're currently doing if you actually had a point behind what you're trying to say.
What gave you the idea that a theist can't have facts, be analytical, or think cognitively, or any combination of the three?
The majority of theists are science deniers and creationists. Of course theists can be factual, but they obviously cannot be about events in the Bible. You cannot claim to be a cognitive Christian yet also believe that we descended from Adam and Eve.
Of course, since you're refusing to share you actual beliefs, I don't know whether you're a creationist or not. Another reason why it'd be nice if you told me.
I'm not playing dumb, I'm trying to decode your very lazily put and unclear question. Just ask the question without any stupid comments, so I can answer it.
Except we both know what it is I'm referring to when I talk about the question I asked regarding your statement
No I'm not. A worker can, if they wish to, help the company and the owner. However, they do not fully bear that responsibility and have no obligation to. They may do it if they wish, or they may not. There is no difference, apart from the fact that they are not being forced to do either.
So you're saying that agreeing to support a company by working for it doesn't give said worker the responsibility and obligation to make sure the company they work for stays afloat?
The wealthiest man in the world is asked to donate to charity.
The poorest man in the world is also asked to donate to charity.
Speaking from common sense, who has the larger moral obligation to help the needy?
Neither one is more obligated than the other to help
I am not saying that the person with resources MUST or WILL perform their moral obligation. However, that obligation is still there, and if the richest man in the world refuses to donate even a tiny amount of money to that charity, then what does that tell you about his character?
Based off this one stand alone event, nothing
It is not an excuse to be lazy. We can do whatever we want, whether it be nothing or everything. The point is that we do not have the obligation to.
Why are you limiting yourself to either doing nothing or everything? Surely there has to be something in-between
I am not mad at God for not doing something. I do not believe in Him. My point is that if He exists, He is not the three omni's, otherwise he would do something. You hammering home the point that God doesn't have an obligation to help actually supports my point. So thanks.
You're assuming He would do something based off your fallacious idea of how He should act. No one on this planet whoever was or ever will be is not equipped to tell God what to do
I didn't. Morality is equivocal.
What do you mean by equivocal?
You stated that there is a universal morality, which there isn't.
Now you're contradict yourself since earlier you were talking about a moral obligation for the wealthy and the poor and now you're saying that there is no universal morality which means that the analogy you gave earlier falls apart. You're also saying it would be totally fine for me to break your legs and take your money
A universal morality implies that everyone thinks that murder is wrong.
A universal morality implies that everyone thinks that rape is wrong.
A universal morality implies that everyone thinks that homosexuality is wrong (or right, alternatively, but let's assume we're talking about religious morality).
It sounds like you have a fallacious understanding of how a universal morality works. It doesn't imply that everyone thinks its wrong. It actually means that these things are wrong regardless of what everyone thinks about it. If you're going to object to this, it would be nice to see actual evidence
Even easier. Use a dictionary. It's called the English language.
So the short answer to my question is, no, a lab can't test it scientifically. Why didn't you just say that?
Using a subjective mindset? It's effective because it allows us to look at things from multiple perspectives.
You mean, based off the assumption that people who have an objective mindset can't see things from other perspectives?
Of course I am. But it's nice to hear other people's beliefs, too. It'd also prevent you from waffling on endlessly like you're currently doing if you actually had a point behind what you're trying to say.
So you're saying that the only way to move forward is to spout what we think at each other and just have you tell me I'm wrong either without backing it up or bringing up weak arguments for your side?
The majority of theists are science deniers and creationists.
How did you come to this conclusion? Have you met and talked to the majority of theists?
Of course theists can be factual, but they obviously cannot be about events in the Bible.
Have you ever honestly studied the bible?
You cannot claim to be a cognitive Christian yet also believe that we descended from Adam and Eve.
Except we both know what it is I'm referring to when I talk about the question I asked regarding your statement
Obviously not, because I would have answered it, and you wouldn't be withholding it from me. Just ask the bloody question.
So you're saying that agreeing to support a company by working for it doesn't give said worker the responsibility and obligation to make sure the company they work for stays afloat?
The majority of people get jobs so that they can sustain themselves with currency. The only reason they care about the company staying afloat is so that they don't lose their job - not because they give a shit about the company.
Neither one is more obligated than the other to help
I see we've hit a standstill.
Based off this one stand alone event, nothing
Must I spell it out for you?
If a God with all the power and knowledge imaginable refuses to help his creations and his creation's suffering, then he is not all-loving.
Why are you limiting yourself to either doing nothing or everything? Surely there has to be something in-between
Of course there is. I only used "nothing" and "everything" to demonstrate the two ends of the spectrum.
You're assuming He would do something based off your fallacious idea of how He should act. No one on this planet whoever was or ever will be is not equipped to tell God what to do
We're talking about his nature, not would he should do. My point is that if He were all-loving, it's not about what he should do, it's about what He would do.
What do you mean by equivocal?
Multiple meanings and interpretations.
Now you're contradict yourself since earlier you were talking about a moral obligation for the wealthy and the poor and now you're saying that there is no universal morality which means that the analogy you gave earlier falls apart.
When we talk about universal morality, we're talking about morality which everyone agrees with.
Obviously the moral obligations are not universal, because if they were then poverty would cease to exist as the richest people in the world would have used their money to end it. I never said that these moral obligations are universally agreed on.
You're also saying it would be totally fine for me to break your legs and take your money
No. I'm saying that breaking someone's legs and stealing their money is not universally immoral. The majority of people would say that it is wrong, yes, but there are people in the world who would not see this as wrong. Do you understand now?
It actually means that these things are wrong regardless of what everyone thinks about it. If you're going to object to this, it would be nice to see actual evidence
Excuse me? You cannot ask me for actual evidence when you have no supplied this evidence yourself.
There is absolutely no evidence that this universal morality as you describe it exists. It is purely conceptual. You cannot just say "this is objectively wrong!" and claim that you are correct. It does not work like that.
I support homosexuality. Others do not. According to your universal morality, who is correct there? Who is the moral person?
You mean, based off the assumption that people who have an objective mindset can't see things from other perspectives?
A person with an objective mindset would say "this thing is wrong, and I do not care what you think."
A person with a subjective mindset would say "in my opinion, this is wrong, however many others would disagree."
So you're saying that the only way to move forward is to spout what we think at each other and just have you tell me I'm wrong either without backing it up or bringing up weak arguments for your side?
I personally think my arguments have been rather strong.
I have also not told you that you are objectively and completely wrong. In my opinion, you are wrong, but neither of us can prove our sides, so I'm not going to decry your beliefs.
How did you come to this conclusion? Have you met and talked to the majority of theists?
I'm admittedly exaggerating here. Most polls show around 40% (or below) of Christians are creationists. I retract the "majority" comment.
Have you ever honestly studied the bible?
Yes.
Why not?
Because evolution is an empirical, scientifically factual theory. It's literally fact. Assuming you're a fact lover you should admit to this.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the story of Adam and Eve is non-fiction. There is literally tons of evidence to suggest that it is indeed fictional.
You can be a Christian and admit that Adam and Eve are metaphorical characters meant to portray human sin.
Obviously not, because I would have answered it, and you wouldn't be withholding it from me. Just ask the bloody question.
What evidence do you have that people would consider it to be God or want more evidence?
The majority of people get jobs so that they can sustain themselves with currency. The only reason they care about the company staying afloat is so that they don't lose their job - not because they give a shit about the company.
You're saying now that people do have a responsibility and obligation to keep it afloat whereas before you said they didn't. Why the change?
If a God with all the power and knowledge imaginable refuses to help his creations and his creation's suffering, then he is not all-loving.
According to who?
Of course there is. I only used "nothing" and "everything" to demonstrate the two ends of the spectrum.
Not sure how this reasoning you have fits in with what you were originally saying
We're talking about his nature, not would he should do. My point is that if He were all-loving, it's not about what he should do, it's about what He would do.
According to who?
Multiple meanings and interpretations.
If there are multiple meanings and interpretations, why are you saying that anything I say about what were talking about is wrong?
When we talk about universal morality, we're talking about morality which everyone agrees with.
It sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how universal morality actually works
Obviously the moral obligations are not universal, because if they were then poverty would cease to exist as the richest people in the world would have used their money to end it. I never said that these moral obligations are universally agreed on.
How is one persons decision to act on an obligation and one persons decision not to proof that there are no moral obligations or that there aren't any objective ones?
No. I'm saying that breaking someone's legs and stealing their money is not universally immoral. The majority of people would say that it is wrong, yes, but there are people in the world who would not see this as wrong. Do you understand now?
How does one group of people seeing that as wrong and another not seeing it as wrong proof that it isn't universally immoral?
Excuse me? You cannot ask me for actual evidence when you have no supplied this evidence yourself.
I gave you evidence earlier when I gave you the moral argument. You just elected to ignore it and objected to it without proper justification
There is absolutely no evidence that this universal morality as you describe it exists. It is purely conceptual. You cannot just say "this is objectively wrong!" and claim that you are correct. It does not work like that.
There's a difference between there not actually being any evidence and the evidence brought forth being weak or poor. If you honestly think that there is NO evidence for something, all it shows is that you are being either intellectually dishonest, not giving due diligence, or being intellectually lazy
I support homosexuality. Others do not. According to your universal morality, who is correct there? Who is the moral person?
Which side do you think they would take?
I personally think my arguments have been rather strong.
Except I have shown you through proper argumentation as well as showing you what would logically follow from what you said that that is not the case. I would consider your arguments to be weak based off the fact that they sound more like slogans that you borrowed rather than actual arguments with evidence to back it up
I have also not told you that you are objectively and completely wrong. In my opinion, you are wrong, but neither of us can prove our sides, so I'm not going to decry your beliefs.
I do feel I have to commend you for being consistent with your belief that things like this are subjective. Not a lot of people are. However, simply stating that we can't prove our sides without showing why is weak at best
Yes.
What do you think I mean when I say honestly?
Because evolution is an empirical, scientifically factual theory. It's literally fact. Assuming you're a fact lover you should admit to this.
What do you mean by evolution?
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the story of Adam and Eve is non-fiction. There is literally tons of evidence to suggest that it is indeed fictional.
As I said earlier, saying that there is no evidence for something shows that you are either being intellectually dishonest, not giving due diligence, or just being intellectually lazy. It would be better for you to actually consider the evidence and think it is weak or poor than to consider there to be none at all. Also, what evidence are you referring to that suggests that Adam and Eve were fictional beings instead of historically factual humans?
You can be a Christian and admit that Adam and Eve are metaphorical characters meant to portray human sin.
This is so stupid, who said God is "omnibenevolent"? I believe that rubbish was promoted by a Catholic guy named Aquinas or something like that. It's not in the Bible, the Bible is very clear that God cannot be good to evil as evil cannot see God as being good.
It is good to know God will purge all of Creation of evil and keep in the confinement of the consuming fire of Hell and their cries will not be heard by the living and the living will not have to tolerate their silly attempts to annihilate God. It's good to know that only the smoke of their torments will rise from the Lake of Fire where evil doers will be confined forever while their sin is forever consumed by the fire of Hell which it feeds.
Yes, I should burn in Hell for eternity but my sins are covered by the blood of Christ who took my place in death and forgave me in His resurrection. He is my life, my Savior, my God, my King, my Redeemer, my Friend. I'm forgiven and on my way to Heaven.
Sorry you can't say the same for yourself...don't know why you insist on going your own way except that you do not want God to rule over you. I'm really sorry I can't help you.
Nobody deserves forgiveness, all deserve to die and burn in Hell. If you find God's mercy and are forgiven, it is a gift from God you cannot earn. I hope you find it.
Anyway, I'll see to it that your cult isn't forgiven. Doesn't matter if I have to go to hell after that.
Try unbanning me from the debate where you insult Catholicism. We can continue there.
That question was asked over a week ago; I care little now about how I was going to follow on it. There's been a bit long conversation in which I'd have to read your messages as well here to have an idea of where it leads. Though I can read my own messages again - they're always so well crafted.
Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Some of them like to pretend they are good people......trying to fool themselves and others because they need to feel like they are too good to be frying in Hell like eternal sausages with their bones smoldering as coals in the bonfire of Hell....and it's good to know God will keep evil subdued forever in the bonfire of Hell.
I'd also like to point out that Aquinas did not believe God was omnibenevolent. Whilst it seemed like he advocated such a thing, he was against making assumptions about God's nature.
Aquinas did not know God. We don't have to make assumptions about God's character, we can take Him at His word. You assume that you cannot know God so you won't know God.
I don't have the reference but the work of Aquinas I was reading was asserting and explaining "omnibenevolence". It remains clear in the Bible that God is good and righteous and will punish the wicked forever.
God reveals Himself in His word and we can take Him at His word. There is no need to make assumptions about God's character unless you are trying to support the idea of having the right to exist outside of Hell....in that case you have to assume God does not punish evil but rather lets it off the hook.
If you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell and are exonerated in death, it is you who is making assumptions about God's character, assuming He does not execute and uphold justice. That is more than a fatal error.
God is good all of the time, it is good to know God will purge creation of evil and keep it in the lake of fire forever.
I have not agreed with you at all. "Omnibenevolent" is not a characteristic of God. He is good. Good means no flaws in Him. "Omnibenevolent" is a twisted reasoning which tries to accuse God of not being good if He punishes evil in Hell.
Below is descriptions of God you want to deny. God who is good says He will punish evil. It is good to know God will punish evil and be implying that God is not good you are asking for His punishment to come on you and be sure it will.
Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
Isa 26:21 For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.
People use "omnibenevolent" to try to imply God is not good if He punishes evil. God would not be good if He failed to punish evil.
To people like you who want to see God as evil, only in your eyes He will be evil.....the calamity that falls on you is evil from God who is good, and because you want to see God as being evil that is the way you will see Him.....then when tragedy and calamity falls on you are you say "OH GOD!!! WHY!?!?! WHY!?!??!?" He will mock you because you refused to listen to Him.
I never agreed with you at all. You have to try to twist things because you are trying to fool yourself into believing you have the right to exist outside of Hell and are exonerated in death.
If you're going to play this kind of childish game putting words in my mouth I'll just ignore you. It's folly to try to reason with you if you insist on being a fool, a clown playing childish games..
You're just trying to play a double talk game starting out by concluding that God is not good and ending with the same conclusion. It's childish and dumb.
Aquinas did not know God, did not believe the Bible, is not anybody who has any business teaching about God as by being "against making assumptions about God's nature" it sounds like he does not know what he is talking about while he is denouncing those who believe God and take Him at His word.
The whole "omnibenevolent" philosophy is only a tool to try to smear God's character and cause arguments and confusion.......that's what Aquina was doing and it's what the Catholics do..........trying to claim they have more authority than the Bible does.
You think pain is what is best for you? I guess you are looking forward to Hell.
You're not a son of God, you are a child of Hell trampling the blood of the Son of God under your feet while you spit in His face. If I were you I would fall on my face before God and seek His mercy and ask his Son to by my Savior.....but the only person I can do that for is me and it is done. I'm on my way to Heaven with my sins forgiven, and as you stand now in defiance against God you are on your way to Hell and you won't think pain is what's best for you when you get there if you don't believe God and get saved first.
Can you say "yes, i believe sinners will be in the lake of fire forever in damnation tormented"? Do you have a problem with that? Are you ashamed to speak the truth about the destination for atheists?
Though I'd guess any reasonable person would notice that the argument it shows in the right column on this screen, you've surprised me enough in such things already.
Can you say "yes, i believe sinners will be in the lake of fire forever in damnation tormented"? Do you have a problem with that? Are you ashamed to speak the truth about the destination for atheists?
Also, in case it's intentional, I wonder why you think I'd be ashamed.
Even though I've said it already, (it's just annoying to see something so idiotic) I'm not defending your faith here. I was just addressing the question.
Can you say "yes, i believe sinners will be in the lake of fire forever in damnation tormented"? Do you have a problem with that? Are you ashamed to speak the truth about the destination for atheists?
God being omnibenevolent simply means He's all good all the time, a purely moral being. It doesn't mean we get to live a life of luxury and cupcakes, free of consequences.
The point is that if God were all good all the time, then we would live a life in which evil does not exist. You can have consequence without evil.
It's amusing to hear the Christian God described as a "purely moral being"... where were these pure morals when he ordered women and men to be stoned for adultery, or when he asserted that a rapist's only punishment is to pay the woman's father a few pennies, or when he murdered Job's entire family, or when he inflicted the plagues upon Egypt?
Sure, you can deflect this and say "oh, they're God's true moral punishments" but that's irrelevant. If God were a purely moral being then it would be reasonable to assume that his morals would be universal. However, I do not want to put gay men to the death or want women to marry their rapist as HIS punishment. Quite frankly, if those are God's "pure" morals, then God's "pure" morals are stupid and cruel.
Evil is the absence of good. God can be entirely good, while evil (the absence of His goodness) can still exist in the world. The existence of evil doesn't disqualify a moral God (just the opposite actually).
"It's amusing to hear the Christian God described as a "purely moral being"... where were these pure morals when he ordered women and men to be stoned for adultery, or when he asserted that a rapist's only punishment is to pay the woman's father a few pennies, or when he murdered Job's entire family, or when he inflicted the plagues upon Egypt?"
Anything less would illogical. To say His judgments were less than moral (i.e. immoral), is to say there's a higher moral standard than His own. But from where do you get this notion? From your own subjectivity?
What's even more amusing, is to see an argument such as yours reaffirm the existence of objective morality in the first place. When you decry heavy-handed punishments for adultery, or light punishments for rape, you're essentially admitting there's such a thing as objective morality in the first place - because you're saying a higher Being's moral judgments were incorrect (i.e. too harsh or too lenient).
Do you believe that death and hell and all who are in them will be cast into the lake of fire from which the smoke of their torments will rise forever, where the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies, and their shall be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth?
If you do not, whatever it is you call God, it is not God who promises to confine all evil in the lake of fire where sinners will be tormented forever.
Agree with everything you've said. Someone/something which threatens you with eternal damnation if you do not obey its exact commands cannot by any logic be "loving".
This is the point atheists are trying to make by saying God must be "omnibenevolent". When you agree with their idea of an "omnibenevolent" God, you are agreeing with them that Hell is not real and their is no good reason why they should care about what God thinks about them. Are you one of them or what? You are not being clear.
Yeah!! they are always calling people rude dirty big mouthed miserable childish retarded obnoxious stupid fatty moron doggy idiotic pompous bratty nasty faced dope headed foul mouthed punk fool hater witch fag jerk faced monkey phony wino cheapo fart faced bastard jackass...
Oh wait.. that was you that said that.
Please DONT BE FOOLED but this fake prophet. He knows some of the Bible but does not follow it. What religious person knows the bible but doesn't follow it: a satanist. Should you follow anything a satanist says?
No, by agreeing that God is omnibenevolent, I'm simply agreeing that God is entirely good - which He is. That's it. If they want to then argue that Hell isn't real, well we can go down that road (I welcome it actually). Instead though - I'm stuck playing footsie with you all day. By disagreeing about God's pure goodness, you're actually taking the stand that God is a bit evil. Now how in the world can you end up on that side of the coin???
Until you flatly state that you agree with the Bible that God is good and that He created Hell for the devil and his angels and people who die in their sins will be there in eternal torment, you are in agreement with the fools (atheists) here who insist is is not possible for God to be good if He punishes evil.
Obviously God would not be good if He did not punish evil. Why are you avoiding stating plainly what you believe about Hell? I think you are in agreement with the atheists here in saying there is no Hell, no punishment in death, no wrath of God express by fire consuming and containing sinners forever.
That's a strawman you created. I've never stated that it's "not possible for God to be good if He punishes evil". Of course He remains good, regardless of whether He punishes evil or not. Remember, I'm the one who says God is omnibenevolent. You're the one who says God is less than omnibenevolent (i.e. a little bit evil).
You are lying about what I said. God is not good if He does not punish evil. You are saying God is good if He punishes evil or not. God is good all the time, I have repeatedly said that and somehow in your twisted mind you conclude that I said God is a little bit evil. I have repeatedly said God is not only good but He is more than good, much more.
When you say God is good whether He punishes evil or not, you are wrong. The atheists here insist God cannot be good if He punishes evil and you are saying He can be good and not punish evil. The atheists insist God cannot both punish evil and be good. God does punish evil and if He did not He would not be good. Saying it does not matter if God punishes evil or not is heretical and leaves huge holes in your reasoning as you are ignoring the word of God when you say something like that. "Omnibenevolent" is not a characteristic of God, it is not taught in the Bible. Neither does the Bible say God is less than good. You are lying about what I have said repeatedly. No wonder you don't like me, you have a problem being honest and you seem to have no sound basis of doctrine....just too stinking proud I guess to admit error. You already stated that you believe lost people are your brothers and sisters when the Bible says they are of their father the devil and you are not their brother if you are a child of God.
You're using wording which is not Biblical and is used by atheists to imply God is not good because suffering, pain, and evil continue in the world. There is a reason that the Bible never says "God is omnibenevolent" or "purely good". The goodness of God is portrayed in the Bible with His hatred of evil and His right to confine sinners in the fire of Hell forever. Using non-biblical wording overemphasizes the goodness of God and underplays His hatred of sin and evil.
The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. (Psalm 145:9)
The point the atheists is trying to make is that God cannot be good to somebody who is burning in Hell with no way out, therefore he concludes that God is not good if Hell is real, and if Hell is not real there is no need to believe God is real.
God is good all of the time, God is always good, the fact that people are burning in Hell forever does not change the fact that God is good. You are trying to argue God is good while neglecting to argue in favor of the main point being used by atheists against God.
The main point is that sinners will be left in torment in the lake of fire forever. Arguing only that God is good without supporting His goodness while keeping sinners in Hell forever is weak. I have read some of the "philosophers" who like to act like they are so super smart with this "omnibenevolence" concept....just complicating what is simple, and neglecting explanation of why God is good when He leaves sinners in the fire of Hell forever.
When I discuss this topic I almost always explain with quick and simple logic how God is always good even when He keeps sinners confined in the fire of Hell forever.....and lo and behold, the atheists fall apart being unable to answer the simple logic of God's goodness in separating evil from life in the lake of fire. They have to change the subject and divert, and one tactic they use is "omnibenvolence". They avoid logic by saying God is omnibenevolent so He cannot keep sinners in Hell because that is not good for the sinners. When you say I am taking the side of God being evil, you are taking the side of the atheists who insist God is not good if Hell is real.
"The point the atheists is trying to make is that God cannot be good to somebody who is burning in Hell with no way out, therefore he concludes that God is not good if Hell is real, and if Hell is not real there is no need to believe God is real."
Well those are all non sequiturs, stemming from a false premise. That is to say, the very reason someone "burns in Hell", is because God is just and righteous (i.e. "good"). If the non-believer thinks that concept is unfair (i.e. unjust), then I'd want to ask them by what moral authority do they measure the Creator's decisions in the first place?
I'm now beginning to wonder if you think that when I say God is omnibenevolent, that I'm one of those who believe God is always joyful, loving, never angry, etc.. Like a Ned Flanders type of Christian. If that's the case, then no, I don't think that at all. I know we're all deserving of Hell - right from birth - so it doesn't "smear" God's goodness at all when people go to Hell. Being "all good" is simply the absence of even the tiniest amount of evil. God cannot even look upon evil, so logically He must be omnibenevolent. That doesn't mean He hands out free cupcakes to everyone though.
Ok, that's the point I was trying to make....atheists are trying to convince themselves that they are exempt from Hell, and they twist God's goodness into saying it's bad for God to punish and not forgive evildoers.
Didn't mean to make a big fuss with you, just trying to see where you really stand. I read a lot of your arguments and I like your style in forcing fools to admit the folly of their beliefs.
I could not tell what your position on Hell is until now. Most people and religions do not believe Hell is eternal condemnation of sinners, and the argument they use is to say God cannot be good if He will not forgive people who are in Hell.
Most churches today say little about Hell, modern fake Bible translations blur or remove the word and doctrine the same as they blur or remove the blood of Christ which justifies sinners who believe on Him and testifies against sinners who will not believe He made full payment for their sins so they can be saved and know it today...not sure on the exactness of my wording there, but
God can be entirely good, while evil (the absence of His goodness) can still exist in the world. The existence of evil doesn't disqualify a moral God (just the opposite actually).
Why? How? Don't make statements without explaining them.
Anything less would illogical. To say His judgments were less than moral (i.e. immoral), is to say there's a higher moral standard than His own. But from where do you get this notion? From your own subjectivity?
Who's to say there isn't a higher moral standard than God? If he's not omnibenevolent, then perhaps even I could be more loving than God.
You ask if I claim this from my own subjectivity... and you're correct. I don't claim to know anything, just as you cannot claim to know anything. Nothing regarding God is objective.
When you decry heavy-handed punishments for adultery, or light punishments for rape, you're essentially admitting there's such a thing as objective morality in the first place - because you're saying a higher Being's moral judgments were incorrect (i.e. too harsh or too lenient).
I don't think you understand what objective means.
Me decrying these punishments does not admit that there is objective morality. It's actually the complete opposite. If I decry certain moral views, yet God's "word" and the word of many other humans goes against mine, then this shows that subjective morality exists. Objective means that there is one, absolute truth. Subjective means that there are multiple truths. Hence, why differing morality exists.
Why? How? Don't make statements without explaining them.
Because an immoral God would need a moral authority higher than Himself for us to judge Him as being immoral in the first place. In other words, when we say someone is immoral, what we're really saying is that person is lacking morality. We do that by measuring them against an objective moral standard. Thus, to say God is immoral, you must first identify a moral standard that God can be subjected to - but if you were to do so, you would've identified something that is greater than God - and that's simply not logical. Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, the concept of a supreme Creator demands there be nothing greater.
Who's to say there isn't a higher moral standard than God? If he's not omnibenevolent, then perhaps even I could be more loving than God.
I covered this a bit above already, but it bears repeating. If you could be more loving than God, then how do you measure that more part? Have you identified a moral standard that supercedes even that of the Creator's?
Nothing regarding God is objective.
Is that you're subjective opinion? If so, then could your subjective opinion be wrong?
I don't think you understand what objective means.
I understand the meaning, though the difference between objective and absolute can seem a bit subtle at first.
Objective truth: Murder is wrong.
Absolute truth: True is not False.
In the examples above, the objective truth can be violated, the absolute truth cannot. Objective morality exists independent of the person, whereas subjective morality does not. There's no such thing as absolute morality, since that would turn us all into robots - i.e. no free will.
God is not omnibenevolent. Evil can see God only as being evil and not good, to to the evil God is evil. God hates evil, He is not benevolent toward evil. This "omnibenevolent" concept was invented and promote by Catholics to cast doubt on the word of God and strengthen their claim of the Pope and Catholic dogma being above the Bible.
I have to disagree. Is evil a thing, an entity, on equal footing with God? No. Evil can't see, it can't think or reason, it can't plot or calculate. Evil is the absence of good. Just like darkness is the absence of light, or cold the absence of heat. So then the question becomes: Can God be a bit evil? Can God be an absence of Himself? Of course not, because that violates His nature and the laws of logic.
Logically speaking, God must be purely good, just as the Bible says He is. To be otherwise would be a contradiction of His very nature.
Evil is a choice, and you are full of it. Evil is what you are driven by to try to make arguments against God, trying to justify your sin and trying to imply God is not good if He punishes evil. In your pride you choose to be and do evil, your whole speech here is evil and you love because you hate God.
The Bible does not say God is purely good, it says He is good. You are trying to add to what it says because you want to change God into something which does not punish evil , you hate God because He hates evil.
If you read the passage often cited by those who hate God as they take it out of context to imply God wanted evil beings to exist so He created them as evil, you will see that the evil referred to there as created by God is calamities which fall on those who remain hard in their rebellion and defiance against God.
Evil is not the absence of good. Evil is a choice. You can see, you can reason, you can plot and calculate in your evil because you choose to do so.
The question only becomes "Can God be a bit evil" in the minds of evil beings. Trying to say it would be evil for God to purge creation of evil and imprison it in Hell forever where it cannot disrupt the harmony of life ever again is to say God is not good because He lets evil off the hook.
You sure got a lot of twisted reasoning trying to make yourself feel like you are being rational. The stuff you are saying does not make sense. All your philosophizing about what you think evil is is just plain nonsense. Evil is a choice. Plain and simple. We don't need your self-flattering confusions to know what evil is.
Wow, I had to actually "lol" a bit when I read that. You're quite the caricature. I bet you'd get along great with the pharisees of Jesus' day.
Sure, evil's a choice - it's a choice to do no good. In other words, an evil act is an act devoid of any goodness. It's not an act filled with some dark, cosmic energy, that creeps into people's minds and takes over their free will.
You keep referring to evil like it's a self-sustaining dark force, an entity etc. Is that what you think? Like it's the "dark-side" of the force from Star Wars or something similar? Like the "black oil" from x-files?
Well at any rate, we can agree on one thing; the "stuff" I'm saying doesn't make any sense to you.
The stuff you are saying is stupid. God sustains all things including evil beings which will be confined in the fire of Hell forever. You can be evil and say stupid things against God and you do not sustain yourself. Why do you have to talk so stupid? Why is it so hard for you to listen? Are you another Catholic devil?
Answer the question...do you believe God can be good if sinners are left in the lake of fire in eternal damnation, eternal dying where the smoke of their torments rises forever?
Yes or no. Skip the dense elaborations of your ideas of what evil is. Just answer yes or no.
If you agree with the idea that sinners cannot be confined in the fire of Hell forever if God is good, your idea of God's goodness is about your own god who is not God.
You cannot show in the Bible that God is "omnibenevolent". It is not there.
You cannot show in the Bible that God is "purely" good. It is not there.
These concepts are heresy used to imply that what the Bible says about sinners being in the lake of fire forever with the smoke of their torments rising forever is not true if God is good.
The Bible simply says God is good. Omnibenevolent is a concoction used to accuse God of not being good if He confines sinners in Hell forever. It is a way that twisted minds try to excuse their own sins by insisting God must be good to them and not punish their sins by leaving them in eternal torment in the Lake of Fire.
Evil is not the absence of good. Evil is that which goes against God. Creatures who are evil were created by God and all that God created is good. Evil is a choice in the minds of creatures who were created by God, moral evil was not created by God, it is the choice of creatures who decided to go against God.
Your reasoning makes no sense. It is barely coherent. You're trying to sound profound and you are complicating what is simple almost to the point of being completely unintelligible. Why in the world would you as stupid questions like "Can God be an absence of Himself"? That is nonsense. That's like asking can a rock not be a rock. Why ask such a stupid question?
And why ask "Can God be a bit evil?" What in your warped mind leads you to a stupid question like that?
That'd mean there are things which can exist against an omnipotent God.
Blasphemy.
The other things in it, where you judge questions as stupid, are logical tautologies by the LNC, so congratulations for that. But, your understanding is still incomplete.
You cannot show in the Bible that God is "purely" good. It is not there.
You, of course, had to demonstrate idiocy again. This should be a sufficient reply.
Why in the world would you as stupid questions like "Can God be an absence of Himself"? That is nonsense. That's like asking can a rock not be a rock. Why ask such a stupid question?
And why ask "Can God be a bit evil?" What in your warped mind leads you to a stupid question like that?
Just answer yes or no so I can see if you are in line with the Bible which says God is good and sinners will be in the lake of fire forever damned and the smoke of their torments will rise forever.
If you think I said anything like what you said, that evil is on equal footing with God, you are looney tunes and that explains your baffling explanation of what evil is and your rambling train of thought which invites nonsensical questions like "Can God be an absence of Himself?" That question does not even make sense and is barely coherent....correction, it's not coherent at all. How in the world you find twisted reasoning leading to that kind of thought is something in the final frontier of your wandering mind.
Then you didn't read my statement very well. I was asking a rhetorical question, which I then answered with a "no": i.e. evil is not on equal footing w/God.
The question "can God be an absence of Himself" was intended to be nonsensical - that was the point - because of course He can't. It's meant to illustrate the point that God cannot be anything other than good. And not just mostly good either - but entirely good (i.e. omnibenevolent). If He's not omnibenevolent (which is your position btw), then that means a part of Him would necessarily have to be unbenevolent or cruel. So why do you maintain that God has at least a little bit of evil in Him? Can you support that w/ scripture?
My position is that God is good all the time. That is what the Bible says. The Bible does not say God is "omnibenevolent". Omnibenevolent is a philosophical concept promoted first by Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic. It is typical of catholic dogma which rambles on and on claiming to be authoritative over the word of God, and it is used by atheists to imply that God cannot be God if He leaves sinners in Hell.
I still have not seen you clearly state that you believe what the Bible says about death and Hell being eternal damnation in the lake of fire from which the smoke of their torments rises forever. Because you just want to stretch and bicker about what the Bible simply says about God being good, and because you seem to be avoiding outright agreement with what the Bible clearly says about the reality and finality of eternal damnation for God's enemies in the lake of fire I am leaning toward thinking that you are like a catholic abuser of God's goodness turning it into an argument against God's right to keep sinners in Hell forever like Pope Francis has done by declaring that atheists get to go to Heaven the same as everybody.
God is more than good, and to say God is "omnibenevolent" is a stretch with overemphasizes one characteristic placing it as one of the basic attributes of God which are 1)Omnipotent 2) Omnipresent and 3) Omniscient. God is good all of the time. "Omnibenevolent" is not a Bible term and is used as it is used here as an argument against God's goodness as they say He cannot be good if Hell is real.
That is the whole point of this debate, people saying God cannot be good if Hell is real. The debate is not about God's goodness, it is an accusation against God being good and you are helping promote it by insisting God is omnibenevolent while you say nothing of justification for eternal damnation of sinners in the lake of fire.
The argument here is not about God being good, is is about the reality of Hell. Unbelievers are saying that is God is good, Hell cannot be real. If God lets evil out of punishment He cannot be good. By avoiding stating that Hell is what God says it is, justification for the existence of sinners, a place which would be occupied only by devils if all people would repent of their sin and believe on the Savior, you are encouraging the double talk foolishness of saying Hell cannot be real if God is good.
You need to come out and plainly state whether or not you agree with the Bible that Hell is real and sinners are condemned in it's fire forever and never relieved. If you do not agree that Hell is real and forever, then you are in full agreement with the atheists who are fooling themselves into believing God is not good and Hell is not real.
Well again your whole argument can be countered by various counter arguments which is why we are all here :) so in the interest of friendly debate if I use my evil good scenario on your statement we get .....
I have to disagree. Is good a thing, an entity, on equal footing with God? No. Good can't see, it can't think or reason, it can't plot or calculate. Good is the absence of evil . Just like light is the absence of dark or heat the absence of cold . So then the question becomes: Can God be a bit good ? Can God be an absence of Himself? Of course not, because that violates His nature and the laws of logic.
Logically speaking, God must be purely evil ,just as the Bible says He is ( I can show that also ) To be otherwise would be a contradiction of His very nature.
So if one believed in a totally evil god as he /she was brought up this way how would my argument be any less valid than yours ?
Yeah!! they are always calling people rude dirty big mouthed miserable childish retarded obnoxious stupid fatty moron doggy idiotic pompous bratty nasty faced dope headed foul mouthed punk fool hater witch fag jerk faced monkey phony wino cheapo fart faced bastard jackass...
Oh wait.. that was you that said that.
Please DONT BE FOOLED but this fake prophet. He knows some of the Bible but does not follow it. What religious person knows the bible but doesn't follow it: a satanist. Should you follow anything a satanist says?
I think you need to be saved from Hell, saved from your sins, saved from dying. I doubt that you will be saved. I have learned to avoid reading your stuff. You have a Catholic devil that makes you act like a monkey in a circus show when it is pointed out that your sin separates you from God and you need to be saved from Hell and the Pope can't do anything for you to keep you out of Hell.
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
1min ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) 1 point
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
1min ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) 1 point
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
1min ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) 1 point
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
1min ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) Clarified 1 point
Read carefully what this closet Satanist is saying. He seems to be represented the Bible no? No... no Christian would ever make jokes about people going to hell. It is an extremely sad thing for most of them. A Satanist on the other hand takes great pleasure in it.
Thank you for following me and feeling you need to read and respond to my posts. Here ya go, enjoy yourself while you can, have a nice day and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
Atrag(4388) 1 point
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
2mins ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) 1 point
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
2mins ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) 1 point
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
2mins ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) 1 point
I think you need to go and have a laugh over all those atheists burning in hell Satanist.
2mins ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) Clarified 1 point
Read carefully what this closet Satanist is saying. He seems to be represented the Bible no? No... no Christian would ever make jokes about people going to hell. It is an extremely sad thing for most of them. A Satanist on the other hand takes great pleasure in it.
7mins ago
Support Dispute Clarify Report Jump to Debate→
New Response!
Atrag(4388) 2 points
I don't think anybody cares about your opinion...............................
You dont care but yet you reply to be 5 times within half an hour?
You are a satanist and I have a duty to make sure no one is fooled by you.
You're right Now A Stains idiocy is limitless , also I don't know if you realise he is also a HERO ! as he claimed to a teary eyed CD audience how he saved a bunch of people from a smouldering car crash and he also tried to sign up for the mititary after 9/11 as he wanted to kill Bin Laden :)
If the useless prick ever met a Muslim whilst serving he would piss himself in fear and immediately convert to Islam :)
That's a funny story, though. As if anyone could go and kill Bin Laden anytime. And that 'My vehicle just touched it, it rolled over!' was even funnier, especially the way he was trying to downplay himself.
He is an amusing idiot you can imagine the clown asking the trapped passengers " are you washed in the blood of the lamb " whilst brandishing a bible ... I bet in the local church they yawn when they hear these tall tales .
The Bin Laden one is hilarious as the wanker is 42 and knew he would get turned down , he just wanted the recruiters to tell him what a great guy he was :)
Remind me what part of the bible did Jesus say " kill your enemies "?
What'd amuse me more is seeing his reaction to this conversation - that's always the best part.
But sadly, he is too illiterate to properly read what we write, as he has admitted many times.
Now, everyone would turn a random wanker down if he's too old, yet he has the insolence to boast about it, especially on such missions.
He probably said something like killing those who don't share the imagination of those killing. Ironically, Nero crucified him and many of his followers.
The idiotic creature is insane and rarely makes sense ; he also is indeed a boaster and looking for praise for his cowardly gesture as he knew he would get turned down ; you're right its insolence and makes a mockery of people who made a sacrifice .
I have a better punishment in mind for him - a torture so big that it wouldn't be surprising for one to die by screaming.
But sadly, he's old right now, and probably won't be around if I want to do so.
If it were his debate, he would have banned us and boasted of his illiteracy. 😁😁😁😁
Yes, that's one of my favourite passages in history. I read it thanks to our Jeffrey. He gave me a link proving existence of Jesus, this being an important part.
Yes, I just wanted him to have the death he deserves.
Heard of hallucinogens?
They might get costly to carefully administer, but we could have it for much cheaper if we decide to go rough.
And under even rougher conditions, I'd expect people to scream their intestines out.
Much worse than crucifixion, because dying won't be so easy. Ideally, I could keep one alive for as long as I want to, unless they die by blood loss by screaming or perhaps screaming itself. They would even condemn their imaginary friends to earn my favour.
If I do so, I'd also be broadcasting it for the world to see, because that's how I like it.
But I'd probably not find it worth doing if I'm able to - I've never found something to eliminate false positives where the rationals are punished.
Can you say "yes, i believe sinners will be in the lake of fire forever in damnation tormented"? Do you have a problem with that? Are you ashamed to speak the truth about the destination for atheists?
That is not what is being implied in by the creator of this debate. "Omnibenevolence", a fluffy word popularized by a Catholic philosopher is not in the Bible. The term is used to imply that God cannot be good if He keeps sinners in punishment of eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. And I still have not seen you plainly state that you believe what the Bible says about eternal damnation of sinners in the lake of fire. You seem to have a problem stating that hell is forever punishing sinners. You want to focus on the completely unnecessary philosophizing with all kinds of needless and questionable ideas about God's goodness. God is good all the time, all the time God is good. Even when God hates evil He is good, even when He punishes sin He is good and it is good to know that evil will be purged from creation and confined in Hell. I do not want anybody to go there, but they will go and it is good to know God will not let them off the hook in death.
But the fact that he is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent means that he not only wants the best scenario to happen for everyone, but can make that happen with no effort. He could descent to earth and show everyone that he exists, but instead he sits in heaven, wherever that is, and does nothing, letting us, innately immoral beings, degrade on Earth and let most of us burn in the eternal fires of hell, all for what, so that those people's love for him who are christian is more pure, how ridiculously selfish and arrogant to think that having more people love him more, even though he's already got angels for that, trumps the importance of not letting billions of these sentient beings that he create suffer not only when they die and go to hell, but on a daily basis! How utterly ridiculous!
I wouldn't say that He does nothing. He gave His one and only Son as a ransom for us - that's certainly not nothing. And since God is the triune God, then it was actually God Himself who paid the price to close that gap between us (the gap that sin creates, which separates us from God).
I do get what you're saying though. I used to think that way too. But then I wondered where I got this notion of immorality in the first place. I used to be atheist, and I figured if atheism were really true, then there should be no morality at all - it would all just be biochemical reactions within our brains, which cause us to think something is moral or immoral. But really that wouldn't be true - things would just "be" the way they are. Your current sentiments though, along with mine long ago, betray that naturalistic idea entirely. For you to lament the treatment of sinners, or to call suffering "unfair", is actually a testimony against atheism.
If you really think it's unfair of God to condemn the unsaved to Hell, then by what moral authority do you do so?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Isaiah 45:7 in context:
4For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. 5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 8Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. 9Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?
It is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.
The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
It is good to know that God will not allow evil to go unpunished. God is not "omnibenevolent", He cannot be good to evil or He would not be good and if He is not good He cannot be God.
All this double talk rhetoric in the pseudo-intellectual assertion that Hell and God cannot both exist starts with the false premise that God is not good regardless of whether Hell is real or not. If you can make yourself believe that God is not good, then you can make yourself believe you have the right to live and to exist outside of Hell....fooling yourself. That's why Psalm 14:1 says an atheist is a fool and their is no such thing as a good atheist.
So 'assuming' God is omnibenevolent therefore when a dog is biting his hand off he should add ketchup to his hand so he proves he is benevolent instead hitting the dog's head with a stick. Excuse me to say if God does that He is being unreasoble.
And if you too assume so, you too are being unreasonable.
But God does not do that right ? There is hell......reasonable
The opening post of course shows philosophical ignorance of abstract concepts such as infinite, love, hell, et cetera.
Most likely the poster just views hell as a "physical place of fire", since like many atheists they seem to lack the nuance of understanding deep and abstract concepts.
The reality is the notion of hell or karma, are direct results of one's own actions which happen reciprocally, rather than arbitrarily.
Likewise "love" is not simply a thing handed out like candy, or else it would be cheap and meaningless, but the notion of love is also a natural consequences of being spiritually or philosophically in tune and harmony with God and natural law.
If one goes to a 'point of no return', like the event horizon of a black hole, they are like a hallow shell of a person and are eternally separated from God and love, and at the same time unable to ever desire to seek repentance to begin with.
Because God is good, evil will always be punished. Simple. Going against God is evil and if you won't stop you will be left in Hell forever and one day all evil present everywhere in Creation will be there where you are. God would not be good if He were to allow evil to go unpunished at any time ever.
If you think evil in the world now is not being punished, you are ignoring the fact that all are under penalty of death. Evil will built God's wrath increasingly against itself until that buildup culminates in the fire of Hell.
It's very simple. This "God cannot be good if He punish evil" argument is dumb. Evil always has been, always is, and always will be punished. Just because it goes on in the world does not mean God is not punishing it. One day it will all be in Hell. If that day were 100 years ago, you would not be here. God wanted you here so in His mercy He allows evil to continue in the world temporarily. Keep demanding an end to evil and your life will end as you try to make God not be good; then you will get the reality you want where nothing good is from God. You want that reality here while God is being good to you, and because God is good He will give you the reality you want...that reality exists only in the fire of Hell where there is nothing good from God for you. You want that reality when you say you deny that good things come from God now. You are literally asking to be in Hell though you may not realize it while you are not in Hell, and you would not ask for it if you knew what you are asking for....yet you are still asking to be left in the fire of Hell forever and if you keep going the way you are God will tire of showing you mercy and let you have the reality you want void of anything good from Him.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
