#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.
|
Epicurus
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
The third one often trips me up. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus What if evil doesn't really exist? If evil doesn't exist then there is nothing to prevent. If this is the case then he cannot be good or evil except by his own accord. If he is good by his own accord then anything he does in accordance to his will is logically good. The argument given by Catholics is: 1. God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good. 2. Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (this is what we know as evil). 3. Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God. So in a sense getting rid of evil is getting rid of something that is inherently good. This is just the Catholic argument though. 1
point
Suffering is what? Pain? Pain over a period of time? First, why prevent pain? There are pros and cons for pain. I understand that feelin hurt for long periods of time may feel terrible, but how else will your body warn you of a problem with your body? Then I must define suffering even further and divide it into categories. Emotional, Physical, and Mental. Then again the Catholic argument stands firm. 1. God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good. 2. Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (this is what we know as evil). 3. Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God. Replace evil with suffering. The Catholic argument holds firm. Pain is subjective upon relative thought processes. What may be painful to you, or what you may define as suffering, may not be for some other person. The lack of objectivity is what makes the Epicurus argument weaker. It is well structure and based on a literary scale it's powerful, but it follows objective evil or suffering. This was common place in his time period. Now, we are understanding thoughts and moral placement. No, suffering is consequences for actions. Going against God's will is not consequences. Those are actions that deserve consequences. Suffering does not have to exist while allowing someone to go against God's will. Suffering is what? Pain? Pain over a period of time? First, why prevent pain? There are pros and cons for pain. I understand that feelin hurt for long periods of time may feel terrible, but how else will your body warn you of a problem with your body? Then I must define suffering even further and divide it into categories. Emotional, Physical, and Mental. Then again the Catholic argument stands firm. If God can't come up with a system to warn you that your body is failing without pain, why call him God? 1
point
No, suffering is consequences for actions. If that is the case then you are only aiding the Catholic argument. If you make a bad decision and suffer for it then you have logically reaped what you have sown. Asking God to eliminate suffering is illogical. How would we have a basis for avoidance for the same action if we never experience any negative consequence? That would mean that consequences for murder wouldn't exist. That is chaos. Those are actions that deserve consequences. Suffering does not have to exist while allowing someone to go against God's will. Going against God's will is, in practice, sinning. Murder is against God's will. Shall suffering not exist from murder? Let us assume you encountered a new thrill and have gained an injiry from it. Would God be required to eliminate that? No. That is your consequence. Therefore, the Catholic argument stand firm. If God can't come up with a system to warn you that your body is failing without pain, why call him God? What? So basically if God cannot do something he is no longer God? Illogical. For he is God based upon what he has done, not based on what he can or cannot do. Even then God already has a system in check that tells your when a problem is present in a person's body. You have 5 senses that can warn you. You have a brain that can analyze a situation and warn you that you are injured. For example let's assume you don't have the sense of touch. You break your ankle and don't notice, but you find it hard to walk. You look down and notice that your foot is broken. The system works for notifying you that you are now injured. Problem identified. If that is the case then you are only aiding the Catholic argument. If you make a bad decision and suffer for it then you have logically reaped what you have sown. Asking God to eliminate suffering is illogical. How would we have a basis for avoidance for the same action if we never experience any negative consequence? That would mean that consequences for murder wouldn't exist. That is chaos. The Catholic argument says that no matter what the actions you should have the bad consequences. Not all negative consequences are suffering. Going against God's will is, in practice, sinning. Murder is against God's will. Shall suffering not exist from murder? Let us assume you encountered a new thrill and have gained an injiry from it. Would God be required to eliminate that? No. That is your consequence. Therefore, the Catholic argument stand firm. Why should Bob suffer if Alice kills Carol? What? So basically if God cannot do something he is no longer God? Illogical. Quite logical if God is all powerful. If an all powerful being can't do something, it isn't all powerful. Boom, logic. For he is God based upon what he has done, not based on what he can or cannot do. Even then God already has a system in check that tells your when a problem is present in a person's body. You have 5 senses that can warn you. You have a brain that can analyze a situation and warn you that you are injured. For example let's assume you don't have the sense of touch. You break your ankle and don't notice, but you find it hard to walk. You look down and notice that your foot is broken. The system works for notifying you that you are now injured. Problem identified. We haven't established that God has done anything, so we must look at what He can or can't do and determine if He has actually done anything. Why isn't there a sixth sense of injury sense? What is the point of chronic back pain? Why does there need to be arthritis? Do those really help you identify that your body has problems? 1
point
The Catholic argument says that no matter what the actions you should have the bad consequences. Not all negative consequences are suffering. Umm no it doesn't. 1. God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good. 2. Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (this is what we know as evil). 3. Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God. The Catholic argument doesn't even assess the state of consequence, just the existence of evil. It doesn't say that all consequeces involve suffering at all. Where are you getting this? Why should Bob suffer if Alice kills Carol? If Bob was attached to Carol then the lack of Carol would cause him to feel sad and possibly lost. He may suffer from temporary depression and a lack of motivation because of the death of Carol. Thanks to the actions of Alice. Quite logical if God is all powerful. If an all powerful being can't do something, it isn't all powerful. Boom, logic. God is almighty, not omnipotent. Get that straight. Then one has to define omnipotent. Depending on definition God can either do everything logical or do everything logical or illogical. If he cannot do everything he is still God based on what he has done. Not on what he can or cannot do. You argument only addresses his omnipotence which wasn't even the point I was getting across. We haven't established that God has done anything, so we must look at what He can or can't do and determine if He has actually done anything. In a past tense this flows logically. In a futuristic sense it's flawed. If you say God has done nothing then you have already determined that God has done nothing. There is nothing to say more to it. Determining what he can or can't do answer capability, but not direct causation. Why isn't there a sixth sense of injury sense? What's wrong with the first five? Why do you need six? Do all five of your senses work? What is the point of chronic back pain? To let you know that something wrong with your back. Why does there need to be arthritis? Consequence from certain actions. Of it's genetical and is cause from an ancestors certain actions. Do those really help you identify that your body has problems? Yes, yes they do. Umm no it doesn't. 1. God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good. 2. Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (this is what we know as evil). 3. Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God. The Catholic argument doesn't even assess the state of consequence, just the existence of evil. It doesn't say that all consequeces involve suffering at all. Where are you getting this? It says because free will exists. That means that as long as free will exists, suffering exists. That means it doesn't matter what actions you perform. If Bob was attached to Carol then the lack of Carol would cause him to feel sad and possibly lost. He may suffer from temporary depression and a lack of motivation because of the death of Carol. Thanks to the actions of Alice. In the real world free will has caused Bob tons of pain because Alice was allowed to kill Carol, and Bob has absolutely no connection to Carol. God is almighty, not omnipotent. Get that straight. Then one has to define omnipotent. Depending on definition God can either do everything logical or do everything logical or illogical. If he cannot do everything he is still God based on what he has done. Not on what he can or cannot do. You argument only addresses his omnipotence which wasn't even the point I was getting across. It is ridiculous to claim that I didn't address the point, sorry. You attacked me for saying that if the guy who can do everything can't do something, he isn't the guy who can do everything. In a past tense this flows logically. In a futuristic sense it's flawed. If you say God has done nothing then you have already determined that God has done nothing. There is nothing to say more to it. Determining what he can or can't do answer capability, but not direct causation. I didn't say He hasn't done anything, I said we don't know if He has done anything. You draw the conclusion that He has done something. I come into it with a blank slate. What's wrong with the first five? Why do you need six? Do all five of your senses work? Internal touch sensors suck balls. Why do heart attacks result in arm pain? To let you know that something wrong with your back. The only thing wrong with my back is that I have chronic back pain. Consequence from certain actions. Of it's genetical and is cause from an ancestors certain actions. You still have a huge jump from evil to suffering which is now being defined circularly. Yes, yes they do. Except arthritis which you have admitted is straight punishment. 1
point
It says because free will exists. That means that as long as free will exists, suffering exists. That means it doesn't matter what actions you perform. What do you mean it doesn't matter what actions you perform? Certain actions don't have negative consequences. You said that yourself. Also how does this even tie in with your previous statement? Here this is your previous statement and where yiu already admitted that not all actions are bad. Cartman: "The Catholic argument says that no matter what the actions you should have the bad consequences. Not all negative consequences are suffering." So are you saying that all actions lead to suffering since free will exists? In the real world free will has caused Bob tons of pain because Alice was allowed to kill Carol, and Bob has absolutely no connection to Carol. No, if Bob has no ties to Carol then he won't feel anything. He won't suffer because of her loss since he doesn't even know her or know she exists or is outiside of his sphere of perception. It is ridiculous to claim that I didn't address the point, sorry. Wow I wanna cuss so bad, but that's unlady like. This is what I said. iLoveVersace: "What? So basically if God cannot do something he is no longer God? Illogical." I was specifically talking about him being called God based on what he can or cannot do. Then you said. Cartman: " Quite logical if God is all powerful. If an all powerful being can't do something, it isn't all powerful. Boom, logic." What does that have to do with him being God? You started making an argument for why he isn't omnipotent, not why we call him God. You didn't address my point. You attacked me for saying that if the guy who can do everything can't do something, he isn't the guy who can do everything. We call him God according to what he has done. I already told you that. I attacked you for your argument over omnipotence. I didn't say He hasn't done anything, I said we don't know if He has done anything. You draw the conclusion that He has done something. I come into it with a blank slate. You didn't even say the word "know". Cartman: " We haven't established that God has done anything, so we must look at what He can or can't do and determine if He has actually done anything." You were talking about determining if he did. You never said "we don't know". Internal touch sensors suck balls. Why do heart attacks result in arm pain? Arm pains give warnings to possible heart symptoms. Again, you are aidning my argument. The only thing wrong with my back is that I have chronic back pain. Have you learned why you have lower back pain? You don't have it for no reason. You still have a huge jump from evil to suffering which is now being defined circularly. What does this have to do with Arthritus? Except arthritis which you have admitted is straight punishment. I never even used the word punishment. I said it is a consequence of action or a genetic consequence of action. Why lie? So are you saying that all actions lead to suffering since free will exists? I am saying that is what the Catholic argument is saying, yes. No, if Bob has no ties to Carol then he won't feel anything. He won't suffer because of her loss since he doesn't even know her or know she exists or is outiside of his sphere of perception. That's not how the real world works, he suffers just because. Wow I wanna cuss so bad, but that's unlady like. This is what I said. iLoveVersace: "What? So basically if God cannot do something he is no longer God? Illogical." I was specifically talking about him being called God based on what he can or cannot do. Then you said. Cartman: " Quite logical if God is all powerful. If an all powerful being can't do something, it isn't all powerful. Boom, logic." What does that have to do with him being God? You started making an argument for why he isn't omnipotent, not why we call him God. You didn't address my point. Oh, I guess you were right then. But, it is a completely stupid argument to say that we are arguing that he has a different name. Your point was worthless. Why use the name God for something that isn't Godlike. Your argument is that I should also be called God. You know, indirectly. We call him God according to what he has done. I already told you that. I attacked you for your argument over omnipotence. No one has ever seen Him do anything. You didn't even say the word "know". Cartman: " We haven't established that God has done anything, so we must look at what He can or can't do and determine if He has actually done anything." You were talking about determining if he did. You never said "we don't know". If I told you that we haven't established what time we will meet up, does that mean we know or don't know when we will meet up? Not using the word "know" doesn't mean I don't have the open mind I claimed to have. Arm pains give warnings to possible heart symptoms. Again, you are aidning my argument. That's a terrible system. Arm pains could mean your arm hurts, or your heart is failing. It hurts your argument because it is an imperfect system. Have you learned why you have lower back pain? You don't have it for no reason. Let's say it is because I don't sit in my chair properly. So, now I have to sit in my chair properly to make sure I don't have back pain. But, that is the only reason. You have introduced circular logic. We need back pain to alert us that we sit properly which we need to do to avoid back pain. What does this have to do with Arthritus? Sorry, I put this out of place because I all of a sudden realized you were not addressing the real problem. In the original argument you substituted an action "evil" with another action "going against God's will." Then you changed nothing and substituted a consequence for an action which is not allowed. How do you address this issue? I never even used the word punishment. I said it is a consequence of action or a genetic consequence of action. Why lie? Sorry, in the real world we call negative consequences for bad behavior punishment. You went from saying arthritis alerts your body to something to arthritis is a random consequence of breaking God's will. Which, you haven't established is a valid consequence. 1
point
Im nearly done with you so I'll just end on this note. The Catholic arguments gives light to options. You can make good decisions or bad decisions. They will determine the state of consequence. Bob cannot be affected by the death of someone he doesn't know exists or is outside of his sphere of perception. My argument is fine. We call God "God" because of what he has done (Creation of Earth, The universe, being outside of space time). People see blessings in their lives and miraculous healing. They see the works of God. My argument over pain is superior to your own. Arm pains signals a problem in the body. That's all thats required to answer your question. Your argument after this is just blabbering lies. Im done. The Catholic arguments gives light to options. You can make good decisions or bad decisions. They will determine the state of consequence. Bob cannot be affected by the death of someone he doesn't know exists or is outside of his sphere of perception. The Catholic argument explains why these consequences exist for actions that haven't happened. Bob is being affected every day by people outside his sphere of perception. If that wasn't happening, we wouldn't need such a vague explanation. If sins were punished on Earth, we would know what is good and what is bad. If that was happening, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation because we would already know what actions cause bad effects. My argument is fine. We call God "God" because of what he has done (Creation of Earth, The universe, being outside of space time). I call God nature. You have labeled something God for no reason. People see blessings in their lives and miraculous healing. They see the works of God. Sometimes it is the work of doctors. God still gets the credit. My argument over pain is superior to your own. Arm pains signals a problem in the body. That's all thats required to answer your question. God did a shitty job then. And, you are happy with the almighty being extremely amateur. Your argument after this is just blabbering lies. Im done. You are so much better. You assign accolades to something, then tell people they are bad for not giving Him that credit before He has earned it. You have a huge bias, and you are against having a bias. Good job hypocrite. |
