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.
Evil God Challenge
I first heard of this argument from Professor Stephen Law , this brief outline of the argument is from Patheos .
Imagine that, instead of the Judeo-Christian God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) there was an Evil God that was all-powerful, all-knowing, and totally evil. People who believe in this god are frequently asked by skeptics: “How can you believe in Evil God? Isn’t that hypothesis falsified by the existence of good in the world?”
“Nuh-uh” say the believers in Evil God. “We have plenty of explanations for the Problem of Good. For example…”
Evil God allows good to exist only so that greater evil may be achieved
Evil God likes evil best when we freely choose it, but allowing us free will means that some people may choose good
Evil God works in mysterious ways
Not every Judeo-Christian argument can be successfully transposed in this way, but Law doesn’t need to flip them all for his point to stand. If we think these are weak arguments when mustered by the proponents of Evil God, should we give them any more credence when mustered for actual religions?
It's using idiocy to demonstrate idiocy. The actual argument isn't that evil god exists. It's that the statements one would make in defense of evil god would be the same as for good god, and if those seem indefensible then we should find them equally indefensible when made in defense of good god. It doesn't require that god and evil actually exist (I agree they don't). It's just leveraging a moralizing framework against itself.
Yes correct , it's hilarious to hear theists say that every evil god claim is absurd and not realising by implication they're condemning their own position .
Yes. The widespread notion of a "good god" stems from the fundamental purpose of nearly all religions, which is to set a framework on which to hang and strengthen prevalent (at the time) moral values within a society. These values are meant to establish a set of rules to maintain some measure of peace and cooperation.
Evil gods are simply the invention of those who wish to live in their own world of chaos and Hedonism.
Benevolent gods are more an exception than the rule throughout human history. I agree that a fundamental function of religion has been to regulate herd morality, though I'm dubious as to whose benefit that really was. People are pro-socially evolved. Morality is an unnecessary redundancy replete with inconsistencies and prejudice, and regularly at odds with pro-sociality.
Nothing wrong with hedonism either. Hail Dionysus and Hedone.
Well it seems to me that "herd morality" benefits both the herd and the individual. The herd is compelled toward peace, while the individual is directed toward self control.
People are pro-socially evolved
Yes, however morals embody the rules and strengthen the compulsion to cooperate. As such, maybe and perhaps they are in fact very helpful.
The herd is hardly compelled towards peace. Both history and psychological research clearly demonstrate that herd mentality prompts individuals to engage in violence they otherwise would not engage in. Wars are waged in the name of the herd morality. Persecution of minority groups is validated on the basis of the herd morality. Etc. Nor is it remotely evident that individuals develop more self control as a result of moralistic cognition. If anything, psychology demonstrates that people are more morally permissive towards themselves and those they associate themselves with than they are others. Moreover, moral cognition is replete with post hoc justifications of behavior after the fact. Why should morals function to strengthen an innate interest in cooperation? I see no evident reason to suspect that they would, and plenty to suggest that it vindicates the less sociable aspects in our nature.
Herds can surely include churches, political parties, even communes full of stoned hippies. So I don't buy that point.
To me, moralistic cognition does foster self control. When I believed in god, I used to worry about hell and stuff. What followed felt like self control, and a definite sense of deprivation of pleasure on occasion. 😇
I think morals foster cooperation, when they are shared within a society.
My argument is not that the collective cannot be beneficial, but to assert that it is only or predominantly peaceful is empirically repudiated by both history and psychology. Churches and political parties in particular have a history replete with exceptional acts of violence and discrimination, ranging from genocides to war and persecution. To suggest otherwise belies a gross ignorance of history.
Psychology suggests that our perceptions of our own cognition are not reliable basis from which to understand our own cognition. Moral psychology in particular demonstrates extensive post hoc rationalization, inconsistency, and contradiction in moral cognitive processes. Whether you believe that moral cognition fosters self control is fairly immaterial against that evidence.
No two people share identical morality, and they certainly do not implement it equally. The notion of "shared" morality, particularly at the level of "society" (another myth), is erroneous; it simply doesn't exist. Some specific morals may be loosely held in common at a general theoretical level, but even then their application is inconsistent. The function of morality is coercion, to encourage the compliance of others to a unique composite of personal interests (or values) that one is disposed and conditioned to prefer. It is essentially egoistic, despite its common collectivist facade.
Define atheistic "good", without being circular and without referencing your own biochemical processes that are known subjectively to only yourself. God can only be "good", because to be otherwise would mean there's a moral authority higher than God (which isn't logical regardless of whether you believe or not).
Define your god , without being circular and then define what you mean by atheistic and without referencing your own biochemical processes that are known subjectively to only yourself .
God can only be ""evil " because to be otherwise would mean there's an immoral authority higher than god ( which isn't logical regardless of whether you believe or not )
Thank you for admitting your god is illogical :) ... that was easy :)
God is not illogical because he has enough problems around him to show you that even when people like you see it as impossible that there is a man upstairs there is enough proof that shows there was assistance. What do you believe in.
The ever handy "find-and-replace" argument. A bit disappointing. I don't normally encounter that on this site. I actually have a non-circular definition of God for you too, though I can't tell if I'm now debating a person or an unsophisticated computer algorithm.
Indeed , the counter to the good god argument is the evil god argument so it's also very ' handy ' for you isn't it ?
Your definition of god is your definition out of the thousands I've heard but maybe it's something new :) i sincerely hope it's not ' unsophisticated ' seeing as you crave sophistication in your encounters .
I actually agree with your conclusion, but not your argument. I think god must be good because "good" is nothing more than personal value backed by conviction. It lacks objective reference, even through a god since no what god does would necessarily be an expression of what god wanted because the god valued it.
I think the problem with your argument, though, is that it presumes that just because god sets the moral standard then god must be a moral god. That doesn't necessarily follow.
I think god must be good because "good" is nothing more than personal value backed by conviction.
That doesn't seem to stretch really far, though.
Good is what would be desirable for most involved, in its outcome and potential cost, such that they could have an agreement over it empathetically and logically. In other words, a collection of individual 'good's with a method of solving.
It lacks objective reference, even through a god since no what god does would necessarily be an expression of what god wanted because the god valued it.
That's right, since the sole omnipotent thing can't be bad.
Well, when you remove it from its full context then of course it won't...
Good is what would be desirable for most involved, in its outcome and potential cost, such that they could have an agreement over it empathetically and logically. In other words, a collection of individual 'good's with a method of solving.
Why is that what is good? And how is that even attainable? Desire is fundamentally subjective, which means there is no single desirability for good to organize around which is requisite for your utilitarian assertion.
That's right, since the sole omnipotent thing can't be bad.
Yes, that was were the first excerpt you referenced was heading. Seems that point actually did stretch further than you understood.
Yes, that was were the first excerpt you referenced was heading. Seems that point actually did stretch further than you understood.
It heading somewhere that can be agreed upon doesn't mean that it can stretch well enough.
Why is that what is good?
That's been by a method of reduction.
And how is that even attainable?
By actions.
Desire is fundamentally subjective, which means there is no single desirability for good to organize around
Yes, it is subjective. No one said that there will be a universal Desire that is exhaustive and inclusive of everyone - that isn't a possibility.
which is requisite for your utilitarian assertion.
It isn't utilitarian, though. It's what you get if you mix Kantian and Utilitarian morals, and also somewhere between the absolutist and nihilist views. Just like it's always been.
Vague allusion to a "method of reduction" is not an argument. "Actions" is equally without substance. You acknowledge that there will be no universal desire because desire is subjective, but still do not explain how a greater good can be obtained if everyone's notion of the good is different. Merely striving to attain one's own ideal of the greater good could come at expense of someone else's idea of it. It's a contradiction that prevents the greater good from ever fulfilling.
If you are mixing utilitarian morals in, then calling your position utilitarian is hardly far off the mark. And your position has nothing to do with either absolutism or nihilism, from what you've said. You're proving very incoherent once again, so I'm probably done on this thread.
Reasserting that consensus is possible doesn't demonstrate that it is. I am asking you, again, to explain how consensus can be reached when everyone has a unique and different sense of the greater good.
Other than name dropping a bunch of contradictory philosophies which your own statements directly also contradict, you haven't explained how your advocacy of a "greater good" is anything other than utilitarian. Your ineptitude at explaining your own positions is an issue with your capacity, not mine.
I am asking you, again, to explain how consensus can be reached when everyone has a unique and different sense of the greater good.
Generally, a consensus would be possible by discussion.
But, if it isn't, then no action would be entirely good. After all, morality isn't an inherent feature of the actions - it's just the opinion of those affected.
Why should discussion alter the inherent reality that each person has a unique concept of the good? That doesn't make sense, and it's a far more significant problem to your position then you allow for. As you've presented it, consensus is necessary to satisfying your given end. It's quite evident you have no idea how to reach it, so I don't take your argument as credible at all. There's really not point in continuing if you can't answer that basic question.
Really, idiot? Please explain how God is good. Can you do that, idiot, like all the idiots who you say can do that? Are all the idiots smarter than you so they can say God is good and you cannot say God is good?
If you say God is good, please explain how you know He is good. idiot. hahahahah.
You just played your own argument against your self which is what this whole peacock parade of foolishness pretending to be wise is all about. Arguing against God is arguing against your own life in favor of Hell.
Really, idiot? Please explain how God is evi . Can you do that, idiot, like all the idiots who you say can do that? Are all the idiots smarter than you so they can say God is evil and you cannot say God is evil ?
If you say God is evil please explain how you know He is evil idiot. hahahahah.
You just played your own argument against your self which is what this whole peacock parade of foolishness pretending to be wise is all about. Arguing against God is arguing against your own life in favor of Heaven .
I cannot explain how God is evil because He is good. If I were to say He is evil I would be a liar like you.
I do understand how and why you say God is evil....it's because you don't want Him telling you what you should or should not do, you want to follow your lusts trying to satisfy what can never be satisfied. If God won't do now what you want, then you call Him evil for not doing what you want Him to do right now. I could go on and on explaining why sinners say God is evil.
I don't think you can explain with any sort or rationale why God is good and how a person can know He is good. Your brain only functions behind your mental block where you keep God out and the part of your brain which would understand God's goodness has been shut down willfully by you.
Making these nonsensical opposite world topsy turvy stuff is childish...and you admire a college professor for doing it? No wonder the world is going to Hell in a hand basket with no moral compass.
Do you understand why I say God is good? No, you cannot explain why God is good because you have yourself programmed to hide behind the wall you have set up in your mind to keep God out of your life.
I cannot explain how God is good because He is evil If I were to say He is good I would be a liar like you.
I do understand how and why you say God is good ....it's because youwant Him telling you what you should or should not do, you want to follow your lusts trying to satisfy what can never be satisfied. If God won't do now what you want, then you call Him goid for not doing what you want Him to do right now. I could go on and on explaining why non sinners say God is good
I don't think you can explain with any sort or rationale why God is good and how a person can know He is good
Thanks you admit you're not rational
Your brain only functions behind your mental block where you keep God out and the part of your brain which would understand God's goodness has been shut down willfully by you.
Making these nonsensical opposite world topsy turvy stuff is childish...and you admire a college professor for doing it? No wonder the world is going to Heeaven in a hand basket with no moral compass.
Do you understand why I say God is evil ? No, you cannot explain why God is evil because you have yourself programmed to hide behind the wall you have set up in your mind to keep God out of your life.
So you are wagering your soul against God, hoping to find the fire of Hell does not torment you forever. When did you decide to make that wager, Pasquale?
I wager nothing. I know God Himself paid my price in death and His sinless blood covers my sin, and He is resurrected and lives forever and He is taking me through His death in and into His eternal life and Kingdom. I will serve Him gladly forever, and stand firmly on the solid rock of His promises. You can go on wagering all the way to Hell if you want to. God loves you and gives you the freedom to be a fool.
Sorry Dermit, saying God is an unloving dictator does in no way explain why God is good, in fact you continue to accuse Him of being evil. I do understand that you must do this because you do not want God ruling over you and telling you what you should and should not do. Try again. You see i understand why you say God is evil, but you fail to understand why I say God is good. I have said it many times here, but those demons you have keep your mind from comprehending while you cooperate with them to your own fiery destruction.
You cannot rationally explain God's goodness. I can. Try to keep those devils from preventing you from being able to exercise your reading comprehension for a minute and I'll give you some clues of how we can know God is good.
First, it is good to give. God gives us time. We do not deserve to breath God's air, but He gives us time to breath His air. Even you who hates God, He still gives you time under His mercy breathing His air. This proves God is good, but you cannot say it yourself because you prefer death over living with God in His Kingdom.
Now try to repeat what I said without changing the meaning. Can you do that, or do those devils control you to absolute oblivion of stupidity?
You're such an idiot.....I actually read three lines here thinking you might present some opening for reasonable discussion. No surprise you have pooven me wrong.
So you are wagering your soul against God, hoping to find the fire of Hell does not torment you forever. When did you decide to make that wager, Pasquale?
I wager nothing. I know God Himself paid my price in death and His sinless blood covers my sin, and He is resurrected and lives forever and He is taking me through His death in and into His eternal life and Kingdom. I will serve Him gladly forever, and stand firmly on the solid rock of His promises. You can go on wagering all the way to Hell if you want to. God loves you and gives you the freedom to be a fool.
Correction,Dermot..........according to God's word He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Those are the three basic characteristics of God. "Omnibenevolet" is a twisted idea which is used to argue against God's right to punish sin. God is good, God is love, and God hates evil.
That "omnibenevolent" rubbish was promoted by some Catholic guy, it's not Biblical, it's not "judeo-Christian". I wonder if that guy, I think it was Thomas Aquillas or something like that....I wonder if he was a wino irish priest.
God will let you see Him as evil when you are in the reality you want which is void of anything indicating He is good....stuff like fresh air and cool rain on a hot summer day will not be in Hell where you will have the reality you want which God lovingly though reluctantly will give you as it is the desire of your heart.
Yes, most religious hypocrites like you are boozers.
So you invent an imaginary God and say it is not the real God, then you argue against your imaginary God saying it cannot be God. Genius creates another straw man and says it cannot be God. Genius.
This stuff is so stupid. If you want God to be evil, then you want to be left in the fire of Hell forever. Creating a god and then arguing it proves God is not God is not an argument against God, it's an argument against your own imaginary God.
The evil is in the mind of a person who concocts this kind of witches brew to cast spells on people who are mesmerized by his twisted reasoning.
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.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Good is nothing more than an expression of value preference imbued with the force of conviction. Presumably the value and conviction of a god could be surpassed by no one and god would only do what god wanted, so all that god is must be good to god. Including imbuing his creation with a skewed understanding of the good.
Here we have a guy who doesn't know that men are not made for men to have sexual relations with, and he's telling us how to define good. Of course he has to make a lengthy explanation of the simple word "good" to allow for his evil indulgences defiling his male body with other men
Still barking up that silly old tree, are you? If you must post your drivel, at least get a new schtick. You're only good for the occasional laugh, and this joke's run past it's expiration.
Oh, the moment you were conceived you wanted to bend over for men and you have to do it because you chemical fizzes make you do it and you are going to do it until the fire of Hell stops you from doing it. Yuck. You stink.
Not interested in how you believe you escape realty in death and how you believe life is worthless and meaningless, not interested in how you try to excuse your sodomite perversion addiction.........just checking to see if you commented in my debate to be banned.
What makes you think I am going to read your garbage? I had enough of it, I have less patience than God and you should, though I doubt you ever will, thank Him that you are not in Hell.
Fatfag, I quit reading your stuff as you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell while you are obviously in condemnation dying already. It never ends in Hell, and throwing temper tantrums at me or at God won't help. You always act like the southbound end of a northbound cow with me, why do you think I would read your stuff?
Define "evil" for us. Evil is a subjective word. The Cowboys thought the Earps were evil. The Earps thought the Cowboys were evil. This is a false proposal. Why? Because God is as He is, and anyone who opposes him is evil from His perspective, and vice versa for Satan. It doesn't matter. You adhere to one view or the other to define what is evil to you. If you are with God, His ways are well with your soul. If you are not, destruction is all that remains.
Define " good " for us. Good is a subjective word. God is as He is, and anyone who opposes him is good from His perspective, and vice versa for Satan. It doesn't matter. You adhere to one view or the other to define what is good to you. If you are with God, you are evil as his ways are evil
"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 brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him. That is the evil perceived by God's enemies. Moral evil is a choice of free will and not created by God. Clearly the context here is speaking of the disasters which fall on God's enemies, a theme throughout the Bible. Twisted simpletons like yourself have trouble understanding that, sure. None the less ,God is righteous in letting you die and if you want to live without God He is righteous in leaving you in Hell forever giving you want you want, reality where you cannot see God as being good.
Your disaster is coming. I wonder if when your world falls apart you will use God's name as a profanity and cry out "OH MY GOD!!!!" to a thing you say is not there and cannot help you. So smart you are, fool.
Yes, God creates evil in the disasters that fall on you which will cause you to turn to God for mercy of be part of the punishment for your sins and then it gets worse in Hell. Keep trying to kill God and see who wins your battle. You think death is getting you out of reality and off the hook? You're a fool.
Thats why you mock , threaten and abuse everyone on CD demonstrating what a two faced typical hand wringing Christian is about .
You're also an egotistical liar claiming you pulled people from a burning wreck , you sick wanker would ask them their religion first and let them burn ; you also claimed you volunteered to :) hunt down Bin Laden for the military but your age went against you :)
Your a lying scumbag and a truly awful person I wish there was a hell for the likes of cowardly hypocrites like you
Dermit, I have said more than enough to you far more times than what should have been enough for you to know you can be sure of God's mercy and Heaven forever through faith in His Son. I'm tired of trying to get the truth through your abrasive personality. I'm sorry I can't help you.
So you are wagering your soul against God, hoping to find the fire of Hell does not torment you forever. When did you decide to make that wager, Pasquale?
So you are wagering your soul against God, hoping to find the fire of Hell does not torment you forever. When did you decide to make that wager, Pasquale?
I wager nothing. I know God Himself paid my price in death and His sinless blood covers my sin, and He is resurrected and lives forever and He is taking me through His death in and into His eternal life and Kingdom. I will serve Him gladly forever, and stand firmly on the solid rock of His promises. You can go on wagering all the way to Hell if you want to. God loves you and gives you the freedom to be a fool.
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.
We all cannot go around in super hero costumes saving families from flaming car wrecks or volunteering to kill Bin Laden .... hey maybe if you keep telling people how heroic you are they may say something like " thank you for your service " and you can stop boasting then .... maybe ?
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.
God is letting you die. Isn't that awful of Him to let you die? Poor little dermit. Maybe you can kill God before you die. Keep trying. A bottle of rum might help.
Sorry, dermy, I'm tired of trying to tell you that you can be saved from Hell. You wont' believe Hell is real unless you find yourself unable to get out of the fire, correct? That's what I get from you, so why waste my time? Just wait and see, no point in me telling you, just wait and see for yourself. How long do you think that will be?
Wrong again , but in fairness you may get away with it as you're a nasty piece of work and a character like you would please evil god , so it's looking good for you :)
God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.
Your disaster is coming. I wonder if when your world falls apart you will use God's name as a profanity and cry out "OH MY GOD!!!!" to a thing you say is not there and cannot help you. So smart you are, fool.
The only difference between an evil god and a good god is the evil one doesn't have to pretend to be good.
Hey, look, I believe in and strive to be good, because that's who I want to be. Others may get there because they're afraid their god will spank them if they're not good. Personally I can get there without the threat of you'll do it or else. But as you turn to justify your belief in god and then look down your nose at me or others for daring to be without speaking the god language then that's the point you true believers are passing through the mirror to be followers of the evil god. You literally think anything you say or do to a nonchristian is justified. And if someday you go shoot up an abortion clinic, or a gay club, or a nonchristian place of worship, etc, you indeed will be doing it for an evil god.
God is dead. If, that is, christianity is to be believed at all.
From Aristotle.
The life of the unmoved mover is self-contemplative thought ("νοήσεως νόησις (noeseos noesis)", i.e. "thought of thought").[1][2] According to Aristotle, the gods cannot potentially be distracted from this eternal self-contemplation because, in that instant, they would cease to exist.
Aristotle had it nailed ,here is a quote I always liked from Jimmy Carr ....
When I was a kid I had an imaginary friend and I used to think that he went everywhere with me, and that I could talk to him and that he could hear me, and that he could grant me wishes and stuff. And then I grew up, and I stopped going to church.
If Empedocles had been a bit more creative in proposing evolution, we might have found Aristotle's actual thoughts on it.
But anyway, this question was targeted again by Nietzsche - a simple man with a revolutionary philosophy about meaning in a Godless universe, and later by the great Sartre.
But every stage of advancement makes things more inaccessible for the most primitive.
yes, I think you are starting to understand. The only way a person can argue against God is by creating something in their mind with flawed characteristics which are not in God, and then arguing for the reasons the flawed God you have imagined cannot be God....consciously creating a straw man and then arguing that the thing you imagine cannot be God. It's really not an argument against God at all, but rather against your own consciously created absurdity.
So what do you do with this? You create a thing called Santa which is imaginary and declare that your ability to create straw men proves the God does not exist. Santa is not the creator of all things, comparing it to God who is the creator of all things and they saying your absurdity proves God is like your straw man is nothing but spinning your wheels going nowhere but down. It's a nonsense argument.
Yes, your "Evil God" which you concocted in your imagination and is a thing created by you does compare to Santa which is a thing that exists only in the imagination of those who believe he exists. Your straw men do not compare to God because they are created and God is the creator of all things, He gives you the power to imagine straw men. Arguing against Santa and your Evil God saying they cannot be God is silly. Of course they cannot be God. God is the creator of all things and there is nothing or nobody who compares to Him.
hahahaha........funny how you are so serious spending so much time trying to invent a false reality where you have the right to exist outside of Hell. Aristotle and his gods have nothing to do with God.
hahahaha........funny how you are so serious spending so much time trying to invent a false reality where you have the right to exist outside of Hell. You and your gods have nothing to do with God.
I wonder why even an idiot would intend it to mean anything. But then again, I don't have experience of what it's like to be an idiot so big. So my analysis is bound to not be exhaustive here.
You sure do try to mimic me a lot. I know you are trying to prove you are not an idiot and you think mimicking me makes you look smart but you are still dead in your sin on your way to eternal dying and you need God the Savior to save you or you will be as you are now dying forever.
No, actually, I imagined that you would understand the words of a huge idiot very well.
There might have been a little influence due to me thinking that I would understand if it's any worthy by that, but since it can't possibly be true, I doubt that.
Or, in the words of "decent" writers in erotic scenes,
He will penetrate you with his manhood, and you will scream about 3 distinct but similar syllables in whatever combinations your predisposition tends towards.
You are free to actually read the entire thing where he says such things, the references being available from the link, before trying any ignorant attacks on it.
If you still do so, I will laugh at you and probably not honour you with a reply unless I'd want to insult you.
A fine enough understanding would be fine too, though.
Who says that there god exists. Is there any proof of it? NO there isn't any proof for the statement that THERE IS GOD. If yes than show to whole world.
You can't show religious books like Bible, Bhagwad Gita, GUru Granth Sahib, Quaran, etc. because the next day I will also create a new religion and start my Holy Book that says THAT THE WORLD HAS ONE GOD NAMELY INDIA. Who will follow it now but many years later that is around 2 century later INDIA will become THE HEAVEN !!!
Similarly, around 2 centuries ago some one like me had published this books and inaugrated these religions which has of now many gods which are not been proved any one in this world.
Who says that there god exists. Is there any proof of it? NO there isn't any proof for the statement that THERE IS GOD. If yes than show to whole world.
You can't show religious books like Bible, Bhagwad Gita, GUru Granth Sahib, Quaran, etc. because the next day I will also create a new religion and start my Holy Book that says THAT THE WORLD HAS ONE GOD NAMELY INDIA. Who will follow it now but many years later that is around 2 century later INDIA will become THE HEAVEN !!!
Similarly, around 2 centuries ago some one like me had published this books and inaugrated these religions which has of now many gods which are not been proved any one in this world.
