How do you explain that?

[Unseen]

If this happens over and over again, get back to us. Otherwise, I’ll just invoke coincidence. Sounds like a psychological close relative of deja vu.

Of course, if it happens over and over again, there may be a business opportunity in there somewhere.

[PopeBeanie]

Chuck Norris works in mysterious ways.

[jakelafort]

Ivy,  you have not responded.  What do you think? Do you realize now that you were mistaken? Are you back in the A camp?

We as a species have 30 years before extinction?  God intercedes in your life and yet is such an uncaring and or sadistic prick that she will allow the species to become extinct?  And no doubt untold suffering will dance its merry dance until the last syllable of recorded time.  (Thanks Shakesy)

 

 

 

[Belle Rose]

@Jakelafort

Ivy,  you have not responded.  What do you think?

ummmm nope. Sorry 😂 none of the responses resonated with me. Sorry :/ 😆 not even close

[Belle Rose]

We as a species have 30 years before extinction?

Maybe 50. But it will be 100% because of our own stupidity

[Davis]

 none of the responses resonated with me. Sorry :/   not even close

Yes because the function of this discussion was to get, maybe even just one person, to help you confirm your biases and to roll the eyes at all the rational comments coming in. It’s human nature to find sound criticism as hostile, unpalatable and offensive. It doesn’t resonate with most people but only the more authentic person, with confidence and the ability to say “I don’t know” and “Yeah, you might be right”.

[Davis]

God intercedes in your life and yet is such an uncaring and or sadistic prick that she will allow the species to become extinct?

God did murder every human but a handful with the flood. I think millions of people, including the “guilty” children and evil ones with mental problems and conditions that would exclude culpability drowned. It’s apparently a horrendous and painful death. But you know, God was displeased so, it must have been a moral decision. The thing is, despite God seeming to have no problem at the moment murdering so many human beings, he did seem to a feel a little guilt afterwards. Didn’t he promise not to murder every human again? I’m pretty sure he says so quite plainly in Genesis. So yeah, either humans won’t go extinct because God promised not to commit genocide again, or perhaps this whole God bullshit is maybe just bullshit. Hmm. I know there are some possibilities lying in between there but, in all honestly is anyone taking this seriously anyways?

• This reply was modified 6 years, 8 months ago by Davis.

[Belle Rose]

@Davis

Yes because the function of this discussion was to get, maybe even just one person, to help you confirm your biases and to roll the eyes at all the rational comments coming in.

No, The function of this discussion was to see if there would be an alternative point of view that made sense to me. I did not find any that I could take seriously based on my own situation. That’s all. You make a lot of assumptions about me and they’re wrong.

[Belle Rose]

Hmm. I know there are some possibilities lying in between there but, in all honestly is anyone taking this seriously anyways?

The premise of that ENTIRE argument that has been rehashed several times in several different ways something to the effect of, “If God is so loving then why does he condone any sort of suffering….” argument, I personally have found that argument to be empty and full of error. That’s why that particular stance just wasn’t sufficient to even begin to answer the actual question I was asking. It was more of a duck and evade sort of response IMHO.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I personally have found that argument to be empty and full of error…

I find it the The Problem of Evil an interesting topic and I have debated it with many theists, including Catholic priests, Muslim clerics and Baptist pastors and theologians of various creeds.  I am certain none of them would see it as “empty”.

We would be interested to know what  you think the main errors are with the argument and why you deem it vacuous?

[jakelafort]

No Ivy the problem of evil was not part of the deconstruction of your premonition.  I brought it up late because you said we will be extinct in 30 years.  So i thought here is a person who thinks god informed her of some future event in her life…hot shit magic…and yet she thinks this same god will allow humans to die off.  THAT IS ABSURD and TRUMP-LIKE NARCISSISM! Her individual life is important enough that god gives her a heads-up as to a future event but this all powerful god is going to let homo sapiens vanish.

If you are a deist evil is not much of an issue. But if you are another arrogant theist who posits a personal god in an unimaginable universe then other than a dodge like mysterious ways (theist are the ones who act in a mysterious way) what the hell can you say to the issue of evil.?

[Belle Rose]

@Jakelafort

No Ivy the problem of evil was not part of the deconstruction of your premonition.  I brought it up late because you said we will be extinct in 30 years.

Yes because we are stupid idiots and are ruining the planet beyond reparable recognition!

[Belle Rose]

@Reg

We would be interested to know what  you think the main errors are with the argument and why you deem it vacuous?

It’s the equivalent of a two year old pitching a fit because they didn’t get what they wanted for Christmas. It begins with the presumption that I (single human) know what the best thing is for myself and the universe and if (said) outcome is not orchestrated to my liking then God must be an evil asshole. That’s really what that whole argument boils down to in brass tax imho. It begins with too many presumptions that just are not based in reality.

[Simon Paynton]

I think the “problem of evil” is not a good argument against the existence of God.

It’s impossible to have existence without bad things happening.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I disagree with your synopsis of the POE but claiming it “begins with too many presumptions that just are not based in reality” is something I completely agree with because its first assumption (or presupposition) is that your God exists.

It also depends on whether or not you are debating the Evidential POE to debunk the idea that “God” is all powerful and all knowing. Or you may be debating it as the Logical POE to consider the logical consistency of theistic arguments that tend to (always do) contradict themselves.

The essence of both arguments is not necessarily to show that your God (or any god) is “evil” but that the contradictions and flaws of the argument leave one having to consider that it is not possible for the God being argued for to exist in actuality.

Here is a good explainer of both arguments. It is a great site for Philosophy fans.

[Author]

Posts