juliod wrote: BTW, has anybody yet offered a working definition of “evil” for the purposes of this debate? I don’t think it is relevant. Like Lotan, I don’t believe in evil. We can leave it to the theists. It is quite relevant on several counts. First off, in all debates, it provides a common starting …
harvey1 wrote:However, there’s another question that we must address, and that is whether the reasons for God not acting are sufficient to suggest that God has all the qualities in full that people often ascribe to God. I believe there are reasons why God does not act in situations of pain/evil. And one main reason …
I understand what you’re saying wuntext. Tragedies and calamities happen and we wonder, “Where is God in all this? Why does he allow bad things to happen?” It’s probably the oldest and most common questions in the history of civilization. And I’m not going to say here that there’s any simple answers to these. I …
Read more “Has God done anything about the evil that is in the world?”
Let’s start with your first three statements: 1. If a God exists who is omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving), 2. and evil exists, 3. then God cannot be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. The atheist implies with this argument that an omnipotent (I like your definition and that is how I’ll be using it) God …
Diogenes wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:22 pm Yes indeed, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim; i.e. the resurrection of Jesus. Since this is an extraordinary claim, a claim that defies everything we know of science and the physical laws of the universe, we do indeed circle back to the …
Diogenes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:37 pm Because philosophy provides a tool to discuss something does not mean the ‘something’ exists. Discussing what actually exists would be through ontology: “Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology Sure, ontology cannot “prove” something exists, but it …
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 11:04 pm No, no. For me yjis is about Bible reliability as to actual events and minor errors like one or two angels (easily excused) against errors that really call Bible credibility into question (The nativities, no Transfiguration in John and – yes – the resurrections make the mid …
Diogenes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 6:54 pmNaturalism may not be automatically or irrevocably present itself as the only system of finding truth, but what is in second place? What other system comes close. The clue to the answer lies in the reference you provided earlier… In fact, science is not even equipped to answer …
Diogenes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:23 pm I could accept the Bible “as reliable as any other book” that claims to record fantastic or supernatural events that are impossible according to known science. Want to reiterate that they are only impossible because modern science assumes naturalism is true, not because naturalism is actually true. …
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 6:30 am inerrant doesn’t mean the Bible couldn’t be as reliable (with caution) as any other book recording ancient events. If people accept the Bible as reliable as any other book recording ancient events, I’d be happy with that. The question though next is are those claims historically true? …