"God" is not Omnipotent

[Xans]

Mog wrote

Sure we would. We just wouldn't find it in any way remarkable so we wouldn't have any special word for it. I suppose you are in the "atheists can't exist without god" school as well?

Without God, atheists would exist but they'd be too busy backing up what they do believe to worry about meaningless words.

And, where is the evidence that evil is an unavoidable consequence to good? I can certainly avoid doing good acts without necessarily doing evil acts. Evil is not the absence of good.

Do you consider the freedom to do evil good?

[Xans]

Mog wrote

So Xans, do you normally waste at least an hour of your life every-day apologizing for your god on Atheist forums to those who will never buy your bull-shit arguments? Think about it.

I don't come here for your sake. I'm waiting to be convinced of something.

[Mog]

Xans wrote

Without God, atheists would exist but they'd be too busy backing up what they do believe to worry about meaningless words.

Wow, thats sentence doesn't have a single ounce of truth in it.

Do you consider the freedom to do evil good?

Do we really have the freedom to do evil though? It seems that if I actually chose to do evil profusely, I wouldn't enjoy the consequences, so I don't really have this freedom you speak of. It doesn't really answer the point though. Mars is entirely red. Green is considered the opposite of red. Is there any reason to think that because Mars is an entirely red planet, there exists an entirely green planet somewhere?

Just because 2 things are opposites, it doesn't mean that the opposite of one thing is reliant of its existence. Evil is not the absence of good, merely its opposite.

[Mog]

Xans wrote

I don't come here for your sake. I'm waiting to be convinced of something.

I'm not convinced that you are trying to be convinced of something though.

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

I'll correct myself if necessary. You don't create darkness, you allow darkness. Darkness is a consequence to creating meaningful light. God didn't create evil, evil is just a consequence to creating meaningful honest to God good.

If you tried to create only light, it would be like pointing your camera at the sun. Pointing your camera at the sun is about as pointless as pointing it in total darkness. Without light, the darkness around you is irrelevant. You wouldn't know darkness exists because you have nothing to contrast it to.

Bat Guano! Darkness (like atheism) is the default state, no matter who can or cannot perceive it. Creating light, like igniting a flare in a cave, does not create the darkness that is in the shadows, it was there all the time. The light replaces some of the darkness that was always there.

You really should learn a bit more about the sciences before you take the contents of that ignorant Book as accurate about anything. Or get some new negative batteries for your flashdark.

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

I don't criticize either notion. Whether the "Big Bang" did it or God did it, either created the universe from nothing. It's obvious the universe was created from no thing we're capable of comprehending as a thing. I'm quite rational about it.

Not based on what you just said. The BB did not create anything, it identifies the beginning of the universe. If the BB did cause the universe, then it would be yet again necessary to ask what caused the BB. There is literally no indication that universe was caused by anything or anyone.

It is not rational to believe in something you can know nothing about, even whether it exists or not. It is harmful to your mind, a destructive delusion, if that belief has any effect on your worldview or behavior.

A concrete example would be if you drop a dime on the collection plate because you fear Hell.

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

That would depend on the legislator. Most legislators can't bring the dead back to life or provide an afterlife.

Most legislators do not claim to be gods. So their pronouncements are not automatically accorded the quality of being "good".

If the author has the authority, sure.

If your legislator made a law that it was illegal to fold a gum wrapper on Wednesdays, would you (representing the group that gave the legislator the authority) not prosecute the legislator, acting as an individual, for doing it?

If we say that it's wrong for a dog to sit on the couch, how can it be right for us to do it? We're above any law meant for dogs, just as God is above any law meant for us. It may go against your egalitarian sentiments, but God did say equating ourselves to God is wrong.

If we state that dogs are not permitted to sit on the couch that would not make it "wrong" or "evil". If we then were acting in the role of a dog, we could be expected to follow that rule.

Our knowledge and wisdom is trivial compared to God.

- an unsupported assertion-

Your average citizen isn't qualified to judge and execute or imprison a murderer but the judicial system is. Your average sinner is not qualified to wipe out entire civilizations but God is.

-another unsupported assertion-

Certain things are for the greater good.

An all powerful deity can accomplish the greater good without doing evil so any evil done to promote the greater good is still gratuitous evil and its author does not deserve the title "good" nor do His works.

Imprisoning someone for life isn't pleasant. Executing someone isn't pleasant, but it's for the greater good.

It is not done by individuals, but by representatives of the society which the laws are intended to protect.

There are laws against kidnapping, inprisonment[sic] and killing, yet I don't see you complaining about the governing authorities doing it.

I complain bitterly if they do it unjustly. I insist that an off-duty cop who blows away an innocent civilian be prosecuted thoroughly even if that same cop, the same day, legally helped in the execution of a convicted murderer.

God can kill, he can't lie cheat or steal.

Then you are saying that the book is wrong in hundreds of places where, we are told, God did exaactly lie and cheat and steal and caused otherwise innocent people to do it as well.

As for rape, not sure on that one.

The sex act, required for procreation whether it damages a hymen or not, if deliberately performed on someone incapable of giving consent, is rape. You seem to want to sugar-coat this fact, possibly because you don't want to be subject to the anti-rapist sentiments when you do it.

God can torment people. God judges who is innocent or guilty.

If God doesn't use the criteria for innocence that He has supposedly given to us, He is being unjust by definition, His own definition. You say we are not supposed to equate ourselves with God (and I don't because I exist), but we are supposed to emulate God (at least those parts that are good).

Everything God does is for the greater good.

Given all the evil that the book said He committed, you can't support this claim.

I'll guess you'd have a hard time seeing that considering you have no problem with half the things God considers wicked.

No, seeing that you have no problem with the other half of things God does that He admits are wicked and vile and unjust.
Yeah, it is evil and wicked to harness an ox and an ass together.*

[Sternwallow]

Xans wrote

A demonstrably uncaused event like what? Something on the quantum level?

Yeah, what's it to ya? The BB, expanding on a singularity was initially operating on the quantum level.

I've never asked such a stupid question. I'm not a fan of begging the question.

[Philboid Studge]

Stern wrote

So, you would permit your legislators to wantonly kill and maim and cheat anyone they happened to wish to? It is OK for the author of a law to disobey it.

Of course that is exactly what we do permit, whether one lives in an Avocado Republic or the United Federation of Merkin Wearers.

In the latter case, it is highly unlikely that any of the purveyors of torture, illegal surveillance, grand theft, and the all the rest of it will ever suffer the indignities of the perp walk.

This is nothing new. Circumventing the very laws they themselves create has been a hallmark of oligarchies, monarchies, theocracies, and "democracies" since jimboree. Surely this Yahweh of theirs was created in their own image.

[Captain Relativity]

Xans, when you say "Everything God does is for the greater good." you're clearly not referring to the good acts of your god, but to the evil acts. Good acts require no justification. What you're arguing here is that 'the end justifies the means' in a vain attempt to defend your god.

Xans, the end does not justify means. Means are either just or they are not, regardless of the end result. Evil acts are not made just, cannot be made just, by favorable outcomes.

"The final result of an action cannot and must not be the determiner of right or wrong. To allow your mind to begin to accept this falsehood to any degree permits corruption to enter.

In essense, [some] people say doing bad can result in good, thus they assert bad becomes good." Christine Smith

Again, the ends do not justify the means.

[Rhinoqulous]

Captain Relativity wrote

Again, the ends do not justify the means.

So it's wrong to lie to a Nazi patrol about the family of Jews you're hiding in your attic? If morality only lies in the means, and lying is wrong, it would seem you would be morally obligated to snitch.

I think morality is much more complex than this. Saying that it is only deontological (morality in means/acts) or teleological (morality in ends/results) is a false dichotomy.

[Philboid Studge]

I was going to respond to Cap'n but I'm glad I forewent, since Rhinoq has much bigger, longer, and uncut words to waggle. I salute you sir.

[Irreligious]

I'm still waiting for Xans to coherently explain how an immaterial entity*-- that is, literally nothing-- can do anything, good or bad.

But I won't be holding my breath while I do.

*immaterial entity = oxymoron

[nkb]

Xans wrote

I'll correct myself if necessary. You don't create darkness, you allow darkness. Darkness is a consequence to creating meaningful light. God didn't create evil, evil is just a consequence to creating meaningful honest to God good.

If you tried to create only light, it would be like pointing your camera at the sun. Pointing your camera at the sun is about as pointless as pointing it in total darkness. Without light, the darkness around you is irrelevant. You wouldn't know darkness exists because you have nothing to contrast it to.

I get it now! This is all an elaborate April Fool's joke, that you've been setting up! Good one!

I feel so silly, having actually believed that someone could possibly be that stupid. "Create darkness"! Good one!

[Rhinoqulous]

Philboid Studge wrote

Rhinoq has much bigger, longer, and uncut words to waggle.

If only everything about me was bigger, longer, and uncut. That don't stop me from wagglin' though.