Is the anti-theist argument from undeserved suffering circularish?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If god exists and made humankind in its own image then it is a wonder there are any good and decent people in this world. The Biblical god is a very fallen entity.

Sentimental antitheist bollocks

[Nearly Sane]

OK there is a view of God known as the God of the philosophers


Based on a range of things which have a fixed definition ''The omnis''


We know they have a fixed definition because people doing the philosophy find The God they have posited to be illogical.


That exercise though is not Christianity and , in incompetent hands, ends up as straw manning.



Non theists seem to be stymied by there insistence on throwing in omnibenevolence to mistakenly try to gussy up a philosophical exercise into an argument against christianity.


Which is a dead loss and completely useless IMV.

Lies and gibberish. You worship leukemia.

[Nearly Sane]

Sentimental antitheist bollocks

Pish and drivel

[Shaker]

God does not make man in the fallen state. Mankind is the master/author of it's own fallenness.

But when I asked (#86): "Could God have prevented this "fall", or not?", you replied (#87): "Yes. By not creating humanity." Unless I am missing something - in which case, as always, please supply me with contrary evidence - God created a humanity bound (some might say pre-ordained, or for the dramatic amongst us, doomed) to "fall". Therefore you are saying, explicitly, that God created a thing (humanity) inescapably, inevitably, ineluctably bound to fail straight from the production line. Mankind supposedly being the master/author of its own fallenness was summarily dispatched in paragraph 3 of #88, by the way.

I've heard of planned obsolescence, but this is taking the piss, surely?

[Nearly Sane]

But when I asked (#86): "Could God have prevented this "fall", or not?", you replied (#87): "Yes. By not creating humanity." Unless I am missing something - in which case, as always, please supply me with contrary evidence - God created a humanity bound (some might say pre-ordained, or for the dramatic amongst us, doomed) to "fall". Therefore you are saying, explicitly, that God created a thing (humanity) inescapably, inevitably, ineluctably bound to fail straight from the production line.

I've heard of planned obsolescence, but this is taking the piss, surely?

Also fucking with the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience but lying about it.

[Shaker]

Also fucking with the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience but lying about it.

Ça va sans dire.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What you are saying here is essentially non believers (including good people) choosing not to believe in the restorative justice of the cross causes childhood leukaemia.

As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.

If there is an afterlife then such things are merely a chapter in a never ending story.


People here seem to be arguing from the immovable reference that there is one life and that is inexorably ordered into believers and non believers and are trying to paint a picture of God from that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unless I am missing something - in which case, as always, please supply me with contrary evidence - God created a humanity bound (some might say pre-ordained, or for the dramatic amongst us, doomed) to "fall". Therefore you are saying, explicitly, that God created a thing (humanity) inescapably, inevitably, ineluctably bound to fail straight from the production line.

No, that's a poor analogy since Man is not a machine but has an extra.
We see man tootling happily along with god and then deciding to crash a perfectly sound thing or if you like travelling along a different path...ending in a crash.

[Shaker]

No, that's a poor analogy since Man is not a machine but has an extra.

An extra? An extra what? Tooth (I used to have one, until June last year)? Leg? What?

We see man tootling happily along with god and then deciding to crash a perfectly sound thing or if you like travelling along a different path...ending in a crash.

Where do we "see" this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An extra? An extra what? Tooth (I used to have one, until June last year)? Leg? What? Where do we "see" this?

The ability to reject God.


You state that we were made to fail vis a vis God...I say we were given the choice and made that choice.


God though has opened himself up to us through Jesus. Are you going to choose that path?

[Nearly Sane]

As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.

If there is an afterlife then such things are merely a chapter in a never ending story.


People here seem to be arguing from the immovable reference that there is one life and that is inexorably ordered into believers and non believers and are trying to paint a picture of God from that.

what in the name of fuck is the freedom to die from disease? Are you saying my friend, who died at 28 of skin cancer, chose to die? As opposed to your god who as omnipotent and omniscient chose that. And you worship the god that choses that.  You love the death of my friend and you love that.

[Shaker]

The ability to reject God.

Based entirely on the theistic (by definition) assumption (read: opinion) that there is a God in the first place to be rejected. As someone a long time ago once said, I have no need of that hypothesis.

You state that we were made to fail vis a vis God...I say we were given the choice and made that choice.

No I didn't. Your habitual lying (or is it incomprehension? Who knows) aside, in paragraph 3 of #88 I dispensed with this nonsense.

God though has opened himself up to us through Jesus. Are you going to choose that path?

Why on earth would I do so silly a thing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

what in the name of fuck is the freedom to die from disease?

Who used those words?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Based entirely in a theistic assumption (read: opinion) that there is a God in the first place to be rejected.

You have to assume a God in any argument to show he is a bad dude...so you must be making that assumption anyway.


Are you trying the double by trying to show that God is both evil and non existent?

[Nearly Sane]

Who used those words?

The exact words, no one. But the idea, you, see below quote. You love a god you think killed my friend of skin cancer. You think that is love. You abase yourself before what you think is a murdering thug. You love and worship pain

'As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.'

[Shaker]

You have to assume a God in any argument to show he is a bad dude...so you must be making that assumption anyway.


Are you trying the double by trying to show that God is both evil and non existent?

No more so - on the same basis as - Iago and Sauron are evil and non-existent.

It's called fiction, Vladdychops. Not real. Madey-uppy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The exact words, no one. But the idea, you, see below quote. You love a god you think killed my friend of skin cancer. You think that is love. You abase yourself before what you think is a murdering thug. You love and worship pain

'As God has given man the freedom to fall if man wishes it. So he gives some freedom to the universe to organise itself without his intervention thus people fall of cliffs taking selfies, killed in tornadoes, or succumbing to disease.'

I worship a God who has created the universe, who has redeemed me, who offers that to all and who will make all things well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No more so - on the same basis as - Iago and Sauron are evil and non-existent.

It's called fiction, Vladdychops. Not real. Madey-uppy.

Positive assertion therefore provide the proof that it is fiction.

[Nearly Sane]

I worship a God who has created the universe, who has redeemed me, who offers that to all and who will make all things well.

Who created the skin cancer that killed my friend. You love that death. It is what you worship.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who created the skin cancer that killed my friend. You love that death. It is what you worship.

If you do not love that death. If you hate that death...To what do you owe that righteous hatred...nature...God...yourself?


And what about believers who attempt to cure Leukemia do they worship or hate God?


Like the worst of non believers, religion, religious people and God for you have become equated with everything bad.

[Nearly Sane]

If you do not love that death. If you hate that death...To what do you owe that righteous hatred...nature...God...yourself?


And what about believers who attempt to cure Leukemia do they worship or hate God?


Like the worst of non believers, religion, religious people and God for you have become equated with everything bad.

Yep, I don't love my friend dying of skin cancer. You do. You think that's love.


Oh and I don't religious people are everything bad, but off you go with your lying again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep, I don't love my friend dying of skin cancer. You do. You think that's love.

Too weird for me. I'm out of here.

[Nearly Sane]

Too weird for me. I'm out of here.

I note that you run away from your worship of skin cancer.

[Shaker]

Positive assertion therefore provide the proof that it is fiction.

Your positive assertion is that God is a real thing.

My positive assertion is that you have provided no evidence that such a thing exists objectively (as in "true for everybody else and not just me") anywhere outside of your own head.

Let's see how that stacks up, Vladdychops. If you want me to point you to literary sources that Iago and Sauron are fictional evil characters, I can very easily do so. If you want me to point you to literary sources that God is an evil character, I can do so with equal ease.

You think that 2 out of these 3 are fictional while one of them is objectively real. I say you haven't even come within the same continent let alone postcode of demonstrating why I have to take your fairy tales seriously.

Burden of proof, burden of proof ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your positive assertion is that God is a real thing.

My positive assertion is that

God IS fiction


Let's have your proof then.