Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[United Muscovite Nations]

>inherently contradictory
I.e. You don't like it.

Christian doctrine has had thousands of years to be refined, and no one has seen it as a problem until recently, so I'm inclined to say those who think it's a problem are wrong and don't know enough about the doctrine.

"Nobody"

You know there's a thousands of year-old quote erroneously attributed to Epicurus on this point, right?

And there have been many solutions, and many more philosophers far more acquainted with theology than whoever made that quote.

And, of course, there's the problem with that argument that evil would only be in the opinion of God or humans.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>inherently contradictory
I.e. You don't like it.

Christian doctrine has had thousands of years to be refined, and no one has seen it as a problem until recently, so I'm inclined to say those who think it's a problem are wrong and don't know enough about the doctrine.

Because it is inherently contradictory yes.

Christian doctrine has had thousands of years to be refined

To diverge into thousands of contradicting denominations you mean.

and no one has seen it as a problem until recently

Oh the things you don't know about history, not that that is a valid argument even if it WERE true.

so I'm inclined to say those who think it's a problem are wrong

Because you say so right?

don't know enough about the doctrine

I find it often a sign of a closed mind that they think that anyone who disagrees with them simply hasn't heard 'The TruthTM' or must be evil.

So, enlighten me on these contradictions.

[Constantinopolis]

God cannot create a square circle. An all-powerful being does not necessarily have infinite options.

And in any case, all natural evil is a result of the Fall. This is basic Christian doctrine. Cancer exists because this world is fallen and corrupted by sin. It will cease to exist after the Second Coming.

Yes I understand that Christian doctrine is inherently contradictory.
That doesn't change that you apparently believe in a merely somewhat powerful god.

Christian doctrine never clearly defines what is meant by "all-powerful", actually.

The word is often used to mean simply that God can ignore the laws of physics in this universe at will. At no point did any Christian theologian assert that "omnipotence" includes the power to create a completely different and better universe, for example. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I honestly don't know.

Your entire argument is a silly game of word definitions.

[Genivaria]

Because it is inherently contradictory yes.

To diverge into thousands of contradicting denominations you mean.

Oh the things you don't know about history, not that that is a valid argument even if it WERE true.

Because you say so right?

I find it often a sign of a closed mind that they think that anyone who disagrees with them simply hasn't heard 'The TruthTM' or must be evil.

So, enlighten me on these contradictions.

The contradictions between denominations?

[Genivaria]

Yes I understand that Christian doctrine is inherently contradictory.
That doesn't change that you apparently believe in a merely somewhat powerful god.

Christian doctrine never clearly defines what is meant by "all-powerful", actually.

The word is often used to mean simply that God can ignore the laws of physics in this universe at will. At no point did any Christian theologian assert that "omnipotence" includes the power to create a completely different and better universe, for example. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I honestly don't know.

Your entire argument is a silly game of word definitions.

It doesn't need to, it actually has a meaning.
We aren't restricted to the opinions of 'Christian theologians'.

[Neanderthaland]

Is he omnipotent or not?

Not according to your definition of "omnipotent", clearly.

Now explain to me why I should care that someone has constructed a definition of "omnipotence" according to which God is not omnipotent. God is all-powerful in some sense of the world, but perhaps not in other senses of the word. So what?

So basically he's just the God Emperor of Dune then?

Not actually in control of anything at all, merely able to proceed along a set path to the best, but still imperfect, outcome. A slave to game where every move is predetermined.

If something isn't what you really want, and you're all powerful, then it is what you really want, because if it wasn't you could easily change it.

No.

All-powerful or not, there are trade-offs you must face. When you change something, that has consequences. An all-powerful being can still find itself in a situation where it must choose between several options that ALL have downsides and negative aspects.

God can't create a square circle. And a universe in which humans exist and have free will and yet nothing bad ever happens is like a square circle.

So why is cancer a must? Or HIV?

You seem to know an awful lot about what God's power set entails. So why don't you explain to me why those were unavoidable.

Because otherwise it seems like you're just retroactively saying "well... there must have been a good reason" for every bad thing that could possibly happen.

[Constantinopolis]

Not according to your definition of "omnipotent", clearly.

Now explain to me why I should care that someone has constructed a definition of "omnipotence" according to which God is not omnipotent. God is all-powerful in some sense of the world, but perhaps not in other senses of the word. So what?


Then He is not all-powerful by your definition. Problem solved. Now, why should I care about your definition?


Again, why should I care what you think?


No.

All-powerful or not, there are trade-offs you must face. When you change something, that has consequences. An all-powerful being can still find itself in a situation where it must choose between several options that ALL have downsides and negative aspects.

God can't create a square circle. And a universe in which humans exist and have free will and yet nothing bad ever happens is like a square circle.

If your only defense is "I don't care what you think." then why are you even on this forum?

My defense is rather, "I don't care what you think about the definition of the word “omnipotent” and what a truly Godlike God should be able to do."

I do care about arguments that are based on something other than playing with word definitions.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So, enlighten me on these contradictions.

The contradictions between denominations?

Since when are different denominations proof that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory?

[Genivaria]

Oh and no the Problem of Evil has not actually been given an adequate answer.

[Neanderthaland]

"Nobody"

You know there's a thousands of year-old quote erroneously attributed to Epicurus on this point, right?

And there have been many solutions, and many more philosophers far more acquainted with theology than whoever made that quote.

And, of course, there's the problem with that argument that evil would only be in the opinion of God or humans.

If there were any satisfactory solutions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Genivaria]

The contradictions between denominations?

Since when are different denominations proof that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory?

Okay you seem to be trying to drag this into something completely different here.
You asserted that Christianity has merely 'refined' over the millenia whereas instead it has diverged into thousands of contradicting denominations.
That is not 'refined'.

Also now that I think of it why does God's one and only Truth need 'refining' at all?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Since when are different denominations proof that Christian doctrine is self-contradictory?

Okay you seem to be trying to drag this into something completely different here.
You asserted that Christianity has merely 'refined' over the millenia whereas instead it has diverged into thousands of contradicting denominations.
That is not 'refined'.

Also now that I think of it why does God's one and only Truth need 'refining' at all?

It doesn't. That's why I'm Orthodox, because I think development of doctrine is heresy.

[Constantinopolis]

Christian doctrine never clearly defines what is meant by "all-powerful", actually.

The word is often used to mean simply that God can ignore the laws of physics in this universe at will. At no point did any Christian theologian assert that "omnipotence" includes the power to create a completely different and better universe, for example. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I honestly don't know.

Your entire argument is a silly game of word definitions.

It doesn't need to, it actually has a meaning.
We aren't restricted to the opinions of 'Christian theologians'.

Yes you are if you're talking about the Christian God and His attributes.

You are free to imagine some different God and argue about its attributes, of course, but I was under the impression that we were talking about the Christian God.

And the point is that no one ever said that the Christian God has to fit any particular definition of omnipotence - only that He is "all-powerful" in some sense.

No.

All-powerful or not, there are trade-offs you must face. When you change something, that has consequences. An all-powerful being can still find itself in a situation where it must choose between several options that ALL have downsides and negative aspects.

God can't create a square circle. And a universe in which humans exist and have free will and yet nothing bad ever happens is like a square circle.

So why is cancer a must? Or HIV?

You seem to know an awful lot about what God's power set entails. So why don't you explain to me why those were unavoidable.

Because otherwise it seems like you're just retroactively saying "well... there must have been a good reason" for every bad thing that could possibly happen.

On the contrary, my whole point is that I don't know what God's power set entails.

This is in response to your argument, which takes the form "I know that God's power set must entail the ability to do X, so why doesn't He do X?"

[Genivaria]

Okay you seem to be trying to drag this into something completely different here.
You asserted that Christianity has merely 'refined' over the millenia whereas instead it has diverged into thousands of contradicting denominations.
That is not 'refined'.

Also now that I think of it why does God's one and only Truth need 'refining' at all?

It doesn't. That's why I'm Orthodox, because I think development of doctrine is heresy.

So it hasn't 'refined' at all.
Gotcha.

[Pope Joan]

An all loving, all powerful God would not allow innocent suffering, and the world has plenty of that.

We can rationalize some of it, "Oh, the family should not have built near an earthquake zone", or "Oh that was the result of human evil, God had nothing to do with it."

But there are numerous examples otherwise. Little babies were swept away in the tsunami that hit southeast Indonesia. There had never been a tsunami there before, so the families had not deliberately located their homes in a danger area. There was no way any human intervention could have saved those innocent babies. it was, simply, an "Act of God".

By the traditional definition, as an escape clause for insurers.

But I prefer a God who is, yes, all loving but is NOT all powerful. I don't need to borrow strength and authority from my deity in order to validate myself. Let's just say that our loving God is "MOST" powerful, which fits with many Biblical sayings, such as the PSalm which declares "He is a great King above all gods". So, there are other powers! But God is stronger. Not ALL powerful, but just strong enough to defeat the others.

As for catastrophes, they are disordered remnants of primordial chaos. The OT sometimes refers to this as the dragon Rahab. Sometimes we are told that God has defeated this dragon of chaos, but at other times we are told that there is an ongoing struggle (which evidence convinces me is the case).

[Hashkin]

Most don't, some do

[Genivaria]

It doesn't need to, it actually has a meaning.
We aren't restricted to the opinions of 'Christian theologians'.

Yes you are if you're talking about the Christian God and His attributes.

You are free to imagine some different God and argue about its attributes, of course, but I was under the impression that we were talking about the Christian God.

And the point is that no one ever said that the Christian God has to fit any particular definition of omnipotence - only that He is "all-powerful" in some sense.

Hahaha no I'm not at all.
Now if we were talking about something that can actually be detected, measured, and studied it would be completely different and I would have to step aside and let the experts take over.
Theologians are 'experts' in the same way that I'm an 'expert' on the Harry Potter series.
And the only final say that HP fans have is when the author comes out and declares something.

You can't do that with Christianity.

[Constantinopolis]

And there have been many solutions, and many more philosophers far more acquainted with theology than whoever made that quote.

And, of course, there's the problem with that argument that evil would only be in the opinion of God or humans.

If there were any satisfactory solutions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There are dozens of solutions, it's just that every time we propose one, you respond with, "how do you know that's true?"

For example, I just proposed that perhaps it is not possible for God to create a better universe in which humans exist. You have said nothing to reject it, but merely pointed out that I can't KNOW that this is the case. And of course I don't KNOW. That's why it is only one of many different possible solutions.

[Neanderthaland]

So why is cancer a must? Or HIV?

You seem to know an awful lot about what God's power set entails. So why don't you explain to me why those were unavoidable.

Because otherwise it seems like you're just retroactively saying "well... there must have been a good reason" for every bad thing that could possibly happen.

On the contrary, my whole point is that I don't know what God's power set entails.

This is in response to your argument, which takes the form "I know that God's power set must entail the ability to do X, so why doesn't He do X?"

And, again, that's trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Because, you're aware, you guys have a tenancy to thank him for every little thing, don't you? As if he were directly responsible for your having survived a triple-bypass more so than, say, the surgeon.

But as soon as something bad comes around "well, maybe God couldn't do anything about it?"


No. Rubbish.

[Genivaria]

If there were any satisfactory solutions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There are dozens of solutions, it's just that every time we propose one, you respond with, "how do you [b]know that's true?"[/b]

For example, I just proposed that perhaps it is not possible for God to create a better universe in which humans exist. You have said nothing to reject it, but merely pointed out that I can't KNOW that this is the case. And of course I don't KNOW. That's why it is only one of many different possible solutions.

Yes...how dare we ask for evidence.
Speculation and conjecture are fun but they don't actually answer any serious questions.

[Neanderthaland]

If there were any satisfactory solutions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There are dozens of solutions, it's just that every time we propose one, you respond with, "how do you know that's true?"

For example, I just proposed that perhaps it is not possible for God to create a better universe in which humans exist. You have said nothing to reject it, but merely pointed out that I can't KNOW that this is the case. And of course I don't KNOW. That's why it is only one of many different possible solutions.

It's like I'm a bad person for having standards of evidence.

[Constantinopolis]

There are dozens of solutions, it's just that every time we propose one, you respond with, "how do you know that's true?"

For example, I just proposed that perhaps it is not possible for God to create a better universe in which humans exist. You have said nothing to reject it, but merely pointed out that I can't KNOW that this is the case. And of course I don't KNOW. That's why it is only one of many different possible solutions.

It's like I'm a bad person for having standards of evidence.

There are dozens of solutions, it's just that every time we propose one, you respond with, "how do you [b]know that's true?"[/b]

For example, I just proposed that perhaps it is not possible for God to create a better universe in which humans exist. You have said nothing to reject it, but merely pointed out that I can't KNOW that this is the case. And of course I don't KNOW. That's why it is only one of many different possible solutions.

Yes...how dare we ask for evidence.
Speculation and conjecture are fun but they don't actually answer any serious questions.

So you ask a speculative question about an entity whose existence cannot be proven, and you're upset that all the answers are speculative?

The Problem of Evil is INHERENTLY a "what if" question. So of course all the answers will be "what if" answers as well.

[Genivaria]

It's like I'm a bad person for having standards of evidence.

Yes...how dare we ask for evidence.
Speculation and conjecture are fun but they don't actually answer any serious questions.

So you ask a speculative question about an entity whose existence cannot be proven, and you're upset that all the answers are speculative?

The Problem of Evil is INHERENTLY a "what if" question. So of course all the answers will be "what if" answers as well.

So your god is now entirely speculative?
I can agree with that, thank you I'm done.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Oh and no the Problem of Evil has not actually been given an adequate answer.

It has, by myself and others. Pick any one of the following:

1) God does not exist.
2) God is impotent.
3) God is malevolent.

I prefer #1 because it requires fewer assumptions.

[Genivaria]

Oh and no the Problem of Evil has not actually been given an adequate answer.

It has, by myself and others. Pick any one of the following:

1) God does not exist.
2) God is impotent.
3) God is malevolent.

I prefer #1 because it requires fewer assumptions.

Oh well to specify I mean't an answer from the theist position that provides some 4th option.