Yeah, you watched it alright, that's why your response had nothing to do with his refutation. From asking what was the fraud to now you saw it coming. Keep up with your BS. In matters of religion I expect 90% of theists to spin/lie/BS just to defend their religion. Defending the indefensible. No surprise there.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 20 2018, 01:07 PM

Is that the best you've got? LOL

What else can you say now that your BS stands exposed? I can give you more once you BS more.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 20 2018, 02:30 PM

I like to read the philosophical/theological debates regarding Epicurus ... one could never learn enough.
But could we do without the name callings and angry replies? Cool minds produce wittier rhetoric, no?

I don't know much, but I always believe that until human beings understand our brain 100%, our method of communication through language is limited; and any discourse will only be best of effort. Let's say we don't use English to debate among us, if there's a language that's not ambiguous, wouldn't it be clearer? (mute point here, since this is forum using mainly English language)

And until we could define the metaphysics of God or the higher being who created us, all our understanding of the nature related to God will just be approximation to what our brain could perceive.

I have no issues there. As you can see I started it very civilized but it almost always have the tendency to turn to insults and abuse. There is no harm if one can't answer the riddle, I mean none could for the past 2000+ years but to twist the riddle or add/subtract things to the riddle and then attempt to answer is pointless and defeats the purpose of the riddle, better not to attempt at all. Worst, instead of even attempting to answer, directly turn to insults. I have no qualms insulting back. Problem is not the ambiguity of the language but (deliberate) misinterpretation. Even changing what is the English dictionary definition of the word 'atheism'. Language has no meaning then.

and when many are doing that here sometimes one tend to tar everyone with the same brush and that's really unfair. I hope I didn't start with the insults with anyone here first..... and telling why one is falsely trying to solve the riddle is not an insult but merely stating the fact.

I deeply empathize with many here, afterall almost all of us were religious once and I know how emotional it can get when someone from outside your religion starts discrediting your religion but I don't think one should resort to BS and spins. It doesn't strengthen the defense but weakens it.

ps: Atleast you guys seem a lot more tolerant than folks of other religions, so that's a PLUS.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 20 2018, 11:50 PM

Trust me, Sylar and me are poles apart.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 21 2018, 12:01 AM

Some say the greatest mistake God made was religion....

Each to his own I guess....

There is a logical and more factual reasons why Humans "believe in/created" God and other supernatural entities with zero evidence. Thing is we can tell the theists a 1000 times but they have already concluded that the "scientific evidence" is itself false or dismiss/ignore them because their faith doesn't permit them to question their conditioning.

Erroneous. The origin of the differences is due to the fall.

To begin to address these questions, one must consider what is meant by the word 'evil' here? Most people have a general idea of what evil is but what are some specific things that are evil? Is murder evil? Most would agree that it is. What about stealing? What about lying? What about “little” things like viewing pornography, drinking, gambling, or smoking? When we start identifying things as evil, we begin to realize that we are evil. The Bible says there are none that does good (Psalm 14:3). If we want God to do “something” about evil, we must realize that we are asking Him to deal with each one of us personally.

What exactly then do we want God to do about evil? Should He immediately remove anyone that commits an evil act? That might have sounded appealing a few minutes ago but if each of us were to be included, then it suddenly doesn't sound so appealing anymore.

Of course, there are those people who excuse their own vices as “not so bad” and only want God to deal with the “really bad” things. I guess that means that something like telling “white lies” is OK but the “bold faced” liars get zapped. This is a sort of special pleading by some people who want some degree of evil to be acceptable – just enough for them to get by. They want God to deal with evil but not their evil. They are saying, “Zap everyone else, God, just don't zap me!” You can see how this doesn't really solve anything because everyone wants to excuse their own sin. The Bible says that everyone is right in his own eyes but the Lord ponders the heart (Proverbs 21:2).

If anyone wants God to deal with evil by removing it, it's an all or nothing proposition.

A second alternative is to restrain people from doing evil. That is, God should simply not allow anyone to do evil. The problem with this is that evil is a free will issue. If we were to use the 10 Commandments as a standard of understanding what is right and wrong, there are some points everyone would agree on. “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), for example, would be one of those things that most people would agree is wrong. We wouldn't have a problem if God took away our desire or ability to kill. But what about the commandment that says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)? Would the critic be agreeable if God forced everyone to worship Him? Somehow I think he wouldn't like this option. It's a similar dilemma to the one above where we want God to deal with the evil in everyone else, but we want God to let us continue in our own evil.

To be fair to the critic, though, I wouldn't like this option too much either. If God eliminates our ability to do evil, He also eliminates our ability to choose to do good. I want to worship God. I don't want to be a robot who only performs a task because that what it's programmed to do and it doesn't know anything else. Perhaps God too doesn't want this because He has obviously decided not to deal with evil this way.

A third option is this: give people the free will to decide to do good or evil. Everyone chooses to do evil, of course, and the unrepentant will reap the just punishment for their actions. However, God could make a way of forgiveness available to those who repent of their evil. This is the option that God has chosen. God made this option available at a great personal cost to Himself. In doing so, He has demonstrated that He is both able and willing to do something about evil. He has also demonstrated another characteristic that Epicurus did not mention in his riddle; besides being omnipotent and merciful, God is also just.

https://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2011/07/epic...em-of-evil.html

What fall? Like I said - all based on zero evidence or evidence that has already been exposed as false.

In your lengthy response you haven't even answered the riddle. All you have done is dismiss it by quoting the other attributes of god. For eg:-

What difference does it make if God is omnipotent and merciful and also just, when the riddle questions why he is unable to prevent evil when he is omnipotent? Then he is not omnipotent else he is malevolent.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 23 2018, 11:20 AM

The suposed riddle is based on false premises in the first place. What is evil? To Greeks like Epicurus, perhaps infanticide is not evil.

Humanity represents evil.

God can eradicate all evil anytime easily, by wiping out the entire human species. Instead of preventing an evil thing from happening, which is only a temporary solution, why not make all human go extinct? The perfect solution.

But God nature isn't like that. He almost did wipe out the entire humanity through the flood of Noah. But He has too much love for humankind, He spared some (Noah and his family), and that He hopes some of us like Noah, on our own free will choose Him over this world before the beginning of the end.

So that one day, at the new promised age, humankind will be restored again to His original creation which is the perfect human being and we will rule this earth forever and ever without evil and sin.

Either you don't understand English or logic or you are attempting to spin this.

The riddle does not ask you to qualify evil. So whether Epicurus considered infanticide evil is not relevant. What is relevant is only if the person answering the riddle believes there is evil and if so, where does it comes from when you believe that god exists.

Have you even read your own Bible?

Didn't the Bible/ your own religion state that Men were made in the image of god? So according to your logic then God and his image and his "supposed" best creation represents evil?


I see, so if God decides to almost entirely wipe out humanity but he didn't, it's because he loves humanity too much? Does what you say make sense even to you? What next? Hitler almost wiped out the Jews because of his love for the Jews? How absurd!

If God is omnipotent, how does the question of freewill even arise?

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 23 2018, 02:43 PM

Human nature is a creation of God, and God cannot create anything evil - therefore human nature is inherently good. However, due to original sin we have a fallen nature, which is inclined toward evil. We call this concupiscence.

That's even more absurd.

First you say: Humanity represent evil.
Now you say: Human nature is inherently good

You are blatantly contradicting yourself.

If god cannot create something/anything (including evil), then he is not omnipotent as the religions claim.

I am not trying to insult you but pointing out the errors. Apologies if it hurts you. Don't take it personally, it's easy to do so when it comes to religion.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 23 2018, 02:54 PM

interesting


do you think darkness is a state lack of light or a condition that filled up with darkness particle?

Science can define it so I don't have to

This post has been edited by zamorin: Jul 23 2018, 02:55 PM