a perfect god is disproved with...
Posted on: May 20, 2007 - 7:42pm
Offline
a perfect god is disproved with...
downs syndrome. any other physical or mental imperfection for that matter.
how can something that is perfect create something imperfect?
think of it like a basketball team, an incredibly skilled point guard makes 90% of his shots. wouldn't a perfect point guard make 100% of his shots? wouldn't a perfect god create people with perfect health?
- Login to post comments
I'm personally sick of this type of argument. Just one quick question, to show you just how idiotic your example sounded: would you have left her fall if on the left and right of her bike were spikes that would disfigure her forever? Because it's a much better comparison to what God did to Adam and Eve.
Of course. He did give humanity a choice: accept and love him or suffer greatly for an eternity. Well, that's some choice, ain't it?
I don't know. Couldn't God simply not have punished Adam and Eve for their choice?
Why do you think that Adam or Eve chose to symbolically eat the apple? Out of selfishness? Or because of deception?
No, actually, AIDS is passed through people simply having sex. It matters not whether they are married, whether they were virgins before, etc. If one of the partners has it, the other one will get it as well, regardless of how "righteous" or "pure" he/she may be.
I do agree, however, that they are simply consequences.
This, if nothing else, begs the question of why do we have to suffer now because of Adam's mistake.
I no of no lineage that descends me from Jesus. And as "pure" and "righteous" as I may be, I still have to:
- eat
- drink (water)
- breathe
- wash
- have sex
- defend myself
etc.
So this inheritance that you speak of is worthless from any human perspective.
Also, your logic implies the same big question as before: why do I have to be born a human as they now are because of Adam fucking it up?
Apart from the sermon, for which I really do NOT thank you, this begs the SAME question as before, so I'll repeat and rephrase it: why am I suffering the consequences of Adam's mistake ?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Let me think about these for a day so I can respond with reason and logic and not with a sermon. Sorry about that.
What's wrong with hermaphrodites?
Theol0gic, you just proved my every point by what you said. How can you know that atheism is false? To claim something to be false, you must first assume beforehand the existence of truth. Since you are an imperfect and sinful being, how can you know the difference? Second, if your body/mind is imperfect and sinful, then so also must be the logic that it produces. Therefore, you have no way of ascertaining the validity of anything you say, think or believe. What you are doing is secretly ignoring the physical principles of the universe in order to make sense of your own. You have to, because theism cannot possibly stand on its own. It is a philosophical absurdity.
This is really too fun. I love it when a theist makes such a fool of themself that I can throw their entire writing back in their face with only 3 or 4 words modified. Hurry with your next response please.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Vastet, like many atheists, I think you are so biased, that you are not capable of rational thought, logic or validity of an argument. I think you need to attentively read what I said in my posts.
Banned for lying - was warned twice.
I concur with Theol0gic. However like many theists, I think you, Theol0gic, are so biased, that you are not capable of rational thought, logic or validity of an argument.
You see the problem is that the atheist sees the glove not fitting on O.J.'s hand and assumes he is innocent.
The theist however watches the white bronco chase fiasco and assumes he is guilty.
By the way, drink apple juice, OJ kills.
lol everytime I see your avatar I can't stop laughing
I feel the same way about yours!
to meet them.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Oh wow,
That terrible prooftext is part of a parable. A parable, specifically, is a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle.
Christ of the Gospel never killed and never promoted the killing of anyone. Several times he could have promoted killing and been seen righteous, but spared the intended victim.
I don't prooftext your piltdown man gospel so don't do the same with the theist's text.
Did you mean to say that you reject the notion?
This begs the question that an omnipotent, benevolent creator would need to rely on pain to serve a purpose. But this contradicts the concept of omnipotence.
Pain is a rather primitive means of communication. Why a 'god' would create it, and rely on it, in order to communicate is perplexing.
In addition, pain is not always an accurate means of communication: we often suffer pain for medical problems without cure. We also suffer from curable illnesses that go undetected because we don't experience any pain (i.e. Parkinson's creates a great deal of neuro damage before it is detected.)
So the idea that a 'god' would create pain, and rely on it, is problematic. In fact, I'd call this Panglossian thinking.... you start out with our world, and attempt to work back from it to a god....
But nothing in nature could point to something beyond nature, nothing about our world demands an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Non sequitur.
Deductive logic is based on tautologies, necessary truths. Nothing about the 'imperfection' of a body would change how logic works.
You commit a second error here: you presume that imperfection equates with "always wrong"
All your 'imperfection' argument could ever demonstrate is that inductive methodology is not perfect, ergo, no inductive claim could be held with certainty.
That's simply untrue. Your argument implies that one cannot have any truth at all unless one is perfect. But this claim is a non sequitur. All imperfection would point to is a lack of 100% reliability. But no one ever holds to inductive claims are certain truths to begin with, they are probable truths.
By the way, if we were to accept your hidden premise: that imperfection necessarily leads to falsehood, then all a person would need to do is deny the outcome of any induction, and they'd have certain truth!
Review:
Deductive logic deals in necessary truth, whether or not the mind gleaning it is perfect would not change the nature of necessary truth.
Inductive logic is imperfect, - it is probable, not certain, but its imperfection does not mean that all inductive logic is necessarily false.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You're missing a fatal internal contradiction in the story.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_fall_commits_an_internal_contradiction
And seeing as you are a parent, you might appreciate this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/loving_parents
Your "god' doesn't just "allow people to learn from painful events", he creates their very conceptualization... he also would have invented the very need to 'learn from mistakes', and finally, he would have also invented any 'reason' you might try to respond with as to why you prefer the world the way it is.
No, what we need to do is discard this myth. The idea of damnation is detestable, the idea of one man damning a species is idiotic. I simply can't fathom why reasonable people want to imagine that the most intelligent, loving being in the universe would be responsible for such an abject evil.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I'll just post the second essay here:
Loving parents seek to do whatever they can to keep their baby safe. If they could, they'd wish away any dangers of disease or disaster that might befall their child
No theist ever asks why a loving god creates a world where such things are possible in the first place..... I like to ask theists: If you were 'god', would you create a world where any of these things could even potentially happen to your own children? ?
Before you answer, consider this: Take a look at how parents actually care for their children: We do everything we can to create a safe haven, a safe world for our children. We spend hours, days searching for ways to create a safe place, free from the dangers of electricity or poison or sharp objects or even swallowable objects that could cause choking.
We devote time to finding the right foods, the right clothing, the right diapers (even something as minor as a rash is defended against) the right blankets, crib, pillow..... we purchase baby monitors, or make frequent examinations of the baby for safety.
We defend our child against disease, against crib death, against any possible danger that we can imagine.
Now a theist wants to tell me that someone who loves me infinitely more than I love my own child, is willing to place me, and the world's children in the midst of every single solitary imaginable harm in existence: shattered glass, poison, illness, violent preditation....
The mistake theists usually make here is that they believe that these things are all 'givens', that there must be things like poison or disease, (so that we can learn to deal with poison and disease!) but if there is a loving, omnipotent god this is not the case. An omnipotent, omniscient creator must be perfectly responsible not only for putting our children in harm's way, but for creating the very dangers in the first place, both the dangers and our susceptability to them. Any or all of these entites would be completely contingent upon an omnipotent 'being'.
So I ask you: why is it that while no caring parent would go so far as to put their child in danger of getting a diaper rash, that an infinite loving god not only creates diaper rash, but disease and death?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Theol0gic, like many theists, you are so biased, that you are not capable of rational thought, logic or validity of an argument. I think you need to attentively read what I said in my posts. You need to see just how easily your words apply to yourself, and not a single atheist on this board. You are the definition of the fly landing in the spider web.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well then, seeing as omni-traits are negative categories, and seeing as 'supernatural' is defined negatively, I trust that you follow the apophatic tradition?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'