Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...

[William]

Is it entirely unnecessary and insulting to inform people...That they are evil in the sight of GOD and bound for hell?

As a human being, how is such theology acceptable and a good and reasonable thing to be stating or even implying of others, on a debate forum or even in day to day life?

Are people right to be able to take a stand against such theology and call it out for being dated, dark, based upon information from dark ages, based in ignorance and evil of intent?

What gives individuals the right to say such things about others?

Is it a form of abuse?

Should others have to take that kind of abuse about their persons without protesting it?

[Bust Nak]

Are you continually missing the point on purpose, or by accident?

Well, I think you wanted to equate biological organism such as a woman to a product of intelligent design, in order to demonstrate intelligent design is required for biological organisms. Am I wrong?

Sure..you just said it, "simple natural systems"...yet, specified complexity and the organization that comes with it is the grand scheme of a "fixed plan"...

It seem you've missed the "or" in your own words, so let me remind you: "Was aurora borealis arranged in a systematic way according to a fixed plan or system?" The answer is still yes, aurora borealis are arranged in a systematic way according to a fixed plan or system, namely the system of the emission of photons from ionized particles.

Bro, do you have a problem comprehending what you read? It is a stalemate; not just because I can't prove objective morality is true (my view), but because you also can't prove that subjective morality is true (your view)...therefore, stalemate. No winner.

But you have things you can't answer where as I've answer every one of your question. I have the advantage as far as I can see.

Ok...here is a challenge for you...prove the problem of evil to be true without appealing to and presupposing your own subjective standard of morality.

Easy enough.

1) God is omniptent and can trivially prevent evil. (premise 1)
2) God wishes to prevent evil. (premise 2)
3) If God can trivially prevent X and God wishes to prevent X, then X does not exist. (premise 3)
4) Evil does not exist.
5) Evil exists (premise 4)

Contradiction in 1) and 5) shows that one or more of the above premises are false. Note the complete lack of appeal to subjectivism.

Oh ok..I guess the concept of "committing crime and not getting caught" doesn't exist.

It does, but unlikely.

I acknowledge that I am not advancing my position in this debate by disagreeing with you?

Good enough for me.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, I think you wanted to equate biological organism such as a woman to a product of intelligent design, in order to demonstrate intelligent design is required for biological organisms. Am I wrong?

You got me right.

It seem you've missed the "or" in your own words, so let me remind you: "Was aurora borealis arranged in a systematic way according to a fixed plan or system?" The answer is still yes, aurora borealis are arranged in a systematic way according to a fixed plan or system, namely the system of the emission of photons from ionized particles.

Obviously, the "system" part isn't meant to contradict the "fixed plan" part. We know that the process is part of a "system"..that isn't the area of contention. The area of contention is whether or not aurora borealis part of a "fixed plan", and the answer is obvious not.

Was it nature's "fixed plan" to create the aurora borealis? No..because "fixed plan" implies intention..and we know that nature doesn't intend to do anything.

Was it Michaelangelo's fixed plan to create the Sistine Chapel? Yes. It was created with all intents and purposes.

Sistine Chapel = specified complexity created via intelligent design
Aurora Borealis = random light created via unguided natural process

If you still don't grasp the concept, then I don't know what else to tell ya.

But you have things you can't answer where as I've answer every one of your question. I have the advantage as far as I can see.

Um, please state a question that you've asked me which I am unable to answer.

Easy enough.

1) God is omniptent and can trivially prevent evil. (premise 1)
2) God wishes to prevent evil. (premise 2)
3) If God can trivially prevent X and God wishes to prevent X, then X does not exist. (premise 3)
4) Evil does not exist.
5) Evil exists (premise 4)

Contradiction in 1) and 5) shows that one or more of the above premises are false. Note the complete lack of appeal to subjectivism.

Um, subjectivism is presupposed in 1). You are presupposing a moral standard, namely, evil itself. And since you already believe that morality is subjective, you appealing your own subjective standard as evil (which is whatever you consider to be evil based on your subjective standard).

Since 1) was logically flawed, I didn't even need to read the rest..as the rest has to come tumbling down also

It does, but unlikely.

I wouldn't call something that is happening every day to be "unlikely".

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 145 by For_The_Kingdom]

Past history also shows that life can't come from nonlife either. See where I'm going?

I see where you are going. You side-track, as usual, instead of addressing the response head on. That aside, history does not show that life can't come from non-life.

One of the criteria for determining if something is a living thing or not is that it has the ability to reproduce. History has shown that reproduction for billions of years. What we have yet to determine is how life arose in the first place, but we are working on that. All living things are made from the same matter that existed before life formed. It is scattered throughout the universe as the remnants of dead stars. In that sense then, all life comes from non-life. More correctly, all living organisms are constructed from non-living matter.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 145 by For_The_Kingdom]

Reasonable faith*

You say reasonable, I say blind. If it is reasonable then it can be justified in some way. You have not done that. Hence, I say blind.

[brunumb]

Gravity created the organised structures we observe when we look out into the universe. Or are all those stars and galaxies just magical lights in the sky that God created for signs and wonders?

"Gravity exists, therefore, God doesn't exist". That's what I got out of it.

Of course that's what you got out of it. You just side-stepped again instead of addressing the issue under discussion. That tactic, observed elsewhere, just demonstrates the paucity of reasoning in your arguments.

[ttruscott]

1) God is omniptent and can trivially prevent evil. (premise 1)

Premise 1 is false in the Christian context of omnipotence no matter what you mean by 'trivially'. The rest that hang on #1 therefore fail also.

To achieve HIS purpose for our creation GOD must have created us with a free will and a free will cannot be forced to not choose evil if the person thinks it sounds better to him than righteousness.

The only way HE could create with absolutely NO prospect of evil is to not give HIS creation a free will but then there is no love nor marriage, defeating HIS purpose for our creation.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 156 by ttruscott]

To achieve HIS purpose for our creation GOD must have created us with a free will and a free will cannot be forced to not choose evil if the person thinks it sounds better to him than righteousness.

The only way HE could create with absolutely NO prospect of evil is to not give HIS creation a free will but then there is no love nor marriage, defeating HIS purpose for our creation.

God is like a giant whiteboard where people constantly add attributes and characteristics that they think he should possess or the things that go on in his mind. His very existence has yet to be demonstrated let alone any of those attributes. His alleged purpose for us is just another one of those wild assertions.

To mention marriage is to fail to understand the haphazard way the concept has developed over the ages. To associate it with God is somewhat ludicrous. Many animals partner for life far more faithfully than most humans, Christian or otherwise, without any God allegedly blessing the union.

[Bust Nak]

You got me right.

So I did not missed your point?

Obviously, the "system" part isn't meant to contradict the "fixed plan" part.

Why not?

We know that the process is part of a "system"..that isn't the area of contention. The area of contention is whether or not aurora borealis part of a "fixed plan", and the answer is obvious not.

Sure, that much is obvious.

Sistine Chapel = specified complexity created via intelligent design
Aurora Borealis = random light created via unguided natural process.

Correction: Aurora Borealis = specified complexity created via unguided natural process.

If you still don't grasp the concept, then I don't know what else to tell ya.

What you labeled as not grasping the concept, I call correcting a misconception.

Um, please state a question that you've asked me which I am unable to answer.

The most obvious example would be the challenge re: defending human sacrifice.

Um, subjectivism is presupposed in 1). You are presupposing a moral standard, namely, evil itself.

Incorrect, the mere presupposing a moral standard does not invoke subjectivism.

And since you already believe that morality is subjective, you appealing your own subjective standard as evil

No, I am not, I am appealing to a standard, nothing in that premise imply that the standard is my subjective one.

I wouldn't call something that is happening every day to be "unlikely".

Neither would I. Cooks deliberately poisoning customers in restaurants don't happen every day.

[Bust Nak]

1) God is omniptent and can trivially prevent evil. (premise 1)

Premise 1 is false in the Christian context of omnipotence no matter what you mean by 'trivially'.

So you kept insisting, you should know my response by now: achieving God's purpose of heavenly marriage does not make evil a logical necessity, granted it does necessitate free will. You've accepted that much in our past conversation. What isn't logically necessry is within God's omnipotent power to change. You've also granted me that. That means God can prevent evil without negatively affecting his goal of marriage. There really is no escape once you've granted me that evil is not a logical necessity.

The only way HE could create with absolutely NO prospect of evil is to not give HIS creation a free will but then there is no love nor marriage, defeating HIS purpose for our creation.

Prospect of evil does not imply actualize evil. So by all means allow the prospect of evil without any actual evil. Simple enough task for an omnipotent God.

You've of course heard both of these points before, so rather than reset the conversation every couple of months or so, would you kindly just pick up where we left off last time? Here is the link to the conversation where we've made the most progress before a reset. Do check it out to remind yourself of what was said, then answer me this:

Are you suggesting that "interferences that do not denies our true free will" is a logical impossibility / incoherient concept? That old post of yours in the linked thread was the closest ever you've come to affirming that. If that was what you meant then this is something that can actually advance the debate.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So I did not missed your point?

You probably got it now, when you previously didn't.

Why not?

Because I don't think the definition contradicted itself in the same sentence.

Sure, that much is obvious.

It is obvious, yet here we are having the discussion.

What you labeled as not grasping the concept, I call correcting a misconception.

In other words, you are wrong in more ways than one. Gotcha.

The most obvious example would be the challenge re: defending human sacrifice.

Ok...can you defend the concept of NOT sacrificing human lives?

Incorrect, the mere presupposing a moral standard does not invoke subjectivism.

You are a professed moral subjectivist, which means you can only look at morality from subjective lens (if you are true to your view).

Therefore, any moral judgments/arguments that you make as it relates to ANY single thing related to morality will also be subjective.

The argument from evil that you propose...it presupposes a standard of evil, a subjective standard of evil (according to your view)...a standard of which you've yet to demonstrate how/why this particular standard is true, relative to any other standards.

The logic/reasoning behind the argument is fallacious, is what I am trying to say.

No, I am not, I am appealing to a standard, nothing in that premise imply that the standard is my subjective one.

If morality is subjective, it doesn't matter whose "subjective" argument it is. Subjective is subjective.

Neither would I. Cooks deliberately poisoning customers in restaurants don't happen every day.

Assumption. But then again, I can agree with you there...so how about this, lets meet somewhere in the middle here.

If cooks aren't poisoning people's food every day, can we at least agree that at the very least, somewhere in the world...a cook somewhere is putting something "nasty" in someone's food at a restaurant, every single day?

Well, if that is the case, you still have faith that a cook didn't put something "nasty" (something you will dislike) in your food.

Still, my counter-faith argument still applies.