Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
I'm not going speak for him, but the way I see it, it goes like this.
1. God can do everything and anything and controls the universe, sees into the future and reads our minds.
2. He loves us all.
3. He lets the devil mess with us all the time and destroy our lives, murder our children and trick us into eternal damnation.
4. That doesn't sound like love to me.
5. "It's free will, he's giving you a choice". No he's not, he knows whats going to happen and he always knew what was going to happen and it happens and we end up in hell.
It doesn't add up.
|
Yeah, that's the exact same thing Cheese wrote but a little longer, and I've already explained the problem with this.
The problem is as follows: at least one of the premisis must me incorrect.
It could be that he loves us, it could be the implied premis that love requres, that he protect us from evil at all cost, or it could be that God exists. Either way, we know evil exists, so we know that one or more of the premises must be false, this CAN'T be debated, it is a fact, and right now we don't know which premis is false. Is it that God exists, or is it that he loves us? I don't know which means we can make NO conclusions as to the existance of God using this logic. This is a classic example of a flawed arguement, from which no conclusion can be made, other than, "At lease one premis is false".
My point is that Cheese was claiming that all he wanted to know was why evil existed, and wasn't trying to make a point about the existance of God. You can't do both.
To use this to ask why evil exists, you must first conclude that it presents a paradox, and the only way for that to be is if the premises are correct, including "God exists", which we know Cheese does not believe. So using this as a means to ask why evil exists, is the same as saying something like "The Oilers are the best team in the NHL this year" So why are they not in the playoffs?".
To use this as an argument about the existance of God is also impossible, becasue from this statement all you can conclude is that one of the premises is correct, unless you have powers beyond the average man, you can't deduce, whether it is the existance of God, or the necessary requirements for God that is flawed.
And to say "I can't imagine a God who isn't those things", is about as valid, of an arguement as the old Rock that keeps tigers away.