Not even god could create a "real" Penrose Triangle or a devil's tuning fork.:
They are logical contradictions. He could not create a universe where left exists but right does not.
It simply doesn't follow that, since God created a universe with evil that He is not good. A universe with "good" but no "evil" would be a logical contradiction of the same order as "left" with no "right".
"Are you suggesting that it is not real?
Tell me... Where are the originals of Aristotle?
How about Plato, Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Socrates?
Where are their bones?
Where is the proof they ever actually existed and are not just myths?"
The difference is we have plenty of writings, military plans, and eyewitness accounts of the existence of these people, unlike Jesus in which we have zero evidence of his existence. There is more evidence of Mohammed's existence then there is of Jesus.
But perhaps the main difference is these people did not claim to be god or the son of god. There is no claim of them walking on water, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin, raising people from the dead, being crucified and rising from the dead, etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that religion cannot come close to providing because they are all bronze age myths and the time is up for these myths. It is time for reason and rationality to take their place so we can advance as a society.
MFW I designed this! I designed it in Paint.net and uploaded to it to 4chan in one of the atheist debates.
Didn't realise someone had saved it, let alone reposted it. :D
Nice very simple yet logically well rounded.
The chart didn't really go wrong anywhere, it is just illustrating a quote by Epicurus.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
Ok first of all the notion of "evil" and "good" itself is created by man, because think about what that term really means. If there were no humans (or life), what would constitute "evil"? There would be no lifeforms to harm (needless to say, no one to cause the harm itself). There would be no malice in the universe, then who is there to cause the evil? No one, and who is god left to judge? himself, or herself, or itself, however you see it fit.
The point is, this argument is a self-evident one. It is only true because the things it uses to define itself (good and evil) are themselves undefined until we take a stance on the conclusion itself (whether or not god exists).
PS: I had to manually go to uncapitalize the G in god, that's how engrained the notion of superiority of god is in the English language.
If there was no life, there would be no one to ask the question,,, If there were no Humans, but the rest of the animal kingdom existed, then I think evil would still exist, have you never seen an animal kill just for the sake of killing, I have, I had a dog that killed a kitten, not to eat it, just because it was being a pest. Just because an animal has no empathy it doesn't make it any less evil, so, is the lack of empathy the definition of evil? Or is malice the definition of evil? Because the same dog was given to me because it kept killing it's previous owners chickens, and it didn't eat them either. Or was it the combination of the two that constituted the definition of evil? Either way it shows that evil exists with or without the existence of man.
@ Wynprks - That is interesting. You could say the dog killed the kitten coming from some sort of instinct to kill just for the practice of it too. That is where the line gets really fine.
Lium, one thing I've noticed in almost all of your entries is a general lack of actual content. Instead of addressing the questions people pose or responding to the actual content of other users' messages, you seem to send back condescending responses and telling a lot of people they are incapable of understanding just what it is that only you of all people on this forum seem tounderstand. This is the biggest fallacy in arguing one's point of view, that is, claiming that the other person is an idiot and therefore it's not worth your time to respond with any actual content. This is the worst way to deal with anything in any kind of forum, it doesn't make any one better off, it certainly doesn't make you a better person and it only adds more fire to an already pointless and boring conversation. A lot of atheists on this forum are also annoyingly condescending and smug, but I've found your own entries particularly pugnacious.
Why don't you surprise people by clearly demonstrating an example that shows that the logical paradox of god's omniscience and omnipotence is not important. Or explain just why anyone should suspend their sense of logic for a mystical/ancient belief system. If you do it without insulting everyone, some people just might actually listen.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Stephen Brodie in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by TJ 11 hours ago.
Started by Stephen Brodie in Miscellaneous Sciences. Last reply by Jake LaFort 8 hours ago.
Started by Belle Rose in Theistic Arguments and Debate Help. Last reply by TJ 11 hours ago.
Started by Stephen Brodie in Miscellaneous Sciences. Last reply by Simon Paynton yesterday.
Started by Stephen Brodie in Politics. Last reply by TJ yesterday.
Sunday School February 7th 2016
Sunday School January 31th 2016
Sunday School January 24th 2016
Posted by proudAthiest on February 10, 2016 at 5:00pm
Posted by JustinTetro on February 9, 2016 at 3:35pm
Computer Help Forums
© 2016 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.