God is morally neutral

[Brian2]

And yet there are thousands, if not millions, of people who make that very claim, and yet god is still the most subjective thing on the planet..

I agree that good, bad, evil, and even god are all subjective.
I am curious as to why you think that we cannot say they are good or evil because the words are subjective, but you can call god god even though the word god is subjective.
Seems a double standard to me.

OK I agree, it's a double standard and God is subjective because we all have different opinions and good and evil are subjective because of the same thing. It is a subjective argument to say evil exists therefore God does not exist.

 

[MNoBody]

The Creator is the source of All.

.....fixed it.

 

[ppp]

It is a subjective argument...

LOLOL. Not even a little bit

 

[Brian2]

You have no way of knowing that. That is just a thing that you imagine and then say is true.

OK

That is false. People claim that.

Be He a true character or fictional, the Bible God claims knowledge of good and evil.

I am saying that if your god existed, that he would be included in your "we". Just another guy.

No, if my God existed He would be more than just another guy.
However maybe you are right and all that my God could really say is that He does or does not like things. However given that my God would be the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator of all things and our judge then what He says goes in His universe.

If you can find someone who is saying, "I can't believe in a God who allows that to happen." then go argue that with that person. If you cannot deal with what I am saying, then there is no point in continuing.

The people who use the "omni" argument are really saying "I can't believe in a God who allows that to happen."

Well, go ahead then. Defeat it.

“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

I don't have to it is self defeating.
Nevertheless I'll try to show you what I mean.
>>>“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.<<<
True
>>>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.<<<
Not true because He is omniscient and knows what will bring the best outcome.
It seems the argument as stated leaves out God's omniscience and assumes that we ant like humans can judge an omniscient and omnibenevolent and omnipotent God with our subjective view point and lack of real knowledge.

 

[ppp]

Be He a true character or fictional, the Bible God claims knowledge of good and evil.

False. A fictional character does not do anything in reality.

The people who use the "omni" argument are really saying "I can't believe in a God who allows that to happen."

This is the second time that you have lied about my position. Clearly your god beliefs cannot stand by any other means, which makes them worthless. You have nothing left worth hearing.

 

[McBell]

Even if the argument is not put in the way you want, it is saying the same thing.

"in the way I want?"
I am questioning the way you put it.
And now find out that you put it different than what it is.

That you think it all the same reveals much about you.

 

[Brian2]

"in the way I want?"
I am questioning the way you put it.
And now find out that you put it different than what it is.

That you think it all the same reveals much about you.

Maybe David Attenborough puts it the way it is. It is an emotional argument and his seems to be a measured but emotional way to put it.

The Omnipotent, omnibenevolent argument Joe W gave is rubbish when speaking of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God and especially from humanities limited view point of what is going.

 

[Brian2]

False. A fictional character does not do anything in reality.

It appears to be a game you are playing here.

This is the second time that you have lied about my position. Clearly your god beliefs cannot stand by any other means, which makes them worthless. You have nothing left worth hearing.

I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position. Nevertheless the omni argument you gave does not say anything about my God and you misrepresent the God of the Bible by saying it does.

 

[ppp]

I'm sorry if I misrepresented your position. Nevertheless the omni argument you gave does not say anything about my God and you misrepresent the God of the Bible by saying it does.

First bearing false witness, and now a hollow and unsupported denial. One would hope that the religious would deal with the contents of the argument in a rational and forthright manner; rather than with duplicity and evasion.

 

[McBell]

Maybe David Attenborough puts it the way it is. It is an emotional argument and his seems to be a measured but emotional way to put it.
The Omnipotent, omnibenevolent argument Joe W gave is rubbish when speaking of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God and especially from humanities limited view point of what is going.

I see no point in further discussing the topic with you so long as you remain hidden behind your god.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Honestly, if a god exists, I'd agree that he'd most likely be morally neutral due to the way nature expresses itself. If this were DnD, his alignment would be chaotic neutral.

Thats why I dont come across as Buddhist time to time. I'm chaotic neutral! Oh those stereotypes! =0]

 

[Brian2]

I see no point in further discussing the topic with you so long as you remain hidden behind your god.

"hidden behind your god" is to vague for me to even know what you are talking about.

 

[Brian2]

First bearing false witness, and now a hollow and unsupported denial. One would hope that the religious would deal with the contents of the argument in a rational and forthright manner; rather than with duplicity and evasion.

You seem to want to make accusations instead of just pointing out that my argument is a moot point because of whatever reason.

 

[ppp]

You seem to want to make accusations instead of just pointing out that my argument is a moot point because of whatever reason.

All of my accusations are on point, Brian. Completely appropriate to your false witness against me and your hollow and unsupported denial. Moreover, you have yet to compose or present anything that resembles an "argument.". I would appreciate it if you didn't bother me again until you were prepared to for more direct and forthright in your dealings. Your flummery is both uninteresting and a waste of my time.