God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[samsara15]

You can find many proofs and disproofs of the existence of God, and of any of the well known proofs and disproofs. Then you can take your choice which side to believe in. It's just one person's opinion, and any person's opinion is no better nor no worse than anyone else's. Without any physical or scientific evidence to support the existence of a God (not necessarily a Christian God), it's simply a theory that cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[9sublime]

My point was that Martin Luther says that God's will does good OR BAD without compulsion.

 

[samsara15]

If God is all powerful and all-wise, and exists, and is the Christian God, then God is responible for all of our human actions, and all fo the pain and evil that exists in this world. Otherwise, God is not both all-knowing and all-powerful.

 

[PLC1]

If God is all powerful and all-wise, and exists, and is the Christian God, then God is responible for all of our human actions, and all fo the pain and evil that exists in this world. Otherwise, God is not both all-knowing and all-powerful.

If God is responsible for all of our actions, then we have no free will, make no choices for good or bad. If that is so, then humans are nothing more than puppets.

No, I think we have our free will, and that poor choices we make while exercising it result in our own personal problems.

God does not micromanage his creation.

 

[samsara15]

I am not sure we have Free Will, or how we would determine it if we did. In any case, Free Will or not, an all-powerful, all-wise God would know what choices we would make, ahead of time, so God cannot escape responsibility for our actions and what becomes of us, if such a God exists. We are puppets, if such a God exists. We were literally made to fail and to burn in hell eternally, in that POV. Vicious, mean-spirited guy, that God. That POV makes a Hindu or Buddhist version of God look quite benign.

 

[top gun]

You can find many proofs and disproofs of the existence of God, and of any of the well known proofs and disproofs. Then you can take your choice which side to believe in. It's just one person's opinion, and any person's opinion is no better nor no worse than anyone else's. Without any physical or scientific evidence to support the existence of a God (not necessarily a Christian God), it's simply a theory that cannot be proven or disproven.

Another great post... rational, logical and to the point!

I'd of probably said there just is no proof of existence but that doesn't mean faith is a bad thing... and I tend to believe science & research will someday hold the key to a real explanation.

But the mere fact that you allow all to make up their own minds is the main thing I appreciate in a person on any subject regarding religious beliefs.

 

[SW85]

I have no idea what that means but oniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

And how in the world do you imagine this is the case?

FYI, we are walking on old stale ground here -- you made this argument before and I refuted it. But I'm prepared to do so again.

 

[samsara15]

I doubt anyone refutes anyone else here, SW85. Any refutation of anyone else we might accomplish here can quickly and easily be undone if one knows which sources to access to find a counter-refutation. People have been over this ground many times, and have reached no decision.

 

[samsara15]

Refutations of Ontological Argument:

1 Guanilo's Island. Also a proof that there is no largest number.

2 Necessary Non=iexistence

3 Kant - Existence is not a predicate

Of course, there are refutations of the refutations, and revisionistic versions of the Ontological Argument, but you guys can look this stuff up as well as I can, so why do we need to preach at each other? We all have our beliefs, or lack thereof, equally valid, and equally unprovable.

 

[Dr.Who]

And how in the world do you imagine this is the case?

FYI, we are walking on old stale ground here -- you made this argument before and I refuted it. But I'm prepared to do so again.

He/she simply meant to say that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive with the concept of free will.

 

[samsara15]

OK, Dr Who

where is horse country?

Kentucky, Virginia, or Maryland?

 

[SW85]

He/she simply meant to say that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive with the concept of free will.

An assertion that rests on his faulty definition of omniscience, for which I have previously scolded him.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: OK, Dr Who

where is horse country?

Kentucky, Virginia, or Maryland?

I prefer to keep my online identity as private as possible. Nevertheless it is none of those. It is not a whole state but a region of the state I live in where many people own horses. My wife would love to be some of those people but we can't justify the expense.

 

[samsara15]

That is prudent of you, Dr Who. I tend to be a very open person, but have sometimes gotten myself into a bad position by revealing too much about myself on these forums. One should be cautious about dealing with people who are more strangers than they seem to be.

One poster wanted to meet my Mom, who lives in another state, for example. Another poster wanted to meet me for lunch.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is prudent of you, Dr Who. I tend to be a very open person, but have sometimes gotten myself into a bad position by revealing too much about myself on these forums. One should be cautious about dealing with people who are more strangers than they seem to be.

One poster wanted to meet my Mom, who lives in another state, for example. Another poster wanted to meet me for lunch.

Yikes, I have had others figure out what general area I live in and they even knew restaurants that were within 30 miles of me. No one I distrusted but better just to be careful.