@shinyblurry

Words have meaning.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

@lantern53

There isn't a single country in this world that is purely capitalist. Capitalism and socialism operate hand in hand in most (all?) first world countries, including the USA. Only an ignorant fool would declare them incompatible and hit the "submit new comment" button. I would normally take pity, understanding that you are simply regurgitating the shit you've been spoonfed, and try to help you understand your gross conceptual error. But, since you aren't paying me to educate you, that would just reek of Socialism. So, I guess you're on your own, Capitalist. Good luck.

>> ^lantern53:

Name the system you will start over with.
Also, capitalism and socialism are incompatible with each other. Capitalism means I work for myself, for my own self-interest.
Socialism means you work for the next guy. Why should I work for the next guy? When I've made my nest, and there is some left over, I choose to whom it goes....not the gov't.


Well, a mix of many is better than to choose any extreme.

Capitalism and socialism are incompatible? Where did you learn that? Fox News?
If that was the case countries like Germany wouldnt have existed the way they are. And funnily, Germany right now is the backbone of Europe in this crisis. I ask you again, how can a small country like that using so many parts of socialism be financially that strong? Because capitalism and socialism dont work together, huh?

Name the system you will start over with.

Also, capitalism and socialism are incompatible with each other. Capitalism means I work for myself, for my own self-interest.

Socialism means you work for the next guy. Why should I work for the next guy? When I've made my nest, and there is some left over, I choose to whom it goes....not the gov't.

He also states that his personal beliefs are his alone and not to be forced onto others. I am taught by professors at a state university where I have been told point blank that they have religious beliefs, yet they still teach Science. The two are not incompatible or exclusive. I suggest this article by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow about the subject. I assume you will accept Dr Hawking's conclusions. PDF


I'm voting for Obama because he is the man right now, but I'm finding it surprisingly easy to play devils advocate for Ron Paul.

I don't find Ron Paul's rhetoric or discourse frightening or crazy.

Obama says he is a Christian, which by default means he denies evolution de facto, and I am a biological sciences major.... and you know why I don't care? Because Obama believes in everyones rights, and doesn't deny science where science is the leader.

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

Look how the fucking GOP candidates cant go ONE DAY without saying something so incendiary... they cant possibly believe such things ... and expect more than 48% of the vote...

Bluntly put: If Ron Paul was a racist, it would probably HELP his campaign the way the world is. Consider that.

@rottenseed

However, if you read the "context" (since you dummies love to pull the
context card out), the question he is answering is:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

So pretty much the ONLY mention of a man and a woman is an exclusive
mention of not getting a divorce

Obviously it isn't the only mention, since Jesus is quoting the Old Testament. There are other verses which refer to marriage, but even if it were the only one, it doesn't change the fact that God has defined marriage to be between a man and woman and has condemned homosexual relations and fornication. One mention or 100, the truth of it is absolute.

All of this is for naught, however, since the first amendment to the
constitution, states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty amazing, huh? How not only does the constitution (apparently
written and signed by "Christians") doesn't mention any "god"
whatsoever, but they make sure in an amendment, that the government
does not support any single religion. This means that, sin or not, the
government has no business enforcing any law on the basis of religion.

game. set. match.

Your declaration of victory is premature. What the founders meant by "religion" is any particular Christian denomination. They did not want any to be preferred or adopted as the national religion. Fisher Ames, who wrote the language of the first ammendment, said this:

“...we have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education....We've become accustomed of late to putting little books in the hands of children containing fables with moral lessons. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man made book.”

The man who wrote the first amendment obviously thought it was constitutional to teach the bible as our principle text in public schools, yet today they say that even having one in the classroom violates the 1st amendment. I wonder who actually knows more about the 1st amendment or what its purpose was. Obviously it wasnt meant to prevent government support of Christianity or the bible as our principle means of education. "Imagine that"

Two years after Jefferson wrote the letter that people use to justify a separation of church and state, he ordered as a presidential act the extention of using federal lands "“for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity”. He ordered that act extended two more times before he left office. Yet today they say that we can't have a nativity scene on government property. Are you starting to see how painfully out of context your imagined secularist interpretation is? There wasn't any such thing as secularism then, because everyone was Christian and believed in God. Why do you think the US capitol building was converted to a church every sunday? Why was the first supreme court opened with a 4 hour prayer and communion service?

What you are also unaware of is that the state constitutions at the time not only mentioned God and Christianity, many of them forbid anybody but Christians taking office:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

Starting to get the picture? How about this treaty?

Continental Congress (1783), ratified a peace treaty with Great Britain at the close of the Revolutionary War. The treaty began:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence
to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith… and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences… [p.149]


Why did George Washington announce this when they finished the constitution?:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

The evidence is insurrmountable and overwhelming that this country was founded on Christian principles. To deny it is to ignore everything that is true about our history.

Ah, right, ok. So I just went to the website for it, which linked to the market for it, which showed that it's incompatible with my LG Optimus One

Why?

What can a newsreading app possibly need that my phone doesn't have?

Except if it has been coded using Flex then it'll need an ARM7 CPU, which mine isn't... that's about the only thing I could think of

I guess Pulse will have to do for me.

[edit] OK, it's f*cking region based. It's not available to me because I don't live in the bloody US of A.

God this is really starting to shit me with Google. First Google Music, now this. You're supposed to be a GLOBAL company damnit.

USA is the center of the bloody world

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?

@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! ).

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm saying a dictator who's a true socialist is way better than a fascist puppet government of Wall Street-London oligarchs.

They replaced the state-owned oil company and central bank back in March, 2 days after the UN security council resolution promised ONLY to provide a no-fly zone over Libya for “humanitarian purposes”.
The war in Libya was never about protecting civilians. It has always been about stealing control of their monetary system and their nationalized oil profits.


But we aren't talking about a dictator who was a true socialist, so your comment is about some other imaginary situation. The REAL situation was Gaddafi, a convicted war criminal who had publicly declared his plans and intent to commit a genocide against those protesters that dared to suggest they should get the right to vote on who should lead Libya.

You insist on refusing to talk about the actual situation in Libya because it seems to create some kind of trouble for your hatred of anything Western. Accept that sometimes even the brutally selfish and imperialistic motivated actions of the west CAN be a lesser evil. Is that really so devastatingly incompatible with your world view?

Well you're wrong on all counts. The theory of evolution is completely incompatible with scripture, and redemptive history.


I fully agree with shinyblurry here. When you combine Christian creationism and evolution in this way, it's not like you get the best of both worlds or something - you just get an inconsistent mess.

I mean, if you believe in the Christian God - if you've already accepted that - then why not go all the way and believe the Bible about how creation happened? And if you doubt, if you don't believe the Bible is true or that creation happened the way the Bible says (or whatever), then you need to re-inspect your overall beliefs because the Christian God doesn't accept half believers.

Shinyblurry's bible reference to being "lukewarm" (Revelations 3:16, I assume, is what he was hinting at) is very apropos: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." The Bible spends a lot of time here and elsewhere explaining that you can't have it both ways. Indeed, I think He's probably more lenient on people who don't believe at all (just my opinion).

Well you're wrong on all counts. The theory of evolution is completely incompatible with scripture, and redemptive history. If evolution is correct then Jesus Christ died for no reason. Death entered into the world through the sin of Adam . If death was already present in the world before Adam and Eve, then there was no fall or original sin. If that is true, the problem of sin isn't related to the law and thus Jesus has nothing to save us from.

It is "non-fanatical" Christians like you who are lukewarm and don't understand your own faith. It's not a personal thing; you are commanded by God to preach the gospel. Instead you're on here trying to get the praise of men by denigrating your brothers in Christ who do the will of God.

John 14:15
"If you love me, you will obey what I command."


>> ^cito:
Theory of Evolution by itself is wrong
Theory of Creationism by itself is wrong
But most non fanatical christians like myself believe both.
big bang or intelligent spark that kicked it all off, then left alone to evolve and grow to our full potentials.
Creation + Evolution is 2 theories combined that makes better sense for me and luckily the private school my children go to are taught that as well. They dont teach one or the other they teach a combined possibility that many scientists also can agree on the "theory". They the big bang started it all, and that big bang occured somehow.
Anyhow I'm not fanatical and I don't care what religious nuts believe or atheist believe,
belief is a personal and family thing and should stay that way, So people who believe otherwise I respect the privacy of their beliefs as well as this I have wrote is my own families private belief.

You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.

And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?
>> ^shinyblurry:

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.
As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.
>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
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 (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.

As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.

>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
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 (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?

As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:

Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
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 (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.