tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1532964185446935532..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Why is there something instead of nothing?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58455627102390744662007-02-14T00:54:00.000-05:002007-02-14T00:54:00.000-05:00"You make us who are interested in the truth, and ..."You make us who are interested in the truth, and nothing but the truth, sick."<BR/><BR/>You know, this is the funniest thing I've read all day. <BR/><BR/>Atheists are the best! A-T-H-E-I-S-T, gooOOOOOOO Atheists!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67640200539803567262007-02-13T00:11:00.000-05:002007-02-13T00:11:00.000-05:00Aaron wrote:---A perfect being would not "want" an...Aaron wrote:<BR/>---<BR/>A perfect being would not "want" anything, for to want implies a need; a lack of something. <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I understand why you would say that, but I'm not sure it actually follows. Of course, it depends largely on how we define "want" and "need" here. I'll speak generally for now (which means that the following will be necessarily imprecise since I don't know what exact definitons you are using).<BR/><BR/>We actually do often want things that we don't need. For instance, I may want to watch the latest movie at the theater; but it's hardly something I <I>need</I> to do. Even if one argues that I "need" some kind of entertainment in my life, that doesn't mean I need the movie theater specifically. It's simply one possibility out of a myriad number of possibilites.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the desire for something does not imply the one who desires <I>needs</I> that thing.<BR/><BR/>In a similar manner, God may desire to glorify Himself. He can do so in a myriad number of ways. He decided to do so at least in one (and who's to say He didn't in other ways too?): that is, by loving some of those who hate Him to the point that He dies for them while likewise illustrating His justice in others.<BR/><BR/>God didn't <I>need</I> to create people, even to accomplish this. He did so of His own Will for His own purposes. None of this requires us to assume God is lacking in any sense, for He could have refrained from doing this, or He could have done things completely differently than He did.<BR/><BR/>I think ultimately you are trying to create too much tension between God's simplicity and His freedom. The Bible doesn't hold to this tension, however. Furthermore, you more than likely have the Hellenistic conception of "perfection" in mind, not the Biblical concept of perfection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66065313932265586362007-02-12T19:25:00.000-05:002007-02-12T19:25:00.000-05:00Jeez, Steve, I think you missed the boat on this o...Jeez, Steve, I think you missed the boat on this one. <BR/><BR/>A perfect being would not "want" anything, for to want implies a need; a lack of something. And a being with a need is not perfect. <BR/><BR/>Why does a perfect being "want" anything? Why does a perfect being "desire" anything unless there is some imperfection that they want to correct?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10046841193603360472007-02-12T14:11:00.000-05:002007-02-12T14:11:00.000-05:00JL: "So, answer the question, and do not lie."SH:...JL: "So, answer the question, and do not lie."<BR/><BR/>SH: "Done."<BR/><BR/>Anonymous: Steve, he said "don't lie."<BR/><BR/>We all know that you're a liar. You really believe God didn't have a good reason for the evil he allows. You really believe God is evil and unjust. But then you tell everyone that you believe otherwise. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? You make us who are interested in the truth, and nothing but the truth, sick.<BR/><BR/>Atheists are the best. We are honest. Even though there's no reason for us not to lie, we still don't lie. That makes us better than theists.<BR/><BR/>You see, John wasn't lying when he said he would rather be a dog in his wife's house than a human in God's world. That was the truth. John, like any atheist, is brutally honest.<BR/><BR/>Steve, wouldn't you rather share a food and water bowl with John than be a human in God's world? Wouldn't you rather clean your anus with your tongue? John would. Be honest now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12830045319940843512007-02-12T11:48:00.000-05:002007-02-12T11:48:00.000-05:00John W. Loftus said..."The 'if you didn't need to'...John W. Loftus said...<BR/><BR/>"The 'if you didn't need to' phrase is about God."<BR/><BR/>Yes, I understand that. I never said otherwise. <BR/><BR/>"You believe he didn't need to create anything."<BR/><BR/>True.<BR/><BR/>"if he exists I don't see why he did."<BR/><BR/>Because God is generous. He made certain creatures to share in his beatitude.<BR/><BR/>"And my question is about whether YOU would do so based upon what YOU believe."<BR/><BR/>Based on what I believe, yes. The question answers itself. I'm a Christian. I accept the goodness of God's plan. I don't have a better plan.<BR/><BR/>"So, answer the question, and do not lie."<BR/><BR/>Done.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41099069017418568052007-02-12T11:35:00.000-05:002007-02-12T11:35:00.000-05:00Would you be a good person if you knowingly create...<I>Would you be a good person if you knowingly created a world on the back of just one tortured child, especially if you didn't need to do so? Answer me and don't lie.</I><BR/><BR/>The "if you didn't need to" phrase is about God. You believe he didn't need to create anything. if he exists I don't see why he did. And my question is about whether YOU would do so based upon what YOU believe.<BR/><BR/>So, answer the question, and do not lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27054271558641529772007-02-12T11:14:00.000-05:002007-02-12T11:14:00.000-05:00Neither Steve Hays nor David Wood are capable of r...<B>Neither Steve Hays nor David Wood are capable of resisting their need to lie for their religion, and their religion would not be able to survive without it.</B><BR/><BR/>Profound words coming from a man who hides behind a cloak of anonymity.<BR/><BR/>"Men in masks cannot be trusted." ~FezzikDavid Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84392166606123372372007-02-12T09:12:00.000-05:002007-02-12T09:12:00.000-05:00John W. Loftus said:"Nothing you wrote answers the...John W. Loftus said:<BR/><BR/>"Nothing you wrote answers the question, no matter how you phrase it."<BR/><BR/>Notice that this is a denial rather than a disproof. Loftus is unable to actually identify any defect in my presentation, so he has to fall back on a question-begging denial in lieu of a counterargument.<BR/><BR/>"Would you be a good person if you knowingly created a world on the back of just one tortured child, especially if you didn't need to do so? Answer me and don't lie."<BR/><BR/>Two problems:<BR/><BR/>1.His question implicitly assumes the existence of gratuitous evil ("if you didn't need to do so?").<BR/><BR/>I've argued for the nonexistence of gratuitous evil.<BR/><BR/>2. Loftus has admitted that in his atheistic outlook, nothing is intrinsically good or evil. So, if, ex hypothesi, he is right, then there are no good or bad persons. And so, if he is right, torturing children isn't intrinsically evil. <BR/><BR/>Loftus is the liar. On the one hand, there's the Loftus who retains his intuitive belief in good and evil. On the other hand, there's the self-consciously atheistic version of Loftus who denies moral absolutes. He alternates between one or the other depending on the audience and the pragmatic exigencies of his argument.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42428296704798973212007-02-12T07:48:00.000-05:002007-02-12T07:48:00.000-05:00"Answer me and don't lie."I have never met a Chris..."Answer me and don't lie."<BR/><BR/>I have never met a Christian who does not lie for his religious beliefs. And I've known a lot of Christians over the years. It is all lies. Neither Steve Hays nor David Wood are capable of resisting their need to lie for their religion, and their religion would not be able to survive without it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9295028802241573072007-02-11T22:12:00.000-05:002007-02-11T22:12:00.000-05:00Nothing you wrote answers the question, no matter ...Nothing you wrote answers the question, no matter how you phrase it. But the question is augmented because of the supposed "fallen" nature of this world and the suffering in it as the result.<BR/><BR/>Would you be a good person if you knowingly created a world on the back of just one tortured child, especially if you didn't need to do so? Answer me and don't lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28388749733620002692007-02-11T13:37:00.000-05:002007-02-11T13:37:00.000-05:00Steve's right. This is one of Loftus's most common...Steve's right. This is one of Loftus's most common objections. He insists that God, if He exists, would not create anything, since this would imply that God needed something, and therefore was not perfect.<BR/><BR/>Hence, since there is something rather than nothing, the Christian must hold that God *gulp* created something. And Loftus thinks that this is absurd.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I think that this is one of the worst arguments ever offered by anyone, and a sign of complete, utter pessimism.David Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65490895829762584172007-02-11T08:48:00.000-05:002007-02-11T08:48:00.000-05:00Xhadiar said:Your analysis is both disingenuous an...Xhadiar said:<BR/>Your analysis is both disingenuous and invalid. You read into Loftus' statement an equivocal nature that is not there so that you don't have to deal with the objection he did raise. I strongly doubt Loftus would contend that your god did not have a right to create its creations. He did not raise this issue.<BR/><BR/>****************<BR/><BR/>He raised this very issue, both in his book, and in David Wood's combox. It would behoove you to acquaint yourself with the record before you weigh in.<BR/><BR/>"Why not deal with the question he did raise?"<BR/><BR/>Which I did.<BR/><BR/>"Other statements you made simply make both you and your god indifferent to the evil that exists in the world."<BR/><BR/>I wasn't attempting to present a theodicy, but merely to address Loftus' argument on his own grounds.<BR/><BR/>"That tells me all I need to know about you and your hideous worldview. Thanks!"<BR/><BR/>Your inability to follow an argument tells me all I need to know about you and your irrational worldview. Thanks!stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37978342036439268352007-02-11T02:49:00.000-05:002007-02-11T02:49:00.000-05:00Your analysis is both disingenuous and invalid. Yo...Your analysis is both disingenuous and invalid. You read into Loftus' statement an equivocal nature that is not there so that you don't have to deal with the objection he did raise. I strongly doubt Loftus would contend that your god did not have a right to create its creations. He did not raise this issue. Why not deal with the question he did raise? Other statements you made simply make both you and your god indifferent to the evil that exists in the world. That tells me all I need to know about you and your hideous worldview. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com