Error: No CURL Found - Social Networks AutoPoster needs the CURL PHP extension. Please install it or contact your hosting company to install it.

Faithfreedom.org

Howard Kainz

Howard Kainz is emeritus professor of philosophy at Marquette University. His most recent publications include Natural Law: an Introduction and Reexamination (2004), Five Metaphysical Paradoxes (The 2006 Marquette Aquinas Lecture), The Philosophy of Human Nature (2008), and The Existence of God and the Faith-Instinct (2010).

108 Responses

  1. Steve says:

    “1. God did not bring any criminal into existence. Prove he did.” You believe God created this universe, you also believe he is omnipotent and omniscient and perfectly free. So he knew what these criminals would do he also could have created a universe with no suffering and still decided to create one with suffering. Therefore your God is responsible.

    “2. Victims still have a choice as to how they respond to someone violating their rights.” Really? Even when there dead, tied up in the boot of a car and then being fed to rats did they a choice? Did the Jews have a choice about being shovelled into gas chambers? No the criminals forced them, they suffered as the result of somebody else’s choices and actions – not their own.

    “Stop bringing up WLC, you deliberately distort his actual position on matters.” I can quote from the debate transcript if you think I am lying.

    //You can make the observation that the existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of an all loving God – regardless of what moral theory you subscribe to.//
    “No you cannot for a very simple reason: You do not have an absolute moral standard to judge good and evil.” I am not making any (moral) judgment I am simply making an observation and how that observable evidence is incompatible with the existence of an all loving God.

    “There is no evil in nature by your own admission, so we do not judge nature according to the standards of human conduct. To declare otherwise is to commit the anthropomorphic fallacy.” I am not judging nature we are judging whether the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, perfectly free God is compatible with the existence of suffering.

    “That’s correct, their holy texts are not perfect either and I agree there are many things in the Bible borrowed from other cultures. But does any of that validate Atheism and its lack of absolute moral values?” What do you need “absolute moral values for”? (Absolute morality is distinct from objective morality by the way). You don’t, and in any case even if they did exist it would be impossible to know what it is, and even if it was possible they would be pragmatically irrelevant. For all we know know wearing bowler hats could be breaking some “objective morality”. And even if it was known that wearing bowler hats was “objectively wrong” it would make no practical difference whatsoever.

  2. Steve says:

    “No, death and disease are definitely not caused by God.” Which means either God doesn’t exist – because either God is the direct cause of natural disasters or at least the ultimate cause (through being the creator and controller of the universe) or he doesn’t do anything.

    “In “local control” the experimenters use a technique known as blocking, to reduce the variables known or suspected to affect the outcome. I have no reason to believe the experimenters did not adhere to protocol, given that the study was peer reviewed. The onus is on you to prove your claim or else you are merely speculating.” Your study admitted it didn’t show any causation.

    “You are inventing your own definitions again to support a hypothetical scenario, which is this…” No it’s a biological fact (which you you are big on) that any living human tissue is indeed “human life”.

    “Then it’s the information itself which is stored in the brain that is of value and not the human life of the fetus per se.” Yes the information is what is valuable without that information there is no consciousness. But since you also need a brain and body to be conscious (a brain which can process, record and playback the information) it follows the brain and body are also valuable. If in the future we find a way to transfer – intact – consciousness and its content to another substrate (brain or something that can do the same) then the current body/brain probably wouldn’t be as important as it is now.

    ” A human with no information is killable…OR…someone is only of value when they store information.” Yes a person whose brain cannot store information cannot be conscious. Or at best there consciousness (or probably sentience would better fit that) would be at the level of a new born baby or a something like a mouse. Now obviously you will now say “well you can kill babies then” no because a normal baby will start to process information and its mind will develop normally. In the case of babies who won’t develop that (because of severe brain damage due to the fact they was born very early for example) this article says ( http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3/full/pr200950a.html ). “A pending question is the status of the preterm fetus born before 26 wk (<700 g) who has closed eyes and seems constantly asleep. The immaturity of its brain networks is such that it may not even reach a level of minimal consciousness. The postnatal maturation of the brain may be delayed (71) and there are indications that the connectivity with the GNW will be suboptimal in some cases (72) as indicated by deficient executive functions (73). Therefore, the timing of the emergence of minimal consciousness has been proposed as an ethical limit of human viability and it might be possible to withhold or withdraw intensive care if these infants are severely brain damaged"

    "And at which step it is okay to kill that human being is predicated on your redefinitions, personal opinions and self-derived moral authority. " No morality is based on facts and other human concerns. (Like social stability, empathy/ compassion, fairness, justice etc).

    "That embryo, zygote or fetus is a normal human being," Really a fertilised egg in a dish is the same as a human being with a fully functioning mind?

    "no matter the stage of development she is in. In fact she will continue to develop through her teen years and right into adulthood. Her step or stage of development is in no manner an excuse to kill her." Who is talking of killing teenagers? Teenagers have there own mind.

    “A genome is all of a living thing’s genetic material. It is the entire set of hereditary instructions for building, running, and maintaining an organism, and passing life on to the next generation. The whole shebang.” This is what genes are not what genes do. Genes make proteins just because you have a gene it doesn't mean it's going to be turned into proteins. Just like if you have a cake mix it doesn't mean it is going to become an actual cake. First if you change the ingredients in the cake or the amount of ingredients you get a different cake (or a different taste, different size or colour etc). (Just like how mutations to DNA causes genetic disorder as it changes the size and function of the proteins). And then how you prepare the cake and what temperature it is on and how long goes into determining how the cake turns out. It is the same for the development of human beings, this is why cakes from the same "building blocks" or "blueprint" can be different and why even identical twins can be different.

    "I’m not interested in your “moral realm” which has no emprical evidence for support. I have consistently provided biological facts. You consistently provide your opinions" So your not interested in morality then? The biological fact is that the foetus before about 26 weeks has no consciousness/sentience and morality only includes conscious beings – this is why we don't have moral obligations to rocks or vegetables.

  3. Phoenix says:

    “So now they are natural but a minute ago they were products of divine intervention.”
    //They are products of divine intervention from a theists perspective.//

    No, death and disease are definitely not caused by God.

    //Causation can’t be inferred from just one factor. For example if you are male you are statically 880% more likely to commit a violent crime. (And that’s probably many times higher than having high empathy and the statical probability of being religious)… When we talk about behavioural traits (like religious belief or being violent) it’s usually very difficult if not impossible to establish causality and pick out one factor among many complex and interacting factors.//

    The Principles of Experimental Design are:(i) Randomization, (ii) Replication and (iii) Local Control.

    In “local control” the experimenters use a technique known as blocking, to reduce the variables known or suspected to affect the outcome. I have no reason to believe the experimenters did not adhere to protocol, given that the study was peer reviewed. The onus is on you to prove your claim or else you are merely speculating.

    //That body tissue is also “human life”//

    You are inventing your own definitions again to support a hypothetical scenario, which is this…

    // In addition in the future we will be able to use our tissue to make a genetic clones. In that case since a “human being” is reducible to their genes then it shouldn’t be murder to abort that foetus? Not only is this true of a potential future situation the same should be true of Identical twins! They are the same individual because they have the same genes? Now if you say the twins have genetic differences – caused by mutations – then the same could also happen to a clone.//

    Your conclusion is based off a false premise, namely your redefinition of “human life”.

    // I already explained why this is nonsense. The brain and mind (and all its content) is still there even when you are temporarily unconscious. Just like all the information stored on your computer is still there – despite the fact that it may currently be switched off.//

    Then it’s the information itself which is stored in the brain that is of value and not the human life of the fetus per se. A human with no information is killable…OR…someone is only of value when they store information.

    //But a single brick is no more the house than just a few bricks put together (which is basically what you are saying that a fertilised egg is an actual human being is like saying those few bricks cemented together are the actual house – while a single brick on its on own isn’t) and those few bricks are no more the house than a single wall.//

    I did not say a human being is like a few bricks. I dismissed your brick/house analogy by showing you the logical defects in your argument.

    //It’s a step by step process- just like a human being coming into existence//
    And at which step it is okay to kill that human being is predicated on your redefinitions, personal opinions and self-derived moral authority. That embryo, zygote or fetus is a normal human being, no matter the stage of development she is in. In fact she will continue to develop through her teen years and right into adulthood. Her step or stage of development is in no manner an excuse to kill her.

    //Which then starts to do what? It stats to divide cells. And if you say a fertilised egg is the blueprint it is no more the blueprint than a single brick is the blueprint of the house or the H2O molecules are the “blueprint” for the ice crystal.//

    I don’t understand your analogies here. Are you disputing the fact that the zygote’s genome contains all its genetic information? If so, you need some serious justifications to redefine biology.

    http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/whats_a_genome/Chp1_1_1.shtml#genome1

    “A genome is all of a living thing’s genetic material. It is the entire set of hereditary instructions for building, running, and maintaining an organism, and passing life on to the next generation. The whole shebang.”

    //When it has sentience/consciousness only does it then enter or begin to enter into the “moral realm”. Cells in a dish are not part of morality.//

    I’m not interested in your “moral realm” which has no emprical evidence for support. I have consistently provided biological facts. You consistently provide your opinions.

  4. Phoenix says:

    //He chose to bring them into existence and he would know what they would do if he chose to do that. Therefore God is responsible. Also the victims so called free will is overridden by the choice and actions of these criminals, so why does God allow that if the “free will” is so important//

    1. God did not bring any criminal into existence. Prove he did.
    2. Victims still have a choice as to how they respond to someone violating their rights.

    //Even WLC admitted…//

    Stop bringing up WLC, you deliberately distort his actual position on matters.

    //You can make the observation that the existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of an all loving God – regardless of what moral theory you subscribe to.//

    No you cannot for a very simple reason: You do not have an absolute moral standard to judge good and evil.

    //Just like you could make the observation that the existence of cats is incompatible with the existence of an all powerful creator who has unconditional love for mice. And you can do that regardless of what your view of mice is and the morality (or otherwise) of mice being killed by cats.//

    There is no evil in nature by your own admission, so we do not judge nature according to the standards of human conduct. To declare otherwise is to commit the anthropomorphic fallacy.

    //Neither is there religion and its “holy text” where you will find those things are justified – despite their bragging about so called “Christian values” (all of which you will find was said by philosophers and moral teaches all over the world and thousands of years before there God man cult – including the ancient Greeks who preached about loving enemies which is where the Christians got this ethic from).//

    That’s correct, their holy texts are not perfect either and I agree there are many things in the Bible borrowed from other cultures. But does any of that validate Atheism and its lack of absolute moral values?

    //We have not being discussing that so that’s why. Also all of those atheist regimes was/are in fact quasi religious. In North Korea the founders are regarded as Gods.//

    Only a minority of the population worship their leaders as gods. Most North Koreans are Atheist/Agnostics due to persecution of religions.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15256929
    (Mainly atheist or non-religious, traditional beliefs)

    http://www.thearda.com/internationaldata/countries/Country_123_1.asp

    http://asianhistory.about.com/od/northkorea/p/northkoreaprof.htm

    http://www.allgov.com/nations?nationID=3509
    (go to basic information, click on more)
    ===
    //Human psychology. I mentioned how – based on simple facts about human psychology (like not wanting to be brutally murdered) – you build a functioning moral system and society//

    Not wanting to be murdered does not qualify as being a good moral principle. Even murderers and rapists do not want to be murdered.

  5. Steve says:

    //Since they discarded it (if they ever had it in the first place) God – again through his foreknowledge – would have known that – and STILL decided to create them. Also there victims suffer as the result of the criminals choice – and not their own – so how does the “free will defence” cover that? It doesn’t.//
    “First, God did not create any Hitlers or Stalins. You cannot prove he did, yet you continue to believe in something without proof.” He chose to bring them into existence and he would know what they would do if he chose to do that. Therefore God is responsible. Also the victims so called free will is overridden by the choice and actions of these criminals, so why does God allow that if the “free will” is so important?

    “Second, the benchmark from which you make your moral judgements is subjective/relative, since you’ve already admitted that:
    a) Morality is a human construct (therefore abitrary, unstable and whimsical)
    b) Your evil is defined as intentionally causing physical harm. Not only only does your moral rationalizations permit numerous non-violent and victimless evils but it also permits any evil including murder and rape, provided the victim is not aware he or she is being violated.
    Thus your moral theory fails you as you continue to contradictorily make absolute judgements from a subjective and flawed benchmark.” Even WLC admitted that the moral debate (about it being objective, subjective, absolute, its grounding and all the rest of the subjects that come up in that debate) is irrelevant to the problem of suffering and the existence of a good god. You can make the observation that the existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of an all loving God – regardless of what moral theory you subscribe to. Just like you could make the observation that the existence of cats is incompatible with the existence of an all powerful creator who has unconditional love for mice. And you can do that regardless of what your view of mice is and the morality (or otherwise) of mice being killed by cats.

  6. Steve says:

    //Apart from all those Christians that still kept slaves (Jesus himself said nothing about that) and went slaughtering Jews (as it says in the bible the blood of Christ is on them), pagans, “witches” and of course having “holy wars” with the followers of its offshoot Islam//
    “Christians are not perfect, no one said they were. ” Neither is there religion and its “holy text” where you will find those things are justified – despite their bragging about so called “Christian values” (all of which you will find was said by philosophers and moral teaches all over the world and thousands of years before there God man cult – including the ancient Greeks who preached about loving enemies which is where the Christians got this ethic from).
    “And the most horrific slaughters of the 20th century by Atheists seem to be of no concern to you. Why?” We have not being discussing that so that’s why. Also all of those atheist regimes was/are in fact quasi religious. In North Korea the founders are regarded as Gods.
    //Naturalist fallacy “again” because something happens doesn’t mean it good for people or for society. The bible talks a lot about slaughtering, enslaving and raping your rivals however.//
    It can’t be a naturalistic fallacy if I don’t appeal to nature for my precepts. It is Atheists who turn to nature to support their behaviours

  7. Steve says:

    “Where if not from nature do you derive your sense of right and wrong? From our laws of physics?” Human psychology. I mentioned how – based on simple facts about human psychology (like not wanting to be brutally murdered) – you build a functioning moral system and society.
    // If it due to some design fault then yes. And since God controls and set up all the conditions he is responsible for the suffering.//
    “Then do the following:
    1) Prove God controls nature or created faulty genes.
    2) Prove evil exists and suffering is evil.” I already talked about 2 (and even WLC admits that point) and as for 1, I don’t believe in God that’s a question for you. If God doesn’t control or didn’t design nature then what the hell did he do? And how are you not a deist then if the you believe God doesn’t do anything?
    //Death and disease is natural it doesn’t mean it’s desirable.//
    “So now they are natural but a minute ago they were products of divine intervention.” They are products of divine intervention from a theists perspective.
    //This study didn’t claim to show any causation nor did it consider any other variables that might factor in. So just show me the study that does, otherwise it’s no different to a study saying “Study finds those who are taller are more likely to be basketball players”. You have to show causation not just one variable.//
    “it was an experimental study as opposed to an observational study. The former allows one to infer causation.” Causation can’t be inferred from just one factor. For example if you are male you are statically 880% more likely to commit a violent crime. (And that’s probably many times higher than having high empathy and the statical probability of being religious). However since the majority of men are not violent criminals this tells us there are much more important factors involved. Likewise with religious belief and devotion and levels of empathy. It also doesn’t factor in those genetic factors interacting with social and environmental factors. For example in religious countries women may be considerably more likely than women in secular countries to be devoutly religious (even though that even in secular countries it may be the case that women are more devoutly religious than men). Just like men in poor countries and poor neighbourhoods are more likely to be violent than men in wealthy countries – even though men even in wealthy countries are statically much more likely than women to be violent criminals. When we talk about behavioural traits (like religious belief or being violent) it’s usually very difficult if not impossible to establish causality and pick out one factor among many complex and interacting factors.

  8. Steve says:

    //So any living human tissue is human (biologically). Now if you say it is genetically unique. Then what in the future when we have the ability to clone? I suppose a genetic clone wouldn’t be “human” to you?//
    “Another Red Herring, which has no bearing on the argument being made. The human body tissue is only a subset of the human body as opposed to the superset. The latter case is also a purely imaginary concept and no one is aborting the others imagination.” That body tissue is also “human life”. In addition in the future we will be able to use our tissue to make a genetic clones. In that case since a “human being” is reducible to their genes then it shouldn’t be murder to abort that foetus? Not only is this true of a potential future situation the same should be true of Identical twins! They are the same individual because they have the same genes? Now if you say the twins have genetic differences – caused by mutations – then the same could also happen to a clone.
    //Children have consciousness, and pain awareness a fertilised egg has none.//
    “Once more, the implied inference is that pain and awareness is the criterion for determining who is killable. By further implication, a perpetrator may violate another’s rights if the victim is not aware and feels no pain (insert list of non-violent crimes).” I already explained why this is nonsense. The brain and mind (and all its content) is still there even when you are temporarily unconscious. Just like all the information stored on your computer is still there – despite the fact that it may currently be switched off.
    // …A sperm could also one day become part of a conscious being, just like for example a single brick can become part of a house. But a single brick is no more the house than just a few bricks put together (which is basically what you are saying that a fertilised egg is an actual human being is like saying those few bricks cemented together are the actual house – while a single brick on its on own isn’t) and those few bricks are no more the house than a single wall. It’s a step by step process- just like a human being coming into existence.//
    “Your analogy is a two-fold failure:
    1) A single brick does not contain the blueprint for the entire house. A fertilized egg on the other hand contains all the genetic information of that unique human individual.” Neither does the fertilised egg contain the blueprint of the entire human being – anymore than the H2O molecules are the blueprint for the shape and size of a ice crystal. This is why identical twins can have different fingerprints different heights and even different hair and eye colour.

    “2) A house is made of of numerous bricks. A human being is not made up of numerous fertilized eggs but only of a single fertilized egg.” Which then starts to do what? It stats to divide cells. And if you say a fertilised egg is the blueprint it is no more the blueprint than a single brick is the blueprint of the house or the H2O molecules are the “blueprint” for the ice crystal.
    //Nope when you have all those trillions of cells arranged in a certain then you have a human being a cell or a few cells in a dish are not a human being (as everyone else understands “human being” to mean and how the dictionary defines it) – anymore than a single brick or a few bricks cemented together are an actual house.//
    “And what number of cells does an embryo contain? And what number does it need to be before it qualifies as a human being?” When it has sentience/consciousness only does it then enter or begin to enter into the “moral realm”. Cells in a dish are not part of morality.

  9. Phoenix says:

    //So any living human tissue is human (biologically). Now if you say it is genetically unique. Then what in the future when we have the ability to clone? I suppose a genetic clone wouldn’t be “human” to you?//

    Another Red Herring, which has no bearing on the argument being made. The human body tissue is only a subset of the human body as opposed to the superset. The latter case is also a purely imaginary concept and no one is aborting the others imagination.

    //Children have consciousness, and pain awareness a fertilised egg has none.//

    Once more, the implied inference is that pain and awareness is the criterion for determining who is killable. By further implication, a perpetrator may violate another’s rights if the victim is not aware and feels no pain (insert list of non-violent crimes).

    // …A sperm could also one day become part of a conscious being, just like for example a single brick can become part of a house. But a single brick is no more the house than just a few bricks put together (which is basically what you are saying that a fertilised egg is an actual human being is like saying those few bricks cemented together are the actual house – while a single brick on its on own isn’t) and those few bricks are no more the house than a single wall. It’s a step by step process- just like a human being coming into existence.//

    Your analogy is a two-fold failure:
    1) A single brick does not contain the blueprint for the entire house. A fertilized egg on the other hand contains all the genetic information of that unique human individual.
    2) A house is made of of numerous bricks. A human being is not made up of numerous fertilized eggs but only of a single fertilized egg.

    //Nope when you have all those trillions of cells arranged in a certain then you have a human being a cell or a few cells in a dish are not a human being (as everyone else understands “human being” to mean and how the dictionary defines it) – anymore than a single brick or a few bricks cemented together are an actual house.//

    And what number of cells does an embryo contain? And what number does it need to be before it qualifies as a human being?

  10. Phoenix says:

    //Since they discarded it (if they ever had it in the first place) God – again through his foreknowledge – would have known that – and STILL decided to create them. Also there victims suffer as the result of the criminals choice – and not their own – so how does the “free will defence” cover that? It doesn’t.//

    First, God did not create any Hitlers or Stalins. You cannot prove he did, yet you continue to believe in something without proof.
    Second, the benchmark from which you make your moral judgements is subjective/relative, since you’ve already admitted that:
    a) Morality is a human construct (therefore abitrary, unstable and whimsical)
    b) Your evil is defined as intentionally causing physical harm. Not only only does your moral rationalizations permit numerous non-violent and victimless evils but it also permits any evil including murder and rape, provided the victim is not aware he or she is being violated.

    Thus your moral theory fails you as you continue to contradictorily make absolute judgements from a subjective and flawed benchmark.

    //Apart from all those Christians that still kept slaves (Jesus himself said nothing about that) and went slaughtering Jews (as it says in the bible the blood of Christ is on them), pagans, “witches” and of course having “holy wars” with the followers of its offshoot Islam//

    Christians are not perfect, no one said they were. And the most horrific slaughters of the 20th century by Atheists seem to be of no concern to you. Why?

    //Naturalist fallacy “again” because something happens doesn’t mean it good for people or for society. The bible talks a lot about slaughtering, enslaving and raping your rivals however.//

    It can’t be a naturalistic fallacy if I don’t appeal to nature for my precepts. It is Atheists who turn to nature to support their behaviors. Where if not from nature do you derive your sense of right and wrong? From our laws of physics?

    // If it due to some design fault then yes. And since God controls and set up all the conditions he is responsible for the suffering.//

    Then do the following:
    1) Prove God controls nature or created faulty genes.
    2) Prove evil exists and suffering is evil.

    //Death and disease is natural it doesn’t mean it’s desirable.//

    So now they are natural but a minute ago they were products of divine intervention.

    //This study didn’t claim to show any causation nor did it consider any other variables that might factor in. So just show me the study that does, otherwise it’s no different to a study saying “Study finds those who are taller are more likely to be basketball players”. You have to show causation not just one variable.//

    it was an experimental study as opposed to an observational study. The former allows one to infer causation.

  11. Steve says:

    //If it was rooted in “Christian principles” then they would have to murder non believers, homosexuals, keep slaves, practice capital punishment and have their daughters marry their rapist. Religious people cherry pick their books and leave out all the bad stuff.//
    “That’s correct, Christians cherry pick from the Bible just as the first Christians cherry picked from the OT, that’s why none of them murdered, raped or plundered.” Apart from all those Christians that still kept slaves (Jesus himself said nothing about that) and went slaughtering Jews (as it says in the bible the blood of Christ is on them), pagans, “witches” and of course having “holy wars” with the followers of its offshoot Islam

    “Likewise, Atheists cherry pick all the good stuff from nature and leave out the bad parts where it’s okay to kill your young if its born with defects, kill the male from a clan, steal his mate and all kill of the previous male’s spawn, rape to spread your genes, etc.” Naturalist fallacy “again” because something happens doesn’t mean it good for people or for society. The bible talks a lot about slaughtering, enslaving and raping your rivals however.

    // Why should Muslims be excluded? They are also religious. I also want to know if having high empathy means being more religious and lacking empathy equals atheist then what is the explanation for the likes of ISIS? They are the most fanatically religious people yet they have zero empathy. Where is the study explaining that phenomenon?//
    “Because Islam the only theist group that does not recognize the Golden Rule as an all inclusive maxim, hence their lack of altruism.” So believing in religious codswallop doesn’t make you more empathetic then?

    //Which means he is responsible for the suffering that exists and natural disasters and faults present in human biology.//
    “So Henry Ford is responsible for every accident involving a Ford?” If it due to some design fault then yes. And since God controls and set up all the conditions he is responsible for the suffering.

    //Since he knew who would reject and accept him (through his foreknowledge) he could simply have only brought the good people into existence.//
    “But how would we know they were good people freely choosing good if the option to reject good was not an actuality?” According to WL Craig God puts them in a circumstance and they choose according to there nature. (Eg Pilate choose to send Jesus to the Cross, if he hadn’t have chosen to do that God would not put him in that position). So even though they can’t do otherwise (in those circumstances) they act freely because nothing outside of them determines there choice.

    “Besides many bad people or people who made made choices in life, later on decide to transform themselves.” Eh no. They don’t just “decide” out of the blue to give up a life of crime.
    // If a being is designed a world which he knew would contain natural disasters then that being would be evil.//

    “But given your worldview, there is nothing evil about natural disasters. They are after all, NATURAL and inanimate with zero intrinsic value.” Death and disease is natural it doesn’t mean it’s desirable.

    //I want to see a study that shows causation between 1) High empathy = Believing in nonsense and 2) Lack of empathy = Not believing in nonsense. It would need to show other variables like gender, hereditary, culture, race, social and economic status etc before it can draw any meaningful conclusion.//
    “Don’t forget your beliefs qualify as “believing in nonsense” This study didn’t claim to show any causation nor did it consider any other variables that might factor in. So just show me the study that does, otherwise it’s no different to a study saying “Study finds those who are taller are more likely to be basketball players”. You have to show causation not just one variable.

  12. Steve says:

    said: “1. The fertilized human egg contains both male spermatazoon and the female oocyte. The unfertilized egg does not.
    2. The zygote has 50% dna from the mother and 50% dna from the father. The unfertilized egg does not”
    Your response: No of which is morally relevant.//
    “Your moral opinions cannot defeat the necessity of the humanness of the fertilized egg, which is supported by biological facts.” So any living human tissue is human (biologically). Now if you say it is genetically unique. Then what in the future when we have the ability to clone? I suppose a genetic clone wouldn’t be “human” to you?
    //Not necessarily if it miscarried then it will not.//
    The embryo is more likely to be aborted than miscarried but that is not the point, which is this: “Your reasoning is absurd because even children will not develop into adults if their lives are cut short by illness, accidental or deliberate deaths.” Children have consciousness, and pain awareness a fertilised egg has none.
    //Neither does a fertilised egg – a fertilised egg is just one step closer than an unfertilised egg.//
    “You have no idea how conception work do you?” Are you trying to be smart?
    1.Sperm Transport — The sperm must be deposited and transported to the site of fertilization.
    2.Egg Transport — Ovulation must occur and the egg must be “picked up” by the tube.
    3.Fertilization and Embryo Development — Union between the sperm and egg must result.
    4.Implantation — The embryo must implant and begin to grow in the uterus.
    “Now if we were to remove any 3 steps and only focus on your ONE STEP policy then fertilization would be magic. Like I said before, given your ill-logic, everything is just one step closer to being a fertilized egg. Just remove all steps and leave one behind.” The fertilised egg is just one step on from the sperm and unfertilised egg (step 3 in your list). Now it’s not until about week 26 that is has developed sentience or “minimal consciousness” and week 29 before pain awareness. This is also the result of weeks long process and development. If you removed any step it would not become conscious. A sperm could also one day become part of a conscious being, just like for example a single brick can become part of a house. But a single brick is no more the house than just a few bricks put together (which is basically what you are saying that a fertilised egg is an actual human being is like saying those few bricks cemented together are the actual house – while a single brick on its on own isn’t) and those few bricks are no more the house than a single wall. It’s a step by step process- just like a human being coming into existence.
    //So? It’s still just a collection of cells in a dish.//
    “The adult human body is made up of 10 trillion cells”
    https://www.thevisualmd.com/health_centers/cancer/cancer_introduction/a_collection_of_cells
    “Once again, with your ill-logic everything is JUST a collection of cells and any adult may be terminated when he or she poses an inconvenience.” Nope when you have all those trillions of cells arranged in a certain then you have a human being a cell or a few cells in a dish are not a human being (as everyone else understands “human being” to mean and how the dictionary defines it) – anymore than a single brick or a few bricks cemented together are an actual house.
    //What has terminating the pregnancy got to with preventing the rape? The woman was raped, the woman has right to body autonomy and thus has the choice to abort the child end of story.//
    “Then why are you intent on killing the pre-born? To solve or prevent what? How does killing an innocent human solve the rape ordeal? Remember this is your rape analogy that I’m entertaining.” I am not intent on killing anything I am just saying it is the woman’s body and therefore her choice – and the not the right of the government to take control of her body by force.

  13. Steve says:

    //He didn’t inspire Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden and Richard Kuklinski to be good.//
    “They all had choices to either heed or discard the inspiration.” Since they discarded it (if they ever had it in the first place) God – again through his foreknowledge – would have known that – and STILL decided to create them. Also there victims suffer as the result of the criminals choice – and not their own – so how does the “free will defence” cover that? It doesn’t.
    //It would of helped if they would would have been inspired never to be evil in the first place//
    “The inspiration is always there.” So when Kuklinski had a man begging for his life and praying to God to stop him. Kuklinski said okay if you really believe that I’ll give you half an hour to pray for God to come down and stop me. Did the unfortunate man get an answer? Well as Kuklinski said God didn’t show up. God could have moved his heart (like it says in the bible he did with pharaoh (also that was to harden his heart) or he could simply have given him a heart attack or whatever but nope God did absolutely nothing to answer the prayer – as for every other prayer.
    // So in his case God put that child in an abusive environment which means he couldn’t develop normal human feelings. Why did God do that?//
    “When you say “God put him there”, you have to mean that in a literal sense. And I would love to see the evidence for that.” No I don’t have to mean that. God put him there by deciding to create this universe – knowing it would contain that – and he could have chosen to create a different universe with Kuklinski (and all the other evil people) being one of the good guys in white hats. It would have been a lot better for them and a lot better for everyone else.
    “Naturally, you don’t have evidence and neither do you have actual disciplined Aristotelian deductive logic to support your case. All you have are your personal opinions which are of no value at all.” Yawn 1)An omnipotent God would have the power to create a universe with free beings and no suffering (just like there is supposed to be in “heaven” (where for some reason there is no problem with there being free will and no evil.) 2)This universe contains suffering. 3) Conclusion- An omnipotent all loving God does not exist. Now show where the fault is and stop coming out with nonsense like. “God doesn’t create” (even though I am a theist and that is what theism means.) (“Oh and I am a “evolution skeptic” as well except for when it comes to explaining faulty genes of course then it doesn’t have anything to do with God). I am also not a deist where the creator may not even exist anymore or “God doesn’t have responsibilities” (even though I also believe he is the source of all moral duties, the ultimate moral authority/yardstick and the basis for “objective morality” – even though he himself has no obligations and can break his own “objective morality” whenever he likes and offer no justification).

  14. Phoenix says:

    I said: “1. The fertilized human egg contains both male spermatazoon and the female oocyte. The unfertilized egg does not.
    2. The zygote has 50% dna from the mother and 50% dna from the father. The unfertilized egg does not”

    Your response: No of which is morally relevant.//

    Your moral opinions cannot defeat the necessity of the humanness of the fertilized egg, which is supported by biological facts.

    //Not necessarily if it miscarried then it will not.//

    The embryo is more likely to be aborted than miscarried but that is not the point, which is this: Your reasoning is absurd because even children will not develop into adults if their lives are cut short by illness, accidental or deliberate deaths.

    //Neither does a fertilised egg – a fertilised egg is just one step closer than an unfertilised egg.//

    You have no idea how conception work do you?

    1.Sperm Transport — The sperm must be deposited and transported to the site of fertilization.
    2.Egg Transport — Ovulation must occur and the egg must be “picked up” by the tube.
    3.Fertilization and Embryo Development — Union between the sperm and egg must result.
    4.Implantation — The embryo must implant and begin to grow in the uterus.

    Now if we were to remove any 3 steps and only focus on your ONE STEP policy then fertilization would be magic. Like I said before, given your ill-logic, everything is just one step closer to being a fertilized egg. Just remove all steps and leave one behind.

    //So? It’s still just a collection of cells in a dish.//

    “The adult human body is made up of 10 trillion cells”

    https://www.thevisualmd.com/health_centers/cancer/cancer_introduction/a_collection_of_cells

    Once again, with your ill-logic everything is JUST a collection of cells and any adult may be terminated when he or she poses an inconvenience.

    //What has terminating the pregnancy got to with preventing the rape? The woman was raped, the woman has right to body autonomy and thus has the choice to abort the child end of story.//

    Then why are you intent on killing the pre-born? To solve or prevent what? How does killing an innocent human solve the rape ordeal? Remember this is your rape analogy that I’m entertaining.

    //He didn’t inspire Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden and Richard Kuklinski to be good.//

    They all had choices to either heed or discard the inspiration.

    //It would of helped if they would would have been inspired never to be evil in the first place//

    The inspiration is always there.

    // So in his case God put that child in an abusive environment which means he couldn’t develop normal human feelings. Why did God do that?//

    When you say “God put him there”, you have to mean that in a literal sense. And I would love to see the evidence for that.

    Naturally, you don’t have evidence and neither do you have actual disciplined Aristotelian deductive logic to support your case. All you have are your personal opinions which are of no value at all.

  15. Phoenix says:

    //If it was rooted in “Christian principles” then they would have to murder non believers, homosexuals, keep slaves, practice capital punishment and have their daughters marry their rapist. Religious people cherry pick their books and leave out all the bad stuff.//

    That’s correct, Christians cherry pick from the Bible just as the first Christians cherry picked from the OT, that’s why none of them murdered, raped or plundered.

    Likewise, Atheists cherry pick all the good stuff from nature and leave out the bad parts where it’s okay to kill your young if its born with defects, kill the male from a clan, steal his mate and all kill of the previous male’s spawn, rape to spread your genes, etc.

    // Why should Muslims be excluded? They are also religious. I also want to know if having high empathy means being more religious and lacking empathy equals atheist then what is the explanation for the likes of ISIS? They are the most fanatically religious people yet they have zero empathy. Where is the study explaining that phenomenon?//

    Because Islam the only theist group that does not recognize the Golden Rule as an all inclusive maxim, hence their lack of altruism.

    //Which means he is responsible for the suffering that exists and natural disasters and faults present in human biology.//

    So Henry Ford is responsible for every accident involving a Ford?

    //Since he knew who would reject and accept him (through his foreknowledge) he could simply have only brought the good people into existence.//

    But how would we know they were good people freely choosing good if the option to reject good was not an actuality? If bad was only an imaginary concept then good would have had the same effect, only existing in the mind of God.
    Besides many bad people or people who made made choices in life, later on decide to transform themselves.

    // If a being is designed a world which he knew would contain natural disasters then that being would be evil.//

    But given your worldview, there is nothing evil about natural disasters. They are after all, NATURAL and inanimate with zero intrinsic value.

    //“Based on self-reporting, heterosexual women showed the highest level of empathy, followed by gay men, lesbians and, finally, heterosexual men.” //

    1. Heterosexual women are also the most religious.
    2. Gay men are more religious than Atheistic.

    http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2015/05/12/report-half-lgb-americans-identify-christian

    http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question19.html

    //I want to see a study that shows causation between 1) High empathy = Believing in nonsense and 2) Lack of empathy = Not believing in nonsense. It would need to show other variables like gender, hereditary, culture, race, social and economic status etc before it can draw any meaningful conclusion.//

    Don’t forget your beliefs qualify as “believing in nonsense”.

  16. Steve says:

    //Now tell me why you think that the fertilised egg is a “human being” with rights while a unfertilised egg is not?//
    “1. The fertilized human egg contains both male spermatazoon and the female oocyte. The unfertilized egg does not.
    2. The zygote has 50% dna from the mother and 50% dna from the father. The unfertilized egg does not” No of which is morally relevant.
    “3. The zygote continues to grow and develop. ” Not necessarily if it miscarried then it will not.
    Unfertilized eggs do not do that on their own.” Neither does a fertilised egg – a fertilised egg is just one step closer than an unfertilised egg.
    “4. The human embryo contains the full genome of the unique individual. The unfertilized egg does not have that information.” So? It’s still just a collection of cells in a dish.
    “Also check out this link that life begins at fertilization:” A genetically distinct organism does a “human being” does not.
    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
    //You also believe God is omniscient and choose to create this universe with millions of the unborn being miscarried every year. Your God is responsible.//
    “Prove that when God initiated first life, he miscarried babies at the same time.” He knew his universe would contain that (and he set up the conditions as well).
    //Oh really you would force or want your government to force your wife to keep a rapists child inside her body? How compassionate of you.//
    “The child exists at the moment of conception. Why killing it later should solve or prevent that rape is a non sequitir.” What has terminating the pregnancy got to with preventing the rape? The woman was raped, the woman has right to body autonomy and thus has the choice to abort the child end of story.
    //So who inspires the evil actions? And why God did not inspire the evil people to try to be good instead? And if you say he tried then why did he bring them into existence if he knew they would ignore him anyway?//
    “God does inspire evil people to be good.” He didn’t inspire Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden and Richard Kuklinski to be good.
    “There are plenty of testimonies backing that up.” It would of helped if they would would have been inspired never to be evil in the first place. Like Dr Park Dietz explained to Richard Kuklinski “The difference between the good guys in white hats and the guys with a long rap sheet is due to how their parents raised them. If you raise a kid with love most of the time you have got a good shot at them growing to be descent people and treating their own kids well. But if you raise a kid with no love, beatings for no reason then all you teach is hatred. You make it impossible for that person to form bonds and strong attachments to other people and for them to sacrifice themselves to protect the world.” So in his case God put that child in an abusive environment which means he couldn’t develop normal human feelings. Why did God do that? If God had him raised in a different loving environment he would have been a very different person – and not a brutal killer career criminal completely lacking in conscience, love and compassion.

  17. Steve says:

    “Most Scandinavian countries are rooted in Christian principles that are the foundation for the childrens’ upbringing.” If it was rooted in “Christian principles” then they would have to murder non believers, homosexuals, keep slaves, practice capital punishment and have their daughters marry their rapist. Religious people cherry pick their books and leave out all the bad stuff.

    “The problem with your link is that the study includes muslims with christians. Muslims are known to be extremely tribal.” Why should Muslims be excluded? They are also religious. I also want to know if having high empathy means being more religious and lacking empathy equals atheist then what is the explanation for the likes of ISIS? They are the most fanatically religious people yet they have zero empathy. Where is the study explaining that phenomenon?

    “God does not create humans directly. He is the initiator of First Life, hence he is the First Cause.” Which means he is responsible for the suffering that exists and natural disasters and faults present in human biology.

    “The way this world is set up is to provide the conditions that make it possible to reject God’s love and to accept it.” Since he knew who would reject and accept him (through his foreknowledge) he could simply have only brought the good people into existence.

    “You said there is no such thing as natural evil, since only conscious beings can be evil. So what is so evil about natural disasters? And if it is so evil then why can’t Atheists prevent them?” If a being is designed a world which he knew would contain natural disasters then that being would be evil.

    “They are not anti-everything, neither are they war mongers. You have inserted your prejudice.” Then why did George Bush lie about Saddam having nuclear weapons? (And now Iraq is much more dangerous and and in a state of chaos with the likes of ISIS going around slaughtering people and massacring the minority’s.).

    //This is like saying being more empathetic means you must be gay. (Gay men are found to be more empathetic than heterosexual men).//
    “Where’s the study?” http://m.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Health-and-Science/Empathy-is-related-to-sexual-orientation-410165#article=10392MTc0NTIxMjU2Qjk1NDhFMDVDMDcyNkMwNjdCMURBNzQ=

    “Based on self-reporting, heterosexual women showed the highest level of empathy, followed by gay men, lesbians and, finally, heterosexual men.” I want to see a study that shows causation between 1) High empathy = Believing in nonsense and 2) Lack of empathy = Not believing in nonsense. It would need to show other variables like gender, hereditary, culture, race, social and economic status etc before it can draw any meaningful conclusion.

  18. Steve says:

    //If God can do evil then what do you to think he actually isn’t evil?//
    “God cannot do evil. That’s impossible, as it is in direct contrast to his nature.” Which contradicts what you said before. “Again, how must God choose if free will is irrelevant? Choice implies the availability from 2 or more options but you only grant God one option. Your method is then based on fraud since you provide a false dichotomy.” And you are now back to being asked why did God chose to create a universe he knew would contain suffering? Or you could just admit you don’t have an answer.
    //You just replace “Doctor Frankenstein” with “God”.//
    “God does not create monsters in a lab, prove it.” I could replace “monster in a lab” with “stimulated or seeded universes”.
    /I didn’t say it’s the same thing I said its rooted in the brain. Just like physical pain (if that’s distinctly different from emotional pain) is also rooted in the brain.//
    “I take it you concede that emotional pain is subjective and relies on the individual’s personal testimony whereas a physical injury is an objective state that can be viewed by a third party.” The same is true of emotional pain. Subjective experiences are not hidden and separate from the rest of the universe and for this reason the rest of the universe can observe what your experience is.

    “And yes, there is a correlation between mental states and brain states, I admit that much.” And we can observe brain states which means we can also infer the mental states.
    // Prove your Gods not evil then (since you claim he can choose evil) and prove he was not motivated by hate and sadism in his choice to create a world containing suffering.//
    “What sort of proof are you looking for?” Well since nobody has show any creator to exist – let alone what it thinks and what its character is – you are going to need some very good and completely original proof.
    //Because your God chose to bring them into existence (and he also knew what they would do).//
    “God is the First Cause. Did those monsters come into being simultaneously with the universe? If so, then I concede God brought them into existence. But first you must prove that.” If Doctor Frankenstein creates a simulated universe and set up and fined tuned all of its laws and physical constants and he planned or guided its evolution then yes he is responsible for any monster that comes into existence in that universe.
    //Double standard again. You don’t have any problem asking the president of India why he allows his citizens to starve to death but yet when I ask the same question about your God it’s a “loaded question” based on “false premises”.//
    “Because that’s the president’s job and he is fully capable of performing his tasks.” So is God. (Since he is omnipotent he is fully capable). If not then God needs to be removed from his post as the “ultimate moral authority”.

  19. Phoenix says:

    //Nope the countries that give most in foreign – in terms of percentage of there budgets – are the most secular.//

    Of those countries you’ve mentioned, how do you know they were Atheists. Does a secular country imply “Atheists only”? Most Scandinavian countries are rooted in Christian principles that are the foundation for the childrens’ upbringing.

    http://folk.uio.no/leirvik/OsloCoalition/Leirvik0902.htm

    “The object of primary and lower secondary education shall be, in agreement and co-operation with the home, to help to give pupils a Christian and moral upbringing, to develop their mental and physical abilities, and to give them good general knowledge so that they may become useful and independent human beings at home and in society.”

    See these links on religious charities.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10885180/Religion-makes-people-more-generous.html

    http://www.hoover.org/research/religious-faith-and-charitable-giving

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/09/skewed-study-claims-atheist-children-altruistic-religious-children/

    The problem with your link is that the study includes muslims with christians. Muslims are known to be extremely tribal.

    //God either created directly humans or set up the laws and conditions that resulted in human beings (and could have set the laws and conditions in a different way that didn’t result in any suffering). Either way God is responsible.//

    God does not create humans directly. He is the initiator of First Life, hence he is the First Cause. The way this world is set up is to provide the conditions that make it possible to reject God’s love and to accept it.

    //Yep God saw “Yeah if I decide to turn this dial a little bit then this universe will contain no natural disasters for for those poor humans nah better not hell they got “free will” anyway and if that is a good enough excuse for the president of India then it’s a good enough excuse for me.”//

    You said there is no such thing as natural evil, since only conscious beings can be evil. So what is so evil about natural disasters? And if it is so evil then why can’t Atheists prevent them?

    //So conservatives (the vast majority of whom are religious) who are pro gun, pro war, anti foreigner/outsider, anti healthcare, anti welfare and anti everything else are full of empathy are they?//

    They are not anti-everything, neither are they war mongers. You have inserted your prejudice.

    //This is like saying being more empathetic means you must be gay. (Gay men are found to be more empathetic than heterosexual men).//

    Where’s the study?

    //If God can do evil then what do you to think he actually isn’t evil?//

    God cannot do evil. That’s impossible, as it is in direct contrast to his nature.

    //You just replace “Doctor Frankenstein” with “God”.//

    God does not create monsters in a lab, prove it.

    /I didn’t say it’s the same thing I said its rooted in the brain. Just like physical pain (if that’s distinctly different from emotional pain) is also rooted in the brain.//

    I take it you concede that emotional pain is subjective and relies on the individual’s personal testimony whereas a physical injury is an objective state that can be viewed by a third party.
    And yes, there is a correlation between mental states and brain states, I admit that much.

    // Prove your Gods not evil then (since you claim he can choose evil) and prove he was not motivated by hate and sadism in his choice to create a world containing suffering.//

    What sort of proof are you looking for?

    //Because your God chose to bring them into existence (and he also knew what they would do).//

    God is the First Cause. Did those monsters come into being simultaneously with the universe? If so, then I concede God brought them into existence. But first you must prove that.

    //Double standard again. You don’t have any problem asking the president of India why he allows his citizens to starve to death but yet when I ask the same question about your God it’s a “loaded question” based on “false premises”.//

    Because that’s the president’s job and he is fully capable of performing his tasks.

  20. Phoenix says:

    //Now tell me why you think that the fertilised egg is a “human being” with rights while a unfertilised egg is not?//

    1. The fertilized human egg contains both male spermatazoon and the female oocyte. The unfertilized egg does not.

    2. The zygote has 50% dna from the mother and 50% dna from the father. The unfertilized egg does not

    3. The zygote continues to grow and develop. Unfertilized eggs do not do that on their own.

    4. The human embryo contains the full genome of the unique individual. The unfertilized egg does not have that information.

    Also check out this link that life begins at fertilization:

    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

    //You also believe God is omniscient and choose to create this universe with millions of the unborn being miscarried every year. Your God is responsible.//

    Prove that when God initiated first life, he miscarried babies at the same time.

    //Oh really you would force or want your government to force your wife to keep a rapists child inside her body? How compassionate of you.//

    The child exists at the moment of conception. Why killing it later should solve or prevent that rape is a non sequitir.

    //So who inspires the evil actions? And why God did not inspire the evil people to try to be good instead? And if you say he tried then why did he bring them into existence if he knew they would ignore him anyway?//

    God does inspire evil people to be good. There are plenty of testimonies backing that up.

  21. Steve says:

    //You don’t need to test anything – because “free will” is a non starter – it can’t be mapped onto any conceivable universe.//
    “There you have it. Your claims cannot be tested yet you believe them without doubt.” Sorry what are you talking about? Testing for free will is like trying to test – scientifically- for the existence of God or Santa.
    //You can prevent or try to prevent and lessen suffering by dealing with reality and not wasting your God praying to imaginary Gods and the souls of dead ancestors and other nonsense. Suffering exists because we live in a world that doesn’t care about us.//
    “Nice try but Atheists have a terrible reputation when it comes to charity and easing the sufferings of others. Atheists organizations are known to donate roughly $50 per month. In fact, I have it on good authority that long after the media, hollywood, Oprah and her entourage left the regions devastated by Katrina, Christian organizations stayed put until this very day, not just praying but actually lessening the sufferings of the survivors.” Nope the countries that give most in foreign – in terms of percentage of there budgets – are the most secular.
    Sweden – 1.40%
    Norway – 1.05%
    Luxembourg – 0.93%
    Denmark – 0.85%
    Netherlands – 0.76%
    United Kingdom – 0.71%
    Finland – 0.56%

    Also see this http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20111125

    //So I repeat my question. So what does a creator God do then if not actually create/design things – especially human beings?//
    “God does not create human beings. If you have any proof of any creations of God then forward it to me. God is the great law giver, such as iniating the laws of the universe, moral laws, laws of logic, law of free will, laws of mathematics.” God either created directly humans or set up the laws and conditions that resulted in human beings (and could have set the laws and conditions in a different way that didn’t result in any suffering). Either way God is responsible.
    // Like the several hundred people killed in an act of God yesterday on the popes doorstep for example.//
    “Prove to me God killed those people. You just CANNOT. Why must I believe you? Because you said so?” Yep God saw “Yeah if I decide to turn this dial a little bit then this universe will contain no natural disasters for for those poor humans nah better not hell they got “free will” anyway and if that is a good enough excuse for the president of India then it’s a good enough excuse for me.”
    //You are asking why suffering is bad? Morality comes from social needs, human psychology, empathy and reason. What is the “God given” morality based on? The whims of a cosmic saddam Husain?//
    “I have zero reason to believe any item in your list is consistent with Materialism/Naturalism. In fact, here is evidence that Atheists score incredibly low on empathy scores.
    http://blog.case.edu/think/2016/03/23/the_conflict_between_science_and_religion_lies_in_our_brains
    “Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.”” More rubbish read this https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201210/why-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont So conservatives (the vast majority of whom are religious) who are pro gun, pro war, anti foreigner/outsider, anti healthcare, anti welfare and anti everything else are full of empathy are they?

    “In a series of eight experiments, the researchers found the more empathetic the person, the more likely he or she is religious.” This is like saying being more empathetic means you must be gay. (Gay men are found to be more empathetic than heterosexual men).
    //God the creator and ruler of the universe” “The supreme being”.//
    “And this is your “proof” that God created you?” I don’t believe God. I am just showing you what everyone else understands the word God to mean.
    //If your God can do evil tell me why I should trust this being if he can lie, rape, murder and torture people?//
    “You cannot back this up. Your beliefs remain superstitious.” If God can do evil then what do you to think he actually isn’t evil?
    //A correct analogy of a scientist who does exactly the same thing you believe your God did.//
    “Analogies are not proof. They are story telling.” It’s exactly the same thing. You just replace “Doctor Frankenstein” with “God”.
    //The person is emotionally scarred – and the roots of emotions lie in the brain.//
    “Then emotional pain is equivalent to physical pain then? And your evidence?
    Once again see link:
    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/physical-and-emotional-pain-may-be-different.html” I didn’t say it’s the same thing I said its rooted in the brain. Just like physical pain (if that’s distinctly different from emotional pain) is also rooted in the brain.
    //An all loving God must choose only those who love him and who will be happy? Yes and if you don’t believe that then prove your God is not evil and a sadist.//
    “Again, how must God choose if free will is irrelevant? Choice implies the availability from 2 or more options but you only grant God one option. Your method is then based on fraud since you provide a false dichotomy.” Prove your Gods not evil then (since you claim he can choose evil) and prove he was not motivated by hate and sadism in his choice to create a world containing suffering.
    //Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussain, Muhammed, Gengis Khan and all these other monsters that have existed and being unleashed on humanity by your all loving God.//
    “Answer me this: Why must I believe you that God created those monsters? Why are your claims immune to being evidence-based? Evidence and logic is all I ask for. Is that so hard?” Because your God chose to bring them into existence (and he also knew what they would do).
    //Why did an all loving, all knowing, all powerful being bring suffering into the world when he didn’t have to?//
    “That’s a loaded question, similar to: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It’s predicated on false premises.” Double standard again. You don’t have any problem asking the president of India why he allows his citizens to starve to death but yet when I ask the same question about your God it’s a “loaded question” based on “false premises”.

  22. Steve says:

    “Your links do not work” Sorry the top link shows an unfertilised egg and the bottom link is pictures of fertilised eggs. Now tell me why you think that the fertilised egg is a “human being” with rights while a unfertilised egg is not?

    http://www.advancedfertility.com/ivf-egg-pictures.htm

    http://www.advancedfertility.com/embryos.htm

    “More BS, God did not kill a single fetus. Prove it.” You believe quote “God is the great law giver, such as iniating the laws of the universe,” You also believe God is omniscient and choose to create this universe with millions of the unborn being miscarried every year. Your God is responsible.

    //So if your wife gets raped and impregnated by some Muslim immigrant I am sure you will be happy to see your wife bear the rapists child and if she has a termination the government will prosecute your wife. I could imagine the headlines on sites such as this “Woman who was gang raped and impregnated by Muslim immigrants is ordered by the government of (insert western country of your choice) to go through with the pregnancy and warned she could face prosecution if she travels abroad for a termination”.//
    “I see no reason to counter evil with another evil act.” Oh really you would force or want your government to force your wife to keep a rapists child inside her body? How compassionate of you.
    //Protecting a women’s right to body autonomy – which is what ensures you can’t be raped or have your your organs harvested or indeed the government forcing you to carry a foetus//
    “I have shown you that your notion of body autonomy is ridiculous as it violates the body autonomy of another human being.” Right not giving your kidney to your uncle Bob is violating his body autonomy is it?
    //So what is God doing then if not just watching and deciding to do nothing?//
    “God inspires right moral action” So who inspires the evil actions? And why God did not inspire the evil people to try to be good instead? And if you say he tried then why did he bring them into existence if he knew they would ignore him anyway?

  23. Phoenix says:

    /So according to you the picture on the right is of a “human being” but the picture on the left is not a human being?//

    Your links do not work

    //You are forgetting all the miscarriages that happen before the women is even aware she is pregnant. And in any case even if it is *only* 10% that is still millions of the unborn that God kills every year.//

    More BS, God did not kill a single fetus. Prove it.

    //So if your wife gets raped and impregnated by some Muslim immigrant I am sure you will be happy to see your wife bear the rapists child and if she has a termination the government will prosecute your wife. I could imagine the headlines on sites such as this “Woman who was gang raped and impregnated by Muslim immigrants is ordered by the government of (insert western country of your choice) to go through with the pregnancy and warned she could face prosecution if she travels abroad for a termination”.//

    I see no reason to counter evil with another evil act.

    //Protecting a women’s right to body autonomy – which is what ensures you can’t be raped or have your your organs harvested or indeed the government forcing you to carry a foetus//

    I have shown you that your notion of body autonomy is ridiculous as it violates the body autonomy of another human being.

    //So what is God doing then if not just watching and deciding to do nothing?//

    God inspires right moral action

  24. Phoenix says:

    //You don’t need to test anything – because “free will” is a non starter – it can’t be mapped onto any conceivable universe.//

    There you have it. Your claims cannot be tested yet you believe them without doubt.

    //You can prevent or try to prevent and lessen suffering by dealing with reality and not wasting your God praying to imaginary Gods and the souls of dead ancestors and other nonsense. Suffering exists because we live in a world that doesn’t care about us.//

    Nice try but Atheists have a terrible reputation when it comes to charity and easing the sufferings of others. Atheists organizations are known to donate roughly $50 per month. In fact, I have it on good authority that long after the media, hollywood, Oprah and her entourage left the regions devastated by Katrina, Christian organizations stayed put until this very day, not just praying but actually lessening the sufferings of the survivors.

    //So I repeat my question. So what does a creator God do then if not actually create/design things – especially human beings?//

    God does not create human beings. If you have any proof of any creations of God then forward it to me. God is the great law giver, such as iniating the laws of the universe, moral laws, laws of logic, law of free will, laws of mathematics.

    // Like the several hundred people killed in an act of God yesterday on the popes doorstep for example.//

    Prove to me God killed those people. You just CANNOT. Why must I believe you? Because you said so?

    //You are asking why suffering is bad? Morality comes from social needs, human psychology, empathy and reason. What is the “God given” morality based on? The whims of a cosmic saddam Husain?//

    I have zero reason to believe any item in your list is consistent with Materialism/Naturalism. In fact, here is evidence that Atheists score incredibly low on empathy scores.

    http://blog.case.edu/think/2016/03/23/the_conflict_between_science_and_religion_lies_in_our_brains

    “Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.”

    //God the creator and ruler of the universe” “The supreme being”.//

    And this is your “proof” that God created you?

    //If your God can do evil tell me why I should trust this being if he can lie, rape, murder and torture people?//

    You cannot back this up. Your beliefs remain superstitious.

    //A correct analogy of a scientist who does exactly the same thing you believe your God did.//

    Analogies are not proof. They are story telling.

    //The person is emotionally scarred – and the roots of emotions lie in the brain.//

    Then emotional pain is equivalent to physical pain then? And your evidence?

    Once again see link:
    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/physical-and-emotional-pain-may-be-different.html

    //An all loving God must choose only those who love him and who will be happy? Yes and if you don’t believe that then prove your God is not evil and a sadist.//

    Again, how must God choose if free will is irrelevant? Choice implies the availability from 2 or more options but you only grant God one option. Your method is then based on fraud since you provide a false dichotomy.

    //Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussain, Muhammed, Gengis Khan and all these other monsters that have existed and being unleashed on humanity by your all loving God.//

    Answer me this: Why must I believe you that God created those monsters? Why are your claims immune to being evidence-based? Evidence and logic is all I ask for. Is that so hard?

    //Why did an all loving, all knowing, all powerful being bring suffering into the world when he didn’t have to?//

    That’s a loaded question, similar to: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It’s predicated on false premises.

  25. Steve says:

    “If it’s impossible for the universe to be in that exact previous state again then how on earth can you test your hypothesis for validity? You cannot prove something that requires an infinite number of actions. It’s called supertasking, an impossible task to execute.” You don’t need to test anything – because “free will” is a non starter – it can’t be mapped onto any conceivable universe.
    //Atheists accept the reality of those things – it just that atheist understand if you want to make the world a better place you actually have to do something – and not pray to an imaginary God.//
    “Oh really? And how does Atheism prevent natural disasters or ease the suffering in nature, etc. ? What answers can Atheism provide for the evils in the world?” You can prevent or try to prevent and lessen suffering by dealing with reality and not wasting your God praying to imaginary Gods and the souls of dead ancestors and other nonsense. Suffering exists because we live in a world that doesn’t care about us.
    //So what does your God do if he doesn’t create any thing and how is such an entity God? (As this is what everyone else means when they use the word – the creator of the universe and everything in it).//
    “It’s not that God does not create but your understanding of that creation which is egregiously false, that’s mostly predicated on caricatures of God” So I repeat my question. So what does a creator God do then if not actually create/design things – especially human beings?

  26. Steve says:

    //God brought this universe and everything in it into existence- he is also perfectly free and omniscient so he is indeed responsible for any suffering that exists. (through his choice to create this universe knowing it would contain suffering).//
    “What suffering are you referring to?” Like the several hundred people killed in an act of God yesterday on the popes doorstep for example.
    “And why is that wrong or evil given your worldview?” You are asking why suffering is bad? Morality comes from social needs, human psychology, empathy and reason. What is the “God given” morality based on? The whims of a cosmic saddam Husain?
    //God does create evil people whether directly or through using his volition to guide a natural process to bring about the existence of his creatures.//
    “And your proof for that is exactly what?” “God the creator and ruler of the universe” “The supreme being”.
    // Irrelevant an omnipotent God has the power to bring only those people he knows will freely choose to obey him into existence and not those he knows will rebel.//
    ““To bring only those people” implies exclusivity that does not involve any other option. This directly contradicts your claim about free choice.” If your God can do evil tell me why I should trust this being if he can lie, rape, murder and torture people?
    // No that’s bullshit. It’s no more plausible and logically coherent than Doctor Frankenstein (who is full of love and wants his creature to be happy and to make the world a better place) choosing to create a monster he knows will go on a killing spree and who he will be forced to hunt down and slaughter.//
    “And you haven’t demonstrated the incoherence except to use a false analogy.” A correct analogy of a scientist who does exactly the same thing you believe your God did.
    //No theft lying fraud etc all cause harm. And I have said the person running this argument doesn’t even need to buy into the concept of evil – all they have to do is point out the contradiction between an all loving God and the existence of suffering. Even WLC conceded this point. (Even though that didn’t stop him from making his “evil proves God” nonsense argument in future debates)//
    “Then prove when someone is lying or cheating , etc. then the victim is physically injured. Show me the physical scars of the consequences of those actions.” The person is emotionally scarred – and the roots of emotions lie in the brain.
    // It’s not relevant because an omnipotent being could have chosen to bring only those free creatures who he knew would freely choose to love him and other humans and not create those people who cause suffering.//
    “More contradictory logic: Free will is irrelevant but then God must choose only those who freely love him. What???” An all loving God must choose only those who love him and who will be happy? Yes and if you don’t believe that then prove your God is not evil and a sadist.
    //He certainly did. He choose to bring the evil people into existence- knowing what they would do. Therefore he is responsible for the harm they cause – just like if a prison lets a dangerous criminal on to the streets they are responsible for the harm he causes.//
    “I’m still waiting for the evidence. Just one evil person God created and set him loose.” Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussain, Muhammed, Gengis Khan and all these other monsters that have existed and being unleashed on humanity by your all loving God.
    //The judge didn’t choose to bring those criminals into existence ,,,”
    “Exactly and neither did God.” Except he did – since he choose to bring them into existence.
    // Only because you can’t answer it.//
    “And you reply with another tu quoque fallacy. Obviously logic and rational thinking means nothing to you.” Why did an all loving, all knowing, all powerful being bring suffering into the world when he didn’t have to?

  27. Steve says:

    “You should really crack open an embryology text book to see how fetuses are formed. Besides, the consensus amongst biologists are that the human is born at the fertilisation of the egg.

    {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252
    {\fonttbl}
    {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;}
    }

    So according to you the picture on the right is of a “human being” but the picture on the left is not a human being?

    “Bullshit. I have proven that more fetuses are killed via abortion than fetuses that die of miscarriage.” You are forgetting all the miscarriages that happen before the women is even aware she is pregnant. And in any case even if it is *only* 10% that is still millions of the unborn that God kills every year.

    “That’s completely beside the point, either you provide proof for your assertions but you do not get to make up your own claims.” So what does a creator God do then if not actually create/design things – especially human beings?
    Now I didn’t only half of miscarriages are due to genetic defect.//
    “That is not the point. This is the point:
    “The difference between abortion and miscarriages is that the latter occurs due to some abnormality but pre-born babies killed by abortions are mostly healthy.”
    Now disprove that.” Disprove what? That your God creates malformed human beings for no reason (since they are never even born)?
    // Your link says abortions account for around 25% of all pregnancies. Your other link says miscarriages account for about half that number but as I said the real figure is probably at least several times higher because miscarriages can happen so early that the women never realised she was pregnant.//
    “Either link doesn’t matter because both agree that most pre-borns deaths are due to abortions rather than miscarriages.” Which is not taking into account that most miscarriages happen very early – before the women is even aware.
    //Termination is also a option and since it is her body it her choice.//
    “But it is an evil option.” So if your wife gets raped and impregnated by some Muslim immigrant I am sure you will be happy to see your wife bear the rapists child and if she has a termination the government will prosecute your wife. I could imagine the headlines on sites such as this “Woman who was gang raped and impregnated by Muslim immigrants is ordered by the government of (insert western country of your choice) to go through with the pregnancy and warned she could face prosecution if she travels abroad for a termination”.
    //In principle its the same issue you believe the government has the right to control a women’s body by force this in principle is no different to rape or organ harvesting.//
    “Protecting an innocent life is the same as rape? That’s pure desperation because you’ve encountered the limits of your rationalizations.” Protecting a women’s right to body autonomy – which is what ensures you can’t be raped or have your your organs harvested or indeed the government forcing you to carry a foetus.
    //So a fertilised egg doesn’t have any more consciousness/sentience than an sperm. A fertilised egg is just one step closer than a sperm to being a conscious being – but itself is not a conscious being.//
    “Bullshit. Your “one step” omits an entire intricate and complex process. With your reasoning everyhting is just one step closer to being a human being, even a toaster.” Bullshit see the picture above does the picture on the right look any more conscious than the picture on the left?
    //So God just sits back on his couch – in his omnipotence of course – watching the earth channel swigging back a beer while millions of the unborn are miscarried and he can’t be bothered to press a button on his remote which could stop all of those deaths I suppose?//
    “Straw Man, false analogy, red herring.” So what is God doing then if not just watching and deciding to do nothing?

  28. Phoenix says:

    //Killing you – even while you are asleep- is not the same as “killing” a fertilised egg that has no consciousness, no sentience and no personality. While you have all three of those things an fertilised egg has neither. And if you say it has the potential to become a conscious being then so does a sperm and an unfertilised egg and by rights if someone destroys a sperm or unfertilised egg it should also be classed the same as killing a fully functional human being.//

    You should really crack open an embryology text book to see how fetuses are formed. Besides, the consensus amongst biologists are that the human is born at the fertilization of the egg.

    //Alright then the figure is *officially* around 10-20-25% but the actual figure may be many times higher – because the miscarriage happened so early that the woman never even realised she was ever pregnant.//

    Bullshit. I have proven that more fetuses are killed via abortion than fetuses that die of miscarriage.

    //So who designed human biology if not God? Either God directly created/designed human beings or he set up and “guided” the process of evolution in either case God is responsible for the faults present in human biology. Now if you don’t believe in either of those and since you are not a deist what the hell does your God do and what use is he?//

    That’s completely beside the point, either you provide proof for your assertions but you do not get to make up your own claims.

    //Now I didn’t only half of miscarriages are due to genetic defect.//

    That is not the point. This is the point:

    “The difference between abortion and miscarriages is that the latter occurs due to some abnormality but pre-born babies killed by abortions are mostly healthy.”

    Now disprove that.

    // Your link says abortions account for around 25% of all pregnancies. Your other link says miscarriages account for about half that number but as I said the real figure is probably at least several times higher because miscarriages can happen so early that the women never realised she was pregnant.//

    Either link doesn’t matter because both agree that most pre-borns deaths are due to abortions rather than miscarriages.

    //Termination is also a option and since it is her body it her choice.//

    But it is an evil option.

    //In principle its the same issue you believe the government has the right to control a women’s body by force this in principle is no different to rape or organ harvesting.//

    Protecting an innocent life is the same as rape? That’s pure desperation because you’ve encountered the limits of your rationalizations.

    //So a fertilised egg doesn’t have any more consciousness/sentience than an sperm. A fertilised egg is just one step closer than a sperm to being a conscious being – but itself is not a conscious being.//

    Bullshit. Your “one step” omits an entire intricate and complex process. With your reasoning everyhting is just one step closer to being a human being, even a toaster.

    //So God just sits back on his couch – in his omnipotence of course – watching the earth channel swigging back a beer while millions of the unborn are miscarried and he can’t be bothered to press a button on his remote which could stop all of those deaths I suppose?//

    Strawman, false analogy, red herring.

  29. Phoenix says:

    If it doesn’t exist independently of biology then how can the existence of emotional pain be evidence of dualism?//

    The discussion is first and foremost regarding functional dependence not existential dependence. Yes, the mind and its subjective aspects do rely on the brain and body to execute its objectives. The existential independence of the mind is a different issue.

    //God brought this universe and everything in it into existence- he is also perfectly free and omniscient so he is indeed responsible for any suffering that exists. (through his choice to create this universe knowing it would contain suffering).//

    What suffering are you referring to? And why is that wrong or evil given your worldview?

    //God does create evil people whether directly or through using his volition to guide a natural process to bring about the existence of his creatures.//

    And your proof for that is exactly what?

    // Irrelevant an omnipotent God has the power to bring only those people he knows will freely choose to obey him into existence and not those he knows will rebel.//

    “To bring only those people” implies exclusivity that does not involve any other option. This directly contradicts your claim about free choice.

    // No that’s bullshit. It’s no more plausible and logically coherent than Doctor Frankenstein (who is full of love and wants his creature to be happy and to make the world a better place) choosing to create a monster he knows will go on a killing spree and who he will be forced to hunt down and slaughter.//

    And you haven’t demonstrated the incoherence except to use a false analogy.

    //No theft lying fraud etc all cause harm. And I have said the person running this argument doesn’t even need to buy into the concept of evil – all they have to do is point out the contradiction between an all loving God and the existence of suffering. Even WLC conceded this point. (Even though that didn’t stop him from making his “evil proves God” nonsense argument in future debates)//

    Then prove when someone is lying or cheating , etc. then the victim is physically injured. Show me the physical scars of the consequences of those actions.

    // It’s not relevant because an omnipotent being could have chosen to bring only those free creatures who he knew would freely choose to love him and other humans and not create those people who cause suffering.//

    More contradictory logic: Free will is irrelevant but then God must choose only those who freely love him. What???

    //He certainly did. He choose to bring the evil people into existence- knowing what they would do. Therefore he is responsible for the harm they cause – just like if a prison lets a dangerous criminal on to the streets they are responsible for the harm he causes.//

    I’m still waiting for the evidence. Just one evil person God created and set him loose.

    //The judge didn’t choose to bring those criminals into existence ,,,”

    Exactly and neither did God.

    // Only because you can’t answer it.//

    And you reply with another tu quoque fallacy. Obviously logic and rational thinking means nothing to you.

  30. Phoenix says:

    //The main reason why philosophers reject CCFW is because either your choice – to be an act of volition – needs to grounded in a reason. And the reason must either be the product of prior causes – in which case you didn’t choose it or it is the product of randomness- and you can’t choose or have any control over that obviously. Given that the concept of “free will” is completely incoherent. In addition it is impossible for the universe to ever be in exactly the same state ever again anyway so it would simply then be the pragmatic issue of whether you can “choose” something different in very similar circumstances.//

    If it’s impossible for the universe to be in that exact previous state again then how on earth can you test your hypothesis for validity? You cannot prove something that requires an infinite number of actions. It’s called supertasking, an impossible task to execute.

    //Atheists accept the reality of those things – it just that atheist understand if you want to make the world a better place you actually have to do something – and not pray to an imaginary God.//

    Oh really? And how does Atheism prevent natural disasters or ease the suffering in nature, etc. ? What answers can Atheism provide for the evils in the world?

    //So what does your God do if he doesn’t create any thing and how is such an entity God? (As this is what everyone else means when they use the word – the creator of the universe and everything in it).//

    It’s not that God does not create but your understanding of that creation which is egregiously false, that’s mostly predicated on caricatures of God

  31. Steve says:

    //It doesn’t say that “emotional pain” exists independently of biology therefore you speaking nonsense.//
    “Who said anything about biology? You are once more inventing your own discussions.” If it doesn’t exist independently of biology then how can the existence of emotional pain be evidence of dualism?
    //No this is nonsense not only is he omnipotent he is also all loving. Since he is all loving he would not create a world with suffering.//
    “This statement contains a presupposition fallacy, as it implies God created suffering. I do not believe that.” God brought this universe and everything in it into existence- he is also perfectly free and omniscient so he is indeed responsible for any suffering that exists. (through his choice to create this universe knowing it would contain suffering).
    //You are bringing up free will again – which is completely irrelevant to this argument. God would on one hand have 1) all the humans who will freely choose to love him and each other. 2)All the humans that will freely choose to cause suffering and whom God knew he would also have to send to hell as well. Now an omnipotent being which is also all loving would say “better create only those people who will freely choose to love and be peaceful and who will want to join me in heaven for eternity and not create those who cause hate and conflict among my beloved children and who would rather go to hell forever than have a relationship with me”//
    God does not send people to hell. Hell is a choice that people know how to avoid and a natural consequence of living an immoral life. And no, hell is not forever.
    //Yet if I replaced “God” with “Doctor Frankenstein ” who has the power to create living beings equipped with free will you would have no problem with it. 1) Doctor Frankenstein has the power to create new life with the capacity of making free choices. 2)…//

    “A very long straw man analogy. In your analogy, Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster in a lab who then takes revenge. Your analogy is off base because God did not create any evil people. You have a very naive and outdated concept of God.” God does create evil people whether directly or through using his volition to guide a natural process to bring about the existence of his creatures.

    //He is not the perfect metric for good. Reason tells us – that given the existence of suffering- your God either doesn’t exist, is evil, indifferent or incompetent such a being cannot be the metric for good and the moral yardstick for human beings.//
    Nope, you have certainly not used reason.
    “1. God has bequeathed humans with free will. This freedom entails the ability to rebel and making choices contrary to God’s nature, which is defined as evil and the consequences of making those choices.” Irrelevant an omnipotent God has the power to bring only those people he knows will freely choose to obey him into existence and not those he knows will rebel.
    “You may not like that idea, given your dogmatic faith in Materialism but you have not shown any contradiction in that concept. Therefore it is plausible and logically coherent.” No that’s bullshit. It’s no more plausible and logically coherent than Doctor Frankenstein (who is full of love and wants his creature to be happy and to make the world a better place) choosing to create a monster he knows will go on a killing spree and who he will be forced to hunt down and slaughter.
    “2. You still haven’t proven that evil exists in a purely Materialist realm, instead you defined evil as intentionally causing (physical) harm and by implication permitted a host of evils your worldview cannot account for, such as theft, lying, fraud,lewd acts, indecent exposure, cheating on a loved one, embezzlement, racketeering, abortion etc. Your moral theory boils down to the fact that if someone is not aware he or she is being harmed then it is permissible. This is why you cannot fathom the evil of abortion.” No theft lying fraud etc all cause harm. And I have said the person running this argument doesn’t even need to buy into the concept of evil – all they have to do is point out the contradiction between an all loving God and the existence of suffering. Even WLC conceded this point. (Even though that didn’t stop him from making his “evil proves God” nonsense argument in future debates)

    //.Free will is also is completely irrelevant to the argument.//
    “Free will can only be irrelevant when you disprove it, not simply because you’re uncomfortable with it.” It’s not relevant because an omnipotent being could have chosen to bring only those free creatures who he knew would freely choose to love him and other humans and not create those people who cause suffering.
    //And God had the capacity to create a world with no suffering in the first place.//
    “God did not create a world with suffering in it. You need to update your knowledge on God.” He certainly did. He choose to bring the evil people into existence- knowing what they would do. Therefore he is responsible for the harm they cause – just like if a prison lets a dangerous criminal on to the streets they are responsible for the harm he causes.

    //God also freely choose to create this universe and human beings. You also claim he is the ultimate moral authority but yet your authority has zero responsibilities while a human president does?//
    “Really? Is a judge responsible for the’ actions of the criminals he judges? That’s absurd.” The judge didn’t choose to bring those criminals into existence nor is he omnipotent or omniscient.
    //I could ask the same of your omnipotent, omniscient, all loving God who freely choose to create a universe containing suffering instead of one containing no suffering. So Really? What are those reasons?//
    “Tu quoque fallacy. Not a rational response.” Only because you can’t answer it.

  32. Steve says:

    //It depends what is meant by “free will”. If you mean contra causal free will then no but then again CCFW is a completely incoherent and nonsensical concept to begin with – indeed many philosophers have argued that any “free will” worth wanting actually REQUIRES determinism.//
    “The philosophers who object to contra causal free will, do so on the grounds of it supposedly violates scientific laws, specifically the Principle of Causal Closure but that is in itself not an actual scientific law as much as it is a metaphysical principle. So the objections forwarded as evidence is actually question begging because they need to first prove that PCC is empirically valid.” The main reason why philosophers reject CCFW is because either your choice – to be an act of volition – needs to grounded in a reason. And the reason must either be the product of prior causes – in which case you didn’t choose it or it is the product of randomness- and you can’t choose or have any control over that obviously. Given that the concept of “free will” is completely incoherent. In addition it is impossible for the universe to ever be in exactly the same state ever again anyway so it would simply then be the pragmatic issue of whether you can “choose” something different in very similar circumstances.
    // If they did they wouldn’t believe in religious fairy tales.//
    “And yet it is Atheists who cannot accept the reality of natural disasters, entropy, good and evil, death, free will, etc.” Atheists accept the reality of those things – it just that atheist understand if you want to make the world a better place you actually have to do something – and not pray to an imaginary God.
    //And where did biology come from? Ultimately it came from or was designed by God – since you believe God is the “first cause” of the universe.//
    “And your proof of that is exactly what? I said so? Where?” So what does your God do if he doesn’t create any thing and how is such an entity God? (As this is what everyone else means when they use the word – the creator of the universe and everything in it).

  33. Steve says:

    //I already explained why this is wrong yet you still repeat it.//
    “No you haven’t. you keep bringing up unfertilized eggs instead. A complete diversion to the point being made, which is that the fertilized egg inside the mother is human and nothing less.” Killing you – even while you are asleep- is not the same as “killing” a fertilised egg that has no consciousness, no sentience and no personality. While you have all three of those things an fertilised egg has neither. And if you say it has the potential to become a conscious being then so does a sperm and an unfertilised egg and by rights if someone destroys a sperm or unfertilised egg it should also be classed the same as killing a fully functional human being.
    “1. Your WIKI link has zero proof, yet it claims to be a scientific study. Where is the scientific paper? Anyone can modify wiki” Alright then the figure is *officially* around 10-20-25% but the actual figure may be many times higher – because the miscarriage happened so early that the woman never even realised she was ever pregnant.

    “2. Prove that God murdered those babies. Of course you can’t and yet you continue to believe something without a shred of proof.” So who designed human biology if not God? Either God directly created/designed human beings or he set up and “guided” the process of evolution in either case God is responsible for the faults present in human biology. Now if you don’t believe in either of those and since you are not a deist what the hell does your God do and what use is he?

    Me: “The difference between abortion and miscarriages is that the latter occurs due to some abnormality but pre-born babies killed by abortions are mostly healthy./”
    You: “Wrong “Genetic: In about half of all early miscarriages, the baby does not develop normally right from the start and cannot survive.”//
    “How is that any different from what I wrote? You agreed with me.” Now I didn’t only half of miscarriages are due to genetic defect.
    ———-
    Me: ““Conclusion: Abortions are the biggest threat to the baby in the womb.”
    You: Wrong.//
    “I provided evidence that abortions occur more frequently than miscarriages and your only response is: “Wrong”. Too bad, you have demonstrated once again that your worldview does not value evidence and logic.” Your link says abortions account for around 25% of all pregnancies. Your other link says miscarriages account for about half that number but as I said the real figure is probably at least several times higher because miscarriages can happen so early that the women never realised she was pregnant.

    //Yep even if she is a teenage girl who has been raped and impregnated she can’t have an abortion. How compassionate of you, will you also take care of the child and pay for it once it is born? (Because the mother is not going to want a child it). Or does your “pro life” stance end as soon as the child is born?//
    “Believe it or not but there are other options besides killing the pre-born. Besides, most aborted fetuses are not from raped victims.” Termination is also a option and since it is her body it her choice.
    ———
    Me: “The mother has to live with the consequences of her choices, even if the consequence poses an inconvenience for her. Revoking that permission is immoral if it means someone has to die. ”
    You: Wrong because your wife or girlfriend has consented to sex with you in the past doesn’t give you right to intercourse with out consent.//
    “And the discussion continues further into the depth of absurdity. Your statement above does not address mine. It addresses a completely different issue.” In principle its the same issue you believe the government has the right to control a women’s body by force this in principle is no different to rape or organ harvesting.

    //So you shouldn’t have a problem with the government kidnapping you and harvesting your organs to save your uncle bobs life then?//
    “False comparison. My human rights would be violated just as the right s of the fetus is being violated.” The mother has a human right to body autonomy also and as I have explained many times now body autonomy trumps a persons right to life. This is why abortion is not a moral issue.

    // It only has the potential for consciousness – just like a sperm or unfertilised has the potential to develop sentience and consciousness. But sperms are not part of the moral sphere for the same reason fertilised eggs aren’t.//
    “Sperm and unfertilized eggs on their own never ever develop consciousness, that is a red herring.” Neither does a fertilised egg.
    “Only when the sperm and the ovum unite do they form a new organism that gives rise to consciousness.” So a fertilised egg doesn’t have any more consciousness/sentience than an sperm. A fertilised egg is just one step closer than a sperm to being a conscious being – but itself is not a conscious being.

    “Does that scenario in anyway imply that it is okay to kill girls when they become an inconvenience?” The issue is not whether the child is regarded as an inconvenience or not by the mother the question is 1)Does the mother have a right over her own body? And 2 does the foetus have any rights and even if it does, does it have a right to use its mothers body without her consent? The answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second is that before the foetus develops any consciousness/sentience is has no moral right whatsoever and even when it later develops “minimal consciousness” and pain awareness (and the ability to survive outside the mothers womb) it is at least debatable as to what rights it does have and if it has more rights than the mother and her wishes. (And society’s concerns at that stage about the child and what if any responsibilities society has to protect the child and provide for the needs of a potential member of society).
    //You believe that God allowing suffering is justified because this is for a “greater good”. This is the very definition of consequentialism. Interestingly you wrote above “In other words, your morals change to meet your needs. That is consequentialism”. This a perfect description of God and his “morals”. For example you claim that abortion is objective wrong but yet when God aborts millions of the unborn every year it is fully justified because it is for a “greater good”. And God is not bound by his own “objective morals” and can break them whenever he wants to.//
    “False, God has never aborted any babies and you cannot prove he has. You continue to believe in your lies without a shred of evidence. That is blind faith in Materialist dogma.” So God just sits back on his couch – in his omnipotence of course – watching the earth channel swigging back a beer while millions of the unborn are miscarried and he can’t be bothered to press a button on his remote which could stop all of those deaths I suppose?

  34. Phoenix says:

    //I already explained why this is wrong yet you still repeat it.//
    No you haven’t. you keep bringing up unfertilized eggs instead. A complete diversion to the point being made, which is that the fertilized egg inside the mother is human and nothing less.
    // Most miscarriages happen and the women is not even aware. See this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans “Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.” Now even if the figure was *only* about 10% this would still be millions of the unborn “murdered” even year – which your God doesn’t seem to have a problem with? Of course it must all be for a “greater good” (pull the other one)? Or perhaps fertilised eggs are not as important to God as they are to//
    1. Your WIKI link has zero proof, yet it claims to be a scientific study. Where is the scientific paper? Anyone can modify wiki
    2. Prove that God murdered those babies. Of course you can’t and yet you continue to believe something without a shred of proof.
    Me: “The difference between abortion and miscarriages is that the latter occurs due to some abnormality but pre-born babies killed by abortions are mostly healthy./”
    You: “Wrong “Genetic: In about half of all early miscarriages, the baby does not develop normally right from the start and cannot survive.”//
    How is that any different from what I wrote? You agreed with me.
    ———-
    Me: ““Conclusion: Abortions are the biggest threat to the baby in the womb.”
    You: Wrong.//
    I provided evidence that abortions occur more frequently than miscarriages and your only response is: “Wrong”. Too bad, you have demonstrated once again that your worldview does not value evidence and logic.
    //Yep even if she is a teenage girl who has been raped and impregnated she can’t have an abortion. How compassionate of you, will you also take care of the child and pay for it once it is born? (Because the mother is not going to want a child it). Or does your “pro life” stance end as soon as the child is born?//
    Believe it or not but there are other options besides killing the pre-born. Besides, most aborted fetuses are not from raped victims.
    ———
    Me: “The mother has to live with the consequences of her choices, even if the consequence poses an inconvenience for her. Revoking that permission is immoral if it means someone has to die. ”
    You: Wrong because your wife or girlfriend has consented to sex with you in the past doesn’t give you right to intercourse with out consent.//
    And the discussion continues further into the depth of absurdity. Your statement above does not address mine. It addresses a completely different issue.
    //So you shouldn’t have a problem with the government kidnapping you and harvesting your organs to save your uncle bobs life then?//
    False comparison. My human rights would be violated just as the right s of the fetus is being violated.
    // It only has the potential for consciousness – just like a sperm or unfertilised has the potential to develop sentience and consciousness. But sperms are not part of the moral sphere for the same reason fertilised eggs aren’t.//
    Sperm and unfertilized eggs on their own never ever develop consciousness, that is a red herring. Only when the sperm and the ovum unite do they form a new organism that gives rise to consciousness.
    //Yep even in the case that the baby could kill the mother – if the pregnancy continues -or that it will be born with a severe disability this is just changes our morals on a whim isn’t it to suit our needs?//
    The goal should always to save both humans, however I am aware that sometimes that is not always possible. But I fail to see how such a rare scenario validates abortion.
    Here’s another example: If you had twins (boy and a girl) both needed a heart transplant but you’re their only match. Which ever one you give the heart to means the other must die. However, you decide to give your heart to your boy. Does that scenario in anyway imply that it is okay to kill girls when they become an inconvenience?

    Of course it doesn’t.

    //You believe that God allowing suffering is justified because this is for a “greater good”. This is the very definition of consequentialism. Interestingly you wrote above “In other words, your morals change to meet your needs. That is consequentialism”. This a perfect description of God and his “morals”. For example you claim that abortion is objective wrong but yet when God aborts millions of the unborn every year it is fully justified because it is for a “greater good”. And God is not bound by his own “objective morals” and can break them whenever he wants to.//

    False, God has never aborted any babies and you cannot prove he has. You continue to believe in your lies without a shred of evidence. That is blind faith in Materialist dogma.

  35. Phoenix says:

    //It depends what is meant by “free will”. If you mean contra causal free will then no but then again CCFW is a completely incoherent and nonsensical concept to begin with – indeed many philosophers have argued that any “free will” worth wanting actually REQUIRES determinism.//
    The philosophers who object to contra causal free will, do so on the grounds of it supposedly violates scientific laws, specifically the Principle of Causal Closure but that is in itself not an actual scientific law as much as it is a metaphysical principle. So the objections forwarded as evidence is actually question begging because they need to first prove that PCC is empirically valid.

    // If they did they wouldn’t believe in religious fairy tales.//
    And yet it is Atheists who cannot accept the reality of natural disasters, entropy, good and evil, death, free will, etc.

    // Naturalistic fallacy again which I have caught you out on now at least 3 or 4 times repeating the same fallacy.//

    It is only a naturalistic fallacy if I appeal to nature for my moral values. Nowhere have I done that. So your charge to fallacy is false.

    //And where did biology come from? Ultimately it came from or was designed by God – since you believe God is the “first cause” of the universe.//

    And your proof of that is exactly what? I said so? Where?

  36. Phoenix says:

    //It doesn’t say that “emotional pain” exists independently of biology therefore you speaking nonsense.//

    Who said anything about biology? You are once more inventing your own discussions.

    //No this is nonsense not only is he omnipotent he is also all loving. Since he is all loving he would not create a world with suffering.//

    This statement contains a presupposition fallacy, as it implies God created suffering. I do not believe that.

    //You are bringing up free will again – which is completely irrelevant to this argument. God would on one hand have 1) all the humans who will freely choose to love him and each other. 2)All the humans that will freely choose to cause suffering and whom God knew he would also have to send to hell as well. Now an omnipotent being which is also all loving would say “better create only those people who will freely choose to love and be peaceful and who will want to join me in heaven for eternity and not create those who cause hate and conflict among my beloved children and who would rather go to hell forever than have a relationship with me”//
    God does not send people to hell. Hell is a choice that people know how to avoid and a natural consequence of living an immoral life. And no, hell is not forever.
    //Yet if I replaced “God” with “Doctor Frankenstein ” who has the power to create living beings equipped with free will you would have no problem with it. 1) Doctor Frankenstein has the power to create new life with the capacity of making free choices. 2)…//
    A very long straw man analogy. In your analogy, Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster in a lab who then takes revenge. Your analogy is off base because God did not create any evil people. You have a very naive and outdated concept of God.
    //He is not the perfect metric for good. Reason tells us – that given the existence of suffering- your God either doesn’t exist, is evil, indifferent or incompetent such a being cannot be the metric for good and the moral yardstick for human beings.//
    Nope, you have certainly not used reason.
    1. God has bequeathed humans with free will. This freedom entails the ability to rebel and making choices contrary to God’s nature, which is defined as evil and the consequences of making those choices.
    You may not like that idea, given your dogmatic faith in Materialism but you have not shown any contradiction in that concept. Therefore it is plausible and logically coherent.
    2. You still haven’t proven that evil exists in a purely Materialist realm, instead you defined evil as intentionally causing (physical) harm and by implication permitted a host of evils your worldview cannot account for, such as theft, lying, fraud,lewd acts, indecent exposure, cheating on a loved one, embezzlement, racketeering, abortion etc. Your moral theory boils down to the fact that if someone is not aware he or she is being harmed then it is permissible. This is why you cannot fathom the evil of abortion.
    //.Free will is also is completely irrelevant to the argument.//
    Free will can only be irrelevant when you disprove it, not simply because you’re uncomfortable with it.
    //And God had the capacity to create a world with no suffering in the first place.//
    God did not create a world with suffering in it. You need to update your knowledge on God.
    //God also freely choose to create this universe and human beings. You also claim he is the ultimate moral authority but yet your authority has zero responsibilities while a human president does?//
    Really? Is a judge responsible for the’ actions of the criminals he judges? That’s absurd.
    //I could ask the same of your omnipotent, omniscient, all loving God who freely choose to create a universe containing suffering instead of one containing no suffering. So Really? What are those reasons?//

    Tu quoque fallacy. Not a rational response.

  37. Steve says:

    //The link doesn’t say that “emotional pain” is not rooted in biology and therefore is irrelevant.//
    “My link makes a clear distinction between emotional pain and physical pain. You refuse to recognize this because it contradicts your Materialist beliefs.” It doesn’t say that “emotional pain” exists independently of biology therefore you speaking nonsense.
    // Except I did. But here it for you
    (a) that being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;//
    Still does not meet the criterion for actual disciplined logic, as I bet you cannot even name the format of the so-called deductive argument you provided. But I’ll take it on anyway: So the first premise asserts the definition. I have no quarrels with that…but…
    //(b) that being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and//
    “There is no transitive link from the first to the second premise. It simply does not follow that an omnipotent being must have created a world where evil could not have existed. If he is omnipotent then he is able to do it. Your distress at reality does nothing to diminish the deity’s power to create a world where his love can be rejected or freely accepted.” No this is nonsense not only is he omnipotent he is also all loving. Since he is all loving he would not create a world with suffering.
    //(c) that by virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.//
    “This premise is internally incoherent for the following reason: It contains a fallacy of Assumptive Thinking by assuming the deity’s intention was to create a world where humans are perfect automatons and then failed to achieve the objective. You must prove that was God’s intention, where a world contains no free will and agency to deal with evil versus good and no spiritual growth by facing life’s challenges, failure and obstacles.” You are bringing up free will again – which is completely irrelevant to this argument. God would on one hand have 1) all the humans who will freely choose to love him and each other. 2)All the humans that will freely choose to cause suffering and whom God knew he would also have to send to hell as well. Now an omnipotent being which is also all loving would say “better create only those people who will freely choose to love and be peaceful and who will want to join me in heaven for eternity and not create those who cause hate and conflict among my beloved children and who would rather go to hell forever than have a relationship with me”.

    //Conclusion:Since evil exists, an omniscient, omnipotent God who is also perfectly good, does not.//
    “Since your argument contains no recognizable structure that would suffice to render your argument invalid. Regarding your premises, it contains no truth statements except straw men and wishful thinking.” Yet if I replaced “God” with “Doctor Frankenstein ” who has the power to create living beings equipped with free will you would have no problem with it. 1) Doctor Frankenstein has the power to create new life with the capacity of making free choices. 2) Doctor Frankenstein is also omniscient or near omniscient (like God) and can predict what free choices his creatures will make. 3) Doctor Frankenstein can choose to create a creature he knows will choose to obey his orders or he can choose to create a creature he knows will be full of hate and will go on a killing rampage and he will have to hunt down his own creation and kill him. 4) Despite this and despite the fact that like God Doctor Frankenstein loves his creations like his own children he decides to create the creature that will go on a rampage and he himself will be forced to hunt down and kill. 5) Frankenstein due to his decision to create means he is morally responsible for the suffering caused by his creature it also means that Doctor Frankenstein is either evil or incompetent and does not have (either, or) the power, foreknowledge and love that he claims to. I don’t think you have any problem with the proof offered here about Doctor Frankenstein but yet when it comes to your God it is completely different. I wonder why that is?

    “You reject the existence of God because evil exists but good also exists.And if good exists then God, who is the perfect metric for good, must exist too. ” He is not the perfect metric for good. Reason tells us – that given the existence of suffering- your God either doesn’t exist, is evil, indifferent or incompetent such a being cannot be the metric for good and the moral yardstick for human beings.

    “Furthermore, God did not create evil therefore he can’t be responsible for it. Man creates evil, unless they are puppets with no free will and agency then I would concede that God is responsible.” The omniscient Doctor Frankenstein would be responsible for the suffering caused by his creatures therefore your God is also responsible for any suffering caused by human beings (as my reasoning about Dr Frankenstein shows and this applies to your God as well.) Free will is also is completely irrelevant to the argument.

    //Just like God does or better yet he could have created a universe containing no suffering in the first place.//
    “The world does have the capacity to contain no evil. It’s up to us to evolve to that stage.” And God had the capacity to create a world with no suffering in the first place.
    // This is same as the leader saying he is not responsible for what his citizens do and they create their own problems – and he has no responsibility towards his country and the people.//
    “False comparison. Presidents are elected by the people to solve the country’s problems. The president freely chose that position therefore he is responsible for his people.” God also freely choose to create this universe and human beings. You also claim he is the ultimate moral authority but yet your authority has zero responsibilities while a human president does?
    // Just like the president of India has superior reasons for allowing millions of people to starve to death no doubt!//
    “Really? What are those reasons?” I could ask the same of your omnipotent, omniscient, all loving God who freely choose to create a universe containing suffering instead of one containing no suffering. So Really? What are those reasons?

  38. Steve says:

    /Well the notion of God you are presenting is nothing but a weakling imposter compared to the omnipotent God of the Muslims and Hindus. Muslims, Calvinists etc also believe “predestination” is compatible with the “free will” also.//
    “If you could logically demonstrate that determinism and free will are compatible and coherent then I would concede the argument. But you have not, you merely assert that to be the case.” It depends what is meant by “free will”. If you mean contra causal free will then no but then again CCFW is a completely incoherent and nonsensical concept to begin with – indeed many philosophers have argued that any “free will” worth wanting actually REQUIRES determinism.
    //Eh no we was speaking only of religious people/groups and not atheist groups – so that’s why I didn’t refer to the likes of anarchists, Marxists etc.//
    This is what you said:”…Now the average religious person is just ignorant of reality and the best and easiest thing is simply not to let their delusions have any influence on the running of society…”
    “1. Your assertion is baseless, as you have yet to prove that religious people do understand reality.” If they did they wouldn’t believe in religious fairy tales.
    “2. The inverse is true, as you have demonstrated countless times here on these forums that you cannot accept the nature of reality, with all the natural disasters,evil, suffering in nature, etc. You wish it were completely different, an Atheist style utopia.” Naturalistic fallacy again which I have caught you out on now at least 3 or 4 times repeating the same fallacy.

  39. Steve says:

    //Do you believe God acts with intention and purpose or not? Simple question//
    “Of course, God is a rational agent.” So then God knew this universe would contain suffering (if he decided to create it)?
    //No guided or “theistic evolution” at least claims to be compatible with both creation and evolution. So that was my point here regardless of whether you believe in creationism (as in direct creation by God,) or that God guided the process of evolution to bring about human beings God is responsible for the faulty genes//
    “Straw man /red herring, I made know such claims. Biology tells me the origins of faulty genes, genetic mutations, inherited disorders, chromosomal disorders, etc. I do not need Evolution for that.” And where did biology come from? Ultimately it came from or was designed by God – since you believe God is the “first cause” of the universe.

  40. Steve says:

    . “With this logic, morality applies to animals and insects and does not apply to anyone who is momentarily unconscious. The fertilized egg inside a mother is human, it cannot be anything else.” I already explained why this is wrong yet you still repeat it.
    // It is not developed.//
    “It’s developing, just as infants, children and teens are still developing too but does not give us the right to murder them.” A fertilised egg doesn’t have any consciousness or sentience at all – regardless that it may later develop consciousness/sentience.
    // I was showing you how a fertilised egg could – and in most cases – does not develop into a conscious being.//
    1. False, the number of abortions increased to 56 million a year, that’s more than one quarter of all pregnancies worldwide.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36266873
    2.Miscarriages on the other hand 13% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
    https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2014/new-study-finds-40-pregnancies-worldwide-are-unintended
    3. Abortions are 1% higher in the U.S, than miscarriages.
    http://time.com/4144897/birth-rate-abortion-miscarriage/” Most miscarriages happen and the women is not even aware. See this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans “Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.” Now even if the figure was *only* about 10% this would still be millions of the unborn “murdered” even year – which your God doesn’t seem to have a problem with? Of course it must all be for a “greater good” (pull the other one)? Or perhaps fertilised eggs are not as important to God as they are to you?
    “4. The difference between abortion and miscarriages is that the latter occurs to some abnormality but pre-born babies killed by abortions are mostly healthy.” Wrong “Genetic: In about half of all early miscarriages, the baby does not develop normally right from the start and cannot survive.” http://www.miscarriageassociation.org.uk/information/causes-tests-and-treatment/

    Also your “all loving” God brought a human being into the world – even though he knew it wouldn’t survive and had an abnormality how nice of him!

    “5. Conclusion: Abortions are the biggest threat to the baby in the womb.” Wrong.
    //So you reject abortion even in cases where 1)The mother has been raped. 2)The mothers health or life is at risk 3) The foetus has a severe disability or health problem. Because in all of those cases we have to relay on “moral opinion” to come to a judgement also//
    “No human has the right to deny another innocent human her right to life, period.” Yep even if she is a teenage girl who has been raped and impregnated she can’t have an abortion. How compassionate of you, will you also take care of the child and pay for it once it is born? (Because the mother is not going to want a child it). Or does your “pro life” stance end as soon as the child is born?
    //This is your position once the foetus is there the mother has no right to withdraw her permission correct?//
    “The mother has to live with the consequences of her choices, even if the consequence poses an inconvenience for her. Revoking that permission is immoral if it means someone has to die. ” Wrong because your wife or girlfriend has consented to sex with you in the past doesn’t give you right to intercourse with out consent.
    //1)The mothers body is being used.//
    “Still not an acceptable excuse to murder.” So you shouldn’t have a problem with the government kidnapping you and harvesting your organs to save your uncle bobs life then?
    2) The foetus is not sentient or conscious anyway and//
    “The fetus is human, alive and in the process of developing consciousness.” It only has the potential for consciousness – just like a sperm or unfertilised has the potential to develop sentience and consciousness. But sperms are not part of the moral sphere for the same reason fertilised eggs aren’t.
    3) Late abortions are illegal in most countries for this reason also – unless there are mitigating circumstances.//
    “Yes, if the fetus is an inconvenience to the mother then it is legal to kill her. In other words, your morals change to meet your needs. That is consequentialism.” Yep even in the case that the baby could kill the mother – if the pregnancy continues -or that it will be born with a severe disability this is just changes our morals on a whim isn’t it to suit our needs?
    //It is in and is using her body that is what. It is there by permission – and the mother has the right to withdraw that permission//
    “Infants also use their mother’s body, per your reasoning, infanticide should be the norm.” No because by that point the child has been born, the mother – and wider society- has a moral obligation to provide for the needs of the child.
    //Which means you have just conceded God is a consequentialist which also means God cannot be the grounding for any “objective morality”//
    “You should look up consequentialism, you keep using the term incorrectly.” Eh no I don’t. “Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theoriesholding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. It is the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.” You believe that God allowing suffering is justified because this is for a “greater good”. This is the very definition of consequentialism. Interestingly you wrote above “In other words, your morals change to meet your needs. That is consequentialism”. This a perfect description of God and his “morals”. For example you claim that abortion is objective wrong but yet when God aborts millions of the unborn every year it is fully justified because it is for a “greater good”. And God is not bound by his own “objective morals” and can break them whenever he wants to.

  41. Phoenix says:

    This is my last post:

    With this logic, morality applies to animals and insects and does not apply to anyone who is momentarily unconscious. The fertilized egg inside a mother is human, it cannot be anything else.

    // It is not developed.//

    It’s developing, just as infants, children and teens are still developing too but does not give us the right to murder them.

    // I was showing you how a fertilised egg could – and in most cases – does not develop into a conscious being.//

    1. False, the number of abortions increased to 56 million a year, that’s more than one quarter of all pregnancies worldwide.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36266873

    2.Miscarriages on the other hand 13% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
    https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2014/new-study-finds-40-pregnancies-worldwide-are-unintended

    3. Abortions are 1% higher in the U.S, than miscarriages.
    http://time.com/4144897/birth-rate-abortion-miscarriage/

    4. The difference between abortion and miscarriages is that the latter occurs to some abnormality but pre-born babies killed by abortions are mostly healthy.

    5. Conclusion: Abortions are the biggest threat to the baby in the womb.

    //So you reject abortion even in cases where 1)The mother has been raped. 2)The mothers health or life is at risk 3) The foetus has a severe disability or health problem. Because in all of those cases we have to relay on “moral opinion” to come to a judgement also//

    No human has the right to deny another innocent human her right to life, period.

    //This is your position once the foetus is there the mother has no right to withdraw her permission correct?//

    The mother has to live with the consequences of her choices, even if the consequence poses an inconvenience for her. Revoking that permission is immoral if it means someone has to die.

    //1)The mothers body is being used.//
    Still not an acceptable excuse to murder.

    2) The foetus is not sentient or conscious anyway and//
    The fetus is human, alive and in the process of developing consciousness.

    3) Late abortions are illegal in most countries for this reason also – unless there are mitigating circumstances.//

    Yes, if the fetus is an inconvenience to the mother then it is legal to kill her. In other words, your morals change to meet your needs. That is consequentialism.

    //It is in and is using her body that is what. It is there by permission – and the mother has the right to withdraw that permission//

    Infants also use their mother’s body, per your reasoning, infanticide should be the norm.

    //Which means you have just conceded God is a consequentialist which also means God cannot be the grounding for any “objective morality”//

    You should look up consequentialism, you keep using the term incorrectly.

  42. Phoenix says:

    /Well the notion of God you are presenting is nothing but a weakling imposter compared to the omnipotent God of the Muslims and Hindus. Muslims, Calvinists etc also believe “predestination” is compatible with the “free will” also.//

    If you could logically demonstrate that determinism and free will are compatible and coherent then I would concede the argument. But you have not, you merely assert that to be the case.

    //Eh no we was speaking only of religious people/groups and not atheist groups – so that’s why I didn’t refer to the likes of anarchists, Marxists etc.//

    This is what you said:”…Now the average religious person is just ignorant of reality and the best and easiest thing is simply not to let their delusions have any influence on the running of society…”

    1. Your assertion is baseless, as you have yet to prove that religious people do understand reality.
    2. The inverse is true, as you have demonstrated countless times here on these forums that you cannot accept the nature of reality, with all the natural disasters,evil, suffering in nature, etc. You wish it were completely different, an Atheist style utopia.
    3. Only dogmatic Materialists believe they are the only rational people on this planet and everyone else is a danger to society.

    //Do you believe God acts with intention and purpose or not? Simple question//

    Of course, God is a rational agent.

    //No guided or “theistic evolution” at least claims to be compatible with both creation and evolution. So that was my point here regardless of whether you believe in creationism (as in direct creation by God,) or that God guided the process of evolution to bring about human beings God is responsible for the faulty genes//

    Straw man /red herring, I made know such claims. Biology tells me the origins of faulty genes, genetic mutations, inherited disorders, chromosomal disorders, etc. I do not need Evolution for that.

  43. Phoenix says:

    //The link doesn’t say that “emotional pain” is not rooted in biology and therefore is irrelevant.//

    My link makes a clear distinction between emotional pain and physical pain. You refuse to recognize this because it contradicts your Materialist beliefs.

    // Except I did. But here it for you
    (a) that being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;//

    Still does not meet the criterion for actual disciplined logic, as I bet you cannot even name the format of the so-called deductive argument you provided. But I’ll take it on anyway: So the first premise asserts the definition. I have no quarrels with that…but…

    //(b) that being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and//

    There is no transitive link from the first to the second premise. It simply does not follow that an omnipotent being must have created a world where evil could not have existed. If he is omnipotent then he is able to do it. Your distress at reality does nothing to diminish the deity’s power to create a world where his love can be rejected or freely accepted.

    //(c) that by virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.//

    This premise is internally incoherent for the following reason: It contains a fallacy of Assumptive Thinking by assuming the deity’s intention was to create a world where humans are perfect automatons and then failed to achieve the objective. You must prove that was God’s intention, where a world contains no free will and agency to deal with evil versus good and no spiritual growth by facing life’s challenges, failure and obstacles.

    //Conclusion:Since evil exists, an omniscient, omnipotent God who is also perfectly good, does not.//

    Since your argument contains no recognizable structure that would suffice to render your argument invalid. Regarding your premises, it contains no truth statements except straw men and wishful thinking. You reject the existence of God because evil exists but good also exists. And if good exists then God, who is the perfect metric for good, must exist too. Furthermore, God did not create evil therefore he can’t be responsible for it. Man creates evil, unless they are puppets with no free will and agency then I would concede that God is responsible.

    //Just like God does or better yet he could have created a universe containing no suffering in the first place.//

    The world does have the capacity to contain no evil. It’s up to us to evolve to that stage.

    // This is same as the leader saying he is not responsible for what his citizens do and they create their own problems – and he has no responsibility towards his country and the people.//

    False comparison. Presidents are elected by the people to solve the country’s problems. The president freely chose that position therefore he is responsible for his people.

    // Just like the president of India has superior reasons for allowing millions of people to starve to death no doubt!//

    Really? What are those reasons?

  44. Steve says:

    “Your moral relevance is nothing but personal opinion. My understanding of the human embryo is supported by biological facts. You cannot refute that.” Morality can only apply to conscious beings- a fertilised egg is not a conscious being.
    // No because they have a personality and brain. If your car is currently parked on the drive does that mean it’s dead? No because it’s engine is still in perfect working order – likewise with human beings and their brain.//
    “Your analogy doesn’t fit because the fetus’ body is also not dead but alive,growing, functioning and developing.” It is not developed.
    //It can be naturally aborted – which happens most of the time – in which case it will not become a conscious being. A fertilised egg is just one more step closer towards becoming a conscious being than a sperm or unfertilised egg – but it has the same amount of consciousness as a sperm – I.e zero.//
    “Miscarriages are natural deaths, abortions are intentional deaths , to conflate the two is not only absurd” I was showing you how a fertilised egg could – and in most cases – does not develop into a conscious being.
    “but that type of reasoning would of logical necessity justify the killings of many sick people, the elderly, at risk youth, etc. because they all have a high rate of being murdered or die of natural causes. So why not just kill them any way since it “happens most of the time”.” Eh? You are not using the naturalist fallacy again are you? The protection of care of the the disabled, the elderly etc is in no my comparable to abortion. Abortion is about the mothers body autonomy no therefore is a completely different case.
    //And what distinguishes human beings? It is the fact they have different minds. Using your definition your identical twin is the same individual.//
    “First, the discussion is regarding the distinction between the mother and the fetus. Are they the same person? Is the fetus an organ or body part of the mother? No, because the fetus has 50% of her father’s genes and the fetus is 50% likely to be of a different gender than the mother. Last I checked, mothers do not spontaneously generate male organs. Unlike you, I have science on my side. No, there are clear genetic differences between identical twins also.” Yes the fetus is genetically distinct from the mother – but that doesn’t mean it’s a person in any morally or philosophical relevant way.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/identical-twins-are-not-genetically-identical
    //Yes that is at least debatable – some countries have no time limit. Generally however “late abortions” are illegal – except if there are genuine mitigating circumstances. Also what is considered late is also a grey area Wikipedia says…Everything in between is a “grey area//
    “I really do not care much for these type of quandries, since “grey areas” are by definition “ill-defined” and relies on personal moral opinions to determine when it is OK to kill. Your moral opinion requires you to insert your prejudice and it is rejected.” So you reject abortion even in cases where 1)The mother has been raped. 2)The mothers health or life is at risk 3) The foetus has a severe disability or health problem. Because in all of those cases we have to relay on “moral opinion” to come to a judgement also.
    //This is exactly what you are saying, the foetus has priority over the mothers body.//
    “Then paste my exact statement where I said that.” This is your position once the foetus is there the mother has no right to withdraw her permission correct?
    //I am glad you see my point. The patent is not using the doctors body – but the foetus is.//
    Fetuses use their mother’s body the entire 9 months inside the womb. You reasoning would not only allow them to be killed any time during that 9 months but also infants who suckle.” Why? The mother has no right to kill the child at that point. If she didn’t want to suckle why did she have the child? Now obviously you will say “ah but she didn’t have to get pregnant either”, which is different because 1)The mothers body is being used. 2) The foetus is not sentient or conscious anyway and 3) Late abortions are illegal in most countries for this reason also – unless there are mitigating circumstances.
    // No the fetus is uncle bob while the kidney is the the mothers womb.//
    “So the fetus is taking something away from the mother without her permission, just like uncle bob can’t take my kidney without my approval. Got it. But what exactly is the fetus taking away from the mother? ” It is in and is using her body that is what. It is there by permission – and the mother has the right to withdraw that permission.
    //Yes and if there are justifiably reasons then you haven’t done anything wrong. Even WLC says this//
    “You have just conceded that God has justifiably sufficient moral reasons for allowing evil to takes its course. So what is the problem then?” Which means you have just conceded God is a consequentialist which also means God cannot be the grounding for any “objective morality”.

  45. Steve says:

    “I don’t see how the concept of predestination refutes any other notion of God.” Well the notion of God you are presenting is nothing but a weakling imposter compared to the omnipotent God of the Muslims and Hindus. Muslims, Calvinists etc also believe “predestination” is compatible with the “free will” also.

    //Nonsense it depends on what you have done. If your a religious terrorist either you will have a bullet put through your brain or you will be put in a cage for the rest of your life. Now the average religious person is just ignorant of reality and the best and easiest thing is simply not to let their delusions have any influence on the running of society. This does not entail killing people and putting them in gas chambers.//
    “And here you have demonstrated your prejudice and your ill conceived notion of what evil entails. You have restricted that to religious terrorism and granted secular terrorism, Left wing Marxists, Anarchists and Ethnic-separatist terrorism the right to exist. The reasons for that are obvious: Atheism cannot account for evil.” Eh no we was speaking only of religious people/groups and not atheist groups – so that’s why I didn’t refer to the likes of anarchists, Marxists etc.
    //Okay do you believe God slipped and spilled his dinner on the floor which was the Big Bang or do you believe God acted with intention and had a plan for our universe and knowledge about how it works and that it would result in conscious beings and suffering of said beings? If you believe in the former then what kind of theist are you that believes in a accident prone, ignorant so called God? If the latter then stop saying stupid things to avoid answering difficult questions.//
    “Fallacy of complex question. The phrasing of your questions assume propositions I don’t agree with and forces a false dichotomy.” Do you believe God acts with intention and purpose or not? Simple question.
    // Since you believe in God your view of the origins of genes must either be. 1) Direct creation of human beings by God. (In which case God is responsible for faulty genes) 2) You believe in “guided evolution” in which God set up the conditions which he knew would result in human beings through the process of evolution. In either case your God is responsible for the faulty genes.//
    “Another false dichotomy fallacy. You’ve granted me two choices: Either creationsm is true or Evolution is true. Instead I shall invoke the third horn to your dilemma” No guided or “theistic evolution” at least claims to be compatible with both creation and evolution. So that was my point here regardless of whether you believe in creationism (as in direct creation by God,) or that God guided the process of evolution to bring about human beings God is responsible for the faulty genes.

  46. Steve says:

    “Check the link for the differences between emotional and physical pain.” The link doesn’t say that “emotional pain” is not rooted in biology and therefore is irrelevant.

    “One, you did not provide an actual deductive argument” Except I did. But here it for you
    (a) that being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;

    (b) that being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and

    (c) that by virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.

    Conclusion:

    Since evil exists, an omniscient, omnipotent God who is also perfectly good, does not.

    “This reasoning omits other options, such as God did not create suffering but man does and he permits man to excercise his free will” This argument already covers that response.

    “For example: the 40 million starving children in India is the responsibility of their country’s leaders who do have the capacity to end that hunger.” Just like God does or better yet he could have created a universe containing no suffering in the first place.

    “God does not rule that country so it’s absurd to blame him for something man can solve.” This is same as the leader saying he is not responsible for what his citizens do and they create their own problems – and he has no responsibility towards his country and the people.

    “In short, God has superior reasons to allow suffering, since he has already endowed man with the capacity to solve and prevent such instances, as evil and suffering cannot be solved without free will and agency.” Just like the president of India has superior reasons for allowing millions of people to starve to death no doubt!

  47. Phoenix says:

    “That’s not the issue here and you know it. Is a psychological ailment the same as a physical injury?” //Yes if something is wrong with the mind then something must be wrong with the brain//

    Check the link for the differences between emotional and physical pain.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201407/5-ways-emotional-pain-is-worse-physical-pain

    //Okay even though said this what seems like hundreds of times now. 1)God is omnipotent and omniscient. (Again this is what you believe). 2) God knew before he choose to bring our universe into existence that it would contain suffering (if he decided to create it). (Again this follows logically from what you believe.) 3) Despite this and despite the fact that God is all powerful which means he could have chosen to create a world where everyone believes in him and where no suffering exists he still choose to create the world he knew would contain suffering. 4) Because of this decision God is ultimately responsible for ALL the suffering that has ever and will ever happen. 5) This means that an all loving, all powerful being – God – does not exist//

    One, you did not provide an actual deductive argument. It does not qualify as a modus ponen, modus tollen, chain argument, disjunctive syllogism or categorical syllogism. In short, your argument (if one can call it that) has no logical structure and is therefore invalid and by implication unsound. I have been generous with your lack of physical proof but I cannot extend that generosity to your lack of logic.
    Two, besides the obvious formal fallacies, you also commit informal fallacies by forcing a false dichotomy/loaded question. (God choose not to prevent suffering or he can but chooses not to). This reasoning omits other options, such as God did not create suffering but man does and he permits man to excercise his free will. For example: the 40 million starving children in India is the responsibility of their country’s leaders who do have the capacity to end that hunger. God does not rule that country so it’s absurd to blame him for something man can solve. In short, God has superior reasons to allow suffering, since he has already endowed man with the capacity to solve and prevent such instances, as evil and suffering cannot be solved without free will and agency.

    //Well yes it be May be inherent to them or at least severely constrained by genetics. But what I meant is it’s not inherent to the universe – it’s just a behaviour.//

    Who said evil is inherent to the universe?

  48. Phoenix says:

    //So you don’t believe in God then – since if he is not omniscient he is not omnipotent. Your “God” is a weakling imposter and would be crushed by the omnipotent and omniscient God of the Muslims Calvinists and Hindus. (Which fortunately for your God they like him don’t exist).//

    I don’t see how the concept of predestination refutes any other notion of God.

    //Nonsense it depends on what you have done. If your a religious terrorist either you will have a bullet put through your brain or you will be put in a cage for the rest of your life. Now the average religious person is just ignorant of reality and the best and easiest thing is simply not to let their delusions have any influence on the running of society. This does not entail killing people and putting them in gas chambers.//

    And here you have demonstrated your prejudice and your ill conceived notion of what evil entails. You have restricted that to religious terrorism and granted secular terrorism, Left wing Marxists, Anarchists and Ethnic-separatist terrorism the right to exist. The reasons for that are obvious: Atheism cannot account for evil.

    //Okay do you believe God slipped and spilled his dinner on the floor which was the Big Bang or do you believe God acted with intention and had a plan for our universe and knowledge about how it works and that it would result in conscious beings and suffering of said beings? If you believe in the former then what kind of theist are you that believes in a accident prone, ignorant so called God? If the latter then stop saying stupid things to avoid answering difficult questions.//

    Fallacy of complex question. The phrasing of your questions assume propositions I don’t agree with and forces a false dichotomy.

    // Since you believe in God your view of the origins of genes must either be. 1) Direct creation of human beings by God. (In which case God is responsible for faulty genes) 2) You believe in “guided evolution” in which God set up the conditions which he knew would result in human beings through the process of evolution. In either case your God is responsible for the faulty genes.//

    Another false dichotomy fallacy. You’ve granted me two choices: Either creationsm is true or Evolution is true. Instead I shall invoke the third horn to your dilemma.

  49. Phoenix says:

    //Neither is a fertilised egg in a morally relevant way.//

    Your moral relevance is nothing but personal opinion. My understanding of the human embryo is supported by biological facts. You cannot refute that.

    // No because they have a personality and brain. If your car is currently parked on the drive does that mean it’s dead? No because it’s engine is still in perfect working order – likewise with human beings and their brain.//

    Your analogy doesn’t fit because the fetus’ body is also not dead but alive,growing, functioning and developing.

    //It can be naturally aborted – which happens most of the time – in which case it will not become a conscious being. A fertilised egg is just one more step closer towards becoming a conscious being than a sperm or unfertilised egg – but it has the same amount of consciousness as a sperm – I.e zero.//

    Miscarriages are natural deaths, abortions are intentional deaths , to conflate the two is not only absurd but that type of reasoning would of logical necessity justify the killings of many sick people, the elderly, at risk youth, etc. because they all have a high rate of being murdered or die of natural causes. So why not just kill them any way since it “happens most of the time”.

    //And what distinguishes human beings? It is the fact they have different minds. Using your definition your identical twin is the same individual.//

    First, the discussion is regarding the distinction between the mother and the fetus. Are they the same person? Is the fetus an organ or body part of the mother? No, because the fetus has 50% of her father’s genes and the fetus is 50% likely to be of a different gender than the mother. Last I checked, mothers do not spontaneously generate male organs. Unlike you, I have science on my side. No, there are clear genetic differences between identical twins also.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/identical-twins-are-not-genetically-identical

    //Yes that is at least debatable – some countries have no time limit. Generally however “late abortions” are illegal – except if there are genuine mitigating circumstances. Also what is considered late is also a grey area Wikipedia says…Everything in between is a “grey area//

    I really do not care much for these type of quandries, since “grey areas” are by definition “ill-defined” and relies on personal moral opinions to determine when it is OK to kill. Your moral opinion requires you to insert your prejudice and it is rejected.

    //This is exactly what you are saying, the foetus has priority over the mothers body.//

    Then paste my exact statement where I said that.

    //I am glad you see my point. The patent is not using the doctors body – but the foetus is.//

    Fetuses use their mother’s body the entire 9 months inside the womb. You reasoning would not only allow them to be killed any time during that 9 months but also infants who suckle.

    // No the fetus is uncle bob while the kidney is the the mothers womb.//

    So the fetus is taking something away from the mother without her permission, just like uncle bob can’t take my kidney without my approval. Got it. But what exactly is the fetus taking away from the mother?

    //Yes and if there are justifiably reasons then you haven’t done anything wrong. Even WLC says this//

    You have just conceded that God has justifiably sufficient moral reasons for allowing evil to takes its course. So what is the problem then?

  50. Steve says:

    //Sperm cells or eggs also have the potential to develop consciousness. Should they also be protected by law?//
    “False, a sperm cell on its own or an unfertilized egg is not a human being. No one said it was. So this is just another straw man/red herring” Neither is a fertilised egg in a morally relevant way.
    //No for the reason I gave before.//
    “You still do not grasp the full implications of your rationalizations which is that if someone is not aware they are being harmed then it is permissible.” No because they have a personality and brain. If your car is currently parked on the drive does that mean it’s dead? No because it’s engine is still in perfect working order – likewise with human beings and their brain.
    //It is no more conscious than an empty canvas and a pot of paint is the mona Lisa.//
    This is like saying an empty canvas is the Mona Lisa because it has the capacity or potential to be a Mona Lisa.//
    “And you’re implying a fetus inside a human mother has the capacity to become something other than a human being. If so, provide me with an example.” It can be naturally aborted – which happens most of the time – in which case it will not become a conscious being. A fertilised egg is just one more step closer towards becoming a conscious being than a sperm or unfertilised egg – but it has the same amount of consciousness as a sperm – I.e zero.
    //And the way you are using the term is morally irrelevant. Two cars (even ones of the same make and model colour etc) are “individual” in the sense that you use it here. When we talk about individual in relation to human beings we mean individual mind.//
    False, you are inventing your own definitions again which is typical of consequentialists. Mine is of course consistent with biological facts.
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/individual

    “– a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
    – 5. Biology. a single organism capable of independent existence.” And what distinguishes human beings? It is the fact they have different minds. Using your definition your identical twin is the same individual.
    //It doesn’t make any make difference it is in and it uses her body.//
    Fetus who are more than 30 weeks old are said to have developed consciousness, albeit rudimentary. Your ill-logic would justify its killing even until a few moments prior to giving being born simply because it is still in the mother’s womb.” Yes that is at least debatable – some countries have no time limit. Generally however “late abortions” are illegal – except if there are genuine mitigating circumstances. Also what is considered late is also a grey area Wikipedia says “The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the “viability” (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Many pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a “grey area”

    //You can ask them to leave and if they do not you can force them to or the relevant authorities can.//
    “Of course, if the fetus does not leave on its own free will, we can use necessary force. The mind of an Atheists is truly fascinating, it’s so amazing that you could type this with a straight face.” It doesn’t need to be “asked” it is in the mothers by her permission- and if she wishes she can withdraw that permission.
    //Because you claim another entity (a foetus) should have priority over the mothers body. This is like saying a man can have sex with his wife even if she is not consenting because they are married thus he has a “right” to intercourse if and when it suits him (and her needs and wants should not be taken into account).//
    “No one said a fetus or any person has priority over another human being.” This is exactly what you are saying, the foetus has priority over the mothers body.
    “How you managed to come up with this excuse is astounding. I simply maintain each human, no matter how under developed has the right to life.” No if they are using somebody else’s body (without there consent) they don’t – just like your uncle bob has no right to your kidney without your consent.
    // Do patients have the right to care and treatment? Yes. Do they have a right to their surgeons heart? No. And this is NOT a moral issue and this is the reason why abortion is NOT a moral issue.//
    “What??? A patient does not live inside the doctors body for 9months. He does not use the doctors body in any way. Please take your time when responding because you do not make a whole lot of sense.” I am glad you see my point. The patent is not using the doctors body – but the foetus is.
    //So you must be murdering your uncle bob then because you refusing him your kidney is going to end his life?//
    “In your analogy, who is the mother (uncle bob)? and the fetus (the kidney)?” No the fetus is uncle bob while the kidney is the the mothers womb.
    //Certainly if there are justifying reasons. An emergency vehicle can break the speed limit and this is justified and exempted under the law and for obvious reasons.//
    “Yes, but police and other emergency vehicles are NOT breaking the law if that rule does not apply to them.” Yes and if there are justifiably reasons then you haven’t done anything wrong. Even WLC says this.

  51. Steve says:

    “You are referring to predestination which is mostly adopted by Muslims, Calvinists and some Hindu sects. I do not believe in such a concept, since it’s the theist version of determinism.” So you don’t believe in God then – since if he is not omniscient he is not omnipotent. Your “God” is a weakling imposter and would be crushed by the omnipotent and omniscient God of the Muslims Calvinists and Hindus. (Which fortunately for your God they like him don’t exist).

    // Why do you keep asking for me proof when this is WHAT YOU BELIEVE I.e that this universe and everything in it was created/designed by your God. I do not believe in any God so why are you asking me to prove God created hitler when I do not believe in any conscious creator?//
    “If you can’t provide me with any physical proof then I will settle for a valid deductive syllogistic argument, where the premises are plausibly more true than their negations.” I did that in the other message.

    // ISIS and the likes is a danger to the well being and survival of the entire human race this is not a matter of opinion. All false ideas cause harm – it’s just a question of degree. This is why religious dogmas should be allowed no power and influence over the society. This does not mean killing the average religious person but there beliefs – which have no basis in reality- must be criticised and allowed to have no power.//
    “And that is exactly how totalitarian regimes are born. Your notion of degree is completely abitrary, allowing you the sole moral authority and arbiter of people’s fate. I have no reason to believe that you would not exterminate all religious people a la Marxism.” Nonsense it depends on what you have done. If your a religious terrorist either you will have a bullet put through your brain or you will be put in a cage for the rest of your life. Now the average religious person is just ignorant of reality and the best and easiest thing is simply not to let their delusions have any influence on the running of society. This does not entail killing people and putting them in gas chambers.

    // Again this is your belief. Why are asking this question of an atheist?//
    “Because you insist on telling me what I believe when in fact only I can tell you what I believe.” Okay do you believe God slipped and spilled his dinner on the floor which was the Big Bang or do you believe God acted with intention and had a plan for our universe and knowledge about how it works and that it would result in conscious beings and suffering of said beings? If you believe in the former then what kind of theist are you that believes in a accident prone, ignorant so called God? If the latter then stop saying stupid things to avoid answering difficult questions.
    // Why did God create the faulty genes in the first place? And why he didn’t correct them?//
    “Straw man. God did not create any faulty genes” Since you believe in God your view of the origins of genes must either be. 1) Direct creation of human beings by God. (In which case God is responsible for faulty genes) 2) You believe in “guided evolution” in which God set up the conditions which he knew would result in human beings through the process of evolution. In either case your God is responsible for the faulty genes.

  52. Steve says:

    “That’s not the issue here and you know it. Is a psychological ailment the same as a physical injury?” Yes if something is wrong with the mind then something must be wrong with the brain.

    //Nobody says that the blind forces of nature which wreck havoc on human beings are evil. They say if they are designed they cannot have being designed by a all loving God. Just like for example you can look at the natural world and conclude that is not the design of an all powerful animal lover due to the immense suffering that animals experience while in the natural world.//
    “Here’s a thought: We’ve been through this numerous times but I’d like you to reformulate your argument in a deductive syllogism with premise and conclusion, which can be tested for grounding and validity. Since you don’t have any physical evidence to substantiate your claims, I’ll be generous and allow a sound deductive argument instead, after all Atheists do claim to have the monopoly on logic. That should settle it once and for all. So go ahead and make your case.” Okay even though said this what seems like hundreds of times now. 1)God is omnipotent and omniscient. (Again this is what you believe). 2) God knew before he choose to bring our universe into existence that it would contain suffering (if he decided to create it). (Again this follows logically from what you believe.) 3) Despite this and despite the fact that God is all powerful which means he could have chosen to create a world where everyone believes in him and where no suffering exists he still choose to create the world he knew would contain suffering. 4) Because of this decision God is ultimately responsible for ALL the suffering that has ever and will ever happen. 5) This means that an all loving, all powerful being – God – does not exist.

    //No my view is that “good” and “evil” are just labels for certain behaviours and personality traits. I do not believe in any concept of *inherent evil*.//
    “Many personality traits have a genetic basis which means they are inherited and yet in the same sentence you claim not to believe in the concept of “inherent evil”. As always, your worldview accepts contradictions without any qualms.” Well yes it be May be inherent to them or at least severely constrained by genetics. But what I meant is it’s not inherent to the universe – it’s just a behaviour.

    // So God could simply have only brought into existence the people who he knew would love him and each other and this would not have violated anybody’s free will – anymore than the chip violates the free will of Hillary supporters.//
    “First of all, you’ve completely misunderstood WLC’s response. He is asserting that free will is not limited to multiple options but also that the selection is free from any coercion.” Craig didn’t say that. Craig said that for example God knew that in those circumstances Pilate would send Jesus to the cross. If he knew that Pilate would have chosen to not send Jesus to the cross – in those circumstances- he would not have placed Pilate in that position. Direct quote “In that case, Pilate did not under the circumstances have the ability to let Jesus go. Yet he freely sent Jesus to the cross, since nothing determined him to do so.”
    ” Secondly, the type of free will you are referring to is conditional, as it is only reserved for God’s followers. ” Again Craig didn’t say that (he used Pontus Pilate as an example -who was not a believer).
    “Thirdly, what about those who have rejected God but then sometime during their lives they decide to embrace his love again, or vice versa? Your notion of free will would also restrict choice to a single instances, rather than having multiple chances throughout our lives to re-evaluate our decisions” No Craig’s notion doesn’t restrict choice to single instances.

  53. Phoenix says:

    //Sperm cells or eggs also have the potential to develop consciousness. Should they also be protected by law?//

    False, a sperm cell on its own or an unfertilized egg is not a human being. No one said it was. So this is just another straw man/red herring

    //No for the reason I gave before.//

    You still do not grasp the full implications of your rationalizations which is that if someone is not aware they are being harmed then it is permissible.

    //It is no more conscious than an empty canvas and a pot of paint is the mona Lisa.//
    This is like saying an empty canvas is the Mona Lisa because it has the capacity or potential to be a Mona Lisa.//

    False analogy, no canvas has ever developed consciousness but we have evidence fetuses do. And you’re implying a fetus inside a human mother has the capacity to become something other than a human being. If so, provide me with an example.

    //And the way you are using the term is morally irrelevant. Two cars (even ones of the same make and model colour etc) are “individual” in the sense that you use it here. When we talk about individual in relation to human beings we mean individual mind.//

    False, you are inventing your own definitions again which is typical of consequentialists. Mine is of course consistent with biological facts.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/individual
    – a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
    – 5. Biology. a single organism capable of independent existence.

    //It doesn’t make any make difference it is in and it uses her body.//

    Fetus who are more than 30 weeks old are said to have developed consciousness, albeit rudimentary. Your ill-logic would justify its killing even until a few moments prior to giving being born simply because it is still in the mother’s womb.

    //You can ask them to leave and if they do not you can force them to or the relevant authorities can.//

    Of course, if the fetus does not leave on its own free will, we can use necessary force. The mind of an Atheists is truly fascinating, it’s so amazing that you could type this with a straight face.

    //Because you claim another entity (a foetus) should have priority over the mothers body. This is like saying a man can have sex with his wife even if she is not consenting because they are married thus he has a “right” to intercourse if and when it suits him (and her needs and wants should not be taken into account).//

    No one said a fetus or any person has priority over another human being. How you managed to come up with this excuse is astounding. I simply maintain each human, no matter how under developed has the right to life.

    // Do patients have the right to care and treatment? Yes. Do they have a right to their surgeons heart? No. And this is NOT a moral issue and this is the reason why abortion is NOT a moral issue.//

    What??? A patient does not live inside the doctors body for 9months. He does not use the doctors body in any way. Please take your time when responding because you do not make a whole lot of sense.

    //So you must be murdering your uncle bob then because you refusing him your kidney is going to end his life?//

    In your analogy, who is the mother (uncle bob)? and the fetus (the kidney)?

    //Certainly if there are justifying reasons. An emergency vehicle can break the speed limit and this is justified and exempted under the law and for obvious reasons.//

    Yes, but police and other emergency vehicles are NOT breaking the law if that rule does not apply to them.

  54. Phoenix says:

    //You believe that God created everything, planned everything and knows everything that will happen and that he freely choose to create a universe containing suffering – even though he could have created a world with no suffering. This is what follows from believing in a omnipotent, all loving, omniscient, diety. So you have either to admit that God is ultimately responsible for the likes of Hitler OR deny he has the qualities that would a being God (all powerful and the characteristics that follow from that). Either way your God doesn’t exist.//

    You are referring to predestination which is mostly adopted by Muslims, Calvinists and some Hindu sects. I do not believe in such a concept, since it’s the theist version of determinism.

    // Why do you keep asking for me proof when this is WHAT YOU BELIEVE I.e that this universe and everything in it was created/designed by your God. I do not believe in any God so why are you asking me to prove God created hitler when I do not believe in any conscious creator?//

    If you can’t provide me with any physical proof then I will settle for a valid deductive syllogistic argument, where the premises are plausibly more true than their negations.

    // ISIS and the likes is a danger to the well being and survival of the entire human race this is not a matter of opinion. All false ideas cause harm – it’s just a question of degree. This is why religious dogmas should be allowed no power and influence over the society. This does not mean killing the average religious person but there beliefs – which have no basis in reality- must be criticised and allowed to have no power.//

    And that is exactly how totalitarian regimes are born. Your notion of degree is completely abitrary, allowing you the sole moral authority and arbiter of people’s fate. I have no reason to believe that you would not exterminate all religious people a la Marxism.

    // Again this is your belief. Why are asking this question of an atheist?//

    Because you insist on telling me what I believe when in fact only I can tell you what I believe.

    // Why did God create the faulty genes in the first place? And why he didn’t correct them?//

    Straw man. God did not create any faulty genes.

  55. Phoenix says:

    //And where does the dictionary say the psychological is independent of the brain and physical world? It does not. The Wikipedia article on psychology says “Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.”//

    That’s not the issue here and you know it. Is a psychological ailment the same as a physical injury?

    //Nobody says that the blind forces of nature which wreck havoc on human beings are evil. They say if they are designed they cannot have being designed by a all loving God. Just like for example you can look at the natural world and conclude that is not the design of an all powerful animal lover due to the immense suffering that animals experience while in the natural world.//

    Here’s a thought: We’ve been through this numerous times but I’d like you to reformulate your argument in a deductive syllogism with premise and conclusion, which can be tested for grounding and validity. Since you don’t have any physical evidence to substantiate your claims, I’ll be generous and allow a sound deductive argument instead, after all Atheists do claim to have the monopoly on logic. That should settle it once and for all. So go ahead and make your case.

    //No my view is that “good” and “evil” are just labels for certain behaviours and personality traits. I do not believe in any concept of *inherent evil*.//

    Many personality traits have a genetic basis which means they are inherited and yet in the same sentence you claim not to believe in the concept of “inherent evil”. As always, your worldview accepts contradictions without any qualms.

    // So God could simply have only brought into existence the people who he knew would love him and each other and this would not have violated anybody’s free will – anymore than the chip violates the free will of Hillary supporters.//

    First of all, you’ve completely misunderstood WLC’s response. He is asserting that free will is not limited to multiple options but also that the selection is free from any coercion. Secondly, the type of free will you are referring to is conditional, as it is only reserved for God’s followers. Thirdly, what about those who have rejected God but then sometime during their lives they decide to embrace his love again, or vice versa? Your notion of free will would also restrict choice to a single instances, rather than having multiple chances throughout our lives to re-evaluate our decisions.

  56. Steve says:

    “It’s also not an issue for me , as I’m in agreement with the dictionary definition of “psychological”.” And where does the dictionary say the psychological is independent of the brain and physical world? It does not. The Wikipedia article on psychology says “Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and biological processes that underlie cognitive functions and behaviors.”
    ” If natural disasters are not evil then its absurd to condemn the cause of those events which are purely physical BTW. Perhaps you should brush up on your science to see how tornadoes, volcanoes etc. originates.” Nobody says that the blind forces of nature which wreck havoc on human beings are evil. They say if they are designed they cannot have being designed by a all loving God. Just like for example you can look at the natural world and conclude that is not the design of an all powerful animal lover due to the immense suffering that animals experience while in the natural world.

  57. Steve says:

    //Again I don’t even need to believe in “evil” or “good” or any theory of objective morals to point out the incompatibility between;
    1)An all loving, all knowing and all powerful deity and the existence of suffering. Please get this point into your skull.//
    “The only incompatibility is the existence of “good and evil” from your Atheist worldview. Your worldview cannot make sense of those concepts so it must be either a whimsical abstraction with no clear and fixed boundaries or they are just deemed non-existent.” No my view is that “good” and “evil” are just labels for certain behaviours and personality traits. I do not believe in any concept of *inherent evil*.

    //Right so you had two choices 1)Publish this message or 2) Not publish this message. Now you selected 1 (in this case). How on earth did that violate your “free will”?//
    “But in your world, everyone MUST choose 1. The second is only a hypothetical scenario. So yes, there is no free will, only the illusion of an alternative when in fact there’s only one path.” No everyone could freely choose 1 (in this case good) and everyone would still have free will. WLC has another response on this http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Free-Will Basically to sum up Craig’s argument if you go back in time to when just before you made the decision (in identical circumstances) to publish your message you would choose again to publish it but what matters is that this decision is the result of your free will and not that you can do something different in the exact same circumstances. Or if Hillary puts a chip into every American voters head which if they have decided to vote for trump the chip will override the decision and force the person to vote for her. However her followers still freely choose to vote for her – despite the fact that they couldn’t have done otherwise. So God could simply have only brought into existence the people who he knew would love him and each other and this would not have violated anybody’s free will – anymore than the chip violates the free will of Hillary supporters.

  58. Steve says:

    //1)God had foreknowledge that if he created Hitler he would kill millions of people. Despite this and despite the fact that God could have created a world with no evil and suffering he still choose to create it. Therefore God is responsible. If I let my psychopathic children loose on society who is to blame? I am. The same principle applies to your God. Again you saying stupid things like “I want physical proof that God created Hitler” (when in your belief God created everything). Or “without God evil doesn’t exist and suffering isn’t a problem in a naturalist universe so you don’t have a leg to stand on.” These are just nonsense responses in an attempt to Weasel your God out of it.//
    “1) Prove that God created Hitler or any mass murderer.” You believe that God created everything, planned everything and knows everything that will happen and that he freely choose to create a universe containing suffering – even though he could have created a world with no suffering. This is what follows from believing in a omnipotent, all loving, omniscient, diety. So you have either to admit that God is ultimately responsible for the likes of Hitler OR deny he has the qualities that would a being God (all powerful and the characteristics that follow from that). Either way your God doesn’t exist.

    “2) Your discomfort with my demand for physical proof is is quite absurd since Atheists claim not to accept any premise without physical proof. So what other criterion besides physical evidence do you accept as knowledge claims?” Why do you keep asking for me proof when this is WHAT YOU BELIEVE I.e that this universe and everything in it was created/designed by your God. I do not believe in any God so why are you asking me to prove God created hitler when I do not believe in any conscious creator?
    //When we lock up and even kill dangerous criminals we do so for the wellbeing of everybody else. You claimed and compared this to nazism, communism etc which also claimed this as its justification//
    “That’s because you do not have any clear defined moral principles. What you consider a danger may not be so for everyone else or what you consider harmless may be extremely harmful for someone else. For many Atheists, all religious people are dangerous and are deserving of extermination.” ISIS and the likes is a danger to the well being and survival of the entire human race this is not a matter of opinion. All false ideas cause harm – it’s just a question of degree. This is why religious dogmas should be allowed no power and influence over the society. This does not mean killing the average religious person but there beliefs – which have no basis in reality- must be criticised and allowed to have no power.
    //So you don’t have a problem with killing terrorists even though it employs the evil consequentialist morality?//
    “Is that your answer to everything: killing? Bare in mind that your rationalizations also include killing cyber terrorists even though your life may not even be in danger.” No my answer to “everything” is not killing. Note – I was not talking about the strong protecting the weak or denying justice to the unfortunate. I was talking there about the most brutal, vicious inhuman hardened violent criminals who will behead you and rape your wife and sell your daughters on to pedophile predators – just like you can swat a fly. The ONLY way to stop such people is to kill them so take Richard kuklinski’s advice “If you don’t kill me your stupid, because next time you see me I WILL KILL YOU”.
    //Except if a free being – God – caused/designed natural disasters then that being would be evil.//
    “God did not design natural disasters, that is a straw man argument. Why can’t you just provide the evidence that he did?” Again this is your belief. Why are asking this question of an atheist?
    //So why didn’t God do that then? If you say “free will” well you don’t seem to have a problem with free will being eroded by genetic engineering and therapy. So why would you have a problem with God doing the same thing?//
    “Why does God need to do something we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves?” Why did God create the faulty genes in the first place? And why he didn’t correct them?

  59. Steve says:

    //In addition as long as they are not severely brain damaged they should Develop normally and gain consciousness and reasoning ability. Also once out of the mothers body it no longer becomes the mothers choice as to whether it lives or dies. (As body autonomy is the reason why the mother has a right to abortion.)//
    “There it is. “they should Develop normally”. That’s exactly what the human fetus does but abortion pre-emptively terminates that development for consciousness and sentience.” Sperm cells or eggs also have the potential to develop consciousness. Should they also be protected by law?
    //Somebody with reduced (or no) pain sensitivity/awareness still has consciousness.//
    “Then you may kill him/her in her sleep or when in a coma.” No for the reason I gave before.
    // It’s a stage when there is no consciousness, sentience or pain awareness whatsoever. Therefore “killing” it at that stage does not even enter the moral sphere.//
    “It is at a stage where consciousness and sentience is being developed. ” It is no more conscious than an empty canvas and a pot of paint is the mona Lisa.
    “The fetus is alive, growing and has the capacity for consciousness. It is a developing human.” This is like saying an empty canvas is the Mona Lisa because it has the capacity or potential to be a Mona Lisa.
    //This is not what people mean when they talk about an individual. If this were true then if you have an identical twin they should be the same person because you have the same genes.//
    “I use the term “individual” only to distinguish the fetus from the mother. The fetus is not a body part of the mother as you imply but a unique individual or individuals in the case of identical twins, triplets, etc.” And the way you are using the term is morally irrelevant. Two cars (even ones of the same make and model colour etc) are “individual” in the sense that you use it here. When we talk about individual in relation to human beings we mean individual mind.
    “This analogy does not make sense since you admit the fetus is not the mother’s organ.” It doesn’t make any make difference it is in and it uses her body.
    //It is in the mothers body and uses the mothers body therefore she has the right to remove it – just like you have the right to remove a unwanted guest from your home.//
    “False, I do not have the right to kill any unwanted guest in my home.” You can ask them to leave and if they do not you can force them to or the relevant authorities can.
    // This is not my notion of body autonomy. If you have HIV and have unprotected sex you are breaking the law and will be charged. This has nothing nothing to do with body autonomy.//
    “That is the logical consequences of your rationalizations. ” So having the “right” to do dangerous and social harmful things to your body like inject heroin or have unprotected sex while HIV positive is the same as being protected from having your organs harvested?
    //So rape and body harvesting would be moral given your rationalisations.//
    “How so?” Because you claim another entity (a foetus) should have priority over the mothers body. This is like saying a man can have sex with his wife even if she is not consenting because they are married thus he has a “right” to intercourse if and when it suits him (and her needs and wants should not be taken into account).
    “Really? Patients suckle their doctors? That’s new.” Do patients have the right to care and treatment? Yes. Do they have a right to their surgeons heart? No. And this is NOT a moral issue and this is the reason why abortion is NOT a moral issue.
    //If you invite a guest into your home you still have the right to ask them to leave.//
    “That’s not what the mother is doing at all. She’s not ASKING the pre-born child to leave, she’s ending its life.” So you must be murdering your uncle bob then because you refusing him your kidney is going to end his life?
    //No. Because our morality is evolved doesn’t mean you can just make exceptions or break them for no good justifying reason. “Since the speed limit has changed that means I can go as fast as I like.”//
    “Ah, so you admit your moral law can be broken for the “right” reasons. Well that is moral relativism.” Certainly if there are justifying reasons. An emergency vehicle can break the speed limit and this is justified and exempted under the law and for obvious reasons.

  60. Phoenix says:

    //In addition as long as they are not severely brain damaged they should Develop normally and gain consciousness and reasoning ability. Also once out of the mothers body it no longer becomes the mothers choice as to whether it lives or dies. (As body autonomy is the reason why the mother has a right to abortion.)//

    There it is. “they should Develop normally”. That’s exactly what the human fetus does but abortion pre-emptively terminates that development for consciousness and sentience.
    //Somebody with reduced (or no) pain sensitivity/awareness still has consciousness.//

    Then you may kill him/her in her sleep or when in a coma.

    // It’s a stage when there is no consciousness, sentience or pain awareness whatsoever. Therefore “killing” it at that stage does not even enter the moral sphere.//

    It is at a stage where consciousness and sentience is being developed. The fetus is alive, growing and has the capacity for consciousness. It is a developing human.

    //This is not what people mean when they talk about an individual. If this were true then if you have an identical twin they should be the same person because you have the same genes.//

    I use the term “individual” only to distinguish the fetus from the mother. The fetus is not a body part of the mother as you imply but a unique individual or individuals in the case of identical twins, triplets, etc.

    // So your uncle Bob who needs a kidney from you is not your body part. But still your uncle bob has no right to your kidney without your consent and if you refuse to have your kidney cut out for your uncle Bob it is not murder.//

    This analogy does not make sense since you admit the fetus is not the mother’s organ.

    //It is in the mothers body and uses the mothers body therefore she has the right to remove it – just like you have the right to remove a unwanted guest from your home.//

    False, I do not have the right to kill any unwanted guest in my home.

    // This is not my notion of body autonomy. If you have HIV and have unprotected sex you are breaking the law and will be charged. This has nothing nothing to do with body autonomy.//

    That is the logical consequences of your rationalizations.

    //So rape and body harvesting would be moral given your rationalisations.//

    How so?

    //That is a completely different case. It’s like saying a patient is kill able because he depends on the body of his doctor or surgeon. This is completely different from having a right to your surgeons organs.//

    Really? Patients suckle their doctors? That’s new.

    //If you invite a guest into your home you still have the right to ask them to leave.//

    That’s not what the mother is doing at all. She’s not ASKING the pre-born child to leave, she’s ending its life.

    //No. Because our morality is evolved doesn’t mean you can just make exceptions or break them for no good justifying reason. “Since the speed limit has changed that means I can go as fast as I like.”//

    Ah, so you admit your moral law can be broken for the “right” reasons. Well that is moral relativism.

  61. Phoenix says:

    It’s also not an issue for me , as I’m in agreement with the dictionary definition of “psychological”.

    // I am not passing judgment on nature I am (or would be) if he existed passing judgment on a being who causes these disasters.//

    Well you did say natural disasters are natural evils. The term “evil” implies a violation of moral principles, which would be insane to apply them to nature, since matter or the laws of nature does not qualify as rational agents and therefore can’t be held responsible for its functions. Now you have reneged on that argument but your paradox still persists. If natural disasters are not evil then its absurd to condemn the cause of those events which are purely physical BTW. Perhaps you should brush up on your science to see how tornadoes, volcanoes etc. originates.

    //Again I don’t even need to believe in “evil” or “good” or any theory of objective morals to point out the incompatibility between;
    1)An all loving, all knowing and all powerful deity and the existence of suffering. Please get this point into your skull.//

    The only incompatibility is the existence of “good and evil” from your Atheist worldview. Your worldview cannot make sense of those concepts so it must be either a whimsical abstraction with no clear and fixed boundaries or they are just deemed non-existent.

    //God created everything and has foreknowledge of everything and still choose to create it. Therefore he is responsible. Also remember that the free will defence doesn’t apply to acts of God (as insurance companies call it).//

    I agree, free will does not apply to natural disasters or acts of God as the insurance companies call them because natural disasters are not rational agents.

    //Right so you had two choices 1)Publish this message or 2) Not publish this message. Now you selected 1 (in this case). How on earth did that violate your “free will”?//

    But in your world, everyone MUST choose 1. The second is only a hypothetical scenario. So yes, there is no free will, only the illusion of an alternative when in fact there’s only one path.

    //1)God had foreknowledge that if he created Hitler he would kill millions of people. Despite this and despite the fact that God could have created a world with no evil and suffering he still choose to create it. Therefore God is responsible. If I let my psychopathic children loose on society who is to blame? I am. The same principle applies to your God. Again you saying stupid things like “I want physical proof that God created Hitler” (when in your belief God created everything). Or “without God evil doesn’t exist and suffering isn’t a problem in a naturalist universe so you don’t have a leg to stand on.” These are just nonsense responses in an attempt to Weasel your God out of it.//

    1) Prove that God created Hitler or any mass murderer.
    2) Your discomfort with my demand for physical proof is is quite absurd since Atheists claim not to accept any premise without physical proof. So what other criterion besides physical evidence do you accept as knowledge claims?

    //When we lock up and even kill dangerous criminals we do so for the wellbeing of everybody else. You claimed and compared this to nazism, communism etc which also claimed this as its justification//

    That’s because you do not have any clear defined moral principles. What you consider a danger may not be so for everyone else or what you consider harmless may be extremely harmful for someone else. For many Atheists, all religious people are dangerous and are deserving of extermination.

    //So you don’t have a problem with killing terrorists even though it employs the evil consequentialist morality?//

    Is that your answer to everything: killing? Bare in mind that your rationalizations also include killing cyber terrorists even though your life may not even be in danger.

    //Except if a free being – God – caused/designed natural disasters then that being would be evil.//

    God did not design natural disasters, that is a straw man argument. Why can’t you just provide the evidence that he did?

    //So why didn’t God do that then? If you say “free will” well you don’t seem to have a problem with free will being eroded by genetic engineering and therapy. So why would you have a problem with God doing the same thing?//

    Why does God need to do something we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves?

  62. Steve says:

    “OK, you’re diverting the actual issue. The topic at hand is whether a victim of verbal derogation’s trauma is a physical wound or psychological. Here I use the term “psychological” in conjunction with the dictionary, meaning “2.(Of an ailment or problem) having a mental rather than a physical cause”. You’ve not addressed that.” Since I am not a dualist this is not an issue for me.
    //Thoughts and beliefs from the physicalist view are based in physical reality – electro chemicals in the brain. So this doesn’t contradict materialism. Dualism on the other hand has the massive problem of explaining how (what it holds to be) two fundamental different substances- mind and body – interact//
    // The necessity is simple because if you don’t the species will become extinct. This is an actual basis for holding people responsible- invoking an imaginary mysterious alien “God” being who himself would (to say the least) have questionable morals is not a basis and has nothing to do with moral responsibility.//
    //Only conscious beings can be described as evil – the entire universe is not.//
    “Then there cannot be such a thing as natural evil and you cannot pass judgment on the sufferings caused by natural disasters.” I am not passing judgment on nature I am (or would be) if he existed passing judgment on a being who causes these disasters.
    “Moreover, since animals are also conscious beings, per your definition, they can be labeled evil too.” No.
    Me:So your complaint of natural evil, evil deity and evil people is without meaning. Your moral opinion has no moral authority as it is specific only to yourself and may change as the moment changes”
    You: More nonsense your God (if he existed) is either evil, incompetent or indifferent in any case such a being is not the yardstick for human morality//
    “Tu quoque/red herring. You charge God without addressing the failures of your self-derived moral opinions.” Again I don’t even need to believe in “evil” or “good” or any theory of objective morals to point out the incompatibility between. 1)An all loving, all knowing and all powerful deity and the existence of suffering. Please get this point into your skull.
    //How do you know what Gods nature is? About 9 million children die every year through starvation. Now if a being created that he is not the yardstick for human morality//
    “Your accusations will remain baseless no matter how many times you repeat them. Prove conclusively God caused 9 million children to starve to death.” God created everything and has foreknowledge of everything and still choose to create it. Therefore he is responsible. Also remember that the free will defence doesn’t apply to acts of God (as insurance companies call it).

    //Yes it is choice is when you have two or more options to select from. The choice part is made possible by there being multiple options or paths – but you can only select one. People always choosing the good IS NOT VIOLATING free will.//
    “Logic is not an Atheist strong suit. You say there are multiple paths to choose from but then you also say you can only select one.” Right so you had two choices 1)Publish this message or 2) Not publish this message. Now you selected 1 (in this case). How on earth did that violate your “free will”?
    //God choosing to bring Hitler into existence means he let him loose on us. God is criminally responsible for that//
    “I want physical proof from Hitler’s conception that God created him then let him loose on you.” 1)God had foreknowledge that if he created Hitler he would kill millions of people. Despite this and despite the fact that God could have created a world with no evil and suffering he still choose to create it. Therefore God is responsible. If I let my psychopathic children loose on society who is to blame? I am. The same principle applies to your God. Again you saying stupid things like “I want physical proof that God created Hitler” (when in your belief God created everything). Or “without God evil doesn’t exist and suffering isn’t a problem in a naturalist universe so you don’t have a leg to stand on.” These are just nonsense responses in an attempt to Weasel your God out of it.
    “They are natural behaviors from YOUR atheistic position, not mine, since your position asserts the natural world is all that exists but from my position morals transcend nature.” So it doesn’t mean humans can’t have morals and can’t try to get rid of or prevent things which cause them harm.
    “Who said violators of morality do not deserve punishment? Where do you get this stuff from?” When we lock up and even kill dangerous criminals we do so for the wellbeing of everybody else. You claimed and compared this to nazism, communism etc which also claimed this as its justification.

    //So the only way to deal with such people is to kill them. And screaming “nazi” or “communist” is not an argument against killing dangerous criminals and terrorists.//
    “More imaginary conversations.” So you don’t have a problem with killing terrorist s even though it employs the evil consequentialist morality?
    //Except God could have created a world where everyone freely chooses good (and oh yeah where there are no natural disasters either). This refutes your argument and the so called free will defence.//
    “Still unable to comprehend the concept of “free choice”. ” Phoenix still thinks he knows more about the subject than people who have studied this question for years – such as the professional theologian WLC (who he previously has referenced).
    “And you just said above that only conscious beings can be evil.” Such as a God being.
    “So consistent with your reasoning, there is nothing wrong or evil about natural disasters.” Except if a free being – God – caused/designed natural disasters then that being would be evil.
    //Right so it would be a bad idea (if we had the power) to elimate genes that either directly cause or predispose us to things like developmental disorders, mental illness and retardation, drug/alcohol addiction and psychopathy/anti social behaviour just so we can keep the “free will”?//
    “I’m assuming you’re refering to Gene Therapy and who said it was a bad idea?” So why didn’t God do that then? If you say “free will” well you don’t seem to have a problem with free will being eroded by genetic engineering and therapy. So why would you have a problem with God doing the same thing?

  63. Steve says:

    “Infants do not have fully developed brains and their long term memory kicks in after the first year. According to your rationalizations, they are also killable.” They have pain awareness and at least sentience/”minimal consciousness”. In addition as long as they are not severely brain damaged they should Develop normally and gain consciousness and reasoning ability. Also once out of the mothers body it no longer becomes the mothers choice as to whether it lives or dies. (As body autonomy is the reason why the mother has a right to abortion.)
    //There is no evidence of consciousness/sentience before around week 26 this article//
    “So if someone is not aware nor feels pain then he is killable, such as a person with congenital insensitivity to pain may be killed if he is an inconvenience.” Somebody with reduced (or no) pain sensitivity/awareness still has consciousness.
    //A fertilised egg is just a collection of cells so why do you think it is a human being then?//
    “The fertilized egg has a distinct dna from its mother and therefore its an individual.” This is not what people mean when they talk about an individual. If this were true then if you have an identical twin they should be the same person because you have the same genes.
    “It also contains It is a normal human at a normal stage of human development which all of us had undergone. So no, the fetus is far more than just a collection of cells.” It’s a stage when there is no consciousness, sentience or pain awareness whatsoever. Therefore “killing” it at that stage does not even enter the moral sphere.
    //The definition of “human being” you are using has no moral relevance.//
    “First, you have zero moral authority on who gets to be labeled a human and who gets killed. Secondly, my definition of human is consistent with biological facts.” Yes if you have an identical twin you are the same people according to your nonsense reasoning/genetic reductionism.
    //The mothers right to body autonomy trumps any rights that a foetus would have (which it doesn’t).//
    “But the fetus is NOT the mother’s body part, it’s an individual.” So your uncle Bob who needs a kidney from you is not your body part. But still your uncle bob has no right to your kidney without your consent and if you refuse to have your kidney cut out for your uncle Bob it is not murder.
    “Which limb or organ is the fetus?” It is in the mothers body and uses the mothers body therefore she has the right to remove it – just like you have the right to remove a unwanted guest from your home.
    “Also your notion of body autonomy would allow women (and men) to conceal or sorts of paraphernalia and contraband in the bodies because they can do with their bodies as they please. ” This is not my notion of body autonomy. If you have HIV and have unprotected sex you are breaking the law and will be charged. This has nothing nothing to do with body autonomy.
    “Suicide would be moral per your rationalizations because you can do with your body as you please. You rationalizations fail when taken to its full logical conclusions.” So rape and body harvesting would be moral given your rationalisations.
    //Never said that. I said it’s using the mothers body and the mothers right to body autonomy would trump any rights that a embryo is imagined to have.//
    “Unweaned infants use their mothers body when suckling. Per your reasoning they are also killable.” That is a completely different case. It’s like saying a patient is kill able because he depends on the body of his doctor or surgeon. This is completely different from having a right to your surgeons organs.
    // It doesn’t have a right to use the mothers body without her consent- just like you don’t have the right to my organs without my consent.//
    “Second, the mother (in most cases) consented to intercourse which she knew could result in her being pregnant.” If you invite a guest into your home you still have the right to ask them to leave.
    //Yes our morality has evolved and we have become more empathetic/compassionate. And yes we can condemn ancient primitive values in Vedas, OT or the Quran.//
    “That’s the problem with “evolved morality”: It is not static but mutable and may change again as the individual please.” No. Because our morality is evolved doesn’t mean you can just make exceptions or break them for no good justifying reason. “Since the speed limit has changed that means I can go as fast as I like.”

  64. Phoenix says:

    //No because they have a functioning fully formed brain with memories, thoughts and emotions fully intact.//

    Infants do not have fully developed brains and their long term memory kicks in after the first year. According to your rationalizations, they are also killable.

    //There is no evidence of consciousness/sentience before around week 26 this article//

    So if someone is not aware nor feels pain then he is killable, such as a person with congenital insensitivity to pain may be killed if he is an inconvenience.

    //A fertilised egg is just a collection of cells so why do you think it is a human being then?//

    The fertilized egg has a distinct dna from its mother and therefore its an individual. It also contains the entire genome of that unique individual. It is a normal human at a normal stage of human development which all of us had undergone. So no, the fetus is far more than just a collection of cells.

    //The definition of “human being” you are using has no moral relevance.//

    First, you have zero moral authority on who gets to be labeled a human and who gets killed. Secondly, my definition of human is consistent with biological facts.

    //The mothers right to body autonomy trumps any rights that a foetus would have (which it doesn’t).//

    But the fetus is NOT the mother’s body part, it’s an individual. Which limb or organ is the fetus? Also your notion of body autonomy would allow women (and men) to conceal or sorts of paraphernalia and contraband in the bodies because they can do with their bodies as they please. Suicide would be moral per your rationalizations because you can do with your body as you please. You rationalizations fail when taken to its full logical conclusions.

    //Never said that. I said it’s using the mothers body and the mothers right to body autonomy would trump any rights that a embryo is imagined to have.//

    Unweaned infants use their mothers body when suckling. Per your reasoning they are also killable.

    // It doesn’t have a right to use the mothers body without her consent- just like you don’t have the right to my organs without my consent.//

    Again, your organ analogy is false, since you admit the fetus is not one. Second, the mother (in most cases) consented to intercourse which she knew could result in her being pregnant. So the fetus exists in her womb with her permission. Later, she wants to reneg on her consent by deeming the human an inconvenience who deserves to be killed.

    //Yes our morality has evolved and we have become more empathetic/compassionate. And yes we can condemn ancient primitive values in Vedas, OT or the Quran.//

    That’s the problem with “evolved morality”: It is not static but mutable and may change again as the individual please.

  65. Phoenix says:

    //The mind is based in the physical world. The brain is the physical substrate of the mind. Therefore this is a false dichotomy…//

    OK, you’re diverting the actual issue. The topic at hand is whether a victim of verbal derogation’s trauma is a physical wound or psychological. Here I use the term “psychological” in conjunction with the dictionary, meaning “2.(Of an ailment or problem) having a mental rather than a physical cause”. You’ve not addressed that.

    //Thoughts and beliefs from the physicalist view are based in physical reality – electro chemicals in the brain. So this doesn’t contradict materialism. Dualism on the other hand has the massive problem of explaining how (what it holds to be) two fundamental different substances- mind and body – interact//

    // The necessity is simple because if you don’t the species will become extinct. This is an actual basis for holding people responsible- invoking an imaginary mysterious alien “God” being who himself would (to say the least) have questionable morals is not a basis and has nothing to do with moral responsibility.//

    //Only conscious beings can be described as evil – the entire universe is not.//

    Then there cannot be such a thing as natural evil and you cannot pass judgment on the sufferings caused by natural disasters. Moreover, since animals are also conscious beings, per your definition, they can be labeled evil too.

    Me:So your complaint of natural evil, evil deity and evil people is without meaning. Your moral opinion has no moral authority as it is specific only to yourself and may change as the moment changes”

    You: More nonsense your God (if he existed) is either evil, incompetent or indifferent in any case such a being is not the yardstick for human morality//

    Tu quoque/red herring. You charge God without addressing the failures of your self-derived moral opinions.

    //How do you know what Gods nature is? About 9 million children die every year through starvation. Now if a being created that he is not the yardstick for human morality//

    Your accusations will remain baseless no matter how many times you repeat them. Prove conclusively God caused 9 million children to starve to death.

    //Rocks lack disease but are they healthy? No because health is a actual specific thing and not just “lack of disease”//

    It’s completely irrational to invent your own definitions. What is the color of this specific thing called “health”? What is its size, weight, height,etc?

    //Yes it is choice is when you have two or more options to select from. The choice part is made possible by there being multiple options or paths – but you can only select one. People always choosing the good IS NOT VIOLATING free will.//

    Logic is not an Atheist strong suit. You say there are multiple paths to choose from but then you also say you can only select one.

    //God choosing to bring Hitler into existence means he let him loose on us. God is criminally responsible for that//

    I want physical proof from Hitler’s conception that God created him then let him loose on you.

    //Right so that is why you wrote “If those behaviors are natural then why complain in the first place? What practical alternatives does Atheism provide?”

    They are natural behaviors from YOUR atheistic position, not mine, since your position asserts the natural world is all that exists but from my position morals transcend nature.

    // If you don’t kill terrorists they are going to kill you that’s how. So to protect yourself you have to use force against them – which is inhuman. Showing love, kindness and mercy to someone who has no conscience and who wants to kill you and rape your wife and kids is very foolish – and will result in your death and the death of your loved ones. Quote from a psychopath (which is what ISIS and the like are).//

    Who said violators of morality do not deserve punishment? Where do you get this stuff from?
    //So the only way to deal with such people is to kill them. And screaming “nazi” or “communist” is not an argument against killing dangerous criminals and terrorists.//

    More imaginary conversations.

    //Except God could have created a world where everyone freely chooses good (and oh yeah where there are no natural disasters either). This refutes your argument and the so called free will defence.//

    Still unable to comprehend the concept of “free choice”. And you just said above that only conscious beings can be evil. So consistent with your reasoning, there is nothing wrong or evil about natural disasters.

    //Right so it would be a bad idea (if we had the power) to elimate genes that either directly cause or predispose us to things like developmental disorders, mental illness and retardation, drug/alcohol addiction and psychopathy/anti social behaviour just so we can keep the “free will”?//

    I’m assuming you’re refering to Gene Therapy and who said it was a bad idea?

    //Yes they can and even if they couldn’t the alternatives don’t have to exist in reality – existing as an idea would be enough.//

    That’s the problem: If bad is only a hypothetical concept then good can also only be known as a hypothetical concept.

  66. Steve says:

    “Let’s turn to the dictionary for the meaning of “psychological”.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/psychological
    1.Of, affecting, or arising in the mind; related to the mental and emotional state of a person:
    2.(Of an ailment or problem) having a mental rather than a physical cause:” The mind is based in the physical world. The brain is the physical substrate of the mind. Therefore this is a false dichotomy. Sam Vaknin correctly says “When we are born, we are not much more than the sum of our genes and their manifestations. Our brain – a physical object – is the residence of mental health and its disorders. Mental illness cannot be explained without resorting to the body and, especially, to the brain. And our brain cannot be contemplated without considering our genes. Thus, any explanation of our mental life that leaves out our hereditary makeup and our neurophysiology is lacking. Such lacking theories are nothing but literary narratives. Psychoanalysis, for instance, is often accused of being divorced from corporeal reality”

    Straw man. The brain affecting the body is not the issue, no one said otherwise. “The issue is whether subjective beliefs can affect the body and if so, then it implicates dualism.” Thoughts and beliefs from the physicalist view are based in physical reality – electro chemicals in the brain. So this doesn’t contradict materialism. Dualism on the other hand has the massive problem of explaining how (what it holds to be) two fundamental different substances- mind and body – interact.

    //We live in a universe that doesn’t care about us and we are an animal species where our temporal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glans are too big. big. This is why suffering and evil people exist. So materialism perfectly accounts for it.//
    “Your “account” for suffering does not even begin to address the neccessity for having consequences for ones behaviors in an entropic universe with cause and effect, intelligence and choice.” The necessity is simple because if you don’t the species will become extinct. This is an actual basis for holding people responsible- invoking an imaginary mysterious alien “God” being who himself would (to say the least) have questionable morals is not a basis and has nothing to do with moral responsibility.

    “Furthermore, your high priest Richard Dawkins has conclusively shown that a purely material and naturalistic universe cannot accomodate an arbitrary concept such as evil and you have concurred with him by embracing animalism. ” Only conscious beings can be described as evil – the entire universe is not.
    “So your complaint of natural evil, evil deity and evil people is without meaning. Your moral opinion has no moral authority as it is specific only to yourself and may change as the moment changes.” More nonsense your God (if he existed) is either evil, incompetent or indifferent in any case such a being is not the yardstick for human morality.

    //Why does it exist then?//
    “Evil exists for 2 main reasons: Ignorance and deliberate rebellion against God’s nature.” How do you know what Gods nature is? About 9 million children die every year through starvation. Now if a being created that he is not the yardstick for human morality.

    //No let’s say I need a exercise and diet plan so I can stay fit and healthy. Firstly we don’t need a world where unhealthy foods and lack of physical activity exist to do that in the first place and two even if they did exist and are possible and we had knowledge of what it is. doesn’t mean we have to choose to eat unhealthy foods or not bother exercising – we could always choose to eat healthy and exercise. Likewise God could have done the same with the evil/suffering situation.//
    “You’re forgetting that health is determined by the lack of disease and abnormality in an individual.” No it’s not health is an actual state of being its not just a “lack of disease”. Rocks lack disease but are they healthy? No because health is a actual specific thing and not just “lack of disease”.

    “And no one said you MUST choose to eat unhealthy foods. If we only have one path to select from then it is not a free choice. How are you not getting that?” Yes it is choice is when you have two or more options to select from. The choice part is made possible by there being multiple options or paths – but you can only select one. People always choosing the good IS NOT VIOLATING free will.

    “Bullshit, and you cannot God released any criminal onto any street. Your accusations are absurd.” God choosing to bring Hitler into existence means he let him loose on us. God is criminally responsible for that.

    //Because something exists doesn’t mean it’s good. Terror attacks happen following your reasoning the police and intelligence services should just say “well we live in a world where terror attacks happens so let’s not bother trying to prevent any. And life is meaningless since everybody dies anyway and there is no afterlife and judgement from God.” Would that be a valid argument from the intelligence services or just a load of baloney and excuses? Obviously the latter.//

    “Another straw man. Nowhere did I say that if something exists means it’s good.” Right so that is why you wrote “If those behaviors are natural then why complain in the first place? What practical alternatives does Atheism provide?”

    // We don’t need evil anymore than you would need unhealthy foods to be able to follow and diet. And even if you did God could just have made a world where he knew everybody would Freely choose good.//
    “It is still a contradiction, no matter how many times you repeat your mantra. “We can freely choose X” and “There is no other alternative besides X”” 1)Tell that to WLC a professional theologian and philosopher who says there is no contradiction between free will and omniscience (and who says he studied the subject in depth for years). 2) To give Craig’s argument again in case you forgot. God is like a perfect infallible barometer. It’s your free choice that determines Gods foreknowledge not Gods foreknowledge determining your free choice. You are free to do what you want – your just not free to fool the barometer. So by analogy if a parent offers two bowls to their child one of green vegetables and the other a bowl of ice cream the parent knows before hand what the child will freely choose. But that knowledge is not causing or determining the child’s choice – and certainly not the parents will being enforced on the child.

    //If we lock up or even kill if necessary dangerous criminals who are a threat to everyone else this is the same as the nazis killing entire races of people who no justification for their actions whatsoever? Would you still cling to your “humane principle” even if it killed everybody else?//
    “I don’t follow. How does a human principle lead to everybody being killed?” If you don’t kill terrorists they are going to kill you that’s how. So to protect yourself you have to use force against them – which is inhuman. Showing love, kindness and mercy to someone who has no conscience and who wants to kill you and rape your wife and kids is very foolish – and will result in your death and the death of your loved ones. Quote from a psychopath (which is what ISIS and the like are).
    “I would move Heaven and Hell and anything in between to get to you. You wouldn’t be safe anywhere if I was mad at you. And that’s not bull; that’s truth. I’ve went up against people. You could pull a gun on me and if I’m mad at you I’m coming forward. You’d have to shoot me to stop me and if you don’t kill me you’re stupid cause the next time you see me I WILL KILL YOU”
    So the only way to deal with such people is to kill them. And screaming “nazi” or “communist” is not an argument against killing dangerous criminals and terrorists.

    “Omnipotence is not licence for God to violate the law of free will, laws of logic and moral laws. God cannot bring about any contradictory state of affairs.” Except God could have created a world where everyone freely chooses good (and oh yeah where there are no natural disasters either). This refutes your argument and the so called free will defence.

    Here’s the type of world Atheists wished they lived in a Utopia where humans were perfect automatons.
    Problems with an Atheist reality:
    “1) All utopia designed states have have failed. Soviet, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc” I don’t think anybody would agree those countries was “Utopias”.
    “2) A world where humans are automatons mean their behaviors would be algorithmically controlled. This mean intelligence, reasoning, deliberation, contemplation and choice would become redundant. As there would be no reason for them in a world where everything is the result of prior particle alignments and physical events.” Right so it would be a bad idea (if we had the power) to elimate genes that either directly cause or predispose us to things like developmental disorders, mental illness and retardation, drug/alcohol addiction and psychopathy/anti social behaviour just so we can keep the “free will”?
    “3) There would be no good, health, well being, truth, joy and freedom because they cannot be recognized without their alternatives.” Yes they can and even if they couldn’t the alternatives don’t have to exist in reality – existing as an idea would be enough.

  67. Steve says:

    “Your reasoning would allow anyone who finds himself in even temporary a position where he feels no pain or is unconscious to be killed. Even someone who is asleep may be killed per your reasoning.” No because they have a functioning fully formed brain with memories, thoughts and emotions fully intact.

    “But you’re forgetting the most important part: The developing human (fetus) is also only temporarily unconscious,” There is no evidence of consciousness/sentience before around week 26 this article http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65/n3/full/pr200950a.html says
    “A pending question is the status of the preterm fetus born before 26 wk (<700 g) who has closed eyes and seems constantly asleep. The immaturity of its brain networks is such that it may not even reach a level of minimal consciousness. The postnatal maturation of the brain may be delayed (71) and there are indications that the connectivity with the GNW will be suboptimal in some cases (72) as indicated by deficient executive functions (73). Therefore, the timing of the emergence of minimal consciousness has been proposed as an ethical limit of human viability and it might be possible to withhold or withdraw intensive care if these infants are severely brain damaged".
    "I’m getting tired of defending arguments I did not even make. Who said a collection of cells is a human being?" A fertilised egg is just a collection of cells so why do you think it is a human being then?
    "Only a human being can be a victim of murder, not sperm or an unfertilized egg." The definition of "human being" you are using has no moral relevance.

    "Furthermore, you make the unstated assumption that because the fetus is dependent on the mother’s body, therefore it is not human and may be killed. You might want to rethink that." The mothers right to body autonomy trumps any rights that a foetus would have (which it doesn't).

    Here you make two grievous errors:
    "1) The embryo is not an organ of its mother. That is biologically false." Never said that. I said it's using the mothers body and the mothers right to body autonomy would trump any rights that a embryo is imagined to have.
    "2) If the mother has autonomous sanctity to her body then the new human also has that right of sanctity." It doesn't have a right to use the mothers body without her consent- just like you don't have the right to my organs without my consent.

    "Evolved morality is a relative concept as it implies principles that were appropriate for its era, which means the violence in the Vedas, OT and Quran cannot be condemned because it was acceptable during that period. And our current moral principles would have evolved from that necessary stage." Yes our morality has evolved and we have become more empathetic/compassionate. And yes we can condemn ancient primitive values in Vedas, OT or the Quran.

  68. Phoenix says:

    //When there is evidence of consciousness and pain awareness.//

    Your reasoning would allow anyone who finds himself in even temporary a position where he feels no pain or is unconscious to be killed. Even someone who is asleep may be killed per your reasoning.
    But you’re forgetting the most important part: The developing human (fetus) is also only temporarily unconscious,

    //You understand of “humanness” is not relevant to whether abortion is murder or not. How does a collection of cells (which you can put in a dish) have rights? It doesn’t you are speaking utter codswallop.//

    I’m getting tired of defending arguments I did not even make. Who said a collection of cells is a human being?

    //Sperms and unfertilised eggs are classed as “human life” what I think you meant is that they are not genetically distinct like a fertilised egg is. Which is the only sense in which a fertilised egg is considered a “human being” in the sense in that it is a new organism. But why does that give it rights? It doesn’t, it’s carried by the mother and uses her body and it has no consciousness or pain awareness therefore it has no rights because rights can only apply to conscious thinking and feeling beings.//

    Only a human being can be a victim of murder, not sperm or an unfertilized egg.Furthermore, you make the unstated assumption that because the fetus is dependent on the mother’s body, therefore it is not human and may be killed. You might want to rethink that.

    // Right “killing” a fertilised egg is the same as killing a human being with a mind? Also it’s the women’s choice – it’s her body. The mothers right to body autonomy trumps the embryos “right to “life””. This is a well established moral principles – it is the reason why you can’t have my organs if I don’t consent.//

    Here you make two grievous errors:
    1) The embryo is not an organ of its mother. That is biologically false.
    2) If the mother has autonomous sanctity to her body then the new human also has that right of sanctity.

    // Just like morality is or has been evolving? Like in these cases. 1)Slavery 2) Women’s rights 3) Children’s rights. 3) Minority rights. 4) Freedom of speech and religion. 4) Death penalty. As I also said before even something like our view of rape has evolved. In the ethics of the Old Testament/ Jewish bible it was held to be wrong because the rapist had defiled the property of her father (or other male relatives) and not because of empathy concerns due to the fact her body autonomy had been violated and the trauma of the experience.//

    Evolved morality is a relative concept as it implies principles that were appropriate for its era, which means the violence in the Vedas, OT and Quran cannot be condemned because it was acceptable during that period. And our current moral principles would have evolved from that necessary stage.

  69. Phoenix says:

    “But they are physically visible – we can observe that somebody is in psychological pain. (If we couldn’t we wouldn’t be able to talk about it).//

    Completely false. Once more you are demonstrating consequentialism in action by defiling the English language to support your goal.
    Let’s turn to the dictionary for the meaning of “psychological”.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/psychological

    1.Of, affecting, or arising in the mind; related to the mental and emotional state of a person:

    2.(Of an ailment or problem) having a mental rather than a physical cause:
    ===========
    //No brain/mind can effect the body and have an effect on the rest of the world – and this doesn’t contradict materialism so far as I can see.//

    Straw man. The brain affecting the body is not the issue, no one said otherwise. The issue is whether subjective beliefs can affect the body and if so, then it implicates dualism.

    //We live in a universe that doesn’t care about us and we are an animal species where our temporal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glans are too big. big. This is why suffering and evil people exist. So materialism perfectly accounts for it.//

    Your “account” for suffering does not even begin to address the neccessity for having consequences for ones behaviors in an entropic universe with cause and effect, intelligence and choice.Furthermore, your high priest Richard Dawkins has conclusively shown that a purely material and naturalistic universe cannot accomodate an arbitrary concept such as evil and you have concurred with him by embracing animalism. So your complaint of natural evil, evil deity and evil people is without meaning. Your moral opinion has no moral authority as it is specific only to yourself and may change as the moment changes.

    //Why does it exist then?//

    Evil exists for 2 main reasons: Ignorance and deliberate rebellion against God’s nature.

    //No let’s say I need a exercise and diet plan so I can stay fit and healthy. Firstly we don’t need a world where unhealthy foods and lack of physical activity exist to do that in the first place and two even if they did exist and are possible and we had knowledge of what it is. doesn’t mean we have to choose to eat unhealthy foods or not bother exercising – we could always choose to eat healthy and exercise. Likewise God could have done the same with the evil/suffering situation.//

    You’re forgetting that health is determined by the lack of disease and abnormality in an individual. And no one said you MUST choose to eat unhealthy foods. If we only have one path to select from then it is not a free choice. How are you not getting that?

    //Right so if a prison releases a dangerous criminal onto the streets knowing he is going to assault rob and kill people they are no criminally are they? Because that’s what God does.//

    Bullshit, and you cannot God released any criminal onto any street. Your accusations are absurd.

    //Because something exists doesn’t mean it’s good. Terror attacks happen following your reasoning the police and intelligence services should just say “well we live in a world where terror attacks happens so let’s not bother trying to prevent any. And life is meaningless since everybody dies anyway and there is no afterlife and judgement from God.” Would that be a valid argument from the intelligence services or just a load of baloney and excuses? Obviously the latter.//

    Another straw man. Nowhere did I say that if something exists means it’s good.

    // We don’t need evil anymore than you would need unhealthy foods to be able to follow and diet. And even if you did God could just have made a world where he knew everybody would Freely choose good.//

    It is still a contradiction, no matter how many times you repeat your mantra. “We can freely choose X” and “There is no other alternative besides X”

    //If we lock up or even kill if necessary dangerous criminals who are a threat to everyone else this is the same as the nazis killing entire races of people who no justification for their actions whatsoever? Would you still cling to your “humane principle” even if it killed everybody else?//

    I don’t follow. How does a human principle lead to everybody being killed?

    //Except God is omnipotent and therefore can prevent all evil or better yet he could have just created a universe containing no suffering in the first place while child protection services has neither the power of foreknowledge or omnipotence//

    Omnipotence is not licence for God to violate the law of free will, laws of logic and moral laws. God cannot bring about any contradictory state of affairs.

    Here’s the type of world Atheists wished they lived in a Utopia where humans were perfect automatons.
    Problems with an Atheist reality:

    1) All utopia designed states have have failed. Soviet, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc
    2) A world where humans are automatons mean their behaviors would be algorithmically controlled. This mean intelligence, reasoning, deliberation, contemplation and choice would become redundant. As there would be no reason for them in a world where everything is the result of prior particle alignments and physical events.
    3) There would be no good, health, well being, truth, joy and freedom because they cannot be recognized without their alternatives.

  70. Steve says:

    //Subjective experiences” are not separate and hidden from everything else in the universe therefore psychological/emotional abuse has a real effect on not just the person but society as well – just the same as physical harm.//
    “I said the symptoms of verbal and emotional abuse are not physically visible. If they are not physical then they fall outside the materialist’s epistemology for truth and knowledge acquisition.” But they are physically visible – we can observe that somebody is in psychological pain. (If we couldn’t we wouldn’t be able to talk about it).
    “Yes, and that in itself disproves Materialism because subjective beliefs are supposed to be causally inert if Materialism is true.” No brain/mind can effect the body and have an effect on the rest of the world – and this doesn’t contradict materialism so far as I can see.

    //Me:Note that according to Atheists only the material exists, therefore if the injury is not physically visible it does not exist.
    “Like I said before, your worldview cannot account for evil and you’ve demonstrated that perfectly” We live in a universe that doesn’t care about us and we are an animal species where our temporal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glans are too big. big. This is why suffering and evil people exist. So materialism perfectly accounts for it.

    “First, God did not create suffering or evil.” Why does it exist then?

    ” Two, God created a world where good can be known relative to evil. You have defined your good moral principle as “avoiding harm”. How can you avoid harm if it does not exist? You cannot avoid an obstacle in your path that does not exist. Since your definition of good includes the concept of harm/evil, you have conceded that for good to exist, its antonym MUST be a reality too.” No let’s say I need a exercise and diet plan so I can stay fit and healthy. Firstly we don’t need a world where unhealthy foods and lack of physical activity exist to do that in the first place and two even if they did exist and are possible and we had knowledge of what it is. doesn’t mean we have to choose to eat unhealthy foods or not bother exercising – we could always choose to eat healthy and exercise. Likewise God could have done the same with the evil/suffering situation.
    “Lastly, I am familiar with the types of evidence required to prosecute criminal offences and so far you have provided nothing, except for false allegations and incoherent reasoning.” Right so if a prison releases a dangerous criminal onto the streets knowing he is going to assault rob and kill people they are no criminally are they? Because that’s what God does.

    // Ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy?//
    “Yes I have but your charges are false. In fact you did not even attempt to show me how I engaged in that fallacy.” Because something exists doesn’t mean it’s good. Terror attacks happen following your reasoning the police and intelligence services should just say “well we live in a world where terror attacks happens so let’s not bother trying to prevent any. And life is meaningless since everybody dies anyway and there is no afterlife and judgement from God.” Would that be a valid argument from the intelligence services or just a load of baloney and excuses? Obviously the latter.
    “You’re way off the mark. My contention is that without evil we cannot know good, but that in no way imply God created evil. ” We don’t need evil anymore than you would need unhealthy foods to be able to follow and diet. And even if you did God could just have made a world where he knew everybody would Freely choose good.

    “I’ll tell you what the pseudo-scientific racial theory of Darwinian Evolution has to do with the issue: It devalues human life and creates false moral authorities like yourself who believe they have the power to decide who deserves to be killed and who deserves to be considered a human.” If we lock up or even kill if necessary dangerous criminals who are a threat to everyone else this is the same as the nazis killing entire races of people who no justification for their actions whatsoever? Would you still cling to your “humane principle” even if it killed everybody else?

    “OK, let’s entertain your analogy for a sec: So like God, child protection services cannot prevent all evil” Except God is omnipotent and therefore can prevent all evil or better yet he could have just created a universe containing no suffering in the first place while child protection services has neither the power of foreknowledge or omnipotence.

    “but they do ensure that child abusers face the full might of the law. Your analogy erroneously assumes God does not deal with trespassers.” I already wrote about how compensation does not justify or give you the right to harm other people. (Even if the afterlife and judgement after death wasn’t nothing but a fantasy).

    “No one said you need to be sick in order to be healthy. That’s a bizzare assessment.” So we don’t need it then just like we don’t need evil so stop talking nonsense.
    //Free will is completely irrelevant to my argument. The fact is God uses people to bring about a greater good and this is consequentialist morality.//
    “This is a common Leftist trait: They redefine terms to suit their agenda. Which, ironically, is exactly what Consequentilaists do too.” And God is a consequentialist despite your denial who allows violations of his own “objective moral laws” to achieve a greater good.
    “And you have a better plan? Share it with us. Let’s see what type of world Atheists can come up with’ It cannot be any worse than a plan of a being who doesn’t exist

  71. Steve says:

    //Subjective experiences” are not separate and hidden from everything else in the universe therefore psychological/emotional abuse has a real effect on not just the person but society as well – just the same as physical harm.//
    “I said the symptoms of verbal and emotional abuse are not physically visible. If they are not physical then they fall outside the materialist’s epistemology for truth and knowledge acquisition.” But they are physically visible – we can observe that somebody is in psychological pain. (If we couldn’t we wouldn’t be able to talk about it).

    “Yes, and that in itself disproves Materialism because subjective beliefs are supposed to be causally inert if Materialism is true.” No brain/mind can effect the body and have an effect on the rest of the world – and this contradict so far as I can see.
    //Me:Note that according to Atheists only the material exists, therefore if the injury is not physically visible it does not exist.
    “Like I said before, your worldview cannot account for evil and you’ve demonstrated that perfectly” We live in a universe that doesn’t care about us and we are an animal species where our temporal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glans are too big. big. This is why suffering and evil people exist. How many perfectly accounts for it.

    “First, God did not create suffering or evil.” Why does it exist then?
    ” Two, God created a world where good can be known relative to evil. You have defined your good moral principle as “avoiding harm”. How can you avoid harm if it does not exist? You cannot avoid an obstacle in your path that does not exist. Since your definition of good includes the concept of harm/evil, you have conceded that for good to exist, its antonym MUST be a reality too.” No let’s say I need to have exercise and diet plan how I can healthy and fit. Firstly we don’t need a world where unhealthy foods and lack of physical activity exist to do that in the first place and two even if they did exist and are possible and we had knowledge of what it is doesn’t mean we have to choose to eat unhealthy or not bother exercising – we could always choose to eat healthy and exercise. Likewise God could have done the same with the evil/suffering situation.

    “Lastly, I am familiar with the types of evidence required to prosecute criminal offences and so far you have provided nothing, except for false allegations and incoherent reasoning.” Right so if a prison releases a dangerous criminal onto the streets knowing he is going to assault rob and kill people they are no criminally are they? Because that’s what God does.
    // Ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy?//
    “Yes I have but your charges are false. In fact you did not even attempt to show me how I engaged in that fallacy.” Because something exists doesn’t mean it’s good. Terror attacks happen following your reasoning the police and intelligence services should just say “well we live in a world where terror attacks happens so let’s not bother trying to prevent any. And life is meaningless since everybody dies anyway and there is no afterlife and judgement from God.” Would that be a valid argument from the intelligence services or just a load of baloney and excuses? Obviously the latter.
    “You’re way off the mark. My contention is that without evil we cannot know good, but that in no way imply God created evil. ” We don’t evil anymore than you would need unhealthy foods to be able to follow and diet. And even if you did God could just have made a world where he knew everybody would Freely choose good.
    “I’ll tell you what the pseudo-scientific racial theory of Darwinian Evolution has to do with the issue: It devalues human life and creates false moral authorities like yourself who believe they have the power to decide who deserves to be killed and who deserves to be considered a human.” If we lock up or even kill if necessary dangerous criminals who are a threat to everyone else this is the same as the nazis killing entire races of people who no justification for their actions whatsoever? Would you still cling to your “humane principle” even if it killed everybody else?
    “OK, let’s entertain your analogy for a sec: So like God, child protection services cannot prevent all evil” Except God is omnipotent and therefore can prevent all evil or better yet he could have just created a universe containing no suffering in the first place while child protection services has neither the power of foreknowledge or omnipotence.
    “but they do ensure that child abusers face the full might of the law. Your analogy erroneously assumes God does not deal with trespassers.” I already wrote about how compensation does not justify or give you the right to harm other people. (Even if the afterlife and judgement after death wasn’t nothing but a fantasy).
    “No one said you need to be sick in order to be healthy. That’s a bizzare assessment.” So we don’t need it then just like we don’t need evil so stop talking nonsense.

    //Free will is completely irrelevant to my argument. The fact is God uses people to bring about a greater good and this is consequentialist morality.//
    “This is a common Leftist trait: They redefine terms to suit their agenda. Which, ironically, is exactly what Consequentilaists do too.” And God is a consequentialist despite your denial who allows violations of his own “objective moral laws” to achieve a greater good.
    “And you have a better plan? Share it with us. Let’s see what type of world Atheists can come up with’ It cannot be any worse than a plan of a being who doesn’t exist.

  72. Steve says:

    “Person is an arbitrary term. At which exact point does personhood get installed into the fetus and who gets to decide when that fetus is killable?” When there is evidence of consciousness and pain awareness.
    “My understanding of the humanness of the fetus is supported by biological facts. Yours is mere opinion, and a self -anointed moral authority on who is considered a person.” You understand of “humanness” is not relevant to whether abortion is murder or not. How does a collection of cells (which you can put in a dish) have rights? It doesn’t you are speaking utter codswallop.

    “False, human life is not an unfertilized egg, nor is skin cells, or sperm cells, or human hair follicles or any other straw man you wish to erect. The human embryo is human life, the human fertilized egg is human life, the fetus is human life. It is the neccessary stage of all human development.” Sperms and unfertilised eggs are classed as “human life” what I think you meant is that they are not genetically distinct like a fertilised egg is. Which is the only sense in which a fertilised egg is considered a “human being” in the sense in that it is a new organism. But why does that give it rights? It doesn’t, it’s carried by the mother and uses her body and it has no consciousness or pain awareness therefore it has no rights because rights can only apply to conscious thinking and feeling beings.
    ” Who gave you the moral authority to decide who gets to die?” Right “killing” a fertilised egg is the same as killing a human being with a mind? Also it’s the women’s choice – it’s her body. The mothers right to body autonomy trumps the embryos “right to “life””. This is a well established moral principles – it is the reason why you can’t have my organs if I don’t consent.

    “You claim there are things which are always wrong but then you equate those things to a game that has changed over time. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of “always”.” Just like morality is or has been evolving? Like in these cases. 1)Slavery 2) Women’s rights 3) Children’s rights. 3) Minority rights. 4) Freedom of speech and religion. 4) Death penalty. As I also said before even something like our view of rape has evolved. In the ethics of the Old Testament/ Jewish bible it was held to be wrong because the rapist had defiled the property of her father (or other male relatives) and not because of empathy concerns due to the fact her body autonomy had been violated and the trauma of the experience.

  73. Phoenix says:

    //So it’s not a person its not conscious at all and has no pain awareness.//

    Person is an arbitrary term. At which exact point does personhood get installed into the fetus and who gets to decide when that fetus is killable? My understanding of the humanness of the fetus is supported by biological facts. Yours is mere opinion, and a self -anointed moral authority on who is considered a person.

    //What right? Non existent persons don’t have rights.
    “And no one is arguing that a human cell, an unfertilized egg or spermatozoa on its own is a human being. This is a red herring/straw man” Biologically a sperm cell or unfertilised egg is human life and is “alive” so why don’t you think that it is murder then to kill sperms? Also an unfertilised egg could become fertilised so do you wish to deny it it’s right and kill it pre-emptively because one day it “could” become a person of its own?//

    False, human life is not an unfertilized egg, nor is skin cells, or sperm cells, or human hair follicles or any other straw man you wish to erect. The human embryo is human life, the human fertilized egg is human life, the fetus is human life. It is the neccessary stage of all human development. Who gave you the moral authority to decide who gets to die?

    //No things can always be wrong – even if the rules are made up. E.g in a game of chess there are moves which are always wrong. (Which doesn’t mean that morality is arbitrary and made up randomly for no reason at all.)//

    You claim there are things which are always wrong but then you equate those things to a game that has changed over time. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of “always”.

  74. Phoenix says:

    //Subjective experiences” are not separate and hidden from everything else in the universe therefore psychological/emotional abuse has a real effect on not just the person but society as well – just the same as physical harm.//

    No one said the effects of psychological abuse is not real. Stop having imaginary discussions, please. I said the symptoms of verbal and emotional abuse are not physically visible. If they are not physical then they fall outside the materialist’s epistemology for truth and knowledge acquisition.

    //Yes people have different temperaments//

    Thanks for stating the obvious. But that is not a refutation.

    //Psychological trauma does effect the physical (mostly the functioning of the brain) so I reject this and dualism//

    Yes, and that in itself disproves Materialism because subjective beliefs are supposed to be causally inert if Materialism is true.

    //Me:Note that according to Atheists only the material exists, therefore if the injury is not physically visible it does not exist. Like I said before, your worldview cannot account for evil and you’ve demonstrated that perfectly

    You: According to materialism all thoughts have a basis in the physical world (which is mostly the brain) so this is false. Not that we have to know anything about what’s going on in the brain (chemicals and neurones firing and all the rest of it )to observe that a person is evil. (Just like we can observe a person is stupid or intelligent or happy or scared or aggressive etc without knowing anything about the biochemistry of the brain).//

    This is not an answer. No one said evil cannot be observed.

  75. Phoenix says:

    //1) God choose to create a world containing evil people and natural disasters (when he didn’t have to). 2) God knew that they would commit crimes and countless millions would suffer. 3) Therefore God is criminal responsible, – just like if a prison releases a dangerous criminal onto the streets knowing he will kill people they are criminally responsible. Your attempts to weasel God out of it are not going to work God is guilty of crimes against humanity by the standard of international law.//

    First, God did not create suffering or evil. Two, God created a world where good can be known relative to evil. You have defined your good moral principle as “avoiding harm”. How can you avoid harm if it does not exist? You cannot avoid an obstacle in your path that does not exist. Since your definition of good includes the concept of harm/evil, you have conceded that for good to exist, its antonym MUST be a reality too.
    Lastly, I am familiar with the types of evidence required to prosecute criminal offences and so far you have provided nothing, except for false allegations and incoherent reasoning.

    // Ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy?//

    Yes I have but your charges are false. In fact you did not even attempt to show me how I engaged in that fallacy.

    //Suffering exists as part of Gods plan to bring about a greater good so people who inflict suffering therefore are just carrying out his plan – according to your explanation as to why suffering exists anyway so I don’t know what you mean by “prove”. I also had to explain this point to the Hindu Why he like you kept saying ridiculous things to try to weasel out of the fact that under reincarnation/karma Hitler is just an instrument of “divine justice” punishing evil doers for “past life sins”.//

    Straw man/red herring/ false association fallacy. The Hindu you’re referring to has no bearing on the argument being made.

    // It is your belief that suffering is part of Gods plan to bring about a greater good so why do you keep asking me for evidence?//

    You’re way off the mark. My contention is that without evil we cannot know good, but that in no way imply God created evil.

    // What does the pseudo scientific racial theories of the nazis have to do with Darwinism or utilitarianism?

    I’ll tell you what the pseudo-scientific racial theory of Darwinian Evolution has to do with the issue: It devalues human life and creates false moral authorities like yourself who believe they have the power to decide who deserves to be killed and who deserves to be considered a human.

    //Completely ignored and missed the point which explains why God is criminally responsible for the likes of Hitler. Child protection services = God. Abusive parents = Nazis. Innocent people who were exterminated by the nazis = Abused children//

    OK, let’s entertain your analogy for a sec: So like God, child protection services cannot prevent all evil but they do ensure that child abusers face the full might of the law. Your analogy erroneously assumes God does not deal with trespassers.

    //” I can be healthy without being sick there is no reason why we need suffering and evil you are just coming out with more nonsense.//

    No one said you need to be sick in order to be healthy. That’s a bizzare assessment. I said health is known by the lack of sickness or abnormality. Now please twist my words and make me say something like “I must drink poison to be healthy”.

    //Free will is completely irrelevant to my argument. The fact is God uses people to bring about a greater good and this is consequentialist morality.//

    This is a common Leftist trait: They redefine terms to suit their agenda. Which, ironically, is exactly what Consequentilaists do too.

    // God is the first cause of this universe therefore he is ultimately responsible for everything that exists in this world. (And you also believe God created all the laws of nature as well and knew how our universe would unfold according TO HIS laws.//

    And you have a better plan? Share it with us. Let’s see what type of world Atheists can come up with

  76. Steve says:

    “Why is that you do not provide a shred of evidence? Your baseless accusations are dismissed.” 1) God choose to create a world containing evil people and natural disasters (when he didn’t have to). 2) God knew that they would commit crimes and countless millions would suffer. 3) Therefore God is criminal responsible, – just like if a prison releases a dangerous criminal onto the streets knowing he will kill people they are criminally responsible. Your attempts to weasel God out of it are not going to work God is guilty of crimes against humanity by the standard of international law.

    “3. If you have no alternative, no solution, no preventive measures to natural disaters and the “evil” in nature, then why don’t you just accept reality as it is? It is sheer madness to fight against something which is impossible to alter.” Ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy? https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/131/Naturalistic-Fallacy

    Dictionary definition of subordinate: “a person under the authority or control of another within an organization”
    “Now prove Hitler was employed by God and/or under his control.” Suffering exists as part of Gods plan to bring about a greater good so people who inflict suffering therefore are just carrying out his plan – according to your explanation as to why suffering exists anyway so I don’t know what you mean by “prove”. I also had to explain this point to the Hindu Why he like you kept saying ridiculous things to try to weasel out of the fact that under reincarnation/karma Hitler is just an instrument of “divine justice” punishing evil doers for “past life sins”.
    I asked you to: “Prove that God had planned the Holocaust.
    Your response is: “He is omniscient and choose to create it. Also every bit of suffering is part of his plan to bring about a greater good so he indeed planned it.//
    “You really do not care for evidence do you?” It is your belief that suffering is part of Gods plan to bring about a greater good so why do you keep asking me for evidence?

    //Men whose actions was part of Gods plan//
    Still not evidence. But here is evidence that Nazism was founded upon Darwinian human evolution.
    https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007057
    “Nazism was applied biology,stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess. During the Third Reich, a politically extreme, antisemitic variation of eugenics determined the course of state policy. Hitler’s regime touted the Nordic race as its eugenic ideal and attempted to mold Germany into a cohesive national community that excluded anyone deemed hereditarily less valuable or racially foreign…” What does the pseudo scientific racial theories of the nazis have to do with Darwinism or utilitarianism?
    //Yes they are. If child protection services know a child is being abused are they responsible if they leave the child with the abusive parents? Yes they are. Likewise an omniscient God is responsible for letting Hitler loose on us.//
    “This is embarrassing. You seriously can’t compare abused children to the Nazis. Hitler was a grown man and completely capable of comprehending the difference between good and evil. I don’t even know what it takes to make such an asinine statement.” Completely ignored and missed the point which explains why God is criminally responsible for the likes of Hitler. Child protection services = God. Abusive parents = Nazis. Innocent people who were exterminated by the nazis = Abused children.
    “Society’s well being is the goal, the moral principle is the guideline. Learn the difference.” Yes and your point is?
    // Do I have to eat poison to know what foods are healthy? No.//
    http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=39448
    “Yes, health is a good analogy. The medical dictionary defines health as: “State of organism when it functions optimally without evidence of disease or abnormality”
    Here the dictionary notes that health is determined by lack of disease or abnormality. Likewise, good cannot be known experientially without its opposite: “evil”.” I can be healthy without being sick there is no reason why we need suffering and evil you are just coming out with more nonsense.
    //Yes and they do that because they say it achieves a greater good. Which is exactly what you say God does, so how is God any different to any other consequentialist?//
    “You choose to redefine Consequentialism, which is illogical. God does not need to violate free will and moral laws in order to have his objective achieved.” Free will is completely irrelevant to my argument. The fact is God uses people to bring about a greater good and this is consequentialist morality.
    //I don’t believe in God. However God is traditionally defined as being the creator of everything (and so if he existed would be ultimately responsible for everything that happens – including evil.)//
    “I did not say God created everything. You can keep attacking your straw man but it will remain fallacious.” God is the first cause of this universe therefore he is ultimately responsible for everything that exists in this world. (And you also believe God created all the laws of nature as well and knew how our universe would unfold according TO HIS laws.

  77. Steve says:

    “The symptoms for verbal and emotional abuse does not entail physical injuries. The symptoms are purely based on subjective experience. And since Atheists reject all experiences as subjective phenomenon with no objective value, therefore any argument from subjective experience is dismissed as invalid evidence.” “Subjective experiences” are not separate and hidden from everything else in the universe therefore psychological/emotional abuse has a real effect on not just the person but society as well – just the same as physical harm.
    “For example: If someone is verbally abused and called “fat ugly pig” it may hurt that person but for someone else it may be water off a ducks back and have zero effect.” Yes people have different temperaments.
    “You have also managed to sidestep the other evils I’ve mentioned such as fraud, theft, lying, adultery, etc. which does not leave any physical scars.” Psychological trauma does effect the physical (mostly the functioning of the brain) so I reject this and dualism.
    ” Note that according to Atheists only the material exists, therefore if the injury is not physically visible it does not exist. Like I said before, your worldview cannot account for evil and you’ve demonstrated that perfectly.” According to materialism all thoughts have a basis in the physical world (which is mostly the brain) so this is false. Not that we have to know anything about what’s going on in the brain (chemicals and neurones firing and all the rest of it )to observe that a person is evil. (Just like we can observe a person is stupid or intelligent or happy or scared or aggressive etc without knowing anything about the biochemistry of the brain).
    “You seriously can’t compare miscarriages to the intentional and pre-emptive destruction of a living fetus. What kind of mind even makes that comparison?” Right God didn’t intent to Create a world with countless natural abortions he just became the first cause of all existence after he slipped and knocked his dinner on the floor which was the “big bang” I suppose?
    //2) An embryo is not a conscious or sentient being.//
    “Yes or no…shredding an embryonic human is murder?” No it’s not.

    “The fertilized egg contains the entire human genome of that unique human individual. It is alive, growing and has DNA. It is a human at the exact and necessary stage of human development that you and I were. ” So it’s not a person its not conscious at all and has no pain awareness.
    “You wish to deny that human that right and kill it pre-emptively. ” What right? Non existent persons don’t have rights.
    “And no one is arguing that a human cell, an unfertilized egg or spermatozoa on its own is a human being. This is a red herring/straw man” Biologically a sperm cell or unfertilised egg is human life and is “alive” so why don’t you think that it is murder then to kill sperms? Also an unfertilised egg could become fertilised so do you wish to deny it it’s right and kill it pre-emptively because one day it “could” become a person of its own?
    //No why would it imply that? Murder, rape and robbery is harmful to the society and always will be. And how do you know murder, rape and robbery is “objectively wrong”? Remember objective means independent of what you think about it and independent of any harmful effects. So why is it “objectively wrong” and how do you know that?//
    “Once again, you have made an absolute moral statement by claiming murder, etc is always wrong. It cannot be “always” wrong if morality is a) mere human construct b) relative to cultures/situations c) not found in any material object or laws of nature,as there are no inherent values in matter. Thus it is only your personal opinion that it is “always” wrong to murder, rape and plunder,” No things can always be wrong – even if the rules are made up. E.g in a game of chess there are moves which are always wrong. (Which doesn’t mean that morality is arbitrary and made up randomly for no reason at all.)

  78. Phoenix says:

    //Your omniscient and omnipotent God would be criminally responsible for setting criminals and natural disasters on us. Your attempts to weasel him out of it notwithstanding. //

    Why is that you do not provide a shred of evidence? Your baseless accusations are dismissed.
    ——–
    Me: “If those behaviors are natural then why complain in the first place? What practical alternatives does Atheism provide?”

    You: The fact morality is about humans and their concerns and not given by some mysterious God being.//

    1.You’ve sidestepped the question.
    2. Your inability to provide an alternative mean you concede Atheism is impotent as a moral guide.
    3. If you have no alternative, no solution, no preventive measures to natural disaters and the “evil” in nature, then why don’t you just accept reality as it is? It is sheer madness to fight against something which is impossible to alter.
    ——-
    1) We are different to rocks this an objective fact.//

    I did not argue otherwise and yes it is an objective fact, since that fact can be objectively verified. So far so good but I suspect an incoherency is fast approaching.

    //2) It’s not an appeal to emotion. Morality is based in reason and feelings like empathy saying “appeal to emotion” doesn’t apply. There is no such thing as “objective morality” (a completely incoherent concept).//

    And there it is. No “objective morality”. So the claim that murder, rape and plunder is always wrong is a subjective truth then? Of course it is…at least in your atheistic realm.

    //Right you will then come out with your usual nonsense “how can you tell terrorists, serial killers and rapists there wrong without God? How possible could you and the society have the right to protect yourself from the harmful anti social behaviour of violent vicious criminals if my imaginary friend doesn’t exist?”.//

    Much like your health which is known through the absence of sickness, without evil we cannot measure good. At least good can only be known as an intellectual concept but not experientially. This is reality, deal with it.

  79. Phoenix says:

    //So free will of the subordinates does not mean the commander gets away with it. Hitler was criminally responsible and the cult leader Charles Manson was also found guilty for the murders personally committed by his followers.//

    Dictionary definition of subordinate: “a person under the authority or control of another within an organization”
    Now prove Hitler was employed by God and/or under his control.

    I asked you to: “Prove that God had planned the Holocaust.

    Your response is: “He is omniscient and choose to create it. Also every bit of suffering is part of his plan to bring about a greater good so he indeed planned it.//

    You really do not care for evidence do you? Also, there is nothing wrong or evil about suffering in your atheistic realm, until you can prove that evil exists.

    //Men whose actions was part of Gods plan//

    Still not evidence. But here is evidence that Nazism was founded upon Darwinian human evolution.

    https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007057

    “Nazism was applied biology,stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess. During the Third Reich, a politically extreme, antisemitic variation of eugenics determined the course of state policy. Hitler’s regime touted the Nordic race as its eugenic ideal and attempted to mold Germany into a cohesive national community that excluded anyone deemed hereditarily less valuable or racially foreign…”

    //Yes they are. If child protection services know a child is being abused are they responsible if they leave the child with the abusive parents? Yes they are. Likewise an omniscient God is responsible for letting Hitler loose on us.//

    This is embarrassing. You seriously can’t compare abused children to the Nazis. Hitler was a grown man and completely capable of comprehending the difference between good and evil. I don’t even know what it takes to make such an asinine statement.

    //Okay why is something wrong then if not because of the harm it causes society? Saying The nazis and communists exterminated people in the name of society’s wellbeing is not an answer.//

    It’s an answer even if it makes you uncomfortable. Society’s well being is the goal, the moral principle is the guideline. Learn the difference.

    // Do I have to eat poison to know what foods are healthy? No.//

    http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=39448

    Yes, health is a good analogy. The medical dictionary defines health as: “State of organism when it functions optimally without evidence of disease or abnormality”

    Here the dictionary notes that health is determined by lack of disease or abnormality. Likewise, good cannot be known experientially without its opposite: “evil”.

    //Yes and they do that because they say it achieves a greater good. Which is exactly what you say God does, so how is God any different to any other consequentialist?//

    You choose to redefine Consequentialism, which is illogical. God does not need to violate free will and moral laws in order to have his objective achieved.

    //I don’t believe in God. However God is traditionally defined as being the creator of everything (and so if he existed would be ultimately responsible for everything that happens – including evil.)//

    I did not say God created everything. You can keep attacking your straw man but it will remain fallacious.

    //Emotional/psychologically abusing people is harmful. The mind is also based in physical reality before you try to come up with that and mentally harming people has an effect on the functioning of the brain and body.//

    The symptoms for verbal and emotional abuse does not entail physical injuries. The symptoms are purely based on subjective experience. And since Atheists reject all experiences as subjective phenomenon with no objective value, therefore any argument from subjective experience is dismissed as invalid evidence. For example: If someone is verbally abused and called “fat ugly pig” it may hurt that person but for someone else it may be water off a ducks back and have zero effect.

    You have also managed to sidestep the other evils I’ve mentioned such as fraud, theft, lying, adultery, etc. which does not leave any physical scars. Note that according to Atheists only the material exists, therefore if the injury is not physically visible it does not exist. Like I said before, your worldview cannot account for evil and you’ve demonstrated that perfectly.

    //1)Most embryos are naturally aborted why is that? Does God love abortion?//

    You seriously can’t compare miscarriages to the intentional and pre-emptive destruction of a living fetus. What kind of mind even makes that comparison?

    //2) An embryo is not a conscious or sentient being.//

    Yes or no…shredding an embryonic human is murder?

    3) A fertilized human egg lacks consciousness and sentience just like an unfertilised egg does so why is “killing” it murder while “killing” a unfertilised egg or a sperm cell (or any living human cell) is not?//

    The fertilized egg contains the entire human genome of that unique human individual. It is alive, growing and has DNA. It is a human at the exact and necessary stage of human development that you and I were. You wish to deny that human that right and kill it pre-emptively. And no one is arguing that a human cell, an unfertilized egg or spermatozoa on its own is a human being. This is a red herring/straw man.

    //No why would it imply that? Murder, rape and robbery is harmful to the society and always will be. And how do you know murder, rape and robbery is “objectively wrong”? Remember objective means independent of what you think about it and independent of any harmful effects. So why is it “objectively wrong” and how do you know that?//

    Once again, you have made an absolute moral statement by claiming murder, etc is always wrong. It cannot be “always” wrong if morality is a) mere human construct b) relative to cultures/situations c) not found in any material object or laws of nature,as there are no inherent values in matter. Thus it is only your personal opinion that it is “always” wrong to murder, rape and plunder,

  80. Steve says:

    “Perhaps in your Materialist bubble free will is irrelevant but our courts recognize that people act under their own discretion. Your issue with free will is unjustified.” So free will of the subordinates does not mean the commander gets away with it. Hitler was criminally responsible and the cult leader Charles Manson was also found guilty for the murders personally committed by his followers.

    //Suffering exists to fulfil a “greater good” – according to your belief – so Hitler indeed is just following the plan laid out by God. (Just like the subordinates of Hitler was following out his plan of extermination for the Jews).//
    “Prove that God had planned the Holocaust. ” He is omniscient and choose to create it. Also every bit of suffering is part of his plan to bring about a “greater good” so he indeed planned it.

    “Your unfounded alIn fact the Holocaust was inspired by the Darwinian concept, implemented by men who were believed human beings had no intrinsic value.” Men whose actions was part of Gods plan.

    “Regarding your dog analogy. Unlike dogs, Hitler was a rational agent capable of making free choices, deliberating and contemplating and therefore responsible for his actions. Your analogy fails sooner than you think.” If a government lets a dangerous criminal onto the streets knowing he will commit crimes are they responsible? Yes they are. If child protection services know a child is being abused are they responsible if they leave the child with the abusive parents? Yes they are. Likewise an omniscient God is responsible for letting Hitler loose on us.

    “You did not even address the statement I made that the well being of society is not a moral principle. You bring up punishment instead, completely unrelated and a red herring.” Okay why is something wrong then if not because of the harm it causes society? Saying “The nazis and communists exterminated people in the name of society’s wellbeing” is not an answer.

    “Again, you do not address the statement but keep repeating your mantras. How do you know those players are good if there are no bad players to compare them with?” Do I have to eat poison to know what foods are healthy? No.

    //Which would mean your God is a Consequentialist. And all loving omnipotent deity wouldn’t use people he would create a world with no suffering at all in the first place.//
    . “Transforming a pre-existing evil into good or healing a wound (Evils and wounds God created in the first place) is not consequentialism. Consequentialist will lie, cheat,steal or murder for their objective.” Yes and they do that because they say it achieves a greater good. Which is exactly what you say God does, so how is God any different to any other consequentialist?
    “A moment ago you said, God created and is responsible for everything including evil, now it is all possible without him. Make up your mind.” I don’t believe in God. However God is traditionally defined as being the creator of everything (and so if he existed would be ultimately responsible for everything that happens – including evil.)

    Let’s elucidate: You define evil as intentionally causing harm. The dictionary defines harm as intentionally causing physical injury.

    “This is where your moral precept fail you because according to your reasoning lying, cheating, stealing is not evil because one can do those things without physically injuring another person. So is racketeering, fraud, embezzlement, hacking, cheating on your spouse, emotional and verbal abuse, indecent exposure and lewd conduct, suicide, bribery,etc.”

    Emotional/psychologically abusing people is harmful. The mind is also based in physical reality before you try to come up with that and mentally harming people has an effect on the functioning of the brain and body.
    “This is the consequences of Atheist morality.” Yep that’s the consequences of atheist morality only actions which cause harm to actual existent persons are immoral how evil.

    “Take abortion for example. It causes physical harm and death to a pre-born human but your definition excludes abortion as being evil. Why is that, even though it is the taking of an innocent human life?” 1)Most embryos are naturally aborted why is that? Does God love abortion? 2) An embryo is not a conscious or sentient being. 3) A fertilized human egg lacks consciousness and sentience just like an unfertilised egg does so why is “killing” it murder while “killing” a unfertilised egg or a sperm cell (or any living human cell) is not?

    “You have violated the Law of Excluded Middle: Either morality is absolute and therefore consistent or it is not absolute and therefore relative to situations. “The latter implies murder, rape and robbery may be acceptable under certain conditions; a stance usually adopted by Consequentialists.” No why would it imply that? Murder, rape and robbery is harmful to the society and always will be. And how do you know murder, rape and robbery is “objectively wrong”? Remember objective means independent of what you think about it and independent of any harmful effects. So why is it “objectively wrong” and how do you know that?

    //No court has to show anything about “evil” or morality to lay charges against a criminal – all they have to show is that their behaviour is harmful to society.//
    “That’s exactly my point. Our courts demand concrete evidence. You have nothing except unfounded allegations.” Your omniscient and omnipotent God would be criminally responsible for setting criminals and natural disasters on us. Your attempts to weasel him out of it notwithstanding.

    “If those behaviors are natural then why complain in the first place? What practical alternatives does Atheism provide?” The fact morality is about humans and their concerns and not given by some mysterious God being.
    “These are all subjective qualities you’ve mentioned. They have no objective moral value under Atheism. So I reject your argument as an appeal to emotion.”1) We are different to rocks this an objective fact. 2) It’s not an appeal to emotion. Morality is based in reason and feelings like empathy saying “appeal to emotion” doesn’t apply. There is no such thing as “objective morality” (a completely incoherent concept).

    “Oh, I understand the differences perfectly. Under Atheism purpose is subjective, as one is able to define and live your life as you please. Despite the contradiction where Atheists force everyone to accept their way.” Right you will then come out with your usual nonsense “how can you tell terrorists, serial killers and rapists there wrong without God? How possible could you and the society have the right to protect yourself from the harmful anti social behaviour of violent vicious criminals if my imaginary friend doesn’t exist?”.

  81. Phoenix says:

    I jumbled up these 2 separate comments:

    You said:Suffering exists to fulfil a “greater good” – according to your belief – so Hitler indeed is just following the plan laid out by God. (Just like the subordinates of Hitler was following out his plan of extermination for the Jews).//

    Prove that God had planned the Holocaust. Your unfounded allegations are rejected. In fact the Holocaust was inspired by the Darwinian concept, implemented by men who were believed human beings had no intrinsic value.

    //This allegedly will happen in a fairy tale afterlife where all wrongs will be compensated. Even with the afterlife defence however there is another problem compensating a wrong does not justify a wrong. For example if a persons killer dogs ( analogous to all the criminals God has set on humanity ) kills your child and even if he is wealthy and compensates you for millions of dollars this does not justify his actions or give him the right to set his dogs on people.//

    Regarding your dog analogy. Unlike dogs, Hitler was a rational agent capable of making free choices, deliberating and contemplating and therefore responsible for his actions. We hold dog owners responsible for their pet’s actions because we do not expect dogs to have the capacity to discern between evil and good. Your analogy fails sooner than you think.

  82. Phoenix says:

    //Free will is not relevant. God has the power to stop the actions (or better yet choose not to bring them into existence in the first place), therefore he is criminally responsible. //

    Perhaps in your Materialist bubble free will is irrelevant but our courts recognize that people act under their own discretion. Your issue with free will is unjustified.

    //Suffering exists to fulfil a “greater good” – according to your belief – so Hitler indeed is just following the plan laid out by God. (Just like the subordinates of Hitler was following out his plan of extermination for the Jews).//

    Prove that God had planned the Holocaust. Your unfounded allegations are rejected. In fact the Holocaust was inspired by the Darwinian concept, implemented by men who were believed human beings had no intrinsic value.
    Regarding your dog analogy. Unlike dogs, Hitler was a rational agent capable of making free choices, deliberating and contemplating and therefore responsible for his actions. Your analogy fails sooner than you think.

    //This allegedly will happen in a fairy tale afterlife where all wrongs will be compensated. Even with the afterlife defence however there is another problem compensating a wrong does not justify a wrong. For example if a persons killer dogs ( analogous to all the criminals God has set on humanity ) kills your child and even if he is wealthy and compensates you for millions of dollars this does not justify his actions or give him the right to set his dogs on people.//

    I said:“The Nazis and Communist atrocities were also for the well being of society. Those examples falsify your statement.”
    Your response:Foolish statement. Islamic countries chop the hand of the thief however because one culture takes something to a counter productive extreme doesn’t mean the idea of punishing thieves is inherently wrong.//

    You did not even address the statement I made that the well being of society is not a moral principle. You bring up punishment instead, completely unrelated and a red herring.

    //We don’t need suffering and criminals just like a sports team doesn’t need bad players.//

    Again, you do not address the statement but keep repeating your mantras. How do you know those players are good if there are no bad players to compare them with?

    //Which would mean your God is a Consequentialist. And all loving omnipotent deity wouldn’t use people he would create a world with no suffering at all in the first place.//

    Your refusal to understand what Consequentialism is, exposes your dogmatism and blind faith in Materialism. Transforming a pre-existing evil into good or healing a wound is not consequentialism. Consequentialist will lie, cheat,steal or murder for their objective.

    //“Without God “caring” is not even possible.” Another truly idiotic statement. Is hate also impossible without God? Is loving Impossible without God? No we can describe peoples behaviour without a reference to any God.//

    A moment ago you said, God created and is responsible for everything including evil, now it is all possible without him. Make up your mind.

    //More accurately people who cause harm are labeled evil. Also there is debate about what (if any) difference exist between immoral and amoral people. But it seems the difference is those who are called immoral have morality, are aware what they are doing is wrong and know they are causing harm. While amoral people have no morality and awareness of the harm they cause. (And it can be difficult to know what other people are thinking and thus difficult to know if they are evil or are simple ignorant – like a child that breaks its siblings toys.)//

    Let’s elucidate: You define evil as intentionally causing harm. The dictionary defines harm as intentionally causing physical injury.

    This is where your moral precept fail you because according to your reasoning lying, cheating, stealing is not evil because one can do those things without physically injuring another person. So is racketeering, fraud, embezzlement, hacking, cheating on your spouse, emotional and verbal abuse, indecent exposure and lewd conduct, suicide, bribery,etc.

    This is the consequences of Atheist morality. That’s why I have always maintained Atheism is not only irrational but evil as well. Take abortion for example. It causes physical harm and death to a pre-born human but your definition excludes abortion as being evil. Why is that, even though it is the taking of an innocent human life?

    //t’s not absolute in the sense that you mean. Saying morality is absolute in that sense is incoherent and would make no practical difference – even if it did exist. If no one believed in this “objective morality” (whatever it may be which is probably impossible to know) it would have no effect on human behaviour (which is what morals are about). Which means it would be completely useless and irrelevant anyway.//

    You have violated the Law of Excluded Middle: Either morality is absolute and therefore consistent or it is not absolute and therefore relative to situations. The latter implies murder, rape and robbery may be acceptable under certain conditions; a stance usually adopted by Consequentialists.

    //No court has to show anything about “evil” or morality to lay charges against a criminal – all they have to show is that their behaviour is harmful to society.//

    That’s exactly my point. Our courts demand concrete evidence. You have nothing except unfounded allegations.

    //Yes of course it works in the jungle where you have to live in a state of nature and you either have to kill or be killed – thanks to the design of an all loving God.//

    If those behaviors are natural then why complain in the first place? What practical alternatives does Atheism provide?

    //Obviously we are different to rocks – we have different properties like consciousness, thought, planning, purpose and concerns for other creatures and the environment in which we live.//

    These are all subjective qualities you’ve mentioned. They have no objective moral value under Atheism. So I reject your argument as an appeal to emotion.

    //Please understand the difference between having a purpose or having meaning in life and there being a purpose of life (a random purpose supposedly assigned by a deity).//

    Oh, I understand the differences perfectly. Under Atheism purpose is subjective, as one is able to define and live your life as you please. Despite the contradiction where Atheists force everyone to accept their way.

  83. Steve says:

    “Also from the Case Law for International crimes:” God fulfils the criteria for being criminally responsible under international law for the actions of Hitler and other criminals.

    “1. God does not control Hitler or any human being” Free will is not relevant. God has the power to stop the actions (or better yet choose not to bring them into existence in the first place), therefore he is criminally responsible.

    ” 2. Hitler was not a subordinate of God as he did not take orders from God.” Suffering exists to fulfil a “greater good” – according to your belief – so Hitler indeed is just following the plan laid out by God. (Just like the subordinates of Hitler was following out his plan of extermination for the Jews).

    “3. God does in fact “punish or discipline” moral violators.” This allegedly will happen in a fairy tale afterlife where all wrongs will be compensated. Even with the afterlife defence however there is another problem compensating a wrong does not justify a wrong. For example if a persons killer dogs ( analogous to all the criminals God has set on humanity ) kills your child and even if he is wealthy and compensates you for millions of dollars this does not justify his actions or give him the right to set his dogs on people.

    “The Nazis and Communist atrocities were also for the well being of society. Those examples falsify your statement.” Foolish statement. Islamic countries chop the hand of the thief however because one culture takes something to a counter productive extreme doesn’t mean the idea of punishing thieves is inherently wrong.

    “how would those players know they were good players if there were no bad players to compare themselves to? If all players were equal then how do we distinguish which ones are good?” We don’t need suffering and criminals just like a sports team doesn’t need bad players.

    “from God’s vantage point every negative event is not the end but ultimately transformed for a much greater purpose” Which would mean your God is a Consequentialist. And all loving omnipotent deity wouldn’t use people he would create a world with no suffering at all in the first place.

    “Without God “caring” is not even possible.” Another truly idiotic statement. Is hate also impossible without God? Is loving Impossible without God? No we can describe peoples behaviour without a reference to any God.

    “1.You make the claim that causing harm is evil, this implies there exists absolute morality.” More accurately people who cause harm are labeled evil. Also there is debate about what (if any) difference exist between immoral and amoral people. But it seems the difference is those who are called immoral have morality, are aware what they are doing is wrong and know they are causing harm. While amoral people have no morality and awareness of the harm they cause. (And it can be difficult to know what other people are thinking and thus difficult to know if they are evil or are simple ignorant – like a child that breaks its siblings toys.)

    “3. Now we have a contradiction. Either morality is absolute, like the laws of logic or they are constructed by humans and therefore contingent on minds which implies subjectivity but both cannot be true simultaneously.” It’s not absolute in the sense that you mean. Saying morality is absolute in that sense is incoherent and would make no practical difference – even if it did exist. If no one believed in this “objective morality” (whatever it may be which is probably impossible to know) it would have no effect on human behaviour (which is what morals are about). Which means it would be completely useless and irrelevant anyway.

    “Free yourself from this conundrum before laying any charges against God.” No court has to show anything about “evil” or morality to lay charges against a criminal – all they have to show is that their behaviour is harmful to society.

    “Of course might works, it does so in the animal kingdom anyway.” Yes of course it works in the jungle where you have to live in a state of nature and you either have to kill or be killed – thanks to the design of an all loving God.

    “Even you yourself said a while back that humans are no different to rocks, just differently arranged atoms.” Obviously we are different to rocks – we have different properties like consciousness, thought, planning, purpose and concerns for other creatures and the environment in which we live.

    “Your intellectuals understand this; without God suffering is meaningless, because only God can give value to human life.” Please understand the difference between having a purpose or having meaning in life and there being a purpose of life (a random purpose supposedly assigned by a deity).

  84. Phoenix says:

    //Crimes against humanity- according to the standard in international law which states “that the fact that a subordinate committed crimes “does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts.” God knew if he decided to create this world some people would choose to inflict suffering (and in some cases such as Hitler horrific amounts of suffering). God could have chosen to create a world with no suffering therefore given this decision God is criminally responsible for the actions of those people he knew would cause suffering.//

    Also from the Case Law for International crimes:

    [I]n order for the principle of superior responsibility to be applicable, it is necessary that the superior have effective control over the persons committing the underlying violations of international humanitarian law, in the sense of having the material ability to prevent and punish the commission of these offences.’” “[A] commander may incur criminal responsibility for crimes committed by persons who are not formally his (direct) subordinates, insofar as he exercises effective control over them. Although . . . ‘actual ability’ of a commander is a relevant criterion, the commander need not have any legal authority to prevent or punish acts of his subordinates. What counts is his material ability, which instead of issuing orders or taking disciplinary action may entail, for instance, submitting reports to the competent authorities in order for proper measures to be taken.”

    Here’s why your charges can’t hold water:

    1. God does not control Hitler or any human being
    2. Hitler was not a subordinate of God as he did not take orders from God.
    3. God does in fact “punish or discipline” moral violators.
    4. You still need to prove that evil exists in your material realm.

    I’ll stop here because the rest is just more repitition.

  85. Phoenix says:

    //Invoking Hitler is a fallacy.//

    Invocation does not imply fallacy.

    //What is morality about if not the wellbeing of society’s and its members? It has nothing to do with any God.//

    That is what you are suppose to prove, instead you merely assert it. I have shown you why “well being of society” is not a moral principle. The Nazis and Communist atrocities were also for the well being of society. Those examples falsify your statement.

    //The difference is that God is omniscient while a coach is not. A better analogy would be a sports coach buying players he knows (because he is omniscient like God) will not produce results and whom the club will have to fire and which will result in them losing both the games and money. Wouldn’t this coach be insane? Why not just buy the players who will bring success in the first place and not players who will bring failure? But this is exactly what you say God does, this being would be insane.//

    Sure, that sounds fair but… and it’s a big BUT…how would those players know they were good players if there were no bad players to compare themselves to? If all players were equal then how do we distinguish which ones are good?

    //God is omniscient and choose to create this universe so your analogy fails for this reason.//

    See this is where your hypocrisy shows. On the one hand you concede (for the sake of the argument) that God is omniscient and even omnipotent but on the other hand you insist on restricting the deity’s power to your limited material realm. It’s important to note that God, not being limited to space-time, views all events simultaneously and so from God’s vantage point every negative event is not the end but ultimately transformed for a much greater purpose.

    //Just like God doesn’t care about those people who are sacrificed as part of his master plan.//

    You are projecting the failures and impotence of Atheism onto God. Without God “caring” is not even possible.

    //Any person who knowingly and intentionally causes harm we call them evil.//

    Here is my main contention:

    1.You make the claim that causing harm is evil, this implies there exists absolute morality.
    2. You also make the claim that morality is a human construct, therefore it is contingent as opposed to neccessary.
    3. Now we have a contradiction. Either morality is absolute, like the laws of logic or they are constructed by humans and therefore contingent on minds which implies subjectivity but both cannot be true simultaneously.

    Free yourself from this conundrum before laying any charges against God.

    //1) How long do you think do you think and your sociopathic tribe will be around? If you don’t act morally towards others this means you believe in might is right and you give other people the right to use force against you. 2) I already explained what my understanding of evil is – it is simply a behaviour and that is all. 3) Suffering is incompatible with the existence of an loving God this observation is valid even if the atheist has no morals and is a psychopath. (And even WLC for example concedes this point). So stop bringing up red hearings.//

    Of course might works, it does so in the animal kingdom anyway. A male lion for example will kill or drive off a weaker male to take over his pride and then kill all the cubs spawned by the weaker male. He will then ensure that only his genes are propogated. The lionesses see no evil in this behavior and eagerly accepts that new male. Many animals, especially the aquatic variety, eat their own species that are weakened. Many mammals will kill their infants if born deformed. Their are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom where our notion of evil is perfectly acceptable. And yes, there are also examples of altruism and cooperation but that is just one of the many features. Unlike us humans, they do not discern between the evil and good acts.

    //1) Suffering exists 2)A all loving God could have created a world with no suffering at all, but the actual world contains suffering 3) Therefore an all loving and omnipotent and omniscient God does not exist.//

    Here’s what I should have done and I think you may have inspired me to write an article on my blog which contains quotes by famous Atheists admitting that human life has no value in a purely material realm. Even you yourself said a while back that humans are no different to rocks, just differently arranged atoms.

    Richard Dawkins:”…In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

    Your intellectuals understand this; without God suffering is meaningless, because only God can give value to human life.

  86. Steve says:

    “You charge me with a fallacy but fail to demonstrate at which point my argument fails.” Invoking Hitler is a fallacy. What is morality about if not the wellbeing of society’s and its members? It has nothing to do with any God.

    “Likewise, God does not bring about evil for a greater purpose. He can use a negative situation and turn it into a positive outcome without violating any one’s free will or his own nature” The difference is that God is omniscient while a coach is not. A better analogy would be a sports coach buying players he knows (because he is omniscient like God) will not produce results and whom the club will have to fire and which will result in them losing both the games and money. Wouldn’t this coach be insane? Why not just buy the players who will bring success in the first place and not players who will bring failure? But this is exactly what you say God does, this being would be insane.

    “Now, I did not intend nor plan for the initial loss to occur but I used that to my advantage and thus reaching my objective” God is omniscient and choose to create this universe so your analogy fails for this reason.

    “Consequentialists do not care for any moral principles which may hinder their objective. That is the ultimate difference.” Just like God doesn’t care about those people who are sacrificed as part of his master plan.

    “When you say “evil” are you referring to violent offences only or does that include misdemeanors? If you favor one over the other, why so? It’s important to clear this up and you’ll soon see why” Any person who knowingly and intentionally causes harm we call them evil.

    “But there is nothing wrong with causing people to suffer, given Atheism, especially if me and my clan benefits. Attempting to tug at the heartstrings without proper justification is an appeal to pity fallacy. You need to prove evil exist empirically before you can lay charges of evil.” 1) How long do you think do you think and your sociopathic tribe will be around? If you don’t act morally towards others this means you believe in might is right and you give other people the right to use force against you. 2) I already explained what my understanding of evil is – it is simply a behaviour and that is all. 3) Suffering is incompatible with the existence of an loving God this observation is valid even if the atheist has no morals and is a psychopath. (And even WLC for example concedes this point). So stop bringing up red hearings.

    “What can be proven empirically and deduced logically is the only concern here.” 1) Suffering exists 2)A all loving God could have created a world with no suffering at all, but the actual world contains suffering 3) Therefore an all loving and omnipotent and omniscient God does not exist.

    “Evil behavior presupposes a moral code, or else one cannot assign a value judgement to an act. So where is this moral code? Why is it so hard to locate?” No saying someone is evil is just a description for a certain behaviour – just like if we say a person is crazy or a troll or intelligent or whatever the case may be.

    “What exactly is the crime God has committed? Stalin and Mao murdered 10’s of miilions, is that God’s fault? How so? What sort of evidence can you conjure up. Remember that a judge, jury and prosecutor will want the same: Evidence. So where is it?” Crimes against humanity- according to the standard in international law which states “that the fact that a subordinate committed crimes “does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts.” God knew if he decided to create this world some people would choose to inflict suffering (and in some cases such as Hitler horrific amounts of suffering). God could have chosen to create a world with no suffering therefore given this decision God is criminally responsible for the actions of those people he knew would cause suffering.

    “And where is the proof God killed those jews or permitted it?” By the fact that he choose to bring Hitler into existence – when through the power of his foreknowledge he knew he would kill millions of people.
    ” There is nothing wrong with harming others for the wellbeing of society, remember?” Red herring to this discussion about God. (Society and human beings have to deal with the criminals and the suffering that God created. If God made a world with no suffering society wouldn’t have to harm anyone to protect itself from dangerous terrorists so again the fault lies at gods door – despite your best efforts to weasel him out of it).

    “Explain to me first why suffering is evil under Atheism. Why is suffering wrong when life is meaningless as many Atheists would attest, given we are all just meaningless matter in motion?” Yes if you don’t believe in my imaginary friend you cannot have meaning, you cannot have morals and laws and you can’t make judgments about people’s behaviour.

    “Again, evil is immoral. How can blind forces be immoral?” Blind forces are not immoral. If a conscious being created/controlled them then that being would be evil. (Some theologians btw have proposed that evil beings with free will like satan actually cause natural disasters in an attempt to relieve God of the responsibility).

    “They are incredibly unpleasant but necessary for healthy recovery. But it would be absurd to call that suffering evil.” Terrorists and criminals are not necessary for spiritual growth – which you yourself admitted. So God is responsible for creating them – even when we don’t need them and they cause vast amounts of suffering.

    “But there is nothing wrong with causing harm in a naturalistic realm. ” That is what we mean by “wrong” – behaviour that causes harm.
    “Animals inflict harm on each other without any one labeling them evil” That is because animals don’t have reason and awareness.

    “So according to your reasoning, the lawyers and members of congress who write and pass laws are responsible for the crimes people commit.” Lawyers and members of congress did not cause the criminals to come into existence – unlike your God.

    “Then all problems are evil and anyone who tries to solve a problem is evil too and most likely a consequentialist for using evil to bring about a good outcome (even though that is not what consequentialism is). Do I understand you correct now?” No because human beings are not omnipotent and omniscient so your analogies fail for this reason.

  87. Phoenix says:

    //Remember the analogy to physical health? Just like me can say societies are now more healthy than they used to be we can say they are more moral. And “Goodness” doesn’t have to exist in some magical realm which transcends human experience – just like “healthiness” doesn’t.//

    There is still a leap in your logic. You jump from health to morality without a transitive link. But even that is beside the point. Yes, it’s possible that people could be more moral but that does not prove Materialism has an objective and universal moral code derived from natural laws.

    //Argument from Hitler fallacy and also remember that your God is a consequentialist – he allows people to suffer to produce a larger benefit.//

    Which part of my argument contains a false premise? You charge me with a fallacy but fail to demonstrate at which point my argument fails.
    And no, I did not argue God allows suffering for a larger benefit or greater purpose. I explicitly said that God can use everything for a greater purpose.
    The former would imply God wills bad things to happen but the latter part which I defend imply God does not allow good to triumph over evil. Here’s an example:
    Let’s say I’m a coach for the Yankees and my objective is to win the world series. The Yankees losing a series in the playoffs clearly refutes that purpose. I then decide to cut certain players which may have been largely responsible for the loss, allowing salary space to hire better players and they win the following world series. Now, I did not intend nor plan for the initial loss to occur but I used that to my advantage and thus reaching my objective.
    Likewise, God does not bring about evil for a greater purpose. He can use a negative situation and turn it into a positive outcome without violating any one’s free will or his own nature. Consequentialists do not care for any moral principles which may hinder their objective. That is the ultimate difference.

    //So now answer why God brought those people he knew would commit evil into existence and not just create the good people?//

    When you say “evil” are you referring to violent offences only or does that include misdemeanors? If you favor one over the other, why so? It’s important to clear this up and you’ll soon see why.

    //Eh no “my interpretation of evil” is people who knowingly and intentionally cause people to suffer for their own benefit and selfish ends.//

    But there is nothing wrong with causing people to suffer, given Atheism, especially if me and my clan benefits. Attempting to tug at the heartstrings without proper justification is an appeal to pity fallacy. You need to prove evil exist empirically before you can lay charges of evil.

    // Evil doesn’t depend on God or prove God. Many atheists think that religion itself is evil, also your God would be guilty of crimes against humanity so invoking an “objective moral standard” does nothing to get your God out of trouble//

    What Atheists think is beside the point. What can be proven empirically and deduced logically is the only concern here.

    //Human beings can have intentions and selfish objectives and those that do we call them “evil”. Just like people who cause a nuisance on the Internet we call them “trolls”. Evil is just a behaviour just like “trolling” is a behaviour- not some magical supernatural essence.//

    False. Evil behavior presupposes a moral code, or else one cannot assign a value judgement to an act. So where is this moral code? Why is it so hard to locate?

    //Nonsense your God would be judged guilty of crimes against humanity – just like any human criminal gangster dictator would – your God is nothing special and is not above the law.//

    What exactly is the crime God has committed? Stalin and Mao murdered 10’s of miilions, is that God’s fault? How so? What sort of evidence can you conjure up. Remember that a judge, jury and prosecutor will want the same: Evidence. So where is it?

    //The Jews didn’t have the power to get themselves out. Of course a legitimate defence from Hitler would be “Well the allies had the power to get the Jews out so why should I be held responsible for their deaths and suffering?”//

    This is nothing but an appeal to emotion fallacy. Why didn’t Atheists prevent the holocaust or the millions slaughtered by communist regimes? And where is the proof God killed those jews or permitted it? There is nothing wrong with harming others for the wellbeing of society, remember?

    //Free will is irrelevant to the problem of natural evil. Explain why God set up laws he knew would result in natural disasters and huge amounts of suffering?//

    Explain to me first why suffering is evil under Atheism. Why is suffering wrong when life is meaningless as many Atheists would attest, given we are all just meaningless matter in motion?

    //No. “Natural evil” occurs which is not due to a free will agent therefore God – if he existed – would be responsible for the suffering that results from the blind forces of nature.//

    Again, evil is immoral. How can blind forces be immoral?

    //So why did God bring them into existence then? Gods responsible he let them loose on us – knowing what they would do and the suffering they would cause.//

    Again, and I will repeat myself. There is nothing wrong with suffering if God does not exist. If God exists then suffering can be used for spiritual growth but suffering is not intrinsically evil. For example: a drug addict who undergoes treatment needs to suffer withdrawal symptoms. They are incredibly unpleasant but necessary for healthy recovery. But it would be absurd to call that suffering evil.

    //Because they cause a great deal of harm to society that is why. You don’t need God to make that judgment.//

    But there is nothing wrong with causing harm in a naturalistic realm. Animals inflict harm on each other without any one labeling them as evil

    //This is not force or coercion, if a barometer correctly predicts the weather is it causing or forcing the weather? No, likewise with God and his foreknowledge of your free choices – or so WLC argues anyway//

    So where is your barometer to measure evil ? Let’s take a look at it.

    //If God is the first cause of everything and all the laws that resulted in anything else that came after. Therefore he is the creator and controller of everything in this world and is responsible for all the suffering that happens.//

    So according to your reasoning, the lawyers and members of congress who write and pass laws are responsible for the crimes people commit.

    //Suffering is a problem – even when caused by the blind forces of nature.//

    Then all problems are evil and anyone who tries to solve a problem is evil too and most likely a consequentialist for using evil to bring about a good outcome (even though that is not what consequentialism is). Do I understand you correct now?

  88. Steve says:

    “Can you name a time in history when murder, rape or plunder was acceptable per your standards? And can you be sure if it would be acceptable in the future?” Remember the analogy to physical health? Just like me can say societies are now more healthy than they used to be we can say they are more moral. And “Goodness” doesn’t have to exist in some magical realm which transcends human experience – just like “healthiness” doesn’t.

    “Why do you think Hitler killed all those Jews and Gypsies, if not for the well being of society, in pursuit of creating an Ubermensch, free from defects? He was not being evil for the sake of evil but for the well being of society. So that argument fails because the “well being of society” is a goal not a principle and the measures to achieve that goal does not require any moral screening. Hence, eugenics and Atheist morality is consequentialism.” Argument from Hitler fallacy and also remember that your God is a consequentialist – he allows people to suffer to produce a larger benefit.

    “How can they choose good if its opposite is not available for selection. That choice would be a farce, and free will would be an illusion.” Take a look at this reply from WLC https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fYoWhxOK8dE Craig says that God is like a perfect barometer who is always right. The barometer (God) doesn’t determine or cause or force the weather to what do it does, it just happens to always predict what it will be. So whatever the weather does the barometer will have predicted and if it changes it will know that also. So in the case of humans you freely choosing A over B causes God to have that knowledge – not Gods knowledge causing you to choose A over B. So Craig concludes there is no contradiction between foreknowledge and free will. So now answer why God brought those people he knew would commit evil into existence and not just create the good people?

    “Your interpretation of evil is founded upon a theistic meaning in which a loving God permits free will and ultimately transforms societies’ ills.” Eh no “my interpretation of evil” is people who knowingly and intentionally cause people to suffer for their own benefit and selfish ends.

    “Without God as the objective moral standard, your Materialist notion of evil has no meaning. Show me how there can be no evil and still judge something as evil.” Evil doesn’t depend on God or prove God. Many atheists think that religion itself is evil, also your God would be guilty of crimes against humanity so invoking an “objective moral standard” does nothing to get your God out of trouble.

    “Likewise, man is no different in a purely material universe, we’re just matter arranged differently. So where is the evil in matter?” Human beings can have intentions and selfish objectives and those that do we call them “evil”. Just like people who cause a nuisance on the Internet we call them “trolls”. Evil is just a behaviour just like “trolling” is a behaviour- not some magical supernatural essence.

    “To declare God immoral by your relativistic standards is actually insane, since there is no objective benchmark to make that call from.” Nonsense your God would be judged guilty of crimes against humanity – just like any human criminal gangster dictator would – your God is nothing special and is not above the law.

    “But we have the ability to prevent evil and solve these problems tomorrow. That capacity surely is God bequeathed.” The Jews didn’t have the power to get themselves out. Of course a legitimate defence from Hitler would be “Well the allies had the power to get the Jews out so why should I be held responsible for their deaths and suffering?”

    “OK, so now you have a problem with free will…well you and every other totalitarian dictator.” Free will is irrelevant to the problem of natural evil. Explain why God set up laws he knew would result in natural disasters and huge amounts of suffering?

    “Natural “evil” is a misnomer, especially since it would imply a violation of moral law. ” No. “Natural evil” occurs which is not due to a free will agent therefore God – if he existed – would be responsible for the suffering that results from the blind forces of nature.

    “You also need to figure out how suffering can be evil if evil does not exist in matter.” I already said that evil is just a behaviour – like trolling is a behaviour – its not a magical spiritual thing.

    //Right except in this quote to take one example ” There are realms where no suffering exists, however, this temporal world is expected to provide a platform for personal spiritual growth. Where we have a choice to love or reject that love.”//
    “So nowhere then do I say we need psychopaths like Hitler or tornadoes for spiritual growth.” So why did God bring them into existence then? Gods responsible he let them loose on us – knowing what they would do and the suffering they would cause.

    “What exactly is wrong with terrorists in your Materialist realm? Morality is a human construct, remember? They are human too and have constructed their own moral code, perfectly compatible with your worldview.” Because they cause a great deal of harm to society that is why. You don’t need God to make that judgment.

    “How do you not see the implied coercion in your argument? How can you freely choose from only one option?” WLC argues that God just has perfect knowledge of your free choices. This is not force or coercion, if a barometer correctly predicts the weather is it causing or forcing the weather? No, likewise with God and his foreknowledge of your free choices – or so WLC argues anyway.

    //In other words he is the creator of everything and designed everything and knew how everything would unfold which is what I said in that comment.//
    “Show me where I said that.” “God is the First Cause, the originator of the universe, life, the laws of nature, logic, mathematics, and moral laws who involves himself in human affairs when summoned.” If God is the first cause of everything and all the laws that resulted in anything else that came after. Therefore he is the creator and controller of everything in this world and is responsible for all the suffering that happens.

    “Nothing wrong with suffering if evil does not exist.” Baloney. Suffering is a problem – even when caused by the blind forces of nature.

  89. Phoenix says:

    //Morality is a human construct, do you think that societies cannot enforce traffic laws and make judgements about people’s behaviour because traffic laws are a human invention?//

    Traffic laws did not exist 120 years, so there was no violation of road signs, etc prior to that, and the rules will keep changing as time continues.
    Can you name a time in history when murder, rape or plunder was acceptable per your standards? And can you be sure if it would be acceptable in the future?

    //We had a lengthy discussion about this before and how morality is about well being and and how we can correctly judge certain individuals and certain society’s as more moral than others based on a scientific understanding of wellbeing. No God is necessary and if you disagree then what the hell do you think morality is about if not the wellbeing of society’s?//

    Why do you think Hitler killed all those Jews and Gypsies, if not for the well being of society, in pursuit of creating an Ubermensch, free from defects? He was not being evil for the sake of evil but for the well being of society. So that argument fails because the “well being of society” is a goal not a principle and the measures to achieve that goal does not require any moral screening. Hence, eugenics and Atheist morality is consequentialism.

    //1) God could have created only the people he knew would choose to do good and did not need to create people he knew would choose evil.//

    How can they choose good if its opposite is not available for selection. That choice would be a farce, and free will would be an illusion.

    //2) Therefore since God choose to bring those people he knew would commit evil into existence he is responsible for it.//

    Your interpretation of evil is founded upon a theistic meaning in which a loving God permits free will and ultimately transforms societies’ ills.
    Without God as the objective moral standard, your Materialist notion of evil has no meaning. Show me how there can be no evil and still judge something as evil.

    We are just matter in a meaningless universe. Books, pencils, phones, etc are not evil by themselves since they have no intention, no choice, no selfish objective to pursue and no motivation. Likewise, man is no different in a purely material universe, we’re just matter arranged differently. So where is the evil in matter?

    //Apart from fact morality is a human construct and has nothing to do with any God – who if he existed would have to hunted down for crimes against humanity or else sent to a mental hospital for being insane.//

    Here you have contradicted yourself once again. Morality is a human construct, therefore relative and subjective. To declare God immoral by your relativistic standards is actually insane, since there is no objective benchmark to make that call from.
    To claim that you as an Atheist would not allow evil if you were God is false given the bloody history of Atheism.

    // God is omnipotent and choose to do nothing that is how he let them die.//

    But we have the ability to prevent evil and solve these problems tomorrow. That capacity surely is God bequeathed.

    //And who set up/ created those laws if not God? And if he didn’t create them he couldn’t have anything do with our universe or its creation/design and such a being cannot be God. So you need to start thinking of a answer to this.//

    OK, so now you have a problem with free will…well you and every other totalitarian dictator.

    //All that matters is that 1)Natural disasters cause suffering and 2) Natural disasters are not caused by beings with free will (so the “free will defence” does not apply to “natural evil”.)//

    Natural “evil” is a misnomer, especially since it would imply a violation of moral law. A moral law you cannot define but then continue to claim it has been violated.
    You also need to figure out how suffering can be evil if evil does not exist in matter.

    //Right except in this quote to take one example ” There are realms where no suffering exists, however, this temporal world is expected to provide a platform for personal spiritual growth. Where we have a choice to love or reject that love.”//

    So nowhere then do I say we need psychopaths like Hitler or tornadoes for spiritual growth.

    // God knew if he decided to create this world terrorists would come into existence – and he could have created a world with no terrorists in it – and YET still decided to create it. That is how God is responsible for the existence of terrorists.//

    What exactly is wrong with terrorists in your Materialist realm? Morality is a human construct, remember? They are human too and have constructed their own moral code, perfectly compatible with your worldview.

    //When did I say force? I did not. In any case you yourself have now admitted that you see no contradiction between omniscience and free will. So now answer the question of why God did not create a world where he knew everybody would freely choose to love him and each other?//

    How do you not see the implied coercion in your argument? How can you freely choose from only one option?

    //In other words he is the creator of everything and designed everything and knew how everything would unfold which is what I said in that comment.//

    Show me where I said that.

    //No suffering exists and this is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God this is all that has to be said.//

    Nothing wrong with suffering if evil does not exist.

  90. Steve says:

    “You need a moral benchmark in order to compare good and evil. Without that yardstick your assessment of good and evil cannot be trusted.” Morality is a human construct, do you think that societies cannot enforce traffic laws and make judgements about people’s behaviour because traffic laws are a human invention?

    “You claim to be a moral nihilst and still make value judgements, when in fact that view holds that nothing is intrinsically good or evil. Your worldview is filled with contradictions and still you hold tight. A tell tale sign of dogmatic blind faith in Materialism.” We had a lengthy discussion about this before and how morality is about well being and and how we can correctly judge certain individuals and certain society’s as more moral than others based on a scientific understanding of wellbeing. No God is necessary and if you disagree then what the hell do you think morality is about if not the wellbeing of society’s?

    “Besides, I have already laid down my specifics as to what it would take to hold God responsible for evil. Go ahead and make your case.” 1) God could have created only the people he knew would choose to do good and did not need to create people he knew would choose evil. 2) Therefore since God choose to bring those people he knew would commit evil into existence he is responsible for it.

    “And yet there’s no logical defects in the argument I made.” Apart from fact morality is a human construct and has nothing to do with any God – who if he existed would have to hunted down for crimes against humanity or else sent to a mental hospital for being insane.

    “Who said omniscience violates free will? I didn’t.” So then why in this same message you also said “It’s logically incoherent to assert: “We are able to freely choose X” and ” God can force us to do X”.” ? I will precede with the understanding that you see no contradiction between Gods omniscience/foreknowledge and human free will.
    //Just like God does when he lets millions of Jews be murdered to serve a “greater good” – even though murder is supposed to be against his own “objective morality”.//
    “Prove that God “let” millions of jews die. I will start holding you to your claims. They must be proven or else its just speculation.” God is omnipotent and choose to do nothing that is how he let them die.
    “The natural world is governed by natural laws. And yes, free will and the natural laws have nothing to do with each other.” And who set up/ created those laws if not God? And if he didn’t create them he couldn’t have anything do with our universe or its creation/design and such a being cannot be God. So you need to start thinking of a answer to this.
    //No if natural disasters was created by a an omniscient God who knew they will kill millions of people and who didn’t have to create them but still decided to create them this being would be evil.//
    “Second, you must prove that evil exists before you can declare natural disasters are evil. When will you do this? BTW, you should be familiar with the evidentiary criterion for all knowledge claims by now.” All that matters is that 1)Natural disasters cause suffering and 2) Natural disasters are not caused by beings with free will (so the “free will defence” does not apply to “natural evil”.)
    //You did claiming we need need suffering for “spiritual growth”. Now even you admit we don’t need terrorists and criminals so why did God create them? Why he allows them to cause suffering? By your own admission we don’t need them therefore it follows your God either is evil, indifferent, incompetent or the obvious one is he doesn’t exist.//
    “1. Quote me where I said “we need suffering for “spiritual growth”. You can’t because I did not.” Right except in this quote to take one example ” There are realms where no suffering exists, however, this temporal world is expected to provide a platform for personal spiritual growth. Where we have a choice to love or reject that love.”
    “2.Prove God created terrorists.” God knew if he decided to create this world terrorists would come into existence – and he could have created a world with no terrorists in it – and YET still decided to create it. That is how God is responsible for the existence of terrorists.
    “3. Your conclusion is false because it’s based off faulty and unproven premises.” Like the fact that theists define their God to be omnipotent, omniscient and all loving?

    “It’s logically incoherent to assert: “We are able to freely choose X” and ” God can force us to do X”.” When did I say force? I did not. In any case you yourself have now admitted that you see no contradiction between omniscience and free will. So now answer the question of why God did not create a world where he knew everybody would freely choose to love him and each other?
    “God is the First Cause, the originator of the universe, life, the laws of nature, logic, mathematics, and moral laws who involves himself in human affairs when summoned. ” In other words he is the creator of everything and designed everything and knew how everything would unfold which is what I said in that comment.
    “You need to prove evil exist before you can label suffering as evil. The reason for this is simple, without evil, things like natural disasters are neutral and any tragic event you cite is simply meaningless.” No suffering exists and this is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God this is all that has to be said.

  91. Phoenix says:

    //Already discussed this straw with you several months ago, the atheist can be a moral nihilist all they have to do is point out the incompatible between an all loving God and suffering (both suffering inflicted on humans by other humans and suffering that results from the blind forces of nature.)//

    You need a moral benchmark in order to compare good and evil. Without that yardstick your assessment of good and evil cannot be trusted. When I dismiss evolution as science fiction; it’s because I use the standards of empirical science to measure all evolution claims.
    You claim to be a moral nihilst and still make value judgements, when in fact that view holds that nothing is intrinsically good or evil. Your worldview is filled with contradictions and still you hold tight. A tell tale sign of dogmatic blind faith in Materialism.

    // We don’t need these problems in the first place (as you yourself admitted). God created everything and everybody and knew how our universe would unfold – and still choose to create it – therefore he is responsible. Just like if God decided to create the green goblin – knowing he would wreck havoc on the world – God would bear the responsibility for it. Even if God also created Spider-Man and knew he would eventually defeat the goblin (after he had wrecked havoc, killed thousands of people blew up buildings and caused billions of dollars worth of damage to infrastructure) the responsibility would be down to God for letting the Green Goblin loose on us in the first place. Likewise just like we don’t need the green goblin we don’t need ISIS terrorists so why did God create them knowing they would cause untold suffering? We don’t need them and God created them (knowing what they would do) therefore GOD IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HARM THEY DO.//

    Really? Comic book characters? What happened to science and logic as the Atheist worldview?

    Besides, I have already laid down my specifics as to what it would take to hold God responsible for evil. Go ahead and make your case.

  92. Phoenix says:

    //Not creating Adolf Hitler or Muhammad is not breaking any law just like God not creating the green goblin is not breaking any law.//

    Prove that God created them.

    //Utter nonsense.//

    And yet there’s no logical defects in the argument I made.

    //They can choose whatever they want it’s just that God knows what they will FREELY CHOOSE ahead of time. For example an omniscient God would know whenever you will FREELY CHOOSE to respond to this message or not, God knowing what you will freely choose does not violate your free will. (So goes this argument anyway).//

    Who said omniscience violates free will? I didn’t.

    //Just like God does when he lets millions of Jews be murdered to serve a “greater good” – even though murder is supposed to be against his own “objective morality”.//

    Prove that God “let” millions of jews die. I will start holding you to your claims. They must be proven or else its just speculation.

    //How does God have a plan then if it is left to randomness and uncertainty? Who controls the natural the world if not God? And what exactly does he do if he doesn’t? Just watch us on the earth channel to see what’s going on? Human free will has nothing to do with control of the natural world.//

    The natural world is governed by natural laws. And yes, free will and the natural laws have nothing to do with each other.

    //No if natural disasters was created by a an omniscient God who knew they will kill millions of people and who didn’t have to create them but still decided to create them this being would be evil.//

    First off, Atheism cannot prevent natural disasters, despite insisting they be prevented by something they don’t believe in. Absurd? Yes.
    Second, you must prove that evil exists before you can declare natural disasters are evil. When will you do this? BTW, you should be familiar with the evidentiary criterion for all knowledge claims by now.

    //You did claiming we need need suffering for “spiritual growth”. Now even you admit we don’t need terrorists and criminals so why did God create them? Why he allows them to cause suffering? By your own admission we don’t need them therefore it follows your God either is evil, indifferent, incompetent or the obvious one is he doesn’t exist.//

    1. Quote me where I said “we need suffering for “spiritual growth”. You can’t because I did not.
    2.Prove God created terrorists.
    3. Your conclusion is false because it’s based off faulty and unproven premises.
    ========

    And here we get into some serious sophisticated deductive reasoning…or not.

    //You have the option to grab a knife right now go out and stab some some random stranger to death. But you FREELY CHOOSE not to do that, nobody is forcing you not to kill someone you freely choose not to.//

    What this means is freaking beyond me. Hopefully the next sentence should be more clearer.

    //Likewise God could have created a world where he knew everybody would FREELY CHOOSE to love him and each other and THIS WOULD HAVE VIOLATED NOBODIES FREE WILL. Just like God knowing that you will freely choose not to be violent to people does not violate your free will.//

    These terms; “freely choose” it is lost on you, ain’t it? Let me put it to you another way:

    It’s logically incoherent to assert: “We are able to freely choose X” and ” God can force us to do X”.

    //So what do you believe God is then if not the creator and controller of the universe? (As this is what every other theist believes and defines God to be).//

    God is the First Cause, the originator of the universe, life, the laws of nature, logic, mathematics, and moral laws who involves himself in human affairs when summoned. The problem with your understanding of God hinges on a deliberate misunderstanding of many theistic terms and beliefs.

    //Like how can God have a plan for human beings if he doesn’t know the future and it is left to randomness?//

    Where do you even get these things? I don’t recall saying any of these.

    //1)This universe contains suffering. 2)God could have created a universe with no suffering and where he knew everybody would Freely choose to do Good. (And natural disasters and diseases don’t exist). 3) God choose not to do that and instead created a world containing Natural disasters, terrorists, sadists, gangsters, rapists, dictators and serial killers. Therefore God is ultimately responsible for all the evil and suffering that happens in this world due to the fact HE CHOSE TO CREATE IT WHEN HE DIDNT NEED TO and COULD HAVE CREATED A WORLD WITH NO SUFFERING AND CHOSE NOT TO.//

    You need to prove evil exist before you can label suffering as evil. The reason for this is simple, without evil, things like natural disasters are neutral and any tragic event you cite is simply meaningless.

  93. Steve says:

    “You misconstrue what omnipresent and omnipotent mean. It does not entail violating moral laws, laws of logic, law of free will and laws of nature.” Not creating Adolf Hitler or Muhammad is not breaking any law just like God not creating the green goblin is not breaking any law.

    Evil requires God to exist for it is that which violates his laws. For without God there is no moral law to violate and therefore no evil.” Utter nonsense.

    “You insist everyone must be created to freely choose good but how would they know that choice is free if the alternative to choose its opposite does not exist?” They can choose whatever they want it’s just that God knows what they will FREELY CHOOSE ahead of time. For example an omniscient God would know whenever you will FREELY CHOOSE to respond to this message or not, God knowing what you will freely choose does not violate your free will. (So goes this argument anyway).

    ” Or they will change it in a moments notice to fit their agenda.” Just like God does when he lets millions of Jews be murdered to serve a “greater good” – even though murder is supposed to be against his own “objective morality”.

    “God does not control the world. If he did then free will is an illusion.” How does God have a plan then if it is left to randomness and uncertainty? Who controls the natural the world if not God? And what exactly does he do if he doesn’t? Just watch us on the earth channel to see what’s going on? Human free will has nothing to do with control of the natural world.

    “Evil as defined by the dictionary = “profoundly immoral and wicked.”
    Your understanding of natural disasters imply tornadoes and earthquakes are rational agents violating a moral law. This irrational, illogical, absurd and not to mention superstitious. There are so many things wrong with your reasoning but let’s start with this:” No if natural disasters was created by a an omniscient God who knew they will kill millions of people and who didn’t have to create them but still decided to create them this being would be evil.

    “Who said we NEED natural disasters or psychopaths for spiritual growth? I did not. There are many ways to grow spiritually that does” You did claiming we need need suffering for “spiritual growth”. Now even you admit we don’t need terrorists and criminals so why did God create them? Why he allows them to cause suffering? By your own admission we don’t need them therefore it follows your God either is evil, indifferent, incompetent or the obvious one is he doesn’t exist.

    “Again, how can they be free to choose good if there is no alternative? Choice implies more than one option to select. So what other option is there besides ‘good’ to select from?” You have the option to grab a knife right now go out and stab some some random stranger to death. But you FREELY CHOOSE not to do that, nobody is forcing you not to kill someone you freely choose not to. Likewise God could have created a world where he knew everybody would FREELY CHOOSE to love him and each other and THIS WOULD HAVE VIOLATED NOBODIES FREE WILL. Just like God knowing that you will freely choose not to be violent to people does not violate your free will.

    “Your mantra remains false, no matter how many times you repeat that.” So what do you believe God is then if not the creator and controller of the universe? (As this is what every other theist believes and defines God to be).

    “What evil and huge problems are you referring to? Please be specific.” Like how can God have a plan for human beings if he doesn’t know the future and it is left to randomness?
    “God does not control natural disasters nor does he control murderers. So I fail to see how God is responsible for them.” I will make it simple for you. 1)This universe contains suffering. 2)God could have created a universe with no suffering and where he knew everybody would Freely choose to do Good. (And natural disasters and diseases don’t exist). 3) God choose not to do that and instead created a world containing Natural disasters, terrorists, sadists, gangsters, rapists, dictators and serial killers. Therefore God is ultimately responsible for all the evil and suffering that happens in this world due to the fact HE CHOSE TO CREATE IT WHEN HE DIDNT NEED TO and COULD HAVE CREATED A WORLD WITH NO SUFFERING AND CHOSE NOT TO.

  94. Steve says:

    “This is funny, given that evil does not even exist in a purely materialist world, since there is no Materialist moral law to violate.” Already discussed this straw with you several months ago, the atheist can be a moral nihilist all they have to do is point out the incompatible between an all loving God and suffering (both suffering inflicted on humans by other humans and suffering that results from the blind forces of nature.)

    “Besides, Your argument assumes man is helpless and cannot prevent evil or solve these problems. It is false, we are perfectly capable of that.” We don’t need these problems in the first place (as you yourself admitted). God created everything and everybody and knew how our universe would unfold – and still choose to create it – therefore he is responsible. Just like if God decided to create the green goblin – knowing he would wreck havoc on the world – God would bear the responsibility for it. Even if God also created Spider-Man and knew he would eventually defeat the goblin (after he had wrecked havoc, killed thousands of people blew up buildings and caused billions of dollars worth of damage to infrastructure) the responsibility would be down to God for letting the Green Goblin loose on us in the first place. Likewise just like we don’t need the green goblin we don’t need ISIS terrorists so why did God create them knowing they would cause untold suffering? We don’t need them and God created them (knowing what they would do) therefore GOD IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HARM THEY DO.

    “Hitler and Stalin orchestrated and ordered those crimes. God does not create nor command evil.” God had the power to prevent them from committing their crimes in addition he could just have decided not to create them in the first place like he decided not to create the green goblin. (Also theologians and philosophers like WLC claim all evil acts are serving a larger purpose so it would seem their crimes are ordained by God).

  95. Phoenix says:

    (a) that being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would be evil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;

    (b) that being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and

    (c) that by virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.

    Conclusion:
    Since evil exists, an omniscient, omnipotent God who is also perfectly good, does not.//

    This is funny, given that evil does not even exist in a purely materialist world, since there is no Materialist moral law to violate.
    Besides, Your argument assumes man is helpless and cannot prevent evil or solve these problems. It is false, we are perfectly capable of that.
    =======

    //International law states that the fact that a subordinate committed crimes “does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts.” So according to international law God is guilty of crimes against humanity. The free will (or not) of humans is irrelevant to that. According to your reasoning Hitler and Stalin would be innocent – since they personally didn’t kill millions and their subordinates acted of their own free will.//

    Hitler and Stalin orchestrated and ordered those crimes. God does not create nor command evil.

  96. Phoenix says:

    //So you don’t believe in God then? (Who is defied as the CREATOR AND RULER of the universe.) God created the universe and everything in it – including Hilary Clinton – he knows the future and all of our free will choices. If you claim your God is not omnipotent and omnipresent then such a being cannot be God.//

    You misconstrue what omnipresent and omnipotent mean. It does not entail violating moral laws, laws of logic, law of free will and laws of nature.
    Evil requires God to exist for it is that which violates his laws. For without God there is no moral law to violate and therefore no evil.

    //He also knows – through his foreknowledge – what Hilary will choose so God can have chosen to have created a world where HE KNEW Hillary FREELY CHOOSES to change her policy’s.//

    You insist everyone must be created to freely choose good but how would they know that choice is free if the alternative to choose its opposite does not exist?

    //People suffered to bring about a greater good, (according to the likes of William Lane Craig) this is consequentialist and none of those people consented to be sacrificed as part of Gods master plan either.//

    This is complete gibberish. You still cannot fathom what consequentialism is. Sacrifice as in renunciation is not a violation of moral law. Consequentialists do not heed to a moral principle for their objectives. Or they will change it in a moments notice to fit their agenda.

    //God created and controls the natural world (and knew everything that would happen if he decided to create it) this is why God is ultimately responsible for suffering and evil.//

    God does not control the world. If he did then free will is an illusion.

    //Yep no contradiction between natural disasters killing and inflicting huge amounts on suffering on thousands and millions of people and the existence of an all powerful, all loving and all knowing God.//

    Evil as defined by the dictionary = “profoundly immoral and wicked.”

    Your understanding of natural disasters imply tornadoes and earthquakes are rational agents violating a moral law. This irrational, illogical, absurd and not to mention superstitious. There are so many things wrong with your reasoning but let’s start with this:

    1) Are hurricanes sentient beings able to express intent?
    2) Is there a moral law which natural phenomenon should obey? If so, what is it?
    3)How do Atheists prevent natural events from engaging in their immoral and wicked ways.

    I don’t mean this as a mockery but to show you your logic fails reductio ad absurdum.
    ========

    I said:“Answer this. Why don’t Atheists prevent natural disasters? What solution does Materialism provide for natural disasters which Theism cannot? I’ll answer for you: NONE”

    Your response: Apart from all the medicine and science right? Every heard of antibiotics? Who invented that because your God didn’t.//

    Really? Medicine prevents natural disasters? I thought God created everything in your world. But now medicine is excluded. Besides, I specifically asked for something which is strictly reserved for Atheists. As expected, Atheism provides no solution to prevent natural “evils”.

    //So why do we need it then? We don’t nor do you need psychopaths and natural disasters for “spiritual growth”.//

    Who said we NEED natural disasters or psychopaths for spiritual growth? I did not. There are many ways to grow spiritually that does not require any of these.

    //God knows but they don’t. Free will is utterly is irrelevant to my argument God knows the future and all free will choices this is true even in a universe where determinism is not true. God could have created a universe where people only freely choose to go good.//

    Again, how can they be free to choose good if there is no alternative? Choice implies more than one option to select. So what other option is there besides ‘good’ to select from?

    //God is the creator and controller of the universe so he did create everything and is ultimately responsible for everything that happens – including evil and suffering.//

    Your mantra remains false, no matter how many times you repeat that.
    =======
    //according to religious apologists anyway who say free will and omniscience/foreknowledge are compatible. If you disagree then you have to either give up free will or say God is not omniscient (which then raises the question of how he can be God and how he can have a plan and how he allows evil for a greater good and all these other huge problems).//

    What evil and huge problems are you referring to? Please be specific.

    //Because they cause suffering and if a being (God) created and controlled them he would be evil and responsible for what they do – just like a murderer is responsible if he uses a weapon as a means to kill people.//

    God does not control natural disasters nor does he control murderers. So I fail to see how God is responsible for them.

  97. Steve says:

    Phoenix here is this argument in simple form answer it instead of going on about Hillary Clinton

    (a) that being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would be evil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;

    (b) that being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and

    (c) that by virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.

    Conclusion:

    Since evil exists, an omniscient, omnipotent God who is also perfectly good, does not.

    International law states that the fact that a subordinate committed crimes “does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts.” So according to international law God is guilty of crimes against humanity. The free will (or not) of humans is irrelevant to that. According to your reasoning Hitler and Stalin would be innocent – since they personally didn’t kill millions and their subordinates acted of their own free will.

  98. Steve says:

    “Who said God created Hilary? Who said God created evil people or even good people? I did not, so that is a straw man. God does inspire people to be good which is an entirely different issue.” So you don’t believe in God then? (Who is defied as the CREATOR AND RULER of the universe.) God created the universe and everything in it – including Hilary Clinton – he knows the future and all of our free will choices. If you claim your God is not omnipotent and omnipresent then such a being cannot be God.

    “Yes, God has used his power and he has endowed Hilary with free will. She has the power to change her destiny. So ask her why she choose not to” He also knows – through his foreknowledge – what Hilary will choose so God can have chosen to have created a world where HE KNEW Hillary FREELY CHOOSES to change her policy’s.

    “God does NOT violate any moral laws nor free will in order to bring about a positive outcome, hence God is not a consequentialist.” People suffered to bring about a greater good, (according to the likes of William Lane Craig) this is consequentialist and none of those people consented to be sacrificed as part of Gods master plan either.

    “Straw man. I did not claim God created everything.Where is the evidence that tornadoes or earthquakes are designed by God. Nature does not make value judgements” God created and controls the natural world (and knew everything that would happen if he decided to create it) this is why God is ultimately responsible for suffering and evil.

    “So why must God prevent something which is not evil.” Yep no contradiction between natural disasters killing and inflicting huge amounts on suffering on thousands and millions of people and the existence of an all powerful, all loving and all knowing God.

    “Answer this. Why don’t Atheists prevent natural disasters? What solution does Materialism provide for natural disasters which Theism cannot? I’ll answer for you: NONE” Apart from all the medicine and science right? Every heard of antibiotics? Who invented that because your God didn’t.

    “Theism on the other hand allows for spiritual growth in times of difficulty which is NOT the same as committing evil.” So why do we need it then? We don’t nor do you need psychopaths and natural disasters for “spiritual growth”.

    “No one said we need natural disasters or psychopaths and I certainly did not say Hitler made people grow spiritually” So you admit your “evil exists for spiritual growth” is a load of bull?

    “You do not understand what free will is at all. You say people should freely choose to love God but how would they know they were free to do so if the alternative to reject that love was not available? Should it only have been available as a hypothetical or as an actuality?” God knows but they don’t. Free will is utterly is irrelevant to my argument God knows the future and all free will choices this is true even in a universe where determinism is not true. God could have created a universe where people only freely choose to go good.

    “First, God did not create everything, especially evil and suffering.” God is the creator and controller of the universe so he did create everything and is ultimately responsible for everything that happens – including evil and suffering.

    “Second, it cannot be freely chosen if the option to reject that worship was not available to be implemented.” The choice is up to you – it is your choice- God knowing what you will FREELY CHOOSE doesn’t take away that fact – according to religious apologists anyway who say free will and omniscience/foreknowledge are compatible. If you disagree then you have to either give up free will or say God is not omniscient (which then raises the question of how he can be God and how he can have a plan and how he allows evil for a greater good and all these other huge problems).

    “Thirdly, you must provide justification why natural disasters are evil from your Materialist stance, which of course would be analyzed for any evidential value” Because they cause suffering and if a being (God) created and controlled them he would be evil and responsible for what they do – just like a murderer is responsible if he uses a weapon as a means to kill people.

  99. Phoenix says:

    //Yes why God created Hilary at all that’s the question. God choose not to create the green goblin and lex Luther which is good that he decided not to create super villains so why he choose to create Hilary when he no more had to create her than Lex Luther? If evil people didn’t exist in the first place they wouldn’t need to be prevented from doing anything by anybody – just like super villains with super human powers are not needed to be prevented from doing any harm – for the good reason that that such beings don’t exist.//

    Who said God created Hilary? Who said God created evil people or even good people? I did not, so that is a straw man. God does inspire people to be good which is an entirely different issue.

    //For example if Hillary choose to be something other than a politician she could not have run for president and her ancestry would not need to be changed (and an omnipotent God WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT).//

    Yes, God has used his power and he has endowed Hilary with free will. She has the power to change her destiny. So ask her why she choose not to.

    //How is Gods morality not consequentialist that is the question you need to answer.//

    God does NOT violate any moral laws nor free will in order to bring about a positive outcome, hence God is not a consequentialist.

    //God created everything and knew everything that would happen therefore God is also responsible for natural disasters. If a terrorist places a bomb in a plane are you going to say the terrorist is not responsible? //

    Straw man. I did not claim God created everything.Where is the evidence that tornadoes or earthquakes are designed by God. Nature does not make value judgements, it follows that there is no evil in a purely naturalistic world and a natural evil is a contradiction in terms. So why must God prevent something which is not evil.

    Answer this. Why don’t Atheists prevent natural disasters? What solution does Materialism provide for natural disasters which Theism cannot? I’ll answer for you: NONE. Atheism cannot provide solutions to “natural” evils because they do not exist. Theism on the other hand allows for spiritual growth in times of difficulty which is NOT the same as committing evil.

    //We don’t need natural disasters and we don’t need psychopaths, criminals and terrorists. In what way did Hitler make people grow spiritually? Or Bin Laden? Or Richard Kuklinski who would feed people to rats and burn of people’s genitals?//

    No one said we need natural disasters or psychopaths and I certainly did not say Hitler made people grow spiritually. You are inventing your own dialogues. That is the very definition of insanity. Why don’t you attack what I actually said? Do not invent your own discussions.

    //God could just have created a world where he knew everybody would FREELY. CHOOSE to love him and each other//

    I do realize that discussing theodicies with a Materialist is like discussing the difference between indigo and navy blue with a color blind person. You do not understand what free will is at all. You say people should freely choose to love God but how would they know they were free to do so if the alternative to reject that love was not available? Should it only have been available as a hypothetical or as an actuality?

    // God created everything and knew everything that would happen therefore it is his responsibility (and could have chosen to create a world with no suffering and where everybody FREELY CHOOSES to worship God and love each other (as well as not containing natural disasters and diseases). THE BUCK STOPS WITH GOD.//

    First, God did not create everything, especially evil and suffering.
    Second, it cannot be freely chosen if the option to reject that worship was not available to be implemented.
    Thirdly, you must provide justification why natural disasters are evil from your Materialist stance, which of course would be analyzed for any evidential value.

  100. Steve says:

    “Why didn’t God prevent all the Hillaries, Merkel’s and people who support them from being born. It seems like the world would be a better place without them. ” Yes why God created Hilary at all that’s the question. God choose not to create the green goblin and lex Luther which is good that he decided not to create super villains so why he choose to create Hilary when he no more had to create her than Lex Luther? If evil people didn’t exist in the first place they wouldn’t need to be prevented from doing anything by anybody – just like super villains with super human powers are not needed to be prevented from doing any harm – for the good reason that that such beings don’t exist.

    “That would mean God must also annihilate their ancestors and the ancestors of their supporters, to prevent this evil. ” No he could just have created a world where Hillary Clinton doesn’t exist or didn’t run for president or didn’t support immigration of Syrian Muslims – just like he choose not to create the green goblin or Lex Luther. For example if Hillary choose to be something other than a politician she could not have run for president and her ancestry would not need to be changed (and an omnipotent God WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT).

    I said: Consequentialists do not screen their actions for any moral value, it is simply implemented categorically, provided it can produce the desired results.”
    Your response: yes it is.Wikipedia defines consequentialism as “Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theoriesholding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, “the end justifies the means”,[1] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.”//
    “HOW IS MY DEFINITION ANY DIFFERENT FROM WIKI??? take a look at the last sentence of your definition.” How is Gods morality not consequentialist that is the question you need to answer.

    //Which is consequentialist morality, some people suffer so a lot more people can benefit. If a surgeon harvested the organs of 10 patients (without their consent) so a hundred people could live this would be consequentialist morality//
    “The surgeon, in your analogy, violates the law of free will by not seeking consent. God would not do that, therefore God, unlike your surgeon, is not a consequentialist.” When did the Jews consent to be exterminated by Hitler? When did the children used in experiments consent? When did people killed in natural disasters consent? When do women who are raped “consent”? None of these people consented to be a pawn that is sacrificed in some cosmic game of chess. (Where God knows he will win in the end anyway and knows he could win at any time without causing any harm to his pieces but yet chooses not to). Also how come humans can violate the so called free will (which God allows and created and knew would happen) yet God can do nothing? Are mere mortals more powerful than an omnipotent God? What is the point in this free will if other humans can violate it?
    ======
    //Suffering that is the result of the blind forces of nature and not suffering that is the result of human actions and intentions.//
    “So tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes,etc are evil? Do I need to explain to you the origins of these which are purely natural that even 6 graders know or do you wish to hang on to your superstitions that God created them?” God created everything and knew everything that would happen therefore God is also responsible for natural disasters. If a terrorist places a bomb in a plane are you going to say the terrorist is not responsible?

    //“How do you know what God could have “freely” chosen?” God is a free being yes? “Why must God create a world the way Steve wants it to be?” Because he is said to be all loving by the people that believe in him.//
    “Theists do not believe nor expect the world to be a perfect paradise. They accept that there are challenges which help them to grow spiritually. You on the other hand wish to bypass trials and tribulations and want an express ticket to paradise.” We don’t need natural disasters and we don’t need psychopaths, criminals and terrorists. In what way did Hitler make people grow spiritually? Or Bin Laden? Or Richard Kuklinski who would feed people to rats and burn of people’s genitals? Or his boss the mobster Ray Demeo who got kids to perform in his porn movies and who would chop people up in his bar with butchers knives if they owed him money? (While he himself would often choose to kill people rather than pay them). We don’t need people like that and God doesn’t need to create people like that.

    //God has alternatives or options but since he is all loving it follows he would choose to create a world with only happiness and no suffering (which since he is omnipotent is within his power).//
    “There are realms where no suffering exists, however, this temporal world is expected to provide a platform for personal spiritual growth. Where we have a choice to love or reject that love.” God could just have created a world where he knew everybody would FREELY CHOOSE to love him and each other.

    //So is God then since he created people HE KNEW would commit evil but still choose to create them. So the responsibility is at his door.//
    “God does not create evil, people do. We are endowed with the ability to prevent it. So it is really our responsibility. God did not elect Mao, Hitler or Stalin as leaders, people did. I will continue to drill this into your head. We can prevent Hillary from being elected but why don’t we? God’s fault?” God created everything and knew everything that would happen therefore it is his responsibility (and could have chosen to create a world with no suffering and where everybody FREELY CHOOSES to worship God and love each other (as well as not containing natural disasters and diseases). THE BUCK STOPS WITH GOD.

  101. Phoenix says:

    //So why does God allow evil then, if not to bring about a greater good?//

    Let me illustrate with an example. If Hilary wins and becomes president, she would allow the U.S to be flooded with third world sex starved muslim men, who want nothing more than to destroy the west and its western values. Most people who vote for her know this. Why should God prevent Hilary from becoming president if we are perfectly capable of stopping her? Does Hillary or Angela Merkel’s existence disprove God’s existence, since they knowingly allow evil into their territories? Why didn’t God prevent all the Hillaries, Merkel’s and people who support them from being born. It seems like the world would be a better place without them. That would mean God must also annihilate their ancestors and the ancestors of their supporters, to prevent this evil. At that rate there would not be any people left on this planet if we were to apply this method throughout the world.
    ———-

    I said: Consequentialists do not screen their actions for any moral value, it is simply implemented categorically, provided it can produce the desired results.”

    Your response: yes it is.Wikipedia defines consequentialism as “Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theoriesholding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, “the end justifies the means”,[1] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.”//

    HOW IS MY DEFINITION ANY DIFFERENT FROM WIKI??? take a look at the last sentence of your definition.

    //Which is consequentialist morality, some people suffer so a lot more people can benefit. If a surgeon harvested the organs of 10 patients (without their consent) so a hundred people could live this would be consequentialist morality//

    The surgeon, in your analogy, violates the law of free will by not seeking consent. God would not do that, therefore God, unlike your surgeon, is not a consequentialist.
    ======
    //Suffering that is the result of the blind forces of nature and not suffering that is the result of human actions and intentions.//

    So tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes,etc are evil? Do I need to explain to you the origins of these which are purely natural that even 6 graders know or do you wish to hang on to your superstitions that God created them?

    //“How do you know what God could have “freely” chosen?” God is a free being yes? “Why must God create a world the way Steve wants it to be?” Because he is said to be all loving by the people that believe in him.//

    Theists do not believe nor expect the world to be a perfect paradise. They accept that there are challenges which help them to grow spiritually. You on the other hand wish to bypass trials and tribulations and want an express ticket to paradise.

    //God has alternatives or options but since he is all loving it follows he would choose to create a world with only happiness and no suffering (which since he is omnipotent is within his power).//

    No, it does not follow because you say it does. There are gaps in your logic. There are realms where no suffering exists, however, this temporal world is expected to provide a platform for personal spiritual growth. Where we have a choice to love or reject that love.

    //So is God then since he created people HE KNEW would commit evil but still choose to create them. So the responsibility is at his door.//

    God does not create evil, people do. We are endowed with the ability to prevent it. So it is really our responsibility. God did not elect Mao, Hitler or Stalin as leaders, people did. I will continue to drill this into your head. We can prevent Hillary from being elected but why don’t we? God’s fault?

  102. Steve says:

    /Which is what believers say about why God allows evil (both natural and moral evil).//
    “Nope. I have never said that and I am a believer. So this statement is false.” So why does God allow evil then, if not to bring about a greater good?
    //God uses evil to bring about a greater good”. ” Which is consequentialist morality – the end justifies the means.//
    “The first sentence is not consequentialism, you are still distorting what it means. Consequentialists do not screen their actions for any moral value, it is simply implemented categorically, provided it can produce the desired results.” Yes it is Wikipedia defines consequentialism as “Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theoriesholding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the English saying, “the end justifies the means”,[1] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable.”
    “What God does is to transform a pre-existing negative condition into a beneficial outcome. In other words God is a healer.” Which is consequentialist morality, some people suffer so a lot more people can benefit. If a surgeon harvested the organs of 10 patients (without their consent) so a hundred people could live this would be consequentialist morality.

    “First, define “natural evil” from your Materialist position.” Suffering that is the result of the blind forces of nature and not suffering that is the result of human actions and intentions.
    //2) An all loving God could have created beings he knew (through the power of his foreknowledge) would have FREELY CHOSEN the good and refrained from evil – instead of evil people he knew would choose to inflict suffering on the world.//
    “How do you know what God could have “freely” chosen?” God is a free being yes? “Why must God create a world the way Steve wants it to be?” Because he is said to be all loving by the people that believe in him.
    “And how exactly is it a free choice if the alternatives are only between pleasant ones?” God has alternatives or options but since he is all loving it follows he would choose to create a world with only happiness and no suffering (which since he is omnipotent is within his power).

    “We are all guilty to some degree of allowing evil indirectly or directly inflicting suffering.” So is God then since he created people HE KNEW would commit evil but still choose to create them. So the responsibility is at his door.
    “And your response is that God should have enforced it” All God had to do was not create people like Hitler. This violates nobody’s free will. Did God violate the “free will” of comic book villains like the green goblin or the penguin because he choose not to create them in the real world?
    “With your reasoning, the entire human race should not exist. And you dare call God evil.” Right saying an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God wouldn’t have chosen to create people he knew would commit evil is the same as saying all humanity shouldn’t exist in your book got it.

  103. Phoenix says:

    //Which is what believers say about why God allows evil (both natural and moral evil).//

    Nope. I have never said that and I am a believer. So this statement is false.

    //God uses evil to bring about a greater good”. ” Which is consequentialist morality – the end justifies the means.//

    The first sentence is not consequentialism, you are still distorting what it means. Consequentialists do not screen their actions for any moral value, it is simply implemented categorically, provided it can produce the desired results.

    What God does is to transform a pre-existing negative condition into a beneficial outcome. In other words God is a healer.
    ==========
    //1) This does nothing to explain natural evil.//

    First, define “natural evil” from your Materialist position.

    //2) An all loving God could have created beings he knew (through the power of his foreknowledge) would have FREELY CHOSEN the good and refrained from evil – instead of evil people he knew would choose to inflict suffering on the world.//

    How do you know what God could have “freely” chosen? Why must God create a world the way Steve wants it to be? And how exactly is it a free choice if the alternatives are only between pleasant ones?

    Humans are endowed with the capacity to prevent evil. Some of us choose not to utilize that capability. And your response is that God should have enforced it. We are all guilty to some degree of allowing evil indirectly or directly inflicting suffering. With your reasoning, the entire human race should not exist. And you dare call God evil.

  104. Steve says:

    “It requires someone to commit evil and to claim it is for a greater good.” Which is what believers say about why God allows evil (both natural and moral evil).
    “Secondly, God does not create nor commit evil but can use the sufferings of man to strengthen him, shape his character, make him more empathic, teach others how to avoid similar errors, etc. in other words, God inspires an awareness of blessings even in the darkest moments. This is what is meant by “God uses evil to bring about a greater good”. ” Which is consequentialist morality – the end justifies the means.

    “But it is wrong to say God created those dark moments. That is man’s own doings.” God created everything and has foreknowledge of what would happen so God is responsible for it.
    “Lastly, Free will is the reason why God allows suffering and evil to takes its course.” 1) This does nothing to explain natural evil. 2) An all loving God could have created beings he knew (through the power of his foreknowledge) would have FREELY CHOSEN the good and refrained from evil – instead of evil people he knew would choose to inflict suffering on the world.

  105. Phoenix says:

    //Phoenix why does God allow suffering? The usual answer is because it will bring about some greater good – the result of Gods ultimate plan. This is consequentialist morality so the believers morality and the morality of their God is consequentialist.//

    First, you misunderstand what Consequentialism is. It requires someone to commit evil and to claim it is for a greater good.

    Secondly, God does not create nor commit evil but can use the sufferings of man to strengthen him, shape his character, make him more empathic, teach others how to avoid similar errors, etc. in other words, God inspires an awareness of blessings even in the darkest moments. This is what is meant by “God uses evil to bring about a greater good”. But it is wrong to say God created those dark moments. That is man’s own doings.

    Lastly, Free will is the reason why God allows suffering and evil to takes its course.

  106. Steve says:

    Phoenix
    “No doubt, Muhammad was a consequentialist, any act which could further his goal of domination was acceptable and deemed moral. Lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murdering, etc are not violations of moral law per se but merely tactics which could produce the desired results.” Phoenix why does God allow suffering? The usual answer is because it will bring about some greater good – the result of Gods ultimate plan. This is consequentialist morality so the believers morality and the morality of their God is consequentialist.

  107. Steve says:

    Phoenix Here is my reply to your previous comment evolution (time ran out on the other article)

    “False, the time of the mutation’s occurence is random thus implicating the mutants’ environment as random too.” No the environment is not random. For example if darker coloured organisms are harder for a predator to spot then they are more likely to survive than light coloured ones.

    “Yes, it predicts everything and there is no evidence which could falsify it.” There is plenty of evidence which could falsify CD. For example CD predicts that their will be a mixing of traits in the fossil record (e.g organisms with partly human and partly ape like features). And closely related organisms will have similar DNA sequences. So if for example we had found humans and chimps had radically different DNA sequences this would have falsified CD.

    “The onus is on you to demonstrate empirically how retroviral infections in simians and humans equal common descent. I will then take the liberty of scrutinizing your data to see if it fits the criterion for scientific evidence.” Right so by chance organisms that are more closely related (share more traits) share more of these viruses as well? And the less related they are the less viruses they share. Funny this date fits this the pattern predicted by CD don’t you think?

    “You should just present your evidence rather than wait for me to flesh it out.” In other words you haven’t bothered to find out – which is something a “skeptic” should do.
    Here is 101 pieces of evidence. It is presented in a easy enough to understand way so hopefully even your brain should be able to understand it. http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

    “Just like evolution huh? In forensic evidence they have witness testimony, surveillance footage , blood test, DNA, etc to corroborate past events. You don’t have squat for evolution.” Right apart from the mountain of evidence I have presented. Such as Retro viruses, DNA sequences, nested hierarchies, transitional fossils etc. Even Intelligent design people like Micheal Behe accept CD because it so well supported, so why you are “skeptical” of it is beyond me.

    “Again, if you have any REAL data and studies done then present it.” It’s a model which shows how evolution can produce complex structures – that all it claims to be – something which the creationists claim to be impossible. In addition because we don’t understand every detail of how the evolution has happened doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

  108. Phoenix says:

    Short, sweet and straight to the point. Excellent exposition.

    No doubt, Muhammad was a consequentialist, any act which could further his goal of domination was acceptable and deemed moral. Lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, murdering, etc are not violations of moral law per se but merely tactics which could produce the desired results.

%d bloggers like this: