[Winter wind]

Quote by: freefallife This argument is invalidated with the existance of any evil which we cannot overcome. I don't think I have to provide a list, but if you can't think of any, let me know.

This seems to be the crux of our arguments, so I'll start with this.
I do think that there is evil we can't overcome with what we have now. But I think, over time, we will be able to eliminate our current evils. There is always a time during a puzzle where it is impossible to instantly undo it. After a while of poking and prodding, the answer becomes clearer and obtainable. All evil can be overcome if given time.

However, an argument is, if you are falling from a building and are going to die no matter what, that is an evil impossible to overcome. You don't have the time to call for help.

My response is growth as a human race means human race as a whole could overcome such a problem. Plus, being Christian, I believe that death is not the end. The man falling from the roof of a building would be able to get what he deserves in the next life. That is what overcomes death.

Furthermore, this system would save countless lives. That would be the act of a loving god. To see to it that only those that NEEDED to suffer would, and no more. The simple fact that we feel there is too much in the world is evidence that it is not this way, and therefore very inefficient. What horrifies me about the god that you worship is that he is wastefull with the well-being of his creations.

You can't be sure it wasn't excessive. You will have a difficult time proving that as my argument will simply be "only God knows for sure what was excessive and what wasn't"

This is not a valid justification. We wouldn't need to learn to cure them if he didn't create them in the first place.

We've covered this argument. Growth is the purpose. To rise above the problem.

In the words of Woody Allen, "If god wants to test us, why doesn't he just give us the written?"

Much better argument, and inventive. However the answer is simple. It comes back down to the amount of evil. If all tests were written, would would find that excessively evil and we would still be having this conversation.

Imagine a god that was REALLY a part of your life. That actually taught us lessons in person. Say he held a class every week or so in the middle of the night while you were in a dream state. Every human on earth would experience this, making the existance of god more than evident. We would all have a personal relationship with god, which is what the bible states he wants. We would all still have the free will to follow his teachings.

We call it "opening our heart to Him", but night class was close enough. Oh, and to avoid infringing on free will, the classes aren't mandatory, but they help.

No. Instead, this omnipotent god is invisible and tortures us.

He's invisible to sight. Christians believe that opening your heart makes him visible, but I think it makes no difference. If he was visible, it would be too easy. As stupid as that sounds, imagine God was the obvious right choice. Taking his side is now unimpressive. It's the normal thing to do, not extraordinary. It almost eliminates free will. (this argument is tentative as I have jet lag and may have screwed up. I apologize in advance for any illogical statements.)

As for torturing us...First off, you make it sound like there is only evil in the world and nothing else. Second, torturing would mean we can't get out of the torture. It's a challenge (tough love) if we can overcome the problem.

Easy. You don't. Create symbiosis and the DON'T create harmfull parasites. Pretty small accomplishment for an omnipotent god. What makes you think that you can't have symbiosis and not disease causing viruses?

The logic of our world actually states that harmful parasites are the unsuccessful ones. The ones that don't do damage to the host are much more effective. Plus not all damaging parasites are evil (what's an unborn child?). But the real argument is simply the nature of our world says that good is giving back to the creature, and evil is taking away from the creature. To have the good, you must have the evil to give the good any meaning.

Without viruses, your argument would change to "what about people born without helpful parasites? That's evil".

God created evolution? Completely rediculous. That is unless you believe that Adam and Eve were apes.

Heck, why not...

Even so, how about NOT creating HARMFUL genetic defects. There would still be evolution, but no suffering. Hey, if I can think of it....

It would be illogical. Create an imbalance. Evolution is neutral in nature. It's just a change in genetics. The improvements survive and the deficiencies will have less genetic fitness. To only have improvements would be illogical. Now if you say God could make it logical, then we go beyond the realm of logic and the point becomes impossible to debate.

As I said. He's omnipotent. He could have created ANY system of life he chose. The problem is that he also loves us unconditionaly. So why would an omnibenevolent god CHOOSE to create a world the very foundations of which rest on the shoulders of death and are bathed in the blood of innocents?

First off, because he's omnipotent and sees that this is the best system. And why is the world a terrible place? (you sounds like Tolkien). We have already established Evil is necessary. I have argued that amount of good and the amount of evil in the world balance out with our perception of good and evil. I personally think you have an excessively cynical view of the world.

Anywho, why was this system chosen? Probably because it is the perfect balance. The rules of this universe generally boil down to everything must be even and equal in the end. I personally think that extends to good and evil in relation to our perception.

Hey, don't give God any ideas....

I'm just sayin' before you start making the world out to be a portrait of hell, don't forget we can imagine much worse possibilities as well as better ones.

Responding to this is not for this thread. There's evil...theres too much. We've already established that.

This is related because you say the world is getting worse and I say it's getting better. This is importent because my argument is that humans will grow to live in an increasingly better world and evil shall become lesser and lesser. You say it's getting worse, therefore debunking my hypothesis. It is highly relevant.

The world is not worse then it was 1000 years ago (for instance.) In fact, it is better.

And an omnipotent god couldn't have created continental plates that move with less friction?

Doing so would collapse the laws of physics and who knows what would have had to change to accommodate this change in the properties of friction. Or geologically, maybe the shifting plates needed that friction to create landmasses. Or the possibility remains that earthquakes are just another challenge to over come.

If it means relieving the pain and suffering in the world, who cares how long it would take?

Again. Who cares? It would mean the reduction of pain. And why did he even create it in the first place? He needs oncologists in heaven?

To why we need to cure cancer...I personally believe that curing cancer opens the door to cell life manipulation leading to a cure for death (maybe). Second off, maybe (big maybe) the reason why so many people are dying from this is because of the same rules set in place about genetic mutation. You need them for evolution, but they have this unavoidable side effect. Logically cancer has to exist for evolution to exist. Because cancer is basically a cell that divides forever giving it much more fitness, with the side effect of killing the body.

Why God had this rule in the first place is because of the stated reason above. Balance. I'm not sure why, but the universe is balanced, even the most chaotic physics always follows this rule. God made the universe Balanced, but I can't say why.

Sure. Wait, why is a loving god throwing LETHAL PUZZLES at us again? Its almost like me tossing crowd control grenades into my daughters bedroom. Gee, hope she figures out how to overcome these! Now that wouldn't be very loving would it?

Well the analogy fails because the father knows whats going to happen.
And your example is extreme to say the least. I like the one were a parent doesn't mollycoddle their child when she is ridding a skateboard. If the parent never let the child fall, the child might never learn.