Kay 17:

Let's begin, God is all good and will accommodate no evil, however suffering is evil ON its own, isolated from a higher purpose. Suffering might have a higher purpose, thereby making it good. But since God is not bound by necessity, suffering is therefore irreconcilable to all good God.

Nice.........I am beginning to enjoy your statements, you make it tough for me and I love it.......let's move on.

One mistake you are making is equating suffering to evil and it's purpose to good. . . . .such that suffering now becomes a necessary evil towards a greater good. That's the wrong way to look at it.
The right way to look at it is this: By default, suffering exists for a purpose therefore it is not evil. (this follows because if God is omniscient and omnipotent creator, then where suffering exists in His creation, it must have a purpose)
The difficulty is that when man sees suffering that He does not understand, he calls it evil. Because man does not see it's purpose, it is evil to man but not evil to God because God sees it's purpose.

....much like when you are vaccinating a baby, the baby cries because she doesn't see the purpose of her pain but you see that the pain is necessary so vaccination is good to you but evil to your baby. If your baby could understand the need for vaccination, she wouldn't see the pain as evil.

-if you counter that a baby has no moral understanding, then we can bump up the scenario to denying junk food to a five year old or making your little children to learn maths (all the things a child would consider unnecessary suffering but you would consider essential good).

Mr_Anony:
Nice.........I am beginning to enjoy your statements, you make i tough for me and I love it.......let's move on.
One mistake you are making is equating suffering to evil and it's purpose to good. . . . .such that suffering now becomes a necessary evil towards a greater good. That's the wrong way to look at it.
The right way to look at it is this: By default, suffering exists for a purpose therefore it is not evil. (this follows because if God is omniscient and omnipotent creator, then where suffering exists in His creation, it must have a purpose)
The difficulty is that when man sees suffering that He does not understand, he calls it evil. Because man does not see it's purpose, it is evil to man but not evil to God because God sees it's purpose.

....much like when you are vaccinating a baby, the baby cries because she doesn't see the purpose of her pain but you see that the pain is necessary so vaccination is good to you but evil to your baby. If your baby could understand the need for vaccination, she wouldn't see the pain as evil.

-if you counter that a baby has no moral understanding, then we can bump up the scenario to denying junk food to a five year old or making your little children to learn maths (all the things a child would consider unnecessary suffering but you would consider essential good).

I see why you dont like debating with me. I dont tolerate long discussions with wiggle room. You love atheists who give you a chance to peddle your BS, dont you?


Let me debunk you quickly.


I agree that unnecessary suffering is evil. Suffering with no benefit in the long wrong is evil. Now, I have to ask you what is the benefit of allowing a child to get molested? Or sending earthquakes to countries like Japan?


I know you will try to say that earthquakes could lead to better earthquake detection systems. Preemptive debunking; first, you cant prepare adequately for an earthquake no matter how early you detect it, properties and roads will be damaged as they cant be moved. Secondly, we wouldnt need to detect it inn the first place if they didnt happen. We can detect dangerous meteor falls but they hardly happen, why should god then allow earhtquakes?

MacDaddy01:



I see why you dont like debating with me. I dont tolerate long discussions with wiggle room. You love atheists who give you a chance to peddle your BS, dont you?


Let me debunk you quickly.


I agree that unnecessary suffering is evil. Suffering with no benefit in the long wrong is evil. Now, I have to ask you what is the benefit of allowing a child to get molested? Or sending earthquakes to countries like Japan?


I know you will try to say that earthquakes could lead to better earthquake detection systems. Preemptive debunking; first, you cant prepare adequately for an earthquake no matter how early you detect it, properties and roads will be damaged as they cant be moved. Secondly, we wouldnt need to detect it inn the first place if they didnt happen. We can detect dangerous meteor falls but they hardly happen, why should god then allow earhtquakes?

The question you directed at me is not mine to answer but God since He knows the purpose. Nowhere in my argument have I claimed to know the purpose of suffering.

...It is like a kid asking another kid why they have to eat broccoli. The other kid doesn't know and can only ask daddy or repeat what daddy told her.

So my answer is: Ask God.


p/s: the reason I don't like arguing with you has little or nothing to do with your ability but has almost everything to do with your inability to reason properly sometimes.

Mr_Anony:

The question you directed at me is not mine to answer but God since He knows the purpose. Nowhere in my argument have I claimed to know the purpose of suffering.

...It is like a kid asking another kid why they have to eat broccoli. The other kid doesn't know and can only ask daddy or repeat what daddy told her.

So my answer is: Ask God.


p/s: the reason I don't like arguing with you has little or nothing to do with your ability but has almost everything to do with your inability to reason properly sometimes.

You keep insulting me by saying that I am unable to reason properly. However, you never point out the unreasonable things in my comments. Please, point out the unreasonable things in my comments or be prepared to be abused by me in return False accusations are annoying and I respond to them very bitterly. You have witnessed this before and so, please stop



Anyways, it is good that you have conceded that you are arguing from ignorance. If you dont know the purpose of suffering (which you have now confessed to), then why claim that suffering is just? Why claim that the suffering God allows is just?


Logicboy is too much


(Yes, I know that I'm a bit arrogant)

Mr_Anony:

The question you directed at me is not mine to answer but God since He knows the purpose. Nowhere in my argument have I claimed to know the purpose of suffering.

...It is like a kid asking another kid why they have to eat broccoli. The other kid doesn't know and can only ask daddy or repeat what daddy told her.

So my answer is: Ask God.


p/s: the reason I don't like arguing with you has little or nothing to do with your ability but has almost everything to do with your inability to reason properly sometimes.

Btw, your brocolli-child analogy is an epic fail.

1) My 9 year old nephew can tell you the benefits of vegetables because they teach nutrition and diets in school. There is also the internet.

2) Unlike your god, daddy is available. The question can be answered. For god, never

Mr_Anony: So my answer is: Ask God.

Why don't you ask your god and tell us what he told you is the answer to the question since you claim he answers people, ask him and let him answer you then let us know what he told you. . .Why do you keep arguing from ignorance? As macdaddy has pointed out, if you dont know the purpose of suffering as you said, then why claim that suffering is just? Why claim that the suffering your god allows is just?

MacDaddy01:
Btw, your brocolli-child analogy is an epic fail.

1) My 9 year old nephew can tell you the benefits of vegetables because they teach nutrition and diets in school. There is also the internet.

2) Unlike your god, daddy is available. The question can be answered. For god, never

He keeps accusing you of the inability to reason properly when its his own reasoning that is always deficient. . .He is a sophist that prefers arguing with athiest that give him room to dance and dance all over, when asked direct questions its either hr runs away or pretends the logic of the question isn't sound enough. . He prefers some nonsense sophsim predicated on some ridiculous premise. He makes his own assumptions and tries to force you to argue based on them. He claims to argue for god but constatnly throws the bible under the bus. . .The bible clearly says god will protect his own like a father will protect his child. . .It goes on to say that those that call on to the name of Yahweh with belief in their minds will have what ever the asked for. If you ask him why many who have asked their god for protection and ended up not getting protected as promised by their god he begings to wriggle and say you are asking emotional questions. . . . . .He will just prefer that you go about dancing to his ridiculous tunes of sophistry. . .

MacDaddy01:


You keep insulting me by saying that I am unable to reason properly. However, you never point out the unreasonable things in my comments. Please, point out the unreasonable things in my comments or be prepared to be abused by me in return False accusations are annoying and I respond to them very bitterly. You have witnessed this before and so, please stop



Anyways, it is good that you have conceded that you are arguing from ignorance. If you dont know the purpose of suffering (which you have now confessed to), then why claim that suffering is just? Why claim that the suffering God allows is just?


Logicboy is too much


(Yes, I know that I'm a bit arrogant)

MacDaddy01:
Btw, your brocolli-child analogy is an epic fail.

1) My 9 year old nephew can tell you the benefits of vegetables because they teach nutrition and diets in school. There is also the internet.

2) Unlike your god, daddy is available. The question can be answered. For god, never

Well my friend, your inability to reason properly is not an insult, it is something you need to work on. The sad part is that even if I showed you, you'll still not understand it because you actually need to have understanding or at least humility to see your flaws. but that's by the way.

About arguing from ignorance: I am not, because I am not claiming to know the reason. If I claimed to know something that I don't know, then I'll be arguing from ignorance. Not knowing the purpose of suffering is not the same as not knowing that suffering has a purpose.

Secondly: as expected, you misunderstood my analogy but I won't sweat it. You hold that God does not exist as a foundation upon which you base your arguments. This immediately means that you cannot then question God's attributes or whether suffering is necessary or not. The whole debate becomes pointless if God does not exist.

mazaje:

Why don't you ask your god and tell us what he told you is the answer to the question since you claim he answers people, ask him and let him answer you then let us know what he told you. . .Why do you keep arguing from ignorance? As macdaddy has pointed out, if you dont know the purpose of suffering as you said, then why claim that suffering is just? Why claim that the suffering your god allows is just?

I don't know the purpose of suffering but I know that God is just therefore if God allows suffering, it has a purpose. As for asking God questions, I do all the time and He answers according to His will.

Mr_Anony:
I don't know the purpose of suffering but I know that God is just therefore if God allows suffering, it has a purpose. As for asking God questions, I do all the time and He answers according to His will.

You don't know the purpose of suffering buy yet you know that suffering is good or just because of some unknown reason?. . .LOL!

mazaje:

You don't know the purpose of suffering buy yet you know that suffering is good or just because of some unknown reason?. . .LOL!

Lol, it seems you have problems with deductive arguments.
If God's nature is good, and if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then it follows that when God allows suffering, it must have a purpose. Not knowing exactly what the purpose is does not take away the fact that the argument has a purpose.

Much like: If your phone has a designer then the buttons on your phone must have a purpose. If the buttons on your phone have a purpose, not knowing the specific purpose of a particular button does not automatically make the button purposeless. The problem is with your limited understanding and not the phone or the phone maker.

Mazaje and MacDaddy, if you please, I would like to come in at this point to point something out.

The reason you guys like to continue engaging Mr Anony is actually because he is extremely lenient and patient with your arguments which tend toward unreasonability, to say the least. He is a very courteous debater and an extremely humble one. That is why rather than engage in shouting matches, he disengages.

You call that cowardice and, per MacDaddy-speak, Anony-houdini. It is false to say either. I have, on purpose, drawn an argument with MacDaddy out to its full logical conclusion to show what happens when an unreasonable debater refuses to capitulate and tries to drag a fully-concluded debate further with a reasonable, honest debater.

Cyrexx, here represented by himself, took it upon himself in that discussion to caution me for insolence and arrogance. Whether he was right or not is not the issue. The issue is that because I did not disengage but decided to slug it out to its full conclusion with MacDaddy, I made myself vulnerable to such accusation.

The result of that would be that MacDaddy and others of like sympathies would take refuge in the falsity that I do not countenance opposing arguments. So, they would not accept arguments with me as capable of honest examination of conflicting positions.

Mr Anony does not wish for that kind of representation. What he wants is to take an honest view of your submissions and prepare capable responses to them or capitulate accordingly. In other words, he willingly continues to give you guys the benefit of the doubt that arguing with you is worth his time and energy.

But you do not appreciate this fact, and once you indicate that lack of appreciation, he releases you from further engagement. It is actually a courtesy done to you, because any further argument with you would result in a metaphorical beating up by him of you. This is what my episode with MacDaddy was meant to exemplify.

Honest debate means that the debaters give each other benefit of the doubt that their arguments are worth consideration. A debate ceases to be honest and worthy of human resource when that fact becomes false.

Finally, while we - my very dear brother, Mr Anony and myself, particularly - would love to see all of you become Christians, we are not about forcing Christ upon you. This is why we continue to engage you. I myself disengaged totally for a time because of my frustration with your type of arguments, but I have recuperated and have learned a bit better and am learning increasingly how to handle you guys without destroying or abandoning you. You're under no compulsion from anyone to accept Christ if you don't want to. We only take on your arguments to show that there is no reason to not accept Christ except that you do not want to. And that itself is a reason worthy of respect. That is, it is a position that anybody, created or not, must respect. It is an act of will and is in itself enough reason to quit striving with the person in question.

If you then want to strengthen that reason with other arguments, dear sirs, you will have to tolerate having such arguments demolished by stronger arguments. That is the risk involved in debate.

Ihedinobi: Mazaje and MacDaddy, if you please, I would like to come in at this point to point something out.

The reason you guys like to continue engaging Mr Anony is actually because he is extremely lenient and patient with your arguments which tend toward unreasonability, to say the least. He is a very courteous debater and an extremely humble one. That is why rather than engage in shouting matches, he disengages.

You call that cowardice and, per MacDaddy-speak, Anony-houdini. It is false to say either. I have, on purpose, drawn an argument with MacDaddy out to its full logical conclusion to show what happens when an unreasonable debater refuses to capitulate and tries to drag a fully-concluded debate further with a reasonable, honest debater.

Cyrexx, here represented by himself, took it upon himself in that discussion to caution me for insolence and arrogance. Whether he was right or not is not the issue. The issue is that because I did not disengage but decided to slug it out to its full conclusion with MacDaddy, I made myself vulnerable to such accusation.

The result of that would be that MacDaddy and others of like sympathies would take refuge in the falsity that I do not countenance opposing arguments. So, they would not accept arguments with me as capable of honest examination of conflicting positions.

Mr Anony does not wish for that kind of representation. What he wants is to take an honest view of your submissions and prepare capable responses to them or capitulate accordingly. In other words, he willingly continues to give you guys the benefit of the doubt that arguing with you is worth his time and energy.

But you do not appreciate this fact, and once you indicate that lack of appreciation, he releases you from further engagement. It is actually a courtesy done to you, because any further argument with you would result in a metaphorical beating up by him of you. This is what my episode with MacDaddy was meant to exemplify.

Honest debate means that the debaters give each other benefit of the doubt that their arguments are worth consideration. A debate ceases to be honest and worthy of human resource when that fact becomes false.

Finally, while we - my very dear brother, Mr Anony and myself, particularly - would love to see all of you become Christians, we are not about forcing Christ upon you. This is why we continue to engage you. I myself disengaged totally for a time because of my frustration with your type of arguments, but I have recuperated and have learned a bit better and am learning increasingly how to handle you guys without destroying or abandoning you. You're under no compulsion from anyone to accept Christ if you don't want to. We only take on your arguments to show that there is no reason to not accept Christ except that you do not want to. And that itself is a reason worthy of respect. That is, it is a position that anybody, created or not, must respect. It is an act of will and is in itself enough reason to quit striving with the person in question.

If you then want to strengthen that reason with other arguments, dear sirs, you will have to tolerate having such arguments demolished by stronger arguments. That is the risk involved in debate.

Yesss!!! My Brother is Back!!! Bro how far. I've missed your brakelight. Are you still gonna open that thread that we talked about?

Ihedinobi: Mazaje and MacDaddy, if you please, I would like to come in at this point to point something out.

The reason you guys like to continue engaging Mr Anony is actually because he is extremely lenient and patient with your arguments which tend toward unreasonability, to say the least. He is a very courteous debater and an extremely humble one. That is why rather than engage in shouting matches, he disengages.

You call that cowardice and, per MacDaddy-speak, Anony-houdini. It is false to say either. I have, on purpose, drawn an argument with MacDaddy out to its full logical conclusion to show what happens when an unreasonable debater refuses to capitulate and tries to drag a fully-concluded debate further with a reasonable, honest debater.

Cyrexx, here represented by himself, took it upon himself in that discussion to caution me for insolence and arrogance. Whether he was right or not is not the issue. The issue is that because I did not disengage but decided to slug it out to its full conclusion with MacDaddy, I made myself vulnerable to such accusation.

The result of that would be that MacDaddy and others of like sympathies would take refuge in the falsity that I do not countenance opposing arguments. So, they would not accept arguments with me as capable of honest examination of conflicting positions.

Mr Anony does not wish for that kind of representation. What he wants is to take an honest view of your submissions and prepare capable responses to them or capitulate accordingly. In other words, he willingly continues to give you guys the benefit of the doubt that arguing with you is worth his time and energy.

But you do not appreciate this fact, and once you indicate that lack of appreciation, he releases you from further engagement. It is actually a courtesy done to you, because any further argument with you would result in a metaphorical beating up by him of you. This is what my episode with MacDaddy was meant to exemplify.

Honest debate means that the debaters give each other benefit of the doubt that their arguments are worth consideration. A debate ceases to be honest and worthy of human resource when that fact becomes false.

Finally, while we - my very dear brother, Mr Anony and myself, particularly - would love to see all of you become Christians, we are not about forcing Christ upon you. This is why we continue to engage you. I myself disengaged totally for a time because of my frustration with your type of arguments, but I have recuperated and have learned a bit better and am learning increasingly how to handle you guys without destroying or abandoning you. You're under no compulsion from anyone to accept Christ if you don't want to. We only take on your arguments to show that there is no reason to not accept Christ except that you do not want to. And that itself is a reason worthy of respect. That is, it is a position that anybody, created or not, must respect. It is an act of will and is in itself enough reason to quit striving with the person in question.

If you then want to strengthen that reason with other arguments, dear sirs, you will have to tolerate having such arguments demolished by stronger arguments. That is the risk involved in debate.

Yawn.

Just suck Mr. Anony's D1ck and get over your cheerleading.

I have already warned Anony not to call my arguments unreasonable without showing where they are unreasonable, yet you barge in and claim that my comments are unreasonable.

Are you a troll or just foolish?

MacDaddy01:

Yawn.

Just suck Mr. Anony's D1ck and get over your cheerleading.

I have already warned Anony not to call my arguments unreasonable without showing where they are unreasonable, yet you barge in and claim that my comments are unreasonable.

Are you a troll or just foolish?

Wow, you are disgusting!

Mr_Anony:
Well my friend, your inability to reason properly is not an insult, it is something you need to work on. The sad part is that even if I showed you, you'll still not understand it because you actually need to have understanding or at least humility to see your flaws. but that's by the way.

About arguing from ignorance: I am not, because I am not claiming to know the reason. If I claimed to know something that I don't know, then I'll be arguing from ignorance. Not knowing the purpose of suffering is not the same as not knowing that suffering has a purpose.

Secondly: as expected, you misunderstood my analogy but I won't sweat it. You hold that God does not exist as a foundation upon which you base your arguments. This immediately means that you cannot then question God's attributes or whether suffering is necessary or not. The whole debate becomes pointless if God does not exist.

First of all, you are a fake christian. I just warned you to stop insulting me and because you are too arrogant to confess that you were wrong to call me unreasonable without any proof or evidence, you repeat your false accusations again. You sir are a douchebag of Dinesh Desouza's calibre!
How can you even imply that I am so foolish and lacking in humility that I can not even see where I am unreasonable (if even I am) if you point it out?
You have some issues, bro.


Secondly, if you dont know the purpose, then why claim that the purpose is not evil? Is that an argument from ignorance?
Your foolish counter is to say that since God is good/just his purpose must be just. Unfortunately, your bible also describes God as a jealous smiter. According to your bible, God is both good and evil therefore, your claim that god is just fails. Another problem with your god is just theory is that God has never been just in the bible from punishing both Adam and Eve for innocence while allowing the devil to murder Jobs family

If god is just, then he cant be merciful. Two contradictory characters.



Your analogy fails. End of story. Atheists always say that they will believe if there is evidence. So, you are the one entering a debate on the wrong foot. You bring no evidence and want us to assume based on faith your arguments are valid? Are you mad?

Mr_Anony:
Wow, you are disgusting!

What? Blowjobs scare you? Are you a man?


On a serious note, tell your disgusting cheerleader to BACK OFF! Hypocrite

mazaje:

He keeps accusing you of the inability to reason properly when its his own reasoning that is always deficient. . .He is a sophist that prefers arguing with athiest that give him room to dance and dance all over, when asked direct questions its either hr runs away or pretends the logic of the question isn't sound enough. . He prefers some nonsense sophsim predicated on some ridiculous premise. He makes his own assumptions and tries to force you to argue based on them. He claims to argue for god but constatnly throws the bible under the bus. . .The bible clearly says god will protect his own like a father will protect his child. . .It goes on to say that those that call on to the name of Yahweh with belief in their minds will have what ever the asked for. If you ask him why many who have asked their god for protection and ended up not getting protected as promised by their god he begings to wriggle and say you are asking emotional questions. . . . . .He will just prefer that you go about dancing to his ridiculous tunes of sophistry. . .

Anony is the Sophist-in-Chief of Nairaland! The guy spins and dodges like Dinesh Desouza


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-92ra6aorPc

@Macdaddy. Wow, so it is now ad hominem time abi? Lol........you are such a child. You are welcome to the last word.

Lol. What's happening here?

Reyginus: Lol. What's happening here?

Lol, The argument has gone south as all arguments with macdaddy eventually end up

Mr_Anony:
Lol, The argument has gone south as all arguments with macdaddy eventually end up

Lololol. Take it easy with him, you know he is very emotional. *Thinking loud. Epic fail, Epic non-rebutal, debunked, bigotry, lalalalala* lol

I understand what you trying to say Mr Anony, but suffering on its own without a connection to a purpose isn't good. Just like amputating someone's arms for no reason is.

Do you get me?

Kay 17: I understand what you trying to say Mr Anony, but suffering on its own without a connection to a purpose isn't good. Just like amputating someone's arms for no reason is.

Do you get me?

I get you and we both agree on that no doubt.

My only contention has been that if you start the argument by saying God is omnipotent and omniscient creator, then it is impossible to say that suffering happening under his watch is without purpose. The fact that you don't know the purpose of something does not make it purposeless.

Mr_Anony:
The fact that you don't know the purpose of something does not make it purposeless.

True. But you cannot also conclude that the purpose of suffering is good simply because God (who allowed it) is just. No, it doesn't always follow. Nice people sometimes do bad things as well.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, it seems you have problems with deductive arguments.
If God's nature is good, and if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then it follows that when God allows suffering, it must have a purpose. Not knowing exactly what the purpose is does not take away the fact that the argument has a purpose.

Much like: If your phone has a designer then the buttons on your phone must have a purpose. If the buttons on your phone have a purpose, not knowing the specific purpose of a particular button does not automatically make the button purposeless. The problem is with your limited understanding and not the phone or the phone maker.

Your arguments lack good bases and I have been point it out to you since. . .If I want to know the purpose of every button on my phone all I need to do is consult the phone manual book and I will see its purpose. Its very simple, you on the other hand claim your god speaks to you can you quickly ask him to tell you what the purpose of human suffering is?. . .Stop comparing your god to the human society and how it works and when we use how the human society is supposed to work to ask you questions about your god you go about running away by claiming you do not know your god's will. . .The bible is there which you claim is the word of your god can you go through it and tell us why your god refused to protect those that call unto his name for protectin as he promise?. . .

Ihedinobi: Mazaje and MacDaddy, if you please, I would like to come in at this point to point something out.

The reason you guys like to continue engaging Mr Anony is actually because he is extremely lenient and patient with your arguments which tend toward unreasonability, to say the least. He is a very courteous debater and an extremely humble one. That is why rather than engage in shouting matches, he disengages.

You call that cowardice and, per MacDaddy-speak, Anony-houdini. It is false to say either. I have, on purpose, drawn an argument with MacDaddy out to its full logical conclusion to show what happens when an unreasonable debater refuses to capitulate and tries to drag a fully-concluded debate further with a reasonable, honest debater.

Cyrexx, here represented by himself, took it upon himself in that discussion to caution me for insolence and arrogance. Whether he was right or not is not the issue. The issue is that because I did not disengage but decided to slug it out to its full conclusion with MacDaddy, I made myself vulnerable to such accusation.

The result of that would be that MacDaddy and others of like sympathies would take refuge in the falsity that I do not countenance opposing arguments. So, they would not accept arguments with me as capable of honest examination of conflicting positions.

Mr Anony does not wish for that kind of representation. What he wants is to take an honest view of your submissions and prepare capable responses to them or capitulate accordingly. In other words, he willingly continues to give you guys the benefit of the doubt that arguing with you is worth his time and energy.

But you do not appreciate this fact, and once you indicate that lack of appreciation, he releases you from further engagement. It is actually a courtesy done to you, because any further argument with you would result in a metaphorical beating up by him of you. This is what my episode with MacDaddy was meant to exemplify.

Honest debate means that the debaters give each other benefit of the doubt that their arguments are worth consideration. A debate ceases to be honest and worthy of human resource when that fact becomes false.

Finally, while we - my very dear brother, Mr Anony and myself, particularly - would love to see all of you become Christians, we are not about forcing Christ upon you. This is why we continue to engage you. I myself disengaged totally for a time because of my frustration with your type of arguments, but I have recuperated and have learned a bit better and am learning increasingly how to handle you guys without destroying or abandoning you. You're under no compulsion from anyone to accept Christ if you don't want to. We only take on your arguments to show that there is no reason to not accept Christ except that you do not want to. And that itself is a reason worthy of respect. That is, it is a position that anybody, created or not, must respect. It is an act of will and is in itself enough reason to quit striving with the person in question.

If you then want to strengthen that reason with other arguments, dear sirs, you will have to tolerate having such arguments demolished by stronger arguments. That is the risk involved in debate.

What is this long epistle all about?. . .

Consequently, I'm concluding that it is logically conceivable that God can do without suffering in his Creation.

Purist:

True. But you cannot also conclude that the purpose of suffering is good simply because God (who allowed it) is just. No, it doesn't always follow. Nice people sometimes do bad things as well.

But then one of the attributes of God is that He is perfectly good. He is not the kind of "good person that does bad things sometimes"

Kay 17: Consequently, I'm concluding that it is logically conceivable that God can do without suffering in his Creation.

Of course it is, but what doesn't follow is that God must do without suffering in His creation

mazaje:

Your arguments lack good bases and I have been point it out to you since. . .If I want to know the purpose of every button on my phone all I need to do is consult the phone manual book and I will see its purpose. Its very simple, you on the other hand claim your god speaks to you can you quickly ask him to tell you what the purpose of human suffering is?. . .Stop comparing your god to the human society and how it works and when we use how the human society is supposed to work to ask you questions about your god you go about running away by claiming you do not know your god's will. . .The bible is there which you claim is the word of your god can you go through it and tell us why your god refused to protect those that call unto his name for protectin as he promise?. . .

My answer to you is simple, whatever God does, He does according to His will. Whatever God permits, He permits for a purpose. If Jesus promised us that while we are still on earth, there will be suffering, God will allow the enemy to harm our bodies and even kill us, one thing we are assured of is Eternity with Him so even if we get paralyzed for life and we do not understand why, like Job we do not curse God but we trust in Him because the bible tells us that all things work together for good to those that love God. In this we have confidence and are comforted.

Anony, give up.

Just give up.

Either you accept that your God is evil because he allows pointless suffering like earhtquakes which brings abut no long term benefits or you accept that he doesnt exist.


There is pointless suffering in this world. Either you omnipotent god takes responsiblity or he doesnt exist in the first place to take it.