P1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.P2. Bad things like child rape, and malicious murders occur.P3. God is either responsible for the occurrence of child rape and malicious murders (i.e. being the cause of all events), or indirectly responsible through inaction.C. Therefore God Doesn't Exist.
If God is the all knowing all powerful creator of everything then everything that happens is in accordance with his will. This means every child rape, every malicious murder, everything, is in accordance with his will. That makes him amoral by any reasonable standard.
personally speaking, someone (a being) who commits an equal number of, and equal measure of "moral" and "immoral" acts could still be considered "amoral"How?
it is exceedingly difficult to imagine any such being as perceiving humans as anything other than insects or really probably more likely zooplanktonhow much "empathy" do you have for the millions of unique creatures found in a barrel of seawater
we are spiritual beings having a human experience not a human being having a spiritual experience.
maybe one in 10,000 ?
So you believe Jesus is a stand alone entity and that father in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit Trinity thing doesn't exist.
maybe one in 10,000 ?Maybe, maybe not.
which religions and or belief systems do you consider "valid" ?
which religions and or belief systems do you consider "valid" ?The Golden Rule.
it becomes a question of motive (which i abhor)for example, in the classic television series "red dwarf" one of the main characters is a strict "rule-follower" and yet, somehow accidentally causes a radiation leak that kills the entire crew (1,167 souls) - - i believe most people (consensus reality) would still consider this person a "moral" individualin another example, someone like bernie madoff is NOT (directly) responsible for the gruesome deaths of 1,167 earnest and well-meaning individual humans, and yet, - - i believe most people (consensus reality) would still consider bernie madoff to be an "immoral" individualthere is a rather ridiculous legal standard that is salient to this specific pointtechnically, a "psychopath" and or "sociopath" is someone who can't tell the difference between (what most people consider) "moral" and "immoral"i have absolutely no idea how anyone is even hypothetically expected to substantiate such a claim
it is exceedingly difficult to imagine any such being as perceiving humans as anything other than insects or really probably more likely zooplanktonhow much "empathy" do you have for the millions of unique creatures found in a barrel of seawater ?
if you are to subject some one's or being's actions to moral analysis, can the subject of that analysis still be characterized as "amoral"?
anyone can claim something they feel strongly about like, "mosquitos are teh pure evilz"but such a claim is extremely difficult (and very likely logically impossible) to quantifyi would suggest that "amoral" might be best applied to (apparent) "actors" who demonstrate (once again, apparent) "moral blindness"and or alternatively, NOT specifically proven to have (EITHER) "moral" (OR) "immoral" premeditated intentions
any system of justice that relies on "motive" or "intent" in order to render justice is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft
Completely agree.
are you familiar with "the silver rule" ?
You know what if you don't understand the questions that are being asked then maybe you shouldn't practice the religion you're in.
Your argument is as follows:P1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.P2. Bad things like child rape, and malicious murders occur.P3. God is either responsible for the occurrence of child rape and malicious murders (i.e. being the cause of all events), or indirectly responsible through inaction.C. Therefore God is amoral.I've demanded you first and foremost define "amorality." I then requested that you to delineate the moral framework on which you base characterizations such as "good" and "bad." After that, I demanded that you explain the reason this moral framework was the only one worth considering. Furthermore, I requested that you demonstrate how the application of bad "voids" or "nullifies" said moral framework. And finally, I demanded that you demonstrate how God's action or inaction is consistent with your application of descriptions such as "good" and "bad." I ask these things because making such descriptions explicit ARE CRITICAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT.
Hell is perhaps the most amoral concept imaginable.Not if immoral people are going there, sounds like justice to me.
Hell is infinite torture for a finite crime.
What makes a crime finite? Because if the crime is murder then the effect of that crime is infinite, unless the dead is resurrected. Is that what your claiming? Because if you are then there goes your infinite torture argument.
