• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taking "Judge Not" Out of Context...

When you say "Judge" does that imply seizing the reins of government and then throwing me into the hoosegow for looking at pictures of naked women?
 
NotreDame said:
The answer is free will. Yes, free will means God cannot zap people to do only what he wants. Shocking concept, i know.
Click to expand...

Free will does not mean that god is unable to zap people to do only what he wants. God has no limits.
 
devildavid said:
God still has the power to do anything. And you have no ideas what god values or not.
Click to expand...

Ah, in another universe you’d have an excellent point but the my reply was to a question of why God would allow X, a defense so to speak, not a theodicy. So, as usual, you confuse my reply as speaking factually about what God values.
 
NotreDame said:
Ah, in another universe you’d have an excellent point but the my reply was to a question of why God would allow X, a defense so to speak, not a theodicy. So, as usual, you confuse my reply as speaking factually about what God values.
Click to expand...

There are no facts about what god values, even though you claim to know.
 
devildavid said:
There are no facts about what god values, even though you claim to know.
Click to expand...

Here’s a fact. You are confused, as the argument isn’t what is factual but an argument of how it can be with God. Despite the ostensible impediment to do so, try and follow along.
 
NotreDame said:
Here’s a fact. You are confused, as the argument isn’t what is factual but an argument of how it can be with God. Despite the ostensible impediment to do so, try and follow along.
Click to expand...

So the argument is not about what can be factually attributed to a god? Sure, you can make up a god and attribute what you like to it. Seems to be a meaningless thing to argue since it is all made up. How do you argue how it can be with god without having any facts about god? Make believe gods can be anything in an argument.
 
Logician Man said:
The above beckons the question as to why an Omnipotent God would allow "His Word" ( Scripture ) to be "twisted." Once "His Word" has been twisted, the path to truth is blunted.
Click to expand...

It's because the Bible wasn't written in English, and (with few exceptions) humankind is too stupid for the truth.
 
devildavid said:
So the argument is not about what can be factually attributed to a god? Sure, you can make up a god and attribute what you like to it. Seems to be a meaningless thing to argue since it is all made up. How do you argue how it can be with god without having any facts about god? Make believe gods can be anything in an argument.
Click to expand...

Ah, you suffer from perhaps not following along back to the first post spawning these specific replies by myself, or simply do not understand what is being discussed.

So, yes, your replies have been “meaningless” for the very reason they miss entirely the context of the dialogue.
 
NotreDame said:
Ah, you suffer from perhaps not following along back to the first post spawning these specific replies by myself, or simply do not understand what is being discussed.

So, yes, your replies have been “meaningless” for the very reason they miss entirely the context of the dialogue.
Click to expand...

The discussion was about a certain kind of god that was made up in order to create an argument that showed this certain type of god was compatible with free will. Since god can be defined any way at all it can be defined to make an argument true.
 
devildavid said:
The discussion was about a certain kind of god that was made up in order to create an argument that showed this certain type of god was compatible with free will. Since god can be defined any way at all it can be defined to make an argument true.
Click to expand...
Mackie (whose name was thrown out there as name dropping) specifically addressed his opinion about that in his evaluation of the evil. He thought free will and and omnipotent/omniscience god was incompatible. He was highly critical of it, and the application by Plantinga and C.S. Lewis. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom