Well heres my logic.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

A good omnipotent god would not let bad things happen in the world.

Bad things happen in the world.

Therefore, if god is omnipotent, he is not good.
-----
So we are left with these choices:
1. God is evil and omnipotent
2. God could be good/evil but NOT omnipotent.

there ya go, take your pick. They are mutually exclusive.

"A good omnipotent god would not let bad things happen in the world."

Why not?

Ben

Well I think is given.

Good=not bad things

If there is a God, I would believe he is not omnipotent. Read my sig to find out why.

Tetra,

You might have a problem with that since what we think is bad might be good as far as God is concerned.

For example: Allowing terrorists to kill 3000 at the WTC is good by God’s standards because it has started a chain of events that might remove terrorism from the planet.

Of course if he had wanted he could have engineered the world so that terrorism never got started in the first place.

The real problem is defining what is meant by good. If God is all-good and can do no harm then why does he create a universe and the conditions where so many suffer? Clearly God must see what we think of as death and destruction as good things.

Perhaps all our dictionaries are wrong where good and bad have been interchanged. But really the best description for something that causes and allows death and destruction of billions of people, where he has the power to do otherwise, is smply an evil monster.

Cris

Of course if he had wanted he could have engineered the world so that terrorism never got started in the first place

Of course, thats my argument



The real problem is defining what is meant by good. If God is all-good and can do no harm then why does he create a universe and the conditions where so many suffer? Clearly God must see what we think of as death and destruction as good things.
I am assuming that god's good is the same as our good because he supposedly created us in his image.

*Originally posted by tetra
Well heres my logic.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Hmm.

*Originally posted by Xelios
If there is a God, I would believe he is not omnipotent. Read my sig to find out why.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clark "*

That's why you don't understand Christianity, and why atheists call Christians superstititious.
Thanks, Xelios.

*Originally posted by Cris
But really the best description for something that causes and allows death and destruction of billions of people, where he has the power to do otherwise, is smply an evil monster.*

I thought you said there was no God, at least as far as you could tell.
Now there is, but he's an evil monster?

Great, now there is theism, atheism and evilmonstertheism.

That's why you don't understand Christianity, and why atheists call Christians superstititious.
Thanks, Xelios.
You're right tony, I don't understand Christianity. I don't understand how so many people could be conned into believing something so rediculous. I don't understand why religious radicals such as yourself tend to look down on non believers as if we are inferior. I don't understand how anyone could be deluded into thinking that he/she can speak to God on a regular basis. I don't understand why there is such a necessity for God to begin with.

It reminds me a lot of the Tooth Fairy. One day, kids just find out she isn't real, and that it was actually their parents putting money or condy under their pillows. I look at God the same way, sadly people don't realize the truth about Him until they've died.

But, everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe. If thinking there's an all powerful being watching over you at all times, and that death is actually just a transition to a better place makes you feel better, then by all means believe it. I'm not going to stop you. But I'm not going to join you either.

Tony1,

*Originally posted by Cris
But really the best description for something that causes and allows death and destruction of billions of people, where he has the power to do otherwise, is smply an evil monster.*

I thought you said there was no God, at least as far as you could tell.
Now there is, but he's an evil monster?

Great, now there is theism, atheism and evilmonstertheism.Excellent, you have managed to equate your god with something that causes death and destruction; you’ll notice I was talking about a hypothetical ‘something’. What I don’t understand is why you would want to worship an evil monster like that.

But I’m sure you realize that either he doesn’t exist or if he does then he is supremely evil for allowing and causing so much harm. But I’m sure you know that my atheist objection is with the Christian claims for their god which are not believable and are paradoxical.

So am I prepared to believe the existence of an evil monster style god? Sure, it fits the facts much better than the Christian claims for something full of love and mercy.

So if you are prepared to rename Christianity to evilmmonstertheism then, hey, we can strike a deal here. :D

Cris

*Originally posted by Cris
Excellent, you have managed to equate your god with something that causes death and destruction; you’ll notice I was talking about a hypothetical ‘something’.*

I'm sure you'd like that, but the hypothetical ‘something’ is the reason for the third category where none is actually needed.

*What I don’t understand is why you would want to worship an evil monster like that.*

Since it is hypothetical, I don't.

*But I’m sure you realize that either he doesn’t exist or if he does then he is supremely evil for allowing and causing so much harm.*

I'm not so sure.
I don't propose that he doesn't exist, since obviously something does, if for no other reason than your second choice.

So let's look at the second choice.
Your proposal is that God does not exist, at least not as a good God, precisely because evil exists.
Your thinking is that if he does exist, then he must be evil, PBEE.
Now your choices aren't actually between God or nothing, but between Satan or nothing.

*But I’m sure you know that my atheist objection is with the Christian claims for their god which are not believable and are paradoxical.*

I assume that these claims are for a good God.
However, as I pointed out above, that isn't actually one of your own allowable choices, since you've limited yourself to only two.

*So am I prepared to believe the existence of an evil monster style god? Sure, it fits the facts much better than the Christian claims for something full of love and mercy.*

Once you allow yourself to choose between realistic alternatives, you immediately choose a more realistic alternative.
Who said there were only two choices?

*So if you are prepared to rename Christianity to evilmmonstertheism then, hey, we can strike a deal here.*

Nah, but I can include Satan worship and all of its offshoots in evilmonstertheism.

You may have limited yourself unnecessarily with your original choices.
Not only that, your good/evil paradigm allows for only good or only evil.
It doesn't allow for both to exist at the same time, even though that is what is required to define both.

I am not about to process every single word of tony1 and spit out a completley unerronous argument, because I do not think it can be done.

I will only ask this; why is there a god?
(please do not answer questions with questions, or with statements that imply a question)

tetra did you mean to admit you believe there is a god?

Let me re-phrase your question, unless you object of course.

Why is there any need for a god?

ahh ok I see your point.

I hereby change my question to:

Why do you demand that a god exists?

Tony,

You may have limited yourself unnecessarily with your original choices.
Not only that, your good/evil paradigm allows for only good or only evil.
It doesn't allow for both to exist at the same time, even though that is what is required to define both. I don’t think you are quite right there, but I can only see two possibilities –

1. An ‘all good’ omnipotent Christian god does not and cannot exist because there is evil in the world. I.e. the claim of ‘all good’ and the existence of evil would form a paradox (an impossibility).

2. If an omnipotent god exists then he must be evil because evil exists in the world. This option avoids the paradox from (1).

The key phrase is omnipotence. IOW he had the choice to do anything and the power to do anything. If he exists then he chose to have evil in his universe when he could have chosen otherwise. It is also not reasonable to blame a third person, e.g. Satan, because again of God’s omnipotence. The existence of Satan must have also been his choice – ultimately such a god is directly responsible for all evil and therefore cannot be all good.

Cris

tetra, awright that'll do.

*Originally posted by Xelios
I don't understand why religious radicals such as yourself tend to look down on non believers as if we are inferior.*

Who's doing that?
Just because we have it made in the shade, God taking care of all our needs, not getting sick, or getting healed if we do, cruising thru life with non-believers doing all the work, why do you think we consider you inferior?

*parents putting money or condy under their pillows. I look at God the same way*

OK, this is too good.
Who's putting the money under my pillow, if it isn't God?

*But I'm not going to join you either. *

You're just a tad young to be making such hasty and foolhardy statements.
Of course, you wouldn't be the first.
Do you think the huge death toll from 16-24 is all Christians dying?

*Originally posted by tetra
I am not about to process every single word of tony1 and spit out a completley unerronous argument, because I do not think it can be done.*

I'm leaning toward total agreement that you can't spit out an unerroneous argument.

*Originally posted by Cris
1. An ‘all good’ omnipotent Christian god does not and cannot exist because there is evil in the world. I.e. the claim of ‘all good’ and the existence of evil would form a paradox (an impossibility).*

I assume you mean this world.
Thus, the assumption would be that such a good God could not exist in this world.
Of course, the good God does say that satan, the evil god, is the god of this world.
Thus, there is no paradox at the level of this world.

*2. If an omnipotent god exists then he must be evil because evil exists in the world. This option avoids the paradox from (1).*

Well, the good God does say he creates the evil in this world.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
(Isaiah 45:7, KJV).

But that doesn't necessarily make him evil.
Why?

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
(Romans 8:28, KJV).

It looks like it is evil only for you.
How strange.
It appears that a person cannot dispassionately analyze the world.
That is the ultimate atheist assumption, anyway.

It turns out that your choices change the world.
You pays your money and you takes your chances.

Nobody is going to flip up the hole card before you make your bet.
Bet first, then you see the hole card.
Of course, the hole card is described as a winner, but you can choose to disbelieve that.

*If he exists then he chose to have evil in his universe when he could have chosen otherwise.*

Hey, it is you that's choosing the evil.
It's all good for me, but that's because I placed my bet on good.

*It is also not reasonable to blame a third person, e.g. Satan, because again of God’s omnipotence. The existence of Satan must have also been his choice*

Yes, it was, so it isn't reasonable to blame the third party.

* – ultimately such a god is directly responsible for all evil and therefore cannot be all good.*

He is responsible for its existence, but your choices make it reality for you.
The same, in fact all, events work out for good for me, therefore they are not evil.

In actual fact, God is a just God.
He has created both good and evil, just so that you are free to choose either.
I choose good and I get good.
You choose evil and you get evil.
What's more fair than that?

Tony1,

Your rationalizations for your position are definitely different from the standard answers to the presence of evil argument. I see no polite way to answer your approach.

I choose good and I get good.
You choose evil and you get evil.
What's more fair than that? But –

I’ve chosen good and I definitely get good.
I’m not aware of choosing anything evil and I definitely have not experienced any evil in my life. So I have no idea what you mean here.

So since we both have good what’s the difference between us?

Cris

*Originally posted by Cris
Your rationalizations for your position are definitely different from the standard answers to the presence of evil argument. I see no polite way to answer your approach.*

But an impolite answer is waiting in the wings?
Besides, if I'm just rationalizing, what is the difficulty?

*I’ve chosen good and I definitely get good.
I’m not aware of choosing anything evil and I definitely have not experienced any evil in my life. So I have no idea what you mean here.*

What evil were you talking about then?

*So since we both have good what’s the difference between us?*

Back to the deathbed.
What happens there, and what happens after?

Tony1,

But an impolite answer is waiting in the wings? Nah, not even tried to construct one. I don’t feel any desire to go that route; that isn’t my style although I try it sometimes; it just doesn’t sit well with me. So even though I think most of your ideas are daft I’ll do my best to show you the respect I think should be shown to any fellow human.

Besides, if I'm just rationalizing, what is the difficulty? I think maybe you misunderstand the meaning of the word, I think most people do that so it’s no big deal. To rationalize is the opposite of what most people think.

ra•tio•nal•ize To make (something irrational) appear rational or reasonable. To find plausible but untrue reasons for conduct.

What evil were you talking about then? While I have never personally experienced evil I am very aware of it’s existence in the world.

Back to the deathbed.
What happens there, and what happens after? Yes I thought you’d say something of that nature.

It is the same for both us then. Death is the end. But I’ll help you with your upload if I can get it working in time. :D

Merry Christmas

Cris

OK, this is too good.
Who's putting the money under my pillow, if it isn't God?
Are you confused again tony? You need God to feel safe and to fool yourself into thinking death is not the end. It's fantasy, just like the Tooth Fairy.
Do you think the huge death toll from 16-24 is all Christians dying?
Some of them are, yes. Mostly it's because at that age you start driving the first time, and are of legal age to drink (depending on where you live). Those two are not good combinations for most young adults.
Back to the deathbed.
What happens there, and what happens after?
You die. You're dead. You're free to believe otherwise, but it won't change the fact that death is the end.

*Originally posted by Cris
So even though I think most of your ideas are daft I’ll do my best to show you the respect I think should be shown to any fellow human.*

At least we're on the same page concerning each other's ideas.

*To rationalize is the opposite of what most people think.

ra•tio•nal•ize To make (something irrational) appear rational or reasonable. To find plausible but untrue reasons for conduct.*

That's pretty much the definition I was working with.
We're consistently at loggerheads because of the first meaning, but the second shouldn't cause you any difficulty, since it should be trivial, in principle, to demonstrate the untruth.

*While I have never personally experienced evil I am very aware of it’s existence in the world.*

So you, perhaps, feel that is unjust for another person to choose evil if he/she so desires?

*Yes I thought you’d say something of that nature.*

It's a little like graduation.
A person can talk a blue streak about knowing this or that, but graduation is where the rubber meets the road.
Summa cum laude or expulsion.

*But I’ll help you with your upload if I can get it working in time.*

Well, no.
I'll want you to demonstrate it for me first.

Merry Christmas

*Originally posted by Xelios
It's fantasy, just like the Tooth Fairy.*

Xelios, Xelios, Xelios, you don't even understand your own points any more.
Let's take this slowly.
1. fantasy: the tooth fairy
2. reality: the money
3. the illusion: tooth fairy=money
4. the truth: parents=money

That was the way you explained that one ilusion works.
Now you say there is another illusion.
1. fantasy according to Xelios: God
2. reality: the money
3. the illusion according to Xelios: God=money
4. the "truth" according to Xelios: ?????=money

Who is analogous to the parents in your version of the truth?

*Some of them are, yes.*
Here's what I think you're thinking....
If there are 10% Christians in a population, then there are 10% Christians in the death toll, too.

You'd be wrong.

*You die. You're dead. You're free to believe otherwise, but it won't change the fact that death is the end.*

After that the resurrection.
You're free to believe otherwise, but it won't change the fact that you will be resurrected.
I realize that won't be on final exams in school, but it will be in reality.

I'm leaning toward total agreement that you can't spit out an unerroneous argument.

That is precisely why I said that; it is impossible to construct an unerronous statement while at the same time making a point.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

You can't use the bible to prove the Christianity


tony1, I don't believe you have answered my question.
Why do you demand that there is a god?
You propose that there is a supreme being ruling over us, and that Christians are correct while all others are wrong. Back it up.

And no, I do not have to prove that there isn't a god, because I have not made a proposition and thus need no evidence.

Once again, I don't know how you asscociate money with God. With God the "reward" is "everlasting life", no money. But it still works out to the same thing, fantasy.
If there are 10% Christians in a population, then there are 10% Christians in the death toll, too.
Not necessarily, but the death toll between 16-24 is not limited to atheists.
You're free to believe otherwise, but it won't change the fact that you will be resurrected.
I realize that won't be on final exams in school, but it will be in reality.
So I can believe whatever I want and still be resurrected? Who needs faith then?

*Originally posted by tetra
it is impossible to construct an unerronous statement while at the same time making a point.*

Why do you say that?
Watch.

This statement is an example of an unerroneous statement making a point.

*You can't use the bible to prove the Christianity*

Sure I can.
How could a book, whether the Bible, or whether pretending to be a Bible, exist if there is no God?
The Bible says there is a God and if that statement is a lie, then what could the truth possibly be?
Saying the truth is that there is no God, doesn't answer the question since the next question would simply be, where did the word God come from?

It is impossible to have a counterfeit of something which doesn't exist.

*Why do you demand that there is a god?
You propose that there is a supreme being ruling over us, and that Christians are correct while all others are wrong. Back it up.*

it's an epistemological question which requires an understanding of why words exist.
As I said above, if there really is no God, then where did the word God come from?
Claiming that the Bible is a fraud is the epistemological equivalent of claiming that it is a counterfeit of something which doesn't exist.
That makes zero sense, for a number of reasons.
1. the word "counterfeit" requires the existence of something real which is then faked
2. the word "fraud" requires the existence of something true which is then deceptively altered
3. the existence of Santa Claus

#3 requires some explanation.
If Santa Claus is not real, then what are those red-suited guys standing on the street corners?
If they're the fakes, then where is the "real" Santa Claus?
Since there isn't one, those red-suited guys are the real Santa Claus.
Thus, the real is the obvious.
In other words, the truth is prima facie evidence of itself.

*And no, I do not have to prove that there isn't a god, because I have not made a proposition and thus need no evidence. *

You're right.
It would be a hopeless task anyway.
It's too easy to prove that there is a God.
In addition, it is trivially easy to prove that people, perhaps such as yourself, merely prefer to reject the obvious prima facie evidence, and accept arcane, occult, cryptic evidence instead.

Interestingly, as you accept more and more of the arcane evidence, and present more and more arguments based on it, the other, clear, evidence becomes more and more obvious.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

I've let you off easy.
In actual fact you do have to prove their is no God.
You see, the Christian says there is a God and points to...

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1, KJV).

We present our evidence, which is that confession, and the earth and the sky.
The perpretrator must have been at the scene of the crime, and since there were no other perpetrators around, we have proven our case, evidentially and circumstantially.

The atheist comes along and makes an unproven assertion, "We reject your perpretrator and the written confession."
Sorry, according to the rules of law, you now have to prove your assertion.
Since when does the defense get a verdict in their favor without proving their case?
I'm waiting.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Once again, I don't know how you asscociate money with God. With God the "reward" is "everlasting life", no money.*

Dream on.

Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endureth for ever.
(Psalms 112:3, KJV).

*Not necessarily, but the death toll between 16-24 is not limited to atheists.*

Over the years, I have yet to see a single Christian between 16-24 killed, however I have seen piles of atheists, wafflers, Catholics, etc killed, and a lot of them were friends and acquaintances of mine.

Mind you, that's just my experience.

*So I can believe whatever I want and still be resurrected? Who needs faith then?*

You do.
Without it, you get resurrected into fire.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
(Revelation 20:15, KJV).

This statement is an example of an unerroneous statement making a point.

No, you are not making a point of any relevance to the topic. I do not have to explain in my every sentence that I am arguing about the topic, and not simple grammar.


Sure I can.
How could a book, whether the Bible, or whether pretending to be a Bible, exist if there is no God?
The Bible says there is a God and if that statement is a lie, then what could the truth possibly be?
Saying the truth is that there is no God, doesn't answer the question since the next question would simply be, where did the word God come from?

It is impossible to have a counterfeit of something which doesn't exist.


Just because a book exists, doesnt mean that there is a god ruling over mankind from a jeweled Jeruselam in some magical pseudo-dimension with his pseudo-Jewish son standing by his side near a river of life and a tree of knowledge. I acknowledge that I do not know what the truth is, but if there is a god, he in all probability choose Earth out of the trillions of other stars to base himself entirely.

I refuse to argue against those idiotic quotes form the bible, because you can simply counter with more quotes. Stop godamnit, you cant use prophecy to prove itself.


it's an epistemological question which requires an understanding of why words exist.
As I said above, if there really is no God, then where did the word God come from?


The "word of god", as I am assuming you mean is the bible. The bible came from the handwriting of a dozen or so men a couple of thousand years ago, was revised by the catolic church, edited countless times, and published worldwide all to keep the Catholic church and the fools who believe them in power.

Claiming that the Bible is a fraud is the epistemological equivalent of claiming that it is a counterfeit of something which doesn't exist.
That makes zero sense, for a number of reasons.
1. the word "counterfeit" requires the existence of something real which is then faked
2. the word "fraud" requires the existence of something true which is then deceptively altered
3. the existence of Santa Claus


I never once used the words "fraud" or "counterfeit." You are answering questions that you wished I asked, and it is going nowhere. The bible came from where I explained above.


#3 requires some explanation.
If Santa Claus is not real, then what are those red-suited guys standing on the street corners?
If they're the fakes, then where is the "real" Santa Claus?
Since there isn't one, those red-suited guys are the real Santa Claus.
Thus, the real is the obvious.
In other words, the truth is prima facie evidence of itself.


The real santa claus is an imaginary character. An imaginary character is something that can be counterfeit.

The rest of your argument is based on the above, so there is no point in dealing with it.

*Originally posted by tetra
you are not making a point of any relevance to the topic.*

Why did you bring up an irrelevant issue then?

*Just because a book exists, doesnt mean that there is a god ruling over mankind from a jeweled Jeruselam in some magical pseudo-dimension with his pseudo-Jewish son standing by his side near a river of life and a tree of knowledge.*

Literally true.

*I acknowledge that I do not know what the truth is,*

Well, how do you propose to recognize it if you see it then?

*but if there is a god, he in all probability choose Earth out of the trillions of other stars to base himself entirely.*

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

*I refuse to argue against those idiotic quotes form the bible, because you can simply counter with more quotes.*

Why do you think it's called a sword?
I actually studied fencing, so I realize what your problem is.
My opponents in fencing felt the same way about my foil, also.

*Stop godamnit, you cant use prophecy to prove itself.*

We are getting somewhere.
At least you admit it is prophecy.
However, you can use prophecy to prove itself, if the prophecy is about the prophecy itself.
Of course, the Bible is that way.

*The "word of god", as I am assuming you mean is the bible. The bible came from the handwriting of a dozen or so men a couple of thousand years ago, was revised by the catolic church, edited countless times, and published worldwide all to keep the Catholic church and the fools who believe them in power.*

Fine rebuttal of a different argument.
I asked where the word God came from, not where the word OF God came from.
We can try again.

Where did the word "God" come from if it has nothing to do with anything?
Do you make a habit yourself of naming things which don't exist?

*I never once used the words "fraud" or "counterfeit." You are answering questions that you wished I asked, and it is going nowhere. The bible came from where I explained above.*

I didn't ask where it came from.
You need to deal with the fact that it exists.
If it exists then why?
In it says that God exists, so you have to deal with the issue of how a book comes into existence talking about something as though it really existed.

*The real santa claus is an imaginary character. An imaginary character is something that can be counterfeit.*

The real is imaginary.
Fantastic.
Are you going to argue that all words actually mean their opposite?

---re·al adj.
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal:---

---i·mag·i·nar·y adj.
1. Having existence only in the imagination; unreal

Are you prepared to argue with real arguments, or are you going to be presenting imaginary arguments?

---coun·ter·feit adj.

1. Made in imitation of what is genuine with the intent to defraud: a counterfeit dollar bill.
2. Simulated; feigned: a counterfeit illness.---

---gen·u·ine adj.
1. Actually possessing the alleged or apparent attribute or character: genuine leather.
2. Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic. See Synonyms at authentic.
3.
a. Honestly felt or experienced: genuine devotion.
b. Actual; real---

It looks like your proposition of being able to counterfeit the imaginary is itself a counterfeit claim.

The rest of your argument is based on the above, so there is no point in dealing with it.

However, are you prepared to argue on the basis of reality?

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I give up. I don't have the energy to continually respond to these posts in which you say nothing.

Call it forfeit, failure, etc. I choose to simply ignore you before I fling myself futher to tony1-induced carpal-tunnel syndrome.

tetra,

Add him to your personal sciforums ignore list and move on.

tony1
12-25-01 11:01 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

Hooray! :p

| This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here] |

No way I'm clicking that link.
Tony you did it.
I feel like in heaven.
Yeeehaaaaaa
:p

Bad things happen in this world and are almost always the result of men makeing bad choices. If God were to prevent bad from occuring He would have to prevent us from makeing bad choices and doing bad things. What would we be? Puppets. Under no free will of our own.

Would that make God good? On the contrary we would be prisoners, our rights and abilitys muzzled, our thoughts restrained. Is THAT good?
In our present state God is good, WE are bad.

Taken,

Bad things happen in this world and are almost always the result of men makeing bad choices. If God were to prevent bad from occuring He would have to prevent us from makeing bad choices and doing bad things. What would we be? Puppets. Under no free will of our own. The assumption is that an omnipotent god created the universe and made the personalities of man, we are of his design. If we are capable of bad it is because he wanted it that way, it was according to his design.

Evil exists because God wants it to exist. He cannot therefore be ALL good, since he created all the circumstances that enabled evil to persist, and must therefore be held responsible for all evil.

Would that make God good? On the contrary we would be prisoners, our rights and abilitys muzzled, our thoughts restrained. Is THAT good?
In our present state God is good, WE are bad. If we are bad then that is because god designed us that way and that makes god bad.

Cris

*Originally posted by tetra
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I give up. I don't have the energy to continually respond to these posts in which you say nothing.*

It is imperative to have a point before starting to prove it.

*Originally posted by Taken
Bad things happen in this world and are almost always the result of men makeing bad choices. If God were to prevent bad from occuring He would have to prevent us from makeing bad choices and doing bad things. What would we be? Puppets. Under no free will of our own.

Would that make God good? On the contrary we would be prisoners, our rights and abilitys muzzled, our thoughts restrained. Is THAT good?
In our present state God is good, WE are bad.*

Not bad, Taken, not bad.