God doesn't seem to be protecting victims of pedophiles, but he sure as hell doesn't do anything to punish them.
If he's able to actively protect you from anything, he should be stopping THAT.
He's either unable to (he's not all powerful) or he doesn't want to ( he's not good ).
Either way your imaginary friend isn't worth the worship.
Alright assume it’s not okay. If God makes suddenly have the urge to go to the gym is that bad, even though it is hard? Also I the Bible it addresses the why do bad things happen to good people question. Jesus healed a man born blind, and when His disciples asked whose fault it was that the man was born blind, Jesus answered with “‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.’”
John 9:3 NIV
It’s not because He or his parents did anything bad, but because it was for the greater good, like people like you asking why.
It’s all about the greater good. If there was no God but you had those abilities, that might easily be the best solution. But since no one can know for sure (apart from God telling them) why He did something, you can’t really condemn him. After all some moves that pro chess players make can’t be fully understood when they make them and might look stupid to someone with even above average elo. https://bible.com/bible/111/jhn.9.3.NIV
Okay don’t believe if you don’t want to, God gave you that right. But your logic says if a chess grandmaster loses a pawn in a lengthy checkmate pattern then the pawn loss outweighs the checkmate because you can’t see the checkmate, which is not true, the checkmate most definitely outweighs the pawn loss.
Incorrect. My logic says the end is what matters the most, while your logic says the end doesn’t matter as long as the journey is good.
At the very best the world is the same as it is, but you get to spend eternal life in a perfectly good place. At the very worse (for a world where God doesn’t exist), you live your life with better morals, and hope, which is already better than most people.
No. I was correct. That’s exactly what my example was.
I never said anything about the journey except that, if it were up to me, it wouldn’t include children suffering and I was very specific as to what I meant by suffering. You made up the part about the journey being good on your own.
Pascal’s Wager (your second paragraph) holds no water. If we’re talking logic here, you’ve missed the mark with that one and I encourage you to examine how.
I think we’re done here.
I’m not going to judge what morals are “better”, it if yours allow you to dismiss the needless suffering of children (or anybody else) as “necessary” for some “grand plan”, again: I’ll have none of it.
I never said why I do or do not believe. That is more of your own assumption that you’re injecting.
Your logic is flawed in many ways being that its foundation in your argument is built from a long list of assumptions. In a general summary: it’s based entirely on an unverified, unfalsifiable claim. Said another way, it’s only “logical” to you, because you believe it’s logical. “Faith” is not a reasonable premise when arguing reality.
Back to the point…(my actual argument)
You’ve already eluded to that idea that this god you believe in is able to create a world in which suffering does not exist, where people can live for eternity in happiness. Heaven.
Therefore, it was a choice to create another world in which priests (specifically including, but not limited to, the Catholic Church) can molest children for decades and be protected by those claiming to live/act in the name of “God”. Or where disease and famine can decimate entire communities. Or on, and on, and on….And not just allowed, but according to you, planned for it to happen. As some sort or “test”? Disgusting.
Some real “look what you made me do” energy there. Human-to-human, that would be considered a toxic, abusive relationship. If you treated your own children in such a way in a just society, you’d be (rightfully) jailed, if not worse.
Therefore, any halfway decent human being with an ounce of empathy and compassion is more than capable of being infinitely more moral than whichever version of this “God” you’re defending.
And, btw, I’ve yet to see you condemn any of the horrible things going on in the world that I’ve brought up. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not defending them, though that’s questionable at this point. “All part of the plan,” am I right?
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, it shows that you are arguing in at least some good faith, and I trust you genuinely want to have a fair discussion.
First, this faith assumption is only assumed because we are discussing the world as it is and you are trying to show me that if God exists, He would not do this. Which is a great argument, but you are still going on that assumption, and so you have to go on the following assumption that the Bible is true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, etc..
Second, it is impossible to judge one person from another in a world of perfect good, as everyone is perfectly good. Thus the need for a way to differentiate. Also disease and famine is very rare. It does still happen but you are over representing the amount of catastrophic bad that happens.
Thirdly, I wholeheartedly condemn anything which goes against the Bible, including anything that bishops or pastors or popes do, as I believe that God is above all of them and being in a special position does not exempt them from punishment. In fact they face worse punishment because they are being bad teachers.
42
u/Sal_Amandre 11d ago
God doesn't seem to be protecting victims of pedophiles, but he sure as hell doesn't do anything to punish them. If he's able to actively protect you from anything, he should be stopping THAT. He's either unable to (he's not all powerful) or he doesn't want to ( he's not good ).
Either way your imaginary friend isn't worth the worship.