Let's try this again...

You claim that there is nothing that is supernatural. Scripture holds that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (a supernatural event). Please reconcile your claim with this basic element of the Christian faith.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So could God stop the Turkey/Syria Earthquake? Was it God's will? 28,500 innocent lives.

Superstition cannot die soon enough. quash

---

Did Gog create those 28,000 lives?
Is God the author of all life?

---

And the taker? What a horrible superstition of a god.

---

Why?

---

No theodicy can hold these 3 options together.
1. God is love which is the overwhelming witness of Scripture
2. God is all power meaning God can control physics.
3. Evil exists
Turkey earthquake neither evil or good but simply physics.

If Gpd is loving and 38,000 innocent people die as a result of physics then why would a God of physics allow 38,000 innocent people to die.
38,000 people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time sleeping and God wipes them out..

Evangelicals and I assume Catholics believe in an all power God and their only proof is "The Bible says so."

To ask God to hold both all physical power and all loving power cannot philosophically hold together without fantastic mental gymnastics.

---

It can EASILY philosophically hold together, if you will just open your mind to the possibility that God may have a purpose for evil and suffering, and will work it all out at the end for GOOD. God's first and truest and ultimate actuality is love and trumps all other claims as to God's nature. "God may have purpose for 39,000 dead in Turkey" goes against God's ultimate nature of love.
Your premise is "God has a purpose for suffering of innocents" is faulty.
Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

(10) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
(11) If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent itthat is, he must not be all-knowing.

From (9) through (11) we can infer:

Quote:

---

(12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get:

Quote:

---

(13) God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests thatin light of the evil and suffering we find in our worldif God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked. It should be obvious that (13) conflicts with (1) through (3) above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine (1), (2) and (3) into the following single statement.

Quote:

---

(14) God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

---

There is no way that (13) and (14) could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory.
James Beebe

I am not arguing for atheism because I am a Christian.
I am arguing a position that is grounded in Scripture. "God is love" I John 4

God is love - full stop. God does not control physics nor science. God does bring love to this world as tragedy strikes our live individually and communally.

---

---

How would you suggest that a hypothetically omnipotent God could or should put an end to all evil in the world? This is my question to you. You are the one who makes the claim

---

More thought for you to read: Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

---

Waco, you keep rephrasing the same contention over and over as if you are saying something new, when all you really do is refuse to address valid answers to the last several times you asked the same question.

You accuse God of being either incompetent or not Good. I contend you speak out of malice, not a search for wisdom.

Let's start with the undeniable fact that Evil exists in the world. Do you agree? Yes

Let's also set that Good exists in world. Do you agree? Yes good exists in the world and it is wholly God. The "wholly" part means all good and theire is not room for evil in God's nature.

If we can agree on those two points, we can actually go somewhere productive with this discussion.

I look forward to your clear and honest response.

---

---

What then, is the source of Evil?

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So could God stop the Turkey/Syria Earthquake? Was it God's will? 28,500 innocent lives.

Superstition cannot die soon enough. quash

---

Did Gog create those 28,000 lives?
Is God the author of all life?

---

And the taker? What a horrible superstition of a god.

---

Why?

---

No theodicy can hold these 3 options together.
1. God is love which is the overwhelming witness of Scripture
2. God is all power meaning God can control physics.
3. Evil exists
Turkey earthquake neither evil or good but simply physics.

If Gpd is loving and 38,000 innocent people die as a result of physics then why would a God of physics allow 38,000 innocent people to die.
38,000 people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time sleeping and God wipes them out..

Evangelicals and I assume Catholics believe in an all power God and their only proof is "The Bible says so."

To ask God to hold both all physical power and all loving power cannot philosophically hold together without fantastic mental gymnastics.

---

It can EASILY philosophically hold together, if you will just open your mind to the possibility that God may have a purpose for evil and suffering, and will work it all out at the end for GOOD. God's first and truest and ultimate actuality is love and trumps all other claims as to God's nature. "God may have purpose for 39,000 dead in Turkey" goes against God's ultimate nature of love.
Your premise is "God has a purpose for suffering of innocents" is faulty.
Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

(10) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
(11) If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent itthat is, he must not be all-knowing.

From (9) through (11) we can infer:

Quote:

---

(12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get:

Quote:

---

(13) God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests thatin light of the evil and suffering we find in our worldif God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked. It should be obvious that (13) conflicts with (1) through (3) above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine (1), (2) and (3) into the following single statement.

Quote:

---

(14) God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

---

There is no way that (13) and (14) could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory.
James Beebe

I am not arguing for atheism because I am a Christian.
I am arguing a position that is grounded in Scripture. "God is love" I John 4

God is love - full stop. God does not control physics nor science. God does bring love to this world as tragedy strikes our live individually and communally.

---

---

How would you suggest that a hypothetically omnipotent God could or should put an end to all evil in the world? This is my question to you. You are the one who makes the claim

---

More thought for you to read: Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

---

Okay, so how could or should God put a stop to all evil in the world? Do you think he should smite down and kill everyone doing evil! Should he abolish free will and make everyone into marionettes?

The entire Bible from the third chapter of Genesis forward says that the life of man will include pain and suffering. Nowhere does it say that God will prevent all that from happening.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So could God stop the Turkey/Syria Earthquake? Was it God's will? 28,500 innocent lives.

Superstition cannot die soon enough. quash

---

Did Gog create those 28,000 lives?
Is God the author of all life?

---

And the taker? What a horrible superstition of a god.

---

Why?

---

No theodicy can hold these 3 options together.
1. God is love which is the overwhelming witness of Scripture
2. God is all power meaning God can control physics.
3. Evil exists
Turkey earthquake neither evil or good but simply physics.

If Gpd is loving and 38,000 innocent people die as a result of physics then why would a God of physics allow 38,000 innocent people to die.
38,000 people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time sleeping and God wipes them out..

Evangelicals and I assume Catholics believe in an all power God and their only proof is "The Bible says so."

To ask God to hold both all physical power and all loving power cannot philosophically hold together without fantastic mental gymnastics.

---

It can EASILY philosophically hold together, if you will just open your mind to the possibility that God may have a purpose for evil and suffering, and will work it all out at the end for GOOD. God's first and truest and ultimate actuality is love and trumps all other claims as to God's nature. "God may have purpose for 39,000 dead in Turkey" goes against God's ultimate nature of love.
Your premise is "God has a purpose for suffering of innocents" is faulty.
Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

(10) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
(11) If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent itthat is, he must not be all-knowing.

From (9) through (11) we can infer:

Quote:

---

(12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get:

Quote:

---

(13) God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests thatin light of the evil and suffering we find in our worldif God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked. It should be obvious that (13) conflicts with (1) through (3) above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine (1), (2) and (3) into the following single statement.

Quote:

---

(14) God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

---

There is no way that (13) and (14) could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory.
James Beebe

I am not arguing for atheism because I am a Christian.
I am arguing a position that is grounded in Scripture. "God is love" I John 4

God is love - full stop. God does not control physics nor science. God does bring love to this world as tragedy strikes our live individually and communally.

---

---

How would you suggest that a hypothetically omnipotent God could or should put an end to all evil in the world? This is my question to you. You are the one who makes the claim

---

More thought for you to read: Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

---

Okay, so how could or should God put a stop to all evil in the world? Do you think he should smite down and kill everyone doing evil! Should he abolish free will and make everyone into marionettes?

The entire Bible from the third chapter of Genesis forward says that the life of man will include pain and suffering. Nowhere does it say that God will prevent all that from happening.

---

You did not address my premise.Evil exists in the presence of an all loving God. In your view you hold "God is all powerful and all loving." I am raising the question of how that can be on a philosophical, logical construction. Your two premises cannot hold together. Show me how you hold them together.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So could God stop the Turkey/Syria Earthquake? Was it God's will? 28,500 innocent lives.

Superstition cannot die soon enough. quash

---

Did Gog create those 28,000 lives?
Is God the author of all life?

---

And the taker? What a horrible superstition of a god.

---

Why?

---

No theodicy can hold these 3 options together.
1. God is love which is the overwhelming witness of Scripture
2. God is all power meaning God can control physics.
3. Evil exists
Turkey earthquake neither evil or good but simply physics.

If Gpd is loving and 38,000 innocent people die as a result of physics then why would a God of physics allow 38,000 innocent people to die.
38,000 people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time sleeping and God wipes them out..

Evangelicals and I assume Catholics believe in an all power God and their only proof is "The Bible says so."

To ask God to hold both all physical power and all loving power cannot philosophically hold together without fantastic mental gymnastics.

---

It can EASILY philosophically hold together, if you will just open your mind to the possibility that God may have a purpose for evil and suffering, and will work it all out at the end for GOOD. God's first and truest and ultimate actuality is love and trumps all other claims as to God's nature. "God may have purpose for 39,000 dead in Turkey" goes against God's ultimate nature of love.
Your premise is "God has a purpose for suffering of innocents" is faulty.
Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

(10) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
(11) If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent itthat is, he must not be all-knowing.

From (9) through (11) we can infer:

Quote:

---

(12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get:

Quote:

---

(13) God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests thatin light of the evil and suffering we find in our worldif God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked. It should be obvious that (13) conflicts with (1) through (3) above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine (1), (2) and (3) into the following single statement.

Quote:

---

(14) God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

---

There is no way that (13) and (14) could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory.
James Beebe

I am not arguing for atheism because I am a Christian.
I am arguing a position that is grounded in Scripture. "God is love" I John 4

God is love - full stop. God does not control physics nor science. God does bring love to this world as tragedy strikes our live individually and communally.

---

---

How would you suggest that a hypothetically omnipotent God could or should put an end to all evil in the world? This is my question to you. You are the one who makes the claim

---

More thought for you to read: Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

---

Your argument is deeply flawed. Rather, if it is good to be loving, and God does not permit evil and suffering, he cannot be perfectly good or loving.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

So could God stop the Turkey/Syria Earthquake? Was it God's will? 28,500 innocent lives.

Superstition cannot die soon enough. quash

---

Did Gog create those 28,000 lives?
Is God the author of all life?

---

And the taker? What a horrible superstition of a god.

---

Why?

---

No theodicy can hold these 3 options together.
1. God is love which is the overwhelming witness of Scripture
2. God is all power meaning God can control physics.
3. Evil exists
Turkey earthquake neither evil or good but simply physics.

If Gpd is loving and 38,000 innocent people die as a result of physics then why would a God of physics allow 38,000 innocent people to die.
38,000 people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time sleeping and God wipes them out..

Evangelicals and I assume Catholics believe in an all power God and their only proof is "The Bible says so."

To ask God to hold both all physical power and all loving power cannot philosophically hold together without fantastic mental gymnastics.

---

It can EASILY philosophically hold together, if you will just open your mind to the possibility that God may have a purpose for evil and suffering, and will work it all out at the end for GOOD. God's first and truest and ultimate actuality is love and trumps all other claims as to God's nature. "God may have purpose for 39,000 dead in Turkey" goes against God's ultimate nature of love.
Your premise is "God has a purpose for suffering of innocents" is faulty.
Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

(10) If God knows about all of the evil and suffering, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, wants to prevent it, and yet does not do so, he must not be all- powerful.
(11) If God is powerful enough to prevent all of the evil and suffering, wants to do so, and yet does not, he must not know about all of the suffering or know how to eliminate or prevent itthat is, he must not be all-knowing.

From (9) through (11) we can infer:

Quote:

---

(12) If evil and suffering exist, then God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Since evil and suffering obviously do exist, we get:

Quote:

---

(13) God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, or not perfectly good.

---

Putting the point more bluntly, this line of argument suggests thatin light of the evil and suffering we find in our worldif God exists, he is either impotent, ignorant or wicked. It should be obvious that (13) conflicts with (1) through (3) above. To make the conflict more clear, we can combine (1), (2) and (3) into the following single statement.

Quote:

---

(14) God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

---

There is no way that (13) and (14) could both be true at the same time. These statements are logically inconsistent or contradictory.
James Beebe

I am not arguing for atheism because I am a Christian.
I am arguing a position that is grounded in Scripture. "God is love" I John 4

God is love - full stop. God does not control physics nor science. God does bring love to this world as tragedy strikes our live individually and communally.

---

---

How would you suggest that a hypothetically omnipotent God could or should put an end to all evil in the world? This is my question to you. You are the one who makes the claim

---

More thought for you to read: Because if evil exists and if God knows about all of the evil and suffering in the world, knows how to eliminate or prevent it, is powerful enough to prevent it, and yet does not prevent it, he must not be perfectly good.

---

Evil exist. God knows evil exist. He can eliminate evil by eliminating those people or by eliminating free will.

You too are evil as you have testified to by admitting your past racism. I'm guessing you are glad he didn't eliminate you.

You too have free will as demonstrated by your ability to love. You love and are loved but, without free will, there is no love. I'm guessing you are glad he didn't eliminate your free will and ability to love.

The free will that gives us the ability to love also gives us the ability to not love and even to hate. Without love comes apathy and hate, both of which can lead to and be seen as evil.

You want a god that you've created in your mind rather than the GOD that created.