if god created a world with the potential for evil, a created a world with evil in it.
Aaron is confusing potential with actual, trying to make antonyms synonymous. A quick look at the dictionary reveals his ignorance.
1. possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2. capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.
3. Grammar. expressing possibility: the potential subjunctive in Latin; the potential use of can in I can go.
4. Archaic. potent 1 .
–noun
5. possibility; potentiality: an investment that has little growth potential.
6. a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.
Aaron seems to think that creating something with the possibility of it being evil some time in the future is actually creating evil in the present tense of creation. It isn't. Why? well aside from the fact that the word Potential is opposed to the word ACTUAL and thus the 2 cannot be synonymous, in fact, they are antonyms.
Not only do the very definition of the words refute Aarons ridiculous assertion, simple logic does as well. God created everything good on the 6th day with the potential of it being evil some time in the future, by definition of the world potential, the evil is nonexistent at the time of creation. It must be, since at the time of creation, the evil was only a POSSIBILITY, or there was only POTENTIAL for evil, so it wasn't even in existence yet. Possible evil cannot happen in during the actual act of creation, by definition it must happen after the actual creation taking place, thus during creation, potential evil is just that, a potential, it is not existent during the actual creation, since it is a potential evil in the future, not an actual evil. Aaron is not only ignoring the fact that the first evil act didn't happen until Adam and Eve disobeyed God, but is also ignoring the fact that the 2 words hes using are antonyms. He simply cannot find an example of evil during the creation process, which is why he has retreated to POTENTIAL evil or POSSIBLE EVIL, but even that doesn't get him anywhere, by retreating to potential and possible evil, he has tacitly conceded that there was no actual evil present during the creation process, so he's already conceded this argument. He's just too ignorant to realize it.
He goes on to assert more nonsense:
No you are changing the goalposts. A world with free will, at least according to christians, is a world that contains evil. I am not saying god made the evil, I am saying he made a flawed world with the capacity and actuality of evil.
Incorrect on all 3 counts. First, I never changed the goalposts, in fact how on earth could I? I've been responding to his ridiculous assertions the entire time so how could I be moving the goal posts this is just another baseless assertion from Aaron, however, we have proof that Aaron is moving the goalposts(see end of post). Second, a world with free will is not a world that contains evil. Adam and Eve both had free will before they ate the fruit and God described it as good, in fact, various Christians assert that heaven not only has free will but it is a world that contains no evil(heaven duh), even the heavily fundamental Christians of rapture ready recognizes this. Third, God did not make a flawed world with the capacity or actuality of evil. Aaron simply does not realize that free will is not a flaw in that it is designed to do what God wanted it to do and it was perfect in that sense. God wanted people with free will, so God gave them free will, thus free will is not a flaw, since it was and still is, functioning as it is designed to do. The fact that it allows the possibility of evil is irrelevant, since upon creation, there was no evil present, since the word possibility is not synonymous with actual. Even if one were to concede that free will is a flaw, so what? the word flaw does not = evil, it is not even synonymous with evil, thus God created something with a flaw does not mean God has created anything evil. Nowhere in any dictionary, merrium webster, oxford, dictionary.com, wiki, does it state evil is synonymous with flawed. Not only that, but how on earth are you even using the word 'capacity'
Another stupid assertion:
So man, with "his" freewill brings about parasites, disease and natural disasters? Your saying god didn't create all these things? God did not create lions with sharp claws, crocodiles with teeth meant to maim, and snakes with poisonous blood?
This is entirely dependent upon what the Christian believes about the origins of life. YEC's obviously don't believe in death before the fall, so lions and alligators and parasites, etc. etc. were either non existent or eating plants. Depending upon what type of OEC one is, they either believe the original animal was created without 'sharp claws' etc. etc. and developed them later after sin was introduced into the world, thus it is not a problem for them, or that animals eating each other is no more evil than people eating plants, all part of the design of the food chain and animal kingdom. As far as natural disasters go, that is simply nonsense. There can't be a natural disaster if no one or noting is around to die from it, and disease came about because man brought sin into the world. So this is just more ignorance of Christian theology on Aarons part.
His last refuge is right here:
God makes the world, it is perfect and with out sin or evil, and only God and his creations exist were then does evil come from? If Theo wants to say that man brought evil to the world from their free will, then he has to admit that God made a world were evil was possible, thus the world was not "all good" when created, it had a flaw that allowed for evil.
This is him once again trying to make antonyms synonymous. The potential or possibility for/of future evil is not evil at the present, since potential is nonexistent at the actual point of creation. Pre fall Adam and Eve with their free will were good, since they had not committed any evil acts yet, the potential and possibility for evil was there, but the evil itself was non existent until it they actually did evil, thus, at the time of creation, no evil existed at all, it couldn't since it was only a potential and it didn't happen until post creation.
Finally, we will reveal all of his general errors.
Now it is kind of fun to notice how Theo interacts with those who disagree with him, asking if they are either illiterate or deaf, he is no stranger to the ad hominem, and I think it's cute in a very simple minded way. But I digress.
Completely incorrect. There are people here and elsewhere that disagree with me and I do not call them illiterate or deaf, examples of this can be found throughout the blog. Also, I have engaged in no ad hominem. Aaron is ignorant of what an ad hominem is, for one to engage in a fallacy one must make an argument. An insult(which is what I've been doing to him) is not an arguement, thus it cannot be a fallacy, thus it cannot be an ad hominem.
What does Theo mean when he says this? A while back Theo used the example of building a laptop. His example went like this "6 months ago I built a laptop, when I finished building it, it was perfect. Now the laptop has viruses on it. I (the laptop creator) didn't put the viruses on it."
He is quote mining me, taking my analogy I gave completely out of context. I explained this on YT and in the thread I gave the analogy. The analogy was used because of he constantly kept repeating the same assertion God created the world evil, over and over and over like he is still doing. The analogy was created to simply show him the difference between creation and POST CREATION, and that is it. He is simply taking the analogy completely out of context into something the analogy was never created for. Look at the following example:
"The camera is like an eye, they both have lenses." That analogy was for the purposes of illustrating the fact that both camera and the eye has a lens. Now if someone were to say the following "WELL THE CAMERA IS MADE OF METAL AND PLASTIC AND THE EYE IS NOT!!" this is true, but that is not what the analogy was meant to convey, thus it is a quote mine, since the analogy was designed for a single purpose and that is it. The fact is, ALL ANALOGIES BREAK DOWN AT SOME POINT! if they didn't then they would be identical and not analogies.
I suspect Theo will assume I am trying to argue that God created evil; I am not. I am simply saying that this world was flawed from the beginning and any attempt to say otherwise is foolish and bullheadedly ignorant.
Gee, why would I suspect that? Let's take a look at this assertions:
1. Creating a world with evil is not "the good".
2. 1:10-1:14
3.god must necessarily create a world with evil
Not only that, but the world was not flawed from the beginning. Potential/possible future evil does not exist during the actual moment of creation and I have yet to figure out how you're using the world 'capacity'.
Oh ya, can't forget about him moving the goal posts:
No no no. God is morally obligated to do the good. Creating a world with evil is not "the good".
I refute that assertion and he then states:
All fine and good, and not really addressing my point.
The question is this: Why is there evil in the world and were did it come from?
So he moved the goalposts. The 'goal' was set to his initial assertion that God created a world without evil. I met that 'goal' and refuted it and now he has moved the new goal to a completely different question that was never asked before. Classic example of moving the goalposts.
Conclusion: looking forward to him once again claiming 'I've missed the point' despite him clearly defining what that point and/or return to baseless assertions to cover up his inability to refute a single thing I've said and/or whine about the length of this post. Either way, he will not honestly or logically refute a single significant point I've made.
Update: Aaron seems to think that me explaining a YEC position means I am a YEC. This is a testament to his logical ignorance and inability to read past the first sentence of what I write, since I also layed out an OEC position. So he's either being logically inconsistent or he didn't read past the first sentence. I am not a YEC. I have said this in this blog in my video and other places as well.
13 comments:
"YEC's obviously don't believe in death before the fall, so lions and alligators and parasites, etc. etc"
You're a young earth creationist!!! You should of told. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAHAHA
Theo, let me ask you:
Do you have a high school education? Have you taken any college classes? Have you ever studied Logic? Do you know what the law of logic are with out having to google them (cause you're a cheater if do have to google them). I suspect the answer to at least 3 of these questions is a firm no. Your debate style reveals as much. Expect a blog in the morning. Until then have fun =)
1. I am not a YEC, I've said that many times on this blog so you're wrong. You seem to think explaining a YEC position automatically implies I am a YEC. Hilarious testament to your ignorance in logic. I look forward to yet another post full of baseless assertions and whatever else you can manage in order to hide your inability to refute a single thing I've said.
Do you have a high school education? Have you taken any college classes? Have you ever studied Logic? Do you know what the law of logic are with out having to google them (cause you're a cheater if do have to google them). I suspect the answer to at least 3 of these questions is a firm no. Your debate style reveals as much. Expect a blog in the morning. Until then have fun =)
What on earth does this have to do with anything at all? what does this have to do with the arguments? nothing at all. If Aaron was smart enough to do his homework he would realize that my credentials are irrelevant which is why I do not reveal or talk about them (but the answer to all 3 is yes). I wonder if he realizes that my credentials have absolutely noting to do with the validity of my assertions. Probably not.
If you're mot a YEC, than you're and OEC? Either way you might as well be a holocaust denier. The reason I brig it up it you used both YEC and OEC as defenses against the designed evil in the world. Creationism is a fringe movement in Christianity, the vast major of Christians accept evolution, you apparently do not. If you do why would you bring up creationism?
You education level doesn't necessary make your arguments right or wrong, and I am not asking to be a dick. I am saying you come off as a self educated individual, which would explain your argumentation style.
Not that this matters, as your arguments would even be excepted by most theists, the world God created has evil in, and only because it is the way God created.
Would *not* be accepted be most theists that is.
If you're mot a YEC, than you're and OEC? Either way you might as well be a holocaust denier. The reason I brig it up it you used both YEC and OEC as defenses against the designed evil in the world. Creationism is a fringe movement in Christianity, the vast major of Christians accept evolution, you apparently do not. If you do why would you bring up creationism?
Good, so you're conceding your logical inconsistency and or inability to read past my first sentence. I see I predicted your response correctly as you've resorted to baseless assertions. Give me evidence right now that the vast majority of Christians accept evolution, then show me exactly how that refutes my argument. If you've done your homework you would realize that I am agnostic on the whole origins evolution creationism debate but either way it has NOTHING to do with the argument at all.
You education level doesn't necessary make your arguments right or wrong, and I am not asking to be a dick. I am saying you come off as a self educated individual, which would explain your argumentation style.
1. I am not a 'self educated' individual but even if I was that has nothing at all to do with the validity of my argument so why even bring it up?
2. I only argue this way with ignorant dodgy obtuse atheists like you. You're a joke.
Not that this matters, as your arguments would even be excepted by most theists, the world God created has evil in, and only because it is the way God created.
Another ridiculous and baseless assertion from you. Even if we were to assume that my argument would not be accepted by most theists(how on earth does he even know that anyway?) that has nothing at all to with the validity of my assertion or arguments?.
You then go on to assert ONCE AGAIN despite me proving you wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME, that God created the world with evil in it. Seriously? You just ignore the mountain of evidence that your assertion is incorrect and continually repeat it, you can't even coherently argue your position and you can't even coherently defend it. You're done here. Like I said, you're just trying to cover up your obvious inability to refute anything I've said. Your claims have been proven false and your inability to even argue your position or prove my points wrong has also been exposed. You're just another illogical irrational ignorant skeptic and the evidence clearly shows that to be the case.
The Catholic church makes up the majority of Christians, about 1.1 billion+, and both the Pope and the Catholic church accept the theory of evolution. So the accounts for more than half right there, even you though you might be likely to say that Catholics are not Christians, simply google the fallacy "No true Scots man".
But furthermore Catholics are not the only group that believes in evolution, pretty much every denomination of non-fundamentalist Christians accept evolution. Several leading evolutionary biologists are Christians, such as Francis Collins. Google theistic evolution to understand their position better.
Creationism is unique to fundamentalist religiosity, and it is also absent from respectable Christian philosophy and teachings of philosophers like Dr. Craig and Alvan Plantinga; both accept the theory of evolution.
Whether you are a OEC or YEC makes no real difference, you're still holding to an absurd intellectually dishonest position.
Creationism has the respectability of holocaust denial and the 9/11 truth movement, which is to say it has no respectability, even with most Christians.
Again, I cannot stress this enough, no respectable Christian philosopher would say that God created a world that doesn't contain evil in it. Not one. This is why there are theodicy's and defenses against the problem of evil.
I bring up you're education because of you're misuse of terms like "logic", "assertion" and "fallacy". If you did receive a formal education in philosophy your teachers served you very poorly.
Read my recent blog for more.
I have problems with your basic assertion. When asked for evidence of God's handiwork, Christian theists often answer something akin to "Everything!". Reality is supposed to be proof that we were created by a god.
If I'm willing to accept that, then there's nothing in this universe which wasn't created by God. It's a logical conclusion to the theist's argument.
In which case, God most certainly DID create evil.
An omnipotent being has the power to radically change the reality we experience with just the twitch of a divine eyelash. According to most of the eChristians I've talked with, everything exists at the pleasure of their deity.
You can't have it both ways, TD. God either created salamanders and universes and evil, or he didn't.
I have problems with your basic assertion. When asked for evidence of God's handiwork, Christian theists often answer something akin to "Everything!". Reality is supposed to be proof that we were created by a god.
If I'm willing to accept that, then there's nothing in this universe which wasn't created by God. It's a logical conclusion to the theist's argument.
In which case, God most certainly DID create evil.
First off, you're under the assumption that I adhere those same arguments those theists do, and even then I think you might be exaggerating, as I've never heard of anyone argue that God creating "everything" I mean God didn't even create the ark, Noah did. So the conclusion is only logical if one accepts the premises, in my experience I have not met anyone that does, nor do I think anyone does, I most certainly do not.
An omnipotent being has the power to radically change the reality we experience with just the twitch of a divine eyelash. According to most of the eChristians I've talked with, everything exists at the pleasure of their deity.
yes He does have that power, but now you're confusing creating evil with simply allowing evil to exist. The two are not synonymous.
You can't have it both ways, TD. God either created salamanders and universes and evil, or he didn't.
Actually, yes I can. God did not create evil, it came about in the action of disobedience in free will agents, which happened after they were created. The creation of evil is not analogous or similar in anyway shape or form to the creation of salamanders or universes, the sun the stars the moon etc. Did God breath life into evil? did God create it from the dust? did God speak and it was there? no. Evil came about from free will agents disobeying direct commands.
I wrote to Theological Discourse: You can't have it both ways, TD. God either created salamanders and universes and evil, or he didn't.
Theological Discourse responded Actually, yes I can. God did not create evil, it came about in the action of disobedience in free will agents, which happened after they were created. The creation of evil is not analogous or similar in anyway shape or form to the creation of salamanders or universes, the sun the stars the moon etc. Did God breath life into evil? did God create it from the dust? did God speak and it was there? no. Evil came about from free will agents disobeying direct commands.
I don't want to drag this into "well traveled" territory, but you can't have omniscience/omnipotence in a universe "controlled" by free will. It's impossible. I'll be happy to explain why if you've never heard the argument before.
I bring this up because it demonstrates that an Om{X} God who created and takes an active part in the universe knows that his actions will result in the existence of Evil. He will have had the chance to decide whether to do things differently or not.
As an aside, there are plenty of Christian theists who argue that God created everything; go to Ray Comfort's blog if you want to see it in action.
I'm not accusing you of being one of them; although I disagree with many of your arguments, you appear to be thoughtful and actually trying to figure out how things work, etc. I try to not assume anything about the people I debate with on teh intarwebz.
I don't want to drag this into "well traveled" territory, but you can't have omniscience/omnipotence in a universe "controlled" by free will. It's impossible. I'll be happy to explain why if you've never heard the argument before.
I am sure I've heard this argument before but I no doubt welcome an explanation.
I bring this up because it demonstrates that an Om{X} God who created and takes an active part in the universe knows that his actions will result in the existence of Evil. He will have had the chance to decide whether to do things differently or not.
Sure, no doubt, but the inclusion of free will includes the possibility of evil, thus, this world, can be the GPG in regards to that.
As an aside, there are plenty of Christian theists who argue that God created everything; go to Ray Comfort's blog if you want to see it in action.
Really? are you sure he's talking about "everything" or everything as in the initial creation(S) described in the bible. If hes talking about the former, I definitely stand corrected.
Sorry it's taken me this long to respond, TD. Lots of stuff going on here IRL.
You asked for my "proof" that God can't be both omnipotent and omniscient. I'm pretty sure you've already heard it, but I'll try to sum it up quickly with an example:
God is both omniscient and omnipotent. He decides one day to buy the new 2009 Cooper Mini Convertible S, in off-white of course. But then he sees an ad for the hard top version, and wonders which model really fits him best.
Not being able to make up his mind, he looks into the future to see which one he chose.
Having obtained this information, can he buy the model of car he did NOT see via his omniscience?
If you say "no", then he is not all powerful - he will be predestined to make the choice he foresaw. Omnipotence is down the tubes.
If you say "yes", then he did not foresee that he would change his mind. Omniscience down the tubes.
---
As for who created evil, omniscience ruins this whole "people (not God) created evil" thing. If God was able to see that the consequences of his design of the universe (and us) resulted in the existence of evil, then he is very much responsible for its creation.
If he really thought evil sucked, he would and should have changed the design. If he knew that we would "fail" to keep evil from this world, he would be the only entity capable of helping us to avoid doing so.
Free will can not exist when the universe is regulated by an Om{X} deity. We are all predestined to do what God knew we would do - we are incapable of changing that.
Post a Comment