Theo, this is what you need to understand. God is perfectly moral, therefor God can only do moral things. God is also all powerful, thus he does things the best possible way and in the most effective way.
That is why God is obligated to the GPG. The fact that that wasn't obvious to you just shows that you are not trying to do anything here but prove your right, and do this with out considering what I am even saying.
I knew you had nothing. We'll deal with this nonsense one by one. First, I should post the points he's ignored.
1. Aaron is ASSUMING that lowering the GPG is going against the will of God.
2. Aaron is Assuming that Gods existence and 'all goodness' is dependent upon God choosing the GPG.
3. Aaron is assuming that God is obligated in some way shape or form to choose the GPG.
1. God is perfectly moral, therefore God can only do moral things.
This is just more ignorance of basic Christian theology. God is not judged by our moral standards, anymore than Roy Jones Jr is judged by amateur boxing standards. So God is perfectly moral, but the fact our moral system is inferior to His means we cannot judge His actions by our moral system. So Aaron is defining GPG in moral standards that God does not adhere too, assuming that God defines evil in the same way we do as well. Now, if this is supposed to address my points I don't see how it does. If we define evil as suffering and assume that God defines it that way too, then it is not against Gods will to lower the GPG since God has inflicted suffering in the forms of judgments and warnings many times. For ignorant people like Aaron, it goes like this:
1. Suffering lowers the GPG.
2. God has caused suffering through judgments and/or warnings.
3. Therefore lowering the GPG is not against Gods will.
So Aaron is once again incorrect. If we define evil as suffering, then lowering the GPG is not against Gods will nor is His existence dependent upon the GPG nor is He obligated in anyway shape or form to choose the GPG, thus, in addition to #3 being false, his entire argument collapses based upon the unproven and incorrect assumption that Gods existence is dependent upon maintaining the GPG, despite clear evidence it is not the case.
God is also all powerful, thus he does things the best possible way and in the most effective way.
This is just stupid. Aaron, like every other ignorant skeptic that asserts these things forgets the fact that just because one is all powerful does not mean one needs to use that power 100% of the time. For instance, the most effective way to eliminate evil would've been to wipe out the entire human race, including Noah, but because God is merciful, God choose not to kill Noah. This is why assertions like Aarons are both ridiculous and completley ignorant of basic behavior. God most certainly is all powrful but He can certainly choose exactly how He utilizes that power. God choosing to not do something in the most effective way and best possible way is no more unreasonable or unlikely than Roy Jones jr choosing not to fight well below his full potential either. The skeptic might respond, well you're conceding that God is not all powerful, but I am doing no such thing. If you're saying that God is not all powerful because He chooses not to do things in the most effective and best way 100% of the time all the time, then you're conceding that Roy jones jr is not a good fighter because he chooses to not fight the best he can 100% of the time, or conceding that you're not a smart/fast/good artist etc. If you ever choose to not utilize your talents to their full potential all the time 100% of the time.
It really amounts to the following. God by Himself is 100% good. God created the universe to be 100% good. Status quo of goodness is maintained. God allowed evil to come about resulting in something other than GPG, but since Gods existence is not dependent upon maintaining the GPG nor is it against His will to allow or even personally lower the GPG Aarons ridiculous argument falls apart. The skeptic might inquire 'so why did God create' to which one can easily answer, 'because God wanted to create,' to which the skeptic might respond, 'well if God is all powerful then he does things in the best possible way and in the most effective way, but God - creation is the best possible way and in the most effective way. We have God + creation, which is not the best possible way nor the most effective way, so God must not be all powerful,' to which the theist responds. 'Gods choice to do something other than the best possible way and in the most effective way has noting at all to do with his capacity of His power. The capacity of Gods power is not dependent upon its use, because sometimes He might choose not utilize all of that power 100% all of the time.'
One might as well concede that michael phelps is not a fast swimmer because sometimes he treads water or plays in a swimming pool. One might as well concede Usain Bolt is not a fast runner because he jogs sometimes. One might as well concede Floyd Mayweather is not a good boxer because he play fights with his children or spars.
Were did you talk about supralapsarianism? Are you serious that that has nothing to do with what we are talking about? Actually it has everything to do with what we are talking about, you're just too stupid to see it.
No, it does not. You might think it does, due to your ignorance, but it does not. #3 is already false and not only that, you're begging the question assuming God is obligated to choose the GPG and assuming Gods existence and all goodness is dependent upon Him choosing the GPG. It clearly isn't, supralapsaianism has nothing at all to do with those refutations to your argument, try again.
No you're being the idiot here. I used the qualifier, "with the exception of size and scope." You didn't understand the analogy. How can you use your free will to get rid of aids or the flu or cancer? How can you use your free will to get your head out of the mouth of a lion? The world is like one giant room filled with shit like this. Some of us are lucky enough to never encounter it, others are not so lucky and free will has jack shit to do with it Theo. Seriously, go to a cancer ward and tell the patients there to cure themselves with their magical "free" will.
Tell a poor kid in Africa with malaria it's his fault for living in Africa. This is how you chose to answer the fucking question? No wonder I am the only person who actually reads your blog.
Where on earth did I ever say that you can use your free will to get rid of aids or the flue or cancer? where? Like I said, state your point clearly, if you have an argument MAKE IT, other wise shut up. Your stupid assertions and appeals to emotion are laughable.
Btw I love how you really racked up youtube subscribers and ratings after that amazing video to mine? Your at what, 0 subs now? Each video has a 1.5 star rating? Funny thing was that the other Christians who responded, and to whom I responded to, all have 4-5 star ratings, and all gained subs from the experience. Just saying...
Equating the validity of my video with the # of subscribers and ratings? testament to your illogical reasoning right there.
All this goes back to your laptop analogy. Answer me one last question, what's a more perfect laptop, one that can get viruses, or one that cannot?
Stupid question that ignores just about everything I've said. Obviously a more perfect laptop is one that cannot get viruses, but you're under the very ignorant assumption that Gods existence or attributes is dependent upon making the most perfect laptop.
To say with absolute certainty that the earth will always revolve around the sun, would be beyond ignorant. One day the earth with be consumed by the sun and no longer do this. The earth could also be dislodged from orbit, or any other variety of possible things.
Quote mine much. I never once said the earth will always revolve around the sun. Try again. I notice you ignored my 2+2=4 example as well.
You also don't know with absolute certainty that the earth in fact exists, nor for that matter do you know that the sun exists.
Well then you've called just about every single scientist, astrophysicist and astronomer ignorant, close minded, and self deceptive.
3 comments:
lol one trick poney...
In other words, you cannot refute a single thing I've said, so you need to cover up your inability to do so. That's fine, as in my eyes a tacit admission of error is just as good as an expressed one.
LOL. Theo, you so crazy!
Post a Comment