There are athiests on this board right now who think that the "problem of evil" and "omnipotent paradox" arguments...

>there are athiests on this board right now who think that the "problem of evil" and "omnipotent paradox" arguments aren't brainlet teir refutations of the existence of God
T. Agnostic

Veeky Forums - Religion

The problem of evil has been refuted correctly only recently.
>Inb4 muh Aquinas
>Inb4 muh Leibniz
no

No refutation necessary when your argument for god's existence is based on literally nothing.

I don't need to refute something for which there is no evidence.

Do you feel the need to demonstrate that Unicorns aren't real?

Omnipotence paradox can only be worked around by special pleading.

Belief in God is the definition of brainlet disease

He never implied that one needs a refutation of God to be an atheist

Only that there are many atheists who believe that atheism is a necessary result for any reasonable individual based on the existence of evil

>Read about a system of intergenerational truths whose good impact on people's lives you observe over time
>Observe "God's love" through that way
>Realize there is a God through observation of following his rules
Simple as that

Also
>Implying Alvin Platinga isn't just copying Augustine of Hippo in using the free will defence
>Implying you need either to figure that defence out
Wew

>What if God made something he can't move, doesn't that mean he isn't omnipotent
>God can't create a 4 sided triangle now can he
>God literally made the laws of nature himself therefore choosing concrete portion of reality , therefore he made the rules himself and expresses omnipotence in that way
>Because anyone saying that God has complete omnipotence that he can break his rules is an athiest who hasn't read Aquinas

No really, these two arguments are brainlet tier in everyway. They're childish even.

Woops, wrong reply

>We can't debate theism vs atheism on literature
>Religion is off topic even though it's relevant to the themes of every discussion

which set of rules and why that set

>athiests
ur so smart huh

The Bible? Oh boy, please don't do the athiest tactic of misquoting the Bible or referring people back to the esoteric practices of ancient Jews as described in the OT.

why the bible

If you want to become any kind of theists it takes reading their scripture and learning if their rules, then observing the affects so you can "observe God"

It's called "faith" for a reason

>intergenerational truths
>actually not true
Dude... at some point you need to move on. Christianity is indefensible and you know that.

>There are people on this board right now that believe that there is some sky wizard that is some through invisible magic mechanisms manipulates physical objects

ridiculous absolute and hasty generalization

>If you want to become any kind of theists it takes reading their scripture and learning if their rules,
You don't know what these words mean huh?

why the bible

>intergenerational truths
>actually are true
Fixed

No, I think this is called "psychological projection" on your part. That might be too big a phrase for you, but it's okay just Google it
Who said it had to be the Bible? There are competing schools of thought

I'm asking you which set of rules is god's rules

>This is what athiests actually believe theists believe in
I mean athiesm after all is the quintessential brainlet belief

And I'm telling you there are competing schools of thought. Take your pick. This like if questioning is absurd if I've already given you the answer but you just can't accept it.

in that case what makes you believe any of them are correct?

>I think neoclassical makes more sense than anything the mutualists ever said
>No no no, syndicalism is far superior to the Chicago school
user's response:
>Umm hey idiots, maybe because you have different theories on how the economy works *none of you are right*

user, it's time to man up and state your belief. Sophistry isn't cool anymore.

I don't see any evidence indicating that any of these sets of rules are written by a god

Maybe you should read the OP you idiot
>Dude people having disagreements on x means x doesn't exist lel
Good to know that morality was *always* a spook after all. Anglo consequentialism btfo

Okay let me change the scenario
>I think Catholicism makes more sense than anything Protestants ever said
>No no no, Shia Islam is where it's at, definitely better than anything in Orthodox Judaism
user's response and logic
>Durr because you disagree about the nature of God he doesn't exist

so nobody can decide what characteristics define a god, and you expect me to believe in something which we cannot properly define, observe or measure

what is it you're asking me to believe in?

>I don't see any evidence that the Bible was written by God
>A system of intergenerational truths that leads people down a good path isn't written by God, given the definition of God as having created man with Free Will to follow said good path thus the origins of all things good come from God
Well technically you are correct, the Bible is not written by God and neither were the ten commandments, they are all written by people who God was acting through

>leads people down a good path
>A system of intergenerational truths

>so nobody can decide what characteristics define a god, and you expect me to believe in something which we cannot properly define, observe or measure
Except you can measure the good effects of religion properly, and you can observe God at any time you want?
>No one can decide what the objective nature of God is
Nor can they decide the objective nature of government , the economy, the nature of man, and much much more yet because people have disagreements in how you define them you don't deny that government, economy, and man don't exist.

>measure the good effects of religion

are you absolutely serious

Yes, as in
>If you follow these rules that have been this way for many generations you will live a good life and be fulfilled
Moron

that premise is false

Oh man I can't wait for all the muh religious wars muh oppreshun while you conveniently ignore any other form of violence that isn't religious in nature
>Athiestic materialists have never been violent
Umm...

regardless of whether or not atheists are capable of doing bad things the point is that religion clearly doesn't prevent people from being total cunts and in many ways can cause people to do bad things

I would be very surprised if you can provide any evidence that a religious life is a good one by any reasonable metric

But the OP doesn't say that, does it now? As for this:
>Durr because you disagree about the nature of God he doesn't exist
nobody in this thread has argued that either, including the OP. Who are you fighting, user?
>t.Agnostic
Ah, I see: your own doubts. That's a good fight, user, and a long one. Make sure you're not too hasty in calling the winner.

>Religion doesn't stop human nature
No , it doesn't. Nor does anyone who is religious think so either.

Well I can but I have work in an hour , off the top of my head there have been a few examinations of social capital in society that have a higher amount among the religious, then you can compare birth rates, general health, charities (not that there are no good secular charities), etc

Its been no secret that religion correlates with different health benefits due to the communal aspects of it.

>But the OP doesn't say my belief
Umm.. kind of does. Then you go on to acknowledge that
>No one is arguing that
Yes, the other user was

>Its been no secret that religion correlates with different health benefits due to the communal aspects of it.

fuck all to do with a system of intergenerational truths

>The communal aspects of religion has nothing to do with the communal teachings of said religion
What

This