Athiest are the dumbest people. No Offence its just true.

[reasonist]

another man that has no clue about how to.gauge ones intelligence. I could say I was smarter for the things I've done better instincts of survival. The type of guy that would be the ruler if this web site was are planet. With brute force were both starving after a plane crash in the wilderness. I just took your shit I beat you down and took it. Who's gon die of starvation first? I'll kill you and eat you and whhhhhayyy cry I'm mean lol and all this is of evil of course. But you won't be thinking I'm stupid when I'm eating your.lunch. you'll look real stupid over there crying and hungry.
But real knowledge would be to pray in a time like that so God will keep us all fed as he does the birds. And ask that he makes sure all of us return home safe.

Please up your meds. Nobody can help you here.

[Knowing]

Please up your meds. Nobody can help you here.

Get off yours. You can't see reality of what I just told you.
You just go into denial no comments on what was said just your crazy lol
That means you've been beat. You lost this debate
You all.have lost this debate.
And I have to say you all have the least personality among humans that I've met.

[marom1963]

Homeboy lol I'm not the type of guy that has thin skin. No1 can hurt my feelings.
I bust heads son. I Rob drug dealers, when i was 13 14 I'd wait for the weekend and put on snow gloves and beat down drunks coming out of bars. Real beatdowns lol take any cash on them.
I finished 8 th grade in a juveniles prison then had to.hit fostercare..
A big biker took our beer as kids 3 15 year olds sent that bitch to.the hospital.
My own uncle tried to literally kill me last year.
So make fun bro. Just know you'd get fucked man to man. I'd eat you. Lol lol fat nerdy sob hahaha ull get.fked up in my world

He performs on cue!
You wouldn't get anywhere near me, asshole, I live in a completely protected environment. My sister's got the one thing you haven't got - money. Yeah, you fight the state troopers that would lock your ass up if you even set foot on the property. Threaten away, ass-wipe. It's meaningless. Yeah, I'm a sissy, who hides behind his rich sister - what can you do about it? The state troopers would cart you off, after the security guards had beaten you to a pulp. Come on, tough guy, take on some hulking ex-marines. One of them has 41 confirmed kills to his credit.

[PickelledEggs]

I'm on a shit phone bro. Please just copy paste and word wrap.

You use a telephone? Isn't that considered witchcraft according to your "Good Book"?

We might have to burn this witch at the stake soon, guys...

[Mr.Obvious]

I know he's.gay due to a evil influence I think there is a spirit of perversion.

Aaaaaand we're back to zero.
I'll just take this opportunity to also semi-adres The general gist of Some of your further posts.
You want to hear an argument for there not being a god? You've got it backwards. Even though one can use Some logical fallicies to discredit this possibility, atheism is first and foremost warranted by The arguments to The contrary being unfounded. There is nothing that proves The existance of Gods, so there is no reason to believe in them. Look at all your previous Posts; is there any argument for your claim that isn't at best an empty assertion and at worst a hatefull threat/promise. No, so that brings us back to atheism as The default position.

Now, while i can't disprove te possibility of there being a creator of this universe, and don't need to because The burden of proof is on you, i can State why even if there were one i'd very much doubt it was one like i as a former catholic used to Believe in. In essence, it's part of the problem i'm painting to Randy; omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence as traits for this creator don't go with The reality we encounter.

[Mr.Obvious]

I'm sorry you found it unsatisfying. Tell you what: State the problem or question briefly and clearly so that there is no uncertainty about the point you are trying to make, and I will pursue a more solid answer.

Fair enough?

Fair enough. But it's not that article didn't adress the problem so I think you've got the right 'thing you're looking for', it's that in discussing it, it failed to keep in mind the assigned attributes to God. And I think there is a solid answer, it's just not one theists who claim their God to be an omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent creator of everything want, which is why they keep switching out and in  these attributes rather than looking at them all at once in accordance with the reality around us. It's that while this problem does not prove there is no creator, it does imply that at least one of the traits does not apply.

I'll do my best to keep it clear.
God could have created any reality or world he could've wanted, there is unlimited potential through his omnipotence. Not only that, but with his omniscience he knows exactly in however a way he creates his creation, what kind of effect it will have on it's people; he knows in advance what any of them will choose. This means that creating a world in which some choose to turn away from him or not come to accept him or choose to do evil things has no less 'free will'  than one in which everyone chooses to turn to him and accept him and chooses not do evil things. This means that if God would want everyone to turn to him of their own free will and come to accept him of their own free will and do good things of their own free will, as he is said to want, there is no reason that he would create a world in which this would not come to happen.
So either, if there is a creator of everything, he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime. Or he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will. Or he knew how, but couldn't. Unless I'm missing something very vital here, while I can't prove there is no deity that created the world (and I'm not trying to),  it seems the omnibenovelent, omniscient and omnipotent variety simply does not hold up to the reality we witness around us.

[GrinningYMIR]

Oh dude he's serious. Talking about the afterlife and shit. I better become religious now and be kind to everyone and preach the creators glory

Oh wait




I don't care.

[Randy Carson]

Fair enough. But it's not that article didn't adress the problem so I think you've got the right 'thing you're looking for', it's that in discussing it, it failed to keep in mind the assigned attributes to God. And I think there is a solid answer, it's just not one theists who claim their God to be an omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent creator of everything want, which is why they keep switching out and in  these attributes rather than looking at them all at once in accordance with the reality around us. It's that while this problem does not prove there is no creator, it does imply that at least one of the traits does not apply.

I'll do my best to keep it clear.
God could have created any reality or world he could've wanted, there is unlimited potential through his omnipotence. Not only that, but with his omniscience he knows exactly in however a way he creates his creation, what kind of effect it will have on it's people; he knows in advance what any of them will choose. This means that creating a world in which some choose to turn away from him or not come to accept him or choose to do evil things has no less 'free will'  than one in which everyone chooses to turn to him and accept him and chooses not do evil things. This means that if God would want everyone to turn to him of their own free will and come to accept him of their own free will and do good things of their own free will, as he is said to want, there is no reason that he would create a world in which this would not come to happen.
So either, if there is a creator of everything, he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime. Or he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will. Or he knew how, but couldn't. Unless I'm missing something very vital here, while I can't prove there is no deity that created the world (and I'm not trying to),  it seems the omnibenovelent, omniscient and omnipotent variety simply does not hold up to the reality we witness around us.

This is a variation of the classic "Problem of Evil" argument.

I have printed out your last two paragraphs so that I can mull over the reply.

(I'm old school. Or just old.)

[marom1963]

Thanks. I have printed out your last two paragraphs so that I can mull it over more carefully.

(I'm old school. Or just old.)

Thank you for being polite, unlike Knowing. I won't tease you any more. I was just teasing you, you know.

[Mike Cl]

You use a telephone? Isn't that considered witchcraft according to your "Good Book"?

We might have to burn this witch at the stake soon, guys...

Let's do it!

[reasonist]

Get off yours. You can't see reality of what I just told you.
You just go into denial no comments on what was said just your crazy lol
That means you've been beat. You lost this debate
You all.have lost this debate.
And I have to say you all have the least personality among humans that I've met.

Good. No point in you hanging out here then. Ciao

[Randy Carson]

Fair enough. But it's not that article didn't adress the problem so I think you've got the right 'thing you're looking for', it's that in discussing it, it failed to keep in mind the assigned attributes to God. And I think there is a solid answer, it's just not one theists who claim their God to be an omnibenevolent, -scient and -potent creator of everything want, which is why they keep switching out and in  these attributes rather than looking at them all at once in accordance with the reality around us. It's that while this problem does not prove there is no creator, it does imply that at least one of the traits does not apply.

I'll do my best to keep it clear.

God could have created any reality or world he could've wanted, there is unlimited potential through his omnipotence. Not only that, but with his omniscience he knows exactly in however a way he creates his creation, what kind of effect it will have on it's people; he knows in advance what any of them will choose. This means that creating a world in which some choose to turn away from him or not come to accept him or choose to do evil things has no less 'free will'  than one in which everyone chooses to turn to him and accept him and chooses not do evil things. This means that if God would want everyone to turn to him of their own free will and come to accept him of their own free will and do good things of their own free will, as he is said to want, there is no reason that he would create a world in which this would not come to happen.

So either, if there is a creator of everything, he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime. Or he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will. Or he knew how, but couldn't. Unless I'm missing something very vital here, while I can't prove there is no deity that created the world (and I'm not trying to),  it seems the omnibenovelent, omniscient and omnipotent variety simply does not hold up to the reality we witness around us.

Okay, I think I'm ready. We'll see.

Your argument appears to be a variation of the classic Problem of Evil, and it can be expressed like this:

1. God wants everyone to come to know him in this life.
2. God knows how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.
3. God could create a such a world.
4. But not everyone comes to know God in this life.
5. Therefore, either God does not want everyone to know him or He does not know how to create such a world or He cannot create such a world.

The problem is in your second premise where you wrote, "he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will."

Alvin Plantinga is credited by most philosophers today as having finally refuted the Problem of Evil argument. Plantinga is above MY pay grade, but my understanding of his argument, as it deals with this variation of the PoE, can expressed as follows:

1.   To be free means to be able to make a choice to do or not do something
2.   To do a moral act, it must be an act that is either right or wrong
3.   A creature is significantly free if it is able to do or not do moral actions
4.   Moral evil is evil resulting from the actions of significantly free creatures
5.   God can only do what is logically possible
6.   Therefore, "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible
7.   This is not a problem for God's omnipotence

The argument as you have posed it suggests that God could (but didn't) create a world in which he would be accepted by everyone simply because using his foreknowledge, he could simply have not made those people whom He knew would freely reject Him.

But His knowledge that they would reject Him does not prove that "he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime"; it simply proves that He knows in advance what people will choose. Knowing what will happen and wanting it to happen are two different things.

Consequently, I think it is entirely conceivable that God wants everyone to accept him, but he does create some significantly free beings who will not, and he does so knowing how to bring an even greater overall good out of the fact that some people will choose badly.

Finally, I should point out that while it is true that God has predestined some people for heaven, the belief that others are predestined for hell is rejected by the Catholic Church. This is called "double predestination", and it is false. God does not create people who are predestined for hell before their creation; he does create people, however, whom he knows will choose to go there.

[Mr.Obvious]

Okay, I think I'm ready. We'll see.

Your argument is a variation of the classic Problem of Evil, and it can be expressed like this:

1. God wants everyone to come to know him in this life.
2. God knows how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will.
3. God could create a such a world.
4. But not everyone comes to know God in this life.
5. Therefore, either God does not want everyone to know him or He does not know how to create such a world or He cannot create such a world.

The problem is in your second premise where you wrote, "he didn't know how to create the world in such a way that all people would come to choose this of their own free will."

Alvin Plantinga is credited by most philosophers today as having finally refuted the Problem of Evil argument. Plantinga is above MY pay grade, but my understanding of his argument, as it deals with this variation of the PoE, can expressed as follows:

1.   To be free means to be able to make a choice to do or not do something
2.   To do a moral act, it must be an act that is either right or wrong
3.   A creature is significantly free if it is able to do or not do moral actions
4.   Moral evil is evil resulting from the actions of significantly free creatures
5.   God can only do what is logically possible
6.   Therefore, "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible
7.   This is not a problem for God's omnipotence

Sorry Randy, but again this adds nothing to solve the problem. All it adds is the assertion that God not being able to do everything doesn't mean he's not capable of doing everything.

I know the problem is a variation on the problem of evil. In fact the only real thing that has been added is the reasoning involved as to why free will does not solve this problem (and a bigger focus on not coming to accept the christian God within your lifetime rather than just 'Evil').
The reason for this is that most christians I meet try to counter the problem of evil or not believing in God with 'free will'; so I implemented the counterstep in  the argument to skip one uncessary step. The 'solution' provided above explores that route of free will too, just like the last one you offered. And again it comes short, at least the way I see it, for exactly the same reason why I already implemented why 'free will' doesn't solve the problem.
There is no reason provided why God can't create free beings that will, in the world he created, solely choose to do only good. If his creations were given the knowledge of what is morally good (for example accepting his way and him into their lives), they could all still be significantly free if they all chose to do only moral actions. If this world, for example, was created under these rules by your God you would not be less significantly free than me even though you choose well and I choose poorly by not accepting Him. But if he'd created this world differently, we both might've been influenced differently and the roles could have been reversed. Or better yet, we could both be trying to convince Atheistforums. Or better yet, there could be no atheistforums. All with the same amount of significant freedom as in this world if only he'd created it in such a way that everyone would learn to use their significant freedom for good moral actions.
And he could choose to create a world in advance in which all subjects would come to use their significant freedom to do good moral actions and come to accept him within their lifetime if he were an omniscient and omnipotent creator of everything. He'd know in advance how to set up the world or the system or whatever you want to call it and prepare it so that everyone who came into being would be convinced, not even using forced here, but convinced, to follow him and accept him.

The argument as you have posed it suggests that God could (but didn't) create a world in which he would be accepted by everyone simply because using his foreknowledge, he could simply have not made those people whom He knew would freely reject Him.

But His knowledge that they would reject Him does not prove that "he did not want everyone to accept him in their lifetime"; it simply proves that He knows in advance what people will choose. Knowing what will happen and wanting it to happen are two different things.

So… he's not omnipotent then?
It's not so much about 'not making the people that would say no to him', it's about making the world in such a way that everyone created would come to accept him. This is an all-powerfull, allknowing creature that created the world as he saw fit; by definition he can shape it so that everyone would come to understand his will and come to choose to accept him by their own significant free will.
You need to keep all three traits active at all times during this. Let me try to explain with your following statement.

Consequently, I think it is entirely conceivable that God wants everyone to accept him, but he does create some significantly free beings who will not, and he does so knowing how to bring an even greater overall good out of the fact that some people will choose badly.

So… he wants everyone to accept him but purposefully creates those who will fail so that their eternity in hell can serve a greater purpose?

That does not sound like omnibenevolence to me.

Unless… he just doesn't know how to create everyone in such a way that they'd come to accept him and thus needs these predestined 'to be lost souls' to help guide as many as he can to him.

But that does not sound like omniscience to me.

Or… he's just incapable of saving everyone and having all of them do good with their lives, even though that's what he wants.

But that does not sound like omnipotence to me.

Do you see what I mean about needing to tackle the problem with all three traits activated at the same time, if you believe in a God with all three traits?
(And if you believe he does predestine some to go to hell, and that's not interfering with free will, why would he not use his predestine powers which you've accepted he has and utilises to have everyone choose to live their lives in such a way that would get them to heaven?)

Finally, I should point out that while it is true that God has predestined some people for heaven, the belief that others are predestined for hell is rejected by the Catholic Church.

Good for the RCC, guess that means they believe in a omnibenevolent God, but not in one that is omnipotent and/or omniscient.

Sorry Randy but, I really don't see this solving the problem. No more than the last article. It doesn't really add anything.

----
Edit:

After comming back to reread my post and check it for typing errors, I noticed something I didn't see in your previous post before. Perhaps I misquoted, perhaps I started typing my answer before you added it. I don't know. If it's my bad, I apologise, but here is your quote in full:

Finally, I should point out that while it is true that God has predestined some people for heaven, the belief that others are predestined for hell is rejected by the Catholic Church. This is called "double predestination", and it is false. God does not create people who are predestined for hell before their creation; he does create people, however, whom he knows will choose to go there.

To this last bit, I say that as god presumably knows in advance how any conceivably createable creation would turn out for it's inhabitants and where that would cause their lives to lead them after death, by creating one of an endless amount of possible creations he chooses which reality comes into fruition. So by choosing which reality to create, he chooses for some of it's people to choose to lead their lives in a way that will lead them to heaven and others to choose to lead their lives in a way that will lead them to hell. This way, due to his omniscience and omnipotence, he is choosing to create people he knows will choose to go there which means he chooses to create people predestined for hell, while he just as easily could choose to create a creation in which he knows none will choose to go there and thus who aren't predestined for hell.

[Sargon The Grape]

Get on my level school boy. You can't even read with out a perfect paragraph. Hahaha.
Oh I'm glad your good with a cell phone too great accomplishment. Lol you see the type of shit y'all hit me with corny as fuck.
You probably can't change a tire.

Wow, watch out folks, this badass knows how to change a tire. Be careful, or next he'll show off his 3-point turning skills!

[Randy Carson]

So… he's not omnipotent then?

He is, and this is the Achilles' Heel of your argument.

God can only do what is logically possible. He can't make square circles or married bachelors. He can't make a rock so big he can't lift it.

However, his inability to do what is illogical does not mean that he is not omnipotent.

Therefore, the idea that "God can create significantly free beings and cause them to do only good" is logically impossible.

Moreover, his foreknowledge that some would reject him doesn't really fly. This is watching M&M's coming down a conveyor belt and discarding the imperfect ones so that only perfect M&M's go into each bag. God would consider each person's potential for rejecting him, and he would simply not make those people who would do so.

This is my first pass...I'll go back and read your response again more slowly.

And thanks! Real discussion is a pleasure!