craig@think.ARPA (Craig Stanfill) (10/08/85)
Paul Zimmerman's opinions on God as evil suffer from illogic. Depending on how it suits his arguments, he seems to implicitly change his stance on whether God created the world or not. Generally he says He did not, but his arguments are more ambiguous. 1. If God created the world, as Christians, Jews, and Moslems believe, and He also created us, Paul's argument is void. We are His. If He chooses not to give us eternal life, that's His business, not ours. Having received the greatest gift of all, just being alive for however short a period, we are not in a position to demand an additional gift, eternal life with Him -- especially seeing how selfishly we have used His first great gift. And since it is our lot to die, why is God required to grant us 80 years of life and a peaceful death? As selfish and sinful individuals we treat our fellow men no better. 2. So Paul's arguments only work if God did NOT create the world. But if that is the case, why assume that God also bears responsibility for disease and natural disaster? You cannot take half the doctrine of God the Father and still have God. Indeed, if you assume God did not create the world, but that God does bear full responsibility for natural disasters and death, and that God did not make man but arbitrarily inflicts disease and pestillence on him, you do not have our God, the God of Abraham, but someone else's God, a monotheistic version of Zeus.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/12/85)
> Paul Zimmerman's opinions on God as evil suffer from illogic. Depending > on how it suits his arguments, he seems to implicitly change his stance > on whether God created the world or not. Generally he says He did not, > but his arguments are more ambiguous. > > 1. If God created the world, as Christians, Jews, and Moslems believe, > and He also created us, Paul's argument is void. We are His. If He > chooses not to give us eternal life, that's His business, not ours. > Having received the greatest gift of all, just being alive for however > short a period, we are not in a position to demand an additional gift, > eternal life with Him -- especially seeing how selfishly we have used > His first great gift. And since it is our lot to die, why is God > required to grant us 80 years of life and a peaceful death? As selfish > and sinful individuals we treat our fellow men no better. > > 2. So Paul's arguments only work if God did NOT create the world. But > if that is the case, why assume that God also bears responsibility for > disease and natural disaster? You cannot take half the doctrine of God > the Father and still have God. Indeed, if you assume God did not create > the world, but that God does bear full responsibility for natural > disasters and death, and that God did not make man but arbitrarily > inflicts disease and pestillence on him, you do not have our God, the > God of Abraham, but someone else's God, a monotheistic version of Zeus. > [CRAIG STANFILL] If memory serves, Paul has been very consistent (contrary to what Craig claims) in saying that god did not create the universe. In any case, if this is so (and Paul gives a very convincing argument that if a god exists it could not have been the "ultimate" creator), how the heck does it follow that thus this god might not be simply a powerful entity perfectly capable of being responsible for disease and disaster? What continually amazes me is the incredible judgmentalness of Christians towards Paul, applying criticisms to his arguments that they seem to forget to apply to their own, where they are at least equally appropriate. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
> Paul Zimmerman's opinions on God as evil suffer from illogic. Depending > on how it suits his arguments, he seems to implicitly change his stance > on whether God created the world or not. Generally he says He did not, > but his arguments are more ambiguous. > > 1. If God created the world, as Christians, Jews, and Moslems believe, > and He also created us, Paul's argument is void. We are His. If He > chooses not to give us eternal life, that's His business, not ours. > Having received the greatest gift of all, just being alive for however > short a period, we are not in a position to demand an additional gift, > eternal life with Him -- especially seeing how selfishly we have used > His first great gift. And since it is our lot to die, why is God > required to grant us 80 years of life and a peaceful death? As selfish > and sinful individuals we treat our fellow men no better. > > 2. So Paul's arguments only work if God did NOT create the world. But > if that is the case, why assume that God also bears responsibility for > disease and natural disaster? You cannot take half the doctrine of God > the Father and still have God. Indeed, if you assume God did not create > the world, but that God does bear full responsibility for natural > disasters and death, and that God did not make man but arbitrarily > inflicts disease and pestillence on him, you do not have our God, the > God of Abraham, but someone else's God, a monotheistic version of Zeus. > [CRAIG STANFILL] If memory serves, Paul has been very consistent (contrary to what Craig claims) in saying that god did not create the universe. In any case, if this is so (and Paul gives a very convincing argument that if a god exists it could not have been the "ultimate" creator), how the heck does it follow that thus this god might not be simply a powerful entity perfectly capable of being responsible for disease and disaster? What continually amazes me is the incredible judgmentalness of Christians towards Paul, applying criticisms to his arguments that they seem to forget to apply to their own, where they are at least equally appropriate. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr