Let's go back before creation...

[Willum]

Indulge me if you will and let's imagine we have gone back to a time BEFORE God created everything.
Let's assume there is a God of Judeo-Chritian character, but not use this definition to petulantly prove everything about it.

Now, most Judeo-Christians (JD) claim God is not evil, even taking it to extremes that he can't even be in the presence of evil.

Now back in time as we are, before creation, we can still posit this JC God is omniscient, and knows the future.

Now in this time before creation, there is no evil, correct, only the knowledge of evil?

Is it an irrational conclusion therefore, that God is the only possible source for these evils?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by bjs]

It is logically impossible for God to create creatures with freewill and determine the outcome of how they use that freewill.

It is logically impossible for someone to create a computer program capable of doing chemical equations, and determine the outcome of how it flies.

You have to think about that a moment, no?
Still nothing?
It is entirely possible for this God of yours to create creatures logically incapable of doing evil, yet having freewill. Most of us are logically incapable of sawing off our hands, for example. I have at times been logically incapable of removing deep enough splinters.
We are logically and physically incapable of independent flight, even with the will to do it, as a more obvious example. God certainly could have given us freewill without any logical way of doing evil. So although you are correct, we could use freewill, he did not have to give us the capacity to do evil.
Unless I am wrong?

I am saying that omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible.

This has been a topic before. I was able to do many logically impossible things, just in print. (Making a square circle is trivially easy, compared to the logical impossibility of resurrection.) So saying a creature that can warp reality, or failing that, can warp your very mind to perceiving the illogical as logical, this is simply wrong. We have shown resurrection is logically impossible, do you still hold your position?

Two quotes, two objections, don’t get lost on one or the other.

[marco]

I honestly don't know why you bother, Zzyzx. You don't do the most elementary reading or research about the viewpoints you oppose.

Moderator Comment

You are straying into the personal here. Comment on the post.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.

Christianity splits its ‘God’ into ‘three divine persons’ to claim monotheism – perhaps convincing to adherents, not convincing to others.

No it does not teach that God is "split".

Quite an effort has been made to present three ‘gods’ in some convoluted, mysterious way to avoid being polytheistic. A manufacturer of household oil uses a similar theme.

Every properly-catechised child of eight knows that the Doctrine of the Trinity teaches that three divine persons are One

“Properly-catechised child� what a hoot – let’s translate that to ‘properly indoctrinated child’ (one who believes the dogma and contributes to clergy wealth fund).

An attempt to indoctrinate me was an abject failure. I wondered why adults believed (or claimed to believe – or told me to believe) fantasy tales about talking donkeys, reanimating corpses, virgin mothers, invisible angels and devils, and all sorts of drivel.

, and One God exists in Three divine persons, not separating or dividing the essences, and are co-equal and co-eternal.

Parroting the party line – with gobbledygook (defined as: “language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense�) or jargon (defined as: “special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.�)

This is a mystery, yet all the persons of the Trinity are to be worshipped and glorified as, fully, God.

It certainly is a mystery why people actually believe such tales.

I honestly don't know why you bother, Zzyzx.

Can’t debate without personal remarks?

It is not a bother, but rather a pleasure, to present ideas for readers to contrast with the emotionalism and tired, unverified tales put forth by Apologists – and help them demonstrate to readers that their entire belief system is based upon ‘take my word for it (or his or this book)’.

You don't do the most elementary reading or research about the viewpoints you oppose.

Occasionally over the past few years those who fancy themselves ‘warriors for Christ’ join the Forum, swing their broadswords of righteous indignation, assume superior knowledge and ability, confident that they can ‘slay the infidel’ – then discover that debate on our level playing field is nothing like pontificating to a fawning audience in church or among fellow believers.

It is folly to assume that debate opponents are ignorant of Christianity. Those who make that mistake learn otherwise (then usually exit stage left). A self-identified theologian left after two weeks, presumably to find a softer target elsewhere.

Otseng, site owner / administrator / experienced debater, and devout Christian cautions (in C&A guidelines) “6. Realize that most participants here are strong debaters and have a vast knowledge of Christianity and the Bible (including non-theists).� viewtopic.php?t=9741

Very odd that you should then lecture me about how it is necessary to have a degree in genetics in order to properly discuss evolution

Kindly quote me verbatim with URL saying it is necessary to have a degree in genetics. Or, failing that, acknowledge making a false claim.

when you have no degree in theology and make howlers that anyone who spent five minutes in Sunday School could spot by a country mile.

Evidently you disapprove of my Catholic school education – a few grades until my irreverent attitude resulted in suggestions to Mom (a devout Catholic woman) that I was better suited for public school. It wasn’t much better, but at least there were no nuns yammering on about talking donkeys and reanimated corpses.

Perhaps I was a ‘bad influence’ on the “properly-catechised� students who swallowed and parroted what they were being indoctrinated to believe. I would have considered myself very naive and gullible to have believed those ancient, fanciful tales (or tales about the tooth fairy, leprechauns, and/or Santa Claus) beyond about age eight or so.

Additionally, the Bible speaks of ‘other gods’. Are they equal to the Bible God, or superior, or inferior?

The single most inescapable teaching of scripture is that there is one God. If you are really trying to suggest that when scripture mentions the gods of the people around about that it is giving those gods credence as being real, then you really are off on a fool's errand.

Well, the Bible God seems to have been quite concerned about competing gods – as the ‘first commandment’ verifies (along with a bit of insecurity and an ego problem). One ‘god’ calling other gods false does not make them false. Ancient texts claiming a favorite god is real does not make it real.

You talk about gods that you don't believe in.

Kindly read the first line in my signature.

Does that mean you really believe in them?

Kindly read the second line in my signature

So when scripture mentions the "gods of the people" does that mean it really is testifying to their existence?

The Bible mentions ‘other gods’ many times – evidently a subject of great concern.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bi ... ther-Gods/

Do you know what the Christian God is like (and unlike)? How do you know that?

This question is so desperately plucking at straws, it's working up enough heat to start a nose-bleed.

Once that nose-bleed is under control, try to cool down the emotions and attempt a reasoned response to the TOPIC without personal remarks. Getting all worked up is said to be detrimental to health.

How do we know what the Christian God is like? Because the Christian scriptures and the Christ told us.

Those sources credit ‘God’ with a number of human characteristics – egotism, anger, hostility, vindictiveness, homicidal, genocidal, etc – but don’t seem to say much about what the ‘god’ is like.

Perhaps some well informed person can enlighten all of us with a comprehensive description of ‘God’.

Now if you want to argue that the Christian God is different from what the source documents of Christianity and the Divine Originator of the faith taught, then go ahead. Please. I beg of you!

Kindly read my signature again – and note ‘awaiting verifiable evidence’.

I do not pretend to know about any of the thousands of invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural entities. Some do claim such knowledge based on reading unverified ancient tales, testimonials, fables, folklore (or whatever they choose to trust).


I hope you stick around a while. Great demonstration of fully indoctrinated talk. Did that come from seminary? It would help longevity to tone down the emotionalism and refrain from personal remarks.

[CalvinsBulldog]

[Replying to post 32 by Zzyzx]

Quite an effort has been made to present three ‘gods’ in some convoluted, mysterious way to avoid being polytheistic. A manufacturer of household oil uses a similar theme.

If you won't allow Christians to define their own beliefs, and you insist on doing it for them, then you win! Congratulations! Killing strawmen is easy, which is why it is fallacious. But if you want to engage in what Christians actually believe, then you will need to first admit that Christian doctrine in no way posits the existence of three gods.

“Properly-catechised child� what a hoot – let’s translate that to ‘properly indoctrinated child’ (one who believes the dogma and contributes to clergy wealth fund).

This is just an expression of your personal disdain, saying nothing very much at all.

If you could arrest your scorn long enough to think this through, regardless of your emotions about the subject, anyone who knows their doctrine can be said to be "properly catechised".

Ironically, the word "indoctrinated" itself has only acquired negative connotations recently. Originally it meant to "teach" or to be "instructed in doctrine" which is the same thing as "properly catechised".

An attempt to indoctrinate me was an abject failure.

It's nothing to be embarassed about. Many children develop their cognitive faculties later on in their childhood.

<snipped out irrelevant autobiographical details. For the sake of brevity, I'll agree that you were a child prodigy>

Parroting the party line – with gobbledygook (defined as: “language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense�) or jargon (defined as: “special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.�)

It's the actual definition of the belief that you don't understand but want to pontificate freely upon. The definition comes from the Athanasian Creed and is exceedingly ancient in the Church's History.

Please stop just pooh-poohing absolutely everything I write and start interacting in some intelligent way. This kind of objecting to absolutely everything no matter how reasonable is what petulent children do.

It certainly is a mystery why people actually believe such tales.

If it's a mystery to you, you need to go and do some broader reading (or even narrower reading). Otherwise you're doing a fine job of presenting the simulacrum of the classic ignorant athiest who doesn't have the foggiest understanding outside of their rank bigotry about the beliefs of the people they claim to oppose.

At least I have some idea as to why people embrace atheism.

<snip, snip, snip>

It is not a bother, but rather a pleasure, to present ideas for readers to contrast with the emotionalism and tired, unverified tales put forth by Apologists – and help them demonstrate to readers that their entire belief system is based upon ‘take my word for it (or his or this book)’.

Your understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. Not a little bit. But significantly. I wish you'd demonstrate this exalted intellectualism of yours and accept the correction, no matter how painful that might be.

I thought you "Admitted to Mistakes"? Apparently you don't. Instead you try to bury the error in scorn and innumerable rabbit trails.

Occasionally over the past few years those who fancy themselves ‘warriors for Christ’ join the Forum, swing their broadswords of righteous indignation, assume superior knowledge and ability, confident that they can ‘slay the infidel’ – then discover that debate on our level playing field is nothing like pontificating to a fawning audience in church or among fellow believers.

I'm sure that's true for Christians and atheists alike. I'm also sure people quit these forums for a range of reasons. I expect very few people quit this forum because they are intellectually whipped as in the fantasy you have presented here. Sticking-around-power is not proof of a superior or better position, or of a higher IQ.

Isn't it true that you enjoy pontificating to a circle of like-minded people and opining at length about how useless and rotten Christians are? Isn't it also true that you struggle mightily when challenged by knowledgable Christians? Indeed, is it not true that this whole post is a neon advertisement to your lack of elementary reading about a doctrine you want to criticise (and badly misrepresent)?

It is folly to assume that debate opponents are ignorant of Christianity.

When someone represents the Christian God as being "split" into three, then they are ignorant of the doctrine they talk about. Full stop. End of discussion. It's a howler on par claiming that Muhammad was into pork burgers or that Jews worship Krishna.

If a person is rational and reasonable, then they at least try to fairly and honestly represent the belief they discuss. You have not done this. Hence this very long face-saving exercise for you.

<snip, snip, snip>

Very odd that you should then lecture me about how it is necessary to have a degree in genetics in order to properly discuss evolution

Kindly quote me verbatim with URL saying it is necessary to have a degree in genetics. Or, failing that, acknowledge making a false claim.

And yet you don't bat an eyelid when making a false claim about Christian doctrine! Not that I have any grounds for expecting moral consistency from an atheist. Only we theists have a grounds for morality (#incendiary #waitingforspluttering #popcorn).

I admit that you did not exactly say that you needed a degree in genetics, but it was heavily implied in what you wrote. At the very least, you implied a person needed several years worth of study of genetics to have a meaningful discussion of evolution.

"When one attempts to discuss evolution it would be prudent for them to have great understanding of the concept (including meaning of the term).

The study of genetics (knowledge of which is essential to informed discussion of evolution) is a years-long pursuit. Cursory perusal of news articles and watching television shows is not adequate. Reading ancient texts is even less informative."

Apparently you can hoover up any understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity, however, and that's good enough.

Evidently you disapprove of my Catholic school education

I'm a Protestant (although at college I studed theology under Jesuit professors). But merely attending a Catholic school does not make one a theological guru. You clearly did not learn very much about the Trinity.

The children who attend my church would argue you under the table on the topic and be capable of confidently spoting the error you made a mile away, and they are still quite young.

– a few grades until my irreverent attitude resulted in suggestions to Mom (a devout Catholic woman) that I was better suited for public school.

I think I already agreed that you were a terribly intelligent young person who was already showing embryonic signs of far-sighted free thought as a tot. I understand North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was a child prodigy as well who also was able to correct his teachers on a wide range of topics.

It wasn’t much better, but at least there were no nuns yammering on about talking donkeys and reanimated corpses.

There were just people yammering how the world magically appeared in an explosion, and how human beings transformed out of apes.

Perhaps I was a ‘bad influence’ on the “properly-catechised� students who swallowed and parroted what they were being indoctrinated to believe. I would have considered myself very naive and gullible to have believed those ancient, fanciful tales (or tales about the tooth fairy, leprechauns, and/or Santa Claus) beyond about age eight or so.

Those other students you so despise probably learned what they were there to learn, even if they disagreed with it. It sounds like they learned what the Doctrine of the Trinity consists of, while you did not.

Well, the Bible God seems to have been quite concerned about competing gods – as the ‘first commandment’ verifies (along with a bit of insecurity and an ego problem). One ‘god’ calling other gods false does not make them false. Ancient texts claiming a favorite god is real does not make it real.

I'm not interested in debating that the Bible teaches the reality of other gods. It's such a foolish subject it's unworthy of my time.

You talk about gods that you don't believe in.

Kindly read the first line in my signature.

CalvinsBulldog wrote:

Does that mean you really believe in them?

Kindly read the second line in my signature

Is English a second language for you? This is not hard to understand. You refer to God and gods all the time in discussion. The very fact you refer to them does not mean you think they are real.

The same goes for the Bible.

The Bible mentions ‘other gods’ many times – evidently a subject of great concern. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bi ... ther-Gods/

Yep, we already got that, Zzyzx. That's what I was referring to. You're miles behind.

I hope you stick around a while. Great demonstration of fully indoctrinated talk. Did that come from seminary? It would help longevity to tone down the emotionalism and refrain from personal remarks.

And despite all of that, you still are wrong about the Doctrine of the Trinity. You just put a whole lot of scorn, autobiography, glowing self-appraisals, and sarcasm in the blender, and hit the button.

I'm beginning to suspect you're not able to do much else.

[SallyF]

This discussion has strayed into the Jehovah/Jesus/Holy Ghost, three-gets-you-one combo-deal, version of "God".

Which is graphically displayed above.

This for many/most/nearly all Christians is how they imagine "God".

And we must emphasise the word IMAGINE

Whoever painted this imagined "God" in this way.

Whoever commissioned the painting imagined "God" in this way.

For many/most/nearly all Christians this is the notion of "God" that they IMAGINE was around before it/they opened up the dome of air in the watery universe of the Genesis 1 creation myth.

Two men and a bird is how they IMAGINE "God".

This imagined image of god is ONLY ever shown to exist in the minds of certain Christians …

Because it is NEVER shown to exist in EITHER of the biblical creation myths …

Since we have gone "back before (the comparatively new biblical) "creation".

Folks are, of course, free to believe that "God" can be imaginatively presented as two men and a bird.

OR …

"God" can be imagined and presented in innumerable OTHER ways …

With PRECISELY the same amount of faith and supporting evidence as Christians imagine and present their versions of "God" …

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 33 by CalvinsBulldog]

You said. "Only we theists have a grounds for morality"

No spluttering on my part, just a confirmation of the arrogance displayed by certain Christians when attempting to defend their religious dogma.
The only things I know that are three in one are my dishwasher tablets!

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 32 by Zzyzx]

Quite an effort has been made to present three ‘gods’ in some convoluted, mysterious way to avoid being polytheistic. A manufacturer of household oil uses a similar theme.

If you won't allow Christians to define their own beliefs, and you insist on doing it for them, then you win! Congratulations! Killing strawmen is easy, which is why it is fallacious. But if you want to engage in what Christians actually believe, then you will need to first admit that Christian doctrine in no way posits the existence of three gods.

“Properly-catechised child� what a hoot – let’s translate that to ‘properly indoctrinated child’ (one who believes the dogma and contributes to clergy wealth fund).

This is just an expression of your personal disdain, saying nothing very much at all.

If you could arrest your scorn long enough to think this through, regardless of your emotions about the subject, anyone who knows their doctrine can be said to be "properly catechised".

Ironically, the word "indoctrinated" itself has only acquired negative connotations recently. Originally it meant to "teach" or to be "instructed in doctrine" which is the same thing as "properly catechised".

An attempt to indoctrinate me was an abject failure.

It's nothing to be embarassed about. Many children develop their cognitive faculties later on in their childhood.

<snipped out irrelevant autobiographical details. For the sake of brevity, I'll agree that you were a child prodigy>

Parroting the party line – with gobbledygook (defined as: “language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense�) or jargon (defined as: “special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.�)

It's the actual definition of the belief that you don't understand but want to pontificate freely upon. The definition comes from the Athanasian Creed and is exceedingly ancient in the Church's History.

Please stop just pooh-poohing absolutely everything I write and start interacting in some intelligent way. This kind of objecting to absolutely everything no matter how reasonable is what petulent children do.

It certainly is a mystery why people actually believe such tales.

If it's a mystery to you, you need to go and do some broader reading (or even narrower reading). Otherwise you're doing a fine job of presenting the simulacrum of the classic ignorant athiest who doesn't have the foggiest understanding outside of their rank bigotry about the beliefs of the people they claim to oppose.

At least I have some idea as to why people embrace atheism.

<snip, snip, snip>

It is not a bother, but rather a pleasure, to present ideas for readers to contrast with the emotionalism and tired, unverified tales put forth by Apologists – and help them demonstrate to readers that their entire belief system is based upon ‘take my word for it (or his or this book)’.

Your understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity is wrong. Not a little bit. But significantly. I wish you'd demonstrate this exalted intellectualism of yours and accept the correction, no matter how painful that might be.

I thought you "Admitted to Mistakes"? Apparently you don't. Instead you try to bury the error in scorn and innumerable rabbit trails.

Occasionally over the past few years those who fancy themselves ‘warriors for Christ’ join the Forum, swing their broadswords of righteous indignation, assume superior knowledge and ability, confident that they can ‘slay the infidel’ – then discover that debate on our level playing field is nothing like pontificating to a fawning audience in church or among fellow believers.

I'm sure that's true for Christians and atheists alike. I'm also sure people quit these forums for a range of reasons. I expect very few people quit this forum because they are intellectually whipped as in the fantasy you have presented here. Sticking-around-power is not proof of a superior or better position, or of a higher IQ.

Isn't it true that you enjoy pontificating to a circle of like-minded people and opining at length about how useless and rotten Christians are? Isn't it also true that you struggle mightily when challenged by knowledgable Christians? Indeed, is it not true that this whole post is a neon advertisement to your lack of elementary reading about a doctrine you want to criticise (and badly misrepresent)?

It is folly to assume that debate opponents are ignorant of Christianity.

When someone represents the Christian God as being "split" into three, then they are ignorant of the doctrine they talk about. Full stop. End of discussion. It's a howler on par claiming that Muhammad was into pork burgers or that Jews worship Krishna.

If a person is rational and reasonable, then they at least try to fairly and honestly represent the belief they discuss. You have not done this. Hence this very long face-saving exercise for you.

<snip, snip, snip>

Very odd that you should then lecture me about how it is necessary to have a degree in genetics in order to properly discuss evolution

Kindly quote me verbatim with URL saying it is necessary to have a degree in genetics. Or, failing that, acknowledge making a false claim.

And yet you don't bat an eyelid when making a false claim about Christian doctrine! Not that I have any grounds for expecting moral consistency from an atheist. Only we theists have a grounds for morality (#incendiary #waitingforspluttering #popcorn).

I admit that you did not exactly say that you needed a degree in genetics, but it was heavily implied in what you wrote. At the very least, you implied a person needed several years worth of study of genetics to have a meaningful discussion of evolution.

"When one attempts to discuss evolution it would be prudent for them to have great understanding of the concept (including meaning of the term).

The study of genetics (knowledge of which is essential to informed discussion of evolution) is a years-long pursuit. Cursory perusal of news articles and watching television shows is not adequate. Reading ancient texts is even less informative."

Apparently you can hoover up any understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity, however, and that's good enough.

Evidently you disapprove of my Catholic school education

I'm a Protestant (although at college I studed theology under Jesuit professors). But merely attending a Catholic school does not make one a theological guru. You clearly did not learn very much about the Trinity.

The children who attend my church would argue you under the table on the topic and be capable of confidently spoting the error you made a mile away, and they are still quite young.

– a few grades until my irreverent attitude resulted in suggestions to Mom (a devout Catholic woman) that I was better suited for public school.

I think I already agreed that you were a terribly intelligent young person who was already showing embryonic signs of far-sighted free thought as a tot. I understand North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was a child prodigy as well who also was able to correct his teachers on a wide range of topics.

It wasn’t much better, but at least there were no nuns yammering on about talking donkeys and reanimated corpses.

There were just people yammering how the world magically appeared in an explosion, and how human beings transformed out of apes.

Perhaps I was a ‘bad influence’ on the “properly-catechised� students who swallowed and parroted what they were being indoctrinated to believe. I would have considered myself very naive and gullible to have believed those ancient, fanciful tales (or tales about the tooth fairy, leprechauns, and/or Santa Claus) beyond about age eight or so.

Those other students you so despise probably learned what they were there to learn, even if they disagreed with it. It sounds like they learned what the Doctrine of the Trinity consists of, while you did not.

Well, the Bible God seems to have been quite concerned about competing gods – as the ‘first commandment’ verifies (along with a bit of insecurity and an ego problem). One ‘god’ calling other gods false does not make them false. Ancient texts claiming a favorite god is real does not make it real.

I'm not interested in debating that the Bible teaches the reality of other gods. It's such a foolish subject it's unworthy of my time.

You talk about gods that you don't believe in.

Kindly read the first line in my signature.

CalvinsBulldog wrote:

Does that mean you really believe in them?

Kindly read the second line in my signature

Is English a second language for you? This is not hard to understand. You refer to God and gods all the time in discussion. The very fact you refer to them does not mean you think they are real.

The same goes for the Bible.

The Bible mentions ‘other gods’ many times – evidently a subject of great concern. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bi ... ther-Gods/

Yep, we already got that, Zzyzx. That's what I was referring to. You're miles behind.

I hope you stick around a while. Great demonstration of fully indoctrinated talk. Did that come from seminary? It would help longevity to tone down the emotionalism and refrain from personal remarks.

And despite all of that, you still are wrong about the Doctrine of the Trinity. You just put a whole lot of scorn, autobiography, glowing self-appraisals, and sarcasm in the blender, and hit the button.

I'm beginning to suspect you're not able to do much else.

Moderator Warning

Hi CalvinsBulldog,

You being banned from this forum may be preordained but I would prefer if you used your free will and simply followed the rules. Stop making comments of any kind on other posters. Stick to the topic.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.
Although CalvinsBulldog has departed (requested that his account be deleted), his words remain for others to consider.

Particularly enlightening is his request for deletion – which, quite admirably, recognizes a common problem encountered by those heavily invested in their religious beliefs. viewtopic.php?t=36284

Post #33 demonstrates the concept of emotionally attacking a person rather than debating a topic. It uses the word “you� (or your) forty-one (41) times – in a supposed discussion of a TOPIC, not a personality.

The following quotations from that post are NOT debate. They are pure emotional purging.

Isn't it true that you enjoy pontificating to a circle of like-minded people and opining at length about how useless and rotten Christians are? Isn't it also true that you struggle mightily when challenged by knowledgable Christians? Indeed, is it not true that this whole post is a neon advertisement to your lack of elementary reading about a doctrine you want to criticise (and badly misrepresent)?

Is English a second language for you? -- You're miles behind -- How very righteous you are in your own cause --you need to go and do some broader reading (or even narrower reading) -- If you could arrest your scorn long enough to think

I'm beginning to suspect you're not able to do much else

There were just people yammering how the world magically appeared in an explosion, and how human beings transformed out of apes.

The children who attend my church would argue you under the table on the topic and be capable of confidently spoting the error you made a mile away, and they are still quite young.

Not that I have any grounds for expecting moral consistency from an atheist. Only we theists have a grounds for morality

I wish you'd demonstrate this exalted intellectualism of yours

Otherwise you're doing a fine job of presenting the simulacrum of the classic ignorant athiest who doesn't have the foggiest understanding outside of their rank bigotry about the beliefs of the people they claim to oppose.

A lesson we might take away from this exchange: Don’t let your emotions overcome your civility and your ability to discuss issues. Stay focused on the issue, NOT on an opponent personally.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Yes, that would be irrational.

The only way to say that God is the only possible source of evil is to say that free will is logically impossible.

If it is logically possible for a sentient being to have free will, then God could create a being with free will and that being would be responsible for any evil which it did.

This means that there is at least one other possible source of evil beyond God.

You didn't READ the topic.
Before God created men with freewill, this omniscient thing knew evil.
Therefore, BEFORE anything was creted, he knew of the only evil that would ever be.

How could he NOT be the source of the evil, if nothing but He existed?

[Willum]

Is it an irrational conclusion therefore, that God is the only possible source for these evils?

Not irrational but certainly short sighted in that only one of the Christian theologies that I know of suggests this is what happened.

Everyone else thinks HE created people with a free will who, outside of HIS influence, created evil by their desire to rebel against HIM.

YES HE allowed them to create evil.
NO, HE did not actively create any evil what so ever.
HE did not need it nor want it but because HIS purpose for us could only be fulfilled by our free will acceptance of that purpose, HE had to allow our free will which by necessity also allowed the ability to rebel.

Your other post made me realize you had misconstrued this topic as well.
The point is BEFORE there was anyone around to have freewill, God knew everything.
Therefore he was the only possible source for the evil.

Let's focus on BEFORE creation, and answer the question.
Thank you.