If God is all knowing then he must've known that the Holocaust was going to happen yet ignored it.
Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Directed at the people who said "God couldn't stop Hitler because of free will."
''If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness''
Apparent quote written by a prisoner at a concentration camp.
Although I'm not sure if the quote is actually real or not (some say it is and some say it's not) but the meaning is there. If God was an actual existing person today, you can bet your last dollar in your pocket that people would be lining the streets to force him into a courtroom for crimes against humanity.
參考: atheist.
Well, if God knows everything, then he should realise that humans, not having anything else to judge by, are going to use human standards to judge whether he exists.
It seems you are unable to present testable evidence and the progression of proper logic for the existence of a deity. Instead you offer an extremely convoluted and incomprehensible explanation for not doing so.
I don't believe in God so I wouldn't.
Mo University Lecturer Atheist
I would reply by saying, since god doesn't exist, it can't know anything. In the unlikely event, that a god exists, why doesn't that show itself? Why does it always hide? It be actually existed, it would want everyone to know it, so it would provide proof of its existence. Since it does not provide any proof, it does not want anyone to know it exists or simply does not exist
I would say "I don't believe there is a god and if you are so sure there is one, prove that to me with real evidence and facts. Otherwise, don't tell me I am wrong."
You don't need to respond to that. If someone postulates that their god is beyond human understanding, it is therefore very reasonable not to believe in such, because by their definition, they have defined it out of existence from human understanding.
Ask them if they believe and worship the invisible pink unicorn, because, by definition, the invisible pink unicorn is beyond human understanding.
You left out the context.
Obviously, atheists say there are no gods.
This remark is in response to something. Without knowing what, it's hard to know what I'd say.
Basically, it's a cop-out believers use when they have no response. Punishing people for what some other person did is grossly immoral and unjust. Knowing the future is irrelevant.
The fact remains that there are no gods, there's no credible evidence for any gods, the evidence is that gods are impossible, and no concept of any god holds up to rational scrutiny.
The only way primitive religion exists today is through the child abuse of forcing it into very, very young children but thanks to better education and growing intellects so many teens are able to discover the truth, throw off the indoctrination and step into the real world!
So atheism is not a conscious decision or a belief but a realisation!
The first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich!
Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.
If the prisoners and slaves of their indoctrination want to attack others to drive them away and into becoming anti theists they are doing a great job!
One only has to listen to a tele-evangelist to see that God is constantly presented by human standards to the public, which turns many away from religion.
Presumably you are human and therefore I would question how you can apply anything other than human logic.
I would reply that you're claiming something exists that has no evidence supporting it.
I'd reply how can one claim logic by claiming I of no faith in Gods existence is judging him to do so would be to admit his existence and to declare myself of a religion of some kind. That very statement is a slap in the face of logic.
God is a human creation in reality and I can prove it. If humans didn't exist and the planet was only covered by vegetation such as trees and flowers the idea of god would have never been invented because plants don't think or communicate through language like we do. Secondly. inventing a definition then claiming the definition is evidence for the definition is called circular reasoning and is a very common mistake that theists use to attempt to prove their beliefs are justified. Every religion that mankind has invented claims to be the "one true religion" and offers the book that makes the claim as evidence for the claim. This is why nobody has ever been able to provide even a single piece of evidence that justifies any god claim that has ever been made. Hope this helps.
Wouldn't make any difference. They aren't judging God at all; you cannot judge that which you think doesn't exist.
i dont judge him by human standards,i judge him by his own standards,he is supposed to be good and loving yet allows alot of suffering
Sorry you are posting on a public forum for religion and spirituality......I refuse to respect your Atheist only request
Atheists are self impressed Narcissistic nincompoops
they think that if it does not fit in their perception or comprehension it cannot be
this is why God calls them fools.
And there is nothing so foolish as to try and make God fit the very limited human paradigm
I wouldn't bother to answer.
Atheist Only How would you reply this ?
God by definition does not exist. Judging none existence by human standards means there is no evidence of existent. You can believe what you want but your beliefs have nothing to do with my beliefs.
in which case how can they know god at all
If your god is all knowing then what is the purpose in life, why do you believe it needs to test for that which you claim it already knows.
Fundies bring up biblical morality, not us.
That is why it's a fallacy of anthropomorphism (i.e., evaluating a non-human entity as if it were human).
This isn't correct in that God does not live in the past or the future, just like we do not. All we have is now.
