Theists Say The Darndest Things...Again

And the nonsense continues with the theist who just won't understand...the amazing Randy demonstrates once again that he doesn't have a coherent explanation how the omnibenevolent god he believes in can be compatible with the unnecessary suffering of evolution. From his blog:

27 comments:

1. 
   The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM

   How is the god of classical theism falsifiable? Or do you argue that it isn't?

   ReplyDelete

Replies

1. 
   Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 4:05 PM

   Well, if one were to show an internal incoherence, then that would work.
2. 
   The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 4:15 PM

   Can a being be both omnibenevolent and capable of evil?

   Delete
3. 
   Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM

   I think it depends. On some interpretations of the question, yes. On others, no.
4. 
   The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 5:02 PM

   Depends on what? In what interpretation can a being be both omnibenevolent and evil? How are you defining those two opposing terms?

   Delete
5. 
   Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 5:53 PM

   I'm not defining them at all; I didn't ask the question.
6. 
   The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM

   I'm asking you to define "omnibenevolence" and "evil" in such a way to make them mutually compatible that does not also render their definitions incoherent with themselves. You seem to say that it is possible. I'd like to know how.

   Delete
7. 
   Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 6:54 PM

   That's easy: "omnibenevolence" means "funny" and "evil" means "Steve Carrell."
8. 
   The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 7:23 PM

   Look, if you can't seriously answer my question, just say so.

   Delete
9. 
   Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 7:54 PM

   I'm not interested in answering questions that are ambiguous. Your original question remains ambiguous. That's it, and that's all.
10. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 8:09 PM

    There's nothing ambiguous about my original question nor my subsequent ones. You said omnibenevolence can be compatible with evil. I'm just asking you how you can achieve this without redefining the terms in an incoherent way. But this is apparently too complicated.
    
    I say this cannot be done and have given you the opportunity to prove me wrong.

    Delete
11. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 8:17 PM

    I already achieved this, and it was coherent. I still don't know what you mean by the terms, and it really doesn't bother me whether or not you think it can or cannot be done.
12. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 8:39 PM

    You didn't actually make a coherent argument. And to demonstrate that, I've asked you to define "omnibenevolence" and "evil" in a way such where there wouldn't be any incoherence if a being had both of these properties.

    Delete
13. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 8:48 PM

    I already have.
14. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 8:57 PM

    Where? I've read and critiqued your response to me and I didn't see it anywhere. Could you reprint them here for clarity?

    Delete
15. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 9:06 PM

    It's only a few comments up.
16. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 9:17 PM

    That wasn't an actual answer and you know it.

    Delete
17. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 9:19 PM

    It was an actual answer, and you just didn't like it.
18. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM

    Ok then explain in detail, otherwise it's obvious you don't have an answer.

    Delete
19. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 9:30 PM

    That doesn't make any sense. You explain that in detail, otherwise it's obvious you don't have an answer.
20. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 9:37 PM

    Explain what?

    Delete
21. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 9:41 PM

    All of it.
22. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 9:48 PM

    Define omnibenevolence first.

    Delete
23. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 9:56 PM

    That's easy: "omnibenevolence" means "funny" and "evil" means "Steve Carrell."
24. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 10:01 PM

    Cite an online dictionary that uses that same definition.

    Delete
25. 
    Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 10:04 PM

    The Randy Online Dictionary, precisely two entries so far.
26. 
    The ThinkerMay 4, 2014 at 10:06 PM

    LOL. You don't have a coherent definition or argument and you know it. Just as I suspected.

    Delete

Randy EveristMay 4, 2014 at 10:08 PM

No, I don't know it. Next.