Sunday, May 4, 2014

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:


  1. How is the god of classical theism falsifiable? Or do you argue that it isn't?
  1. Well, if one were to show an internal incoherence, then that would work.
  2. Can a being be both omnibenevolent and capable of evil?
  3. I think it depends. On some interpretations of the question, yes. On others, no.
  4. Depends on what? In what interpretation can a being be both omnibenevolent and evil? How are you defining those two opposing terms?
  5. I'm not defining them at all; I didn't ask the question.
  6. 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.
  7. That's easy: "omnibenevolence" means "funny" and "evil" means "Steve Carrell."
  8. Look, if you can't seriously answer my question, just say so.
  9. I'm not interested in answering questions that are ambiguous. Your original question remains ambiguous. That's it, and that's all.
  10. 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.
  11. 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. 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.
  13. Where? I've read and critiqued your response to me and I didn't see it anywhere. Could you reprint them here for clarity?
  14. It's only a few comments up.
  15. That wasn't an actual answer and you know it.
  16. It was an actual answer, and you just didn't like it.
  17. Ok then explain in detail, otherwise it's obvious you don't have an answer.
  18. That doesn't make any sense. You explain that in detail, otherwise it's obvious you don't have an answer.
  19. Define omnibenevolence first.
  20. That's easy: "omnibenevolence" means "funny" and "evil" means "Steve Carrell."
  21. Cite an online dictionary that uses that same definition.
  22. The Randy Online Dictionary, precisely two entries so far.
  23. LOL. You don't have a coherent definition or argument and you know it. Just as I suspected.
No, I don't know it. Next.

No comments:

Post a Comment


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...