The problem of evil

[seeds]

do you think there is a higher power that is alive?

What does that have to do with you explaining what the "TRUTH" is?

However, for the sake of allowing you to get to what I assume is a pending point, of course I think there is a higher power that is alive.

What in the world do you think I am suggesting when I create and post illustrations such as this one?...



...
_______

then who or what do you think the higher power is and why do you think you can't know it?

Why do you keep avoiding the question I asked earlier which stemmed from you making the following statement...

"...people who don't want to know the truth make up their own ideas of what is what..."

Again, what is this so-called "truth" you were referring to in the above quote?

the illustration sucks by the way, no offence meant

Yeah, clearly, I'm no Rembrandt.
_______

[Age]

To me. You are free not to eat meat if you feel guilty.

So, the "justification" the one known as "bahman" USES to KILL, and then EAT animals is because this is what "bahman" does with fruit and vegetables.

Yes. As I said you are free not to eat.

AND, as I have SHOWN, this is about the MOST USELESS "justification" I have seen for KILLING and EATiNG animals.

Read it to see that it does not follow. I have an emotional connection to everything I eat.

So what?

Also, your INABILITY to just be OPEN and Honest enough to just ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION here has NOT gone unnoticed.

Are you suggesting me kill a human and eat him?

WHY do you make SO MANY TOTALLY RIDICULOUS and ABSURD ASSUMPTIONS?

ALSO, WHY are you SO gendered specific here?

Perhaps I would do it if there is nothing left to eat and I am starving to death. How about you?

But ANY other ANIMAL you would just KILL and EAT it even if you are NOT so-called "starving to death", correct?

You don't know what domesticated animals are. Do you? They simply die without human intervention.

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, they have ONLY become 'domesticated aninals' BECAUSE 'you', human beings, have TAKEN them AWAY from their NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

ALSO, ALL animals DIE, with or without human intervention.

You REALLY do have a VERY NARROWED perspective of things here "bahman".

Oh and by the way what are 'domesticated animals', EXACTLY, to you?

Whatever happened in the past it happened in the past. The reality is that domesticated animals need humans to survive.

So, to "bahman", when absolutely EVERY cat or dog stops living in a domesticated situation, then that cat or dog can NOT live ANYMORE and just DIES. Which means there are absolutely NO cats or dogs AT ALL anywhere on the world in what is called, 'in the wild', correct?

They are part of the ecosystem.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Your ATTEMPTS AT "justifications" get MORE funnier with each ATTEMPT.

Don't try to play smart. You are not offering anything.

We will have to WAIT and SEE.

We are not killing domesticated animals just for fun.

Who does the 'we' refer to, EXACTLY, here?

Anybody who kills and eats the animal.

Are you absolutely SURE that there is NOT a human being on this planet who KILLS animals for fun, and EATS them?

You have never witnessed natural death, like cancer, did you?

OFF TOPIC.

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that it is MUCH BETTER to KILL am animal DEAD, and EAT it, then it is to let it die of cancer?

If no, then what, EXACTLY, are you 'trying to' SAY and CLAIM here?

I am saying that we are giving the domesticated animal chance to live.

Well that is a Truly STUPID and IDIOTIC thing to say. Well to me anyway.

It is absurd to support them and let them die naturally without using their meat.

Do you class cats and dogs as domesticated animals?

If no, then what animals do you class as domesticated animals?

Natural death is always harder than being killed by a human.

Most people I know would MUCH PREFER to die of natural causes, then to be KILLED by a human being.

WHY do you say this is the EXACT OPPOSITE for EVERY other animal?

[puto]

The problem of evil argument had turned into one big fallacy and that mainly being a ad nauseam using the straw man. I am now just writing and not defining my terms. As you should know the terms, being able to use them in a sentence and not making them a pooh-pooh argument. Soren Kierkegaard used the false dichotomy of existentialism of the Christian doctrines writing under pseudonyms. Ad antiquitatem being the whole basis of this argument and nobody knows what it says and what it is about. This whole argument has just turned into a rant. You want to prove your opinion and that is fine, but it is yours. You appeal to authority, give cited works, lol, This whole argument is just one big ad hominem. You want to ad misericordiam, then use it and tell us the nature of the claim. Be open to the no true Scotsman and prove it. Be careful of the slippery slope. Life is what you make it deliberate and know that you could have done otherwise. Philosophy is a truth (Oxenberg, 36.) Not being able to get over the thesis statement (Oxenberg, 36.) Having, written a paper and therefore confronting it, I learned a lot about metaphysics that is reality. This Article: Oxenberg, Richard. "What is Truth?" Philosophy Now, Issue 149, 2022 CE, Pages 36. Put aside, please your petty differences and act like educated and intellectuals. You only get out of it what you put into it. Do you know free will argument? Determinism argument that is deliberation is futile? How is the Bible written? The Judaic Bible was theistic in nature and the themes were not dependent on others' ideas, and Mesopotamian in thought. A sufficient condition of the free will defense of the problem of Evil: (1) Sufficient condition means whenever p exists, q exists. (2) Moral and religious arguments implies a free choice. (3) Ought implies can, and could have done otherwise. (4) Necessary conditions means whenever there is no p there is no q. Kierkegaard's subjective feelings do no mean we really have free will. God exists is true and this is called theism. For Saint Aquinas, "I am free not in spite of God but because of God." God exists is true.

[seeds]

The problem of evil argument had turned into one big fallacy and that mainly being a ad nauseam using the straw man.

puto, what do you identify as being a "straw man" being used in the "Problem of Evil argument"?

Furthermore, when you say...

This whole argument has just turned into a rant.

...are you talking about the "Problem of Evil argument" in general, or are you talking about this particular thread discussion?
_______

[DPMartin]

Why do you keep avoiding the question I asked earlier which stemmed from you making the following statement...


Again, what is this so-called "truth" you were referring to in the above quote?

_______

no, i mean the illustration really sucks it sucks to look at, I've seem 10 yr old's work better then that. you should keep it to your self. you know not for public viewing.


so since there is a Creator and Judge then how do you think all thinks are created? also why do you think no one can know?

[bahman]

So, the "justification" the one known as "bahman" USES to KILL, and then EAT animals is because this is what "bahman" does with fruit and vegetables.

Yes. As I said you are free not to eat.

AND, as I have SHOWN, this is about the MOST USELESS "justification" I have seen for KILLING and EATiNG animals.

If it is useless, don't eat meat. To me it is solid.

So what?

Also, your INABILITY to just be OPEN and Honest enough to just ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION here has NOT gone unnoticed.

Are you suggesting me kill a human and eat him?

WHY do you make SO MANY TOTALLY RIDICULOUS and ABSURD ASSUMPTIONS?

ALSO, WHY are you SO gendered specific here?

That was you to ask for killing humans when the subject was eating meat?

Perhaps I would do it if there is nothing left to eat and I am starving to death. How about you?

But ANY other ANIMAL you would just KILL and EAT it even if you are NOT so-called "starving to death", correct?

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, they have ONLY become 'domesticated aninals' BECAUSE 'you', human beings, have TAKEN them AWAY from their NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

ALSO, ALL animals DIE, with or without human intervention.

You REALLY do have a VERY NARROWED perspective of things here "bahman".

Oh and by the way what are 'domesticated animals', EXACTLY, to you?

Whatever happened in the past it happened in the past. The reality is that domesticated animals need humans to survive.

So, to "bahman", when absolutely EVERY cat or dog stops living in a domesticated situation, then that cat or dog can NOT live ANYMORE and just DIES. Which means there are absolutely NO cats or dogs AT ALL anywhere on the world in what is called, 'in the wild', correct?

I am talking about cows, sheep, goats, etc.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Your ATTEMPTS AT "justifications" get MORE funnier with each ATTEMPT.

Don't try to play smart. You are not offering anything.

We will have to WAIT and SEE.

We will see.

Who does the 'we' refer to, EXACTLY, here?

Anybody who kills and eats the animal.

Are you absolutely SURE that there is NOT a human being on this planet who KILLS animals for fun, and EATS them?

OFF TOPIC.

Are you here 'trying to' suggest that it is MUCH BETTER to KILL am animal DEAD, and EAT it, then it is to let it die of cancer?

If no, then what, EXACTLY, are you 'trying to' SAY and CLAIM here?

I am saying that we are giving the domesticated animal chance to live.

Well that is a Truly STUPID and IDIOTIC thing to say. Well to me anyway.

To you everything that others say is stupid.

It is absurd to support them and let them die naturally without using their meat.

Do you class cats and dogs as domesticated animals?

If no, then what animals do you class as domesticated animals?

I am not talking about dogs and cats.

Natural death is always harder than being killed by a human.

Most people I know would MUCH PREFER to die of natural causes, then to be KILLED by a human being.

WHY do you say this is the EXACT OPPOSITE for EVERY other animal?

Perhaps they change their mind when they suffer enough.

[bahman]

The problem of evil argument had turned into one big fallacy and that mainly being a ad nauseam using the straw man. I am now just writing and not defining my terms. As you should know the terms, being able to use them in a sentence and not making them a pooh-pooh argument. Soren Kierkegaard used the false dichotomy of existentialism of the Christian doctrines writing under pseudonyms. Ad antiquitatem being the whole basis of this argument and nobody knows what it says and what it is about. This whole argument has just turned into a rant. You want to prove your opinion and that is fine, but it is yours. You appeal to authority, give cited works, lol, This whole argument is just one big ad hominem. You want to ad misericordiam, then use it and tell us the nature of the claim. Be open to the no true Scotsman and prove it. Be careful of the slippery slope. Life is what you make it deliberate and know that you could have done otherwise. Philosophy is a truth (Oxenberg, 36.) Not being able to get over the thesis statement (Oxenberg, 36.) Having, written a paper and therefore confronting it, I learned a lot about metaphysics that is reality. This Article: Oxenberg, Richard. "What is Truth?" Philosophy Now, Issue 149, 2022 CE, Pages 36. Put aside, please your petty differences and act like educated and intellectuals. You only get out of it what you put into it. Do you know free will argument? Determinism argument that is deliberation is futile? How is the Bible written? The Judaic Bible was theistic in nature and the themes were not dependent on others' ideas, and Mesopotamian in thought. A sufficient condition of the free will defense of the problem of Evil: (1) Sufficient condition means whenever p exists, q exists. (2) Moral and religious arguments implies a free choice. (3) Ought implies can, and could have done otherwise. (4) Necessary conditions means whenever there is no p there is no q. Kierkegaard's subjective feelings do no mean we really have free will. God exists is true and this is called theism. For Saint Aquinas, "I am free not in spite of God but because of God." God exists is true.

This is a wall of words without addressing the problem I raised.

[seeds]

Why do you keep avoiding the question I asked earlier which stemmed from you making the following statement...


Again, what is this so-called "truth" you were referring to in the above quote?

_______

no, i mean the illustration really sucks it sucks to look at, I've seem [sic] 10 yr old's work better then [sic] that. you should keep it to your self. you know not for public viewing.

Boy, for someone who says "...no offence meant..." in critiquing something, you sure are trying your darndest to offend me.

I've already admitted that my artwork isn't very good,...

(no, make that abominable/embarrassingly bad/the worst anyone has ever laid eyes on)

...so can we move on?

Btw, I'm pretty sure I've seen 7 year old's who have better grammar skills than you (note my [sic] inserts that highlight your sloppy writing).

so since there is a Creator and Judge then how do you think all thinks [sic] are created?

I have explained how I think all "thinks" are created so many times on this forum that I am certain that the other members are sick of hearing about it. So I shan't explain it for you, for it might entail me using more of my (not suitable for public viewing) illustrations.

also why do you think no one can know?

Why do I think no one can know what?

What are you referring to that you are accusing me of thinking no one can know?
_______

[DPMartin]

Why do you keep avoiding the question I asked earlier which stemmed from you making the following statement...


Again, what is this so-called "truth" you were referring to in the above quote?

_______

no, i mean the illustration really sucks it sucks to look at, I've seem [sic] 10 yr old's work better then [sic] that. you should keep it to your self. you know not for public viewing.

Boy, for someone who says "...no offence meant..." in critiquing something, you sure are trying your darndest to offend me.

I've already admitted that my artwork isn't very good,...

(no, make that abominable/embarrassingly bad/the worst anyone has ever laid eyes on)

...so can we move on?

Btw, I'm pretty sure I've seen 7 year old's who have better grammar skills than you (note my [sic] inserts that highlight your sloppy writing).

yea but i could give two shits about grammar skills, or typos

so since there is a Creator and Judge then how do you think all thinks [sic] are created?

I have explained how I think all "thinks" are created so many times on this forum that I am certain that the other members are sick of hearing about it.
So I shan't explain it for you, for it might entail me using more of my (not suitable for public viewing) illustrations.

hey a simple answer will suffice, and you don't have to threaten visual misery with your kiddy art.

besides who do you think is God anyway?

also why do you think no one can know?

Why do I think no one can know what?

What are you referring to that you are accusing me of thinking no one can know?
_______

why do you think no one can know God, you know the subject at hand.

[Age]

Yes. As I said you are free not to eat.

AND, as I have SHOWN, this is about the MOST USELESS "justification" I have seen for KILLING and EATiNG animals.

If it is useless, don't eat meat. To me it is solid.

IF your "justification" is as 'solid' as you say and BELIEVE it is, then WHY do you stop at only SOME animals?

Are you suggesting me kill a human and eat him?

WHY do you make SO MANY TOTALLY RIDICULOUS and ABSURD ASSUMPTIONS?

ALSO, WHY are you SO gendered specific here?

That was you to ask for killing humans when the subject was eating meat?

Your sentence here does NOT make sense in english.

Perhaps I would do it if there is nothing left to eat and I am starving to death. How about you?

But ANY other ANIMAL you would just KILL and EAT it even if you are NOT so-called "starving to death", correct?

Whatever happened in the past it happened in the past. The reality is that domesticated animals need humans to survive.

So, to "bahman", when absolutely EVERY cat or dog stops living in a domesticated situation, then that cat or dog can NOT live ANYMORE and just DIES. Which means there are absolutely NO cats or dogs AT ALL anywhere on the world in what is called, 'in the wild', correct?

I am talking about cows, sheep, goats, etc.

You WERE talking about 'domesticated animals' BEFORE.

Don't try to play smart. You are not offering anything.

We will have to WAIT and SEE.

We will see.

Anybody who kills and eats the animal.

Are you absolutely SURE that there is NOT a human being on this planet who KILLS animals for fun, and EATS them?

I am saying that we are giving the domesticated animal chance to live.

Well that is a Truly STUPID and IDIOTIC thing to say. Well to me anyway.

To you everything that others say is stupid.

Here is ANOTHER COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect ASSUMPTION and CLAIM of yours.

It is absurd to support them and let them die naturally without using their meat.

Do you class cats and dogs as domesticated animals?

If no, then what animals do you class as domesticated animals?

I am not talking about dogs and cats.

That, ONCE AGAIN, does NOT answer the ACTUAL QUESTION THAT I POSED TO YOU, HERE.

Natural death is always harder than being killed by a human.

Most people I know would MUCH PREFER to die of natural causes, then to be KILLED by a human being.

WHY do you say this is the EXACT OPPOSITE for EVERY other animal?

Perhaps they change their mind when they suffer enough.

OFF TOPIC, and just MORE DEFLECTION, AGAIN.

[Skepdick]

It takes a worried man to sing a worried song, You can worry about brimstone but that is an impracticak worry.

Worry is a useless emotion. Act; or don't act. But don't worry.

There was a time in history that many a human deaths were impractical worries. And then a bunch of people acted; and then modern medicine happened.

[attofishpi]

Why do you keep avoiding the question I asked earlier which stemmed from you making the following statement...


Again, what is this so-called "truth" you were referring to in the above quote?

_______

no, i mean the illustration really sucks it sucks to look at, I've seem [sic] 10 yr old's work better then [sic] that. you should keep it to your self. you know not for public viewing.

Boy, for someone who says "...no offence meant..." in critiquing something, you sure are trying your darndest to offend me.

I've already admitted that my artwork isn't very good,...

Ridiculous. DPMartin U clearly have NO idea about art..to think a child could conceive the psyche of themselves as seeds portrays, and very aptly.

seeds illustrations sometimes piss me off within threads when I am viewing on my TV in the morning with a cup of T, simply because I have to scroll down so far, but aside from that, I understand that these illiustrations have far more depth than that which a 10yr old would project..

seeds, your artwork is simple, but is VERY GOOD on the conceptual level - something DP dipshit has clearly not comprehended...arrogant twat.

[seeds]

no, i mean the illustration really sucks it sucks to look at, I've seem [sic] 10 yr old's work better then [sic] that. you should keep it to your self. you know not for public viewing.

Boy, for someone who says "...no offence meant..." in critiquing something, you sure are trying your darndest to offend me.

I've already admitted that my artwork isn't very good,...

Ridiculous. DPMartin U clearly have NO idea about art..to think a child could conceive the psyche of themselves as seeds portrays, and very aptly.

seeds illustrations sometimes piss me off within threads when I am viewing on my TV in the morning with a cup of T, simply because I have to scroll down so far, but aside from that, I understand that these illiustrations have far more depth than that which a 10yr old would project..

seeds, your artwork is simple, but is VERY GOOD on the conceptual level - something DP dipshit has clearly not comprehended...arrogant twat.

Thank you, atto.

As you and I both know, trying to present abstract concepts in a visual format is a tricky business.

Evidently, I triggered something uncomfortable in DPMartin by asking him to clarify what the "truth" is that he was referring to in his assertion that:

"...people who don't want to know the truth make up their own ideas of what is what..."

I mean, it seems to me that if one knows what "the truth" is, then one would be glad to shout it from the rooftops when asked to explain it.

Perhaps he's afraid that the "truth" he was referencing might not hold up to scrutiny?

Anyway, thanks again, atto.
_______

[DPMartin]

Boy, for someone who says "...no offence meant..." in critiquing something, you sure are trying your darndest to offend me.

I've already admitted that my artwork isn't very good,...

Ridiculous. DPMartin U clearly have NO idea about art..to think a child could conceive the psyche of themselves as seeds portrays, and very aptly.

seeds illustrations sometimes piss me off within threads when I am viewing on my TV in the morning with a cup of T, simply because I have to scroll down so far, but aside from that, I understand that these illiustrations have far more depth than that which a 10yr old would project..

seeds, your artwork is simple, but is VERY GOOD on the conceptual level - something DP dipshit has clearly not comprehended...arrogant twat.

Thank you, atto.

As you and I both know, trying to present abstract concepts in a visual format is a tricky business.

Evidently, I triggered something uncomfortable in DPMartin by asking him to clarify what the "truth" is that he was referring to in his assertion that:

"...people who don't want to know the truth make up their own ideas of what is what..."

I mean, it seems to me that if one knows what "the truth" is, then one would be glad to shout it from the rooftops when asked to explain it.

Perhaps he's afraid that the "truth" he was referencing might not hold up to scrutiny?

Anyway, thanks again, atto.
_______

sorry but i have to test if I'm talking a sane person or just another shit head, this place is loaded with them. there is a statement Jesus made that i try to adhere to:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
in other words don't waste your time on idiots that are full of shit. any other site i would have simply said the Word of God is the Truth seeing that all exists through the Word of God. that is the Word of the God of Israel. but here with people like you and your friends here that would be a waste of time.

but you are correct this conversation is over.

[bahman]

AND, as I have SHOWN, this is about the MOST USELESS "justification" I have seen for KILLING and EATiNG animals.

If it is useless, don't eat meat. To me it is solid.

IF your "justification" is as 'solid' as you say and BELIEVE it is, then WHY do you stop at only SOME animals?

I think it is partly cultural and partly habitual.

WHY do you make SO MANY TOTALLY RIDICULOUS and ABSURD ASSUMPTIONS?

ALSO, WHY are you SO gendered specific here?

That was you to ask for killing humans when the subject was eating meat?

Your sentence here does NOT make sense in english.

Didn't you ask about killing humans?

But ANY other ANIMAL you would just KILL and EAT it even if you are NOT so-called "starving to death", correct?


So, to "bahman", when absolutely EVERY cat or dog stops living in a domesticated situation, then that cat or dog can NOT live ANYMORE and just DIES. Which means there are absolutely NO cats or dogs AT ALL anywhere on the world in what is called, 'in the wild', correct?

I am talking about cows, sheep, goats, etc.

You WERE talking about 'domesticated animals' BEFORE.

Yes, but we don't eat dogs and cats in here.

We will have to WAIT and SEE.

We will see.

Are you absolutely SURE that there is NOT a human being on this planet who KILLS animals for fun, and EATS them?


Well that is a Truly STUPID and IDIOTIC thing to say. Well to me anyway.

To you everything that others say is stupid.

Here is ANOTHER COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect ASSUMPTION and CLAIM of yours.

That is very true. Just check your reading which is full of humiliation and insults.

Do you class cats and dogs as domesticated animals?

If no, then what animals do you class as domesticated animals?

I am not talking about dogs and cats.

That, ONCE AGAIN, does NOT answer the ACTUAL QUESTION THAT I POSED TO YOU, HERE.

Most people I know would MUCH PREFER to die of natural causes, then to be KILLED by a human being.

WHY do you say this is the EXACT OPPOSITE for EVERY other animal?

Perhaps they change their mind when they suffer enough.

OFF TOPIC, and just MORE DEFLECTION, AGAIN.

I don't think so.