the problem of Heaven

General discussions
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:43 pm

Post by Johnnnnn » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:50 pm

paulamcnc wrote:
Johnnnnn wrote:Atheist's Paradise
Great vid, says it all.
Thanks Paula

Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:52 pm

Post by skepticgriggsy » Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:01 am

I wonder if I should have mine now before I die so that I can hear all the wonderful comments! Indeed, I could suggest some. Everybody could have a great time.That way those who would precede me could be there!
Now back to the topic!Burton F.Porter in "Philosopy...," notes that there could be contrasts between good, better and best without even having any bad. " The natural evils that occur, therefore, are hardly needed to accomplish the end of appreciation and are, in effect, superfluous and unjustified."
It seems to be a straw man to allege that we need those evils to exercise free will. Nay, they compound the problem and actually destroy the free wills of thousands.
We do not need them to promote soul-building as there are people who have great characters without great disaster befalling them.
Deist Miklos Jako alleges that we need great disasters to drive home the point of evil ,but as shown we don't even need the bad.
Theodicy is just one excuse after another to exonerate God of nonchalance toward the horrors! Theists excuse and question beg!
skeptic griggsy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: the problem of Heaven

Post by skeptic griggsy » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:19 pm

Supernaturalists prattle about the glories of Heaven, but overlook one essential point: how could it be better there for people if there they are robots as the idea that if He gave us free will and a guarantee not to do wrong, then that would be a heavenly condition- that boomerangs on them! When they state that well, He would be there and we surely would want to please Him,but that boomerangs on them also as they prattle that He gives us that free will so and ambiguities about Him- John Hicks's epistemic distance- so as not to overwhelm us with His presence.No such ambiguities exist as no evidence for Him exists ambiguously!
Hick prattles that perhaps everyone would end up in Heaven after many undergo some sort of purgatory.That's another it may be of theology.And why then all that suffering in the first place should we all end up there? He also prattles about perhaps that we'll have analogical virtues there, yet another it may be or it must be of theology.And then his all or nothing and slippery slope fallacies that make the straw man that Porter answers!
Hick also prattles about all religions being essentially the same. Such imagination!
This argument alone invalidates supernaturalism, but William Rowe's evidential argument from evil does add evidence for sure!
And Alvin Plantinga cannot gainsay this definitive argument with his it may be that He has His reasons- those mysterious ways- the unknown reason defense as that bases itself on the argument from ignorance1 Therefore, his self-congratulations and those of many others notwithstanding, his defence of pointless evils is so absurd!
So many rank him and William Lane Craig as outstanding philosophers with their solecistic, sophisticated sophistry- ignorant, complicated nonsense! I rank them and all other theologians with John Edward and Sylvia Brown[e] as mountebanks of unreason! Pope Benny Ratz and Rev Billy Crackers are just scam artists of unreason! We gnu atheists mean business!
Post Reply