I don’t believe in Loftus’ god either

Map of the regions and prefectures of Japan in...
Image via Wikipedia

The title of John’s post is, Devastating Tsunami Hits Japan. You Want Evidence There Isn’t a Good Omnipotent God? Here it is. and follows it up with a statement:

Here it is. Try explaining this rather than explaining it away.

Now, John, if you want to know the basics of how earthquakes happen, read this post.

And, if you want to get into a philosophical discussion, your point then becomes moot. Why? Because if, by John’s standards, bad things equal ‘no god’, then good things equal ‘God’.

See? A very flimsy precept. Both are equal flimsy because both prove the opposite.



Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

9 Replies to “I don’t believe in Loftus’ god either”

  1. I don’t think you’ve nailed John Loftus quite right. In his logic, bad things equal no God, but good things do not equal yes God.

    This is because he expects a world with mixed bad and good, a random world, if there is no God.

    Where he goes wrong is in smuggling in the assumption that an omnipotent God would only allow flowers, powdered sugar, and puppy dogs to fill the world.

    1. I was commenting on the simplisticness of his logic in that following his line of reasoning, good actions would equal God. Believers make the jump as well. A faulty, unthought out jump

    1. John, you jump to conclusions and make yourself seem silly. You know that your aren’t moderated. Plus, you have my email addy. If comments aren’t showing, then they are going to spam. Email ne next time desire making false accusations

  2. And with regard to the utterly ignorant claim that I want “flowers, powdered sugar, and puppy dogs to fill the world,” let’s take a reality check on the state of the evidence. Here is is: If a good omnipotent God existed, there would not be so much massive suffering in the natural world. The probability that such a God exists is inversely proportional to the amount of suffering there is in the world (i.e., the more suffering there is then the less probable it is that God exists), and there is way too much suffering of it to suppose that he does.

    1. I’m confused as to why you’d splash the words ‘utterly ignorant’ on my words and then confirm them. The fact is that the line of argument you take with regard to this tsunami begins with the assumption that if God existed, he would not allow suffering in the world. So far as that goes, you are correct. You have disproved the existence of the sorts of gods who are omnipotent and prevent all outrageous suffering. But you’ve completely failed to engage the sort of god people read about in the bible: one who not only lets disasters happen, but even causes some of them.

      You take a swipe at a strawman of a god, the sort of god that everyone who is sane knows does not exist, while refusing to engage the various sorts of gods people do believe in. If you run around engaging in that sort of ridiculous tomfoolery, I’m amazed that you would have the audacity to suggest that people can’t ‘truly engage’ you without buying your books.

  3. My apologies Joel. I concluded falsely after you continued to make posts and my comment didn’t appear. I don’t have time to say anything else, except that you’re dealing with straw men here. You know what to do if you’d rather not do that in the future. Your choice.


Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.