Mostly Replies 🥍🤷‍♂️⚛️

Lacrosse is for everyone so we should grow the medicine game in all directions. Please watch.

@CertainSpeaks The Trinity is obviously nonsense and I applaud JWs and all Unitarians for recognizing and calling this out. However, it is also obvious nonsense to say that the Trinity is one of the gods that God is jealous of or intolerant of. That makes no sense either.

God will not tolerate false gods like the Trinity for much longer. He will rebuke all the nations for their idolotry.

@LibyaLiberty @KR3Wmatic So it can't be created!

@KR3Wmatic Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Where did it come from.

My atheist daughter asked me to prove God's existence. What do I tell her? She is 19.

@WealthChakraa @KR3Wmatic Gravity

@KR3Wmatic Just ask her this How can it be possible that everything is so perfect for earth ? Sun is at the exact distance Moon is at exact distance Water to drink Air to breathe Someone must have done his work properly otherwise why there is no life on other planets

@Island137 @SpeedWatkins The things that are"more" are endangering purposefully or recklessly. God is doing the former clearly and is thus acting immorally by choosing torture or annihilation over salvation. Or even by choosing mortal life before eternal life.

@mostlyreplies @SpeedWatkins I am saying that just about everything you do puts other people at risk. Thats just the structure of the world. Generally speaking, putting others at risk (even if you do it intentionally) is not immoral. You need something more to make it immoral.

If God is perfectly good, He would desire to save everyone. If He is all-powerful, He would be able to do so. If both are true, everyone would be saved. Since not everyone is saved, either God lacks power, lacks goodness, or does not exist. Choose wisely.

@remigrado @Jonathanthebox @SpeedWatkins Is it a preference to not want to be harmed? Is it a preference to want or need help from others? These facts are built into the very meaning of morality itself. I am not the one who decided that getting punched hurts.

@mostlyreplies @Jonathanthebox @SpeedWatkins You're still setting your own personal preferences as the criteria, that's relativism and circular to boot. -If good is god he can't be the christian one because he's bad -And what's bad? -Bad is whatever seems bad to me personally

@remigrado @Jonathanthebox @SpeedWatkins It doesn't matter if goodness is God Himself because that knowing what is good or not is still equally challenging. If it is true, it would conclusively demonstrate that the God of the Bible is not God and that Ben is right about universalism.

@mostlyreplies @Jonathanthebox @SpeedWatkins Defining good as god is the opposite of moral relativism. You're going with your own opinion of bad, that's relativism. Christians say good is literally god. Good is a person, not an abstract adjective. Good exists out there like Mars exists.

@Island137 @SpeedWatkins So you are saying that if you do something reckless or purposeful to endanger others, then it is morally bad but if you do it accidentally, then it isn't? I guess you are now convinced completely of God's culpability? God does everything purposefully.

@mostlyreplies @SpeedWatkins Putting ppl in jeopardy of being harmed is not necessarily a morally culpable act. For example, you driving (even indistracted) puts other people at risk. But it's not immoral. Having children puts them and others at risk. Still not immoral.

@OpenlyReasoned @leonheden Why are all your examples perfectly aligned with what we are saying and not with what you are arguing? The amount of harm can be more or less and you acknowledge that this is what makes something immoral. I was asking you for a counter example for you to show it was subjective!

@mostlyreplies @leonheden Morality is a value judgement of what choice in a particular situation creates the most good. (There are situations in which ONLY objective harm can result, yet those situations still have a moral option). And all value judgements are subjective.

There’s nothing man made about objective morality.

@Jonathanthebox @SpeedWatkins Always entertaining when theists cop to moral relativism. If whatever God does is good, the bad things that He does are good. Bad things are not merely preferences. Actions can be objectively good or bad. Just observe the way that victims and beneficiaries are affected.

@mostlyreplies @SpeedWatkins You just basically said nothing? Where did I say bad things are good to God? And what is a bad thing? The basis that God is good is from God himself. Whatever God does is good because God himself is good and God decides what is good.

@OpenlyReasoned @leonheden Or maybe you are sneaking in the reasoning so you can feign confusion. Weird for you to make our point for us.

@OpenlyReasoned @leonheden Are you genuinely confused by this question? It seems like you understand that there is an objective harm in this scenario. You don't know what it is, or you do?

@quasiantipodean @SpeedWatkins Not a preference. God is defined as a being of unsurpassable goodness. So any which way God could be better, He must be.

This isn't logic. We are now just discussing your preferences. You’re defining “better” as “saves more people,” as if truth, justice, and response don’t matter. A judge who frees everyone isn’t “better.” He’s corrupt. God saving rightly is not a limitation. It’s the definition of His goodness.

@creation247 I am an atheist and I need one of you to explain this. Since zero atheists argue the top, it appears that the bottom box requires some weird brand of non-biblical theism that is made of pure nonsense. Help me figure this one out please.

Why can't atheists understand?

@Island137 @SpeedWatkins Distracted driving harms others by endangerment. If putting ppl in jeopardy of being harmed is a morally culpable act, then God is guilty of it by not saving all.

@SpeedWatkins You can justly be punished for things outside your control. Happens all the time. Example: You run a red light in a moment of distraction. You get very different punishments depending on whether someone happened to be walking through the intersection at that moment.

@Jonathanthebox @KenJhablez @SpeedWatkins Not powerful enough to allow us to know what's good?

@KenJhablez @SpeedWatkins The all powerful being who created this universe.

@Jonathanthebox @SpeedWatkins To God, bad things are good? If you mean that God's rationale is inscrutable, and we might be wrong about what's good, then we have no basis to declare God good. The reality is that it's objectively true that the circumstance Ben outlined is good. And optimally good is better.

@SpeedWatkins You see that’s where you are wrong you just replaced good with better. What God sees as optimally good may not seem optimally good for you but you are not God. And God did save everyone but not everyone accepts Gods salvation.

@gkposte @unapuckagetic @NoWarChristian Name something that is evil for no reason.

@unapuckagetic @NoWarChristian By what standard do you call things good or evil? By your standards? In which case, you place yourself as arbiter of good. Society? They had to grow out of calling slavery and rape good. Without a higher arbiter, you cannot justify what you call good or evil

The argument that "A good God would not do or allow X" is logically incoherent. Either God does not exist, and therefore there is no way to know what He would do or not do or God does exist, and therefore is the standard of goodness and cannot be judged for what He would or would not do. Either way, the argument falls flat.

@NoWarChristian @AleMartnezR1 The second part has a similar problem. If God does exist and is the standard of goodness, He can absolutely be judged by that standard. God does many things (all the things?) that are objectively terrible. That means He is not the standard of goodness.

@NoWarChristian @AleMartnezR1 The first part is a false choice. If God does not exist, there is a way to tell what He would want...the people who believe He does exist define Him. God is defined as someone who would not do X and X is a fact, then God doesn't exist.

@OpenlyReasoned @leonheden Name a moral act that does not involve an objective result. If results can be objective, then we know for a fact whether individual acts are right or wrong and it doesn't matter if we value those acts or not. It matters if we do them.

@mostlyreplies @leonheden The result of an action can be objective. However, morality is — inherently and necessarily — subjective. Because morality is a value judgement. And ALL value judgements require a mind to do the valuing.