Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Bethinking 6/6: Questions & Discussion (WL Craig, G Habermas, PJ Williams, PS Williams)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 фев 2013
- The Bethinking National Apologetics Day Conference: "Countering the New Atheism" took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour in October 2011. Christian academics William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Peter J Williams and Gary Habermas lead 600 people in training for how to defend and proclaim the credibility of Christianity against the growing tide of secularism and New Atheist popular thought in western society.
In this final session (Part 6), Christian Philosopher Peter S Williams leads William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, and Peter J Williams, in a discussion panel based upon questions collected from the audience. They discuss the role of apologetics in personal faith, academic life, loving one's unbelieving friends, as well as the role that emotions play alongside the intellect in spreading the Gospel.
For the Guardian Online article, in which Dr Daniel Came (atheist) criticises Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig, follow this link: www.guardian.co...
For more information please visit:
www.bethinking....
www.premier.org...
www.reasonablef...
![[Paris Olympics] Performance by Australia's Olympic Break-dancer Rachael Gunn breaks the internet](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/i1rl1KhKIjE/mqdefault.jpg)
God bless us all.
You too brother👍
This was a great wrap up. Apparently there were two fans of Star Trek and Dr. Who on the panel. You can't get better than that. :0)
...As for questioning whether God OUGHT to have created us, speak for yourself. I like being alive. I think being alive is awesome. I'm glad I exist and thank God for it. If you don't like yourself and wish you weren't alive, that is your problem, not mine.
I don't have those problems in my own theory. What you say I should have a problem with is far and away from what I actually have problems with.
You keep telling me I don't recognize my problems and I keep telling you that I have dealt with these issues already, years ago. It seems very important to you to make me out like I don't know what I'm talking about without ever asking me to elaborate on what my views even are. I submit that this is part of your larger paradigm of talking down to people instead fo discussing with them.
God's plan has yet to fail, and I don't even have a clue what you mean by "placing the blame on humans."
Incidentally, since you didn't ask, one of the layers of meaning in the Flood story is a cautionary tale about what God could do to eliminate the problem of evil in the most direct way.
I did explore it. This was my conclusion.
The problem of violence is more complex than you make it out to be. From the position of pacifism you can't defend yourself, you can't stand up against tyrants, you can't deal with problems when they are in the most desperate of situations in which your life would be at risk of losing. Pacifism as nice as it is, doesn't work when faced with these ordeals that if left to themselves would bring disastrous outcomes more so than any war.
And religion is not just some isolated little pocket of human endeavour. It affects and reflects everything else.
I don't know how you got this thing about infallibility out of me saying that the problems I actually have are not the ones you say I should have. It would appear that I am right about your expectation that others prostrate themselves before your greatness.
Wow, thanks for the insight.
As for the Fall being preventable, it all depends on what God wants human beings to be. If He wants creatures with a degree of independent volition, then they need to be able to make choices. Those choices inevitably have their own logical, natural consequences.
The ambiguity and complexity of the rationales for violence are a good part of why I am a pacifist. I don't trust ANYBODY, myself included, who claims to be excercising violence for supposedly noble reasons. To believe that you are entitled to take another human being's life is inherently self-serving. Violence ITSELF is the problem, and it can only be cured by non-violence. If you are not commited to non-violence, then YOU are part of the problem.
2) Sure, but I have good positive reasons for not believing that I am projecting, the main one being that I am not and you have yet to demonstrate that I am.
I'm not forgetting about context. I'm just not allowing you to use "context" as an excuse. Everybody uses "context" as an excuse for their violence. As a result, violence is the most contextless solution to a problem possible. There is only one reaction, regardless of the situation: hit it. If you want a real context-driven solution, use non-violence. Pacifism has to react creatively and contextually to each situation and each person as it arises.
...So, in the first palce, I am a Christian and not an OT Jew, so I am bound by the teachings of Christ and the Church regardless of whatever happened in the past before then. However, in regards to the OT we must first consider two things: violence was not a part of the original plan nor is it part of the final end. Consider Isaiah 2:4 & 9:2-6, Micah 4:3-7, Zechariah 9:9-10. Violence is recognized as a consequence of our fallen state, an evil to be cured...
I disagree with Dr. Craig’s views beginning at 13:03. The NT writers in particular indicate not only that Christ’s saving events are reliably-true, but that we are to be comforted by that very reality. The Holy Spirit’s work is not to create a confidence that is independent of the facticity of Christ’s death followed by His resurrection, but instead to mysteriously break through our sinfully-hard hearts in order to become receptive of the facts. Am I missing something?
...Nonviolence is the clear teaching of the New Testament: Matt. 5:3-12 & 38-46, Matt. 26:50-52, John 18:36-37, Rom. 12:17-21 & 14:17-19, Eph. 6:12, James 3:17-4:4, I Peter 2:21-24 & 3:8-17. Nonviolence was the clear interpretation of the Early Church as well: Justin Martyr First Apology 39 & Dialogue with Trypho 50, Clement Instructor I 12, Origen Against Celsus 5 33, Irenaeus Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 96, Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians 35, Cyprian To Donatus 6...
Knowing basic science facts, looking at articles, and reading comments below them, reading daily newspapers for information on medical things, etc. not only helps you argue with pseudoscientists, but might save your life, and your children's. Studying about worldly stuff, is about helping people through the great tribulation, and further proof of the correctness of warnings in the Bible.
I never said it did, however, your assertion was that my MTS was worthless in discussions of religion.
...Because alienation from God is our natural state, only God can overcome it to unite us to Himself, which is what the whole Incarnation was about. It has nothing to do with belief or assent to a set of doctrines or whatever. It is about life lived in reconciliation and communion with God (and each other, and Creation) which is itself a gift of God. Because it is a gift of God and not about a doctrinal checklist, I do not positively affirm that anyone is in a state of hell.
I'm a Listist, not an atheist. Even if I was I could still disagree with the violence done on other people. I also told you that violence only ought to be used in certain situations, but diplomacy should be used more than anything. If anything it shows special pleading, if you aren't okay with violence then you should also be against violence done to others by your perceived god. There are 3 different theories on war just, pacifism, and realism, I take the just approach.
The doctrine of salvation doesn't save people who don't believe in your religion or have other world views. So its form a of " divine othering", in which case it forces people to either believe or burn with no alternatives.
"The myth of religious violence promotes a dichotomy between us in the secular West who are rational and peacemaking, and them, the hordes of violent religious fanatics in the Muslim world. Their violence is religious, and therefore irrational and divisive. Our violence, on the other hand, is rational, peacemaking, and necessary. Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality."
- William T. Cavanaugh, Does Religion Cause Violence? Harvard Divinity Bulletin vol.35
1) It's hard to believe something when you've done nothing but continuously insult the other side, misrepresent them, and pretty much only respond in condescending ways. The thing is, its hard to have a fruitful conversation when that's all it ever denigrates to. Which is why I suggested holism, its what anthropologists use to get a sympathetic account of other cultures. Since there's an abundance of hostility in this debate, why not implement it for understanding?
And violence DID bring destruction.
No I think all people in dialogue agree that condescension does nothing to further it. Imagine if Plato and Aristotle had decided to call each other names instead of discuss government and metaphysics. If scientists did this theories would be criticized because of someones character and not about whether the theory is tenable or not.
You think salvation somehow prevents hell, but ignore other ideologies which reject your own view and then don't understand that this might cause a divine problem in this plan.
I read the article, but I think taking up complete pacifism would've brought destruction. In which case both instances of violent and nonviolent implements had to be used. In which case choosing to use either philosophy depends on the situation and the means in which you could actually implement it for greater benefits without causing collateral damage.
I didn't miss them. One could argue that I dismissed a great many, but on analyzing them I find that many critiques - especially in realms of pyschology, history, science, etc. - really aren't much in the way of critiques at all. Everything I've seen can be filtered into those two categories of attacks on Christians (Celsus, Marx, Dawkins) and attacks on actual Christian teaching (Nietzsche, Rand). Cowards do the former.
Avoiding the dilemma when we are discussing them pertaining to beliefs, then calling me a hypocrite. This does nothing to actually solve the problem, it shows you just want to throw insults not answers.
I don't antagonize every other theory out there, just you.
And yes, an MTS does deal with all of those things, because they all factor into theology and its historical development.
I don't think life is bad, just that if you believe god is perfect then he ought not have created imperfect beings. If god is perfect it means he either did it deliberately or mistakenly, if you believe the supernatural actually took part in it. This is why the Greeks disbelieved the gods were perfect, only a flawed god could make a flawed being.
God as the eternal being created Man and Angels (both with free will) but only God can be eternally perfect and no created being can be perfect because he or she is still a creation (that can never be equal to God) and with a potential to fall when they exercise free will.
It's quite simple to comprehend if you think about it for a few minutes.
If He had created robots without free will, then ...
An omniscient God, in fact made the perfect provision for atonement even before He created anything. That's how loving a Father He is. He created Man in His triune image (let's make Man in our image) and the truth is God created Man in the image of Christ (the Word that became flesh at the appointed time according to His purpose and plan for the atonement and the hope of resurection that awaits Believers.
...The existence of violence in the OT is not uniformly regarded as good. God is shown condemning the Hebrews for their violent ways just as often as He is portrayed as encouraging them: Ps. 33:16-17 & 120, Ecc. 4:1-3, Jeremiah 6:13-14, Micah 3:5-12, etc. And here it gets really fun: when you look at archaeology, you actually find that it supports the OT generally pretty well EXCEPT for the violence. There does not appear to be a mass violent conquest of Canaan.
1) Yes it is based on my experience. It is also based on my experience that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. I don't have any data to back that up either.
2) Well then, SURPRISE! Most of my time in debates is just clarifying what we actually believe as opposed to atheist strawmen.
3) I don't worship a deity that proposes torture for nonbelief, I am a pacifist because of the teachings of Jesus and the early Church, and you'll have to clarify what you mean by "deception."
I think this is based on your view that violence is very black and white. But sometimes taking up pacifism leaves you in a position where you can't prevent or stop the harm of others from happening without relying others who do defend you. Antagonizing me doesn't stop you from actually having dilemmas, just as supporting self defense surely causes me dilemmas as well.
You do support violence in general. What you don't support is violence being "misused" for causes you disagree with.
I gave you specific reasons as to why it should ever be used, and that was more commonly than not as a last resort. However I can still criticize the bible like I can criticize other groups. Adopting pacifism doesn't mean you are exempt from the problems in the ethical theories of war, and calling me a hypocrite doesn't give answers to those dilemmas.
God is actually in dispute as being much like a square circle or a contradiction in the form of characteristics and being.
Or it just shows that there are boundaries that even god has to follow. Which puts limitations on all powerfulness.
Its Theology, it pertains to the study of religion. That doesn't somehow equip you with the ability to solve global problems.
Actually the bible is more or less a sort of cultural practices, that forms two differing religions. It covers different things such as sexual practices, poetry, ect and is a story that encompasses how followers generally view existence.
I have been reading comments on science forums where scientists have more patience with Creationists than atheists. Also, atheists find the worst Christians to deal with are non denominational ones. Why is that? Because those are the people doing their own research and not depending on atheist priests.
1) No, that's a qualitative value judgement. As for violence, yes you can be arbitrary in your belief in whose violence is justified. I never disputed that. What I disputed is the inconsistency in excusing some violence and then posturing like violence in the Bible ought to be some big problem. By your own standard it is not.
I think that harms the free will argument. If god wants humans to be something then he could've made them that way in the first place, or perhaps change the consequences and actions humans could take. Having that much power and not preventing evil from happening puts gods characteristics and motives into question.
Actually from what i've read Theologians disagree on just what omnipotence entails. If god has limitations even to a degree by logic, then it shows even god has boundaries. Or by this that logic transcends god, this also limits his power to create anything despite being what some call a beginingless being.
Definition of cognitive dissoance from the Medical Dictionary: "psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes." I don't feel a sense of psychological conflict over this, ergo no cognitive dissonance.
Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything. It means the ability to do everything that is possible to do. Would it have been possible for God to have created a group of sentient creatures engaged in a genuine love relationship with God WITHOUT creating a group of sentient creatures engaged in a genuine love relationship with God? I have my doubts.
So you do see violence as some singular thing when in fact its more complex, this shows you don't want to bother with the reasons. This is too simple, believe it or not sometimes it has to happen. The problem with pacifism is that it often doesn't work when dealing with certain situations. It shows you aren't even concerned about self defense, you would let your own rights be violated.
There's a good NOVA documentary called “The Bible’s Buried Secrets" that gives an overview of archaeology from the period of the Exodus to the kingdom of Solomon.
I think God's apparent changeability in the OT has more to do with humanity's changeability than with God's. I question whether God actually commanded the violence, given that it, y'know, apparently didn't actually happen. I do think, moreover, that it points far more to God's place as God than to any particular legal issues.
It is a dilemma. You see gods have no excuse for things that are preventable, whats the point in having all of that power, intelligence, and goodness and doing nothing to prevent your own plan from failing then placing blame on humans. That is very much so a dilemma, the failure to act against evil is an evil in itself.
You could just ask what I mean. It's not that hard.
Well, maybe for you it is.
If you actually believe god took some part in the creation of life then it does show limitations, and making the end all goal means making life based on love instead of on other reasons then it also presents limitations.
This means logic transcends god or that god is dependent upon concepts in philosophy, or that god was based off human ways of discovering things about the world.
It's only pointless when it's done against you, I'm sure.
Yes, I actually do believe what I believe. SHOCKING!! Thank you again for the deep insight.
Answers to what? You didn't ask anything. You're just TELLING me I'm supposed to have this problem. I'm telling you I don't. That's not avoiding: that's informing.
What you present as a moral dilemma is not a moral dilemma in my interpretation *shrug* Sorry that troubles you so much and fouls up your script.
Sure I can do all of those things. I just don't do them violently. You're confusing nonviolence with nonresistance, which are two different things.
Now yes, when you enter into a life-threatening situation using the methods of nonviolence rather than violence you do run the risk of losing your life. But that is exactly the same for violence. Violence could just as readily fail you.
Logic is not a "thing" that can be more powerful than God. Logic is simply non-contradiction. The reason that God cannot create a square circle is not because logic is more powerful than Him. He cannot create a square circle because by its own definition a square is not a circle.
If you are suggesting that omnipotence means that God can act in illogcal and contradictory ways, then thank you, you totally solved all possible objections to the existence of God.
Then why don't you like to dialogue?
Yes, most people do disagree with violence for those reasons though. The fact that not everyone is a pacifist makes doesn't really deal with the way in which it sometimes has to be used as a last resort measure. Imagine if we had let Nazi's go unchallenged, the world would be a worse off place.
Okay, but by your own measure you shouldn't be accepting of the same god who also acts violently. You give an exception to this thing despite that it goes against your own philosophy.
As for reasons... I know you're not actually interested in what I'll say because you're just, y'know, not interested in being muddled down with what people actually believe. But to entertain the notion that you might learn something, my reasons for what, exactly?
Like I said: all your critique of violence in the Bible confirms is that you disagree with violence done for reasons you disagree with. Thanks for the insight! That and $2.50 will buy me a Coke.
I disregard any objection to the Bible on the grounds of violence from people who do not think violence is wrong. There is no reason why I should be led to think it is wrong if the person trying to convince me does not themselves think it is wrong.
It poses a moral problem because it shows god can't accomplish his own goal without the suffering of others. Yet this god is proclaimed to be all good and all powerful, but when faced with this nothing is done to stop it. Hence it poses a problem to gods characteristics.
...As for what this state of Hell might be, I don't know. It might just be that God mercifully chooses not to resurrect those who do not want to be in communion with Him. Or it may be a state of living alienation from God and therefore all goodness, truth and beauty. I think one of the more poetic iddeas comes from Eastern Orthodoxy, which is that there is nowhere that an omnipresent being is not, therefore hell is being in the presence of God and not wanting to be. But ultimately I don't know.
Are you saying you don't actually believe there isn't religious violence?
Cavanaugh also isn't an anthropologist, he's a theology professor. Also it ignores such incidents as the conflicts between Christians and Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, Protestants and Catholics, ancient tribal warfare and during colonialism and the dark ages when it was used to root out pagan or other religions and violence.
Contrary to your stereotypes, Christians are not just stoopid poopie heads. Everything I said I've said after having read all of these people you're namedropping. I hold to my conclusion that there are only really two original critiques of Christianity: those that attack Christians (Celsus) and those that attack what Christianity actually teaches (Nietzsche).
No, pacifism is not passive nonresistance. Pacifism is active nonviolence.
WWII posed a huge prblem for everybody, but nonviolent resistance against the Nazis actually tended to work quite well wherever it was tried. Look up the article "Hitler and the challenge of non-violence" by Jorgen Johansen as a brief primer.
How does what I ACTUALLY SAID pose a moral problem for God? I don't want to hear how YOUR idea of Hell poses a moral problem for God. Tell me how MY idea of Hell poses a moral problem for God.
Jesus is quite Himself aside from books written about Him.
That the Gospels are a latter set of books isn't relevant when the Bible is not supposed to be read cover-to-cover with all parts holding equal weight. The Gospels form the lens for our interpretation of the rest of Scripture, because Jesus is the singularly most definitive revelation of God to humanity. Everything else in the Bible should be read in light of Him...
2) I was told no such thing. It's impossible to dialogue with someone when they continuously do this, and its a poor way to argue a position. How can you complain about it and then do it and not even recognize you are doing it?
3) Okay, what do you believe and why do you believe it?
I gave you specific reasons why violence had to be used, that doesn't mean I think its a moral good. This is why I brought up context, I don't support violent regimes, killing for money, or oppression. But you seem to conflate this idea with me supporting violence in general, this is why it only should ever be done as a last resort.
Well now, here's the problem with trying to take God down on His omnipotence... In scholarship it is well understood that omnipotence does not mean the ability to do things that are logically impossible. That is not a limitation on omnipotence, but on the nature of logic. It is logically impossible to make a circular square, not because God is limited in HIs power, but because squares are limited in their definition...
I only brought it up because its a part of the moral dilemma, I don't have to believe in it to show you have moral contradictions or that god has them. I don;t believe in angels either, but I can still criticize the narrative for not explaining why god would bother creating rebellious ones.
The fall was preventable was it not? If so then it means god set himself or humans up to fail by not stopping a snake he let in the garden, thus he screwed up his own plan.
I wasn't avoiding the dilemma. I was refusing to answer it because it's just an attempt to place a red herring. What I belief has no impact on your hypocrisy.
Exactly: you like talking at people who put up less of a fight. I'm fighting back and that's pissing you off.
As for my crednetials, I'm going to guess that an MTS is more than you have.
Violence in the context of what? I think it does have its limitations and isn't the best answer usually. However pacifism isn't always practical nor does it always work especially when you want to protect your rights, defend yourself, or even prevent further bad things from happening. By using pacifism you submit yourself to injustice, violations of your rights, and there are even contradictions between your Christianity and pacifism as well.
That appears to be hypocritical don't you think? If he told them it was okay then calls it evil the next, then it shows that god has a subjective morality or in this case can't follow his own commandments.
I'd like to know the sources for the archaeological claim. But regardless if it didn't happen,it places the bible in suspicion of being inaccurate on other parts of the past and portrayals of other people.
How did you deal with the problems? In the bible and the ten commandments it says thou shalt not kill, yet god very often resorts to violence to resolve problems. This is the problem i'm trying to show you, there are moral and social theorists who have stated that pacifism isn't viable and often makes others commit violence. But the issue of whether to use violence or diplomacy often depends on the situation.
Okay, you think i'm wrong. However you keep forgetting about the whole contextual part of it. However one can still criticize the bible for its use of violence. What I see from you is special pleading, you allow one thing to get away with it but contend that i'm somehow backwards in my thinking.
1) I never for one second thought that you would believe anything I said anyways, or that you thought I had any humility, or anything else like that. The problem with your side trying to win an argument by hurting our feelings is that you already have the dimmest possible view you could have of us. It's the boy who cried wolf. So you're insulting me MORE... oh dear... so what?...
No it isn't. I just told you about what part of philosophy of war I hold to, I also told you it ought to be a last resort. However when you have a being that can make universes, knows everything, and doesn't die you'd think a better solution would be available. This isn't the case and thus puts gods character, attributes, and other things into question regardless of what I believe. Since its an objection i'm making you can't just dodge it, and shift your burden onto me.
Oh now i'm making a dichotomous assumption. For a guy who only see's religious criticism in two forms this is ironic.
Yes it is. If you want to judge my character fine, but guess what just because you are a pacifist doesn't mean that resolves you from dealing with your own dilemma. You worship a thing that kills, condemn me, but forget that you worship something that implements it, then try to proclaim yourself as correct without seeing the whole problem of doing so.
Did I ever say they all were? Nope. People can be stupid no matter who they are or what they believe. Thinking there are only two critiques ignores others who have critiqued it on different levels through psychology, sociology, anthropology,scientifically, and historically. By claiming only two you miss tons of ways beliefs can be critiqued.
I could probably find some better sources from colleges than ask someone's single interpretation. Also I think using apologetics for biblical genocide doesn't answer the inconsistent belief system you have. But by all means give me some reasons, i'm interested in what you'll say.
Religion is a cultural practice that does effect other things. However this does not make it suitable for national politics or diplomatic matters.
The logic, reason and evidence appraoch is a smokescreen, because every single time I have this debate all of that goes out the window in the rush to insult religious people and deny God. When God's existence is logically demonstrated, there's no proof. When you bring up actual statistics on things like religious violence, oh that doesn't matter. Atheists reasons for denying God are largely emotional in nature, and are mostly aimed at punishing Him for whatever imagined offense.
Who says you aren't hypocritical as well?
Oh, I am quite aware of Just War theory and how Augustine developed it as a means of putting moralistic limitations on the progress of warfare. I recognize that it is an attempt at engaging violence with supposed realism, but I also happen to disagree with it.
As for the problem you think you detect between my pacifism and your perception of God, you have NO IDEA how I deal with those issues. You never once asked, because all you're interested in doing is convincing yourself.
First of all where did you get your data that most are making emotional arguments, singular experiences hardly account for the whole. Secondly there are numerous videos on youtube that do have logical arguments that dispute gods character, laws, and form. Finally people criticize Christians because of what they see as anti-education, discrimination, support of immoral practices, and other things. There are many stakeholders in this debate all with varied perceptions of one another.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Birdieupon is criticizing someone else for a faith position when he holds to it as a virtue? Pot calling the kettle black.
Ironic how you gave no reasons to support that assertion, and instead expected us to just take it on faith.
Sure I would defend myself and exercise my righst. I just wouldn't do so violently. Why would I? Besides the fact that I don't have the right to take anyone else's life, violence isn't as effective as nonviolence. Violence, by its very nature, can only work AT BEST half the time. For every person that wins, someone loses. When nonviolence doesn't work, it only fails as bad as when violence DOES work.
And no, I don't care about your justifications for violence. Everybody has those.
Actually a religious fanatic or a militant today can gain access to numerous high tech weaponry. However you keep ignoring the reasoning behind violence, just so you can take the high ground.
It must've failed because he implemented that and it still didn't solve the problem according to the story.
Placing the blame, as in setting up the fall for humans from the beginning. Atheists, deists, and theists have been debating this for quite some time.
...Our communion with God is a state called "heaven" or the "kingdom of God." Jesus describes this as both an internal state and an external state, a spiritual and a social condition, that can be experienced imperfectly in this life and perfectly after the resurrection. Likewise, our natural alienation from God is a state called "hell" which can be experienced imperfectly in this life and perfectly after the resurrection...
Because you've convinced yourself with apologetics. There is no reasoning that can be done once that's happened.
I'm wondering how you could call atheists "haters of god", when they reject the very idea of it, the word he's looking for is misotheists/dystheists. It's a bit like theists who disbelieve in disbelief, and think nonbelievers just aren't following a religion based on some other untrue reason. A better understanding between the two groups might lead into a better understanding as to why people actually hold these views instead of generalizing them and misrepresenting them.
If I was only trying to convince myself I wouldn't be having this conversation. Hence why I brought it up so many times. The fact that you haven't explained it means you are either using special pleading or burden shifting, but go ahead explain why a god doesn't fall to the very same sword you accuse me of. Why if you are a true pacifist you'd be putting these same complaints in the same area instead of criticizing me but instead your own belief.
On my first comment you responded with condescension towards people who disbelieved in god, then said they used arguments as a smokescreen. Are you sure you aren't the one who doesn't like to dialogue? Maybe next time we ought to understand that objections made against these different issues are better solved by understanding one another's position, having a middle ground, and presenting what we believe before replying and not by replying in a demeaning tone. Agree?
...So the limitations present on how to make us US are not limitations on God, but limitations on us.
However, if omnipotence means the ability to do logically impossible things, then there are literally no POSSIBLE problems for God. God could be both all-evil and all-loving because we just established that God can do logically impossible things. There is no requirement for Him to act coherently...
That's not what I said. How is it possible for illiterate people to type out responses on RUclips? I don't get it.