Jay520 on 25 July 2013
| JWeinCom said: Retarded from step 1. It's a pretty classic strategy, usually used by theists. Make up a random rule, and then draw conclusions based on that. Even if the conclusions are logical (don't think they are) that doesn't matter if you start from a random point. There is no need for god to be perfectly loving, and if you read the bible (especially the old testament) that term really doesn't describe god. But anyway, I have a great 100% proof that god does not exist. 1. There is no evidence that there is a god. 2. If there is no evidence for a god, we act on the assumption there is no god. 3. If evidence is presented that there is a god, we can reconsider. |
I agree that assuming God is perfectly loving makes no sense. I just pretend the argument is to specifically disprove a perfectly loving God, which works against what most theists believe.
