By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
Edit Thread
LuccaCardoso1 said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Again, the ontological argument isn't perfect. But what is extremely flawed is the argument of the problem of evil.  Because for no evil to exist, free will would need to be nonexistant. It's a big element of the Christian God that he gave men free will, it's one of THE most important aspects of our religion. For him to deny the possibility of men to do evil would be to deny free will. Basically, God can create a world in which there would be no evil, yet he gave us one where the possibiliyu of evil exists, so we can live in freedom. The problem of evil is such a terrible sham argument it makes my blood boil whenever someone brings it up.

"Free will" doesn't answer the problem of evil. Evil doesn't come only from what humans choose to do. Down syndrome is an evil, I think we can all agree on that, and it has nothing to do with what humans choose to do. It's a genetic error. The same works for any genetic disease.

WolfpackN64 said: 

Intelligent design is a product of the teleological argument, but the teleological argument isn't the same as intelligent design and in many respects, the argument is much more complex.

No, the teleological argument is literally the same as intelligent design. They're synonymous.

WolfpackN64 said: 

The cosmological argument doesn't necessarily use time, but in the variant which uses time, it starts from the assumption that time has a beginning (which is in all likelihood true).

And saying "god did it" doesn't actually answer anything.

Down syndrome is an evil? I think your sense of morality on the matters of genetics are a bit twisted. These are things atheists like Stephen Fry don't get. Nature in itself, and certainly in biology are morally neutral. Morality springs forth from interaction between beings, one of which must have at least primitive reasoning or social skills. There is nothing moral about Down, or kids getting cancer. It's a tragedy, but in itself it has no overlap with the field of morality.

I've written a paper on the ontological, teleological and cosmological argument and I can assure you they're not synonymous. Intelligent design implies teleology, teleology doesn't imply intelligent design.

The cosmological argument eventually boils down to: the inference to the best explanation is that only God could have done it.