jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Originally posted by: Atreus21
The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.
It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.
In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?
The main problem with your theory is that your christian god is supposed to be benevolent. Thus, pleasure would be synonamous with his will, while watching families be forced to rape and cannibalize each other would be something a benevolent god might try to you know, prevent. If he's around, and he's all powerful, and he's benevolent, then it makes sense for pleasure to exist. It doesn't make sense for the level of horror people experience to exist.
IOW, pleasure and pain make perfect sense in a world without a benevolent god, but in a world where a benevolent god exists, such levels of horrific existence are contradictory to his very existence. If you claim the torture and murder is a lesson to others that the benevolent father wishes to instruct, that kinda sucks for the torturee, no?