Alright. Time for a rant.
One of the biggest things that infuriates me about debating religion, particularly about debating against Young Earth Creationists, are the constant excuses and rationalizations.
It doesn’t matter how many arguments I bring up, or what I tell people about geomagnetic reversals, heliosiesmology, or lunar retreat, they always have some sort of
argument excuse to counter it. This comes mainly in the form of ‘we weren’t there’ or ‘we didn’t observe it, so how do we know it takes that long?’ Well, let me tell you, I will now use your method to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the universe just yesterday.
You have already provided the perfect ‘answers’ to the arguments about an old earth, so now it’s just time to prove that the past 6000 years didn’t happen. Well, that’s simple. Anything that contradicts the argument that the FSM created the earth yesterday was created to fool you. Memories? He put them in your head to fool you. Photos? He made them to fool you. Ancient structures? Historical accounts? He made them all to fool you.
As you can see, now you have no choice to admit that my day-old-earth Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is scientific and accurate. All by using the ridiculous, unproven assumptions, excuses and rationalizations that the Creationists themselves use.
But it isn’t just Creationists who use this method. Nor is it only used when regarding the age of the earth. I was having a debate not too long ago, and I will showcase some of the conversation. It starts off just after I explained the problems with Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence with the Whence Cometh Evil argument.
Me: “Omnibenevolence is not a bad trait in general, but it brings up some philosophical issues when paired with omnipotence, such as the Whence Cometh Evil argument.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? “
Him: “He is able to stop sin and He will but He gives us a choice and we chose sin so we are going to have to live with it because that is our choice. But that is why God sent Jesus to save us from sin.”
You can already see that he is trying to avoid coming to one of the four conclusions. But the argument is so simple that God either can’t, or doesn’t want to.
Me: So basically he can but doesn’t want to. Even if it’s ‘he doesn’t want to yet”, this is a violation of the term ‘omnibenevolent’.
Him: I never said that he doesn’t want to. He is giving us free will and we chose poorly so as punishment we are going to have to live with it for now.
Does it seem like a difficult thing to get your head around the term “Omnibenevolent”? God COULD stop evil, but he is allowing us to live with evil because we ‘chose’ it. God isn’t doing anything about the evil, so therefor he doesn’t want to. THIS MEANS HE ISN’T OMNIBENEVOLENT!
Personally I think God not being omnibenevolent is more true to the Bible, where God isn’t such a nice guy.
More about omnibenevolence here.