Trick of Logic

What affectionate of acquaintance can ablaze acquire with darkness?
The a lot of asked catechism directed appear religious leaders is not, "Can you prove there is a God?" The catechism asked even added is, "If God is Love, afresh why does he acquiesce so abundant evil?"
The philosopher Epicurus anticipation he was authoritative a acceptable point if he said, "Either God wants to abate angry and cannot; or he can, but does not wish to. If he wants to, but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not wish to, he is wicked."
Epicurus sounds appealing clever, huh? I apperceive he anticipation anybody would be appealing afflicted with his statement, which I was ten years ago. I alarm it a "trick of logic" statement, and I'm traveling to do the aforementioned ambush he just did, afresh I'm traveling to explain to you absolutely what we did to blend with your head.
"Either aggregate came from nothing, and annihilation is the antecedent of everything; or aggregate can't appear from nothing, because aggregate would bulk to nothing. If aggregate is allusive afresh it came from something. If aggregate has acceptation afresh there can't be a analytic abstraction of nothing."
This ambush has been done abounding times in abounding debates throughout history. It's an simple ambush to do, because altruism has a faculty of argumentation that cannot be denied. It's simple to alter anyone application statements like mine, or Epicurus, because we accord the aftereffect that if you acquire in one affair afresh you are a fool, because that one affair you acquire in acutely contradicts something else, and that something abroad is consistently the exact "opposite" of what we are aggravating to disprove. This affectionate of ambush reminds me of a adduce from a appearance in the cine Men in Black; "A getting is not stupid, bodies are stupid." A alone getting can calmly alter a aggregation of people, but that aggregation cannot so calmly alter others into abutting their cult, about an alone may be able to, if he or she, is an able and acceptable abundant speaker. You apprehension how there is a abounding amphitheater abundant of the time? This is what happens if anyone uses a ambush of argumentation statement, they in some way go aback to area they started.
It's not so simple to do this ambush if you're starting with such statements like "There is no God," in beneath the agnostic goes aback to the "problem with evil," like Epicurus did, and rephrases the account to something like, "God cannot be, because altruism defines him as Love, so accordingly if God is afresh we should not acquire a abstraction of evil." Or something added simple like, "There cannot be a admiring God because we acquire so abundant adversity in the world."
Before we see the acknowledgment to the big question, the catechism which an agnostic consistently uses to butt the faithful, acquiesce me to accompaniment the obvious; something comes from something, and anybody knows that logically if we appraise something that is circuitous we acquire to achieve that it came from an able source. And behindhand of how abounding billions of years (one may assume) went by afore the conception of the active Cell, for example, we all should apperceive that it's one hell of a cycle of the dice for something that circuitous to appear into getting by chance. For example, brainstorm a car (which is far beneath circuitous than a cell), is larboard in pieces advance throughout a clutter yard; we all apperceive it's appealing absurd that that car is traveling to anytime put itself calm by accidental chance, even if larboard in pieces for millions of years. And even if the car somehow does appear calm because of wind and added accustomed sources of luck over the advance of abounding years, who is traveling to alpha the vehicle? So afresh I reiterate the actuality that if we are aggravating to do the ambush of argumentation account from an agnostic angle it alone works if we adjudicator the actuality of God by bold because we acquire impiety/evil in the apple their can be no "just" God, like Epicurus approved to prove in his statement.
Before their was the technology to abstraction the air we breath, how could we prove to anyone that we were animation air? No one would ask you such a catechism like "Are you animation air," because they apperceive the acknowledgment as able-bodied as you, "Yes, I am breathing, so accordingly I am animation air." But let's acquire they did ask you that question, and if you gave them your acknowledgment they attempt aback at you with addition question, "How do you apperceive you're animation air? Can you see it?" You apparently wouldn't absolutely apperceive how to reply. I beggarly what could you say? "I just know, because I can breath." I apperceive this is all stoner talk, aggravating to attending too abysmal into issues that in absoluteness are not that complex, but this is what you acquire to do if you don't wish to acquire in an able designer/God.
What atheists like to consistently appear about to as a accurate point is, "Just because we can't belie the actuality of God, doesn't beggarly that you can anytime prove there is God." After seeing all that I have, and belief evolution, biochemistry, microbiology, history, philosophy, and so abundant more, I say if that is a accurate point, afresh it's the aforementioned as saying, "Just because I can't belie the actuality of air, doesn't beggarly that what you alarm air is absolutely air at all. Because I can't see it, and neither can you."
The algebraic anatomy of DNA is not alleged the "blue print" of activity by accident; it's alleged the dejected book of life, because that's what it is; a architecture plan mapped out, bold the abundant anatomy of life. The active Corpuscle is not alleged "complex", because it's a little complicated, it's alleged circuitous because it's far added circuitous afresh annihilation Man has anytime "created." The eye did not, in Darwin 's own words, "give one chills," because it was a simple structure, it gave Darwin chills because he could not appear up with an evolutionary account for something that was as capital as the eye. If an agnostic examines all of these wonders with our new ability in microbiology they acquaint the apprenticed accessible that they see no charge for a God, and the apprenticed accessible shrugs their amateur and says, "People smarter than me say they see no affirmation of God, so who am I to argue? They apperceive added than I do, and I don't even "care" to understand. Besides it's boring, and I would rather do something else. I already apperceive there is no God, because I can't see him."
Alright, I'm not traveling to go through the data to prove to you that there is a God, not on this essay. But afore I acknowledgment the absolutely big question, I'm traveling to adduce an extract from a altercation amid the theologian Ravi Zecharia and a academy apprentice (whose name is not important abundant to remember,) afresh I'm traveling to acquaint you how abounding scientists apperceive God, and afresh we'll get to the answer.
"Meaningless!" The apprentice stands up and shouts in anger, "Everything is meaningless!"
"You don't acquire that," Ravi says calmly afore yawning.
"Yes, I do!" The apprentice exclaims loudly. "Everything is meaningless."
"You are adage that, but you don't "mean" that, now, do you?"
"Yes I do!"
"If what you just said is true," Ravi says as he takes off his glasses and begins wiping the lens on his coat, "Then what you acquire just said could not be meaningful. You can sit down now, because you acquire annihilation to say."
The apprentice sat down at a accident for words...
Ok, now, we apperceive that something comes from something. So who fabricated God then? Acceptable question, huh? Area did God appear from? Able-bodied the agnostic has the aforementioned botheration if it comes to energy. Actually it's not absolutely a botheration at all, because all scientists acquire no botheration accepting the actuality that activity is the antecedent of all that is, and after activity there could be nothing. Activity is the alone actuality that consistently has been and consistently will be, accepting no alpha and no end, affectionate of like alpha and omega. (We're not traveling to go into the whole, how do we apperceive there is activity if we can't see it bit.) An agnostic may acquire their acceptance in activity as the antecedent of all life, giving it no personality, or absurd form, while the affectionate alarm "it" God.
Now the big acknowledgment to the big question; (I am bold this is getting addressed to afresh adapted agnostics now), "If God is Love, afresh why does he acquiesce so abundant evil?" Able-bodied actuality are the facts; If God is Love, as added afresh a few religions say, afresh logically he cannot be Hate. If God is Just, he cannot be unjust. If he is the Ablaze (this is important now), afresh he cannot be the Darkness. The acknowledgment is there, and it is agnate to the accomplished Ying and Yang idea. It's all the account alloyed calm though.
You see anybody believes in freedom, and anybody wants added of it, even if it's all there for you. Even if bodies accomplish laws, you are chargeless to breach them if you're able abundant to get abroad with it, or affluent enough. But anybody wants accord on apple as able-bodied as freedom, and because bodies wish accord they accomplish laws. So Bodies wish perfection, yet they wish freedom, but there in lies the paradox. How can one be chargeless after opposites to acquire between? And if all was perfect, (a absurd assumption), afresh there would be no opposites to acquire between, because opposites are authentic by extremes. Appropriate and wrong, ablaze and dark, a accuracy or a lie, adulation or hate, or to absolve or authority a grudge, to accept, or deny; these are the choices that ascertain accurate freedom. With there getting no best there would be no faculty of appreciation, accomplishment, or accord of mind. Don't you see the abstraction of ability is a lot of imperfect? Because all that is abrogating defines all that is good.
From a analytic angle then, I anticipate the Christians as able-bodied as the added above religions acquire it wrong. Because they say in the alpha there was God, and there was annihilation else. Or conceivably they alongside abstracted God into two halves, and apparently science can abstracted activity into two halves. There is absolute energy, and abrogating energy, and acutely they are opposites, but these absolutes consistently acquire been and consistently will be, because they ascertain anniversary other. I alarm them absolutely artlessly the Ablaze and the Darkness. So if if the religious groups say in the alpha there was alone God, and they acquire that like energy, God can be afar into two adverse behindhand afresh maybe I can accede that in the alpha there was one God.
The absolute energy, or the Light, did not actualize all that is evil, for the Ablaze is declared to be the antecedent of hope, getting what shines through the darkness. The abrogating energy/ the Black is the antecedent of evil; pain, fear, death, and aggregate that can advance to death, or aggregate that brings affliction to others and the world. Whichever antecedent altruism decides to advance in, or augment the most, will be the force that takes over more. Since we can see both Ablaze and Black as two altered kinds of energy, afresh let's attending at it from that angle and apprehend that for every activity there is a reaction, for every abrogating there is a positive. Don't accusation the Ablaze for what comes out of the Darkness, but accusation yourself if you adopt the Darkness. Be beholden admitting that you acquire the abandon to choose, but acquire that if it looks like aggregate is traveling amiss about you, the best you can do to advice in application a antithesis afresh is to do the appropriate affair for yourself and those about you. And I assumption you can hope, or maybe even adjure for the best.
God allows angry because he has no ascendancy over the darkness, he can alone advice us if we acquire the Ablaze instead of the Night. The Ablaze and the black acquire both consistently been, and consistently will be, and altruism determines which will be stronger in their lives, and the lives of those about them.
"Either God is adulation and just because altruism has been accustomed freewill; or God is abandoned because with the contributed he gives comes the best to do evil, from which comes the aftereffect of affliction and suffering. If God wants us to be chargeless though, he cannot yield abroad the best to do what is wrong. For if we did not acquire the best to do what is amiss afresh we would never absolutely be chargeless at all, appropriately we could never acquire a faculty of accomplishment, or accord if we accomplish the bigger choice. So in giving us contributed God is Adulation and Just, and he could never be authentic as such in beneath there was abhorrence and abuse absolute adverse of God."
Light cannot acquire acquaintance with Darkness, but one could not be after the other. Of advance this could all just be a ambush of logic, right?