Questions for the pixelated poster who knows he'd be a more moral god than the One in Whom I believe, at least with regard to one and only one subject

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
You do know that if YOU were God, no child would have cancer. But you’re not sure if you would allow cancer in adults, right? Because you know that if you said you would also not allow cancer in adults, then the next question would be as to whether, you being God and all, you would allow other deadly diseases in adults, right? And you know that if you answered no to all diseases, the next question would be whether or not as God you would therefore require yourself to make every death painless or to make everyone immortal, but you are not quite prepared to answer that, are you, because then you’d have to answer whether or not as God you’d require yourself to pretty much confine everyone to a plastic bubble to prevent any unpleasntries at all, right? So Instead you decide to stick with cancer in children and throw your hands up in the air about all other forms of suffering, right? Besides, you know that cancer in children will clog your readers with enough emotional baggage to make them forget all your failures to opine on other forms of suffering, right?

You’re finding this hypothesizing yourself in the role of God a bit more complex than you had originally bargained for, aren’t you?

Let me ask that question again: Children suffer when their dog dies. Would you, as God, allow THAT suffering, or would you require yourself to make all dogs immortal?

Let me guess. Your answer: "But, but "every three minutes ..."
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
You do know that if YOU were God, no child would have cancer.
Right.

And we all know that no Christian has yet given a satisfactory answer as to why the Christian God allows a child to die of cancer every three minutes.

But you’re not sure if you would allow cancer in adults, right?
I never said that. I would not allow adults to have cancer.

Can Christians tell me why it is okay for an all-loving perfectly good God to allow anyone to die of cancer?

Because you know that if you said you would also not allow cancer in adults, then the next question would be as to whether, you being God and all, you would allow other deadly diseases in adults, right?
I would not allow that either.

Can Christians tell me why it is okay for an all-loving perfectly good God to allow anyone to die of any disease?

And you know that if you answered no to all diseases, the next question would be whether or not as God you would therefore require yourself to make every death painless or to make everyone immortal, but you are not quite prepared to answer that, are you, because then you’d have to answer whether or not as God you’d require yourself to pretty much confine everyone to a plastic bubble to prevent any unpleasntries at all, right?
I would not answer that question because you have contrived to put so many clauses in it I just know you would twist my reply into something I did not mean.

So Instead you decide to stick with cancer in children and throw your hands up in the air about all other forms of suffering, right?
Because letting a child die a long, lingering, painful death every three minutes when you could easily prevent it is unequivocally wrong, and arguably evil

Besides, you know that cancer in children will clog your readers with enough emotional baggage to make them forget all your failures to opine on other forms of suffering, right?
Sure. Every single one of us should be horrified that God lets a child die of cancer every three minutes. Should we be even more horrified because he also lets adults die of cancer, or because of other deadly diseases? Maybe, maybe not.

But the childhood cancers are horrifying enough.

You’re finding this hypothesizing yourself in the role of God a bit more complex than you had originally bargained for, aren’t you?
Some issues are up for debate, but childhood cancer is not.

Allowing children to die every three minutes to a painful, lingering disease when you could easily stop it is morally wrong, and arguably evil.

That we can debate whether letting a dog die is wrong does not change that.

Let me ask that question again: Children suffer when their dog dies. Would you, as God, allow THAT suffering, or would you require yourself to make all dogs immortal?
I do not know. Are you wanting to make me the THRESHOLD CZAR, stiggy?

Do you think my inability to answer this somehow makes it okay to allow a child to die of cancer every three minutes? How? What is your reasoning here, stiggy?

You trot out this argument every time, and yet I have never seen you explain why you think it actually helps your case.

Let me guess. Your answer: "But, but "every three minutes ..."
Good guess. I feel confident it will come up a lot on this thread. I see you started this thread two hours ago. In that time forty children have died of cancer.

Forty children God could have saved if he could be bothered to lift a finger.

And if he existed, of course. That is the real issue here. It is not about me being more moral than God; it is about God not saving those children because he does not exist.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Hitler killed around six million Jews in the Holocaust over about five years. In 2018 - just one year - God (if he exists) allowed 9.6 million people to die of cancer.

How do Christians rationalise this horrifying statistic? Well, this guy on CARM cannot say if dogs should be immortal, so of course it is reasonable for an all-loving God to allow about 10 million people to die of cancer every year.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
And we all know that no Christian has yet given a satisfactory answer as to why the Christian God allows a child to die of cancer every three minutes.

But you have no interest in why the Christian God allows dogs to die, therefore causing children to suffer, since that doesn't pull at the heartstrings quite as much as cancer, right? And you have no ability to declare the threshold for suffering allowed, right? Because you're very sensitive about my declaring how you might thereby become the Threshold Czar, right?

I never said that. I would not allow adults to have cancer.

Oh, OK. We're getting somewhere now. How about shingles? The common cold?

Can Christians tell me why it is okay for an all-loving perfectly good God to allow anyone to die of cancer?

I can guess, at least in regard to my wife dying of cancer, but I already gave detailed information on that, many many times to you in the past, but you want to pretend I never did, right? Because you have nothing to say on the matter, right?

Can Christians tell me why it is okay for an all-loving perfectly good God to allow anyone to die of any disease?

Since you're playing God, why not tell us on how YOU would handle death? Would you make us all live forever in these decaying bodies, or would you supernaturally slip us a drug in our sleep when you figured we'd lived long enough?

I would not answer that question because you have contrived to put so many clauses in it I just know you would twist my reply into something I did not mean.

In other words, you can't, can you? Failure duly noted.

Because letting a child die a long, lingering, painful death every three minutes when you could easily prevent it is unequivocally wrong, and arguably evil

When God walked the earth, He healed every affliction on record that He encountered. Tell us all what you yourself are doing for cancer victims. Oh, but you're doing your part by whining about God not doing enough. When my wife died of cancer He raised her to glory and brought her surviving family closer than we have ever been. But you, yourself can't even raise a snail to glory, now can you?

Good guess. I feel confident it will come up a lot on this thread. I see you started this thread two hours ago. In that time forty children have died of cancer.

And have gone on to glory, leaving your impotent whining butt behind. Don't you care about adults too? Whine for them. Whine for all of us. We all face deaths, and most will not be pleasant. Whine away!
 

Lucian

Active member
Hitler killed around six million Jews in the Holocaust over about five years. In 2018 - just one year - God (if he exists) allowed 9.6 million people to die of cancer.

How do Christians rationalise this horrifying statistic? Well, this guy on CARM cannot say if dogs should be immortal, so of course it is reasonable for an all-loving God to allow about 10 million people to die of cancer every year.
What is there to rationalise, exactly? It’s not clear to me that there is even a prima facie tension between the purported existence of God and the prevalence of cancer.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Yes, exactly.

I don’t follow: where’s the tension?
That a supposed loving God allows/builds in suffering to His design where, being omnipotent, He doesn't have to.
As for why God doesn’t do the same, the Christian can just reply that she doesn’t know, but his reasons must be morally sufficient. Now what?
That's sweeping the problem under the carpet, it doesn't explain anything.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
The if God were real then God would do this or that and not allow this or that to happen...

But,

People often forget Adam and Eve fell in the Garden of Eden...which allowed corruption to enter into DNA. A corruption that overtime produces cancer.

Then again there is the future....with a new heaven and a new earth...where all corruption is removed. Of course the atheist won't enjoy that future world.
 

Lucian

Active member
That a supposed loving God allows/builds in suffering to His design where, being omnipotent, He doesn't have to.
Again: what’s the tension? Sure, God could have created a different world, presumably one without suffering, or indeed without agents at all. So what?
That's sweeping the problem under the carpet, it doesn't explain anything.
How so? Why does the Christian need to offer an explanation, in this sense?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Again: what’s the tension? Sure, God could have created a different world, presumably one without suffering, or indeed without agents at all. So what?
It makes no sense to build in suffering into a world. You said yourself that you would stop cancer. So why does
How so? Why does the Christian need to offer an explanation, in this sense?
To try to make sense of something that doesn't make sense.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
But you have no interest in why the Christian God allows dogs to die, therefore causing children to suffer, since that doesn't pull at the heartstrings quite as much as cancer, right?
Right. Do you have a point?

And you have no ability to declare the threshold for suffering allowed, right? Because you're very sensitive about my declaring how you might thereby become the Threshold Czar, right?
I can express an opinion, but I would not be certain, and I know that it would be disputed a lot.

However, I also know no one would dispute whether it would be good to stop childhood cancer. Childhood cancer is indisputably a bad thing, and therefore letting a child die of cancer every three minutes when you could easily stop it is a bad thing.

Oh, OK. We're getting somewhere now. How about shingles? The common cold?
How about them? If it was up to me, yes, I would stop them. They do no one any good.

Do YOU think childhood cancer should be stopped?

I can guess, at least in regard to my wife dying of cancer, but I already gave detailed information on that, many many times to you in the past, but you want to pretend I never did, right? Because you have nothing to say on the matter, right?
What is your position here, stiggy? You bring up the joy you felt when your wife died of cancer. Is your position that cancer is good because it brings joy?

I absolutely disagree. I think cancer brings far more misery than joy, and therefore is bad.

Since you're playing God, why not tell us on how YOU would handle death? Would you make us all live forever in these decaying bodies, or would you supernaturally slip us a drug in our sleep when you figured we'd lived long enough?
I do not know. I am not God, so I do not have to decide. But I do know that allowing children to die of cancer when you could readily prevent it is fundamentally wrong - the antithesis of good and loving.

When God walked the earth, He healed every affliction on record that He encountered.
Right, so we know God could cure those cancers if he chose to (assuming Christianity is true). There is nothing stopping him besides his own unwillingness to step in. He is letting a child die of cancer every three minutes because he chooses to.

Tell us all what you yourself are doing for cancer victims.
Nothing, besides give money to cancer charities occasionally.

I am not perfectly good and I am not all-loving. Nevertheless, if I could easily do so, rest assured that I would prevent all childhood cancer.

And have gone on to glory, leaving your impotent whining butt behind.
Only the Christian ones. All the non-Christian children go to the lake of fire to burn for eternity (Mat 25:41-46).
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
However, I also know no one would dispute whether it would be good to stop childhood cancer. Childhood cancer is indisputably a bad thing, and therefore letting a child die of cancer every three minutes when you could easily stop it is a bad thing.

Unless things even better than the curing could come out of it. I gave you a example of how something better came out of an adult cancer. Now your task is to prove that that cannot be the case with child cancer.

Do YOU think childhood cancer should be stopped?

By people? Yep. By God? That's up to Him.

What is your position here, stiggy? You bring up the joy you felt when your wife died of cancer.

That's an outright lie. I was devastated. Use your great CARM search skills and prove me saying that, you scurrilous jerk.

Right, so we know God could cure those cancers if he chose to (assuming Christianity is true). There is nothing stopping him besides his own unwillingness to step in.

Correct. Just like there was nothing to stop Him from allowing His own Son to be crucified except His own unwillingness to step in.

Nothing, besides give money to cancer charities occasionally.

Oh, aren't you benevolent?

I am not perfectly good and I am not all-loving.

Yeah, the disgusting lie you told above makes that quite obvious.

All the non-Christian children go to the lake of fire to burn for eternity (Mat 25:41-46).

Prove it, liar. Which specific verses say that, liar?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Oh, and after you do your patented CARM search, fill in the blank:

"In the thread titled _______________________, in post # ___, stiggy said that he felt joy when his wife died of cancer."
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Doesn’t it? Why not? I did indeed, but I’ve no idea what the significance of that is to you.
No, of course not. Would you build suffering, particularly to the degree we see it, into a world? So why does God allow suffering from disease? Taking the view He isn't there to stop it is the more parsimonious explanation than the empty, well, He must have a morally sufficient reason. Particularly when an omnipotent God could achieve anything without the suffering.
That’s simply to beg the question.
Saying He must have a morally sufficient reason is also to beg the question.
 

Lucian

Active member
No, of course not. Would you build suffering, particularly to the degree we see it, into a world? So why does God allow suffering from disease? Taking the view He isn't there to stop it is the more parsimonious explanation than the empty, well, He must have a morally sufficient reason. Particularly when an omnipotent God could achieve anything without the suffering.
I’ve no idea what I’d do if I were God: it’s an impossible question to answer, as well as an irrelevant, and probably incoherent, one.

If you’re making an argument from evil, it’s up to you to establish that God does not possess sufficient reason to permit the evil we see in the world. What you seem to be doing instead is to insist that it’s just obvious that the existence of God and evil are incompatible. But to most, myself included, it isn’t remotely obvious. So, what now?
Saying He must have a morally sufficient reason is also to beg the question.
I don’t see how: if God exists, then necessarily he possesses sufficient reason to allow evil.

Of course, it would be to beg the question for a theist to say that an argument from evil must be wrong because God exists.
 
Top