Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

My definition of God is a man who does good to others and to the society. I see God in Mahtma Gandhi. I see god in a landscape that causes solace to the mind and soul.

According to your definition, God is just any good human being. Thus you have no belief in the notion of some super power exercising control over the universe. I describe myself as an atheist. You also appear atheist but have covered this by changing the definition of God.

In fact i'm not an atheist, but a Rationalist. I see everything in real perspective

You have liberty to describe yourself in any way. Atheist is one who does not belive in God in the sense of omnipotent, omnipresent Supreme being the Creator. For you, this is not meaning of God. You define God very differently.

That's my way of seeing the things which is the characteristic of a Rationalist.

Is a rationalist also a confirmist in the sense he sees meaning in what exists.

This is actually for Ram Baboo to explain as he claims to be rationalist. To me, rationalist is one who believes in things as he sees. He will also accept any meaning what exists only so far as appears reasonable and logical.

My definition of God is a man who does good to others and to the society. I see God in Mahtma Gandhi. I see god in a landscape that causes solace to the mind and soul.

According to your definition, God is just any good human being. Thus you have no belief in the notion of some super power exercising control over the universe. I describe myself as an atheist. You also appear atheist but have covered this by changing the definition of God.

In fact i'm not an atheist, but a Rationalist. I see everything in real perspective

You have liberty to describe yourself in any way. Atheist is one who does not belive in God in the sense of omnipotent, omnipresent Supreme being the Creator. For you, this is not meaning of God. You define God very differently.

That's my way of seeing the things which is the characteristic of a Rationalist.

Is a rationalist also a confirmist in the sense he sees meaning in what exists.

This is actually for Ram Baboo to explain as he claims to be rationalist. To me, rationalist is one who believes in things as he sees. He will also accept any meaning what exists only so far as appears reasonable and logical.

Unless I see, I do not believe in the existence of anything - Athiest.
Though , I do not see the wind, I feel it. So it exists -Rationalist.
Now you draw your own conclusions.

Neither do I see nor do I feel yet it exists --- Believers (Billions all over the world).

Neither do I see nor do I feel yet it exists --- Believers (Billions all over the world).

Yes, they are entitled to have their beliefs . They see everything unders sun, which others cannot.

Ultimately we are our own gods. As we think , we want to reinforce our doubts, and seek confirmation Our ego prevents us getting it from others so we go to Mandir for solace. Mandir in hindi means man and andhar meaning self inside us. so god is nothing but a manifestation of our own self. Perhaps Hinduism is the only religion which does not consider founders as divine to be worshiped. In fact Hinduism has no founder. It is away of life as the learned Dr Radhkrishnan has said.

Ultimately we are our own gods. As we think , we want to reinforce our doubts, and seek confirmation Our ego prevents us getting it from others so we go to Mandir for solace. Mandir in hindi means man and andhar meaning self inside us. so god is nothing but a manifestation of our own self. Perhaps Hinduism is the only religion which does not consider founders as divine to be worshiped. In fact Hinduism has no founder. It is away of life as the learned Dr Radhkrishnan has said.

Hinduism is well known as Sanatana Dharma, that which has no beginning and ending.. Your heart itself is a Mandir where you can see God.. Geeta says God is Nirupa, that which doesn't have a shape or form.

My definition of God is a man who does good to others and to the society. I see God in Mahtma Gandhi. I see god in a landscape that causes solace to the mind and soul.

According to your definition, God is just any good human being. Thus you have no belief in the notion of some super power exercising control over the universe. I describe myself as an atheist. You also appear atheist but have covered this by changing the definition of God.

In fact i'm not an atheist, but a Rationalist. I see everything in real perspective

You have liberty to describe yourself in any way. Atheist is one who does not belive in God in the sense of omnipotent, omnipresent Supreme being the Creator. For you, this is not meaning of God. You define God very differently.

That's my way of seeing the things which is the characteristic of a Rationalist.

Is a rationalist also a confirmist in the sense he sees meaning in what exists.

This is actually for Ram Baboo to explain as he claims to be rationalist. To me, rationalist is one who believes in things as he sees. He will also accept any meaning what exists only so far as appears reasonable and logical.

Unless I see, I do not believe in the existence of anything - Athiest.
Though , I do not see the wind, I feel it. So it exists -Rationalist.
Now you draw your own conclusions.

Unless I see- This does not mean seeing with eyes only. This is wider. Whatever you perceive- with any sense organ, ears, nose, touch- means that you have seen. You get touch of breeze, you breathe air. So atheist will belive in these. An atheist is an atheist because he is rationalist. Rationalist is a broader term whereas atheist is related to God only. I neither see God, nor smell, nor hear, nor touch. It does not matter that I just don't see God. even if I could smell him, feel his touch or otyherwise perceive him with any sense organ, I could belive in him. But God cannot be perceived with any sense organ and is thus a hypothetical entity.

My definition of God is a man who does good to others and to the society. I see God in Mahtma Gandhi. I see god in a landscape that causes solace to the mind and soul.

According to your definition, God is just any good human being. Thus you have no belief in the notion of some super power exercising control over the universe. I describe myself as an atheist. You also appear atheist but have covered this by changing the definition of God.

In fact i'm not an atheist, but a Rationalist. I see everything in real perspective

You have liberty to describe yourself in any way. Atheist is one who does not belive in God in the sense of omnipotent, omnipresent Supreme being the Creator. For you, this is not meaning of God. You define God very differently.

That's my way of seeing the things which is the characteristic of a Rationalist.

Is a rationalist also a confirmist in the sense he sees meaning in what exists.

This is actually for Ram Baboo to explain as he claims to be rationalist. To me, rationalist is one who believes in things as he sees. He will also accept any meaning what exists only so far as appears reasonable and logical.

Unless I see, I do not believe in the existence of anything - Athiest.
Though , I do not see the wind, I feel it. So it exists -Rationalist.
Now you draw your own conclusions.

Unless I see- This does not mean seeing with eyes only. This is wider. Whatever you perceive- with any sense organ, ears, nose, touch- means that you have seen. You get touch of breeze, you breathe air. So atheist will belive in these. An atheist is an atheist because he is rationalist. Rationalist is a broader term whereas atheist is related to God only. I neither see God, nor smell, nor hear, nor touch. It does not matter that I just don't see God. even if I could smell him, feel his touch or otyherwise perceive him with any sense organ, I could belive in him. But God cannot be perceived with any sense organ and is thus a hypothetical entity.

Breeze is an example. Atheist demands a scientific or authentic proof. Where as a Rationalist looks at things on a logical way. Even the Vedas say, there is no form or shape to God. It amounts to the fact that anything that comes in to your imagination is considered as God. We say " It's a Godly Act." It means any thing good to the humanity is Godliness. That's why My definition of God varies. For me a good Samaritan is God.
They say Service to humanity is service to god. I don't want to waste my service serving the god, who cannot even acknowledge. And also I know who is going to enjoy my services. If I serve a human at least he acknowledges that gives me immense satisfaction. This is nothing but pure application of Rationale.

In human society, humans are responsible for both order and disorder. In nature who is responsible for order and disorder? Science explains why things happen the way they do, but who is in the background? This mystery is God.

In human society, humans are responsible for both order and disorder. In nature who is responsible for order and disorder? Science explains why things happen the way they do, but who is in the background? This mystery is God.

I would rather settle with 'Mystery" Not with God

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

As a Rationalist, i see in a different angle If God being omnipresent and omnipotent,is unable to punish the evil, I look towards one who can punish the evil. Then , he's my God.

In human society, humans are responsible for both order and disorder. In nature who is responsible for order and disorder? Science explains why things happen the way they do, but who is in the background? This mystery is God.

I would rather settle with 'Mystery" Not with God

Some call it god you call it mystery, two sides of the same coin.

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

As a Rationalist, i see in a different angle If God being omnipresent and omnipotent,is unable to punish the evil, I look towards one who can punish the evil. Then , he's my God.

So your god is flexible and may take any shape. May be any individual or group of individuals. I fear that such definition of God is not in any dictionary and nobody will understand either. If police can control the evil, better call them good cops and not gods. It is better to belive in God as commonly understood and as defined in dictionary or say that you are atheist or agnostic. Acting any other way is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

As a Rationalist, i see in a different angle If God being omnipresent and omnipotent,is unable to punish the evil, I look towards one who can punish the evil. Then , he's my God.

So your god is flexible and may take any shape. May be any individual or group of individuals. I fear that such definition of God is not in any dictionary and nobody will understand either. If police can control the evil, better call them good cops and not gods. It is better to belive in God as commonly understood and as defined in dictionary or say that you are atheist or agnostic. Acting any other way is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry. I'm well within my belief which I call it as rationalistic belief. Dictionary meanings change from to time because change is the only thing that changes.

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

As a Rationalist, i see in a different angle If God being omnipresent and omnipotent,is unable to punish the evil, I look towards one who can punish the evil. Then , he's my God.

So your god is flexible and may take any shape. May be any individual or group of individuals. I fear that such definition of God is not in any dictionary and nobody will understand either. If police can control the evil, better call them good cops and not gods. It is better to belive in God as commonly understood and as defined in dictionary or say that you are atheist or agnostic. Acting any other way is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry. I'm well within my belief which I call it as rationalistic belief. Dictionary meanings change from to time because change is the only thing that changes.

Dictionary meaning may change and you may hold any view. But what is the current dictionar meaning of 'God' and how people generally understand this. If you just change meanings of your words or anyone does so, we shall not be able to communicate. We can talk only because we have a common vocabulary and meanings of words are known to all in the same sense.

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

As a Rationalist, i see in a different angle If God being omnipresent and omnipotent,is unable to punish the evil, I look towards one who can punish the evil. Then , he's my God.

So your god is flexible and may take any shape. May be any individual or group of individuals. I fear that such definition of God is not in any dictionary and nobody will understand either. If police can control the evil, better call them good cops and not gods. It is better to belive in God as commonly understood and as defined in dictionary or say that you are atheist or agnostic. Acting any other way is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry. I'm well within my belief which I call it as rationalistic belief. Dictionary meanings change from to time because change is the only thing that changes.

Dictionary meaning may change and you may hold any view. But what is the current dictionar meaning of 'God' and how people generally understand this. If you just change meanings of your words or anyone does so, we shall not be able to communicate. We can talk only because we have a common vocabulary and meanings of words are known to all in the same sense.

Even in the most spoken language English worldwide, there are different meanings in Yankee English to queen's English. Not to forget the variations in different countries. The dictionary meaning of God according to 20th century dictionary is, "A superhuman being or spirit."

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

As a Rationalist, i see in a different angle If God being omnipresent and omnipotent,is unable to punish the evil, I look towards one who can punish the evil. Then , he's my God.

So your god is flexible and may take any shape. May be any individual or group of individuals. I fear that such definition of God is not in any dictionary and nobody will understand either. If police can control the evil, better call them good cops and not gods. It is better to belive in God as commonly understood and as defined in dictionary or say that you are atheist or agnostic. Acting any other way is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry. I'm well within my belief which I call it as rationalistic belief. Dictionary meanings change from to time because change is the only thing that changes.

Dictionary meaning may change and you may hold any view. But what is the current dictionar meaning of 'God' and how people generally understand this. If you just change meanings of your words or anyone does so, we shall not be able to communicate. We can talk only because we have a common vocabulary and meanings of words are known to all in the same sense.

Even in the most spoken language English worldwide, there are different meanings in Yankee English to queen's English. Not to forget the variations in different countries. The dictionary meaning of God according to 20th century dictionary is, "A superhuman being or spirit."

Yes. Creator, supehuman being, almighty etc- these are the concept in which 'God' is understood. I don't believe in God in the current meaning commonly understood and so I am an atheist. The commonly understood meaning and that in this thread is also the 'creator who is supposed to be running the universe.

The question whether God is willing to prevent evil but not able has not ben answered.

Although I don't believe in God, I may answer keeping in view the definition of God as agreed to the belivers. God is considered 'all good' and so he nust be willing to prevent evil. But what is evil in eyes of God is also a matter to be considered by the believers. Then if God is willing to prevent evil, is he not able to do so. As God is considered all powerfuil, He must also be able to prevent evil. If you believe that he is unable in any respect, you are not a believer and so an atheist.

As a Rationalist, i see in a different angle If God being omnipresent and omnipotent,is unable to punish the evil, I look towards one who can punish the evil. Then , he's my God.

So your god is flexible and may take any shape. May be any individual or group of individuals. I fear that such definition of God is not in any dictionary and nobody will understand either. If police can control the evil, better call them good cops and not gods. It is better to belive in God as commonly understood and as defined in dictionary or say that you are atheist or agnostic. Acting any other way is nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

Sorry. I'm well within my belief which I call it as rationalistic belief. Dictionary meanings change from to time because change is the only thing that changes.

Dictionary meaning may change and you may hold any view. But what is the current dictionar meaning of 'God' and how people generally understand this. If you just change meanings of your words or anyone does so, we shall not be able to communicate. We can talk only because we have a common vocabulary and meanings of words are known to all in the same sense.

Even in the most spoken language English worldwide, there are different meanings in Yankee English to queen's English. Not to forget the variations in different countries. The dictionary meaning of God according to 20th century dictionary is, "A superhuman being or spirit."

Yes. Creator, supehuman being, almighty etc- these are the concept in which 'God' is understood. I don't believe in God in the current meaning commonly understood and so I am an atheist. The commonly understood meaning and that in this thread is also the 'creator who is supposed to be running the universe.

The word creator itself has a wide range of meanings. For me a creator is an innovator, who with his innovations does good to the humanity. It may be any Tom ,Dick or Harry. He's my God.

Sorry to butt in between the interesting dialog between two esteemed members. According to dictionary, Atheists are those who do not believe in a deity and rationalists are those who rely on reason as the basis of fr establishment of religious or other truths. Both are saying that God does not exist. Till there is no answer to the question who created this world and what was the reason for doing so, till such a time non-atheists and non- rationalists will continue to believe in the existence of a super being popularly known as God. To each his belief.