| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ok, hell! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 29 2009, 10:35 PM (3,369 Views) | |
| Renauda | Apr 1 2009, 05:48 PM Post #101 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No doubt, divinely satiated |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 1 2009, 05:59 PM Post #102 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Let's try this again: Of these three things, {"omnipotence," "sh!t happens," "loving/good"}, you can have at most two out of three; you cannot have all three at the same time. Yes, human parents do get off because they do not claim to be omnipotent. It's an actuarial certainty that kids will get hurt (i.e., "sh!t will happen"), and yet the parents can still be "good/loving" despite having brought kids into existence because they cannot help it (i.e., they are not "omnipotent"). Human parents cannot perfectly prevent sh!t from happening, human parents cannot perfectly control their urges and behaviors to avoid bringing kids into existence despite knowing with actuarial certainty that sh!t will happen. There is no claim that they are omnipotent. "God cannot be good if people stub toes" is not the argument. The argument is that "God cannot be good and omnipotent while people stub toes." If you grant me that "God" is not "omnipotent," I will grant you that "God can be good even if people stub toes." Get it? |
![]() |
|
| CrashTest | Apr 1 2009, 06:57 PM Post #103 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
We might as well talk about pirates and faeries, hell doesn't exist. Question answered, don't worry about it. You go to the same place you came from - nowhere. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Apr 1 2009, 06:59 PM Post #104 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
+1 But let them go at it. This subject is really important to many people. For some reason some people are not okay with unanswered questions. ![]() Where did I put that merry-go-round pic? |
![]() |
|
| CrashTest | Apr 1 2009, 07:09 PM Post #105 |
|
Pisa-Carp
|
Yeah - I still find it amazing how people buy into such a thing. Pretty much rational people choose to be insane when it comes to this. It's the only explanation. And obviously if you read what I wrote and you believe in such things, you will disregard it the same way as I disregard what you believe in - and we both think we are equally right. The only difference is that I know I am right because I thought about it for 5 minutes and it made sense, but you think you are right because it is psychologically engrained in you since an early age and you can't let go of it anymore than you can forget to count to 5. |
![]() |
|
| NAK | Apr 1 2009, 09:29 PM Post #106 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
Believe me, I would be more than happy to believe that. If I could.
So in 5 minutes you convinced yourself there was no afterlife? Jeez, I wish I gave as little of a sh!t. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 2 2009, 12:06 AM Post #107 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Omniscient and all-loving and omnipotent God. Stubbed toes are minor but sure the argument still works. It's not as immediate and obvious as if you use stuff that actually destroys people rather than the occasional momentary spike of pain but sure it still knocks out traditional monotheist ideas.
Right and your god made them that way deliberately. Instead of choosing a universe where those horrible things don't happen he picked one where they did.
Medicine is making progress all the time as such it's obviously not true to claim that the universe is as good (from the perspective of conscious observers) as it can possibly be. Even within the current laws of physics that's true, but we're talking about a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient deity he's not constrained at all by laws, he can create any logically possible universe!
I'd guess that if you asked them that parents believe that the life their child will live will be worthwhile, that the good stuff will outweigh the occasional stubbed toe. I doubt prospective parents ever believe the really really horrible stuff will happen to their child. Suppose we accept that on average life is worth it in the sense that the good stuff outweighs the bad (and as i said before I dearly hope that is true). Fine. That doesn't change anything. The parents don't have infinite power and infinite knowledge, their choice is procreate or not procreate, if children turn out to have horrible lives one can't blame parents - they didn't know, sure it was a risk but if on average they think life is worth it then their decision to procreate is not unethical. If on the other hand they have infinite knowledge and infinite power and they choose to create lives where truly horrible things happen instead of lives where truly horrible things don't happen then obviously you wouldn't be able to call them "all-good". At best you'd be able to call them indifferent.
The idea of an all-loving, all-powerfull, all-knowing God would indeed be contradicted by any kind of world where horrible things happen to people. Such a creature by definition would create an ideal reality for conscious observers. You seem to realise this, you see that even if the world was perfect except that people stubbed their toes, even then your claim about a putative creator would be necessarily incorrect. But this reality is massive overkill. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 2 2009, 12:52 AM Post #108 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
No Ax -- you don't get. You can't even manage to get to loving/good with partial knowledge and potency. You KNOW that your babies will get sick and suffer and die, yet you willingly brought them into the world. You must be terribly evil KNOWING that they would get sick and suffer and die, yet you engendered them anyway. You cannot claim to be loving since you had the power to not bring them into a world of sickness and suffering and death. If you were really good you would have not procreated them actuarially certain that they would get sick and suffer and die. Should we then conclude that you did so deliberately and maliciously because you wanted them to suffer? (Such is the argument you and Moonbat are making against God). You make a distinction without a difference. Omnipotence is one mode of perfection and goodness is another mode of perfection. If God is not perfect he is not god. If he lacks perfection either in potency or knowledge or love, he is not god. So you have basically made an argument that speaks of something other than God. There is nothing to grant in saying God is not omnipotent yet can be good while people stub their toe. You of course refuse to acknowledge that there is a greater good than stubbing one's toe, or even being eaten by a tiger or any other bad thing, namely that suffering itself can hold a key to love. You might be pissed off that it is so either/or, and it seems that you and Moonbat are really just complaining that the stakes are so high and the bandwidth is so wide regarding disease and paralysis and Alzheimer's and people who torture others. I suspect that in your wisdom, the world you would have created would be profoundly unsatisfying. Your perfect world would keep us all at the level of bacteria in a petri dish. No need for innovation. No need for emotional relationship. No need for exploration. No need to develop the mind. No need for sacrifice to get out of your ego. No need for love. No need for virtue. In short, no need. But you refuse to get that suffering is actually of benefit to the human condition, so there could well be wisdom in a divine plan that does not map onto your facile syllogisms about suffering and divine modes of perfection. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 2 2009, 01:12 AM Post #109 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
No Moonbat. Again, if there is a greater good to be gained then the suffering and horrible things are not contradictory. You just refuse to acknowledge a greater good. I have no idea what this means when you speak of god as "such a creature". That is entirely incoherent. Who then created this creature? And no, your hypothesis that God would necessarily have to create an ideal reality for conscious observers is tendentious and not demonstrated. Yet you illogically hold it as a conclusion. I see why you have to try to dismiss it as massive overkill since it really gets to the heart of the question. If all that was wrong with the world was that people stubbed their toes, you would presumably still choose existence and the opportunity for love relationships over nonexistence. Even in a world with Alzheimer's and paralysis and tigers who eat people and HIV, you would still choose existence and the opportunity for love relationships over nonexistence. So really, all your hangwringing over what a terrible world this putatively perfect God made is shown to be hollow. Your argument is all or nothing -- earthly perfection or God does not exist. Since it is clear that the world is not perfect -- and even if we only stubbed our toes, any imperfection would rule out the case -- therefore God does not exist. It's not overkill -- just the opposite. I am just clearing away all the noise that gets in the way of your real argument. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 2 2009, 01:15 AM Post #110 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I wonder how many hits the search "Ivorythumper syllogism" would yield, if the **** search function would work ![]() Hey IT, you may want to take a look at Frege's Begriffsschrift for an update on your slightly outdated understanding of logic. Syllogisms have long been superceded by Frege's framework of predicate logic. By the way, I'm just browsing through the Summa Theologica. I wish Thomas had also read the Begriffsschrift But I have some questions about primum movens immobile and some other issues, and I hope you can answer them.(by the way, isn't it fun to pretend that we are all super-educated? Intellectual masturbation is almost better than sex )
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 2 2009, 02:21 AM Post #111 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Perhaps you are doing it wrong....
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 2 2009, 04:02 AM Post #112 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I'm quite happy to acknowledge a greater good outweighing something that would otherwise be bad in the context of someone who is not omnipotent. I'll push a kid onto the ground causing him pain if it knocks him out of the way of a speeding car. Causing the kid pain is something bad but the good of the kid being saved outweighs the bad of causing the kid momentary pain. But, the reason this works is I'm not omnipotent. I don't have the power to get the greater good of stopping the car hitting the child without the evil of hurting the kid by pushing him onto the ground. Because I'm not omnipotent all I can do is choose between hurt kid or dead kid. But your god is supposed to be infinitely powerful or according to you he is. So there is no outcome he cannot achieve and there no constraints on how it is achieved. He could simply wish the kid some place else or that the car had slowed down a bit earlier on so that the kid wasn't on the road when the car came or past or a million other ways he would achieve this greater good. God need not admit any evil to achieve a good because he is omnipotent. The defence you are trying to reach for is that this universe is the best logically possible universe. In the book where each page is a possible history of a universe and there is a page for every logically possible universe, the page that corresponds to our history is the one where the least bad things and the most good things happen to conscious observers. That's your defence, that it's logically impossible to even imagine anything better than this world, with no constraints to imagination, no requirements to adhere to our physical laws or indeed any physical laws at all. Well simple inspection reveals that isn't the case. In fact, even with our laws they are possible. But what's more you explicitly don't believe your own defence. You explicitly believe that a vastly better world is not only possible but it actually exists - you think some people get sent there after they die. Or are you going to argue that there are paralysis victims in heaven?
A god described as an all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good/omni-benevolent/entirely benificient who designed a universe populated with conscious observers would necessarily create an ideal universe. He would wish the universe ideal for the observers because he's omni-benevolent, he doesn't want anything awful to happen, that's what it means to say he's all-good. If he doesn't wish the best for people he's not all-good. He's all-knowing and all-powerful so when he came to choose which out of the infinite number of possible histories reality could take he would pick the one he wanted i.e. the ideal one. We don't find ourselves in an ideal universe therefore we were not the product of an all-knowing, all-powerfull, all-good, agent.
Whether I personally want to live has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument that a tri-omni God is implicitly incompatible with the observed universe. But uh there are people who don't want to live - about a million people kill themselves every year.
Therefore an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing infinitely good god does not exist. It's all or nothing because of that tri-infinite description. If you describe someone as infinitely strong then when it comes what they can lift up, it's all or nothing. If there is any mass they can't lift, no matter how rare or heavy then your description is wrong.
You haven't grasped that overkill comment. If the only bad thing that happened to conscious organisms was stubbed toes that would still refute the notion of a tri-omni god. The real world with much much worse stuff than stubbed toes is overkill, is vastly more than is needed to refute this notion of a tri-omni god. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 2 2009, 04:53 AM Post #113 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK, Moonbat, let me explain what I'm trying to get you to consider.
God's intent in the process of creation was, and is, to create a particular type of cosmos - one in which all things have a particular type of what I'll call "perfection," although I stress that by this, I mean "God's full intention for that manner of creation" - which, frankly, we don't fully understand; not "perfection" in whatever meaning of the word we humans may assess to the word. This idea of a perfect creation includes all physical, material existence. One aspect of this perfect physical creation is human life. But human life within the perfect creation of God's intent is not the type/manner of human life as we understand ourselves in our current state of being. The human creature that God intends within this perfect creation is one who a.) is a being both body/physical and soul/spiritual; b.) has a human nature, which has some real, but very limited, similarites to God's own nature; and c.) exhibits a voluntary relationship of love of, and obedience to, God, even while the human nature permits the human to not do so (The old-timers expressed this idea in the first question of the Westminster Catechisms: "Q. What is the chief end of man?" "A. To love God and glorify Him forever.") Notice, though, that humans are only one aspect of the perfect creation. This idea of "perfection" extends to all of physical creation - humans are an important, but not the only, component of the perfect creation of God's intent. Another important aspect is that we humans have never met the standard of God's pefection, to be part of the perfect creation of God's intent. Note particularly that this is even true of human creation before the "fall of man"/the entry of sin into our physical creation. (Many Christians who might read that sentence would take issue with what I just wrote, but I ask them to stay with me to the end, and you'll see that even if you've never heard anyone say that before, this is the consistent, orthodox Christian belief, at least in the sense that I mean it here. ) More on this aspect later. The Christian understanding is that God has or will move within history primarily in one of three ways: 1.) creation - pretty self-explanatory 2.) reconciliation - the act/manner/process of repairing the relationship between God and humans, which had been broken through our rejection of God 3.) eschatological consummation - the final fulfilment and completion of creation; the establishment of the perfect, physical/spiritual existence of God's intention It is Christian belief that aspect #2 of this list was achieved by the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, who is the eternal Son (one of the three identities making up the single triune God) who has taken on, in addition to his divine nature, a human nature and body, and through whom came the ability for humans to be reconciled with God. I am not interested, as part of this discussion, to divert into either a discussion about the nature of the Trinity, or a discussion of the Incarnation, or even a discussion of the understanding of precisely how Christ actually achieves that intent. For the sake of this specific topic, it suffices to point out that this is the Christian belief regarding how God works to achieve reconciliation. Item #3 is very important to think about, in light of our current discussion. It is Christian belief that this eschatological consummation is a process that has begun to break into this current existence; that it began with the entry of Jesus Christ into the world, and most particularly in Jesus' physical resurrecton and ascension. It is Christian belief that this was the first, crucial step in God's finally completing/creating/establishing the perfect creation that God had intended since the beginning. This is a kery important idea to grasp: This creation as we know it is not the ultimate creation of God's intent. Even the original creation, before the fall of humanity, before the entry of sin into this world, did not represent God's full, final intent for creation. At this point, many Christians reading this will say "Well that's not what I was taught/that's not what I always heard in sermons/Sunday School!" All probably very true, but still very true, for the following reason. Christians believe in the coming final eschatological fulfilment; that this is the singular, particular event that all of creation and history has been moving toward since the beginning. Our creation is NOT simply about living good lives so that once we die, we'll live non-materially/spiritually in heaven, and avoid a similar existence in hell. That is NOT what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that the endgame is the fulfilment and establishment not just of a spiritual heaven/hell, but of this physical and spiritual existence. It is an existence where humans exist physically, in a physical way similar to, but different from, our current physicality. It is a vastly different type of physical existence, one which we can't even fully understand at this point, but which we have seen a preview of, in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrected Christ is spiritual and physical, but physical in a manner which can use time/space differently thaht our physical bodies can (i.e., Jesus' post-resurrection accounts of his appearing & disappearing, his being able to speak with people who knew him yet couldn't recognize him until he willed that they do so - he wasn't able to do these things because he was a ghost, or because he was divine; but because of the particular nature of this physical resurrection body) If this is the case - and Christians believe that it is - then we have to understand creation as have seen it play out, is not a completed act, but one which is not yet complete. In other words, God did not "choose a universe," to use your words, but more accurately, "is choosing a universe." God's creation is an as-yet incomplete process. Christians, note that the eschatological fulfilment - the establishment of a physical Kingdom of God on earth/within physical creation has been God's intent from teh beginning. This is not changed by the idea that our physical creation originated "good," and that sin entered creation through our willful rejection of God. This is true. But also remember, God's intent is a creation populated by humans who have a human will that must, by definition, allow for rejection of God, but the human chooses not to reject - which clearly is not the case in this creation. Further, as we se in the physical nature of the resurrected Jesus, the concept of physical existence in God's intent is something very different from what he have now, or even had upon our original creation. God had a "step two" in mind from the very beginning. Our current existence - one in which our own rebellion has indeed brought on pain and suffering because of our own willful rebellion from God - is, no matter how good its original state, nonetheless a transitional state - a waystation on the way to the completion of God's creation (heaven and hell themselves are also similar waystations en route to the completion of God's intended creation). This creation is, to paraphrase that Paul guy, exhibiting the labor pains of the final creation currently beginning to be unfolded. An important part of this transitional phase is allowing humans to exist, with full exercise of human nature, to find those who will ultimately populate the creation that God has in mind. That does nothing to diminish the importance of our current existence. Our existence in this creation is actually of utmost importance; what we do in this physical existence determines whether we will enter into that final, ultimate physical existence. This life is a testing ground. Part of that testing - in fact, the reason the testing is needed at all - is that some will not pass the test. That's part of the paradox of our human nature: in order for us to be the kind of creatures that God wants to populate the as-yet incomplete creation, we have to have the human will to reject God. In our physical existence in that completed creation, we will continue to have human will - including the ability to reject God, even - but while retaining the ability to do so, we will be so guided by God that we will always choose not to reject God. That's where I was headed in my asking you to consider the implications of your words. God has not "created" something and stepped back to watch it play out, to its own detriment. Rather, we ourselves are living in the midst of the continuing process of creation. We have not yet reached the endpoint, and the current suffering and lack of completion are the necessary labor pains en route to the completion of this creation. It is the necessary vehicle to reach the "universe of God's choosing" which is inhabited by human life which exists and wills as God really desires (and in fact, very similar, but not exactly the same, as a kind of ideal human existence described earlier by you). Finally, it is Christian belief that this final eschatological culmination of creation and eternal, physical/spiritual life in the presence of the Creator will be one of such complete joy and fulfilment that the struggles of our current existence, as real and painful as they are, pale in comparison to the ultimate reality. God can create a world that exists as our current world does, with all of its pain and suffering, and still be considered a God of love, because of that reality - what is yet to come is infinitely greater, and worth the current pain endured to get there. Our current struggles may be seen by some as evidence that God is neither omniscient nor loving, but they may just as easily be seen as evidence that he is, in fact, both. He can see the reality just over the horizon that we can't see, and that in our limited field of vision, we sometimes feel that we've been given a raw deal that if what we see, and know, and feel now is as good as it gets, then God is a joke, or a failure, or a sadist. In a real way, the horrors of this stage of creation point to the untold joy to be available in the next step. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 2 2009, 05:05 AM Post #114 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
In contrast to Moonbat, I have no problem in reconciling the notion of an omnipotent god with suffering. I have always wondered, though, why god would find it desirable to be glorified. I mean, here on earth typically only "all too human" selfish desires? Isn't it strange that the behavior that Christians are supposed to have with regard to god (obedience and glorification) is exactly what a ruthless ruler wants from his people? If you add to that the fact that, historically, rulers were often attributed a god-like status, then you suddenly have a quite different perspective on how these directives may have emerged. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 2 2009, 05:22 AM Post #115 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
The Christian God, said to be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, is a real bastard and I don't mind saying so. Read the book of Job, or the account of Lot and his daughters, or the Israelites' being commanded to go into an enemy's land and wipe out every man, woman, child, and every bit of livestock. But he's the God of LOVE!!! (And if you don't believe that, he'll send you to HELL to PROVE IT!!) Heh... Riiiiiiiiiiiight.....
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 2 2009, 05:28 AM Post #116 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It's a good observation, Klaus, and pointing out the historical/contextual parallel you identify is important. Humans discuss "glorifying" God, and our use of that term undoubtedly arises to a large extent from the temporal understanding of offering a King glory - hopefully, it would be a beneficient and compassionate King, one more worthy of glory than a despot simply demanding it, but much of the idea of expressing our interaction with God in that way does come out of the secular/temporal. It is also in large part to emphasize that the believer's ultimate allegiance, and the one to whom glory is actually due (since glory is, in that understanding, a response due a good ruler) is God, not any human king. The idea of offering glory to God is in some sense revolutionary, and something that turns the power and authority of the world on its edge. While I certainly think that God is due glorification for God's nature and actions, I think it is a concept more understood from our viewpoint than from God's. In other words, if what is believed about God is true, then God is deserving of our glorification, and by extension this would be part of our expected response to God - rather than it being something that God expects in order to meet a need for literal ego-fulfilment. If God is worthy of glorification by humans, then humans should glorify God; and failing to glorify God would simply constitute a rejection of the reality of God's goodness/worthiness of glorification. Following the old saying the "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice gives to virtue," that ruthless dictator wants those same attributes by very reason that they are things that are actually due to a good, merciful, just ruler. The hypocrite seeks validation by demanding that which is legitimately due his better. The dictator must try to coerce that response that the truly good ruler is given voluntarily, or at very least deserves. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 2 2009, 05:28 AM Post #117 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
... and don't forget what happened to poor Onan!
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 2 2009, 05:32 AM Post #118 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK, Dewey, what you said in your last post sounds reasonable, but it somewhat contradicts what you said earlier, namely:
There is a big difference between saying "Thank you" because you believe the recipient deserves it, and "Thank you" because the recipient wants you to say (and mean, in an Orwell/1984-ian sense) it. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 2 2009, 05:52 AM Post #119 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
If he intended it from the beginning and his creation didn't fit what he wanted then he messed up to begin with didn't he? That's fine in the sense that you can create a consistent story along those lines but it means that your central character does not fit the description of infinitely powerful, infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely good.
Well you're in the present so from your perspective God is still "choosing a universe" but that doesn't alter what I said earlier. If the Christian god is an omniscient and omnipotent creator then he knew the entire history of reality before he began. Out of all possible universes -again defining one universe to be one entire history of reality- he picked out one. You and I sitting the present don't know what the future he chose will be, but he does, he knew from before the beginning what it would be.
This is exactly what my argument addressed. This notion of "will" doesn't help you at all. It doesn't work, not if this putative designer is omniscient.
Necessary labour pains. Necessary as in you can't get to the result without the suffering? That kind of necessary? Fine. But then of course the term omnipotent can't be used. Because to someone omnipotent nothing is necessary. An omnipotent designer could have started off with this magic final step. The character that you describe does not fit the infinitely powerfull, wise , good etc. etc. description that many monotheists like to use.
The observation that there are people who kill themselves because their life is so awful that they can't bear it anymore is evidence that there is an omniscient loving designer? I've read some pretty confused statements on this forum but that one probably takes the cake. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 2 2009, 06:06 AM Post #120 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Suffering in the world does not contradict an omnipotent god, only an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, god. The criteria of consistency though is not even remotely enough to justify believing something. Whilst the inconsistency of most religious claims mean they can't even be interpreted even if we limit ourselves to consistent stories it's still irrational to believe any one of these consistent stories over any of the infinite number of alternative consistent stories. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 2 2009, 06:12 AM Post #121 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That would be true, but I don't believe that God does, in fact, say it in an Orwellian sense. I believe that God wants it - expects it - of us, not simply because God wants it, but because it actually is appropriate. As (I think) I said earlier, the point of the exercise is that we recognize God for who God really is, and what God is really like. If we do that, then glorification of God will flow naturally, and witholding of glorification is simply rejection of the acknowledgement that God wants for us, in order that we may really live in that manner intended for us. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 2 2009, 06:23 AM Post #122 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK, but even if it is appropriate to glorify god, then it is still quite a different thing if he expects it of us. Why not just say "God deserves glorification for all he has done for us" rather than "God expects us to glorify him"? The latter one makes him appear in a quite bad light. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 2 2009, 06:24 AM Post #123 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Free will has been supposedly given by the Creator. Yet, with the threat of Hell and damnation hanging overhead, that's not free will. That's coercion. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Apr 2 2009, 06:26 AM Post #124 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It's called "incentive", Frank! |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Apr 2 2009, 06:38 AM Post #125 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Yeah... It's like, "Yesterday, you were a customer. Today, you're STAFF!"
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












But I have some questions about primum movens immobile and some other issues, and I hope you can answer them.
)



10:56 AM Jul 11