PS, though it's a frustrating one, I appreciate banging my head against yours about this one.
Printable View
PS, though it's a frustrating one, I appreciate banging my head against yours about this one.
I won't say a thing, but I will quote someone:
God is sutil but not wicked.
allowing for others to make a decision that may not be the decision you would have made is not really omnipotence. that seems completely logical to me. maybe we have different understandings of omnipotence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
this just underlines my contention that a benevolent god can't be omnipotent, since he is reduced to choosing the lesser of two evils. remember, we are talking about an infinitely powerful and infinitely good being allowing his 'children' to commit evil. either he's not really as good or powerful as "infinitely" implies, or free will is infinitely good, and acting on our free will, in whatever fashion we freely choose, is a product of that infinite good.Quote:
No, because the lesser of two evils is equivalent to benevolence!
i'm beginning to suspect that we're operating with different definitions of "infinite"/"omni-". if that's the case, i'm not sure how to proceed.Quote:
You are right of course, excuse my arrogance :shame:, but at the same time, I cannot see the fault with my logic. Your issues with my thought process just don't apply... :shrug:
I think the difference in definition is not infinite, but potent. (haha, what a great pun :no:)
You seem to think that an omni-potent being must influence everything. If it does not influence everything, it is not omni-potent.
omni-potent to me means that this being can potentially do anything. It has the potential, if it desires, to influence everything. However it doesn't have to to remain omni-potent.
I think we also have a disagreement about the the effect of being omni-benevolent.
Omni-benevolence is not a restriction applied to god, we are arguing that it is simply a fact. God is not forced to be omni-benevolent, he simply is. Therefore, omni-benevolence is not a restriction of power, as you seem to be suggesting.
Is that fair?
we agree here, kind of. the standard arguement is that if a being "can potentially do anything" and does nothing to prevent "evil", that being cannot be considered "infinitely good."Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
i'm not suggesting omni-benevolence is any sort of restriction, because i'm not disputing that god could have a free will, even if free will is extremely problematic for his.. underlings (so to speak). my question is how an omni-benevolent being would allow for evil if he has the power to prevent it. the counter you've put forward, as far as i understand it is, to countermand our ability to choose evil would be the greater evil.Quote:
I think we also have a disagreement about the the effect of being omni-benevolent.
Omni-benevolence is not a restriction applied to god, we are arguing that it is simply a fact. God is not forced to be omni-benevolent, he simply is. Therefore, omni-benevolence is not a restriction of power, as you seem to be suggesting.
Is that fair?
as far as i can figure, this leads to two situations: either god chooses the lesser of two evils or free will is the only good, and the only evil is to not exercise free will.
in the former case, it seems to me that an omnipotent god wouldn't need to choose, and an omni-benevolent god wouldn't abide any evil. maybe he's a 'tough love' god? :inquisitive:
in the latter case, any act of free will (praying, healing, raping, killing) should be considered a demonstration of god's will. :worried:
from what's i've read, both would be consistent with a biblical god. :clown:
But since free will and the lack of an ability to choose to be evil are incompatible, god must choose, and he chooses what is best for us.
In this world, logic applies. Things are logical, that is how this world was made/always existed/whatever.
If two events are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be true in this world. Having said this, I can't see how choosing "the lesser of two evils" is not equivalent to choosing "good". This is benevolence, and omni-benevolent means always benevolent, to the max.
So we agree that an omni-potent god can allow free will and still be omni-potent. At least that's something :smile:
The sticking point seems to be the lesser of two evils issue. Let me propose my point of view in strong words:
- There is nothing better than the best possible
- When an event is going to happen, the best of all possible outcomes is that best possible thing above.
- That outcome is the best of two (or many) evils, where each outcome has a "goodness" rating, and each outcome is mutually exclusive.
you're putting god in a box. if he is bound by logical rules, he is in some sense, not omnipotent. this might seem a bit of a stretch, but if we can allow for god to be beholden to some external rules, why not others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
actually, i would tweak that a bit; i think an omnipotent being could surrender some of its power to allow 'freedom' of its subjects, and then take that freedom away later and regain omnipotence. but while a human can act in a way that is not consistent with the will of god, god cannot be considered omnipotent.Quote:
So we agree that an omni-potent god can allow free will and still be omni-potent. At least that's something :smile:
to me this sounds like "god is just doing the best he can with what he has to work with". not a description of omnipotence i'd expect.Quote:
The sticking point seems to be the lesser of two evils issue. Let me propose my point of view in strong words:
- There is nothing better than the best possible
- When an event is going to happen, the best of all possible outcomes is that best possible thing above.
- That outcome is the best of two (or many) evils, where each outcome has a "goodness" rating, and each outcome is mutually exclusive.
but let's assume god is, and god is all powerful. why can't god's infinite power create humans who are free to choose, but always choose good over evil? it seems like a lot of religious types tend to believe the exact opposite, that humans choose evil over good, by default. why create such a creature to begin with if you're an infinitely good creator?
Is it not God's will to accept the decision of the human being, and allow it? :inquisitive: If it is, then God remains omnipotent.Quote:
actually, i would tweak that a bit; i think an omnipotent being could surrender some of its power to allow 'freedom' of its subjects, and then take that freedom away later and regain omnipotence. but while a human can act in a way that is not consistent with the will of god, god cannot be considered omnipotent.
Neither of these is free will.Quote:
free to choose, but always choose good over evil? it seems like a lot of religious types tend to believe the exact opposite, that humans choose evil over good, by default.
You are right that I am applying rules of logic to a god when I apply the idea of a choosing the best for us, but you might look at it this way. God creates a logical world, and so he follows his own rules. He has the potential to break those rules should he wish, but this is not compatible with the logical world he has created.
Now if you say that in itself is a rule, then by your defnition then yes there are rules that apply to God. God cannot do destroy something without destroying it. God cannot create something without it being created. God cannot create a logical world without applying logic to that world.
These I do not consider rules, but rather statements of fact. If a man is walking, he is walking.
then when a man chooses to take a hundred babies, hang them all upside down and saw them in half from crotch to sternum with a rusty shovel (how's that for sensational? :eyebrows:), that's god's will? gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
all in all, this seems to leave little room for a meaningful god. we just live in a world governed by logical rules and god apparently sits back and lets us do whatever we want. why bother with a god in the first place?Quote:
You are right that I am applying rules of logic to a god when I apply the idea of a choosing the best for us, but you might look at it this way. God creates a logical world, and so he follows his own rules. He has the potential to break those rules should he wish, but this is not compatible with the logical world he has created.
Now if you say that in itself is a rule, then by your defnition then yes there are rules that apply to God. God cannot do destroy something without destroying it. God cannot create something without it being created. God cannot create a logical world without applying logic to that world.
These I do not consider rules, but rather statements of fact. If a man is walking, he is walking.
To create this thing we call logic? :wink:
Seriously, my point was a bit incomplete there. Where God affects the world, logic doesn't apply, but in the everyday rules of life, logic does apply, because god grants us the free will to do as we wish within the rules of the world we live in.
It's not what god would do in your position, but it is his will that the choice should be yours.Quote:
that's god's will? gotcha.
wait, i thought you said god was beholden to logical rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
for an omnipotent being, the difference between "allowing me to saw babies" with my 'free will' and willing that i saw babies seems merely semantic. he obviously knew i was going to go on a sawing spree...Quote:
It's not what god would do in your position, but it is his will that the choice should be yours.
let's use your example of a man with a gun to my head. lets say he tells me to rob joe horn's neighbor or he'll blow my head off. now, would he be at all culpable for my subsequent robbery? shouldn't god know better than to give a baby-sawer free will to saw babies? isn't god at least partly to blame for the half-babies littering the basement floor?
Bijo, have you considered that perhaps humans are neither good nor evil, only corruptable, and God and the Trinity are the only good and Satan the only evil?
I think one trait in these discussions is to go into either the Judeo-Christian tradition of God ("Bible") or a philosophical "Aristotelian" one. Why must those two be the only choices when it comes to discussing the nature of the Divine, when there are so many cultures in human history and so many of them have many many ways of defining the nature of their Deity(ies) as such?
To me, a Christian, any attempt to claim a great understanding of God is futile. For God is God, our creator and thus above the rules which govern us, God is something of such magnitude and perfection that no man may ever truly contemplate God's meanings and wills. To claim that one has found out through the use of one's great intelligence is hubris and vanity.
However we can be sure that we have free will, to what end? I don't know.
But that is what I know and must accept, God does not give us a guiding hand through life, he has laid out his rules or peace and acceptance. It is for us to adhere top them. Simple.
My beleifs.
The original post is logically put.
I would submit that there is another alternative possiblity to the premises it suggests: there are good reasons for why God allows evil to occur on Earth, and human beings are incapable of understanding what those reasons are. Because God chooses to leave them incapable to, for good reasons.
Of course, it would seem unlikely to me that God would allow us to comprehend that he may not allow us to comprehend evil and yet not in turn allow us to comprehend evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Unless I am unable to comprehend why he is not letting me comprehend why he is not letting me comprehend evil.
My head hurts.
God may seem like an absurd concept. But, all the alternatives are just as absurd if not moreso. The universe, all life in the universe, just magically poofing into existence with all it's infinite complexity --- that concept will always be every bit as absurd as any God concept is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Humans will never be able to come up with any explanation for that that is not absurd. So, to say God is an absurd concept, isn't saying much.
Human beings' limited capacity requires absurdity in any potential explanation of such things, whether it be God, the big bang etc.
even if that were true, why add god into the mix? just one more level of absurdity for the heck of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
i probably wouldn't be so pessimistic regarding the epistemic potential of humanity, but it is a fair point to acknowledge that evolution has equipped humans with brains fit for solving problems like, how to get food? how to get sex? how to not get eaten?, not problems like, what is the nature of existence?
Spanish 'sutil' translates as 'subtle' in English. The meaning and pronunciation are very similar, but the spelling differs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
The correct translation of the saying 'Dios es sutil, pero no malicioso' is 'God is subtle, but not malicious'. :bow:
The very aptness of your quote in the context of this thread makes it seem like the visible tip of an iceberg to me. We only see a small part, but we can assume it's part of a much bigger mountain of subtle understanding of the theological considerations about the subject.
No, the analogy is - I am the man with the gun to your head. Do what you want. I know you might do evil, and in fact, since I am the perfect judge of character I know if you will do evil, but I would be more evil than anything you might do if I were to enslave you and take away your free will.Quote:
let's use your example of a man with a gun to my head. lets say he tells me to rob joe horn's neighbor or he'll blow my head off. now, would he be at all culpable for my subsequent robbery?
Home grown issues? I'm not sure how many people on these boards that can refer to the downsides of Kali worshipping neighbours. Side effects includes sudden cases of strangulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
But I agree that these "lesser" dieties or sources of divine power can be quite interesting to debate, more so than the omnipotent God that can create a universe, yet is supposed to give extreme care to some humans compared to anything else that he have created.
Faith? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What would you do on a debating forum if theres a quite interesting subject were you well lack the thing that makes your opponents arguments make sence and all the other things you see indicates the opposite?
so you have a gun to my head, and i tell you i'm going to boil your son alive and eat his inards right in front of you. and your son, who is obviously weaker than i, is standing right there, and is like, "dad, don't let him ea me!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
you, tell your son, "sorry boy, but it would be a greater evil to stop this maniac from doing what he wants, good luck!".
am i getting a clear picture of your god now?
how i this any different from the complete absence of a man with a gun (god)?
This is exactly what God did when he let the Romans crucify Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
yes, the biblical god is a shining example of brutality and capricious cruelty. in that case, in exercising my free will, the first thing i would do is choose not to believe in or worship such a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Bijo why do you try to understand Almighty God?
If you went to church (I'm assuming you don't) you would know the father says or said "God is mysterious(and/or)and we are constantly trying to understand Him."
Think Bijo, you are a human trying to figure out One who is simply above you, higher in every way, what you should do is follow what God has commanded his creations follow (the commandments), believe in Jesus too while your at it instead of "why should I, I don't believe, I want proof".
I cant see why people refuse to believe in the greater good or question the existence, when simply they should ask themselves if they have done good and love thy neighbor instead.
The other thing to consider is, given god and an afterlife exist; is this world a test? Will those that suffer be recompensed in the next life, and those that cause suffering be punished?
This adds a slant away from suffering and towards free will in terms of "what is good for god to allow"
Let me first just point out to all of you Christians or muslims (or anyone else of a religion that invokes an equivalent to hell): Your religion do not say you have free will! Or if it does, then it contradicts itself by having hell (or the equivalent). To have free will you cannot be punished for any decision you make (or equally punished no matter what your choices are). Since hell punish everyone who choose not to do as your god commands, but not those who do follow the commands, your choice isn't free.
A few questions to all theists, too: 1) What, exactly, is god? 2) Why is a god needed? 3) Why do you believe in your god/s, and consequently, why don't you believe in any other god/s?
Do you even know what atheism is? It’s the lack of belief in any god, so one atheist has just as much in common with another atheist per default as one who don't like apples have things in common by default with another who don't like apples. To say that "they want this or that" is flawed since atheists can differ on every point you could possibly imagine except that neither of them believe in any god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If you're not a "real believer", what does that mean? You either believe, or you don't. It's as simple as that. Claiming to be somewhere in the middle would be dishonest.
But if you really want to know why I want religion to either cease to exist or prove itself true, look at Hitler. Look at 9/11. Look at the inquisitions, the crusades, all the jihads, all who attacks innocent people in the name of their made-up lord. Look at how atheists are treated in America (amongst other places). Look at the treatment of homosexuals. Look at the brainwashing of the children. Look at the bigotry that comes with religion. Look at the irrationality. Look at the hindrance to progress. Look at the loss of (or the blocking of) critical thinking. Look at what "holy books" such as the bible and the koran advocates. Look at… you get the picture.
Oh yes, let's all be irrational and completely discard critical thinking. I mean, if that's what it takes to believe in something so stupid as the god-concept... :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
I would like to think I have a fair understanding of Him. I still do not refrain from my original post. My only purpose with this thread was to prove that God -- if He exists -- is either evil or not so almighty, more or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
Let me ask again: if He truly created us all, the world, and such, why install all these corruptions, emotions, greed, high probabilities for conflict, pain and suffering, "free will", and so on? If He is allpowerful, the answer is He is evil (or any fitting word for it). He must have created all this rubbish on purpose. It is the only logical answer I can find. He could've created the "perfect world" where harmony and peace would exist, but noooooo... he gives us "free will", emotions, greed, conflict, and so on. He is evil, or He is an underachiever.
Hah hah, I won't go any further than that :laugh4:
In the name of. I think it's naive to believe that religion caused these events. If you look at the history, there is generally another motivation. Being aggresive in the name of a religion that preaches peace just goes to show that some people will use any old excuse to do wrong.Quote:
But if you really want to know why I want religion to either cease to exist or prove itself true, look at Hitler. Look at 9/11. Look at the inquisitions, the crusades, all the jihads, all who attacks innocent people in the name of their made-up lord.
By free will we all mean independent consiousnesses and the ability to make a decision which is (however limited) our own. This we do have, there is no denying it.Quote:
Your religion do not say you have free will!
Of course we don't have complete free will, for that we would all need to be omni-potent.
If this is going to be an argument about wether we should believe in a god or not, I'd suggest waiting for the Gahzette debate to start, and debate this in the parallel topic (which is going to happen right?)
Have you actually read the debate you started? You just re-stated your proposition. :inquisitive:Quote:
Hah hah, I won't go any further than that
Oh, please. Have you even read the bible? (Assuming that Christianity is what you're hinting at with "a religion that preaches peace".) I mean, the whole bible? Because I can tell you one thing, it does not preach peace... quite the opposite, in fact. It straight out commands you to attack any city that is filled with people who do not believe in the christian god, and kill all those people. The bible describes an awful, evil, murderous, petty, sexist, insecure, slavery-endorcing, genocidal bully of a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
To think that the inquisitions, the crusades and the jihads were not based on religion is madness. There are of course conspiracy theories about 9/11, but I find that the most likely explanation is that it was religiously based in Islam, which also demands that infidels should be murdered, just like good ol' Christianity. Hitler himself said that he was acting on god's direct command, and that he merely continued Jesus' fight against the jews. That his actions were not religously motivated is out of the question... unless you can prove that he was just lying.
That would just be to have a will, not a free one.Quote:
By free will we all mean independent consiousnesses and the ability to make a decision which is (however limited) our own. This we do have, there is no denying it.
Sure, that I can do.Quote:
If this is going to be an argument about wether we should believe in a god or not, I'd suggest waiting for the Gahzette debate to start, and debate this in the parallel topic (which is going to happen right?)