philosophy about god

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm not arguing the properties of anything I say is real. Let me repeat: I merely am examining how morality would apply to an omnipotent being, and what this means for traditional morality.

An omnipotent being is amoral. Anything it does can always be reversed.

Originally posted by skywalker
I came to the conclusion that while our goal is to eliminate "evil", to achieve that would make life ultimately worthless.

How so?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good question, what does the bible say about the omnipotence of God?

The "all things are possible" bit come pretty close.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good question, what does the bible say about the omnipotence of God?

While you are clearly well versed in the contents of the bible, the fact that various authors over a period of time contended that "all things are possible with god" does not necessarily make it true.

Similarly, somebody wrote the passage of Exodus that you quote. So your claim that what this passage says reveals that god is eternal is based purely on somebody's opinion, and so cannot be accepted as a fact.

So therefore, whether or not the bible proclaims "both the self-sufficiency and omnipotence of god" is irrelevant to the absolute truth of such a claim, since the bible is essentially a collection of anecdotes, some substantially factual, some allegorical, and some probably pure fiction, written over a long period of time by many different authors and translated with inherent inaccuracies over a still longer period of time.

Further still, the bible is written based on the underlying assumption that god exists, and therefore asks it's readers to accept its contents within the context of a god-created universe. There is no logical reason to accept that this supposition is factually correct.

The argument that god exists is essentially circular and has no logical starting point. Thus is born the concept of faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

T
hough often religion gets ***** and encroaches on science. In which case it needs to be *****-slapped and force-fed humble pie.

And vice-versa. Science treats questions it cannot answer as unimportant and irrelevant, rather than admitting that there are some things science cannot examine.

[gamenaught]

And vice-versa. Science treats questions it cannot answer as unimportant and irrelevant, rather than admitting that there are some things science cannot examine

Yeah, science gets pretty c0cky too. When you compare what we do know compared to what we don't know, it is rather humbling.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Science treats questions it cannot answer as unimportant and irrelevant, rather than admitting that there are some things science cannot examine.

On the contrary, scientists are the first to admit that science is and will always be limited.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thriller:

You sport my very first avatar, so debating with you is like debating with myself.

So therefore, whether or not the bible proclaims "both the self-sufficiency and omnipotence of god"

That is all I can say, to the question of what the bible says about the omnipotence and self-sufficiency of God.
To a Christian who does believe in these passages, they would not ask the question you do.

Now, for the question of whether this is true, you have to go back to earlier in the thread, where I make a version of the ontological argument as to why God, if he exists, must be omnipotent. Otherwise, we get into a debate about the bible, and whether we can trust the bible as an accurate source.

So your claim that what this passage says reveals that god is eternal is based purely on somebody's opinion, and so cannot be accepted as a fact.

Very much of what we know and accept as true is based on authority. This is the same, an authority on God.

the bible is essentially a collection of anecdotes, some substantially factual, some allegorical, and some probably pure fiction, written over a long period of time by many different authors and translated with inherent inaccuracies over a still longer period of time.

And how do you categorise sections? Which parts fall into which category? To prove your case it is not enough to say that some parts are fictional, you must show why the parts that I cited are fictional.

As for inherent inaccuracies, how would you go about proving this to be true?

There is no logical reason to accept that this supposition is factually correct.

That's a whole another debate. Even in this thread, we are working on the assumption that God exists in order to discuss more salient points.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by skywalker
wrt evil, I personally think that there IS no answer, because to answer "why is there evil" you have to presuppose that someon created evil. I think "evil" is merely a coincidence of the universe.

I still say, however, that without both "good" AND "evil" the universe would be a pretty dull place

Good and evil are concepts created by man in the context of his experience and spiritual beliefs.....based upon this other concept he developed called "morals". And good and evil are names assigned to describe the quality of certain events and actions.

Tolkien created a world based on his concepts of good and evil. This was essentially flawed since he painted it in terms of black and white, while we know that the lines are not that clearly drawn. The world is grey. Similarly, the boundary between "good" and "evil" is not clear cut, but relative to the individual human being or a particular segment of society.

Taking this a step further, the "morals" that define whether something is good or evil must therefore also be relative.

To say that god created a fixed code of morals, and that man as an imperfect creation is not necessarily able to achieve this perfect morality, means that the existence of such a god-created code of morals is meaningless since man will never know whether or not he is complying.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thriller:

You sport my very first avatar, so debating with you is like debating with myself.

Sadly, I don't think I will ever reach my aspiration of sporting your current avatar

To a Christian who does believe in these passages, they would not ask the question you do.

Oh I see. Christians don't really want to know the answer because they believe everything the bible says.....and why is that? Oh, because they're christians I guess. Hmmm, that makes things easy. You only need to attempt an answer for someone who is a christian, but they would never ask the question so the mystique continues.

Very much of what we know and accept as true is based on authority. This is the same, an authority on God.

I'd be very interested to know who or what qualifies as an authority on god, and who is able to provide/verify that qualification.

A random thought.......if god is omnipotent, can there really be any authority on god?

And how do you categorise sections? Which parts fall into which category? To prove your case it is not enough to say that some parts are fictional, you must show why the parts that I cited are fictional.

As for inherent inaccuracies, how would you go about proving this to be true?

But you miss my point. It's not important whether the particular parts you quoted are factual or fictional. In fact, it is the events themselves described within the bible that either occurred or did not occur, and this we may never know with absolute certainty, though historians are able to show that certain events did in fact occur. But even if a particular event is true and a certain person did actually say something that is written in the bible, the point is that what that person has said about "god's omnipotence" or anything else, is purely that person's opinion and not a proven fact.

As an aside....I'm not trying to "prove" any case. It seems to me that you are.

That's a whole another debate. Even in this thread, we are working on the assumption that God exists in order to discuss more salient points.

On the contrary, the question of god's existence is a vital component in the discussion of god's omnipotence. As I said, the bible is written on the assumption that god exists. You have quoted sections of the bible as evidence of god's omnipotence. If the bible is not valid, then your argument may not be valid either.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Cetainly, if this god is unknowable, it is meaningless to argue about it. In fact, it is meaningless to assert that such an entity exists.

How Middle Ages.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by DaShi


How Middle Ages.

You have just described the underlying concept of religion.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Because if its power can be taken away, it cannot be all-powerful.

But you're assuming that an all-powerful being can't have it's powers taken away without proving that to be true. As others have pointed out, and all powerful being being all-power should be able to take its powers away, thus at that point it would not be all-power, which doesn't diminish the fact that it was all-powerful in the first place. Got that?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by DaShi


and all powerful being being all-power should be able to take its powers away, thus at that point it would not be all-power, which doesn't diminish the fact that it was all-powerful in the first place. Got that?

Fine, as long as you accept that it can never again be all powerful.....for who would give it back its powers?

Believer: Only the true Messiah denies his divinity

Brian: Well what chance does that give me? All right, I AM the Messiah

Crowd: HE IS, HE IS THE MESSIAH!!!!!!

[DaShi]

It can always create a way back. It's all-powerful afterall.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by DaShi
It can always create a way back ahead of time. It's all-powerful afterall.

Now we're getting into the contradictions of time travel. The Terminator, here we come!

[DaShi]

Happy. Now please take your strawmen elsewhere.

[Aeson]

To me the 'stone too heavy' argument fails to deal with an entity which is not only all powerful, but all encompassing as well. In that case, it is everything that exists including the stone, and so making the stone too heavy to lift is really just transfering power from one part of self to another.

I think the two have to go together as well. An all powerful entity would encompass all laws of interaction, all matter, all everything.. because everything is comprised of, can be a source of, or is power... if only the power to be what it is.

Then the argument becomes: "Can God create something that isn't part of God?"

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by DaShi
Happy. Now please take your strawmen elsewhere.

Huh?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Aeson
To me the 'stone too heavy' argument fails to deal with an entity which is not only all powerful, but all encompassing as well. In that case, it is everything that exists including the stone, and so making the stone too heavy to lift is really just transfering power from one part of self to another.

I think the two have to go together as well. An all powerful entity would encompass all laws of interaction, all matter, all everything.. because everything is comprised of, can be a source of, or is power... if only the power to be what it is.

Then the argument becomes: "Can God create something that isn't part of God?"

Or another way....which is greater, infinity, or infinity plus one?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Thriller


Huh?

The point of my statement had nothing to do with time travel. I only meant ahead of time to mean that it was planned ahead of time. Anyway, I'm sorry if it was confusing.

[Ned]

All this discussion shows that to the extent that one attempts to define the attributes of God, clever people can quickly show that such attributes cannot possibly exist in a "supreme being." This either means that the definition of the attributes of God is incorrect, or that there is no God.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Curtsibling:

In a deterministic universe, you would see man as a machine. Now, would it not be in the best interests of the world to figure out how to run these machines as efficiently as possible? Now, what theology does, is that it asks one question. If we are machines, where is the manual?

And that, is how theology, applies to the real world.

Not bad.

Better put than many religionists I have talked to.

But it still is similar to using your Spectrum ZX-28 manual to work out what is going on with a Advent 3.2Ghz PC.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


HongHu:

People have tried, and continue to try to fill this gap. If we do not need him at all, why do we need to believe in him?

Human beings are fragile. Yes no matter now advanced the human species is and no matter how superior it believes it to be, it is fragile. It doesn't know what is the true meaning of its existence. It doesn't know where it should go in the end. It needs to believe in something, anything, so that it can feel safe, and it can feel assured.

Plus it gives us a nice topic to ponder and debate, and to flex those mental muscles.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Cetainly, if this god is unknowable, it is meaningless to argue about it. In fact, it is meaningless to assert that such an entity exists.



Unit? Played too much Civ?

Well you wouldn't expect me to say "a two year old higher intelligent god" would you?

[Ben Kenobi]

Thriller:

Your second question leads into the first. If God is omnipotent, why would he need prophets? They answer that I can think of is not that he needs prophets to spread his word, but that he sends prophets for our sake, in revealing certain truths, and blessing these prophets with abilities to perform miracles.

Both capacities are required, revelation should not contradict previous revelations, and the prophets should have some kind of gift to show that they come from God, and are not just making stuff up. Prophets in the Bible have both capacities.

You also talk about knowing something with absolute certainty. Then you run afoul of my first point. There is very little we regard as true, from our own experience, and a great deal from authority. How do we know anything that we get from authority is true?

Instead, a better point, would be to say that we believe they are true, unless evidence contradicts what they say. If we take this approach to things we know about authority, then why can't we take this approach to the bible?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Because if its power can be taken away, it cannot be all-powerful.

Yes it can. It could prevent the removal of its power, but CHOOSES NOT TO.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
No.

The "could" and "don't" are incompatible with a deterministic system. They both imply that there is some manner which you can bypass determinism and instead do something that wasn't predetermined. That would mean you are changing the system from deterministic to something else. Since we are talking about a deterministic system, everything that happens in that system is predetermined.

"Could" and "don't" DO work - if I had a different state of mind, I would do this, thus I could - but I don't so I won't.

However, if we accept your argument, then free will is simply nonexistant.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
However, you change any law and you unravel it entire ball of wax. The laws comprise an integrated whole. All are necessary and none ever change or can be changed.

A law either can be changed or it can't. If it can't, then it can't, so there wouldn't be "catastrophic consequences" if it was, because it wouldn't be. If it can, then the nature of the universe is such to allow changes to those physical laws, so any "catastrophic consequences" would be a natural result of the physical laws of that universe.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Quote:

I came to the conclusion that while our goal is to eliminate "evil", to achieve that would make life ultimately worthless.

How so?

If you win a game of Risk, it's no fun to keep playing, is it? You have to bring back the "evil".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Thriller
Good and evil are concepts created by man in the context of his experience and spiritual beliefs.....based upon this other concept he developed called "morals". And good and evil are names assigned to describe the quality of certain events and actions.

Tolkien created a world based on his concepts of good and evil. This was essentially flawed since he painted it in terms of black and white, while we know that the lines are not that clearly drawn. The world is grey. Similarly, the boundary between "good" and "evil" is not clear cut, but relative to the individual human being or a particular segment of society.

Taking this a step further, the "morals" that define whether something is good or evil must therefore also be relative.

To say that god created a fixed code of morals, and that man as an imperfect creation is not necessarily able to achieve this perfect morality, means that the existence of such a god-created code of morals is meaningless since man will never know whether or not he is complying.

I'm not arguing any fixed code of morals or definitions of good and evil, I'm making a general statement that applies to ANY definition of good and evil.