ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th July 2020, 07:14 AM   #81
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
You have been shown various contradictions
Edited by Agatha:  Removed breach of rule 12
:
My apologies. Which was the biggest contradiction to the theodicy solution referred to by HansMustermann that I ignored? Just the post number will do. I'll have a look at it.

Last edited by Agatha; 30th July 2020 at 06:04 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 07:20 AM   #82
Pope130
Illuminator
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,401
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Ahh, here we go with "Let me question and redefine words until their redefinition fits my agenda"
As Calvin expressed it:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 34162119_2029233667109526_5510378646323331072_n.jpg (26.6 KB, 11 views)
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 07:22 AM   #83
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,938
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Well, I'm not a Christian (I'm an omni-theist), but didn't I do that? As HansMustermann wrote on the last page:

"It's the first time I hear a theodicy solution that actually manages to keep all 3 and suffering in a pretty darn valid way."
Learn to recognize snark. (And it doesn't actually work.)


Originally Posted by GDon View Post
And not only did I do it, I even used the definition of "omnipotence" provided by the atheists!: "Omnipotence means the ability to do anything."
Words are defined by how they are used, the definition you claim to have been provided by "the atheists!" whoever "they" are is the one you will find in most dictionaries.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 08:00 AM   #84
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Learn to recognize snark. (And it doesn't actually work.)
Why doesn't it work?

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Words are defined by how they are used, the definition you claim to have been provided by "the atheists!" whoever "they" are is the one you will find in most dictionaries.
Serious question: if theists use a different definition for "omnipotence" than atheists, how can theists and atheists argue over any logical arguments that use the term "omnipotence"? What's the best way forward?

From this thread, it seems that if we use the atheists' interpretation, the theodicy question is resolved. But there is a problem that needs resolving if using the omni-theists interpretation.

Last edited by GDon; 25th July 2020 at 08:03 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 08:40 AM   #85
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,938
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Why doesn't it work?


Serious question: if theists use a different definition for "omnipotence" than atheists, how can theists and atheists argue over any logical arguments that use the term "omnipotence"? What's the best way forward?

From this thread, it seems that if we use the atheists' interpretation, the theodicy question is resolved. But there is a problem that needs resolving if using the omni-theists interpretation.
Pure nonsense.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 08:59 AM   #86
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,910
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
Thomas of Aquinas’ definition is pretty vague, and can be used to mean anything. If the omnipotent God does not prevent earthquakes, genocide, cancer etc. it must be because it is not possible. If he saves a man from falling down a ladder, it is because it was possible.

I am pretty sure that most theists think that omnipotence is more than this.

The definition of “what is possible” is crucial here.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 09:14 AM   #87
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
That's fair enough. You had an adult's understanding of the issues when you made your decision. My point isn't so much the age that someone makes their decision, it is the understanding that lies behind it. I'd much more trust the reasoning of a man who is 30 years old who decides he is an atheist than a 10 year-old who decides to become a theist. "Omnipotence means the ability to do anything" is a 10-year old's understanding, in my opinion.
It would be nice if the world's religions would also respect that idea. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The children of the faithful are indoctrinated from birth in the religion of their parents, without any inkling of a choice or a decision, and the penalties for abandoning those beliefs can be very severe indeed. Both Hitchens and Dawkins have talked a lot about this co-opting of the child's free will, and how wrong it is. By all means talk about what you believe to your kids, but insisting that they adopt those beliefs from birth, bringing them up in an environment in which the other options are villified or simply unknown, and threatening all sorts of punishments, both temporal and supernatural, if you abandon those beliefs, is just horrible.
I haven't had much interaction with atheist parents, so I don't know if the reverse is also true. It would be interesting to know if anyone here had some experience of this.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 10:22 AM   #88
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,436
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
For example, for the Catholics traditionally even the pre-Christ Jews for example go to, well, basically the least bad part of Hell. Because you can't be saved in any way except through Jesus, and if you're not saved, well, guess where you're going.
Dante's Hell of Virtuous Pagans.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 01:24 PM   #89
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Apparently the god botherers care little about logic or even truth. What does omnipotence mean to you. If you use any variation of maximal, you have lost already.
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
True, but we need to start somewhere. Let's start with omnipotence. Do you think that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything", including the logically impossible? Or does it mean "the ability to do anything that having maximal power can do"? Does an omnipotent being have the power to create a universe in which "1=1" and "1=2" simultaneously, in your opinion?
I knew you were going to pull that stunt, gave you an out and you pulled it anyway. You have thus lost already.

"Maximally", I told you not to do it, I warned you, but you did it anyway.

The whole argument now becomes about why yours failed.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 01:33 PM   #90
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
So let us explore this.

Do you accept the ten commandments? Yes or no?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 01:37 PM   #91
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 16,372
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Dante's Hell of Virtuous Pagans.
Then, one might ask: Where did Dante get his rules from?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 01:53 PM   #92
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,770
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Right. So how do I argue with someone who insists that "omnipotence" means the ability to do anything? Not much point bringing in the other omnis while operating under different views of what omnipotence means.
You can't. That is what the word means. If you have some other quixotic definition, there is not much anyone can do with such a concept unless you define it, which you refuse to do


Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Of course. But no-one uses the physics of the universe when creating a logical argument, so I'm not sure how what you wrote is relevant
BS. You are creating a lame argument.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I've seen people move goal posts in an argument, but rarely entire football fields.
"maximal" is exactly moving goalposts. The omnipotence of whatever god is true or it is not. You are trying to limit god. If you claim that there are things your god cannot do then your god is definitively not omnipotent.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Even if a logical argument can be made reconciling the three omnis, it doesn't mean the universe is any different to what we see.
But you are unable to even start to resolve the tri-omni issue without tossing out omnipotence from the get go.

Why is it that you feel some need to limit god's omnipotence?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 02:58 PM   #93
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Thomas of Aquinas’ definition is pretty vague, and can be used to mean anything...

The definition of “what is possible” is crucial here.
Yes, but I don't see it as so vague as to be useless. "What is possible" in terms of a logical argument is sharp enough to use, at least in logical arguments. How that reflects the real world is a different issue.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
If the omnipotent God does not prevent earthquakes, genocide, cancer etc. it must be because it is not possible. If he saves a man from falling down a ladder, it is because it was possible.

I am pretty sure that most theists think that omnipotence is more than this.
One of my favorite jokes runs like this:

A man wins a 1st place prize sporting trophy. At the ceremony he goes up to the stage and says: "Thank you Jesus for this victory! Without Jesus I wouldn't have won."

The 2nd place winner then goes up after him and says: "Well, I guess I would have won if it wasn't for Jesus."

GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 03:03 PM   #94
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It would be nice if the world's religions would also respect that idea. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The children of the faithful are indoctrinated from birth in the religion of their parents, without any inkling of a choice or a decision, and the penalties for abandoning those beliefs can be very severe indeed.
Very true. And the real danger is when the faithful believe they have morality on their side, so that atrocities like honor-killings are not just justified, but encouraged. Nothing more dangerous than thinking you have ultimate right on your side.

As CS Lewis wrote:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 03:05 PM   #95
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The whole argument now becomes about why yours failed.
Sure, I'd love to do that. How does my whole argument fail?
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 03:09 PM   #96
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So let us explore this.

Do you accept the ten commandments? Yes or no?
I'm not a Christian (though I'm an omi-theist), and I believe that the Bible is nothing but a collection of old books. (I also believe that they are part of humanity's collective heirloom, like all ancient writings and materials that are left with us, but that's not relevant to this discussion I think.)

I'm rather fond of the "do not kill" one. Some of the others are "meh" though. How about you? Which ones do you accept and which do you reject? And why?
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 03:19 PM   #97
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You can't. That is what the word means. If you have some other quixotic definition, there is not much anyone can do with such a concept unless you define it, which you refuse to do
I've actually done it quite a few times. As I wrote above, the definition I'm using has a long history. Thomas Aquinas (13th Century CE): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence
"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
"maximal" is exactly moving goalposts. The omnipotence of whatever god is true or it is not. You are trying to limit god. If you claim that there are things your god cannot do then your god is definitively not omnipotent.
That's undoubtedly the source of our disagreement. Omnipotence, to me, is limited to doing anything that it is possible to do with power. If there are things that not even all power can do, then an omnipotent being cannot do it.

For example, how much power in this universe is required to create a square circle? My view is: there isn't enough power, so not even an omnipotent being could do it. I'm guessing your view is that there IS enough power in this universe to create a square circle, though I don't see it myself.

I don't think there is anyway out of that dilemma, but it is good to know where we depart.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
But you are unable to even start to resolve the tri-omni issue without tossing out omnipotence from the get go.
It's actually the complete opposite. The definition I use means there are problems with the omni-God's attributes co-existing (which is why apologists have spent so much time over the question.) Opening up the definition of "omnipotence" to effectively do anything at all pretty much solves all logical arguments against God. After all, how can any logical argument succeed or fail when it involves concepts that transcend logic?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Why is it that you feel some need to limit god's omnipotence?
Hey, it was like that when I found it! I was somewhere else at the time.

Last edited by GDon; 25th July 2020 at 03:24 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 03:52 PM   #98
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,773
I was doing one of my normal insect removals a moment ago - shooing a blue wasp out the door (they prey on harmful critters, so we treat them nicely) and it led me to wonder about omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

Let us imagine for the moment that in the current world of free will and complexity, some things are not possible. Fine, but if a god made the world, that god did not have to make it the way it is now. The universe has been around for billions of years, the world for millions, before there were any human beings to claim that they are the reason for everything. If the universe existed for that long, then it's hubristic to presume it could not have continued so. We are not necessary for the universe.

And from nearly the moment life on earth began, it was savage, predatory, and merciless, and I, fulfilling my role as a benign helper of nature, just avoided the sin of squashing an insect by releasing to the world an insect that will, if successful, inject potent neurotoxins into another insect so as to turn it into a zombie egg nursery which its progeny will, when they hatch, devour alive from the inside out.

For a god to be omni-much-of anything seems to require that the world, if not the whole universe, has as its purpose the creation of mankind. If not, then I submit that the parasitic wasp alone makes an omnipotent or omnibenevolent god a bad joke.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 04:21 PM   #99
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 16,372
Unfortunately, in my early childhood, my fundamentalist Christian teachers hadn't got the word, and scared the crap out of me with stories of eternal hell fire..

Of course, I accepted Jesus as my savior, and shouldn't have had to worry about it, but I did..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 05:12 PM   #100
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
For example, how much power in this universe is required to create a square circle? My view is: there isn't enough power, so not even an omnipotent being could do it. I'm guessing your view is that there IS enough power in this universe to create a square circle, though I don't see it myself.
What is this gibberish? What "power" are you talking about? Who told you that "power" is needed to square a circle? Are you feeling ok? Btw I see you made a lot of posts but you did not address the contradictions you said you would look for, earlier in the thread. Will you do this or will you confirm right now that you dishonestly ignore posts that are uncomfortable for you?

Last edited by RedStapler; 25th July 2020 at 05:15 PM.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 05:49 PM   #101
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
What is this gibberish? What "power" are you talking about? Who told you that "power" is needed to square a circle?
That is actually a very interesting question: is there a foundational definition for "power" when it comes to logical arguments? I'll have to think about that one.

Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Btw I see you made a lot of posts but you did not address the contradictions you said you would look for, earlier in the thread. Will you do this or will you confirm right now that you dishonestly ignore posts that are uncomfortable for you?
Oh, I think if you check back through the thread yourself, you'll see that I explained those contradictions completely, just after that post you saw with the contradictions.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:03 PM   #102
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
That is actually a very interesting question: is there a foundational definition for "power" when it comes to logical arguments? I'll have to think about that one.
You claimed that "power" is needed to square a circle. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Oh, I think if you check back through the thread yourself, you'll see that I explained those contradictions completely, just after that post you saw with the contradictions.
You did not explain anything. You are just repeating your claims.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:19 PM   #103
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,634
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
And of course, in more modern times, we learn through sincere analysis that the Bible is consistent with science (if only we look at it the right way), and was so all along! Amazing!
What amazing bogus information you post!!!

The Christian Bible is not even close to being consistent with science.

The Christian Bible is used by the Church and apologetics to teach that the Earth was created less than 9000 years ago.

This is Theophilus of Antioch in "To Autolycus" using Hebrew Scripture to date the age of the Earth 5698 years from creation to the time of the death of Aurelius.

Quote:
And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned.

From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years.

And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years.

And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years.

And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days.

And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years.

All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.
Science dates the age of the Earth to at least 4 billion years not the absurd approximate 9000 years spouted by Bible believers.

Please, people here know what is written in the Christian Bible and know it is not in any way consistent with science.

The Christian Bible is excessively consistent with mythology.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 08:24 PM   #104
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,851
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
You claimed that "power" is needed to square a circle. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
I think theists mean "power" as in "magic" and "miracles.Y

Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
You did not explain anything. You are just repeating your claims.
As theists tend to do. Repeat unfounded assertions as if doing so gives them credibility.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 25th July 2020 at 08:33 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 08:32 PM   #105
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,851
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all
; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
If a god can only do "things that are possible" then it can't do magic and miracles. Not much of a god, or anything like any god I've ever heard of. Humans can do things that are possible.

"God can do anything" means "God can do the impossible". Impossible things like magic and miracles and creating a Universe. If you disagree, I welcome your explanation how magic and miracles and creating a Universe are possible . . .
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 25th July 2020 at 08:42 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 08:50 PM   #106
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,327
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
God would not need to end all suffering or evil, but should be able to at least lessen it in cases where it is possible even with human-level knowledge and power. If God existed there would be no such thing as curable cancer because God would prevent it from ever happening in the first place.
The spirit world teaches that God created a perfect system that promotes our spiritual evolution. he set it into motion then stepped back and left the system to run its course. He does not meddle or intervene, as the system is going to work itself out over time. All the seeming injustices and cruelties will eventually be overcome and everything will be resolved over countless ages.

As humans we look at life's imperfections from a worms eye view. But our immortal spirit goes on though countless incarnations until achieving perfection.
So some people get cancer and die, but their spirit rises from the body and goes on. Like throwing off an old coat and putting on a new one. From the spirits point of view the death is a mercy. The next lifetime will probably be better, and compensate for an early death in our present incarnation.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 08:51 PM   #107
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
You claimed that "power" is needed to square a circle. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
On your earlier interesting question about "power": Looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
Omnipotence is maximal power... in recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs...

Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity: a being which has maximal ability but which is prevented by circumstances from exercising those abilities would not be omnipotent. Nothing could prevent an omnipotent agent from exercising its powers, if it were to endeavor to do so.
So I'd define "power" as "the ability plus opportunity to bring about certain possible states of affairs", and "omnipotence" as "maximal power".

On your question above: I think that to do anything requires "power", including squaring a circle. So that seems to me to be self-evident. Does that make sense? What do you think?

Last edited by GDon; 25th July 2020 at 08:56 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 10:17 PM   #108
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,634
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
On your earlier interesting question about "power": Looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
Omnipotence is maximal power... in recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs...

Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity: a being which has maximal ability but which is prevented by circumstances from exercising those abilities would not be omnipotent. Nothing could prevent an omnipotent agent from exercising its powers, if it were to endeavor to do so.
So I'd define "power" as "the ability plus opportunity to bring about certain possible states of affairs", and "omnipotence" as "maximal power".

On your question above: I think that to do anything requires "power", including squaring a circle. So that seems to me to be self-evident. Does that make sense? What do you think?
What you say does not make sense.

Squares are four sided figures and circles are figures in which the circumference is equal to diameter X twice radius.

Squares cannot be turned in circles because you believe an imaginary God is omnipotent.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 10:28 PM   #109
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,696
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The spirit world teaches that God created a perfect system that promotes our spiritual evolution. he set it into motion then stepped back and left the system to run its course. He does not meddle or intervene, as the system is going to work itself out over time. All the seeming injustices and cruelties will eventually be overcome and everything will be resolved over countless ages.

Beautiful. A true masterwork in unfalsifiability. But why, pray tell, should I believe something without repeatable, falsifiable evidence?

What if I told you king dragons created the world for the eventual enlightenment of all dragons? They hide from humans using their natural ability to cloud the mind. What if I told you that human life on this planet is irrelevant to their preordained rule? What f I said that I had spent decades studying with the wisest sages, mediums, and knights templar to have this truth revealed to me?

How would my statements be any different in quality or conviction that yours? And, if they are, how is such a thing to be determined?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 11:25 PM   #110
Scorpion
Master Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,327
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post

How would my statements be any different in quality or conviction that yours? And, if they are, how is such a thing to be determined?
Cold reason tells me you are making stuff up about dragons, but what I have said has filtered down to me through actually attending many trance lectures by well known mediums.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 12:38 AM   #111
Filippo Lippi
Illuminator
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,150
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The spirit world teaches that God created a perfect system that promotes our spiritual evolution. he set it into motion then stepped back and left the system to run its course. He does not meddle or intervene, as the system is going to work itself out over time. All the seeming injustices and cruelties will eventually be overcome and everything will be resolved over countless ages.

As humans we look at life's imperfections from a worms eye view. But our immortal spirit goes on though countless incarnations until achieving perfection.
So some people get cancer and die, but their spirit rises from the body and goes on. Like throwing off an old coat and putting on a new one. From the spirits point of view the death is a mercy. The next lifetime will probably be better, and compensate for an early death in our present incarnation.
"Cancer is a price you're paying for failings in past lives and is actually good for you," is a vile creed. This has been shown to you before; you know this, yet you keep trotting it out. You have the gall to call me complacent.
__________________
You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 01:11 AM   #112
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
On your earlier interesting question about "power": Looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
Omnipotence is maximal power... in recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs...

Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity: a being which has maximal ability but which is prevented by circumstances from exercising those abilities would not be omnipotent. Nothing could prevent an omnipotent agent from exercising its powers, if it were to endeavor to do so.
So I'd define "power" as "the ability plus opportunity to bring about certain possible states of affairs", and "omnipotence" as "maximal power".

On your question above: I think that to do anything requires "power", including squaring a circle. So that seems to me to be self-evident. Does that make sense? What do you think?
Well, deJudge already said it: You are not making any sense. Your posts are very disturbing to me. At this point there is nothing left for me to say than: Get help.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 03:30 AM   #113
Carrot Flower King
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Cold reason tells me you are making stuff up about dragons, but what I have said has filtered down to me through actually attending many trance lectures by well known mediums.
New irony meter, please!

Between you and Yrreg you done this one in.

So, it needs more than one person making stuff up for you to put credence in it? Got it!
Carrot Flower King is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 03:53 AM   #114
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,436
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Then, one might ask: Where did Dante get his rules from?
Dante was Catholic so presumably from them, I was just agreeing with HansMustermann & giving an example of where an illustration of that belief can be famously found.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 26th July 2020 at 04:04 AM.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 04:04 AM   #115
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,938
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
...snip...
As theists tend to do. Repeat unfounded assertions as if doing so gives them credibility.
To be fair it did do for 99% of recorded human history, it's only the last century or so it's started to stop working for them, given the speed of "progress" in religion they'll probably only need a few thousands of years to catch on to the change.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 04:09 AM   #116
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The spirit world teaches that God created a perfect system that promotes our spiritual evolution.
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Cold reason tells me you are making stuff up about dragons, but what I have said has filtered down to me through actually attending many trance lectures by well known mediums.
There. You've said it yourself. You have no idea what the spirit world actually teaches. All you know is what other people have told you, and you have already admitted that at least some of these people were lying.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 04:15 AM   #117
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,938
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The spirit world teaches that God created a perfect system that promotes our spiritual evolution. he set it into motion then stepped back and left the system to run its course. He does not meddle or intervene, as the system is going to work itself out over time. All the seeming injustices and cruelties will eventually be overcome and everything will be resolved over countless ages.

As humans we look at life's imperfections from a worms eye view. But our immortal spirit goes on though countless incarnations until achieving perfection.
So some people get cancer and die, but their spirit rises from the body and goes on. Like throwing off an old coat and putting on a new one. From the spirits point of view the death is a mercy. The next lifetime will probably be better, and compensate for an early death in our present incarnation.
This is your perfect system in action:

Blake aged 14, Tristan aged 13 murdered by their parents:

Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-50388496

They have both previously admitted murder, conspiracy to murder all six of their children, including Blake and Tristan, and five counts of attempted murder.

The court heard how Barrass strangled Tristan with her dressing gown cord, before Machin strangled Blake with his hands.

They then put plastic bags over the boys' heads, suffocating them. ...snip...
Macey Hogan - aged 2 - murdered by her mother:

Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-40739654

...snip..

Cody-Anne Jackson killed Macey Hogan after texting her ex a message reading: "Sorry, just thought you deserved one last picture and memory of her."
...snip...
Unnamed - minutes old strangled by her mother:

Quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-38803441

...snip...
A woman who killed her daughter shortly after giving birth in the bathroom of her West Sussex home is to walk free.
...snip...
And as everyone knows I could go on and on.

That you consider such a system to be "perfect" leaves me feeling revolted.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 26th July 2020 at 04:19 AM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 04:16 AM   #118
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,938
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
On your earlier interesting question about "power": Looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
Omnipotence is maximal power... in recent philosophical discussion, omnipotence has been analyzed in terms of the power to bring about certain possible states of affairs...

Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity: a being which has maximal ability but which is prevented by circumstances from exercising those abilities would not be omnipotent. Nothing could prevent an omnipotent agent from exercising its powers, if it were to endeavor to do so.
So I'd define "power" as "the ability plus opportunity to bring about certain possible states of affairs", and "omnipotence" as "maximal power".

On your question above: I think that to do anything requires "power", including squaring a circle. So that seems to me to be self-evident. Does that make sense? What do you think?
That is still not defining "power".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 05:38 AM   #119
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,779
I will still point out that we don't need god to be powerful beyond paradoxical to have the problem of theodicy. The original formulation required just these two:

1. CAN god end sufferning? (I.e., is he powerful ENOUGH for THAT specific task.)
2. Is god WILLING to end suffering? (I.e., is he benevolent ENOUGH to will THAT much good.)

The third omni is thrown in the mix to cut off the following potential way out:

3. Does god KNOW there is suffering? (I.e., is he knowledgeable ENOUGH to know you're being raped, or that kids are dying in a plague outbreak, basically?)

Note that NONE of those require some paradox-level of divine power. In fact, the third is at the level of just about any human, and so is the second. And if we go by jrhowell's even more relaxed requirement for the first, again, it doesn't require more than what humans could do.

Yes, Christian theologians DO claim omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, and we go with those just because it means automatically more than we need for points 1, 2 and 3. But that's about it. We don't NEED it to extend into paradox level, nor anywhere NEAR it, for the actual task at hand.

Derailing the talk into "but can god square a circle?" is just a derail, and I dare say the ACTUAL case of bringing a 10 year old's understanding level to the discussion, since we're being accused of THAT. Because that's the age when mommy pats you on the head and calls you smart for asking some 'grown up' question, even if it's irrelevant and dumb as balls for the actual discussion at hand.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2020, 05:46 AM   #120
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,779
In fact, to illustrate how much an irrelevant pseudo-intellectual derail it is, consider the following analogy, which is more or less a recurring discussion on some gaming boards:

Alice: "The exaggerated depth blur in ENB is annoying and unrealistic anyway."
Bob: "Depth blur is realistic. You shouldn't be able to focus and see a castle clearly at half a mile away."
Alice: "If that's the case for you, it just means you need glasses. A healthy human eye focuses at infinity when relaxed. I mean, unless you're short sighted, you can see the MOON clearly, which is a lot farther away than that castle."

At this point Carl could butt into the talk with such issues as 'define infinity', or even 'how can you focus at infinity in a finite sized universe', or 'does that account for gravity lensing, if you want it to actually focus at infinity?'

But that's irrelevant for what was actually discussed, namely a castle less than 1 mile away. For the problem of whether a human should always see that one blurry as heck, the limits of the observable universe are of exactly ZERO consequence.

For all practical purposes, here infinity only needs to mean: "more than you'll ever need."

And that is exactly the level of pseudo-intellectual derail we see in this thread: what's debated are some edge cases that are WAAHAAAHAAAAY outside the domain of what's needed for the actual problem.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.