ARCHIVE: God's mass-murder in the flood

[smothers]

Knight:

 

[smothers]

Knight:

You are missing my point completely. Omnipotence means you can do anything. Placing limitations on this omnipotences negates omnipotence. Limited omnipetence is an obvious oxymoron.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by smothers
Quote:



I don't know much about Christian theology except for courses at a Christian college in Old Testament, New Testament, Soterology, Nuemenology.

I don't know much about Christian theology except for a minor in religion at a securlar university.

Yup that explains it allright!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by smothers
I'm asking these questions to prove my origional point. God created a situation in which evil exists. He placed an apple in a garden and told Adam and Eve NOT to eat it. He probably had a good idea that they would eat it. This un-measurable thing called sin is somehow transmitted to unsuspecting, innocent babies. Again, God created a situation in which evil can thrive. Doesn't that make God responsible for evil through his willful neglect?

I have already answered this objection directly THREE times.

You may not agree with the answer but you could at least acknowledge the answer.

God created man with a TRUE freewill. To do this God knew that evil might become a choice for this freewill creature. God (being a loving God) decided to create a way out the consequences of evil but having His Son pay the price of sin for us if we only accept that and acknowledge it. Our own evil is our own responsibility yet God Himself will took on that responsibility for us if we choose to let Him. God doesn't pay for the sin of those that do not wish or want God to do that for them..... for God is not going to coerce you to do something you do not want to do.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by deardelmar
Yup that explains it allright!

No doubt!

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by smothers
Quote:





And the Christians resort to sarcasm again.

How much more sarcastic could a person be than to accuse a God he doesn't believe in of evil?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by smothers
Knight:

You are missing my point completely. Omnipotence means you can do anything. Placing limitations on this omnipotences negates omnipotence. Limited omnipetence is an obvious oxymoron.

You have a distorted unrealistic definition of "omnipotence"

Let me ask you a basic question about how you view "omnipotence".

Does something that is all powerful (omnipotent) have the power to give away some of its power to another entity?

 

[Delmar]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by smothers
Knight:

You are missing my point completely. Omnipotence means you can do anything. Placing limitations on this omnipotences negates omnipotence. Limited omnipetence is an obvious oxymoron.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Knight
You have a distorted unrealistic definition of "omnipotence"

Let me ask you a basic question about how you view "omnipotence".

Does something that is all powerful (omnipotent) have the power to give away some of its power to another entity?

So I guess smothers really thinks God ought to be able to make a rock so big that he can't lift it!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by deardelmar
So I guess smothers really thinks God ought to be able to make a rock so big that he can't lift it!

Sadly smothers is probably used to dealing with your typical Christian who hasn't put much thought into these issues nor read His word.

 

[taoist]

I don't see any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of an object in order to discover its aspects. This is standard mathematics, and a fundamental part of nearly all non-existence proofs. I don't think it's fair to call this sarcasm, assuming Smothers is asking the question honestly.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by taoist
I don't see any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of an object in order to discover its aspects. This is standard mathematics, and a fundamental part of nearly all non-existence proofs. I don't think it's fair to call this sarcasm, assuming Smothers is asking the question honestly.

What makes you assume that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by taoist
I don't see any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of an object in order to discover its aspects. This is standard mathematics, and a fundamental part of nearly all non-existence proofs. I don't think it's fair to call this sarcasm, assuming Smothers is asking the question honestly.

I think its pretty obvious what smothers is up to.

But hey! Its fun to destroy such weak arguments.

 

[taoist]

Knight, I liked the comments on natural limits to omnipotence and sovereignty. Still, these arguments about the limits of free will by looking at recursive formulations, the rock that God can't lift and such, miss the trees for the forest. Yes, I know it's more common to hear this stated the other way.

There are natural limits on the free will granted to any natural being. While there may or may not be a rock too big for god to lift, personally I think it's formally undecidable, there are certainly rocks too big for any of us to lift. A simple example of the limits of free will.

I can crush a bug but I'd rather not try jumping on a grizzly's toes. Natural limits, ya know. Why is it necessary that my free will must encompass the ability to kill other humans?

Of course I've got an even more fundamental objection to the thesis of this thread, but I think I'll hold off for now.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

taoist... you are speaking but you aren't saying anything.

 

[taoist]

deardelmar;
What makes you assume that?

taoist;
Actually, I don't. But it's proper to state your assumptions when formulating a logical statement. And had I been the one starting with the assumption of the existence of god, it would have been a valid criticism.

I'm on record as having a firm belief in the rational undecidability of the existence of god. Kinda like Hilston, except I usually address the issue from the atheistic position.

 

[taoist]

Okay, let me be more clear, then, Knight. I can imagine a race of beings inhabiting indestructible bodies without the power to destroy a fellow member of their race. (Do angels come to mind? Totally inadvertent, I promise ya. It just came out that way.)

What I can't see is why this would limit their capacity to have free will.

 

[Delmar]

I like the way George Burns said it in OH GOD 2

I never figuered out how to make things with out an opposite. You know up without down , a back without a front, hot without cold...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by taoist
Okay, let me be more clear, then, Knight. I can imagine a race of beings inhabiting indestructible bodies without the power to destroy a fellow member of their race. (Do angels come to mind? Totally inadvertent, I promise ya. It just came out that way.)

What I can't see is why this would limit their capacity to have free will.

This scenario does not limit the ability to do evil it only limits the ability to annihilate.

In fact if you think about it we are already made that way.

All people are eternal.

Murdering someone or killing someone only sends them into the next stage of their life (the after life so to speak).

Therefore you could say that God did indeed create us indestructible. Yet He didn't want to make the choice for us as to where we would spend eternity.

 

[taoist]

Good 'nuff, Knight. I might not agree, but at least it's logically consistent. Though I can see how someone else might find scriptural contradictions there, I think I've done enough bible quoting for a while.

I may not believe your god's existence is decidable, but I have definite beliefs about the inerrancy of what's generally taken for scripture and I'd be forced to argue using verses I don't believe are true.

(Can't do that or deardelmar might call me sarcastic and I'd have to have Jukia come in and rescue me from you big meanies.)

Okay, here's the real problem with the subtext in this thread. How on earth can we come up with a natural definition of evil? Given any two choices, I can differentiate between better and worse, safer and more dangerous, but evil?

While I don't have much trouble forming arguments starting from the assumption of a god, evil is inherently difficult to define in a natural sense. And once you've dipped into the supernatural kitty, the argument becomes naturally undecidable.

(Btw, undecidable really is logically equivalent to irrational, but somehow people take more offense to irrational when it's used to describe actions rather than numbers.)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by taoist
Okay, here's the real problem with the subtext in this thread. How on earth can we come up with a natural definition of evil? Given any two choices, I can differentiate between better and worse, safer and more dangerous, but evil?

While I don't have much trouble forming arguments starting from the assumption of a god, evil is inherently difficult to define in a natural sense. And once you've dipped into the supernatural kitty, the argument becomes naturally undecidable.

(Btw, undecidable really is logically equivalent to irrational, but somehow people take more offense to irrational when it's used to describe actions rather than numbers.)

I think were going off topic (not that I really care as you are at least making sensible posts).

I think evil has several acceptable definitions.

Evil can be relative i.e., harm, calamity. Naturally this explains how it would seem that God could cause evil to come upon His enemies in the form of wrath or vengeance. The enemies see this wrath as evil because it is their calamity.

But ultimately evil is absolute. Evil is what is apart from the will of a righteous God. Evil is like cold is to hot or dark is to light, the further something is away from God's righteousness the more evil it becomes.

There is no evil source yet there is the absence of godliness which is evil. Lucifer has no special evil powers yet uses His God given powers (the same powers that other angelic beings have) to do evil instead of good. Satan uses his freewill to do what is not part of God's will therefore he (Satan) is evil.