Is God Flawed If He Allows Evil and Sin?

[Iacchus32]

From the "closed" thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1307&perpage=15&pagenumber=23" ...

Originally posted by drdeath
ok i don't know how many of you guys were members of physicsforums' last incarnation, but this topic was debated to death and we still couldn't agree but my argument was that if god exzists why do all the bad things in the world happen, and why does he allow us to sin. also if god is all powerfull can he create a stone he cannot lift. the answer is no as if he can create the stone he is not all powerfull cos he can't lift it, but if he can't create the stone then he is not all powerfull. therefore he cannot possiably be all powerfull. therefore our definition of god is inaccurate. this means our whole belief system is flawed which makes god a flawed being himself. if god is flawed however, he logically cannot be a god and therefore does not exist according to the way we define. so in simple terms god logically cannot exist as we belief in a god that cannot possiablly be the way we define him to be. QED god has left the universe and will not be returning.

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt

this topic was debated to death and we still couldn't agree

So let's move on.

If God is all that powerful He doesn't have to prove anything! ... He just "has" to be! ... And therein lies your answer.

If we couldn't "question" the fact that we exist (as God Himself exists), then we couldn't acknowledge anything now could we?

So why do we tempt Him to prove that He exists, when all we need to do is prove to ourselves that "we" exist?

 

[Lifegazer]

Great lines. They belong in the philosophy room.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
From the "closed" thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1307&perpage=15&pagenumber=23" ...


So let's move on.

If God is all that powerful He doesn't have to prove anything! ... He just "has" to be! ... And therein lies your answer.

If we couldn't "question" the fact that we exist (as God Himself exists), then we couldn't acknowledge anything now could we?

So why do we tempt Him to prove that He exists, when all we need to do is prove to ourselves that "we" exist? [/QUOTE]
Big Ifs. Rather, this is a cyclic argument that brings no information. If we say that God is All powerful, then that actually places God outside of the realms of reasonable discussion, may it be proof or disproof. Why should God obey your petty laws of reason and logic? So, we in fact make the assumption in all discussions to limit God's power, be it by saying God doesn't want to do x, or he is inherently constrained to do y etc. I made this point previously.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Great lines. They belong in the philosophy room.

Thanks! I have no problem if they want to move it. Except that it might last longer here? ...

 

[FZ+]

It is not always a good thing for a thread to last long...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Big Ifs. Rather, this is a cyclic argument that brings no information. If we say that God is All powerful, then that actually places God outside of the realms of reasonable discussion, may it be proof or disproof. Why should God obey your petty laws of reason and logic? So, we in fact make the assumption in all discussions to limit God's power, be it by saying God doesn't want to do x, or he is inherently constrained to do y etc. I made this point previously.

Or yours? ... Isn't the fact that we exist, and that we have the ability to question it, proof enough? Because that's the whole point, if God is a god of reason (as Lifegazer says), then don't you think He'd want us to come to understand Him through reason? If on the other hand, we demanded proof of Him all the time, how reasonable do you think that would be?

Whereas if somebody wanted to pick a fight with you, wouldn't it require a lot more constraint to back down, rather than go all out and let them have it? So maybe this is where the "real power" lies?

 

[FZ+]

Isn't the fact that we exist, and that we have the ability to question it, proof enough?

No it isn't. (As though you were expecting me to say something else?)

Because that's the whole point, if God is a god of reason (as Lifegazer says), then don't you think He'd want us to come to understand Him through reason?

Why do you think he is a god of reason? Why do you think so many reasonable people do not believe or understand him? Why do you think he would want or desire understanding? Why do you think that the desire of reasoned understanding precludes the idea of objective evidence? We do you think that you already understand God in this way?

If on the other hand, we demanded proof of Him all the time, how reasonable do you think that would be?

Very reasonable. Simply because a lot of people think so, and thus we are made to demand proof of him all the time. If God is a god of reason, then we being his creations, everything we think, including rejecting him, must be reasonable too. That is, if we really express what he wants...

Whereas if somebody wanted to pick a fight with you, wouldn't it require a lot more constraint to back down, rather than go all out and let them have it? So maybe this is where the "real power" lies?

Why does God have to be constrained? I get the feeling that the whole point of an all powerful god is to be free from constraints. Where we are constrained by our fear of punishment, or inbred cultural feeling of conscience, god has to made do with himself. Is it really reasonable to create an all powerful that cancels itself out? I can be all powerful, but I use all my power to be not all powerful...
Makes sense?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
No it isn't. (As though you were expecting me to say something else?)

That's entirely up to you.

Why do you think he is a god of reason? Why do you think so many reasonable people do not believe or understand him? Why do you think he would want or desire understanding? Why do you think that the desire of reasoned understanding precludes the idea of objective evidence? We do you think that you already understand God in this way?

Maybe it isn't necessary, so long as we learn how to be reasonable and get along with each other. In which case why does God require proof?

Very reasonable. Simply because a lot of people think so, and thus we are made to demand proof of him all the time. If God is a god of reason, then we being his creations, everything we think, including rejecting him, must be reasonable too. That is, if we really express what he wants...

What is the best (and hence reasonable) way to deal with a spoiled child? By not giving into his demands.

Why does God have to be constrained? I get the feeling that the whole point of an all powerful god is to be free from constraints. Where we are constrained by our fear of punishment, or inbred cultural feeling of conscience, god has to made do with himself. Is it really reasonable to create an all powerful that cancels itself out? I can be all powerful, but I use all my power to be not all powerful...
Makes sense?

Well, what might seem to be a great deal of effort on our part (the ability to show constraint), requires little effort on His? Thus giving even more testimony to "His Capacity." Whereas each one of us (potentially) has the power to destroy the whole world. But does that mean we should? The power to sustain life is much greater than the power to destroy it. Because if you did, who would appreciate it?

So not only is God the god of reason, but also the God of Love, because He really does care about our "puny little existence."

 

[FZ+]

In which case why does God require proof?

Because we do. Or more specifically, because I do. IMHO, belief or otherwise in God is a highly personal affair, and I would not like to say whether there is an absolutely right answer. The right answer is that which you agree with. If you are happy to have a God based solely on faith, then good for you. But I always want more. There is no justification for you make an argument for a disbeliever on the basis that no proof = proof.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because we do. Or more specifically, because I do. IMHO, belief or otherwise in God is a highly personal affair, and I would not like to say whether there is an absolutely right answer. The right answer is that which you agree with. If you are happy to have a God based solely on faith, then good for you. But I always want more. There is no justification for you make an argument for a disbeliever on the basis that no proof = proof.

It's not based soley upon faith. It's based upon reason and applied experience. I for one don't believe in saying things which are unfounded. How reliable would that be?


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1469&perpage=15&pagenumber=5" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Originally posted by Tom
Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

Is that an absolute statement in and of itself? Sorry ...

That only concludes that absolutes can be known, and we were just a witness to it. Otherwise you couldn't possibly suggest otherwise. And that's an absolute statement!

We are all "witnesses" to the truth. Do you know why? Because it's "inborn."

There's your proof right there or, at least the beginning of it. Also, if belief in God is such a "highly personal affair," then why do we need to get science involved? It's like I said, if you can't acknowledge the truth for yourself, then you will "never" know anything.

Now does that sound like an absolute truth? How can you possibly say otherwise? Not without declaring what you're saying is absolute! And there you have it, another absolute truth! Therefore I must have a better grip on reality than what a telescope could possibly provide. Honest!

 

[kyle_soule]

All of Iacchus32 original post

Theists and/or atheists debating what God can and cannot do is like two blind men arguing about the colour of the sunset I think Greg was right as you quoted, the simple logical contradiction of God creating a stone so big he can't lift it will never persuade a Christian to stop believing. It is easily escaped with, God doesn't necessarily abide by our logic. As if he was God, he would have no reason to abide by any laws (would you)

Theists assume the position of believer, therefore, believing God is omnipotent. With this in mind the question "Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it" is an impossible or paradoxical question. As any contradiction of God's omnipotence is illogical. It's comparable to saying, can God make a perfectly spherical cube, as this is an impossibility by any stretch of imagination. If you can't imagine a man doing the action in question, then asking if God can do it is foolish [as one would naturally assume you could, at the very least, imagine a man doing all the things God could possibly do], just because God is God doesn't mean He can contradict common sense and make the impossible possible, if you know what I mean.

It's fun to ask, but any believer with a shred of common sense can escape the question. The debates will always rage, with no side giving or taking, until science finally disproves/proves God's existence, I'm hoping for the former. One must choose sides, and one must also give whole-heartedly to that side, if "Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it" could persuade a believer, than what is to persuade that same person right back just as easily? Worthless debates, fun nonetheless.

EDIT: SP, Grammatical Errors, Clearify

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Theists and/or atheists debating what God can and cannot do is like two blind men arguing about the colour of the sunset I think Greg was right as you quoted, the simple logical contradiction of God creating a stone so big he can't lift it will never persuade a Christian to stop believing. It is easily escaped with, God doesn't necessarily abide by our logic. As if he was God, he would have no reason to abide by any laws (would you)

That was not Greg's quote by the way, it was dr_death's. And what about the laws of consistency? How could we possibly acknowledge anything if there was no consistencey to it? If He was the God of Love, then why would He forsake us by being inconsistent?

Theists assume the position of believer, therefore, believing God is omnipotent. With this in mind the question "Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it" is an impossible or paradoxical question. As any contradiction of God's omnipotence is illogical. It's comparable to saying, can God make a perfectly spherical cube, as this is an impossibility by any stretch of imagination. If you can't imagine a man doing the action in question, then asking if God can do it is foolish [as one would naturally assume you could, at the very least, imagine a man doing all the things God could possibly do], just because God is God doesn't mean He can contradict common sense and make the impossible possible, if you know what I mean.

Why would I assume that? Do you know something more about God than I do? Either God exists or He doesn't exist. If He does, then there must be some "consistent" means by which to identify Him, and not just by sitting on the fence and gawking at everyone who wants to dispute it. Or, maybe that's it? ...

It's fun to ask, but any believer with a shred of common sense can escape the question. The debates will always rage, with no side giving or taking, until science finally disproves/proves God's existence, I'm hoping for the former. One must choose sides, and one must also give whole-heartedly to that side, if "Can God make a stone so big he can't lift it" could persuade a believer, than what is to persuade that same person right back just as easily? Worthless debates, fun nonetheless.

Then are you one of those worthless people who sits on the fence? Do you find something to gain by watching people argue? Ah, this must be one of those vicarious things right? Perhaps like what the "vicar" (priest) does behind the curtain, when he catches wind of a real "juicy story?" Well, that does sound a little too perverse now doesn't it?

And what do you mean by, "I keep my Bible in a pool of blood so its lies can't affect me."

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's not based soley upon faith. It's based upon reason and applied experience. I for one don't believe in saying things which are unfounded. How reliable would that be?

<snip>

There's your proof right there or, at least the beginning of it. Also, if belief in God is such a "highly personal affair," then why do we need to get science involved? It's like I said, if you can't acknowledge the truth for yourself, then you will "never" know anything.

Now does that sound like an absolute truth? How can you possibly say otherwise? Not without declaring what you're saying is absolute! And there you have it, another absolute truth! Therefore I must have a better grip on reality than what a telescope could possibly provide. Honest!

1. Reason is based on fundamental axioms which are partial equivalent to faith. as shown in thread you linked to. Applied experience varies from person to person, and defines who we really are. You are echoing my assertion that belief or otherwise in god is a personal matter of faith here.
2. Of course, you snipped the response to that. Recognition of truth is not inborn, since we have no measure of truth other than that we have. We can never say that whatever we recognise as truth is absolutely true, simply as a limitation of human nature. Rather, we can only recognise truth in abstract entities that we self-construct - we can only link them to reality with imperfect perceptions. Hence we get the significant difference between inductive, and deductive logic.
3. Because I want to. Because my personal experiences etc tell me to. I need to involve science, because science is innately involved in my relative concept of truth. We do not have to, but as a personal system, I believe we do. My experiences lead me to believe that. My truth is different from your truth. Understand?
4. Because it isn't. It is what I feel is correct. It is my view, from my experience, of how the world works. It may work differently. Our whole system of logic, on which my system is based on, may be wrong. It is never absolute truth. Your grip of reality is only what your limited view has provided. And that includes my evaluation of yoaur limited view. I can say that I have a high probability of truth, or that I am close to truth, but I am never absolutely true. It's called being realistic. Accepting your limitations.
5. No one's views are worthless. No one. No opinion has such absolute value.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why would I assume that? Do you know something more about God than I do? Either God exists or He doesn't exist. If He does, then there must be some "consistent" means by which to identify Him, and not just by sitting on the fence and gawking at everyone who wants to dispute it. Or, maybe that's it? ...

You may not assume this, nor was I specifically addressing you, as I did not say YOU would assume...all you are doing by debating things, as such, is wasting time (theists firstly, don't want to hear your arguments most of the time, and secondly aren't going to change because of your measely logic). Debating wether God can do impossible things is also worthless, seeing as how impossible things imply just that, impossibility no matter who/what you are.

Then are you one of those worthless people who sits on the fence? Do you find something to gain by watching people argue? Ah, this must be one of those vicarious things right? Perhaps like what the "vicar" (priest) does behind the curtain, when he catches wind of a real "juicy story?" Well, that does sound a little too perverse now doesn't it?

Making incorrect assumptions about me, with no basis, what I believe is not being debating, nor do I stand by and watch people debate. It seemed obvious, to me at least, that I was insinuating I enjoy debating theism...

And what do you mean by, "I keep my Bible in a pool of blood so its lies can't affect me."

I'm not a believer, it simply means, AS IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, I think the Bible is full of lies, the blood part is just to give it a little spice.


What does Time and space come to gether in the here and now! mean

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. Reason is based on fundamental axioms which are partial equivalent to faith. as shown in thread you linked to. Applied experience varies from person to person, and defines who we really are. You are echoing my assertion that belief or otherwise in god is a personal matter of faith here.

Yes, this is a "core belief," and yet it also effects the way we interact with the surrounding world as well.

2. Of course, you snipped the response to that. Recognition of truth is not inborn, since we have no measure of truth other than that we have. We can never say that whatever we recognise as truth is absolutely true, simply as a limitation of human nature. Rather, we can only recognise truth in abstract entities that we self-construct - we can only link them to reality with imperfect perceptions. Hence we get the significant difference between inductive, and deductive logic.

Then how do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Does somebody have to tell you this is so?

3. Because I want to. Because my personal experiences etc tell me to. I need to involve science, because science is innately involved in my relative concept of truth. We do not have to, but as a personal system, I believe we do. My experiences lead me to believe that. My truth is different from your truth. Understand?

I take science into account as well. The only problem I have is that so much of it is dry and bland and, unless I have a specific interest in it, I find that it's not related to my own personal experience, which I consider more important. After all, this is really the only reference point any of us has. And hence the recognition of truth "being inborn."

4. Because it isn't. It is what I feel is correct. It is my view, from my experience, of how the world works. It may work differently. Our whole system of logic, on which my system is based on, may be wrong. It is never absolute truth. Your grip of reality is only what your limited view has provided. And that includes my evaluation of yoaur limited view. I can say that I have a high probability of truth, or that I am close to truth, but I am never absolutely true. It's called being realistic. Accepting your limitations.

Truth comes in many forms, and affects each one of us differently. Now why can't that, although it's somewhat general, be considered an absolute?

5. No one's views are worthless. No one. No opinion has such absolute value.

You're just a pile of dog poo and you know it! Just kidding! While the whole thing is, if we're going to argue for or against God, then we are speaking about absolutes. No buts about it! And I guess that would be an absolute statement as well? Of course if we could conveniently find a way to set God aside, then it would it be much easier to say we can't assess the absolute value of things.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
You may not assume this, nor was I specifically addressing you, as I did not say YOU would assume...all you are doing by debating things, as such, is wasting time (theists firstly, don't want to hear your arguments most of the time, and secondly aren't going to change because of your measely logic). Debating wether God can do impossible things is also worthless, seeing as how impossible things imply just that, impossibility no matter who/what you are.

By implying the whole thing is useless, you're saying I'm wasting my time and everyone else's. Hmm... Now where have I heard this before? I used to know this person, or so I "imagined," that I had a falling out with several years ago who said almost the exact same thing. While he also had this thing about assuming different aliases ...

Making incorrect assumptions about me, with no basis, what I believe is not being debating, nor do I stand by and watch people debate. It seemed obvious, to me at least, that I was insinuating I enjoy debating theism...

From what perspective? Sounds like you don't have much regard for either side. In which case I can see why you find it useless. So what's your point in debating? It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.

I'm not a believer, it simply means, AS IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, I think the Bible is full of lies, the blood part is just to give it a little spice.

You're not a believer in the Bible, or you're not a believer in God? Like I said, it sounds like you don't have much regard for science either? In which case I still assess you're sitting on the fence and getting your jollies out of the whole thing. And, that you're not very honest!

What does Time and space come to gether in the here and now! mean

It means we "exist" in the moment. As does everything else.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
From what perspective? Sounds like you don't have much regard for either side. In which case I can see why you find it useless. So what's your point in debating? It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.

What perspective? I haven't addressed a second perspective, such as science. My point in debating is to help stop the useless debating of people's beliefs. Christianity alone has been around for well over 2000 years, it is basically the same as when it started, so how do you figure you are going to change anything? Why destroy people's hope in life, if it's what they want to believe.

You're not a believer in the Bible, or you're not a believer in God? Like I said, it sounds like you don't have much regard for science either? In which case I still assess you're sitting on the fence and getting your jollies out of the whole thing. And, that you're not very honest!

I'm not a believer in what the Bible says or God. Again, science hasn't been addressed, I have no idea how you get the idea I have no regard for it.

It means we "exist" in the moment. As does everything else.

I was being sarcastic, you may have noticed that that last part about what your signature means did not pertain to the matter at hand

 

[dr-dock]

i understand GOD is all the physically existing which is:
ALL THE MATTER PLUS ALL THE VACUUM;
therefore if GOD cannot do it then no one can!
God is neither good nor evel
God is also good as evel
cause
GOD IS NEUTRAL

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, this is a "core belief," and yet it also effects the way we interact with the surrounding world as well.


Then how do you know 1 + 1 = 2? Does somebody have to tell you this is so?


I take science into account as well. The only problem I have is that so much of it is dry and bland and, unless I have a specific interest in it, I find that it's not related to my own personal experience, which I consider more important. After all, this is really the only reference point any of us has. And hence the recognition of truth "being inborn."


Truth comes in many forms, and affects each one of us differently. Now why can't that, although it's somewhat general, be considered an absolute?


You're just a pile of dog poo and you know it! Just kidding! While the whole thing is, if we're going to argue for or against God, then we are speaking about absolutes. No buts about it! And I guess that would be an absolute statement as well? Of course if we could conveniently find a way to set God aside, then it would it be much easier to say we can't assess the absolute value of things.

1. Notice word "interact". This is correct. And because our interactions are based on our internal view, we can be no means say that belief in God is not a highly personal thing.

2. In fact, someone does. The universe does. We notice that in the real word, when we put one and one objects together, we get two. We internalise this as an axiom. But this is not "truth". There is no way you can ever prove that 1 + 1 = 2. This is a fundamental axiom, that we assume to be true. (alternatively, this is an internal definition, that we create as that and is necessary self consistent, but not neccessarily true in the rea world)

3. But without recognising it, you are in fact repeating what I said. I recognise as true that science is neccessary. You recognise as true that science is not, is even irrelevant. This is based on personal experience. Hence, this suggests strongly that there is no common absolute truth between us, and that the recognition of what we each call truth is something we gain by experience. Do you see?

4. Because it affects and is received by each differently. Because it is strictly unacheivable. Because then, it is classified as relative, or virtual, not as "absolute".

5. That is irrelevant, unless if you can show me so. It is as far as I know illogical to form a disproof by assuming none existence, or proof by assuming existence. I am saying that by classifying God as a question of absolutes, then we can not be talking about reality. Because truth etc are only relevant without the conceptual universe within our minds, and there is no reason a conclusion we make is reflected "out there". Based on our limited perspectives, we all try to match our conceptual universe to the real one, but without measure that can never be acheived. The purpose of communication is to fit these universes together, to get closer to the real universe as closer brings rewards. But whatever we do, we are always infinitely far from it - it is an unreachable goal. God, or disbelief of god hence can only be based on faith.

 

[FZ+]

Shock, horror, I agree with dock! From what I know, I believe that if god exists, God must neccessarily be neutral.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
What perspective? I haven't addressed a second perspective, such as science. My point in debating is to help stop the useless debating of people's beliefs. Christianity alone has been around for well over 2000 years, it is basically the same as when it started, so how do you figure you are going to change anything? Why destroy people's hope in life, if it's what they want to believe.

It'll never happen. And, while I agree that much of it seems pointless, if nothing else it does help me clarify my own views. And yet there may come a time when I say enough is enough and go find something better to do, but that's entirely up to me, not you ... Who the hell do you think you are? My mother?

I'm not a believer in what the Bible says or God. Again, science hasn't been addressed, I have no idea how you get the idea I have no regard for it.

I already know where you're coming from when you compare the two blind men arguing against the sunset. What else is there to say? Except that your reasons for getting into this debate are even more lame than mine. Go find something useful to do!

I was being sarcastic, you may have noticed that that last part about what your signature means did not pertain to the matter at hand

Are you saying my reasons for asking you about yours was invalid? I thought if nothing else it might help clarify your position, which obviously is no position at all. Whatever ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by dr-dock
i understand GOD is all the physically existing which is:
ALL THE MATTER PLUS ALL THE VACUUM;
therefore if GOD cannot do it then no one can!
God is neither good nor evel
God is also good as evel
cause
GOD IS NEUTRAL

This is kind of what I've been saying all along, although I think--dare I say it?--"His wish" is to promote the Good, which cannot be accomplished unless He remains neutral. In other words He's willing to lead us, but only if we wish to be lead. Meaning, He respects our choice.

Whereas by saying God doesn't have to prove anything and just "has to be" (at the beginning of the thread), pretty much reiterates His neutrality.

Originally posted by FZ+
Shock, horror, I agree with dock! From what I know, I believe that if god exists, God must neccessarily be neutral.

This is what makes it so difficult to explain, for when you take into account neutrality, which is the equilibrium that exists between the two extremes (good and evil), you really don't see anything, except for what appears to be "normal." Although both the good and the bad occupy the same realm (in the world).

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. Notice word "interact". This is correct. And because our interactions are based on our internal view, we can be no means say that belief in God is not a highly personal thing.

What are we actually agreeing on something?

2. In fact, someone does. The universe does. We notice that in the real word, when we put one and one objects together, we get two. We internalise this as an axiom. But this is not "truth". There is no way you can ever prove that 1 + 1 = 2. This is a fundamental axiom, that we assume to be true. (alternatively, this is an internal definition, that we create as that and is necessary self consistent, but not neccessarily true in the rea world)

I'm glad you used the word "internal" here. And yet if you can't see that 1 + 1 = 2, and hence "know" that 1 + 1 = 2, then I guess it's hopeless ... And what does it mean to "know," if not the truth of something?

3. But without recognising it, you are in fact repeating what I said. I recognise as true that science is neccessary. You recognise as true that science is not, is even irrelevant. This is based on personal experience. Hence, this suggests strongly that there is no common absolute truth between us, and that the recognition of what we each call truth is something we gain by experience. Do you see?

I didn't say science wasn't necessary, I just don't view it as an absolute, because it's not. We all share this same thing called existence, and that's common enough, it all depends on what you want to call it, and I just happen to call it God.

4. Because it affects and is received by each differently. Because it is strictly unacheivable. Because then, it is classified as relative, or virtual, not as "absolute".

You shouldn't underestimate the power of congition (look it up in the dictionary) for this is what makes you unique as an individual and gives you the capacity to acknowledge things for themselves (and arrive at their definition).

5. That is irrelevant, unless if you can show me so. It is as far as I know illogical to form a disproof by assuming none existence, or proof by assuming existence. I am saying that by classifying God as a question of absolutes, then we can not be talking about reality. Because truth etc are only relevant without the conceptual universe within our minds, and there is no reason a conclusion we make is reflected "out there". Based on our limited perspectives, we all try to match our conceptual universe to the real one, but without measure that can never be acheived. The purpose of communication is to fit these universes together, to get closer to the real universe as closer brings rewards. But whatever we do, we are always infinitely far from it - it is an unreachable goal. God, or disbelief of god hence can only be based on faith.

When it comes to the "ultimate reality," I think that can only be determined if in fact there were a God, othterwise it would be anybody's guess? And yet if we don't have the means by which to "know" the truth of God (perhaps because we're going about it the wrong way?), then this becomes a plausibility just like any other plausibility. And yet a plausibility science would rather not deal with, because it would impede with its research, in part because of past conflicts with the church, etc. And I'm sure the last thing science would want is to have the church telling it what to do.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Christianity alone has been around for well over 2000 years, it is basically the same as when it started, so how do you figure you are going to change anything? Why destroy people's hope in life, if it's what they want to believe.

So did you want to argue against religion then? Or just make a generalized statement about the dodo birds that wish to debate about it?

 

[dr-dock]

Originally posted by FZ+
Shock, horror, I agree with dock! From what I know, I believe that if god exists, God must neccessarily be neutral.

FZ+!
i have something else that you might agree with:
GOD ACTUALLY DOES NO JOB THEREFORE GOD AIN'T POWERFULL AT ALL
it comes from the conserv of energy under assumption that god does all the job(what i do for you equal to minus what you do for me;what we do together equal to what god has done(in that closed system)).

 

[FZ+]

Since people seem to be waiting for a reply, I'll oblige...

Dock: No, I don't agree with that. The concept of the all powerful god is dealing with god's potential, ie capability for work, not whether it is actually having an effect.If God exists, the fact we do not observe action does not suggest a lack of power. Alternatively, it can be a lack of WILL, for example.

Iacchus...

1. You agreed (indirectly) that belief or otherwise in God is a highly personal thing based on personal experiences and perceptions. You must then accept that there is no one apparently correct answer for everyone. That's a start.

2. Ah but here's the difference between believing and knowing. To know the truth is to have some other source of absolutely correct knowledge that confirms the truth. There is no possible proof that 1+1=2, but rather it exists as an axiom or assumption. You do not know the truth, but you assume it is true, that it is more likely true than not. This is fundamental. (besides, in binary 1 + 1 =10. But that's another matter)

3. This confirms my relativist view does it not?

4. But you shouldn't overestimate it either. The fact that cognition is unique suggests strongly that absolute truth is unreachable.

5. Of course God is a possibility. Everything is a possibility. But to say science is anti-god is incorrect. Science outcompetes god when we talk about material things, observable things. But others are ambivalent and IRRELEVANT to science. Religion deals with that. But with the observable, science has shown religion to have no significance, and the assumption of that is excusable until shown otherwise.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by dr-dock
GOD ACTUALLY DOES NO JOB THEREFORE GOD AIN'T POWERFULL AT ALL

Where do the forces of nature come from? It can be easily argued that God is the very-source of universal-force. Hence God is constantly 'on the job'.

 

[amp]

Tis truth verily, I say Lifegazer...

'God' maintains the existence of all reality, a side effect is the maintence of our universe (and others?). <--- This statement is more than a matter of faith. If dark matter indeed permeates the universe(s) and space it could well be what has been referred to as spirit. It satisfies quite a few of the properties spirit is suposed to posses, one of which is invisibility. (Jesus is claimed as saying..."how am I to tell you of the invisible things when you doubt the visible ones" <-- very loose paraphrase.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Since people seem to be waiting for a reply, I'll oblige...

Dock: No, I don't agree with that. The concept of the all powerful god is dealing with god's potential, ie capability for work, not whether it is actually having an effect.If God exists, the fact we do not observe action does not suggest a lack of power. Alternatively, it can be a lack of WILL, for example.

Oh really? ... Yeah I've been kind of wondering where you've been the last couple of days.

Iacchus...

1. You agreed (indirectly) that belief or otherwise in God is a highly personal thing based on personal experiences and perceptions. You must then accept that there is no one apparently correct answer for everyone. That's a start.

Agreed ...

2. Ah but here's the difference between believing and knowing. To know the truth is to have some other source of absolutely correct knowledge that confirms the truth. There is no possible proof that 1+1=2, but rather it exists as an axiom or assumption. You do not know the truth, but you assume it is true, that it is more likely true than not. This is fundamental. (besides, in binary 1 + 1 =10. But that's another matter)

Then that would be "the truth" of the binary system. And yet what is truth, if we're not talking about that which makes sense? (i.e., it has to begin with making sense before we can acknowledge it).

3. This confirms my relativist view does it not?

Yes, but relative to what? Wouldn't it also be fair to say that relativity exists between "two absolutes?" (i.e., polarities). Thus giving us the sense that reality, God, existence, etc., is neutral?

4. But you shouldn't overestimate it either. The fact that cognition is unique suggests strongly that absolute truth is unreachable.

Aren't you aware of "the fact" that you exist? If not, then what's the point in dragging yourself out of bed in the morning? Come on, you can do better than that!

5. Of course God is a possibility. Everything is a possibility. But to say science is anti-god is incorrect. Science outcompetes god when we talk about material things, observable things. But others are ambivalent and IRRELEVANT to science. Religion deals with that. But with the observable, science has shown religion to have no significance, and the assumption of that is excusable until shown otherwise.

But what is life, if it doesn't exist within us? If science only addresses "external reality," then it doesn't really address life at all, which is within ...

 

[FZ+]

Oh really? ... Yeah I've been kind of wondering where you've been the last couple of days.

Oh... Here there, everywhere... Brooding in guilt a little over being somewhat too harsh to LG over his "corrupt philosophy" (Sorry LG, but you still never should have an absolute insistence of one's correctness), that kind of thing. I was only gone for two days...

Then that would be "the truth" of the binary system. And yet what is truth, if we're not talking about that which makes sense? (i.e., it has to begin with making sense before we can acknowledge it).

But WHY does it make sense? I am arguing that it is a matter of consistency with certain key axioms and certain observed notions. So, we get the idea that there is still nothing we can identify as absolutely true, when we are still based on foundations of sand.

Yes, but relative to what? Wouldn't it also be fair to say that relativity exists between "two absolutes?" (i.e., polarities). Thus giving us the sense that reality, God, existence, etc., is neutral?

Yes, that is indeed a possibility. That is how I raised the "unreachable goal" idea of truth, and also fact (in the fact vs value thread). The two represent unreachable extremes, and we pick out trueness from the scale. But the relative also goes somewhere else. I am insinuating the idea that the central relative is always relative to yourself, and one's experiences. (which I also believe are one and the same, but that's besides the point) Truth is something that is relative to the observer.

Aren't you aware of "the fact" that you exist? If not, then what's the point in dragging yourself out of bed in the morning? Come on, you can do better than that!

But is it a fact? Well, it's pretty close to being true, perhaps is as true as possible, but still cannot be proven. The capacity for illusion exists, and I could be a figment of a dream. I could be a slave, forced to drag myself out of the bed. I'll never prove it, and it is pretty implausible, but it isn't an abolute fact. Just more true to me that the hypothesis I don't exist.
From your viewpoint, the idea that I exist is much less true, because you in fact have no real evidence other than faith and trust that I am in fact, a real person. What if I am your imagination? How do you know? Other situations can arise that what I see as true is blatantly false to you. Hence my objection to an absolute and universal truth, simply due to the subjectivity of cognition.

But what is life, if it doesn't exist within us? If science only addresses "external reality," then it doesn't really address life at all, which is within ...

Science addresses life by it's effects on the external reality. What is life, but what you do, the effects of the process? The nature of life is something that is vague and undefined, perhaps very much in the eye of the beholder, perhaps not even objectively real. Science deals with the concrete part of life.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Oh... Here there, everywhere... Brooding in guilt a little over being somewhat too harsh to LG over his "corrupt philosophy" (Sorry LG, but you still never should have an absolute insistence of one's correctness), that kind of thing. I was only gone for two days...

Welcome back to the trenches!

But WHY does it make sense? I am arguing that it is a matter of consistency with certain key axioms and certain observed notions. So, we get the idea that there is still nothing we can identify as absolutely true, when we are still based on foundations of sand.

How do you recognize the truth of anything if it doesn't make sense? You see, "That doesn't make sense!"

Yes, that is indeed a possibility. That is how I raised the "unreachable goal" idea of truth, and also fact (in the fact vs value thread). The two represent unreachable extremes, and we pick out trueness from the scale. But the relative also goes somewhere else. I am insinuating the idea that the central relative is always relative to yourself, and one's experiences. (which I also believe are one and the same, but that's besides the point) Truth is something that is relative to the observer.

I tend to agree with you. How is that? And yet I think it's reasonable to say we all share the same commonality. Hmm ... It almost sounds like you're developing an Idealistic side here?

But is it a fact? Well, it's pretty close to being true, perhaps is as true as possible, but still cannot be proven. The capacity for illusion exists, and I could be a figment of a dream. I could be a slave, forced to drag myself out of the bed. I'll never prove it, and it is pretty implausible, but it isn't an abolute fact. Just more true to me that the hypothesis I don't exist.
From your viewpoint, the idea that I exist is much less true, because you in fact have no real evidence other than faith and trust that I am in fact, a real person. What if I am your imagination? How do you know? Other situations can arise that what I see as true is blatantly false to you. Hence my objection to an absolute and universal truth, simply due to the subjectivity of cognition.

It's something you better come to accept, at least to some degree of certainty, otherwise you'll never be able to motive yourself. I think if you asked most people the same question, without being philosophical about it, they would probably say, "What are you nuts!"

Science addresses life by it's effects on the external reality. What is life, but what you do, the effects of the process? The nature of life is something that is vague and undefined, perhaps very much in the eye of the beholder, perhaps not even objectively real. Science deals with the concrete part of life.

If people were nothing more than automotans then this would be a perfectly acceptable answer, but they're not, therefore there must be something more to this whole thing we call existence.

 

[FZ+]

How do you recognize the truth of anything if it doesn't make sense? You see, "That doesn't make sense!"

No, what I meant there that making sense does not equal being true. Because we can't say that "sense" is similarly true. Hence foundations of sand.

I tend to agree with you. How is that? And yet I think it's reasonable to say we all share the same commonality. Hmm ... It almost sounds like you're developing an Idealistic side here?

Hmm? I don't exactly have a doctrine to follow. I would say that it is reasonable to say so, but it is not neccessarily true.

It's something you better come to accept, at least to some degree of certainty, otherwise you'll never be able to motive yourself. I think if you asked most people the same question, without being philosophical about it, they would probably say, "What are you nuts!"

Once upon a time, I wrote a post on the dangers of intuition and common sense. I believe that it is better to accept and recognise assumptions as an essential part of existence, whilst remembering that they are assumptions, not completely proven facts. Expect the unexpected!

If people were nothing more than automotans then this would be a perfectly acceptable answer, but they're not, therefore there must be something more to this whole thing we call existence.

Well... it is arguable depending on your definition of automatons. But the point is that science makes no judgement about the "something more". It merely provides answers to the observable. To extend the assumption that there is nothing more is not unreasonable, but it is also not necessary and is not part of science. Given science's place as the only real answer-source as to what we can see, a sense of reliance is wholly justified. As to the something more, science is entirely ambivalent. It's a matter of dealing with what information we have. There is certainly a part of us that works as a machine - our bodies.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Great Emperor ...

Excerpt from Behold the Spirit, by Alan Watts ...

Philosophically, we do not think of God as having the peculiar personal characteristics of a tribal patriarch, nor yet of an Oriental despot of uncertain temper and undoubted power, whose every whim is law and before whom all must grovel in the dust. Even when this awesome creature is endowed with a sense of perfect justice and mercy, he does not fit our philosophic conception, because he is still very much of a man -- ridiculous in that he takes himself too seriously. Nearer to our intellectual idea of God is the type of emperor envisaged by Lao-tzu, who advised the would-be ruler to be like the Tao, governing his sujects without letting them know that they were being governed ...

The great Tao pervades everywhere, both on the left and on the right.

By it all things come into being, and it does not reject them. Merits accomplished, it does not possesses them (or, lay claim to them).

It loves and nourishes all things but does not dominate over them...

Because it never assumes greatness, therefore it can accomplish greatness.

Therefore the Sage (as ruler), in order to be above the people, must in words keep below them;

In order to be ahead of the people, he must in person keep behind them.

Thus when he is above, the people do not feel his burden; When he is ahead, the people do not feel his hindrance. Therefore all the world is pleased to hold him in high esteem and never get tired of him.

Because he does not compete, no one competes with him.

How does this stand up to your idea of neutrality FZ+?