polytheism vs monotheism

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not handwaving the Bhagavad Gita. I own that book and I know exactly what it says regarding the matter. But what about all the discrepant Vedic scriptures? Are they to be ignored?

You made a valid point about sects. The term "Hindusim" is about as broad and complex (more, actually) than "Christianity". Hinduism has so many differing, hopelessly divided sects, that its impossible to keep up with them all.

Right... this is why I feel practice is important. And why I feel the catholic church is the most representative of christianity. They have a large unified front that resolves these questions while "scripture only" christians are hopelessly fragmented.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
🤨 ^Wow. Fail of the century.

No U!

😮‍💨

Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't true free will, though. Otherwise, He could have allowed us the choices between worshiping Him in a church and Worshiping Him outside and closed all other choices. We can still choose the choices that are given us, yet I would hardly consider that free will. True free will is allowing us the complete freedom to choose whatever wer want without any interference from Him.

Then we'll have to disagree. If you honestly believe that it is logically valid to make that claim then there isn't much I can say besides, with all do respect, you're wrong. The very best you can logically say is "[B]I see no reason for God to allow natural disasters." Which is simply not enough to claim it is evil. You say that God could achieve the same effect He desired without natural disasters. This is also a claim you are in no position to make. We are dealing with your limited perception of the world vs an all powerful God. Is it really hard to think that there might be variables that God, who rules over the entire universe, has to consider that you might not know about or have thought of?

Again, "I see no reason for natural disasters" is as far as you can logically go.

[/B]

Originally posted by red g jacks
what im getting from this is that free will is all about the choice between good and evil. anything less is unsatisfactory. so basically god's greatest gift to humanity is the ability to commit evil.

God's greatest gift is our ability to choose to do good. To freely choose our own moral path.

Originally posted by red g jacks
see you say i'm not in the position to make such a claim but i assert that i am and that every human is through the mild task of critical thinking. when you stipulate that the creator is all powerful, it's pretty easy to conclude that he could accomplish any goal he wants without any side effects.

No, that is not necessarily true at all. For example, God cannot give us free will over our moral decisions without the possibility of evil. It isn't logically possible. In this example, there is something God wants for us with a necessary side effect that cannot be removed.

I find it odd that you, a normal human, claim to be able to see all possibilities/variables better than an all powerful God. That's like a new born trying to tell cosmologists that their concept of the universe is wrong. The logical stance is to simply admit that an all powerful God knows more about it than you do.

The idea of free will becomes much more complicated once you add karma to the picture. That is, if you choose to and you believe in it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I find it odd that you, a normal human, claim to be able to see all possibilities/variables better than an all powerful God. That's like a new born trying to tell cosmologists that their concept of the universe is wrong. The logical stance is to simply admit that an all powerful God knows more about it than you do.

It's not logical to believe that a person is all knowing, just based on him saying so.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, that is not necessarily true at all. For example, God cannot give us free will over our moral decisions without the possibility of evil. It isn't logically possible. In this example, there is something God wants for us with a necessary side effect that cannot be removed.

I find it odd that you, a normal human, claim to be able to see all possibilities/variables better than an all powerful God. That's like a new born trying to tell cosmologists that their concept of the universe is wrong. The logical stance is to simply admit that an all powerful God knows more about it than you do.

edit: i'd also note that in this case you haven't shown how the deaths are a logical necessity for whatever it is god is trying to accomplish, but have simply tried to assert that this must be the case for some unknown mystical reason that we humans cannot comprehend.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not logical to believe that a person is all knowing, just based on him saying so.

I completely agree.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i claimed no such thing. i'm simply drawing conclusions from the implications of omnipotence. if god is all-powerful then i suspect that you must be wrong when you say that there are things he cannot do, regardless of whether or not you, a normal human, find them to be logically possible or not.

edit: i'd also note that in this case you haven't shown how the deaths are a logical necessity for whatever it is god is trying to accomplish, but have simply tried to assert that this must be the case for some unknown mystical reason that we humans cannot comprehend.

I fully accept that there are things God cannot do. God is all powerful, but He still has to operate within the realm of logic. For example. God cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it. God cannot make a creature stand and not stand at the same time. These requests don't make logical sense.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I completely agree.

I fully accept that there are things God cannot do. God is all powerful, but He still has to operate within the realm of logic. For example. God cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it. God cannot make a creature stand and not stand at the same time. These requests don't make logical sense.

the most obvious problem with this rational is that placing a limit on what god can do, even ones based on 'logic' (human logic, mind you), negates the claim that he is all powerful. there are limits to what he can do, and so that god is not all powerful.

another problem, somewhat similar to the first, is that it implies that there is an over riding source of logical coherence that even god cannot violate. if god is the source of all existence then any scheme of logic that we can derive from how things in the universe unfold should be derived from him and if that is the case then there should not be any reason why his own inherent powers should be restricted by this logic. if that is not the case then one must ask where this logical order comes from in the first place.

and once again, i think you are jumping the gun in trying to present the problem of avoiding the innocent deaths caused by natural disasters as being akin to creating a stone that you cannot lift. in the first scenario, the goal (which you haven't specified) has not been shown to be inherently contradictory to the secondary goal of avoiding negative side effects (death and suffering). this secondary goal flows naturally from the idea of a benevolent force being the agent at work in this scenario.

there is no apparent logical paradox in the idea that god can achieve a goal without unwanted side effects. the only way we run into a logical dilemma is if the death and suffering is actually part of the goal. then it would be illogical to assert that god could achieve his goal without the side effects; but those side effects would also cease to be side effects since they are part of the goal. in that case, the idea that the goal is an evil one gains some legitimacy.

I don't see the inability to create logically impossible things as limiting power. It would be the same as asking Him to Smurggle a Flangotrope and then getting mad that He can't do it. The request makes no logical sense.

As for the goal and side effects, I can't explain why God can't achieve His goal without them because I don't know the goal. Nor did I ever claim that I did.

What I'm saying is that we don't know, and we aren't in a position to claim that we do or to claim that God is going about it the wrong way because we aren't an all powerful being. We are normal humans with a VERY limited perception of the universe and what happens in it.

At the very best, we can say that WE see no reason these natural disasters need to be there. And I'll admit. I don't know why they have to be there either. But the simple fact that we, normal humans, don't understand it does nothing to discredit God at all.

To say "Natural disasters don't need to be there because I see no reason for them to be there" isn't logically acceptable. Especially when you consider that the argument is coming from a human as apposed to an all powerful God.

Dude, God already did smurggle a flangotrope.

EDIT: Did I say God? I meant Chuck Norris.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see the inability to create logically impossible things as limiting power. It would be the same as asking Him to Smurggle a Flangotrope and then getting mad that He can't do it. The request makes no logical sense.

as for asking him to smurggle a flangotrope, that request 'makes no logical sense' to you and me because it has no root in human language. if a human gave god such a request then i would imagine that what was being requested would depend on what that human had in mind when they were saying that. if they had nothing in mind and simply threw random syllables together, then nothing was actually being requested. but you can't say the same about 'create a stone that you can't lift.' that's a question that humans find provocative because it is a clear and simple request, with conceivably paradoxical results.

As for the goal and side effects, I can't explain why God can't achieve His goal without them because I don't know the goal. Nor did I ever claim that I did.

What I'm saying is that we don't know, and we aren't in a position to claim that we do or to claim that God is going about it the wrong way because we aren't an all powerful being. We are normal humans with a VERY limited perception of the universe and what happens in it.

At the very best, we can say that WE see no reason these natural disasters need to be there. And I'll admit. I don't know why they have to be there either. But the simple fact that we, normal humans, don't understand it does nothing to discredit God at all.

To say "Natural disasters don't need to be there because I see no reason for them to be there" isn't logically acceptable. Especially when you consider that the argument is coming from a human as apposed to an all powerful God.

even working on your assumption that god is only capable of the 'logically possible,' this is not an explanation for seemingly needless death or destruction. the only apparent way that death and destruction could be impossible to avoid is if it is part of the intended goal. then it becomes logically impossible to accomplish that goal without the death and destruction. any other reason why god 'cannot' avoid these casualties once again implies an overriding structure that even god cannot violate, which begs the question of what the source of that structure is.

to smurgle a flangtrop, a flangtrope has to exist. you can not smurggle a flangtrope if no flangtrope exists. it would be illogical to ask god to smurgle a flangtrope if a flangtrope doesnt exist. however, it isnt fundamentally illogical to ask god to make smurgling and make flangtrops and to then to ask him to smurgle a flangtrop.

.....................just saying....................{for those who are interested in formal logic n such}

Originally posted by Korto Vos
The idea of free will becomes much more complicated once you add karma to the picture. That is, if you choose to and you believe in it.

How so? Could you please elaborate?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Dude, God already did smurggle a flangotrope.

EDIT: Did I say God? I meant Chuck Norris.

Grr, Chuck Norris. Always trying to one up everyone... 😒

Originally posted by red g jacks
just by specifying these requests as 'logically impossible,' you are drawing a line between what god can and cannot do. that is limiting power. i don't see how you can say that it isn't.

It isn't all powerful if you consider the ability to make logically impossible things a requirement for all powerful. I do not.

Originally posted by red g jacks
as for asking him to smurggle a flangotrope, that request 'makes no logical sense' to you and me because it has no root in human language. if a human gave god such a request then i would imagine that what was being requested would depend on what that human had in mind when they were saying that. if they had nothing in mind and simply threw random syllables together, then nothing was actually being requested. but you can't say the same about 'create a stone that you can't lift.' that's a question that humans find provocative because it is a clear and simple request, with conceivably paradoxical results.

But you are not asking for something that exists or even has the possibility to exist. The subject "rock so big God can't lift it" or "creature that is standing and not standing at the same time" are not referring to anything. It doesn't make sense in the same way my flangotrope example doesn't make sense. They have concepts of real things in them, like rocks and creatures, but the true subject of the request is nonsensical. So I see no reason to think that making nonsensical requests to God and not having Him able to perform them is limited power.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm simply working on the assumption that god is all-powerful. it seems that you don't actually take that term literally, because a god that is all-powerful is literally capable of doing anything. all-powerful implies infinite power. power without limit or restriction. anything less is just 'very powerful,' or 'the most powerful.'

even working on your assumption that god is only capable of the 'logically possible,' this is not an explanation for seemingly needless death or destruction. the only apparent way that death and destruction could be impossible to avoid is if it is part of the intended goal. then it becomes logically impossible to accomplish that goal without the death and destruction. any other reason why god 'cannot' avoid these casualties once again implies an overriding structure that even god cannot violate, which begs the question of what the source of that structure is.

Alright, and what if death is a necessary part of the goal? Does that make God evil? I don't think so.

What if God wanted someone to grow stronger through the death of a family member? And then that person would help other people later on in life that lost their family members and a world of good would come out of it.

In this example, the death of the family member is necessary to complete the goal.

I'm not saying that is what God would or wouldn't do, I'm just giving an example of a good goal that requires death to achieve.

It is also important to remember that there are things God will and will not do. For example, He will not interfere with our free will and He will not make Himself absolutely known to us. These are just two variables that heavily limit what God can do while keeping those variables intact. And I'm sure there are an innumerable amount of other variables we don't even know/think about.

Originally posted by TacDavey
God cannot make a creature stand and not stand at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Your statement reminded me of Schrodinger's cat.

On the other hand, I am forced to conclude that God does have limits, for nothing exists outside of God. If something did, then God would not be truly omnipotent.

standing=x

not standing=not(x)

standing=not standing implies x=not(x) which is a first order identity paradox hence{conclusion) : not{x=not(x)}

->=implies
omnipotent->do anything
do anything->make a rock
do anything->make something that you cant lift
hence: do anything->make a rock(x){and}make something (x) that you cant life
conclusion: omnipotent->make a rock that you cant lift
make a rock that you cant life->not(do anything)
conclusion: contradiction

hence there is something contradictory in our assumptions

C1: it isnt the same kind of paradox as sitting=not sitting
C2: the only CONTRADICTORY assumption is the existance of omnipotence.

hence Not(omnipotence) i.e. you cant have a self contradictory assumption

Originally posted by leonheartmm
to smurgle a flangtrop, a flangtrope has to exist. you can not smurggle a flangtrope if no flangtrope exists. it would be illogical to ask god to smurgle a flangtrope if a flangtrope doesnt exist. however, it isnt fundamentally illogical to ask god to make smurgling and make flangtrops and to then to ask him to smurgle a flangtrop.

.....................just saying....................{for those who are interested in formal logic n such}

Even theists agree that man created language.

Originally posted by TacDavey

It isn't all powerful if you consider the ability to make logically impossible things a requirement for all powerful. I do not.

But you are not asking for something that exists or even has the possibility to exist. The subject "rock so big God can't lift it" or "creature that is standing and not standing at the same time" are not referring to anything. It doesn't make sense in the same way my flangotrope example doesn't make sense. They have concepts of real things in them, like rocks and creatures, but the true subject of the request is nonsensical. So I see no reason to think that making nonsensical requests to God and not having Him able to perform them is limited power.

Alright, and what if death is a necessary part of the goal? Does that make God evil? I don't think so.

What if God wanted someone to grow stronger through the death of a family member? And then that person would help other people later on in life that lost their family members and a world of good would come out of it.

In this example, the death of the family member is [B]necessary to complete the goal. [/b]

but besides that, i'd say its arguable that deciding to let millions die/suffer so that others can learn from that death and suffering is a somewhat evil way of doing things.

I'm not saying that is what God would or wouldn't do, I'm just giving an example of a good goal that requires death to achieve.

It is also important to remember that there are things God will and will not do. For example, He will not interfere with our free will and He will not make Himself absolutely known to us. These are just two variables that heavily limit what God can do while keeping those variables intact. And I'm sure there are an innumerable amount of other variables we don't even know/think about.

i will note however that 'won't do' is different from 'can't do,' and if people have to die because there is something that god 'won't do,' then it seems he does not share in our version of morality.

Originally posted by Quark_666
It's even simpler than that. God doesn't have to make smurgling or create flangtrops. He just has to assign those words to represent something. Even I could say, "you're a flangtrope, and you feel that? That was a smurgle."

Even theists agree that man created language.

Yes, but God can't assign YOUR words how He wants and then claim He did your request.

Originally posted by red g jacks
this doesn't even seem like a response to what i said. drawing a line between the logically possible/impossible is placing a limit on what god can do. how is it not?

Like I said, asking God to perform a nonsensical action is not limiting His power. Asking Him to do something that is not logically possible is a nonsensical request.

Originally posted by red g jacks
well a 'rock so big god can't lift it' by itself is easily dismissed. if the question were 'is there any rock so big god can't lift it' then the answer could simply be no. what's tricky about the rock question is that it places two elements of god's power in competition with one another. either god can't create a rock so big he can't lift it, in which case his creative prowess is limited, or he can't lift the largest rock he can create, in which case his brute force is limited. that is what makes the question impossible to answer, because either a yes or a no will place some sort of limit on his power. but that doesn't make the question nonsensical, because the same reasoning (god's omnipotence) that implies there is no such thing as a rock so big god cant lift it also implies that there is nothing that he can't create. so in my view it's a perfectly reasonable question.

But that's exactly what I was saying. I fully believe that God cannot create things that cannot exist.

God can lift any size rock. Thus, a rock that He cannot lift cannot exist. Thus He can't make something that cannot exist.

I do not see this as evidence that God is not all powerful. I would consider "able to do anything within the realm of logic" as all powerful.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so the goal would be to create people who overcame emotional hardships and are capable of coaching others with similar emotional hardship? why not just avoid the real cause of that hardship instead? that scenario seems far too sloppy for god, imo.

but besides that, i'd say its arguable that deciding to let millions die/suffer so that others can learn from that death and suffering is a somewhat evil way of doing things.

People have to die. Wouldn't it be better to have those left behind able to cope better?

And like I said, I'm not saying God did that. I was giving an example of a possible situation in which death was unavoidable for the good goal to be met. So the claim that God can meet every goal without pain along the way is not true.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't think that is a good example of a good goal (for god) that requires death to achieve. it seems more like a way to help cope with the obvious flaws in his creation.(which lead to the initial death, destruction, etc.)

You consider death a flaw in His creation? I don't see it that way at all. People have to die. Otherwise the world would be overpopulated.

Originally posted by red g jacks
well if there are an innumerable amount of things that god simply 'won't do,' then this entire debate is indeed quite shrouded in mystery.

i will note however that 'won't do' is different from 'can't do,' and if people have to die because there is something that god 'won't do,' then it seems he does not share in our version of morality.

That isn't true. The things God won't do may be more important to keep intact that human life. For example, I would rather die than have my free will taken from me.