polytheism vs monotheism

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 its actually very simple if you look at the MEANING of the words and whats being asked. however, in the philosophy of logic, claims like

p1:all flangtrops are seacures

p2: all seacures are smurgles

c: all flangtrops are smurgle

is a fundamentally different sort of claim from saying

p1. god is white

p2. you are black

c: you are not god

the reason being that the first argument does NOT reply on the meaning of the noun phrases{i.e. flangtrops/smurgles etc} to establish its truth. infact the first argument would be valid no matter WHAT noun phrases you substitute in place of smurgles/seacures/flangtrops. infact you can never make the first argument false{i.e. if a=b and b=c then a=c}

the second argument however, will not necessarily remain true if you substitute the noun phrases by other phrases. i.e. it relies on the MEANING of the noun phrases to establish its logical truth.

basically in the first, it doesnt matter what the noun phrases mean, its always true{first order logical truth}. the second is first order logically contingent and second ordr logical true.

it is the FIRST kind of argument that requires that god be incapable of making sumone sit and stand at the same time

while it is the SECOND kind of argument that taceydavey is confusing with the first, that makes it so that god{apparentely to him} can not commit an unjust action.

and i am merely saying that he is making a classical logical mistake and false equivicating the two.

Originally posted by TacDavey

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. [/B]

Originally posted by red g jacks
once again you are not addressing my point. how is drawing a line between 'logically possible' and 'logically impossible' not placing a limit? would a hypothetical being that could accomplish both the possible and the impossible not be more powerful than one who can only accomplish the possible?

I suppose it is in a weird sense. He can't do the flangotrope example I gave either. Thus, He can't do something asked of Him. Is the flangotrope example a good example of limited power? Even though technically it gives an example of something God cannot do?

I would say no. If the request being made to God does not make logical sense, I see no reason to consider His power truly limited. Though technically it is limited in the sense that He cannot perform nonsensical requests.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but it seems this is a selective view of omnipotence. his lifting ability is without limits but apparently his creative ability is not.

And He cannot make a flangotrope either. Just because the request has "rock" and "lifting ability" which are two real things we understand doesn't mean they cannot be used to make a nonsensical subject. A rock so big God cannot lift it is just as nonsensical as a flangotrope. Even though it uses things we can picture in our heads.

God's creative ability is not limited. He can literally make any rock. A rock so big God cannot lift it isn't really a rock. It's a series of words put together to form nonsense. Just like a flangotrope is. The words don't describe any real subject.

Originally posted by red g jacks
if it comes at the cost of the death and suffering of others? i'd say no. and the only reason people have to die is because of god's design.

What if without the death and suffering there would be MORE death and suffering? And again, death is important to our life on earth. We have to die, or we would eventually fill up the whole world.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but his goal in your case is helping people cope with the pain that he has caused... that's not a great example

But again. Death is necessary to human life.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's only true according to the current design.. there are a number of ways that an omnipotent god could fix that if he wanted to. and as you've pointed out that death causes pain for those left alive, which provides even more reason for why it should ideally be avoided.

Yes. The current design is set up so that we won't overpopulate the universe. Even if we were given a bigger planet we would eventually fill that up too. Unless we should get rid of child birth. Which would be a greater evil than getting rid of death.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yet how many things can you think of that justify killing another human being?

I can think of plenty. And I'm just a lowly human.

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

Originally posted by TacDavey
I suppose it is in a weird sense. He can't do the flangotrope example I gave either. Thus, He can't do something asked of Him. Is the flangotrope example a good example of limited power? Even though technically it gives an example of something God cannot do?

I would say no. If the request being made to God does not make logical sense, I see no reason to consider His power truly limited. Though technically it is limited in the sense that He cannot perform nonsensical requests.

And He cannot make a flangotrope either. Just because the request has "rock" and "lifting ability" which are two real things we understand doesn't mean they cannot be used to make a nonsensical subject. A rock so big God cannot lift it is just as nonsensical as a flangotrope. Even though it uses things we can picture in our heads.

God's creative ability is not limited. He can literally make any rock. A rock so big God cannot lift it isn't really a rock. It's a series of words put together to form nonsense. Just like a flangotrope is. The words don't describe any real subject.

a rock so big he can't lift it is not at all nonsensical; it makes perfect sense. however the assumption is that since god can lift anything, no such rock can exist. the request that is being made of him is then whether he can make something even if it is seemingly impossible. to say yes is to grant him unlimited creative prowess while placing a limit on his brute strength. to say no is to leave his brute strength in tact while limiting his creative abilities. either renders his overall capacity as less than all-powerful, since there are obvious limits involved. that's why it is such a tricky question.

What if without the death and suffering there would be MORE death and suffering? And again, death is important to our life on earth. We have to die, or we would eventually fill up the whole world.

regardless of any of that, though, what you are suggesting is that the deaths caused create suffering which creates people who learn to cope with suffering which in turn might help others in coping with suffering. this line of logic has an obvious flaw.

the purported goal seems to be to decrease suffering and yet the only way to do so is through a direct increase in suffering? forgive me if i do not see the infinite wisdom in this plan.

i would contend that even if normal human death were a necessary part of life (as in, death by old age, predation, or human action), then there would still be family members who suffered through the natural loss of loved ones and could help teach others to cope with such a loss. there would be no need to kill even more people through natural disasters to create more mourners who could help other mourners; and in fact that plan seems to run contrary to the supposed goal of lessening human suffering.

But again. Death is necessary to human life.

Yes. The current design is set up so that we won't overpopulate the universe. Even if we were given a bigger planet we would eventually fill that up too. Unless we should get rid of child birth. Which would be a greater evil than getting rid of death.

I can think of plenty. And I'm just a lowly human.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Yes he can, if my request is undefined as stated in the original example.

No, because then He would be fulfilling HIS request, not mine.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's really not that weird at all. you are classifying certain tasks as impossible even for god, and so his power is limited.

he can too make a flagotrope, assuming that the requester has something in mind when he makes that request. if he has nothing in mind but is making up words to try and throw god off, then nothing is being requested and by creating nothing he has already fulfilled such a request.

That's the thing. A rock so big God cannot lift it is nothing. It's nonsense. It doesn't actually apply to any real subject. A flangotrope has no subject. It's just words. A rock so big God cannot lift it is the same.

Originally posted by red g jacks
a rock so big he can't lift it is not at all nonsensical; it makes perfect sense. however the assumption is that since god can lift anything, no such rock can exist. the request that is being made of him is then whether he can make something even if it is seemingly impossible. to say yes is to grant him unlimited creative prowess while placing a limit on his brute strength. to say no is to leave his brute strength in tact while limiting his creative abilities. either renders his overall capacity as less than all-powerful, since there are obvious limits involved. that's why it is such a tricky question.

No, a rock so big (insert anything other than God here) can't lift it isn't nonsensical. A rock so big that a thing that has no strength limits can't lift it IS nonsensical. A rock has a subject. Lifting ability is a subject. These two things make logical sense. But a rock so big God cannot lift it is a whole knew subject. One that doesn't make logical sense.

It isn't a subject of anything at all. It's like a flangotrope. It's a series of letters that form together to make illogical nonsense. It's gibberish, basically. Even though it has "rock" and "lifting ability" in it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
if that were the case it would once again be down to his design. and i'd remind you that a creator with infinite prowess should have no problems in dealing with capacity limits.

Not true at all. If there are creatures who create offspring but never die, logic dictates that no amount of space will ever be able to contain them. You would have to create an "infinite" space, which again, is illogical nonsense.

Originally posted by red g jacks
regardless of any of that, though, what you are suggesting is that the deaths caused create suffering which creates people who learn to cope with suffering which in turn might help others in coping with suffering. this line of logic has an obvious flaw.

the purported goal seems to be to decrease suffering and yet the only way to do so is through a direct increase in suffering? forgive me if i do not see the infinite wisdom in this plan.

The goal may be to use less suffering to alleviate more suffering. The lesser of two evils, as it were. For example, take a guy who suffers over a loss and then starts a help service that helps millions of people the world over. Some suffering had to be allowed to make an infinitely better outcome.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i would contend that even if normal human death were a necessary part of life (as in, death by old age, predation, or human action), then there would still be family members who suffered through the natural loss of loved ones and could help teach others to cope with such a loss. there would be no need to kill even more people through natural disasters to create more mourners who could help other mourners; and in fact that plan seems to run contrary to the supposed goal of lessening human suffering.

Like I said, I'm not saying God is allowing natural disasters to exist so that the families of the victims can help others. I was simply giving an example of a good goal that required some suffering to accomplish.

So it's perfectly possible that God allows suffering in the world in order to reach a good goal. Unless you can prove that the suffering in the world was caused by God for no good reason, you really have no argument.

Originally posted by red g jacks
once again, that is placing an arbitrary limit on the living space which an all powerful creator could provide. that is unwarranted.

It is not. As I said, any creature that is continually reproducing itself without losing any part of it will eventually fill any space.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i can think of some too. none of which i can seem to apply to natural disasters, however.

That's the problem. You are claiming that there is no reason because you can't see a reason.

You would have to prove that there absolutely is no reason. Can you do that?

Originally posted by TacDavey

That's the thing. A rock so big God cannot lift it is nothing. It's nonsense. It doesn't actually apply to any real subject. A flangotrope has no subject. It's just words. A rock so big God cannot lift it is the same.

No, a rock so big (insert anything other than God here) can't lift it isn't nonsensical. A rock so big that a thing that has no strength limits can't lift it IS nonsensical. A rock has a subject. Lifting ability is a subject. These two things make logical sense. But a rock so big God cannot lift it is a whole knew subject. One that doesn't make logical sense.

It isn't a subject of anything at all. It's like a flangotrope. It's a series of letters that form together to make illogical nonsense. It's gibberish, basically. Even though it has "rock" and "lifting ability" in it.

Not true at all. If there are creatures who create offspring but never die, logic dictates that no amount of space will ever be able to contain them. You would have to create an "infinite" space, which again, is illogical nonsense.

The goal may be to use less suffering to alleviate more suffering. The lesser of two evils, as it were. For example, take a guy who suffers over a loss and then starts a help service that helps millions of people the world over. Some suffering had to be allowed to make an infinitely better outcome.

so even assuming that death is a necessary evil that brings forth this positive side effect, there's no good reason for the increase in casualties in this case. we would already have people like that whether or not there were natural disasters. the natural disasters ensure there are more of these people but they also ensure there are more people suffering who are in need of such guidance.

Like I said, I'm not saying God is allowing natural disasters to exist so that the families of the victims can help others. I was simply giving an example of a good goal that required some suffering to accomplish.

So it's perfectly possible that God allows suffering in the world in order to reach a good goal. Unless you can [B]prove that the suffering in the world was caused by God for no good reason, you really have no argument. [/b]

i have already given you my argument: the only way the lack of innocent deaths could be inherently contrary to the goal (in the case of an all powerful deity who presumably has ultimate control over all factors) is if the innocent deaths were in fact part of that goal. your example actually does not stray from my own prediction (the deaths in that case are still part of the goal) but i think it fails in the sense that it does not accomplish its goal (to effectively reduce human suffering).

That's the problem. You are claiming that there is no reason because [B]you can't see a reason.

You would have to prove that there absolutely is no reason. Can you do that? [/B]

would you like to cite any examples of acceptable reasons to kill another human being that can be applied to this scenario?

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, because then He would be fulfilling HIS request, not mine.

Originally posted by red g jacks
a flagotrope has no subject. a rock that god can't lift has a very clear subject which you say is impossible to attain. there's a clear difference there. the 'it's impossible!' explanation works fine for (insert anything other than God here), but it is an unsatisfactory excuse for an all-powerful being (literally: power without limitation or restriction).

That's where we disagree. You claim that the words actually describe a subject, but I say they don't. Can you picture a rock so big God cannot lift it? No. You can picture a rock, sure. But the thing is a rock and a rock so big God cannot lift it are different things. One describes a very real subject. The other describes nonsensical gibberish. The very same as a flangotrope. The word is not bound to anything. It's just letters. A "rock so big a thing that can lift any rock can't lift it" is just letters that have no true subject.

Another example might be "A key so blue the moon can't see it". Does this actually have a subject? No. A key is a subject, yes. This is nonsensical gibberish. It makes no sense.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you're saying a being with infinite power cannot create infinite space?

I'm saying the concept of infinity is just that. A concept and nothing more. It has no place in reality.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the only problem with that logic is that more suffering must be created to alleviate less suffering in this case. for every one individual who starts such a service, there are millions who suffer the same circumstances and don't. to use this model as a justification is to ignore the reality on the ground: namely that those who suffer a loss of loved ones due to a natural disaster are no more apt to coax others through the loss of a loved one than someone who loses their loved ones in any other way.

so even assuming that death is a necessary evil that brings forth this positive side effect, there's no good reason for the increase in casualties in this case. we would already have people like that whether or not there were natural disasters. the natural disasters ensure there are more of these people but they also ensure there are more people suffering who are in need of such guidance.

I don't know what you mean here. If that person did not suffer, he would not have helped those millions of people. In this case, the options were:

a. One person does not suffer (right away) and millions of other people do

or

b. One person suffers, and helps millions of other people alleviate their suffering

Are you really saying that the second option causes more suffering? One person suffers so that millions of other people don't have to. That outcome is infinity better than the first outcome.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but your example is unsatisfactory. the means is contrary to the ends; in other words god must create more victims in order to create more people who can help said victims.

i have already given you my argument: the only way the lack of innocent deaths could be inherently contrary to the goal (in the case of an all powerful deity who presumably has ultimate control over all factors) is if the innocent deaths were in fact part of that goal. your example actually does not stray from my own prediction (the deaths in that case are still part of the goal) but i think it fails in the sense that it does not accomplish its goal (to effectively reduce human suffering).

It DOES accomplish the goal. Without that one person, there would be a million times as much suffering in the world. That one person suffered so that there would be a million less cases of suffering in the world. Are you saying that doesn't accomplish the goal of lessening human suffering?

Originally posted by red g jacks
how can i prove a negative? i can only draw from the reasons that are usually induced to justify killing people. the reasons are mostly limited to self defense, the defense of others, and arguably justice. now i understand that the reasons would probably be very different for god, but whatever reason is induced would ultimately have to lead to some greater good, and i have already provided what i believe are sound arguments for why god should logically be able to attain that greater good without the deaths.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You are claiming that God's actions are not justified. I'm asking you to back that up.

You claim that God should be able to reach a good goal without killing, but I have already shown that that is not necessarily the case.

I'll try another example. Say there is a family of 20 people. These 20 people are going to suffer the loss of a family member soon. And without help, they will suffer greatly. So, they need someone to help them through the loss. But here's the thing. These people will only listen to someone who has experience with suffering.

What are the options?

a. Not allow any other suffering to take place and let the 20 people suffer horribly.

b. Allow another person to suffer so that they can help these people.

c. Mess with these peoples minds so that they will accept help from someone who does not have experience suffering.

The first option is obviously a poor choice as it ends in 20 people suffering horribly. The third option is also unacceptable, as it interferes with the peoples free will. The middle option is the best choice. One person suffers so 20 people don't have to.

I would like to point out again that I'm not claiming God does this. I'm pointing out that there are possible situations where some suffering will ultimately lead to less suffering/a good goal. It's possible. And if it's possible, how can you say that God is not doing just that when He allows suffering in the world?

Originally posted by red g jacks
would you like to cite any examples of acceptable reasons to kill another human being that can be applied to this scenario?

Which scenario?

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's where we disagree. You claim that the words actually describe a subject, but I say they don't. Can you picture a rock so big God cannot lift it? No. You can picture a rock, sure. But the thing is a rock and a rock so big God cannot lift it are different things. One describes a very real subject. The other describes nonsensical gibberish. The very same as a flangotrope. The word is not bound to anything. It's just letters. A "rock so big a thing that can lift any rock can't lift it" is just letters that have no true subject.

Another example might be "A key so blue the moon can't see it". Does this actually have a subject? No. A key is a subject, yes. This is nonsensical gibberish. It makes no sense.

these comparisons you keep throwing out there are ridiculous. a key so blue a moon cant see it is nonsensical because as far as we know moons don't see, and if they did then the blueness of an object shouldn't deter them. meanwhile the rock question deals with concepts that are already established and explores how far we can take them, i.e. we already know god can create any rock and that god can lift any rock, this is a question of how far these abilities stretch and where they may collide. it is nothing like a 'flangotrope' nor is it like your ridiculous moon example.

I'm saying the concept of infinity is just that. A concept and nothing more. It has no place in reality.

just for clarification, though, you are saying that god could not hypothetically just keep creating livable space as it was needed, or create a perpetually expanding universe which steadily increased in livable space ad infinitum?

I don't know what you mean here. If that person did not suffer, he would not have helped those millions of people. In this case, the options were:

a. One person does not suffer (right away) and millions of other people do

or

b. One person suffers, and helps millions of other people alleviate their suffering

Are you really saying that the second option causes more suffering? One person suffers so that millions of other people don't have to. That outcome is infinity better than the first outcome.

It DOES accomplish the goal. Without that one person, there would be a million times as much suffering in the world. That one person suffered so that there would be a million less cases of suffering in the world. Are you saying that doesn't accomplish the goal of lessening human suffering?

so basically ur question is dishonest. is one persons suffering worth helping millions? possibly. is the general occurrence of natural disasters which causes the suffering of millions worth creating individuals who can help alleviate some of that pain? not even close.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You are claiming that God's actions are not justified. I'm asking you to back that up.

You claim that God should be able to reach a good goal without killing, but I have already shown that that is not necessarily the case.

I'll try another example. Say there is a family of 20 people. These 20 people are going to suffer the loss of a family member soon. And without help, they will suffer greatly. So, they need someone to help them through the loss. But here's the thing. These people will only listen to someone who has experience with suffering.

What are the options?

a. Not allow any other suffering to take place and let the 20 people suffer horribly.

b. Allow another person to suffer so that they can help these people.

c. Mess with these peoples minds so that they will accept help from someone who does not have experience suffering.

The first option is obviously a poor choice as it ends in 20 people suffering horribly. The third option is also unacceptable, as it interferes with the peoples free will. The middle option is the best choice. One person suffers so 20 people don't have to.

I would like to point out again that I'm not claiming God does this. I'm pointing out that there are [B]possible situations where some suffering will ultimately lead to less suffering/a good goal. It's possible. And if it's possible, how can you say that God is not doing just that when He allows suffering in the world? [/b]

but even supposing that making the man suffer were the 'right' decision: i fail to see how it can be applied to the example of natural disasters. in the case of natural disasters, which we are discussing, millions die and millions more suffer. where do you get the 20 alleviated mourners for one tortured victim formula?

Which scenario?

Originally posted by red g jacks
so you're saying if i cant picture something in my mind it has no subject? i can't rightly picture the distance from the earth to the andromeda galaxy yet that distance is not nonsensical. whether or not i can picture such a rock is irrelevant. the subject is perfectly clear. whether you think it's impossible is another matter, but to claim its nonsensical is blatantly disingenuous. 'a rock so big god can't lift it' makes perfect sense. the only objection that you have raised is that such a request is not possible because such a rock doesn't/can't exist. that doesn't mean the question is nonsensical.

these comparisons you keep throwing out there are ridiculous. a key so blue a moon cant see it is nonsensical because as far as we know moons don't see, and if they did then the blueness of an object shouldn't deter them. meanwhile the rock question deals with concepts that are already established and explores how far we can take them, i.e. we already know god can create any rock and that god can lift any rock, this is a question of how far these abilities stretch and where they may collide. it is nothing like a 'flangotrope' nor is it like your ridiculous moon example.

Actually, it's exactly the same. A rock so big a thing that can lift any rock can't lift it is nonsense. That sentence made absolutely no logical sense at all. Notice that the Moon example used real subjects as well. A moon, a blue key. Yet the example I gave, even though moon and key are very real subjects, does not have a subject at all. It's gibberish. It's the same with the rock. It uses rocks and lifting ability. Two very real subjects. But the subject of the question is nonsensical. Because the subject is, in fact, a rock that cannot be lifted by a thing that can lift the rock. That's the subject of the question. Does that subject make any sense to you? No. It's nonsense.

Originally posted by red g jacks
is this why you think god can have limited power and still be all-powerful?

just for clarification, though, you are saying that god could not hypothetically just keep creating livable space as it was needed, or create a perpetually expanding universe which steadily increased in livable space ad infinitum?

No I don't Because that would mean that there would be infinite space. And again, infinity has no place in reality.

Originally posted by red g jacks
what i am saying is that in reality, not everyone who suffers goes on to help millions in their suffering. in fact its quite rare. so the same process that creates that one who helps the millions suffering, also creates those millions of suffering people.

so basically ur question is dishonest. is one persons suffering worth helping millions? possibly. is the general occurrence of natural disasters which causes the suffering of millions worth creating individuals who can help alleviate some of that pain? not even close.

That's why I have continually explained that that is not what I'm saying God has done or ever will do. You, however, made the claim that it would be impossible for God to be unable to reach a good goal without suffering. Yet I have provided two hypothetical examples so far that disprove that assertion.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it's really odd that you object so vehemently to god intervening with the 'free will' of the family in question so that they might take advice from someone who hasn't suffered their loss, even if it would alleviate their suffering to do so. all the while you're trying to present the preferable option of making a man suffer against his will so that others may reap a benefit (namely that their suffering, which was presumably caused by the same noble process as the man's, could be lessened). that is some jacked up morality right there.

How so? If the options are sacrifice one person and save a thousand or sacrifice a thousand to save one which option is the right one? That isn't jacked up morality at all.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but even supposing that making the man suffer were the 'right' decision: i fail to see how it can be applied to the example of natural disasters. in the case of natural disasters, which we are discussing, millions die and millions more suffer. where do you get the 20 alleviated mourners for one tortured victim formula?

well seeing that this argument started out on natural disasters, lets go with that.

You made the claim that natural disasters are "evil" because God allows them to exist for no good reason. And your support for this conclusion was that God can get any goal he wants without any suffering along the way.

What my example has shown is that this is not necessarily true at all. I have provided two hypothetical examples that prove that there is a good goal that God can shoot for that requires some suffering along the way. Thus, your argument does not hold up.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, it's exactly the same. A rock so big a thing that can lift any rock can't lift it is nonsense. That sentence made absolutely no logical sense at all. Notice that the Moon example used real subjects as well. A moon, a blue key. Yet the example I gave, even though moon and key are very real subjects, does not have a subject at all. It's gibberish. It's the same with the rock. It uses rocks and lifting ability. Two very real subjects. But the subject of the question is nonsensical. Because the subject is, in fact, a rock that cannot be lifted by a thing that can lift the rock. That's the subject of the question. Does that subject make any sense to you? No. It's nonsense.

the moon example is nonsensical because moons presumably don't see. if moons did see then the question would not be nonsensical and would have a yes or no answer.

in this case, god can create anything and god can lift anything. thus the question of whether god can create something he can't lift isn't nonsensical. it has a real subject, albeit an abstract one, which deals with what limits can be put on his abilities and where. the subject is not whether a rock cannot be lifted by a thing that can lift the rock, but whether a being that can create/lift anything can create something that it cannot lift.

your responses seem to suggest that your answer would be no, he can't create such an object. thus you place priority in his brute strength over his creative capacity. you cannot choose an answer to the question without placing the priority on one of his abilities, which is the point of the question. it highlights a fundamental logical flaw with the concept of omnipotence. so it's not the question which is nonsensical, it's god.

No I don't Because that would mean that there would be infinite space. And again, infinity has no place in reality.

That's why I have continually explained that that is not what I'm saying God has done or ever will do. You, however, made the claim that it would be impossible for God to be unable to reach a good goal without suffering. Yet I have provided two hypothetical examples so far that disprove that assertion.

the hypothetical examples which are supposed to disprove my allegation have not done so, in my opinion. in fact i think they are essentially the same scenario re-worded and in both cases the suffering is actually part of the goal, just as i predicted.

my challenge to these examples is that the same process which creates the means to alleviate suffering also causes the initial suffering. if we were discussing a hypothetical scenario in which the suffering were inherent and a limited being tried to alleviate it by creating just a little more suffering, then these examples would be more apt to disprove my assertion. since that is not the case, they do no such thing. i understand that you aren't saying this is actually god's method but since it is meant to disprove my allegations about god i think it should at the very least fit the scenario. otherwise it's simply irrelevant.

it would be like if a robber robbed 20 people and one of them as a result of the robbery went on a campaign to retrieve some of the stolen items to some of the people involved. that person did a good thing and a silver lining came out of a negative situation, but the robbers actions were still negative because without them nobody would have been robbed.

How so? If the options are sacrifice one person and save a thousand or sacrifice a thousand to save one which option is the right one? That isn't jacked up morality at all.

You made the claim that natural disasters are "evil" because God allows them to exist for no good reason. And your support for this conclusion was that God can get any goal he wants without any suffering along the way.

What my example has shown is that this is not necessarily true at all. I have provided two hypothetical examples that prove that there is a good goal that God can shoot for that requires some suffering along the way. Thus, your argument does not hold up.

Originally posted by red g jacks
they're not the same at all.

the moon example is nonsensical because moons presumably don't see. if moons did see then the question would not be nonsensical and would have a yes or no answer.

in this case, god can create anything and god can lift anything. thus the question of whether god can create something he can't lift isn't nonsensical. it has a real subject, albeit an abstract one, which deals with what limits can be put on his abilities and where. the subject is not whether a rock cannot be lifted by a thing that can lift the rock, but whether a being that can create/lift anything can create something that it cannot lift.

your responses seem to suggest that your answer would be no, he can't create such an object. thus you place priority in his brute strength over his creative capacity. you cannot choose an answer to the question without placing the priority on one of his abilities, which is the point of the question. it highlights a fundamental logical flaw with the concept of omnipotence. so it's not the question which is nonsensical, it's god.

This is getting us no where. The subject IS a rock that can't be lifted by a thing that can lift it. Lets break it down:

The thing (God) is a thing that can lift any rock. So if the subject is a rock, this thing can lift it because, by definition, this thing can lift any rock. The subject is a rock. Thus, this thing is a thing that can lift the subject.

So again, the subject is "a rock that is so big that a thing that can lift it can't lift it."

Broken down like that, do you see how nonsensical that subject is? It might sound less nonsensical when you describe it another way, but that IS the subject, is it not?

That's why God cannot create it. Because it has no real subject. It's nonsense.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it would only be 'infinite' in concept; the same way we use infinity in our current conceptions. in reality the actual livable space would in fact be measurable at any given point in time, though it would always be increasing. so what exactly is impossible/illogical about that?

Because it's never ending. You are using infinity as a very real thing that affects reality. Like I said, infinity has no place in reality.

Originally posted by red g jacks
my allegation is essentially that the only way an all powerful god could not complete his mission without death and suffering is if that death and suffering were part of his goal. that's based on the sheer power of god and nothing else. i would not make such a bold claim for any imperfect or limited being, but i think that my conclusion naturally follows from the conception of a god who is in control of all the factors.

the hypothetical examples which are supposed to disprove my allegation have not done so, in my opinion. in fact i think they are essentially the same scenario re-worded and in both cases the suffering is actually part of the goal, just as i predicted.

my challenge to these examples is that the same process which creates the means to alleviate suffering also causes the initial suffering. if we were discussing a hypothetical scenario in which the suffering were inherent and a limited being tried to alleviate it by creating just a little more suffering, then these examples would be more apt to disprove my assertion. since that is not the case, they do no such thing. i understand that you aren't saying this is actually god's method but since it is meant to disprove my allegations about god i think it should at the very least fit the scenario. otherwise it's simply irrelevant.

it would be like if a robber robbed 20 people and one of them as a result of the robbery went on a campaign to retrieve some of the stolen items to some of the people involved. that person did a good thing and a silver lining came out of a negative situation, but the robbers actions were still negative because without them nobody would have been robbed.

That brings us back to the necessity of death. If those 20 people HAD to be robbed by the robber, wouldn't it be better to have one of the people robbed be someone who can bring back some of the stolen goods, and thus alleviate the suffering of more people and have the least amount of suffering?

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's not what i'm saying. you place free will on such a pedestal that to make those people more inclined to accept advice or alleviation from sources other than other victims is more of an affront than to make more people suffer so that some of them can help alleviate suffering. that is the jacked up part. the man who suffers so that others may be alleviated has no more say in the matter than the people who would be influenced to accept help from other sources, and his price is undoubtedly steeper.

God places free will on a much higher pedestal than human happiness. And I would agree with Him 100%. Otherwise, He could have simply made us mindless drones, but we would all be completely happy all the time. That isn't what anyone wants, God most of all.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the good goals that you have submitted deal with god trying to alleviate the suffering that god created in the first place, thus i don't think they disprove what i'm saying at all. if we actually apply your examples to the scenario at hand they don't hold up: without natural disasters there would be less people suffering who are in need of such assistance.

The point was to show that some suffering can produce good. It's possible, is it not? In order for you to claim that God's actions were unjust or "evil" you would have to show that they will not and cannot produce good. You would basically have to show that the alternative to the choice (in this case allowing natural disasters) was a morally superior choice that God decided not to go with. Can you do that?

Originally posted by TacDavey
...infinity has no place in reality.

Sorry if I missed something, but, if anything, I would say infinity is reality's second most fundamental property (the first being existence).

Unless, by 'reality' you mean physical reality? Even then, I would say that the hardware of reality could be infinite, or not. I wouldn't feel comfortable making such an absolute statement either way.

Originally posted by Mindship
?

Sorry if I missed something, but, if anything, I would say infinity is reality's second most fundamental property (the first being existence).

Unless, by 'reality' you mean physical reality? Even then, I would say that the hardware of reality could be infinite, or not. I wouldn't feel comfortable making such an absolute statement either way.

Infinity is almost as fundamental to reality as existence? What do you mean?

I meant, in this case, physical reality.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Infinity is almost as fundamental to reality as existence? What do you mean?

But then, I don't necessarily mean just physical reality. That's why I asked for clarification on how you were using the word.

I meant, in this case, physical reality.

Basically, your statement ('infinity has no place in reality'😉 just struck me as odd coming from someone who believes in God. Again, why I asked for clarification.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This is getting us no where. The subject IS a rock that can't be lifted by a thing that can lift it. Lets break it down:

The thing (God) is a thing that can lift any rock. So if the subject is a rock, this thing can lift it because, by definition, this thing can lift any rock. The subject is a rock. Thus, this thing is a thing that can lift the subject.

So again, the subject is "a rock that is so big that a thing that can lift it can't lift it."

Broken down like that, do you see how nonsensical that subject is? It might sound less nonsensical when you describe it another way, but that IS the subject, is it not?

That's why God cannot create it. Because it has no real subject. It's nonsense.

you ignore the vital element of the equation: this is god we're talking about, and he can create anything just as easily as he can lift it. thus, the question is pertinent. though it may seem nonsensical due to its incompatibility with our image of god (i.e. all-powerful: able to lift any rock and create anything), the true logical issue is with the concept of omnipotence itself rather than the framing of the question.

it is impossible for a being to be able to lift any object and create any object, for the reasons that this question highlights. omnipotence runs into conceptual problems when taken as an absolute, which is the true reason that this question is so unanswerable. outside of that it makes a clear inquiry that normally (i.e. when not dealing with omnipotence) could easily be answered.

Because it's never ending. You are using infinity as a very real thing that affects reality. Like I said, infinity has no place in reality.

That brings us back to the necessity of death. If those 20 people HAD to be robbed by the robber, wouldn't it be better to have one of the people robbed be someone who can bring back some of the stolen goods, and thus alleviate the suffering of more people and have the least amount of suffering?

your options here are either that god has a good reason for robbing those people or that there is some force more powerful than god that dictates that somebody must be robbed while he is able only to choose who the actual victims are.

God places free will on a much higher pedestal than human happiness. And I would agree with Him 100%. Otherwise, He could have simply made us mindless drones, but we would all be completely happy all the time. That isn't what anyone wants, God most of all.

The point was to show that some suffering can produce good. It's possible, is it not? In order for you to claim that God's actions were unjust or "evil" you would have to show that they will not and cannot produce good. You would basically have to show that the alternative to the choice (in this case allowing natural disasters) was a morally superior choice that God decided not to go with. Can you do that?

if you're still waiting for me to come in and prove that nothing positive could possibly be attained from natural disasters, keep waiting. my philosophy is simply that if god is all powerful then that suffering must have been part of his plan. i consider that evil since whatever 'good' was meant to come out of it (be it regulation of the planet, or population control, or some sort of spiritual and/or emotional enlightenment) could have been accomplished by him without the suffering.

Originally posted by red g jacks
broken down like that, i can see how you would be lead to conclude the question is nonsensical, but i do not agree with you

you ignore the vital element of the equation: this is god we're talking about, and he can create anything just as easily as he can lift it. thus, the question is pertinent. though it may seem nonsensical due to its incompatibility with our image of god (i.e. all-powerful: able to lift any rock and create anything), the true logical issue is with the concept of omnipotence itself rather than the framing of the question.

it is impossible for a being to be able to lift any object and create any object, for the reasons that this question highlights. omnipotence runs into conceptual problems when taken as an absolute, which is the true reason that this question is so unanswerable. outside of that it makes a clear inquiry that normally (i.e. when not dealing with omnipotence) could easily be answered.

I have already said I do not think omnipotence = "Ability to do even logically nonsensical things."

So, yes, if your definition of omnipotence is that then God does not fit it. My definition of omnipotence is not.

The subject of the request is nonsense. Just like a flangotrope. It makes no sense. So I see no power being limited by not being able to do it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yet you seemingly have no problems with the assumption that if unrestricted, the human population will grow ad infinitum. why is it that god can create humans which (without natural deterrent) will breed ever increasing numbers but god can't create a universe in which livable space is increased at the same rate as the population?

I never applied infinity to the human population. I said they would grow to fill any space. Once they filled the space they would be forced to stop growing.

Originally posted by red g jacks
if they had to be robbed, sure; but that only justifies the selection of who will be robbed, not the robbery itself which has yet to be accounted for.

If the robbery, like death, was necessary, then it is accounted for.

Originally posted by red g jacks
your options here are either that god has a good reason for robbing those people or that there is some force more powerful than god that dictates that somebody must be robbed while he is able only to choose who the actual victims are.

I'd say the first one, if we're still using robbery to represent death.

Originally posted by red g jacks
but this is idealism at its worst. making people more inclined to accept help where its available necessarily renders us 'mindless drones,' as if people aren't already born with inherent inclinations? free will its not some light switch that is flipped on or off: the complexity of our mental life is what leads us to conclude that we have such a freedom. that doesn't mean we don't have inherent inclinations; some of which will help us through life and some of which will hinder us.

I never said free will was an on off switch. But if you place human happiness above free will you reach that inevitable conclusion. Since human happiness is more important than free will, why not just loose free will all together? Wouldn't you have more human happiness without free will? Yes, you would, because you could make everyone the happiest they could be at all times.

So again, if you place happiness above free will you may as well just ditch free will altogether. Because by keeping it, you are hindering human happiness to an extent.

Or you might say:

"I'll let free will exist, but when a choice comes up that might make you happy I'll force you to make the choice that will make you happier."

That isn't true free will at all, though. You still don't have control over your own choices.

Originally posted by red g jacks
suffering can produce good. the question at hand is whether an all powerful being with control of all factors has any excuse for said suffering.

if you're still waiting for me to come in and prove that nothing positive could possibly be attained from natural disasters, keep waiting. my philosophy is simply that if god is all powerful then that suffering must have been part of his plan. i consider that evil since whatever 'good' was meant to come out of it (be it regulation of the planet, or population control, or some sort of spiritual and/or emotional enlightenment) could have been accomplished by him without the suffering.

But I already gave two hypothetical situations that proved the opposite. Wasn't the suffering in my examples necessary for the outcome?