The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: shades on September 14, 2009, 05:21:15 PM
-
God is perfect and omnipotent, right? He is also omniscient. God created man. Man was not perfect. God intended for man to be perfect. If god really way perfect, man would be perfect. Man is not perfect, so god does not exist.
-
God intended for man to be perfect.
???
-
God gave man free will.
-
God intended for man to be perfect.
Wrong.
-
God gave man free will.
Also wrong.
-
God gave man free will.
Also wrong.
Kind of.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
-
God is perfect and omnipotent, right? He is also omniscient. God created man. Man was not perfect. God intended for man to be perfect. If god really way perfect, man would be perfect. Man is not perfect, so god does not exist.
No he didn't.
-
Why would a perfect being have imperfect creations?
This is clearly the best of all possible worlds.
-
Why would a perfect being have imperfect creations?
God gets bored without conflict.
God gave man free will.
Also wrong.
Kind of.
You don't do so well on true-false tests do you? :-\
Also, I find it funny that the Christian God has free will of his own and is perfect. Certainly this is proof the two can coexist?
-
Okay, yes, in the bible it is stated we have free will.
-
The concept of free will, (in how it is generally accepted on these forums) is physically impossible in any structured system. God, being omnipotent, may transcend our logic, but what truthfully is free will?
The ability to do something with no logic or impulse behind it?
Why not ask your pastor?
-
God gets bored without conflict.
Why would a perfect being need entertainment?
-
God gets bored without conflict.
Why would a perfect being need entertainment?
Did I say he needed entertainment?
-
Did I say he needed entertainment?
No, but boredom is generated by lack of entertainment.
-
No, but boredom is generated by lack of entertainment.
I agree...
-
I agree...
Then surely a perfect being would not get bored, for it would not want for entertainment?
-
to be fair who are we to decide what the perfect being does. if someone is perfect does something that doesn't seem perfect the error must be on the other end.
-
This whole "God is perfect" thing is rubbish and I will attempt to explain why. Perfection is subjective. For example, the perfect evening differs from person to person. One might include dancing, while another may require liquor. This is true for everything. Thus, why there is nothing in existence can be agreed by everyone to be perfect.
Now, how this applies to a deity if twofold. One person saying God (judeo-christian) is perfect, is false because not everyone may see it that way. So, even if you happen to think God is perfect, the truth is much different because that is only your subjective opinion and opinions don't make facts.
The other half is the assertion that God is inherently perfect; a quality of being God. This is labeling God with a subjective adjective, it's like saying God is funny (or more correctly, the funniest). By whose standards is God the funniest or perfect? If God does exist as a supremely powerful being who exists outside, but not constrained by, the laws of the physical world including time and space, as a fickle arbiter who plays favorites and kills wantonly with the callous and random touch as it's portrayed and preached, then surely we aren't able to label perfection; being burdened by the laws of physics and hampered by humane feelings.
As a fact, God cannot be stated as perfect, nor can it be a quality inherent in itself as seen by us.
-
Then surely a perfect being would not get bored, for it would not want for entertainment?
Why would we assume it doesn't want entertainment?
-
God is perfect and omnipotent, right? He is also omniscient. God created man. Man was not perfect. God intended for man to be perfect. If god really way perfect, man would be perfect. Man is not perfect, so god does not exist.
I would say that only concludes that if there is a God, he is not perfect. Perfection would imply that there is no room for improvement. I'm not sure if you could apply that attribute to anything.
-
God is perfect and omnipotent, right? He is also omniscient. God created man. Man was not perfect. God intended for man to be perfect. If god really way perfect, man would be perfect. Man is not perfect, so god does not exist.
I would say that only concludes that if there is a God, he is not perfect. Perfection would imply that there is no room for improvement. I'm not sure if you could apply that attribute to anything.
I agree with you, but that means the bible is wrong.
-
God is perfect and omnipotent, right? He is also omniscient. God created man. Man was not perfect. God intended for man to be perfect. If god really way perfect, man would be perfect. Man is not perfect, so god does not exist.
I would say that only concludes that if there is a God, he is not perfect. Perfection would imply that there is no room for improvement. I'm not sure if you could apply that attribute to anything.
I agree with you, but that means the bible is wrong.
The Bible has been known to be wrong about many things for hundreds of years.
-
the bible is wrong.
Hey, it's Captain Obvious!
-
To quote the philosopher Epicurus, as i think this was the op's actual intent, "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God??
-
To quote the philosopher Epicurus, as i think this was the op's actual intent, "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God??
Because he created the universe. Why not call him God? ???
-
To quote the philosopher Epicurus, as i think this was the op's actual intent, "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God??
Because that's His name. Durr.
-
To quote the philosopher Epicurus, as i think this was the op's actual intent, "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God??
Because he created the universe. Why not call him God? ???
I think you're misunderstanding, he is saying that if god is neither able nor willing to prevent evil then why call him god. I was simply quoting a philosopher to aid the original poster, as i think that it accurately reflects what he was trying to get across. I have to admit though, if god was neither able nor willing then i wouldn't call him god. Then again i don't believe in god, but that has nothing to do with the quote as i'm not saying it's proof that god doesn't exist.
-
Again, until you prove that an event was evil that is a pointless statement.
-
Why would good and evil be meaningful concepts to the creator of the universe? From his point of view I would expect human conflict is no different than a planet being consumed by a star or a spider consuming a fly.
-
Again, until you prove that an event was evil that is a pointless statement.
How does one prove an event "evil"? Does it have to follow a religious connotation? The word evil is synonymous with 'sinful', but can't we just steal it and say it means morally 'fucked'?
Saying something like, "saying the holocaust was an evil event is a subjective statement" would be morally 'fucked'.
-
How does one prove an event "evil"?
The point is, you can't; it's subjective.
The word evil is synonymous with 'sinful', but can't we just steal it and say it means morally 'fucked'?
You could, if you wanted to speak inaccurately.
Saying something like, "saying the holocaust was an evil event is a subjective statement" would be morally 'fucked'.
Saying the holocaust was an evil event is a subjective statement. And there is nothing wrong with their morals.
-
Well now why would you say that there was nothing wrong with their morals? Assuming that you're alluding towards the Nazis. I mean, how sadistic could you possibly be?
If you're attempting to deconstruct the English language, let me just stop you before you answer that question. My point was that the word evil's definition can be broader than it's religious connotation. Hell (another word I use without any religious connotation), the word 'moral' is the opposite of what people find to be bad and wrong.
Do you think what the Nazis did was morally sound under the direct definition of morality?
-
Oh man, there's a whole thread on this. I will continue if you respond, but I think I'll get an idea of your stance after reading it.
-
Ok I found it:
Exactly. Biological self-interest != morality.
And I apologize for not lurking quite enough to see the other thread.
I see what you're saying about the word morality. To be honest, I'm appalled it even had the potential to be subject for debate. My example of the holocaust and my opinion, which at the time I figured could of been unique, was something so undeniably shared and it turns out, you got me. The word 'morality' is subjective.
You sound like a Nazi sympathizer, though. It's one thing to think the Earth is flat, but to take away a couple of very appropriate words like 'immoral' and 'evil' that best describe the absolute horror of something like the holocaust is nonredeemable.
-
This whole "God is perfect" thing is rubbish and I will attempt to explain why. Perfection is subjective. For example, the perfect evening differs from person to person. One might include dancing, while another may require liquor. This is true for everything. Thus, why there is nothing in existence can be agreed by everyone to be perfect.
Now, how this applies to a deity if twofold. One person saying God (judeo-christian) is perfect, is false because not everyone may see it that way. So, even if you happen to think God is perfect, the truth is much different because that is only your subjective opinion and opinions don't make facts.
The other half is the assertion that God is inherently perfect; a quality of being God. This is labeling God with a subjective adjective, it's like saying God is funny (or more correctly, the funniest). By whose standards is God the funniest or perfect? If God does exist as a supremely powerful being who exists outside, but not constrained by, the laws of the physical world including time and space, as a fickle arbiter who plays favorites and kills wantonly with the callous and random touch as it's portrayed and preached, then surely we aren't able to label perfection; being burdened by the laws of physics and hampered by humane feelings.
As a fact, God cannot be stated as perfect, nor can it be a quality inherent in itself as seen by us.
All youve shown is that english has a word with suvjective meanings and that people use it to refer to gpd. You cant disprove reality with linguistics.
-
God is perfect and omnipotent, right? He is also omniscient. God created man. Man was not perfect. God intended for man to be perfect. If god really way perfect, man would be perfect. Man is not perfect, so god does not exist.
I would say that only concludes that if there is a God, he is not perfect. Perfection would imply that there is no room for improvement. I'm not sure if you could apply that attribute to anything.
I agree with you, but that means the bible is wrong.
The Bible has been known to be wrong about many things for hundreds of years.
Well if the bible is wrong and that is the only proof of gods existence, then we must assume god does not exist.
-
You sound like a Nazi sympathizer, though. It's one thing to think the Earth is flat, but to take away a couple of very appropriate words like 'immoral' and 'evil' that best describe the absolute horror of something like the holocaust is nonredeemable.
Relax. It's not like that shit actually happened anyway.
-
You sound like a Nazi sympathizer, though. It's one thing to think the Earth is flat, but to take away a couple of very appropriate words like 'immoral' and 'evil' that best describe the absolute horror of something like the holocaust is nonredeemable.
Relax. It's not like that shit actually happened anyway.
You seriously think that the holocaust didn't happen? Sigh, oh well, don't respond to this, don't want to derail the thread.