tdrehfal Posted January 18, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 18, 2007 Questioner - I know these are not arguments you created. I can see you most likely assume them to be true, valid, convincing arguments. But they are not. They are based in the semantics of the terms used without appreciating their essence. The rationality of the arguments likewise confines God to the 3-D world we live in. Einstein showed that when the fourth dimension of "time" is included in the mix, the rules change. Quantum physics has found that there are even more dimensions than this, and we have yet to unravel what effect they have in the universe (for that matter, we have yet to define just what these dimensions are!) You forget that God by definition is a spiritual being, and so in rationalizing your arguments, you need to comply by the rules of how a spirit operates. But you can't do that because spirits operate in a realm we cannot see, feel, or touch, and so is not confined by our rules, or what we perceive our rules to be. So, in essence, your arguments are negated at their core. Actually he said they were 'just for fun' so we don't know how really serious he takes them. He also said they were from 'weakest' to 'strongest' which means he admits that some of them are weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeCajunboy Posted January 18, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 113 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,430 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 33 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/24/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/28/1952 Share Posted January 18, 2007 This is a quick one. It's a barrage of paradoxes. I sorted them from the weakest to the strongest. 0) This is just for fun If God is defined as omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because He can't create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it. Cajunboy:::: Why not? If HE is "supernatural" as we are to believe HE is, HE is actually holding the entire Universe in HIS hands! And why shouldn't HE? He designed and built it in 6 days, as we are told! 1) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition since either He can't kill, say, Terry Schiavo, or He isn't perfectly good. Cajunboy::::And how do you know that God has taken all these (people) souls and they are with HIM in a place 1000 times better than the world we are destroying? 2) If God is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, God doesn't exist by definition because either He can't change the future or He can't know the future. Cajunboy:::: I would have to ask your believers if they would have been satisfied if God WOULD change the future or interceded in the evolution of life, if we would have been more or less satisfied. Wouldn't that give man less control in their decision making, whether they be right or wrong? 3) If God is defined as omnibenevolent and omnipotent, God doesn't exist by definition because being omnipotent He could have avoided killing small children with the Flood. He instead let only one family live. So either he didn't have the power to save every single good or innocent human or he had that power but murdered innocents. Cajunboy:::: If and when you learn about the Real God that we all know, you would already know the all those innocent in these many thousands of years, are already in a place with HIM 1000 times better than the one you and I helped to destroy. The Flood is interchangeable with other biblical events, like the destruction of Sodom. 4) If God is defined as omnimax, God doesn't exist by definition because either he doesn't know about the unnecessary evil present in the world (= not omniscient); or he knows about it but can't do anything to eliminate it (= not omnipotent); or he knows about it, could erase it, but doesn't because He wants us to suffer (= not omnibenevolent). Cajunboy:::: Or HE is true to HIS word by saying , "He will NOT intercede in our life" He will not judge us today, but wo' tomorrow! God wants us to suffer??? I don't suffer! If you suffer, it is because you have brought it upon yourself. Satan has also imposed, through man's sin, the long suffering that runs through our veins, and genetic history. If you don't believe that's possible, ask yourself why you might have some of the same vices as your parents/grandparents/great-grandparents? And believe it or not, only you have the power here on earth to begin that change, whatever it would be. Only you can break your "genetic" curse/sin that satan has trapped you in.....YOU AND GOD! Discuss (if you want to). Btw, I hope I'm posting in the right forum... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) 0. There are... The first one is stupid. I already said it's just for fun and I already explained why it's nonsense. It's numbered 0 for a reason. 1. A man operates a bridge that allows a train to travel over water and lifts up so boats can pass underneath. The man's son is on the bridge and a train full of passengers is approaching, without enough time to reach his son. He in effect sacrifices his son's life to allow the passengers to travel safely accross the bridge instead of allowing a train wreck. He in effect kills his son for the benefit of others. A police officer shoots someone about to set off a nuclear bomb. Noone knew about the bomb and later someone stole it. The officer looks like a senseless murderer. This statement equates to: Killing someone is morally exclusive to being perfectly good. This is false. It is true for God, because He could use His magic to save everyone. He's omnipotent, he can do that. The police officer and the first guy cannot, so they're excused. God is not excused. 2. Omnipotence and Omnipresence includes time. God could see it all at once. This statement is more like: I see evil and suffering and it's God's fault for not changing it. God knows how to run the world, and God, being all powerful, can use suffering for good. (Really, I don't know what this one was about. Omnipotence includes telling/knowing/changing the future. In fact, even if God only existed in the present, his omnipresence would be enough, because he'd know everything going on down to the subatomic level, everywhere. That would allow for PERFECT future prediction. But I believe He can exist outside of time. If God sees everything at once, then everything has already been decided and He can't change it, thus He's not omnipotent. 3. The thought of man was only evil continually at this point in time, and if there were any babies/children that were 'innocent' at the time, God can take them to heaven and then resurrect them (he's still all-powerful) at judgement day. So God saved the babies and children. Your answer does break the paradox, but it seems very unsatisfying. Killing only the unclean would have been preferable in the eyes of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. 4. This one again places the blame on God for unecessary evil in the world. Allowing people to suffer the consequences for their actions, including allowing evil, does not exclude omnibenevelence, it simply includes, as a part of omnimax, omnijustice, and an element of free will in the creation. He doesn't want people to suffer. However, he will not always eliminate the consequences of humanity's selfish, sinful actions. This would make God an omni-pushover, and then he really couldn't be called God. That's not the case. I said unnecessary evil. I'm talking about things like forest fires, hurricanes and other things that haven't been caused by humans. Edited January 19, 2007 by Questioner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 Actually he said they were 'just for fun' so we don't know how really serious he takes them. He also said they were from 'weakest' to 'strongest' which means he admits that some of them are weak. The first one is just for fun. The others are all valid. The last one is the strongest; I believe with some fantasy the others could be answered, although that's just a gut feeling, but the last one is simply impossible to break, as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 ... Please make your post readable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneV Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 36 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 720 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/23/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/20/1947 Share Posted January 19, 2007 God doesn't fit into any of your little boxes, folks! He is above all the human understanding that we can muster. All our high-falutin' so-called intelligence (getting a good belly-laugh at all the pseudo-intelligent arguments for atheism on this thread here!) cannot scratch the surface of His persona--yet when you give over to acceptance and choose to believe He is---well, you are granted knowledge of Him! Knowledge that is sure and solid. It's a choice. He has given us every proof. Atheists are just agnostics who have made a choice to remain blind....there is no such thing as an atheist, anyway. So, dream on, folks. God is watching this intellectual game and rooting for His own. When you're right you're right - I really get so bored with non-arguments that are soooo repetitive. So far I have yet to see anything that hasn't been done to death already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjrose Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,580 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/13/1960 Share Posted January 19, 2007 God doesn't fit into any of your little boxes, folks! He is above all the human understanding that we can muster. All our high-falutin' so-called intelligence (getting a good belly-laugh at all the pseudo-intelligent arguments for atheism on this thread here!) cannot scratch the surface of His persona--yet when you give over to acceptance and choose to believe He is---well, you are granted knowledge of Him! Knowledge that is sure and solid. It's a choice. He has given us every proof. Atheists are just agnostics who have made a choice to remain blind....there is no such thing as an atheist, anyway. So, dream on, folks. God is watching this intellectual game and rooting for His own. When you're right you're right - I really get so bored with non-arguments that are soooo repetitive. So far I have yet to see anything that hasn't been done to death already AMEN Gene!!!! So well put! You took the words right out of my mouth. Seems Questioner has a thing with "arguements" or "non-arguments" this is so perfect, wish I thought of it myself but you have been much more diplomatic about than I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneV Posted January 19, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 36 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 720 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/23/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/20/1947 Share Posted January 19, 2007 God doesn't fit into any of your little boxes, folks! He is above all the human understanding that we can muster. All our high-falutin' so-called intelligence (getting a good belly-laugh at all the pseudo-intelligent arguments for atheism on this thread here!) cannot scratch the surface of His persona--yet when you give over to acceptance and choose to believe He is---well, you are granted knowledge of Him! Knowledge that is sure and solid. It's a choice. He has given us every proof. Atheists are just agnostics who have made a choice to remain blind....there is no such thing as an atheist, anyway. So, dream on, folks. God is watching this intellectual game and rooting for His own. When you're right you're right - I really get so bored with non-arguments that are soooo repetitive. So far I have yet to see anything that hasn't been done to death already AMEN Gene!!!! So well put! You took the words right out of my mouth. Seems Questioner has a thing with "arguements" or "non-arguments" this is so perfect, wish I thought of it myself but you have been much more diplomatic about than I Thanks CJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted Posted January 21, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 276 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 0.96 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/25/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1966 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Questioner, Have you thought of the one key to your questions (you introduce them as paradox's, but are they?)? When you put in each one "by definition", you left out a word: human. So, simply adjust the sentence to read "by our/ human/ mankind's/ etc.. definition" and you can see how our understanding of some of God's ways may be the cause of things we cannot answer currently. Just for fun, and for thought, check out Deu 29:29 and let me know what you think about it. Peace, t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted January 21, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 21, 2007 0. There are... The first one is stupid. I already said it's just for fun and I already explained why it's nonsense. It's numbered 0 for a reason. 1. A man operates a bridge that allows a train to travel over water and lifts up so boats can pass underneath. The man's son is on the bridge and a train full of passengers is approaching, without enough time to reach his son. He in effect sacrifices his son's life to allow the passengers to travel safely accross the bridge instead of allowing a train wreck. He in effect kills his son for the benefit of others. A police officer shoots someone about to set off a nuclear bomb. Noone knew about the bomb and later someone stole it. The officer looks like a senseless murderer. This statement equates to: Killing someone is morally exclusive to being perfectly good. This is false. It is true for God, because He could use His magic to save everyone. He's omnipotent, he can do that. The police officer and the first guy cannot, so they're excused. God is not excused. 2. Omnipotence and Omnipresence includes time. God could see it all at once. This statement is more like: I see evil and suffering and it's God's fault for not changing it. God knows how to run the world, and God, being all powerful, can use suffering for good. (Really, I don't know what this one was about. Omnipotence includes telling/knowing/changing the future. In fact, even if God only existed in the present, his omnipresence would be enough, because he'd know everything going on down to the subatomic level, everywhere. That would allow for PERFECT future prediction. But I believe He can exist outside of time. If God sees everything at once, then everything has already been decided and He can't change it, thus He's not omnipotent. 3. The thought of man was only evil continually at this point in time, and if there were any babies/children that were 'innocent' at the time, God can take them to heaven and then resurrect them (he's still all-powerful) at judgement day. So God saved the babies and children. Your answer does break the paradox, but it seems very unsatisfying. Killing only the unclean would have been preferable in the eyes of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. 4. This one again places the blame on God for unecessary evil in the world. Allowing people to suffer the consequences for their actions, including allowing evil, does not exclude omnibenevelence, it simply includes, as a part of omnimax, omnijustice, and an element of free will in the creation. He doesn't want people to suffer. However, he will not always eliminate the consequences of humanity's selfish, sinful actions. This would make God an omni-pushover, and then he really couldn't be called God. That's not the case. I said unnecessary evil. I'm talking about things like forest fires, hurricanes and other things that haven't been caused by humans. 1. Then God would be obligated to this for EVERYONE, any time something bad happened. Yes, He could save everyone in this way, by making things disappear the minute someone builds them, or creating force-fields around people every time they're about to do something wrong, but this would make reality more of virtual prison than the kind of reality we DO have, and that's not omnibenevolent, how would you like to live in a world like that? That would evil, and not good. 2. I don't see how seeing everything all at once means you can't change it. It could just as well be argued that you're present everywhere and are constantly changing it for the greater good. 3. Forest fires, hurricanes, and other disasters could just as well have been allowed by God [all-knowing] for some purpose that is necessary, but men who are not all knowing cannot discern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts