Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In
Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
If "God's So Good and God's So Great".......
February 6, 2007
3:49 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
101sp_Permalink sp_Print

I am going to add another twist to this game. If one day you look around and you hear that millions of people have disappeared but you are still here?...just believe from that point forward ok?

February 6, 2007
8:28 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
102sp_Permalink sp_Print

free

On the 5-Feb-07 you said:

"You missed the point."

I did? Sorry about that. What particular point was that?

February 6, 2007
8:55 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
103sp_Permalink sp_Print

Worried_Dad

On the 5-Feb-07 you said:

"The reason you seemed ouchy was because I recall you doing a fair bit of argument here in defense of the concept of spirit."

I suppose it boils down to what you understand the word 'spirit' to mean. I don't think that a 'soul' exists. If you think 'soul' and 'spirit' are somehow synomynomous then we are on a different page.

You wisely observed that:

"Some people believe that belief in consciousness beyond the human brain or life beyond this life is in and of itself a contagious form of mental illness, an evil disease that has given rise to uncountable horrors--the Christian religion being just one of those horrors."

Yes, there are such people. However there are many other educated highly qualified academic scientists who are far from mentally ill and who believe similar things. One such person is Dr. Amit Goswami, a Professor of Physics at the University of Oregon and a quantum physicist who believes that, and I quote his exact words, "Consciousness is the ground of all being." He wrote a book called 'The Self-Aware Universe'.

And you also wrote:

"Personally, I'm an esoteric mystic type."

Interesting.

And you also wrote:

"Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Shamanism, Wicca, Agnosticism and Atheism all look pretty much alike to me."

Yep! On the deepest level I'm sure that everything looks and is much the same. Being a mystic you would 'see' that with your non-dualistic 'wisdom eye'. All discrimination, differentiation and demarcation, it seems, is a product of a deluded mind such as mine is at the present moment. But this 'self' lives in hope.

I'm sure that you are right. After all, everything is a manifestation of mind controlled energy in differing forms and patterns peculiar to the 'eye of the beholder'. Even quantum physicists admit that the observer is not independent of the observed. Bell's Theorem makes this evident. The question is only one of mind generated relationships, mind games.

February 7, 2007
1:01 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
104sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hi Tez,

Well, when it comes to the "big questions" I will be astonished if I turn out to be "right" or "correct"about anything. But I think I'll get points for effort.

One thing I like about Socrates was his insistence that the desire and the effort of becoming wise was more real and valuable then the end point of that journey. To him, his greatest achievement was in figuring out just how un-wise he really was. So when people accused him of being "wise" much less the "wisest" man in the city, he basically rolled his eyes.

I like that. Wisdom. It's a place I want to go to. Always. Never a place I have been.

February 7, 2007
1:37 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
105sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez

The premise assumed to be true is that there is evil in the world, for logic sake let's call evil H.

the logic reads like this:

Assume H exists. Then:
(A and B) or (not B and not A)
If (A and B) then C.
If (not B and not A) then g.
If ( not B and A) then why does there exist H? (evil)

But evil was already assumed to exist in the original "or" statement.

You are asking for a logical answer to an argument where a logical conclusion cannot be, and is not, drawn-

logically, that is.

The premise is what's in question, Tez, not God.

🙂

wd- understood! But you DID touch on an interesting theory. I hell we sit, with or without cigarettes.

free

February 7, 2007
1:46 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
106sp_Permalink sp_Print

To draw a conclusion, we must have:

not (A and B) or
not (not B and not A)

THEN we can draw the conclusion of c or g.

But we can't draw H or not H when H was assumed to be true.

free

February 7, 2007
2:01 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
107sp_Permalink sp_Print

sitting here trying to foresee a reply-how funny-

You can't draw a conclusion about God either.

This paradox tries to assume the existence of God, and then prove He does not exist, through the use of an assumend premise, the existence of evil. This would be a proof by contradiction, if successful.

But- and it's a big BUTT- it assumes that either he wants to abolish evil, or can't and then attempts to define what He is if He wants to or He can't.

But note- the conditional does not work counter, and that would be a requirement to draw the conclusion that God does not exist. I think. Gotta think on this one.

I don't see this paradox going your way Tez.

free

February 7, 2007
6:07 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
108sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hi Free,

Okay, I think we are in parallel tracks here.

Personally, I believe that evil is strictly the province of human beings.

Without human beings, there would be no evil.

We create it, define it, sustain it, and suffer from it. Therefore it is the job of human beings and nobody else to address and deal with the problem of evil.

Whatever God may or may not be, I am pretty sure she is not my Mommy.

That's my opinion.

February 7, 2007
12:27 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
109sp_Permalink sp_Print

Maybe the fault lies with Christians. Maybe they have not represented God well enough. Maybe you should be angry at them instead of God.

February 7, 2007
5:29 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
110sp_Permalink sp_Print

free
7-Feb-07

"Tez

The premise is what's in question, Tez, not God."

But the initial Christian premise is that God does exist. (Premise A)

The next premise is that the fundamental characteristics of that God is omnipotence(premise B), Omniscience(premise C) and unconditionally loving(premise D).

Now the Christian premises (givens) are A and B and C and D.

I am sayiin that If A and B and C and D are true then everything that happens on this earth to all sentient beings must be in each and every sentient beings' best interests (Conclusion Z).

If A and B and C and D then Z.

A&B&C&D=Z

But terrible suffering(evil)(H) also exists in the world.

I maintain that Not Z = H and Not H = S

How can Z = H???????? Only a sick masochist would disagree surely?

Your comparison postulation, "Humans must have comparisons. There must be suffering in order for us to know "not" suffering.", isn't credible.

Given A and B and C and D, please explain how, H is a necessary component of Z.

February 7, 2007
10:20 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
111sp_Permalink sp_Print

Free.

Errata:

"I maintain that Not Z = H and Not H = Z"

That is suffering cannot always be in our best interests therefore Z and H are mutually exclusive.

That is, the statement that, "Everything that happens or has happened in the world must be in every sentient being's best interests,"(Z) and "Terrible suffering exists in the world"(H) are mutually exclusive. Only one can be true! Obviously the second(H).

If just one thing happens or happened to just one sentient being in the world in all of history that is not in that sentient being's best interests, then at least one of the givens A, B, C, or D must be false.

If A is false and God doesn't exist then B, C, D, are irrelevant.

If A is true and God exists then either B or C or D or any combination thereof must be false.

If D is false then God is either not a loving God at all or is only conditionally loving.

If C is false then God is not omniscient and therefore not a God but a lesser being.

If B is false then God is not omnipotent and therefore not a God but a lesser being.

If either B or C is false the person claiming to be God is not a God at all but a pretender. Therefore Not B or Not C = Not A and A = B&C

If C is true then so must D be true.

That is an omniscient God, an ultimate psychiatrist who knows absolutely all about the human psyche, would understand all and thus in seeing the reasons underpinning the very worst 'sin' would have unconditional love for all.

Therefore (Not A)B&C&D = NOT Z = H

That is God, who is both omnipotent and omniscient cannot exist, if suffering exists, B and C and D must be true of any God A if A is true.

But since suffering exists, therefore that God A does not.

Thus H = (Not A)

February 8, 2007
12:07 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
112sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez and Free.

Dear God in Heaven.

Only here can you get this kind of conversation.

Before you lose me completely, I have to ask, if the argument might benefit from a larger sample size, implementing an asymptotic covariance matrix and weighted least squares estimation (distribution free statistics) as the front end of a system of dynamical and structural models?

I have a hunch that the asymptotic covariance matrix is the key here.

February 8, 2007
12:12 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
113sp_Permalink sp_Print

ROFL WD!

Tez- I gotta take this a piece at a time kuz American Idol is on and I'm drawn like a bug to light.

🙂

commercial over!

free

February 8, 2007
12:21 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
114sp_Permalink sp_Print

"But the initial Christian premise is that God does exist. (Premise A)"

It's a premise, I agree. Doesn't matter if it's Christian or not- I see no mention of the Christian God in this paradox. Like I said, it may be an attempt to prove that God does not exist by condradiction. Is this so, Tez? It's not clear.

February 8, 2007
12:43 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
115sp_Permalink sp_Print

"The next premise is that the fundamental characteristics of that God is omnipotence(premise B), Omniscience(premise C) and unconditionally loving(premise D)."

I believe you're mistaken, Tez. It is necessary to assume God exists and that evil exists for the paradox to take form. This makes them a premise. There is not mention, literally, or implied, of omnipotence, omniscience, and unconditional love.

It's gonna be hard to communicate symbolically kuz you used my symbolism, which I had already defined, to define yours. That's not appropriate in a logical discussion Tez. Bad manners, shame on you. I defined A, B, C, g, and H. Instead of finding a flaw in my symbolism, you took it upon yourself to redefine them.

I'm gonna see if I can make sense of your symbolism, as usually when people do this in a logical discussion, they're blowing smoke kuz they don't know what they're doing.

If I'm mistaken, please forgive me.

I'd love to debate with you logically, but you must mind your manners. Don't do that to me again, please.

Ever.

respectfully,

free

February 8, 2007
1:05 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
116sp_Permalink sp_Print

"That is suffering cannot always be in our best interests therefore Z and H are mutually exclusive."

No. Mutually exclusive means that two things can never occur at the same time. Like rolling a die once and getting a 3 and a 4. Can't happen, kuz you can only get one number. Thus the events "getting a 3" and "getting a 4" are mutually exclusive.

To say that something is not always in our best interests implies that sometimes it may be. therefore, Z and H are not mutually exclusive.

"Not Z = H and Not H = Z" well, yeah, of course..

if not z = H then not H = not not z, which is z. why did you say this? It's a duh.

"I am sayiin that If A and B and C and D are true then everything that happens on this earth to all sentient beings must be in each and every sentient beings' best interests (Conclusion Z). " What does this have to do with the paradox?

this is what I mean when I say you miss the point. You're off in babble-land Tez. Get with the argument- you asked for a logical argument related to the paradox. Logic happens to be one thing that I can handle and I love it. Here's the paradox again, try to stick with it, please:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief)

the symbolic logic reads clearly as I defined it above, by assigning letters to phrases within the paradox. You made a symbolic argument that not only doesn't represent this paradox, but doesn't follow. That's called missing the point. Big time.

free

February 8, 2007
2:49 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
117sp_Permalink sp_Print

"That is, the statement that, "Everything that happens or has happened in the world must be in every sentient being's best interests,"(Z) and "Terrible suffering exists in the world"(H) are mutually exclusive. Only one can be true! Obviously the second(H). "

No. They can both be true. Mutually exclusive events can both be true. They just can't happen at the same time. It's true that you can get a 3 and true that you can get a 4 on one roll of a die, but you can't get a 3 AND a 4- getting a 3 and getting a 4 on one roll of a die are mutually exclusive events. Your Z and H as you have defined them can both happen at the same time, and they can both be true. They're not mutually exclusive anyhow.

the rest of this is babble. You say if this is true, then that must be false, and blah blah blah. The fact that you state this doesn't make any of it true. And what does all this have to do with the paradox?

All right.

I give up. This is pointless. You're off in la-la land my dear Tez. But I still love ya.

free

February 8, 2007
10:48 am
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
118sp_Permalink sp_Print

Free...very interesting.

I am going to stay out of this one, too old, my brain can't go backward very well anymore. But when you are ready for some good ol' preachin'...the good kind, let me know! 🙂 Otherwise I find this very interesting reading!!!!! yahoo!

February 8, 2007
6:36 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
119sp_Permalink sp_Print

Worried_Dad

I prefer Two Way Anova, or a Chi Square Test myself. Smarty pants! 🙂

February 8, 2007
6:59 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
120sp_Permalink sp_Print

free

On the 8-Feb-07 you said:

" ... I see no mention of the Christian God in this paradox. ..."

Since there seems only to be Christians who respond here, I presumed that the Christian/Judaic God was the Guy in question here. I use pronoun and name capitalizations here out of minimal respect for Christian beliefs - not my own.

If we are talking about Pagan Gods then it is a whole new ball game. The Pagan Gods of which I am aware, are far from unconditionally loving and are not necessarily omniscient but are omnipotent within the sphere of their domain like Thor the God of War! The exceptions, Mother Goddesses, are most probably unconditionally loving as are most human mothers whose maternal instincts are functioning well.

Since I doubr that there are any practicing 'Thorians' who worship the patriarchal male War God here, I have no interest in debating the existence of such primitive notions of Godhood. WD might be an exception, I don't know. 🙂

And you said:

"Like I said, it may be an attempt to prove that God does not exist by condradiction. Is this so, Tez? It's not clear."

I would agree that the contradictions between the notions of the Christian God and the existence of the predator/victim nature of the compulsory 'food chain' as well as the psychopathic human world in which we live are incompatible.

The above incompatibility seriously arbitrate for either the existence of no God at all or at best an omnipotent pagan psychopathic one.

I'll leave the Pagans to argue for the existence of the latter. They might have a plausible argument, though I doubt it.

Of course maybe we see a different world? Are you wearing rose coloured glasses?

February 8, 2007
8:18 pm
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
121sp_Permalink sp_Print

According to tradition, the Gods would sometimes take mortals as lovers--and thus were heroes born.

So it was for the a Viking woman who woke up one night to find a God standing at the door of her hut.

“I am Thor!” he proclaimed, and quickly charmed the woman with his Godly…charms.

Indeed he had the proportions and stamina of a God—and by the time he left her gut the woman was quite exhausted.

Imagine her surprise when she was awakened again just an hour later by a loud voice:

“I am Thor!”

Apparently the woman had mad quite the impression on the God, who decided to come back for seconds.

The woman was tired, but decided that she should accept this honor—besides, Thor really was quite the hunka hunka divine masculine.

The next evening, as she was getting ready for bed…sure enough the door to her hut flew open and the giant figure proclaimed “I am Thor!!!”

To which she replied

“You’re Thor? I can barely walk!”

February 8, 2007
8:36 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
122sp_Permalink sp_Print

free
8-Feb-07

""... Z and H are mutually exclusive."

No. Mutually exclusive means that two things can never occur at the same time."

I am well aware of Boolean logic, Venn diagrams etc and what mutual exclusivity means.

For A.(NotB) and (Not A).B to both be true at any given time then A and B must be mutually exclusive. This given time in my argument is for all eternity.

I stick by my statement and I disagree with you.

You wrote

"To say that something is not always in our best interests implies that sometimes it may be. therefore, Z and H are not mutually exclusive."

Your above statement convinces me that you either misread or misunderstood what I wrote. Please note the highlighted words in what I wrote. I repeat for your convenience what I wrote:

"I am saying that If A and B and C and D are true then everything that happens on this earth to all sentient beings must be in each and every sentient beings' best interests (Conclusion Z)."

If A.B.C.D then Z or (A.B.C.D = Z) is logically correct.

Put it in a negative way, that means exactly the same thing, I could have written:

"I am saying that If A and B and C and D are true then nothing that ever happens or has ever happened on this earth to any sentient being can ever be NOT in their best interests (Conclusion Z)." i.e. Double negation.

Again I'm saying if A.B.C.D then Z

If the assertion Z is not true by a simple inspection of the world in which we live, then we must negate A.B.C.D to maintain logical correctness. Conclusion Z is obviously FALSE by such inspection.

Therefore Not(A.B.C.D) = Not Z is still logically correct and makes sense by ovservation of the world in which we live,

Not Z = Not(A.B.C.D) is logically also correct.

In simple English this means:

If not everything that ever happened to any sentient being, anywhere at any time, is in their best interests then no(NOT) omnipotent(B), omniscient(C), unconditionally loving(D) God(A) exists.

Just as A.B.C.D = Z is also logically correct so is the negation of both sides of the eqn also logically correct.

Of course any of the variables in the term A.B.C.D can logically be negated. But unless you are into pagan Gods and not talking about the Christian?Judaic God, then through the argument above I am saying that only Negating the A term makes sense. Thus the conclusion (Not A).B.C.D = Not Z

Of course regarding mutual exclusivity as you correctly pointed out:

"They can both be true. Mutually exclusive events can both be true. They just can't happen at the same time."

Since I am referring to a time frame of all eternity, then both Z and H cannot be both true within that eternal time frame and are mutually exclusive.

Since things do happen and have happened in this world over time immemorial, then obviously conclusion Z must be false and Not Z true therein negating the other side of the equation.

Thus as I wrote previously:

"Therefore (Not A)&B&C&D = NOT Z = H"

"(Not A)&B&C&D = NOT Z = H" means a God who is omnipotent(B) and omniscient(C) and unconditionally loving(D) does not exist(Not A) since not everything that happens or has ever happened to anyone, anywhere at any time is necessarily in their best interests(Not Z) and therefore suffering(H) exists in the world as a consequence. While suffering can possibly be in our best interests sometimes at others it is not. If our best interests can be served in other ways and suffering avoided, then I believe we should avoid it at all costs.

This business of taking up our cross and suffering in order that we might earn 'brownie points' with some Christian God and his son who is either not omnipotent or not omniscient or not unconditionally loving to me is a non-sense.

If A.B.C.D then Z and Not H

A.B.C.D = Z.(Not H)

Not(A.B.C.D) = (Not Z).H

Stick with it.

February 8, 2007
9:18 pm
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
123sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez, you wrote: "For A.(NotB) and (Not A).B to both be true at any given time then A and B must be mutually exclusive. This given time in my argument is for all eternity.

I stick by my statement and I disagree with you. "

Disagree with me about what? I asked you why you wrote that. A and Not A can't be true at the same time- duh. Are you trying to look good or what? This statement provides absolutely nothing FOR absolutely nothing. It's kind of like

"your mamma dog faced to the banana patch"

oh-kay!

And what the heck is the rest of this babble? Is this some argument you made up, or is it somehow related to the original paradox that you challenged posters to present a logical argument about? If so, on who's planet?

I mean, honestly. You say say you understand Boolean Logic and Mutually exclusive. then you know, Tez, you've missed the point.

Furthermore, I believe that Muslim people are here as well, and that some posters here believe there is a supreme being but don't adhere to specific religions.

You're obvious beef with Christianity clouds your ability to argue, me believest.

You ask me to stick with it? With what? You present babble. Get back with it Tez. You wanted to discuss the paradox, or am I mistaken?

sorry, dude- you're not a logic guru to me, I think you blowest smoke outest of thy buttocks.

free

February 8, 2007
9:28 pm
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
124sp_Permalink sp_Print

Say it Tez

Say "I, Tez, have such a beef with Christianity that anytime somebody mentions that God or, universe forbid, "love" of that God, I must beat it down with all my might."

Say it.

It's obvious.

Here I thought we were talking about the existence of God, evil, or evil's implications about God.

And you go straight to Jesus with a bunch of so called logic babble.

Tezonian logic babble.

And then what?

Are you gonna just walk away thinking you're this big victorious human who beat down the philosophy of the Supreme Being?

Reality check, my friend.

Reality check.

free

February 8, 2007
11:02 pm
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
125sp_Permalink sp_Print

I maintain that Not Z = H and Not H = Z"

Well, maintain that, Tez. Kuz everybody else on the planet will maintain that as well, as you wrote it. if not z = H then not H = not not z, which is z. That is a "duh" statement. Useless.

But it doesn't mean it's true. Valid, yes, but not necessarily true.

what if I say not z represents having apples and h represents having steak. then not having steak means I have apples.

valid.

But not true. If I don't have steak I might have oranges.

See?

making stuff up and assigning letters for Boolean logic sake might be showy, even valid (I don't think so, though) but none of what you say is necessarily true.

Your'e not gonna able to prove the Christian God exists any more than the christians CAN prove He exists.

The most you're gonna succeed at is pointing out some inconsistencies in their teachings, which are all open to human interpretation. Thus the many factions within Christianity.

But prove a Christian God does not exist?

again.

reality check.

And.

The original paradox presented was much more interesting I thought. Evil is subjective, interesting, open for discussion. God either is or He isn't.

free

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
28
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 111143
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38716
Posts: 714574
Newest Members:
ronaldcarter, Andrewank, petterson20, KarlWalter, ChristopherStanley, OsbornWebb
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information