Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[Meow Mix]

One can exist and be unconscious i.e. quite unaware of your own existence.

More importantly, people go along in the daily rat-race barely aware of their own existence, caught up in the nuances of survival.

Reality has little to do with perception.

If I'm in a desert and I see what appears to be an oasis, it's either an oasis or a mirage (or some other phenomenon like perhaps a tarp strewn over the sand, or whatever else).

Regardless of how I perceive it, I can know absolutely that it is what it is, whatever it is. I might think it's an oasis but it's actually just a mirage: but I would still be correct by saying "It is what it is" (identity).

So, regardless of existing without being consciously aware of it or not, you're (general you) still either existing or not existing. Whether or not you perceive this to be the case or not is irrelevant to the fact that existence is dichotomous.

 

[logician]

Reality has little to do with perception.

If I'm in a desert and I see what appears to be an oasis, it's either an oasis or a mirage (or some other phenomenon like perhaps a tarp strewn over the sand, or whatever else).

Regardless of how I perceive it, I can know absolutely that it is what it is, whatever it is. I might think it's an oasis but it's actually just a mirage: but I would still be correct by saying "It is what it is" (identity).

So, regardless of existing without being consciously aware of it or not, you're (general you) still either existing or not existing. Whether or not you perceive this to be the case or not is irrelevant to the fact that existence is dichotomous.

I agree that one either exists or they don't, but perceptions of existence vary tremendously. Also, is a universal consiousness needed for universal existence? One question that I have always had trouble with.

 

[Storm]

What's the purpose of moral intelligence if it isn't possible to suffer or cause suffering?

Isn't that sort of like knowing how to brush your teeth if your teeth can never rot -- useless?

Well, for starters, the question is flawed. Moral intelligence requires the existence of evil/ suffering. So, it's a question of whether moral intelligence is worth suffering. I happen to think it is, and if there is a theistic God, it seems to agree.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree that one either exists or they don't, but perceptions of existence vary tremendously. Also, is a universal consiousness needed for universal existence? One question that I have always had trouble with.

Oh yeah, there are lots and lots of perceptions of reality. Good thing we can agree that regardless of whose perceptions are right (or even more probably, that none of our perceptions are right) that at least there exists ONE reality... even if there are millions of different perceptions of it, ONE thing is true.

Sort of like the blind men and the elephant, with the elephant representing objective reality: one touches the leg and thinks it's a tree trunk, the other touches the trunk (or tail?) and thinks it's a snake... Even if EVERYONE is wrong, it's still true that there is one reality; and that bit we can at least know for sure and agree on.

No, consciousness isn't needed for universal existence. Where'd you get that idea? David Bohm/John Wheeler?

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, for starters, the question is flawed. Moral intelligence requires the existence of evil/ suffering. So, it's a question of whether moral intelligence is worth suffering. I happen to think it is, and if there is a theistic God, it seems to agree.

Why?

Are you sad that there's not a Balrog in your family's house right now, so on the off chance a hero can come by to slay it?

It would certainly be unfortunate if something happened to those you love but that's the price to pay for "heroism" to even be possible.

I don't mean to "hit below the belt" by mentioning your family, just making an analogy.

Seriously: DO you wish a Balrog would attack them so "heroism" can be witnessed?

Or are you doing just fine without a hero, and would rather a Balrog NOT attack them?

I'd be very suprised if you indeed wanted them to be attacked in order for heroism to be possible (after all, you said it's worth it, right?), but if you say that you'd rather them NOT be attacked (i.e., say "screw the chance for heroism, I don't want to risk my loved ones!") then... well, don't you agree that this would contradict your claim that suffering is "worth it" for "moral intelligence" to be possible?

 

[Storm]

Why?

Are you sad that there's not a Balrog in your family's house right now, so on the off chance a hero can come by to slay it?

It would certainly be unfortunate if something happened to those you love but that's the price to pay for "heroism" to even be possible.

I don't mean to "hit below the belt" by mentioning your family, just making an analogy.

Seriously: DO you wish a Balrog would attack them so "heroism" can be witnessed?

Or are you doing just fine without a hero, and would rather a Balrog NOT attack them?

I'd be very suprised if you indeed wanted them to be attacked in order for heroism to be possible (after all, you said it's worth it, right?), but if you say that you'd rather them NOT be attacked (i.e., say "screw the chance for heroism, I don't want to risk my loved ones!") then... well, don't you agree that this would contradict your claim that suffering is "worth it" for "moral intelligence" to be possible?

OK, you nearly lost me with the Balrog thing, but I think I get what you're saying.

Of course no one wants to suffer themselves. That said, I've had my share, and I know whereof I speak. So, making it personal doesn't really get you anything.

I happen to think that the virtues born in response to suffering, like compassion, are worth the price. I'm not very eloquent today, though.

 

[Meow Mix]

OK, you nearly lost me with the Balrog thing, but I think I get what you're saying.

Of course no one wants to suffer themselves. That said, I've had my share, and I know whereof I speak. So, making it personal doesn't really get you anything.

I happen to think that the virtues born in response to suffering, like compassion, are worth the price. I'm not very eloquent today, though.

But I don't understand why you would say it's worth it but at the same time not want a Balrog to attack those you love.

Is it only worth it when other people suffer so you can enjoy witnessing things like compassion without the repurcussions? Having your cake and eating it too?

If compassion and heroism are so great that it's worth having suffering exist for them to exist, why wouldn't you jump at the opportunity to have you or your loved ones at risk? It's sort of like doublethink to say it's worth it but not worth it, which is what you do when you say you'd rather a Balrog NOT attack your family.

Edit: Also, what I forgot to say was that I also want to point out that if you answer "No" to having a Balrog attacking your family, please answer this question: is it a negative thing that a hero can't step up, since no Balrog is attacking them? Is that a BAD thing that a hero isn't existing because the Balrog isn't existing?

Or do you not miss the would-be hero at all, knowing your family is safe?

Obviously the implication is that if you're not missing the hero, then why do you say it's "worth it" for suffering to exist if clearly you're also saying that it isn't worth it, and furthermore that you don't even mind that a Balrog-slaying hero is also nonexistent?

I think people in a world without suffering wouldn't give a damn that compassion or heroism doesn't exist any more than most of us don't give a damn that dragonslayers don't exist. I'm GLAD dragonslayers don't exist, because that means there are no dragons. I don't see why anyone would want dragons to exist just so we could experience a dragon-slaying hero.

 

[Willamena]

Because existence is dichotomous; it's all or nothing.

Right; but "God" isn't existence. Existence is allegedly what "God" created (the creation). Remember, "existence" isn't a thing, an entity. It's axiomatic, its nature simply a statement, an affirmation that there is something, rather than nothing.

 

[Meow Mix]

Right; but "God" isn't existence. Existence is allegedly what "God" created (the creation). Remember, "existence" isn't a thing, an entity. It's axiomatic, its nature simply a statement, an affirmation that there is something, rather than nothing.

God still either exists or doesn't, even if He created other things that exist (in which case God exists, clearly, to do the creating).

 

[Storm]

But I don't understand why you would say it's worth it but at the same time not want a Balrog to attack those you love.

Is it only worth it when other people suffer so you can enjoy witnessing things like compassion without the repurcussions? Having your cake and eating it too?

If compassion and heroism are so great that it's worth having suffering exist for them to exist, why wouldn't you jump at the opportunity to have you or your loved ones at risk? It's sort of like doublethink to say it's worth it but not worth it, which is what you do when you say you'd rather a Balrog NOT attack your family.

Or, maybe I can step back and evaluate the benefits without being, well... a sociopath.

As I already pointed out, I'm not exactly naive, so trying to make it personal really doesn't help your point.

Edit: Also, what I forgot to say was that I also want to point out that if you answer "No" to having a Balrog attacking your family, please answer this question: is it a negative thing that a hero can't step up, since no Balrog is attacking them? Is that a BAD thing that a hero isn't existing because the Balrog isn't existing?

See, you're missing the point. It's not about Balrogs and epic heroes. It's about everyman. Like I said, I'm not all that eloquent today, so I'll borrow the words.

The Operative pulls his huge sword, and Mal pulls...a tiny screwdriver. It's a tiny visual joke on the way to a vicious fight, this way and that on the broadcast platform, before the Operative stabs him (outside the frame, because if we saw him get stabbed as bad as he just did, we'd assume he was dead). "Do you know what your sin is, Mal?" Mal smiles. "Aw hell. I'm a fan of all seven." And Joss makes an interesting point here, which is that this is a literal response, and not a quip: "sin" as a concept is meaningless when the defining authority is as crazy -- and as demonstrably evil by the categorical imperative -- as the Operative and his bosses.

But even then, there's a higher point, which is that "sin," in the sense that the Operative means, and means to enforce here as he did in the beginning, is in itself the most sinful concept imaginable. Imposing their lack, through Pax, through legislation, through signing subjective moral concepts into law, circumvents God's plan entirely, and means taking on God's role and making of oneself an idol. It perverts religion and politics, and all of us love one more than the other. Without pride and the choices it presents, there can be no faith: no assertion that one's relationship with God, against all reason, is imperative and real. Without envy, there is no hope, no comparison, no competition, no dissatisfaction, no reason to try, to succeed. Without gluttony, in a world where greed is eliminated, there is no way to choose charity. Without lust, we all die, and without acknowledgement of lust's universality, there is no fortitude. Without anger, without the holy anger of the proletariat, of the people against the unlawful, there can be no justice. Without greed or sloth, there is no moderation, no temperance or prudence -- we are unable to look at ourselves critically and see long-term v. short-term effects. We stop growing them when the state mandates these lacks, takes away these choices: we all go to sleep. And we don't wake up. And Oceania keeps fighting, and the signal is silenced.

I think I just became a ******* Libertarian. And possibly a Christian. In other news, the Operative gets a screwdriver through the leg. "But right now?" Mal wraps his hands around the screwdriver, driving down: "I'm going to have to go with Wrath." Word.
source
​

You can't have virtues without vices, it's that simple.

 

[Willamena]

God still either exists or doesn't, even if He created other things that exist (in which case God exists, clearly, to do the creating).

But "God" isn't existence. So "God" cannot be said to either or neither exist or not exist.

Only things that either exist or do not (i.e. in existence, per se) can be said to "defy logic."

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

" We are made of stardust, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself." Carl Sagan
I like this quote and some may read a kind of non-omnipotent God into this.
But personally I believe a wimpy God that only exists out of universal consciousness or just an emergent property of the complexity of the universe as it has gone through various phases such as the emergence of complex carbon based life forms, just like it had gone through preexisting phases of metallicity is not a God at all. More to the point the pre-existing unconscious universe would be more befitting of "God"

 

[Storm]

" We are made of stardust, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself." Carl Sagan
I like this quote and some may read a kind of non-omnipotent God into this.
But personally I believe a wimpy God that only exists out of universal consciousness or just an emergent property of the complexity of the universe as it has gone through various phases such as the emergence of complex carbon based life forms, just like it had gone through preexisting phases of metallicity is not a God at all. More to the point the pre-existing unconscious universe would be more befitting of "God"

OK.... What does this have to do with the conversation?

 

[Willamena]

But I don't understand why you would say it's worth it but at the same time not want a Balrog to attack those you love.

That a response to suffering is worth it does not imply that suffering is worth it.

 

[Meow Mix]

That a response to suffering is worth it does not imply that suffering is worth it.

Well, I can't see any other way to interpret that responses to suffering are worth it. That implies that it's worth it for suffering to exist so that we can have the responses (like compassion).

How could it NOT have that implication?

 

[Willamena]

Well, I can't see any other way to interpret that responses to suffering are worth it. That implies that it's worth it for suffering to exist so that we can have the responses (like compassion).

How could it NOT have that implication?

Suffering is not the cause of compassion. The worth of compassion does not reflect on the worth of suffering.

Those who may suggest it does, just give them that nod.

 

[Meow Mix]

You can't have virtues without vices, it's that simple.

I am understanding this, I've grasped this.

But I'm arguing that so-called "virtues" are just responses to suffering. Why is that a better thing than the absence of suffering?

There's this idea that "Oh we wouldn't be able to grow or struggle." That's not true, in a world without suffering we could still learn about things or participate in activities that are challenging without incorporating suffering.

Let's break it down:

Without pride and the choices it presents, there can be no faith: no assertion that one's relationship with God, against all reason, is imperative and real.

Faith as a "virtue" is an incredibly dubious position considering the epistemic failure of faith and the irrationality entailed in the context that the author put it ("against all reason"). This one's pretty much nonsense.

Without envy, there is no hope, no comparison, no competition, no dissatisfaction, no reason to try, to succeed.

Why is the absence of hope a bad thing? Why? Hope is a good thing if suffering exists because it helps us to persevere in the face of daunting challenges, but there's no need for hope without suffering. This "But without suffering, X virtue wouldn't exist" argument always fails to explain why the existence of X virtue is good in and of itself: usually the virtue is only "good" as a means to alleviate or prevent further suffering, an entirely extraneous job in the absence of suffering.

Competition can exist without suffering, just look at playing a video game or watching a movie where no one is really suffering but the competition is real.

Without gluttony, in a world where greed is eliminated, there is no way to choose charity.

So what? Why is the existence of charity a good thing?

Let me put it this way: in a world where all diseases are eliminated, there is no way to produce inocculations.

...............................................SO?!

Without lust, we all die

I don't really consider something as natural as physical attraction to be a "vice," I chalk that one up to superstitious mysoginistic bronze age goat herders...

Without anger, without the holy anger of the proletariat, of the people against the unlawful, there can be no justice.

Again, SO WHAT? In the absence of battered women there can be no battered women shelters. So?? Why is that a bad thing? Why is the existence of justice -- something which has the sole purpose of alleviating suffering -- so much of a good thing that it's worth it to have suffering just so we can... well, combat suffering? That's ridiculous!

Without greed or sloth, there is no moderation, no temperance or prudence -- we are unable to look at ourselves critically and see long-term v. short-term effects.

"Long term vs. short term effects" only matter to minimize suffering and maximize success, which is an extraneous job in a world without suffering. Again, the biggest question: SO WHAT?

Every last one of these "But X virtue wouldn't exist without suffering!" objections fails to establish why X virtue is good in and of itself, or desirable in and of itself, rather than as a response to suffering.

No compassion because there's no one to feel sorry for? SO WHAT?

If this idea that "the virtue is so worth it that it's actually good for suffering to exist in order for the virtue to exist" is true, then we should do small children a favor and punch them in the face on a daily basis. After all, we're helping virtues like compassion and justice from the authorities to manifest themselves, right?

I know this sounds ridiculous but it really is the ramification of the argument that suffering is "worth it" to have these virtues. It really does imply that given... say, a pocket full of people who've never experienced suffering, that we should give them blankets full of smallpox to help them out. It sounds extreme, it sounds like I'm going on a slippery slope, but that REALLY IS the implication of that line of thought.

And I find it ridiculous. Can anyone justify why these virtues are so good that the existence of suffering really is "worth it" just so they can exist -- particularly when their existence is practically solely to combat suffering?

"Suffering is bad, but it's good to have virtues that fight suffering so in order to be able to fight suffering it's good that suffering exists." <-- does this make sense to anyone?

 

[Meow Mix]

Suffering is not the cause of compassion. The worth of compassion does not reflect on the worth of suffering.

Those who may suggest it does, just give them that nod.

That's what was being SAID though, Willamena. Someone said that it's "worth it" (i.e., "worth it" for suffering to exist) so that we can have virtues like compassion.

It's not possible to say that "compassion is worth it" to not also be implying that the existence of suffering is "worth it," since compassion is contingent on the existence of suffering.

 

[Willamena]

That's what was being SAID though, Willamena. Someone said that it's "worth it" (i.e., "worth it" for suffering to exist) so that we can have virtues like compassion.

It's not possible to say that "compassion is worth it" to not also be implying that the existence of suffering is "worth it," since compassion is contingent on the existence of suffering.

So... is that your argument? or theirs?



Because you seem to have sunk your teeth into it quite firmly.

 

[Meow Mix]

So... is that your argument? or theirs?



Because you seem to have sunk your teeth into it quite firmly.

That doesn't even make any sense, considering I was arguing against the argument. I don't understand your interpretations a great deal of the time.