Does omnipotent mean God can do anything?

[strikeviperMKII]

You're assuming that there is something to learn by feeling the horror of realizing you've hit someone with your vehicle and maimed or killed them.

In a world where suffering isn't possible, there's nothing to learn by doing so, and your analogy falls flat on its face.

Sure, you learn nothing by being unable to hit somebody because "learning something about it" implies that you would learn not to hit people in the future, or to care for their feelings about being hit, for example. But if that's not even possible at all in the first place, there's nothing to learn about it.

Simple, see? No problems here, the problem you raise only matters if we assume suffering is necessary... which is exactly what's being called into question, so it's a little circular.

Try answering my question: If you remove all the rules of football(or at least the ones you don't like) from a football game, are you really playing football anymore?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Try answering my question: If you remove all the rules of football(or at least the ones you don't like) from a football game, are you really playing football anymore?

To a certain point, sure you are.

For instance, my elementary school played flag football. We took out all the rules about tackling and protective equipment, and added rules about flags that the players wear. It's still a form of football.

BTW - is Canadian football not football? The rules are different from American football.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

To a certain point, sure you are.

For instance, my elementary school played flag football. We took out all the rules about tackling and protective equipment, and added rules about flags that the players wear. It's still a form of football.

BTW - is Canadian football not football? The rules are different from American football.

To a certain point...and what might that point be?

 

[Meow Mix]

It depends on what the purpose is, doesn't it? If the goal is just "everybody's happy," you're right. But what if the goal is for us to be morally intelligent?

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?

 

[Meow Mix]

Try answering my question: If you remove all the rules of football(or at least the ones you don't like) from a football game, are you really playing football anymore?

I get your point, I just think it's meaningless. There's a vast difference between a football rule and the existence of leukemia kids. One is for entertainment. Do you find the challenges leukemia kids go through thrilling and entertaining, which is what football challenges are for?

I certainly hope not.

It's possible for the universe to be set up in a way where we experience challenge without the proflific suffering. Your objection doesn't really give suffering an excuse to exist, even if it can be summarized into a succinct analogy. To make your analogy more realistic, some of the football players would start the game by having one or more of their limbs amputated; others would contract virulent, deadly, and tortuous diseases on being tackled by others... there would be man-eating lions prowling the field, some spots where the grass is actually a concealed spike pit... and so on. Then the analogy would be a little closer to what the world is like. Then we can say "No, that stuff isn't necessary to enjoy football at all. So why the hell is it all there? Who DESIGNED this game, and what's his problem?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To a certain point...and what might that point be?

I'm not really sure. Apparently, it can still be football even if you take out tackling or if you change the dimensions of the field (or even get rid of the field altogether).

But back to the topic at hand, if you get rid of the painful aspects of football (i.e. the tackling and the injuries), then it can still be football. Why can't the same be true of life? Are you arguing that suffering is so intrinsic to life that we couldn't call it "life" without suffering?

 

[averageJOE]

Try answering my question: If you remove all the rules of football(or at least the ones you don't like) from a football game, are you really playing football anymore?

Yes. Just like rugby and soccer are football.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I get your point, I just think it's meaningless. There's a vast difference between a football rule and the existence of leukemia kids. One is for entertainment. Do you find the challenges leukemia kids go through thrilling and entertaining, which is what football challenges are for?

A more immediate reason is the learn to play football (or in this case, the video game version). Then you can have fun. Or not.

It's possible for the universe to be set up in a way where we experience challenge without the proflific suffering.

Possible, yes. What would someone learn from such a reality?

Your objection doesn't really give suffering an excuse to exist, even if it can be summarized into a succinct analogy. To make your analogy more realistic, some of the football players would start the game by having one or more of their limbs amputated; others would contract virulent, deadly, and tortuous diseases on being tackled by others... there would be man-eating lions prowling the field, some spots where the grass is actually a concealed spike pit... and so on. Then the analogy would be a little closer to what the world is like. Then we can say "No, that stuff isn't necessary to enjoy football at all. So why the hell is it all there? Who DESIGNED this game, and what's his problem?"

First, I wasn't trying to excuse suffering.
Second, your example is a very intense game, and I've played ones similar, but not quite so nasty. Except life, perhaps.
Third, you statement of 'this isn't necessary to enjoy football at all' assumes that the designer only wanted you to enjoy 'football', which is something that you have now defined. The designer obviously had a different idea in mind.
The point is that it is possible to have 'life' without suffering. You can challenge yourself in a completely (or very close) risk free way. But that's only to have this 'life' that you have now defined. Life isn't that, so I don't know why you're trying to say it should be something else, when very clearly, it is what it is.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Why can't the same be true of life? Are you arguing that suffering is so intrinsic to life that we couldn't call it "life" without suffering?

If you change the rules, even a tiny, almost insignificant rule, you change the game. Add that to the fact that we don't know the 'rules' of this 'game' we call 'life', and even changing a rule we think is insignificant, or just plain wrong, will change the game into something that we can't predict. Or maybe we can, in the short term. We don't know.

 

[Willamena]

I agree. Many theologians define omnipotence as the capacity to actualize any logically possible state of affairs, which is identical to what you've said. It's the only definition that makes any sense.

Well, second only.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you change the rules, even a tiny, almost insignificant rule, you change the game.

The American League and the National League have different rules. Which one actually plays baseball?

More relevant to religion, does this mean that the modern-day Catholic Church popped into existence with Vatican II?

Add that to the fact that we don't know the 'rules' of this 'game' we call 'life', and even changing a rule we think is insignificant, or just plain wrong, will change the game into something that we can't predict. Or maybe we can, in the short term. We don't know.

Ah - the "God works in mysterious ways" argument, eh?

 

[Beaudreaux]

So, God is subject to and bound by the rules of logic. Is that what you're saying?

Bumping for an answer.

 

[Midnight Pete]

I'm sure I'm too late to be first.

Are you saying that we are living in the best of all possible worlds?

What a horrible thought ...

 

[Willamena]

I'm sure I'm too late to be first.

Are you saying that we are living in the best of all possible worlds?

Nah, just the real world.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Nah, just the real world.

So is the real world the best of all possible worlds?

 

[Beaudreaux]

What a horrible thought ...

Is that a "no"?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So, God is subject to and bound by the rules of logic. Is that what you're saying?

I am afraid I do not know all the rules of logic, however I do state that God has limits, in that he can only do that which is possible, and nothing else.
If that means he is bound by the rules of logic than so be it, but I wont say such a thing cause I am not schooled in all the rules of logic.

 

[Meow Mix]

I am afraid I do not know all the rules of logic, however I do state that God has limits, in that he can only do that which is possible, and nothing else.
If that means he is bound by the rules of logic than so be it, but I wont say such a thing cause I am not schooled in all the rules of logic.

This is actually a pretty mainstream theological position. There's nothing wrong with it, it doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent or omniscient. It doesn't "diminish" God in any way.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

The American League and the National League have different rules. Which one actually plays baseball?

I don't know what those are, but I'll assume they both do. Just different versions.

More relevant to religion, does this mean that the modern-day Catholic Church popped into existence with Vatican II?

It changed from what it was. In effect, the pre-Vatican II church died, and the post-Vatican II church was born.

Ah - the "God works in mysterious ways" argument, eh?

More the fact that the future is always uncertain. Some things are probable, but everything is uncertain until it happens.
Are you implying that the future is God?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Can you explain how imperfection necessitates suffering?

Example: an imperfect square could have one side that's longer/shorter than the other while still connected to the other 4 angles (i.e., an angle is shorter) or it could be that a side is too short to reach the 4th angle and doesn't close all the way... etc.

There's lots of ways in which things can be "imperfect," depending on how you're defining perfection.

There is no reason why imperfection implies the existence of suffering. A non-perfect being may simply be non-omniscient, for instance -- but nothing can harm it or cause it pain. Or it may just be non-omnipotent... or both! Nowhere is it LOGICALLY implied that it must be able to suffer.

Your argument doesn't defend the existence of suffering whatsoever, not as far as I can see it.

Sorry for the belated reply. I feel a well thought out response down the road is of more value than an instant response of little value.

If I may use an analogy, and I hope you really think about this; It appears to me, you are quite good at creating a race track. Placing carefully the obstacles, and eventually the finish line. In this race you create it is par for the course that you stand at the end of the race, just beyond the finish line, looking at others attempting your course and critiquing them.
I'll just point out that, while it may be a fair and just course you have designed, it seems more so that it is not, and might be simply a comforting position for you to address the subject of God.
In other words you have designed this conception with just the right parameters, so that all your roads lead to "God can not be good, and omnipotent at the same time".

So with that said, you ask a specific question of me, then proceed to answer it as well. The question is

Can you explain how imperfection necessitates suffering?

Now, because I am interested in your response to something I am about to say, I will just say it for now, and then we can proceed.

God can't create conscious souls as we have today, and there not be suffering.

IF the above statement can be shown true, how does your opinion change?
Please allow me certain latitude for now, as we are just have a hypothetical discussion at this juncture.

Bare in mind the following:
1)Presume the act of creating consciousness carries with it an intrinsic nature that when it is first created it must suffer.
2)If it is intrinsic that this must happen, it can be understood this is simply a limitation on God, and takes away none of his omnipotence.