God is not all powerful and loving debate.

[mr.guy]

Please show me a circumstance where suffering is not to be damaged(physically or emotionally).

"Damage" can be in all circumstances said to be change, connotated towards detriment, of course. Were i to say that to "suffer through a horrible movie" was not damaging, one could come back and say that the psychological distress of mild discomfort or bordom was damaging because it had influence and "changed" me (which would adequately describe everything that happens to me, whether i notice it or not). By suffering, i'm made aware of circumstances/actions/things and enact distression; something an inanimate (unfeeling) object cannot do, else we'd say rocks and other dead things could suffer when damaged. The conundrum we come to is that if all suffering is damage, why isn't all damage suffering? Suffering, like pain, is an abstraction, of sorts and is dependent on perception to exist. However, to "damage" some depreciation is required. If god is omnipotent, he cannot yield power to be damaged. If he is omnipresent, he is (possibly) all and subject to all; this would probably mean that no depreciation is possible within his being (everything) with no outside reference by which to gauge it as such. Finally, if he's omniscient he would know all, including suffering; but since he can't be subject to any greater power, he can't be damaged (i guess).

I never meant that all reorganization is damage, i meant that what we perceive as damage, although reorganization of atoms, or what have you, is still damage as that is what we have named it in the English language.

That's pretty much what i meant. The destruction of one's home another's urban renewal. Damage would just be affected change. In the case of god, you would need an order that is unique to (can only be) god where the hypothetical dissolution and/or alteration of such would be of detriment to god.

 

[pandamonk]

"Damage" can be in all circumstances said to be change, connotated towards detriment, of course. Were i to say that to "suffer through a horrible movie" was not damaging, one could come back and say that the psychological distress of mild discomfort or bordom was damaging because it had influence and "changed" me (which would adequately describe everything that happens to me, whether i notice it or not). By suffering, i'm made aware of circumstances/actions/things and enact distression; something an inanimate (unfeeling) object cannot do, else we'd say rocks and other dead things could suffer when damaged. The conundrum we come to is that if all suffering is damage, why isn't all damage suffering? Suffering, like pain, is an abstraction, of sorts and is dependent on perception to exist. However, to "damage" some depreciation is required. If god is omnipotent, he cannot yield power to be damaged. If he is omnipresent, he is (possibly) all and subject to all; this would probably mean that no depreciation is possible within his being (everything) with no outside reference by which to gauge it as such. Finally, if he's omniscient he would know all, including suffering; but since he can't be subject to any greater power, he can't be damaged (i guess).

God knows suffering, yet has not experienced suffering, how is this so? Unless, like Aqualung is arguing, God was once not a god, and has learnt from experience. But even if this is the case, my argument was that an omnipotent god cannot suffer, not that he does not know suffering. If he cannot suffer, then he can't cause himself to suffer, so therefore could not have sent himself to earth through Jesus to suffer. And to answer your conundrum, not all damage is suffering, the same as, not all change is damage. Also, God seems to be the only being who knows suffering without experiencing it(unless you're Aqualung of course), so surely he does not fit into our logic, of needing to experience something to know how it is.

That's pretty much what i meant. The destruction of one's home another's urban renewal. Damage would just be affected change. In the case of god, you would need an order that is unique to (can only be) god where the hypothetical dissolution and/or alteration of such would be of detriment to god.

I don't fully understand what you're saying, AGAIN , you will need to dumb it down a little. (I just get lost half way through:banghead3 )

 

[mr.guy]

God knows suffering, yet has not experienced suffering, how is this so?

I wouldn't say he can't experience it. If he's omnipresent, he'd experiences everything.

Unless, like Aqualung is arguing, God was once not a god, and has learnt from experience.

Omniscience would dictate he knows all. I don't think he'd be able to learn anything.

But even if this is the case, my argument was that an omnipotent god cannot suffer, not that he does not know suffering. If he cannot suffer, then he can't cause himself to suffer, so therefore could not have sent himself to earth through Jesus to suffer.

My assumption is that an omnipresent god would have no more distinct an "experience" via jesus than from anyone/thing in the universe.

And to answer your conundrum, not all damage is suffering, the same as, not all change is damage.

How do you distiguish damage from change?

Also, God seems to be the only being who knows suffering without experiencing it(unless you're Aqualung of course), so surely he does not fit into our logic, of needing to experience something to know how it is.

Presumably, not if you're omniscient. Experience would be moot as far as learning would be concerned.

I don't fully understand what you're saying,..

Think of it this way: you have a sum of one. Is that sum diminished if you express it as 2 halves?

 

[pandamonk]

I wouldn't say he can't experience it. If he's omnipresent, he'd experiences everything.

If this was the case then he could experience weakness, but if he is mnipotent, how can he experience weakness?

Omniscience would dictate he knows all. I don't think he'd be able to learn anything.

That's what I think, but Aqualung's case was, that he once wasn't omniscient and had to learn.

My assumption is that an omnipresent god would have no more distinct an "experience" via jesus than from anyone/thing in the universe.

Surely he would experience absolutely everything, such as pain, damage, weakness, illness, evil, etc, etc, if this was true.

How do you distiguish damage from change?

All damage is change, but not all change is damaging. You can change for the better.

Presumably, not if you're omniscient. Experience would be moot as far as learning would be concerned.

But for your point to hold, omniscience must be possible. (time to whip out "The impossibility of God" as i cannot remember the full argument).
The Essential indexical argument

No one other than myself knows what i kno in knowing that:
1. I am making a mess
The closest others may get is knowing that
2. Pandamonk, or Lee Brady, is making a mess,
or perhaps
3. He (indicating me de re) is making a mess.
But what they know in knowing 2 and 3 is not what I know in knowing 1.
This shows that God cannot know everything, because i know something that he cannot know.

Think of it this way: you have a sum of one. Is that sum diminished if you express it as 2 halves?

Obviously not, but i don't understand how that fits into the argument.

 

[mr.guy]

If this was the case then he could experience weakness, but if he is mnipotent, how can he experience weakness?

No one "experiences" weakness. You're palying a semantic game, and poorly. Weakness is a relative position, as you can only be "weak" in abstract comparison to "strength". It's an evaluation that's dependant firstly on: perception of (total or definitive) self in contrast to an "exterior" reality. Second, an abstract comparison of other percieved "beings" or "things" within a total account as relative or comprable in so-called "qualities". "Weakness" is a conclusive abstraction of experiental deduction, and is not an "experience" unto itself.

Surely he would experience absolutely everything, such as pain, damage, weakness, illness, evil, etc, etc, if this was true.

Presumably, those things you listed that actually ARE experiencial would be within his scope.

All damage is change, but not all change is damaging. You can change for the better.

You can't damage for the better?

The Essential indexical argument

???!??!!!

I'm at a loss. I don't see how it proves you know something that would escape omniscience (all-knowledge).

Obviously not, but i don't understand how that fits into the argument.

It is the argument. 2 halves are one. The difference (and there is one) is the perception of division within the sum.

 

[pandamonk]

No one "experiences" weakness. You're palying a semantic game, and poorly. Weakness is a relative position, as you can only be "weak" in abstract comparison to "strength". It's an evaluation that's dependant firstly on: perception of (total or definitive) self in contrast to an "exterior" reality. Second, an abstract comparison of other percieved "beings" or "things" within a total account as relative or comprable in so-called "qualities". "Weakness" is a conclusive abstraction of experiental deduction, and is not an "experience" unto itself.

Why does no one experience weekness? It can be expereicend physically and emotionally. For example, after a marathon, and after an emotional break-up. I am again struggling with what you said

Presumably, those things you listed that actually ARE experiencial would be within his scope.

What, from what i listed, is not experiencial?

You can't damage for the better?

dam·age n.

1. Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness.

Surely none of this definition is "for the better"

I'm at a loss. I don't see how it proves you know something that would escape omniscience (all-knowledge).

Because the closest anything can get to knowing what io know is 2 and 3. It is not possible for them to know what i know in knowing 1, unless they were me. But surely in being me, God would also be the evil in me, and therefore not all good as usually accepted of him.

It is the argument. 2 halves are one. The difference (and there is one) is the perception of division within the sum.

Sorry, i don't understand

 

[mr.guy]

Why does no one experience weekness? It can be expereicend physically and emotionally. For example, after a marathon, and after an emotional break-up. I am again struggling with what you said

Because weakness is only knowable by relativity. There must be a comperable "strongness" to gauge "weakness" as a value; weakness is meaningless unless one can directly compare it to what can be said to be strong. It isn't an experience, just an assessment.

Surely none of this definition is "for the better"

Sure it can. Damaging a cow (killing it) gets me food, which is better for me than no food.

Because the closest anything can get to knowing what io know is 2 and 3. It is not possible for them to know what i know in knowing 1, unless they were me. But surely in being me, God would also be the evil in me, and therefore not all good as usually accepted of him.

This doesn't dismiss omniscience. Only benevolence (and not even that, really). I'm still not sure what you're getting from this, though.

Sorry, i don't understand

If i have a foot-lone board, and mark the centerpoint (making two 6" halves), have i changed the dimensions of the board? I can plainly see it for the two halves that make it up, yet it's still only one whole board.

 

[Daniel Burbank]

Then he is not all powerful, just the most powerful =)

If god is all loving, meaning he loves all humans, then he would not want them to suffer would he? Surely he can make a world with no suffering, and have humans already have an appreciation for the perfection of his world. He allows the devil to wreak havock on this world, even though he can easily get rid of the devil. He allows suffering to happen even though he can apparently easily remove it.

God did not intend for their to be suffering in the world, but when Adam and Eve sinned, death was brought into the world, as the penalty for sin is death. Every human born after that was born into sin... so every human is destined to die. Also, he can't just get rid of the devil because the devil can only be gotten rid of at Judgement Day. He cannot destroy any convicted souls before judgement day, otherwise he would make that day judgement day, and no human would be able to repent after that, because they would already have been judged. There is a day appointed for the destruction of souls.

 

[pandamonk]

Because weakness is only knowable by relativity. There must be a comperable "strongness" to gauge "weakness" as a value; weakness is meaningless unless one can directly compare it to what can be said to be strong. It isn't an experience, just an assessment.

Well its compares to what you were before you were weak. But becoming weak can be an experience.
ex·pe·ri·ence
n.

1. The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind: a child's first experience of snow.
2. 1. <LI type=a>Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill: a lesson taught by experience; a carpenter with experience in roof repair.
   2. The knowledge or skill so derived.
3. 1. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
   2. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group.

Becoming weak could be the event lived through and therefore it is an experience.

Sure it can. Damaging a cow (killing it) gets me food, which is better for me than no food.

Ok. You could say "My mood changed", you wouldn't say "My mood damaged". They mean different things. The first being that, for example, it changed from bad to good, which does not mean that it was damaged. The second means that because of the change it was damaging, the change itself was not damage.

This doesn't dismiss omniscience. Only benevolence (and not even that, really). I'm still not sure what you're getting from this, though.

It dismisses omniscience in the fact that i know something that God cannot know. Therefore God cannot know all. But if you believe God can know what i know, because he is infact, me, then he must, in being me, have evil, which does not dismiss omniscience, like you said, but all-goodness. If he does not have evil, then he is not fully me and therefore cannot know what i know. But surely, although he is omnipresent, it does not mean that he actually is me. It just means that he is all around and inside me.

If i have a foot-lone board, and mark the centerpoint (making two 6" halves), have i changed the dimensions of the board? I can plainly see it for the two halves that make it up, yet it's still only one whole board.

I know this and understand this, but don't understand how it fits the argument, and what you are trying to say with it.

 

[pandamonk]

God did not intend for their to be suffering in the world, but when Adam and Eve sinned, death was brought into the world, as the penalty for sin is death. Every human born after that was born into sin... so every human is destined to die. Also, he can't just get rid of the devil because the devil can only be gotten rid of at Judgement Day. He cannot destroy any convicted souls before judgement day, otherwise he would make that day judgement day, and no human would be able to repent after that, because they would already have been judged. There is a day appointed for the destruction of souls.

But surely he did, if he brought it into the world, saying "you will surely die". He brought suffering into existence before they even sinned by saying it.

 

[Daniel Burbank]

But surely he did, if he brought it into the world, saying "you will surely die". He brought suffering into existence before they even sinned by saying it.

He only warned them of the suffering that would be brought into the world if they did sin. Suffering did not exist in the world prior.

 

[pandamonk]

He only warned them of the suffering that would be brought into the world if they did sin. Suffering did not exist in the world prior.

How did he know it would be brought in if it did not exist already? Surely if he knew of it, it must have existed.

 

[Daniel Burbank]

How did he know it would be brought in if it did not exist already? Surely if he knew of it, it must have existed.

The penalty for sin is death, and God established that rule so Adam and Eve new about it and would hopefully not succumb to temptation. I think you missed my point. Suffering existed before then, obviously the devil felt it when he was cast from heaven.

 

[Daniel Burbank]

Because the closest anything can get to knowing what io know is 2 and 3. It is not possible for them to know what i know in knowing 1, unless they were me. But surely in being me, God would also be the evil in me, and therefore not all good as usually accepted of him.

God created you and he knows your hearts. He isn't you, but he created you and he knows ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU EVER DID! Read the story about the woman at the well, I believe it's in the beginning of the book of John.

 

[pandamonk]

God created you and he knows your hearts. He isn't you, but he created you and he knows ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU EVER DID! Read the story about the woman at the well, I believe it's in the beginning of the book of John.

You've missed my point. He does not know what i know in knowing that "I am making a mess", the closest he can know is that "Lee", or "he", "is making a mess".

 

[Daniel Burbank]

You've missed my point. He does not know what i know in knowing that "I am making a mess", the closest he can know is that "Lee", or "he", "is making a mess".

But he still knows that you are making a mess.

 

[pandamonk]

The penalty for sin is death, and God established that rule so Adam and Eve new about it and would hopefully not succumb to temptation. I think you missed my point. Suffering existed before then, obviously the devil felt it when he was cast from heaven.

Was not the devil cast from heaven after God made Adam, because he was jealous of him? I will not go into great detail about this argument about Adam and Eve knowing that "The penalty for sin is death". Ok Adam and Eve knew that sinning will bring the penalty of death, but did they understand? They did not know good and evil until after they ate of the tree, so how could they have understood that it was evil to disobey God? And how could they have understood the evil concequencies of doing so? It's like telling a toddler or baby not to touch the matches lying in the middle of the floor, they know not to touch the matches, because you have told them, but they do not understand that they shouldn't and why they shouldn't touch them. They hastely crawl over to the matches and any parent would stop them in their tracks to avoid them being burnt, but noooo, not God. He allowed them to eat of the tree. So, the punishment they received was unjust.

 

[pandamonk]

But he still knows that you are making a mess.

This is true, but he does not know what i know. I know that "I am making a mess", he knows that "Lee is making a mess". There is a difference. Therefore he does not know what i know in knowing that "I am making a mess"

 

[dan]

Was not the devil cast from heaven after God made Adam, because he was jealous of him? I will not go into great detail about this argument about Adam and Eve knowing that "The penalty for sin is death". Ok Adam and Eve knew that sinning will bring the penalty of death, but did they understand? They did not know good and evil until after they ate of the tree, so how could they have understood that it was evil to disobey God? And how could they have understood the evil concequencies of doing so? It's like telling a toddler or baby not to touch the matches lying in the middle of the floor, they know not to touch the matches, because you have told them, but they do not understand that they shouldn't and why they shouldn't touch them. They hastely crawl over to the matches and any parent would stop them in their tracks to avoid them being burnt, but noooo, not God. He allowed them to eat of the tree. So, the punishment they received was unjust.

What Adam and Eve committed was a transgression, not a sin. It is true that they lacked the capacity to know why what they did was wrong, but they knew that weren't supposed to do it. They could not sin, but they could transgress. They're punishment was just, but at the same time, they would have known no joy had they never known pain. They received more blessings than punishments because of their transgression.

 

[Daniel Burbank]

What Adam and Eve committed was a transgression, not a sin. It is true that they lacked the capacity to know why what they did was wrong, but they knew that weren't supposed to do it. They could not sin, but they could transgress. They're punishment was just, but at the same time, they would have known no joy had they never known pain. They received more blessings than punishments because of their transgression.

Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous. They were perfectly content in their garden. What they did in their garden might have ended them up in hell, which is certainly the worst punishment. Of course what they did was a sin, otherwise they would not have brought sin into the world, they would have brought transgression into the world.