The 'Trinity' of Religious Contradiction

[UberKinder]

- god is all powerful
- evil exists in the world
- god does not want evil to exist

let's see.

what reigion says that god is all powerful?

no pagan mythology that i know of : greco-roman gods died i.e. saturn/chronos from whose blood sprang venus/aphrodite , Scandinavian gods die i.e. ragnarok , Hindu gods die through flooding of the lower worlds at the end of the day of bhrama, this also takes buddism out of the loop since it is a branch of hinduism. Hmm, all powerful isn't meerly immortal and I have yet to work on monothism and atheism soo... God( the christian Jehova , hebrew Yaweh , the islamiic Allah [ altough there will undoubtedly be someone who will tell me that eithere the christian, islamic,or hebrew god isnt connected to the other two all three are in procession of eachother and share at least one holy text and as such are in my mind variations of the same religious philosophy]) proved his/her/it's limitations first with the need to make man to tend the garden of eden(wtf he/she/it couldn't foresee the trees needed to be weeded or sumthin'), secondly when cain fell abel he/she/it actually asked cain what he had done ( wtf the omnipotent being didn't know already?), and thirdly he again showed a lack of omnipotence when he asked adam and eve about the eating of the tree of knowlege good and evil ( yes i know this happened before cain and abel,although im not sure since when you read the damn thing it goes through the fitst seven days then goes back to the 4th to 5th [ been while since i read the thing] into detail about the creation of man and then original sin then goes forward with the story, kicks cain out , sends him west where he finds a wife , where the hell she came from i don't know...)but i digress there is no all powerful god, not textually, people tend to either believe he/she/it is all powerful or tell others that he/she/it/they are all powerfull to add validity to the act of worship, i mean c'mon who would want to bow down before the second best? this being my guess as to the choice of athiests - bow before none.

well on to evil.

what is evil? is evil an act or a state of mind or a place or a belief system or what?
ok most of us will agree that murder is evil? or if you are of the persuasion that says all morals exist in the minds of the individual and if a person deems murder ok then so mote it be; this person would have to at least give note to the fact that the majority of the world finds murder wrong and therefore the noncorporeal form of evil for us. for most of us then evil is an act against humanity, this then is one reason why evil exists. not by will of god or lack thereof but the need for humanity to ensure that act that threaten it are curbed as much as possile; this explais why incest, greed, murder, and sexual irresponsibility are at the root of nearly all religious value systems. evil is a way of measuring human actions. Yet , there are acts of such terrible magnitude that their occourance could destroy humanity in its entire...and no my american family i do not speak of terror[ re read this paragraph if you think so, please] i was thinking hiroshima and nagasaki. two acts that make 9-11 look like , like, like .... this is what i call evil the destructtion of two cities, the fact that we were at war only makes the hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths worse. but the act isn't called evil any where by anyone even our japaneese cousins have had to silence thier rage through years of occupation and "co-operation", things like this happen because those with the most influence choose to ingnore their own value system. becoming of the persuasion that mass murder is ok , and so mote it has been . simply put evil only exists when we say it does for our own reasons.

so if "god" isn't all powerfull, and evil only exist when we need it to , what about god not wanting evil to exist?

hmm,i don't recall any god not wanting evil to exist. most gods are concerned with ruling their ... subjects, i would say sheep but i must tell the christian persuation sheep are not pets, sheep are used for their milk or wool while living and eaten once dead, and no matter how kindly the "shepard" this is the way it is, but back to my point.
name one god who makes a definite and recouring point to remove evil - you will be hard pressed to find any god who concerns him/her/itself with "evil" - Yahweh, Jehova, Allah doesn't concern himself with the removal of evil, oh use the flood as you example and i say what were those who were drowned doing? they were sinning , fornication idolatry and the ilk right? were did it come from ? well about 20 chapters earlier in the same book GENISIS there were these two innocent perfect people who were cast out into the harsh waste of earth for eating of the tree that contained teh knowlege of good and evil, wtf he/she/it had the damn tree if he/she/it wanted to eradicate good and evil he would have chopped down the friggin tree before mankind had a chance to eat it but since he/she/it isn't onmipotent or omnipresent he/she/it couldn't foresee the problems inherent with putting the tree there. oh how easliy the serpent comes to mind, but before you blame the serpent for sin and there fore evil and therefore proof all god cares about is ruling humans and their souls, let's goback a few more pages to the first seven when he/she/it was creating it all ... ahem ... creating it all ... he she it created eden WITH this tree that contained the knowledge of good and evil ... why did he/she/it need it want it or otherwise desire such a tree be here? whatever the explanation may be evil was allowed to exsist, primarily in the passive form of this fruit but it was ok. god doesn't care if evil exixts as long as YOU follow him and his son and prophets and clergy and rules. Pagans shold know that their gods also weren't concerned with evil, greco-roman kings zeus/jupiter, hades/pluto , triton/neptune killed chronos/saturn to become kings - murder 1 any one? Hindus? - hmm close but from what i gather your focus is to remove teh self from this place which is inherent to suffering. there is no care for the evil infact you lump it all as a fact of life, kharma, and say get the hell out of dodge. Norse/Scandinavian gods? well altough the trollish kingdoms were evil ther was nothing wrong with going aviking to rape and pillage and kill so evil had to be ok there at least for as long as you were out of the neighborhood.

so what is left , i guess i should comment on spititual son's post since mine would be in direct opposition to his and i need to adressit befor i make my closing staement:


1: God is Love itself and Wisdom itself, and these two constitute His Divine Essence.

would a wise god create a tree that when his children eat it he would have to kill them?
furthermore , he says that by eating (man) "has become like us"... who the hell are they and why do they need to know about evil? Why is there all of this evil in the beginning ? Why isn't he killing those "others" if they know about evil ? ... gimme a sec
:drink:

that's better.

now, 2: "It is also plain from man's primeval state in paradise. Evil, however, arose from man, as is plain from Adam's second* state, that is, after the fall, by his being expelled from paradise."

evil could not arrise from man , he was made perfect , am i right or are all the churches giving out fake bibles? evil is in eden, it is cultivated as part of a passive/forbidden knowledge. free will is the punishable act not the evil, for if adam or eve or lillith ( ahem.... ) did any "evil" acts they would have not been deemed evil due to ignorance, or more importantly god's evil actions would not have been understood as evil - like if naked is bad why are we naked and oblivious to it also, is god like a grand peeking tom, does he like to watch naked humans ?

"...who told you you were naked?" :drink:

3:"It is clear from these facts that if free will in spiritual matters had not been given to man, God Himself, and not man, would have been the cause of evil; in this case God would have created both good and evil, and it is wicked even to think that God created evil too."

"The reason why God did not create evil, since He bestowed on man free will in spiritual matters, and never puts any evil into his mind, is that He is good itself, and in good God is omnipresent, continually urging and demanding to be received."

where does god allow man free will in spiritual matters? the serpent, through it's logic and reasoning, allowed man free will and please do not forget it my friend.
"it is wicked even to think that God created evil too"... why he made the tree, he ate of the tree or somehow thus knew our state was not right..." we saw that we were naked and hid ourselves"..."who told you you were naked" and then killed us , made ourlives hell and childbirth unbelievably painfull and all we did was know what he knew. If that isn't evil then roll out the red tape for the great mental slavemasters.

"The reason why God did not create evil, since He bestowed on man free will in spiritual matters, and never puts any evil into his mind, is that He is good itself, and in good God is omnipresent, continually urging and demanding to be received." see above

4:"For if He did, man would instantly die, or rather dissolve into non-existence, since man gets his life, and the continued existence of all he consists of, from God."

Man is dead to god, we have inherited death due to our human birth , he stays no hand in mans death, instant death would be then the mostmerciful thing he could afront us as his children. If man gets his life from god then he gets the pain and struggle that defines his soul from god , the soul that is judged is formed by god then ... why judge something you your self designed?

5: I hope you do not take this responce personally but i quote you SpiritualSon:
"Evil was not created by God but introduced by man, because man turns the good which continually flows in from God into evil, by turning away from God and turning towards himself."

I have shown that he/she/it made evil through a fruit that contained in it knowledge that he/she/it found most offencive , he/she/it was not able to forsee the eating of this fruit, and after his children exercised free will, a gift from the wise serpent, he pinished us with death suffering and for women, the gates of life, with out who ther would be no humanity and whom he forgot when creating humanity, for these blessed persons greater pains. without these actions we would be the ingorant slaves tending the garden of a mental tyrant pervert for all eternity.

"When this happens, the pleasure given by good remains, but it now becomes the pleasure given by evil. For without an apparently similar pleasure being left man would cease to live, since it is pleasure which makes up the vital principle of his love. These two pleasures are still diametrically opposed, though a person is unaware of this so long as he lives in the world. After death, however, he will know this and indeed feel it plainly, for then the pleasure given by the love of good is turned into heavenly blessedness, but the pleasure given by the love of evil into the torments of hell."

You have just made the point of Pavlovian psychology and extend a perfect example of why you skirt the true subject of this dialogue - If god were all powerful, and opposed to evil, he could simply do away with it. You speak of pleasure - stimulus , good and evil - opposed behavior , heaven - a reward for behavior that was conductive to the stimulus, and hell - a punishment for behavior in opposition to the stimulus. This is behavior modification at its finest perfected over 5000 years on judeo/christian believers. if this is the way god works then i cannot believe, for to believe i would forfeit my soul.

in closing i'll sumarise my take on the question -
- god is all powerful
- evil exists in the world
- god does not want evil to exist
in short, wtf is goin' on?

well god isn't all powerful his followers believe he is and the myth has grown with them.

evil exists becouse we need it to , it is a desisive form of thought control and behavior modification , like squirting your cat if he jumps onto the counter. Atrocious acts that surpass any classification of evil have happend and we all can sleep with it. so what is evil?

finally, god doesn't care about evil, all he/she/it cares about is whether or not he/she/it is worshiped and you pay your dues.


:drink: well at least the beer is good.

 

[zipo29]

hmmm this is an interesting thread.
- god is all powerful
- evil exists in the world
- god does not want evil to exist

1) God is all powerful yes this is truth God is all powerful. Some one said that why did God ask cain and eve and adam if they did something. the reason is God wanted to see if they would see their mistakes and teach them that they had sinned. You also said were the heck did cains wife come from. When they left the garden of eden God told adam and eve to go out and be fruitful so you will assume they followed the commandment and they reproduced more then just 2 kids. Plus we don' t know when Cain killed Able it probablly was not right after the garden of eden but maybe hundreds of years down the road. We will never know until we are face to face with God.

2) Evil exists in the world this also is a true statment. you can see it blatantly in this world with killings rapists and all other sorts of badies people sin like no other in this world and the evil here is horrible.

3)God does not want evil to exist. Of course he doesn't that is why there is no evil around him. See the problem with you misconception and phrasing of the words is that you are saying that God lives in evil which he does not God is perfect and rightous <=spelling. See what is wrong with people and their beliefs of good and evil are gravely mistaken.

The reason people are mistaken is that people believe that :hi: GOOD CAN NOT EXIST WITHOUT EVIL :hi: Right there is the problem in its self. Let me explain. God is perfect and rightly good he has no evil in him if you look at God see God you know he is good. In the beginnig Adam and Eve were in the garden they did not no evil. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knoweldege of good and evil their eyes were open and they learned the diffrence of good and evil. See good can exist without evil but evil can not exist without good. The reason is Evil is a perversion of good.

 

[dan]

The assumption that everyone is making here is that God does not want evil to exist. This is a logical fallacy. Good can exist without evil, but happiness and progress cannot. Adam and Eve lived in a state of euphoria, but do you think they enjoyed it? Of course not. They had no reference point. Joy cannot be known without sadness. Evil has to exist for us to progress and grow as sons and daughters of God. God provided a way for man to come here to earth so he could experience pleasure and pain. These contrasts would help him to appreciate one and gravitate towards it. By living His laws, we find joy. We draw nearer unto Him. Evil is necessary for us to be able to do this.

The idea the evil is just the absence of good is just a piece of modern human philosophy. I don't remember who said it, I want to say Spinoza, but I don't remember.

 

[UberKinder]

thanks for reading my post and responding


zipo you wrote "Some one said that why did God ask cain and eve and adam if they did something. the reason is God wanted to see if they would see their mistakes and teach them that they had sinned."

i don't want to be rude or make light your statement, but i want to ask if you read the verses that cover this part of christian mythology yourself or if you read it at a guided bible group or other such thing. But it made me research this verse myself since i was going from memory and it had been about 2 years since i read GENESIS last, actually i found items showing that god is more human that i was portraying him , and that god not only was un aware that adam and eve had eaten the fruit but was just strolling along in the garden of his creation.

GENESIS VERSE :4"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

well the fruit gave man wisdom this is one of the reasons eve ate it , WISDOM: how nice to have the wisdom to get out of the rain when it is raining instead of just the intellegence to know that it is raining. Well no schism here we both agree she ate the fruit , hopefully a KIWI since those are my favorite.

GENESIS VERSE :8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?

Well, i was incorrect when i quoted earlier he asked them where are you , then he asked who told you you were naked? But first ".... God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day" he wasn't angry , he was having a relaxing stroll in the evening , it is safe to assume that he was going to see his creation when he got there and did not see them he asked where are you - does this sound like an all powerfull god to you? actually i kinda like this guy since he can appreciate a good garden and cool evenings but he is no onmipresent super being just a blindsided horticulturist.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

What of this line here? see this is the one that killed church for me ... the snake was right for man would not have surely died , we could have eaten from the tree of life ... which mind you was not forbidden before we gained WISDOM .... lived forever and all that good stuff ... but we were cast out punished and guaranteed death because we would have known what he knows... why couldn't the all powere full god just make us forget what we ate ... further more why would he offer us his son so we may live for eternity in heaven now after millenea have passed since we ate tha cursed fruit? wtf

hold on :drink:

You also said were the heck did cains wife come from. When they left the garden of eden God told adam and eve to go out and be fruitful so you will assume they followed the commandment and they reproduced more then just 2 kids. Plus we don' t know when Cain killed Able it probablly was not right after the garden of eden but maybe hundreds of years down the road. We will never know until we are face to face with God.

We do have a refereence of when cain was born raised and killed his brother

GENESIS 3 VERSE : 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

Cain and Abel were born before Adam had Seth since he is the first recorded child in the line of Adam, 130 years since his creation Adam bore 3 children where does the wife of Cain come from ?


Ive had a chance to read the long and highy interesting post made by orthodox and paraprakti who i assume are christian and an affiliation of hindu respectivley i would like to point out that it is possible to make a squared circle flatten four sides of a circle butnot completley or round the point of a square , the point being why look to god for any thing at all when man has proven himself capable of being gods equal and in the case of squared circles maybe superior we shold stop asking why god allows and look at each other and ask will i allow

nuk tem-khepera kheper t'esef her uart mut-f
Uberkinder

 

[Muscular Beaver]

Ceridwen018,

Ha ha ha ha ha!, about what you said of my arguement: you went majorly off on a tangent! You got the gist of my analogy didn't you?, because that was what you were meant to get. Man, you start talking about gravity and all of that crap, ah dammit that is funny. You take things way too literal, and then try and make crappy arguements out of them: what the hell? My point is, is that there are ways God does things, even if he could do it another way if he really wanted: ways he does things, (and from our persective) the rules he follows to do those things.

Just think outside the square you live in... ah hang on a sec, no, the dimension you live in.

And change your arguement approach as well, just tackle the main issue, not useless pointless little details that are only there to convey an issue.

MB.

Woah man!

 

[Muscular Beaver]

Oh and by the way guys, I think you can stop using your "the trinity stands" slogan because it's, well... no offence, but it's quite gay.

MB.

PS: But I have to admit it's also funny watching you guys say it.

 

[Ceridwen018]

MB,

For all of my crappy arguments, you seem to have very little to say in contestation. I don't see how I could have gone off on a tangent and conveyed that I understood the gist of your argument at the same time. Do we need to start a new thread on how these two elements can co-exist? Make up your mind and set me straight if needed (preferably using correct grammar and punctuation).

Are you even familiar with the three components of the 'trinity'? It does not seem to me that you are. If, as you say, god is doing things as he truly wants, even though he could be doing them another way, then the trinity is broken in that he can't not want evil, because evil is present. It's really not that difficult to understand. Take some time to really contemplate this trinity. With the application of logic and reasoning, you should soon reach the conclusion that it is impossible.

As for taking things literally, I would contest that I was merely furthering your analogy-- before I applied it to the literal topic, whereby it's holes became apparent. I am sorry that my figurative thinking skills apparently aren't as developed as yours...perhaps I should read the bible more often.

If thinking outside of my 'dimension' means that I might wander into yours, I think I'll stay put. Here's some advice for you now though: think outside of your church and bible, and pick up a science book. Realize that when things don't make sense, it's not because you're just not smart enough to understand the infinite and magical mystery of it, or because the evil atheist is using satan to manipulate your thoughts--it's because it DOESN"T MAKE SENSE. Keep it simple, stupid.

You are certainly one to criticize my argumentative approach. Your pathetic attempts at belittlement and humor are truly lost on me, and utterly useless to the positive growth and educational intent of these debates. People respect a clean and intelligent case. I am sorry that you feel the need to deprecate my opinions, but perhaps that is because you are flailing to hide the fact that you lack your own.

Here's an idea: instead of making fun of me, why don't you do something crazy, like prove me wrong. You talk big, but can you back it up?

The trinity stands, *******.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can't we all just get along? :lol: Let's avoid childish name-calling and stick to the debate.

 

[UberKinder]

amen mr. sprinkles

i'd like to add a mathematical example to back up my staement about the squared circle.

yes a square is a quadralateral of four equal sides that meet at right angles
a circle is a geometrical concept that is an eliptoid whose mesure of degrees equals 360, perpendicular measures of it's diameter would intersect at right angles and have the same measure , and whos circumference is the product of its diameter and pi .

well most persons consider a square to be mad e up of line segments , but this is not actually mote since a square made up of lines , which are infinite in length, well a square made by infinite lines that has a small circle transposed onto the inner right angle of each of its corners would firstly have the four right angles , created by teh continuation of teh lines and if my geometry still computes right, (4L) + (4r)(22/7) the measure of which is equal to the line created when one traces the four circlesand the two pairs of parallel perpendicular lines, and the shapes' measure of degrees equals 360, and the measure of it's perpendicular diameter is equal - essentially a squared circle ... requirenig no shift in logic but use of algebra and imagination

well good night all

 

[Muscular Beaver]

Ceridwen018

Guess what? I have magical powers now! The first spell I learnt was called "make people pissed off and make them type out lots of words". And now I know it works! Works brilliantly.

MB.

He he he he he... man you're such a **** Wit... woah man! I'm getting you pissed off! Hang on a sec, listen to this one... ready... Ceridwen018 is a Dick, he he he... wa, wa, wait, there's more... a Dick Head!! Ha ha ha ha ha he he he he... ah man, got to catch my breath aye... phew. Man you're ultra pissed off, ah well, I'm bored here... man I'd hate to be you. By the way, what are you going to do for a face when the baboon wants his *** back?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ceridwen018

Guess what? I have magical powers now! The first spell I learnt was called "make people pissed off and make them type out lots of words". And now I know it works! Works brilliantly.

MB.

He he he he he... man you're such a F*** Wit... woah man! I'm getting you pissed off! Hang on a sec, listen to this one... ready... Ceridwen018 is a Dick, he he he... wa, wa, wait, there's more... a Dick Head!! Ha ha ha ha ha he he he he... ah man, got to catch my breath aye... phew. Man you're ultra pissed off, ah well, I'm bored here... man I'd hate to be you. By the way, what are you going to do for a face when the baboon wants his *** back?

Wow, your arguments must have taken a severe beating for you to resort to such childish behavior. MB is illustrating a good point for all of us to keep in mind--if logic fails, resort to name calling. Everyone will know you have nothing intelligent left to contribute, but at least it will make you feel better.

Please folks, lets keep the debate civil and mature.

 

[Orthodox]

Uber,

Sorry mate, you're wrong.

Lindemann proved the impossibility of the square circle (late 1800's I think). In order for the quadrature of a circle to be possible the side of a square and the radius of a circle must be in the ratio of the square root of pi. It is impossible to have lengths in this ratio. Here is the equation..

All coefficients are algebraic. All A's are non-zero and all a's are all different.

A1e^a1 + A2e^a2 + ... + Ane^an

( I know this is a little messy - I couldn't put any mathematical symbols in. Those of you familiar with this equation will be able to fill in the blanks)

Also, even if a square is made of "infinite lines" they necessarily intersect each other and thus necessarily segment themselves to form a square regardless of how practically measurable they are.

OK, about Ceridwen's retort to my retort to her retort to mine ( )!!
This argument is really getting down to the chewwy bits now.


Ceridwen,

Truth is infinite while a lie is finite. Truth cannot not exist and a lie can be nonexistent.

Like good and evil, I believe that truth and lie cannot exist without each other as they are opposites and they define each other. Without lie, you do not have truth-- only reality.

Mmmmm.... I was under the impression that a truth was a statement about a reality. It is a reality that 1 + 1 = 2. So if I say 1 + 1 = 2 am I telling the truth? Yes, of course it is. So what were you getting at? As demonstrated 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of whether I say it equals 3, which would be an untruth. No matter what I change my untruth to (anything other than 2 or else the untruth would annihilate itself) the truth will always remain what it is. If I change my truth (eg. 1 + 2 = 3) then the untruth must move to anything but 3 or it will again annihilate itself. This is the basis for my statement way back on pg 5 that Truth is necessary, just as untruth is contingent. What is true relies upon what is true. What is false relies upon what is true. Therefore if you take away untruth (eg lies) the truth remains the truth, it doesn't change to whatever you meant by "reality". It was "reality" to begin with. This is the same for Good and evil as held by Judai/Christian teaching. Morality is the presence of morals, immorality is the absence, not a separate set of morals. All these statements are logical conclusions drawn unpassionately. Your statement is fundamentally illogical.

This overlooks the fact that God wants free will.

So the bible would have us believe, although logic would state otherwise.

How so? I used logic to demonstrate that the existence of free agents (IE people with free will) requires that they be able to choose between something and another thing without having the decision forced in any way. If I am shown a list of single digit numbers and asked to pick my favourite it is not a free test if all the single digits are the number 5. So in order for free will to exist God must have made a universe in which good as well as evil were possible (you can blame God for the ability to choose but not for our own choice). God wants us to choose to love him (for our sakes not his - I won't go into the "he doesn't need us debate" again right now). In our world good and evil is possible. What is the conflict? While you may disbelieve the reason the bible gives for the choice how can you say it's illogical? Please let me know your reasons.

God is necessarily free from the restriction of his creation, the Natural Laws. Natural laws apply to natural things, like us - God is supernatural and hence above Natural Laws.

This is a contradiction. If god is above natural laws, then why can't he make a circular square or two colors into one? Both of these concepts are ruled by natural law. Even logic itself could be said to be a form of natural law.

All right, here we go again. You are assuming that God is able to keep this universe operating under the exact same rules while changing them at the same time. He is able to change the rules and break the laws which are not part of his nature. Logic is the only Law in question here. The question is not about whether the photons can naturally respond in different manners to the same object in the same conditions. This is not about natural laws. The question is whether A can equal A and A only while also being equal to B. Logic is not a natural law. It is not a natural thing. Logic is not a physical compound so how can it be thought of as a natural law? Gravity, even though invisible, has its source in the subatomic forces of attraction. Logic stops things from changing and staying the same at the same time without deriving its power from nature. It is transcendent. Now, to avoid confusion I will tell you the Judai/Christian position on Logic and God. Any rational thought we as humans, in this rational universe, have must be logical. Logical thought and rational thought is the same thing. The bible says a number of times that God cannot contradict himself. God has a rational nature. He is subject to his own rational self-consistency. Truth is what truth is, God is what God is. We have to use logic to think about God rationally. In this sense logic is prior to God Epistemologically, but God is prior to logic ontologically. logic prior to God in the order of knowing ( epistemologically), but God is prior to logic in order of being (ontologically). (Much of these last few lines has been paraphrased from Norman Geisler’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

What would be contradictory would be saying "you, rock that I've created, become a unicorn while remaining a rock and move over there"(

Rocks and unicorns and their differences are both determined by natural law. If god is above natural law, I don't see what the problem is.

This is why I have started using polynomials in my analogies. To avoid the confusion that develops when I use things with many properties (not that the analogy is wrong mind you). You might remember that I advised that this had nothing to do with the plausibility of a petrified unicorn. The point was that what we call a unicorn is not in nature the same thing that we call a rock. What we know as a unicorn can be changed to be another thing (IE. The definition used for something else) but that soft, fleshy white thing cannot be a hard, cold grey thing at the same time. That is a contradiction which is the domain of logic. Breaking the natural law would be turning a unicorn into a rock. Breaking the law of logic (which is explained above) is changing it to something else while keeping it the same at the same time. Understand? Any more difficulties just let us know.

Hence the Virgin Birth is not, from a Christian point of view, impossible at all. It is merely God deciding to paint something blue with the colour blue and place it in the midst of a town already painted red with the colour red.

A virgin birth would most certainly be analogous with the combination of two colors into one, as it is the combination of two opposing concepts: virginity and conception.

Once again, just a confusion of rules. The combination of two colours analogy was used to explain a point probably better made with polynomials (they are harder to naturalise). A cannot be A and only A at the same time as being B.
Now, lets look at the Virgin conception “opposing concept”. It is not opposing. A woman can be not a virgin(IE she is not a virgin-clumsy wording used back there by me) and not conceive. The opposite of conception is not virginity- it is non-conception. The opposite of a virgin is a non-virgin. So it is not illogically impossible for a woman to be a virgin and conceive – it is just naturally impossible. What is impossible is for a woman to conceive and not conceive at the same time. God is above natural laws but will not contradict himself. A broken natural law but not logiacl. Any problems?

Sure, there would be no sin and evil if there was no choice and we would be perfect.

Lack of sin and evil does not warrant a lack of choice, nor does it warrant the presence of perfection. Why do we have to have morality to have free will?

OK, once again we must look at the definition of evil. Evil is a perversion of good not a substance in itself. So if we were good necessarily we would be perfect. Remember perfect doesn’t mean all powerful or all knowing it just implies perfection in whatever something is supposed to be. We would be perfect humans. But, we would not have the choice to love God or not which is the reason he made us. God made us free to do anything a human can do. We are free humans (notice to all Christians: I’m not saying this in opposition to the “slave to sin” doctrine. I will now venture to use an analogy (hoping it won’t be taken the wrong way). Lets say that we are in a spiritual universe with is only two walls that run parallel to each other with a gap in between. One of the walls is “Good” and one is “Evil”. If God were to choose to chain us to the good wall and deny us the liberty to be bad we would never be really free. We might be able to wriggle our toes and blink, just like we are able to pick our favourite colour or day of the week. But, we would never be able to choose between anything that really matters. We would never be able to say “I love you even though I’m not forced to”. Morality is the presence of morals.

I guess that morality can either be given or chosen so my mistake on that one. I confused myself!

The question of "can God be evil" is answered by the argument appearing above that "God cannot be anything less than perfect because if he wasn't perfect he would no longer be God". We must understand the concept of evil to understand the relation it has to good. The Christian stance, as by Saint Thomas Aquinas put it, is that evil is not a substance or object but is just a bad way of getting a good thing. Theft is evil because it takes material comfort (a good thing) without earning it or being given it (the good way of getting material comfort). So the question is, "can God get good things through bad processes". No, he cannot. God is self contained and the source of all good so he doesn't even need processes to get good for himself. He lays down processes that we might do good. God cannot do something evil to get something good that he already contains in himself.

This doesn't really answer the question though. If morality cannot exist without evil, then god is not moral. Likewise, if good cannot exist without evil, then god cannot be good. Explain that.

I don’t see what you’re saying here. God exists and his absence is ungodliness or evil. God is the source of morals. When we choose to be moral we choose to be like God. When we choose to be good we choose to be like God. God is good and the source of morals. What we know as morality (ie living by God's standards). There is such a thing as good and such a thing as immorality and they are the perversions of goodness. God cannot not be good as he is what good is.

God does hate. The Bible tells us that God hates evil.

Hate is an immature and faulted emotion no matter what it is directed towards. Perhaps god should stop hating evil so much and just get rid of it.

Why is hate immature? Please explain you're reasoning. Hate of things is essential to loving things. There can only be two feelings towards something you know of, Love/like/appreciate (call it what you will - these have only culturally imbued strengths - liking someone is just loving them a whole lot less than someone you say that you love and, consequently in a slightly different way), dislike/ hate/not appreciate (same again). What do you think of the Holocaust?Do you feel indifferent to it? What is the opposite of Love? So when you Love something don’t you not hate it and when you hate something don’t you not love it. It is just like believing something. If you believe something don’t you not disbelieve it? And, if you disbelieve something don’t you not believe it. If I’m happy I’m not sad. If I love freedom how can I do anything but hate slavery. Loving something is hating its opposite. God is good and loves goodness. Therefore God hates evil just as the bible says. Moral neutrality is a myth (we can go into that in another thread if you like).

There is no conflict here. I may just be waiting for Spring. It may not be the ideal time. It might be even better to wait just a while longer.

No apparent conflict, it would seem, but perhaps there is an underlying conflict of interests. You have a logical reason for waiting until spring. Also, your choice to wait helps and harms only yourself, no one else. God cannot claim either of these explanations.

[color=#] [/color]

Why couldn’t God have a logical reason for waiting till later when the conditions would be better (IE. More people have been saved). That makes sense to me.

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Woah yeah, that MB sure did go off a bit, but realistically, we're all guilty of that kind of stuff at one time or another. Judging from what he has said though, his orginal arguement, he does have a great point which I agree with. His analogy about the bike in page 5 I certainly got the gist of, and I do kind of agree when he said that Ceridwen018 went off the "gist" a little bit. But apart from that, yeah, lets just froget about all of MB.

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Orthodox has a very good arguement. What does everyone else think?

 

[Orthodox]

cheers mate

Good to have you on. Where do you stand on the trinity?

Does it still stand?

(just stirring things up a little Ceridwen and Mr_Spinkles!! Not trying to turn the debate into a abusive thing like MB)
:goodjob:

 

[Ceridwen018]

Orthodox,

Mmmmm.... I was under the impression that a truth was a statement about a reality. It is a reality that 1 + 1 = 2. So if I say 1 + 1 = 2 am I telling the truth? Yes, of course it is. So what were you getting at? As demonstrated 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of whether I say it equals 3, which would be an untruth. No matter what I change my untruth to (anything other than 2 or else the untruth would annihilate itself) the truth will always remain what it is.

I agree with this. What I meant, was that if there was no such thing as 'untruth', then there wouldn't be any need to define something as 'truth' because everything would be neutral. Now that I think about it, the good/evil analogy is a bit fuzzy-- I'll try to think of a new one.

How so? I used logic to demonstrate that the existence of free agents (IE people with free will) requires that they be able to choose between something and another thing without having the decision forced in any way. If I am shown a list of single digit numbers and asked to pick my favourite it is not a free test if all the single digits are the number 5. So in order for free will to exist God must have made a universe in which good as well as evil were possible (you can blame God for the ability to choose but not for our own choice). God wants us to choose to love him (for our sakes not his - I won't go into the "he doesn't need us debate" again right now). In our world good and evil is possible. What is the conflict? While you may disbelieve the reason the bible gives for the choice how can you say it's illogical? Please let me know your reasons.

This is a bit off topic, and we can take it elsewhere if you want, but in summary: It doesn't make sense to me how god can have an ultimate plan for everyone, and know everything that you will do and say in the future, and yet you still have free will. When your life is already 'scripted out' in a sense (granted, it is scripted out by you, not god per se), how can your decisions be genuinely spontaneous? (a trait necessary for true free-will, in my mind)

All right, here we go again. You are assuming that God is able to keep this universe operating under the exact same rules while changing them at the same time. He is able to change the rules and break the laws which are not part of his nature.

Here, I just think we're disagreeing on the definition of 'all-powerful'. To me, all-powerful means that he could most certainly change the rules and yet keep them the same.

Logic is not a physical compound so how can it be thought of as a natural law? Gravity, even though invisible, has its source in the subatomic forces of attraction. Logic stops things from changing and staying the same at the same time without deriving its power from nature.

I meant more that logic is controlled by natural laws-- the two of them sort of work together. For instance, gravity is a natural law, therefore it is logical that something will fall when dropped. Do you see what I mean? Common sense and logic are derived from our environment. If gravity was not a natural law, then it would not necessarily be logical for something to fall when dropped.

The bible says a number of times that God cannot contradict himself. God has a rational nature. He is subject to his own rational self-consistency. Truth is what truth is, God is what God is.

We might have to agree to disagree on this one. My opinion is that god created the rules of rationality, therefore he should be able to change them.

The opposite of conception is not virginity- it is non-conception. The opposite of a virgin is a non-virgin. So it is not illogically impossible for a woman to be a virgin and conceive – it is just naturally impossible. What is impossible is for a woman to conceive and not conceive at the same time. God is above natural laws but will not contradict himself. A broken natural law but not logiacl. Any problems?

Like I said before, I think that natural law and logic go hand in hand. It is not naturally possible, therefore we can logically conclude that if it cannot happen, it is an illogical concept.

Lets say that we are in a spiritual universe with is only two walls that run parallel to each other with a gap in between. One of the walls is “Good” and one is “Evil”. If God were to choose to chain us to the good wall and deny us the liberty to be bad we would never be really free. We might be able to wriggle our toes and blink, just like we are able to pick our favourite colour or day of the week. But, we would never be able to choose between anything that really matters. We would never be able to say “I love you even though I’m not forced to”. Morality is the presence of morals.

Hmmm...still thinking about this one.

I don’t see what you’re saying here. God exists and his absence is ungodliness or evil. God is the source of morals. When we choose to be moral we choose to be like God. When we choose to be good we choose to be like God. God is good and the source of morals. What we know as morality (ie living by God's standards). There is such a thing as good and such a thing as immorality and they are the perversions of goodness. God cannot not be good as he is what good is.

God is devoid of all evil, right? If good cannot exist without evil, and god contains no evil, how can he be good?

Why is hate immature? Please explain you're reasoning. Hate of things is essential to loving things. There can only be two feelings towards something you know of, Love/like/appreciate (call it what you will - these have only culturally imbued strengths

If by 'hate' you also mean 'not partial to' and 'don't like very much', then that would not be immature per se. The emotion of hate unto its full extreme however, I still feel is pointless.

Why couldn’t God have a logical reason for waiting till later when the conditions would be better (IE. More people have been saved). That makes sense to me.

He could very well have a logical reason. However, as far as waiting until more people are saved, he is intentionally subjecting people on earth to evil and suffering while he 'waits'. He has the power to just save everyone right off, yet he chooses not to. I'm not saying that he can't have a logical reason, but if that be true, then I don't think the 'god doesn't want evil' component can still stand.

 

[Orthodox]

Does the Trinity still stand?

 

[Orthodox]

There are only a couple of your contentions that need addressing in order to avoid repetition.

You said:

My opinion is that god created the rules of rationality, therefore he should be able to change them.

You also said:

Here, I just think we're disagreeing on the definition of 'all-powerful'. To me, all-powerful means that he could most certainly change the rules and yet keep them the same.

Are you suggesting that an all-powerful being who is rational and logical in nature (thus making it contradictory to say if he was allpowerful he could change logic - he would be changing himself from allpoerful to something else) could make 1 + 1 = 2 and 3? As I have already demonstrated contradiction and untruth is finite in nature and contingent upon a nessessary thing to exist (IE. non-contradiction and truth). To change the rules of rational and logic God would have to be less than allpowerful for he would have to do something contingent upon something above himself. And, if there is something above him then that thing would have to be the real God (it would be the nessesary thing) and we can just draw this back further and further. But, it is not the case because it is demonstratable that a God is rational in nature nessesarily.

2.
You said:

I meant more that logic is controlled by natural laws-- the two of them sort of work together. For instance, gravity is a natural law, therefore it is logical that something will fall when dropped. Do you see what I mean? Common sense and logic are derived from our environment. If gravity was not a natural law, then it would not necessarily be logical for something to fall when dropped.

I am going to assume you set the gravity example on Earth away from Black Holes and the other gravitational "anomalies" seen from our position.

Here are the Laws of logic:

1. The law of non-contadiction (A is not non-A)
2. The Law of identity (A is A)
3. The law of excluded middle (either A or non-A)


Saying that if you drop something it will fall is a probable statment, (obviously a very probable statement) it does not comply to or any law of logic which would make it logical.

The laws of logic would say that an object cannot:
1. Fall and not fall at the same time when dropped.
2. Be falling and not be falling when dropped.
3. Be neither falling nor not-falling when dropped.

(once again assuming that in this case everything dropped would tend to drop)

Logic stands above natural laws governing them. As I said logic prior to God in the order of knowing ( epistemologically), but God is prior to logic in order of being (ontologically). Logic is governing natural laws not being governed by them. It prohibits the above examples from happening. It does not change it's judgment if you say that from now on everything falls upwards. it would still be the case that logic says:

1. The law of non-contadiction (A is not non-A)
2. The Law of identity (A is A)
3. The law of excluded middle (either A or non-A)


3.You Said:

If by 'hate' you also mean 'not partial to' and 'don't like very much', then that would not be immature per se. The emotion of hate unto its full extreme however, I still feel is pointless.

Explain how you can love freedom and not hate its opposite slavery. Also, how can you love pure good and not hate pure evil? Explain that and don't just disagree with it.


4.You said:

However, as far as waiting until more people are saved, he is intentionally subjecting people on earth to evil and suffering while he 'waits'. He has the power to just save everyone right off, yet he chooses not to. I'm not saying that he can't have a logical reason, but if that be true, then I don't think the 'god doesn't want evil' component can still stand.

What you seem to be suggesting is that God should have destryoed the world long ago if he had really hated evil and been able to destroy it. How many people would prefer to have never existed than to have been born into this world? Not many people I don't think. As I said God loves everyone, born and yet to be born. He sent his son to die and take the punnishment for our transgression so that although we are tainted we can be cleansed. It seems God wishes to bring all the good he can out of a bad situation before he destroys evil. Does that makes sense?
If not, why?

5.You said:

God is devoid of all evil, right? If good cannot exist without evil, and god contains no evil, how can he be good?

As I said, God is what is good. Your argument so far is that:
1. Good cannot be existant without evil
2. God is said to not be evil
3. How can he be good.

Remember Good is the nessesary thing, evil the contingent.

therefore:

1. Good can exist without evil.
2. God contains no evil.
3. God is good.

I may have unintentionally been deceptive in my earlier less coherent ramblings when I said that "good cannot exist without evil". You might remember I said this in relation to a person's choices. For truly how can there be a choice for good without the possibility of their being a choice for bad. Without something to choose between there is no choice. I was trying to highlight the need for choice in good and bad for there to be free will.

In any case, when my arguments fail the truth crushes them like an enormous hammer and I just re-position myself behind the what I wasn't aware of previously.

These points have been really good they have rooted out alot of things I previously thought right but you have proven wrong.

Still, I think the trinity has fallen.

Orthodox

 

[Ceridwen018]

Orthodox,

Are you suggesting that an all-powerful being who is rational and logical in nature (thus making it contradictory to say if he was allpowerful he could change logic - he would be changing himself from allpoerful to something else) could make 1 + 1 = 2 and 3?

Kind of. You see, I don't think it's necessary for god to be logical and rational. He created the rules of logic to govern humans and our world, but that doesn't mean that he himself must obey them.

To change the rules of rational and logic God would have to be less than allpowerful for he would have to do something contingent upon something above himself. And, if there is something above him then that thing would have to be the real God (it would be the nessesary thing) and we can just draw this back further and further.

I'm not sure what you mean here-- could you explain?

I am going to assume you set the gravity example on Earth away from Black Holes and the other gravitational "anomalies" seen from our position.

Indeed, thank you. I should have specified.

Saying that if you drop something it will fall is a probable statment, (obviously a very probable statement) it does not comply to or any law of logic which would make it logical.

I think that it fits in with Law of Logic #2. If something is falling, it cannot also be not falling. We can observe that things fall when dropped (on earth, hehe). We can then ascertain that when things are dropped, they do not not fall. Therefore, we can logically conclude that things fall when they are dropped.

Logic stands above natural laws governing them. As I said logic prior to God in the order of knowing ( epistemologically), but God is prior to logic in order of being (ontologically). Logic is governing natural laws not being governed by them. It prohibits the above examples from happening. It does not change it's judgment if you say that from now on everything falls upwards. it would still be the case that logic says:

I see what you're saying now. I agree-- logic remains constant even though natural law may change.

Explain how you can love freedom and not hate its opposite slavery. Also, how can you love pure good and not hate pure evil? Explain that and don't just disagree with it.

Haha, I didn't explain my disagreement before because I wasn't quite sure how!

Now then, I do indeed love freedom and hate slavery, and in this instance I am not being immature in my feelings, but the maturity of emotions has to do with context. If you hate something, you would naturally want to replace it with something that you love, and do away with what you hate. If I were a slave who wanted to be free, my hatred of slavery would be justified, as I would be powerless in that situation. By powerless, I mean that I alone could not do away with slavery, and so the only way I have to express myself is through my emotions. On the other hand, if I did have the power to do away with slavery, but chose to ignore that power and exercise my feelings of hate instead, then my feelings would be a bit 'immature' (that's not really the right word, after closer consideration. let's change it to 'imperfect'.)

The point here is, that god has the power to do away with evil. For him to express his 'feelings' of hate, rather than utilize his power suggests a missing link. A) god doesn't hate evil, or B) god doesn't have the power to get rid of it. A letter 'C' is required for this component of the trinity to stay alive, but I cannot think of one.

What you seem to be suggesting is that God should have destryoed the world long ago if he had really hated evil and been able to destroy it.

Either that, or simply not allowed it's entrance in the first place.

How many people would prefer to have never existed than to have been born into this world? Not many people I don't think.

But people could still have existed. God doesn't have to destroy all creation to eradicate evil.

It seems God wishes to bring all the good he can out of a bad situation before he destroys evil. Does that makes sense?

Not really. Why would god make himself work so hard to find the good in an evil world, when he could just create a totally good world?

I may have unintentionally been deceptive in my earlier less coherent ramblings when I said that "good cannot exist without evil". You might remember I said this in relation to a person's choices. For truly how can there be a choice for good without the possibility of their being a choice for bad. Without something to choose between there is no choice. I was trying to highlight the need for choice in good and bad for there to be free will.

Yes, I think that that is where the misunderstanding is coming in.

About free-will: Does god have free-will? If he does, then it seems that evil is not all that necessary for decision making, because god is devoid of all evil.

The Trinity Stands! :mrgreen: (hey, I think it's kinda catchy, actually!)

I would like to commend you on your fabulously well-thought out arguments. You are the smartest christian I have debated by far. You're making my brain work hard and I like it!

 

[dan]

The devil and satan was not created by God.

So, Satan is equal to God, huh? You're idea is another fallacy, SpiritualSon, you should stick to the Spero forum and peddle your spirituality there. God created Lucifer and gave him free will. In choosing to rebel against God Lucifer brought evil into the world. That's how God can bring to pass all that is evil without necessarily being responsible for it. That's the beauty and the curse of free will.