The 'Trinity' of Religious Contradiction

[UberKinder]

:clap: Bravo, orthadox for enightening me with that ; I will keep it handy for future trivial pursuits. i had to see the formula for myself , located a mathematical data base , http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CircleSquaring.html , and it seems that although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidian space ( defined by a set of rules my head still refues to fit entirely around ) it is possible to square a circle in Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky Space ( a non Euclidian space with a constant negative gaussian curvature - mg: ) further more the squareing of the circle has been accomplished with numeric variants of the pi , constant - it's all on the page I referenced

so yes it is impossible to square a circle due to the transendental nature of pi while in Euclidian Space , but it can and has occoured

well it seems that we were both right although my formula was defintely wanting .

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Amen Dan, too right you are there.

Ceridwen018, about your "hate is immature or imperfect" thing. I think you are getting the emotion of hate mixed up with plotting and taking things further than needs be, in your arguement where you use the slavery example. Your example uses someone who hates something, but then from an outside emotion continues on cruely with his hate. Do you see how there are now 2 things working there now? (I hope I wasn't to "rambly" there!)

As for Orthodox, another fantastic piece written there. It looks to me as if poor old Ceridwen018 has been given quite a hard time! As for her, she still stands, but what about her trinity?

I'm not quite sure, anyone else?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Proverbial Flamethrower,

Ceridwen018, about your "hate is immature or imperfect" thing. I think you are getting the emotion of hate mixed up with plotting and taking things further than needs be, in your arguement where you use the slavery example. Your example uses someone who hates something, but then from an outside emotion continues on cruely with his hate. Do you see how there are now 2 things working there now? (I hope I wasn't to "rambly" there!)

I'll try to clarify this. I have this elaborate idea in my head that I can't seem to convey into words!

Basically, I do not think that god has emotions, per se, because emotions are fickle and baised...alright, let me rephrase that: god should not have emotions, in my opinion. The world is exactly as god wants it, because he is in control of everything, and everything is going according to his ultimate plan. Therefore, for god to truly hate something is a flawed concept, because if he dislikes it so much, why doesn't he just change it? It makes him seem like a little kid whose block creation gets knocked over a little, and instead of building it back up he just destroys it further because he's sulking. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Oy vey, it's off topic (kind of) anyhow, perhaps we should just forget it! :lol:

As for Orthodox, another fantastic piece written there. It looks to me as if poor old Ceridwen018 has been given quite a hard time! As for her, she still stands, but what about her trinity?

I agree, it was a fantastic piece, but don't jump the gun! I planted a couple of ticking time bombs in my last post-- we'll see if he takes the bait!

By the by, what do you have to say about the trinity?

 

[UberKinder]

:clap: Bravo, orthadox for enightening me with that ; I will keep it handy for future trivial pursuits. i had to see the formula for myself , located a mathematical data base , http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CircleSquaring.html , and it seems that although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidian space ( defined by a set of rules my head still refues to fit entirely around ) it is possible to square a circle in Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky Space ( a non Euclidian space with a constant negative gaussian curvature - mg: ) further more the squareing of the circle has been accomplished with numeric variants of the pi , constant - it's all on the page I referenced

so yes it is impossible to square a circle due to the transendental nature of pi while in Euclidian Space , but it can and has occoured

well it seems that we were both right although my formula was defintely wanting .

 

[UberKinder]

i wish there was an emoticon for putting your foot in your mouth , please disregard my second posting ... :mrgreen:

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Ceridwen018,

I'm seeing what you are saying about hate and emotions and God. I do think that God has emotions, but he is in full and ultimate control over them, not like us, who may perhaps burst out in happiness uncontrolably or become angry and wack someone!

You said that if God hates some things why doesn't he just destroy them now. Well I think, and I think Orthodox may have said something about this in one of his posts, is that he doesn't destroy it all because the things he hates are imbedded in all of us, and he can't get rid of evil without getting rid of us and without getting rid of the good in us as well. Plus, the whole thing (this life) is all about us, and thye whole destruction of evil thing comes later, so I guess God can get most of us through before everything goes bang.

As for the sulking kid comparison, I'm not 100% sure what you mean here... mmm, maybe we should just leave this thing alone! He he...

As for the your trinity, I'll have to be a bit mean and say I'm on orthodox's side, sorry Ceridwen018. I have to admit, when I first saw the thread, I did know somewhere within me that I knew it was wrong (my opinion), but I just couldn't get it into words how to prove you wrong, luckily there came a chap like Orthodox to educate everyone!

LAUGH= Orthodox is not God, just making sure.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Flamethrower,

You mentioned a very good point which I'd like to focus on. You're right, Orthodox did say something about it, and it is indeed crucial to this debate, although no conclusions have really been reached over it.

*If* god does not want evil, why doesn't he just get rid of it? That is the question! Your argument states that evil is a part of us and our world, and so to destroy it would mean the destruction of ourselves and our world. This, paired with the idea that god does not want to destroy his creation, (at least not yet) means that evil begrudgingly remains in the world. Your reason for why god doesn't want to destroy his creation at this time, is because he wants to 'get most of us through'...I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that--could you elaborate a little? Ok then, the stage is set!

I would first have to argue over the existence of this alleged 'handbook', containing the supreme rules of the metaphysical which state that humans cannot exist without evil. Seriously though, how have you been able to come to the conclusion that god cannot separate the evil from the good, and that we cannot exist without evil because it is imbedded in us?

Next, I would have to call upon the story of 'the fall'. If god is all-powerful, then that means that he has total power over his creation--I'm not talking about free-will vs. no free-will here, this is simply the idea that god created it, he can do with it what he wants. He also has an ultimate plan for all of his creation. The fall of Adam and Eve was undoubtedly part of this plan. From that, I conclude that god obviously wanted evil, because he planned for it to happen! Another argument for this brings up the fact that god strategically placed the 'tree of life' within the garden, as well as allowed satan to be present. He kind of set the stage for disaster, and then sat back and watched things play out. Ultimately though, in my mind, that makes him just as guilty as if he had made them sinful from the get go. Because he did not do anything to prevent a disater which was highly predictable and likely to happen, he is guilty of causing sin, and therefore wanting sin.

Alrighty, I think that's enough for now. Tell me what you think!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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)

These laws have three possibilites:

1. God created the laws of logic stated above, and therefore He can change them (so He could make A not = A). If this is true, and evil exists, then He is not all good, because God could destroy evil without destroying morality, free will, etc. but He does not.

2. The laws of logic are not part of God's nature, nor did He create them. They are inherent in the universe, and not even God can break them. In this case, once again, God is not all powerful.

3. The above laws are part of God's nature, they define Him, and He cannot go against His nature. In this case, there are things that are impossible for Him to do (He cannot make A not = A or tell a lie, for example). This is the scenario you, Orthodox, have put forth (remember, you said "God cannot not be good as he is what good is. "). Here, He is not *all powerful*.

The only thing we seem to have difficulty with is the definition of "all powerful". But let's not debate over symantics....all that matters is that in our trinity, we have used the definition of all powerful as "the ability to do anything, including break the laws of logic". Since Orthodox has already agreed God cannot break the laws of logic, not only does the trinity stand, but it stands with his backing. 8)

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?

This does not make sense. People do not need evil to exist in order to be born. Destroying evil would not destroy all the future people to be born.

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.

You have already agreed with the trinity, but I can't help but point out that you have contradicted yourself on multiple levels. For example, earlier you claimed that if the ability to do evil was removed from the world, the world would not truly be good because we wouldn't have free will or morals. If that is the case, God cannot truly be good/moral/free because He does not have the ability to choose evil. By your logic God must not exist, because nothing can both not have the ability to do evil, and be a free entity with morals (unless, of course, God can defy logic :killme: ).

Remember, earlier you said it is impossible for God to lie as that would contradict His nature...but according to what you said in this quote, that would mean God is not free and therefore not moral:

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.

You have said that evil is not an option God can choose. According to your reasoning, God does not have free will and therefore cannot be moral.

Then again, in this more recent post you have gone back and stated that good can exist without evil....that would mean that God is somehow good/free/moral even though He cannot choose evil....which completely goes against your argument earlier that evil is necessary in the world in order to keep us good/free/moral.

On yet another level, if God does have the ability to choose evil (but never chooses it), this would contradict your entire argument about good being God's nature, and that it is impossible for God to contradict His nature. Similarly, it would go against your argument that the reason God cannot change the laws of logic is because they are part of His nature.

So either: A) God can alter His own nature, and therefore has the ability to alter logic and choose evil. This means that if it is illogical for evil to be destroyed without destroying free will, it is because God chose for logic to be that way. And if we agree that evil exists, it means that God is not all good, because He has chosen a universe where it is impossible to destroy evil without destroying free will.

or B) God cannot alter His own nature--He does not have the ability to choose anything other than what He is (logic, good). Therefore He is not a free entity and cannot be truly moral, because the option to be evil is not available to Him. In addition, He is not all powerful, because His power is limited by His own nature (He does not have the power to lie).

Whether A or B is true, either way, the trinity stands. Even assuming, Orthodox, that all your arguments are correct, the trinity still stands. You agree that some things are impossible for God (i.e. lying, making A not equal to A). In our trinity, "all powerful" means the ability to do anything--so not only does it stand, but with Orthodox's opinion firmly behind it.

Still, I think the trinity has fallen.

I beg to differ--I think it stands taller than ever. :mrgreen:

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Ceridwen018 ,

What I mean by "getting most of us through" is based on my belief that someday God will get the world and pretty much make it perfect again, ie destroy the world, separate the good guys from the bad, and live happily ever after (Yay, a happy ending, but not before it gets quite crappy). So it's pretty much armageddon or Revelation or simply the end of the world (as we know it). By getting us through, it could be said that an exact number of people are to live and die on this world, and God is the only one who knows it. This also co-encides with stuff like big evils screwing up the world heaps, and a whole lot of other events. When the end of the world happens, I am very certain that the people who have lived and died before the end of the world, will outnumber the people alive when the end of the world happens. Do you see how most of the people are through, so to speak?

I have thought that maybe the "getting most of us through" phrase was not particularly the best to use. It says in Revelation that all the people will rise from the dead to be judged (don't ask me how, and no, we're not talking about zombies!). So that really negates the whole point of "getting most of us through"(in time) theory. But it does still stand because of God's exact number (of individuals)

I have to admit that this sub-subject thing is quite "riding off". I'm not sure if it is really essential for the trinity arguement.

As for the other stuff...

Okay, here we go...
- We are imbedded with good and evil
- God can't get rid of evil without getting rid of good without getting rid of us....

Because!...

We are evil! Every human on this planet is a sinner and is evil. And here's the shocking bit: we also LIKE being evil. So if God were to take evil away, he would be taking away our free choice virtually! We could live in this same world (but a good version), and wake up in the morning and say: "Mmm, well today I think I'll be good to all my fellow humans. But hang on, I could also be good to all my fellow humans, or even be good to all my fellow humans! I think I'll be good to all my fellow humans... yeah I'll do that" Not much of a choice there huh? So we are imbeddined with evil, but more so we are ATTATCHED to evil.

...and finally...

Lets have an analogy. There is a teacher who makes an end of year exam for all of his students to do. The teacher sets out a whole heap of things that need to be covered in the exam. He sets hard questions and easy questions. He gives hints and he weaves tricks into the exam to truely test the students. He knows how the students will go.

Now exam day comes, and the students set to and do it. The exam proves to be rather challenging to all students. At the end of the exam, the students hand in their papers.

As the teacher marks the papers, he notices that the tricks he put in the exam has fooled all the students, and thus the students loose marks.

The exam was not too hard, it was just written very well. The teacher ultimately knew that his students were going to do this way on the exam. Thus the teacher wasn't plotting to make the students fail, he was mere testing them. Being a teacher, he has to set exams, that's just one of the things he does, that is part of his job. Nothing hard to grasp about it, nothing complicated. As for why he set the exam like that in the first place? I guess no one will know unless you get the chance to ask him one day.

(I think I've left out a few things there that you have put forward to me, if you don't mind you can tell me in you next post).

 

[SpiritualSon]

To All,
Read this:

You should worship God who is one in Person and in Essence.

There was no trinity of three persons before creation, until Jehovah God became Man under the name Jesus Christ, because the sayings in the Old Testament below contradicts it. The writings of Isaiah 9:6 supports the truth that Jehovah God became Man. Unto us a child is born,who is called the Everylasting Father.

Exodus 34:14
(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

Deuteronomy 4:39
Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Judges 16:17
that he told her all his heart, and said to her, "No razor has ever come upon my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb. If I am shaven, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man."

1 Kings 8:60
that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other.

Isaiah 44:6
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8
Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one."'

Isaiah 45:5
I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me,

Isaiah 45:14
Thus says the LORD: "The labor of Egypt and merchandise of Cush And of the Sabeans, men of stature, Shall come over to you, and they shall be yours; They shall walk behind you, They shall come over in chains; And they shall bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying, "Surely God is in you, And there is no other; There is no other God."'

Isaiah 45:18
For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:21
Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me.

Isaiah 45:22
"Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,

Daniel 3:29
Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation, or language which speaks anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made an ash heap; because there is no other God who can deliver like this."

Joel 2:27
Then you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame.

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Mark 12:32
So the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.

Luke 16:13
"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

Acts 26:22
Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come--

1 Corinthians 8:4
Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.

Harry

 

[Orthodox]

Spiritual son,

Do us all a favour and rant on about the Trinity (as in Father, Son and Holy Ghost) in another debate thread. I suggest the "Trinity, Whaa" thread.

I happen to think you are totally wrong in your beliefs on the Trinity so why not disscuss this with me in the right place?

Orthodox

 

[Ceridwen018]

SpiritualSon,

For the eightieth time, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE JESUS/GOD/SPIRIT TRINITY HERE!!

Your post is completely irrelevant. I would advise starting a new thread, or searching for an existing one on this topic.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Flamethrower,

We are evil! Every human on this planet is a sinner and is evil. And here's the shocking bit: we also LIKE being evil.

I agree with this-- we are indeed 'evil' or at least in posession of an evil nature. My argument here is that god cultured the evil within us, meaning that he wanted us to have evil within us, meaning that in general he wants evil, and so the trinity is broken.

So if God were to take evil away, he would be taking away our free choice virtually!

If god cannot provide free-will without evil, then he is limited and therefore not all-powerful, and so the trinity is broken.

But hang on, I could also be good to all my fellow humans, or even be good to all my fellow humans! I think I'll be good to all my fellow humans... yeah I'll do that" Not much of a choice there huh? So we are imbeddined with evil, but more so we are ATTATCHED to evil.

Does god have free-will? If he does, then he is proof that evil is not needed to acheive free-will, because he is all good, right?

If you say that god does indeed have free will, and you define free will as the choice between good and evil, then god cannot be all good because he has the ability to choose evil. On the other hand, if god cannot choose evil, he is limited and therefore not all-powerful. (Mr. Spinkles talked about this in his last post)

As the teacher marks the papers, he notices that the tricks he put in the exam has fooled all the students, and thus the students loose marks.

The exam was not too hard, it was just written very well. The teacher ultimately knew that his students were going to do this way on the exam. Thus the teacher wasn't plotting to make the students fail, he was mere testing them.

For the teacher to put tricks on the test, knowing that the students wouldn't catch them and therefore lose points or even fail would most certainly be plotting! When you test someone, you put a difficult question that is perhaps a little tricky, but that you know the student could figure out if they apply what they've learned. By putting questions that you are certain the students will not get, you are intending for them to lose points, and setting them up for failure.

Being a teacher, he has to set exams, that's just one of the things he does, that is part of his job. Nothing hard to grasp about it, nothing complicated.

But here is where the difference between the teacher and god comes out. The teacher has a job to teach the kids and make sure that they've learned what they've been taught so they can go be successful in college or in their careers. You may argue that god is trying to teach us lessons here on earth, but to what end? When we die, you believe that we go to heaven or hell. There is no opportunity to apply what we've learned on earth, so all of that pain we had to suffer through to learn those life lessons was completely pointless.

As for why he set the exam like that in the first place? I guess no one will know unless you get the chance to ask him one day.

Technically, you are right. We don't know, but we can speculate. A teacher who intentionally tricks his students is bad news, and is going to get called for it eventually--people won't like him, no one will want to take his class anymore. Even if his intentions were something other than 'I am evil and want to fail everyone', it makes no difference because the final result (the bad grade) is the same so people are still pissed, and for that, he has no one to blame but himself.

 

[KBC1963]

GOD had many creations before man as we can tell by all the things of this world being created "after the patterns". GOD knows what real love is and many of us want the same thing which is another entity to love you for who and what you are and not by force of arms, so when he creates a being they must have the free will to choose and in this way GOD will have that which he desires.
now the question of where did evil originate, well that should be fairly simple to resolve:

Eze 28:13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created
Eze 28:14
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:15
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Eze 28:16
By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:17
Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.


Isa 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

- God can't get rid of evil without getting rid of good without getting rid of us....

Therefore, God's power has limits--He is not all powerful.

We can talk about God, good, evil, and free will all we want, but just to make sure we are on the same page: you have already agreed with the premises of the 'impossible trinity' straight from the getgo by admitting that one of the statements is not true.

Lets have an analogy. There is a teacher who makes an end of year exam for all of his students to do. The teacher sets out a whole heap of things that need to be covered in the exam. He sets hard questions and easy questions. He gives hints and he weaves tricks into the exam to truely test the students. He knows how the students will go.

Remember, analogies betweeen God and parents or teachers only work if we think God's power is limited, because the power of teachers and parents is also limited. If your teacher was all powerful, he could snap his fingers and all of his students would be experts in the subject he teaches, and they would not need to suffer through an exam. The ultimate goal of the teacher is to make sure his students know the material....not to make them go through an exam (unless, of course, the teacher is 'not all good' and simply wants the students to suffer needlessly). Since we know the teacher is not all powerful, the exam is a 'necessary evil' to get students to learn.

In summary:
1) the teacher has the power to imbue his students with everything they need to know about math without giving exams (all powerful)
2) the teacher's primary goal is for his students to know everything they need about math, not to make them suffer through exams if they do not have to (the teacher has 'all good' intentions)
3) the students suffer through difficult exams

Just like our trinity of religious contradiction, this 'trinity of educational contradiction' contains three statements which cannot all be true at the same time.

Two of them could be true...for example, in your analogy, #2 and #3 are true. But if #2 and #3 are true, we know #1 cannot be true also....so the teacher is not all powerful.

 

[Proverbial Flamethrower]

Ceridwen018 / Mr_Spinkles,

Just before I say my bit, I just have to say that I have a feeling that we are walking over the same ground again and again.

This thread seems to be going no where fast so I'm not going to bother continuing this whole arguement for much longer (in my opinion, the trinity of yours was put down a few pages back, all we're doing now is dragging it along, scrapping over useless details). But anyway...

I'm going to make it quick (which will never happen, he he):

- God can't separate evil from us just like "ping! there we go!" because of reasons I have already said AND... because he does WANT to do it that way, I know this becuase the book of Revelation was written. Don't ask me why he's choosing to do it that way, I'm not God (as you've probably already figured!)

- Now it seems to me that when ever I or Orthodox (or other people) makes an analogy, we get contested on parts of the analogy that were not meanty to be "primary". For example: When Orthodox made his point about rocks and unicorns, he said he was not talking about petrified unicorns, yet he got responses about exactly that! Even when MB made his point about the bike (if I remember correctly), he was contested on gravity - which was just so far out of the question. Here it is happeneing again, but now with my Teacher example. It was meant to be a hypothetical question. What your whole arguement against my teacher example is based on, is useless sideline details, for example: "God is all powerful, but a teacher is not; there's an inconsistantcy!" There is more than one example of such things. But as for the teacher and his tricks: Putting tricks and things to veer your concentration is a perfectly normal (and authorised) way of testing a bunch of students (and for God too). The teacher isn't guilty of anything. He knew how the students were going to do, but that wasn't made FINAL UNTILL they actually took the test.

Ceridwen018, you said a few times that the trinity was broken. What exactly do you mean?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Flamethrower-- I'm sorry, but those analogies were flawed. They are only good analogies if one already agrees that God's power has limits (just as the power of teachers and bikers is limited). If God's power was not "primary" I am not sure what was the point of these analogies (other than to affirm #2 and #3 of the trinity, and throw out #1).

 

[Orthodox]

Hello Mr Spinkles,

Good to hear from you again. You have put forward some well thought out arguments. You must have just been biding your time since about page 6. Although they are well thought out I think that again they are false.

Orthodox wrote: › Select ›‹ Expand
Here are the Laws of logic:

1. The law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A)
2. The Law of identity (A is A)
3. The law of excluded middle (either A or non-A)
These laws have three possibilities:

1. God created the laws of logic stated above, and therefore He can change them (so He could make A not = A). If this is true, and evil exists, then He is not all-good, because God could destroy evil without destroying morality, free will, etc. but He does not.

2. The laws of logic are not part of God's nature, nor did He create them. They are inherent in the universe, and not even God can break them. In this case, once again, God is not all-powerful.

3. The above laws are part of God's nature, they define Him, and He cannot go against His nature. In this case, there are things that are impossible for Him to do (He cannot make A not = A or tell a lie, for example). This is the scenario you, Orthodox, have put forth (remember, you said "God cannot not be good as he is what good is. "). Here, He is not all-powerful.

The Christian belief, as supported by Scripture (Heb 6:18 - "it is impossible for God to lie"), is that God is subject to his own rational self-consistency. The laws of logic we have discovered are essentially of the immutable rationality of God (People occasionally say that Aristotle invented logic but if you will think about that idea for a moment it reveals it’s flaws).

The only thing we seem to have difficulty with is the definition of "all powerful". But let's not debate over symantics....all that matters is that in our trinity, we have used the definition of all powerful as "the ability to do anything, including break the laws of logic". Since Orthodox has already agreed God cannot break the laws of logic, not only does the trinity stand, but it stands with his backing

I’m going to assume that by symantics you mean semantics (perhaps just a difference of spelling between Australia and America) – the scientific study of the meanings of words and their development. I contest that this is in fact the most debatable part of the trinity. The trinity, as posited by Ceridwen and yourself is as follows:

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

This really contains a forth part, which goes:
- Therefore God is either not all-powerful or does not object to evil.

If we accept that a god, who is all-powerful can do anything, then the trinity does stand. But, if it can be shown that being all-powerful does not mean the ability to do anything, then the trinity is lame and has never stood.

You might remember my first posts about the “heavy stone” problem. In these I endeavoured to demonstrate the less-than-all-powerfulness required in God for to be able to do anything (as in everything). I realise that as we have neared the heart of the debate (IE. What constitutes all-powerful) some things have become muddled and misrepresented (I dealt with this at the end of my second last post).

Now that I have posited God’s rational self-consistency (and thus, his affinity with the rules of logic) I will defend it and show the less-than-all-powerfulness required for him to be anything else. This will also hopefully show that an all-powerful God is necessarily rationally self-consistent.

A "God", if existent, is the first cause of everything. Whether you say that logic comes from the Christian God or an “Alpha God” or from whatever there must be this “first cause” with which transcendental laws (IE. truth and goodness) exist. It is a fact that truth (which is always logical) and goodness are infinite and untruth and badness finite. I have shown this in previous arguments and will only skim the surfaces of these now. Truth is what truth is, Goodness is what goodness is. Untruth is whatever truth is not, badness is whatever goodness is not. It can be demonstrated that untruth and badness are finite contingent things by the fact that truth (and goodness) relies upon what is truth just as untruth also relies upon what is truth, making untruth subject to truth and therefore a contingent, not a necessary, thing. Truth is necessarily existent, it cannot not exist, even if there is nothing to tell an untruth. Like I have said previously, if there was nothing in existence it would still be true that there is nothing in existence. What does this mean? Truth is infinite in nature, uncaused, and bound only to itself. It cannot not exist. Does the fact that it cannot not exist and cannot not be truthful make it less than infinite? I think this would be a faulty conclusion to draw, similar to saying an unbeatable soccer player is not unbeatable because he cannot beat himself - beating himself would only make him beatable.

You are essentially saying in your argument that, “if God were all powerful he would be able to contradict logic”. Christians say that God is a rationally self-consistent and all-powerful being (amongst other things). As a necessary being he is logically existent, and the logical laws used to find this stem from his rational self-consistent nature. (There is a lot of other evidence to support the necessity of a rationally self-consistent God – if you want, I can prove this later). If he were to say that A is non-A then he would be going against his own nature and the all-powerful God would be beaten by himself and, as such, would never in fact have been all-powerful.

I think this demonstrates my point that all-powerfulness cannot mean the ability to do anything.

You have already agreed with the trinity, but I can't help but point out that you have contradicted yourself on multiple levels. For example, earlier you claimed that if the ability to do evil was removed from the world, the world would not truly be good because we wouldn't have free will or morals. If that is the case, God cannot truly be good/moral/free because He does not have the ability to choose evil. By your logic God must not exist, because nothing can both not have the ability to do evil, and be a free entity with morals (unless, of course, God can defy logic ).

Shortly put, if I said this I was wrong! I cannot imagine what I would have been thinking at the time. Anyway, here is the truth whether or not I did it an injustice before. I apologise for the confusion, my fault.

God is Goodness. God does not have free will to choose between good and bad because he is by nature good. Once again, he would become less than all-powerful (not to mention all good) if he could go against himself. Evil is necessary in the world to give us a free choice. We choose between God and evil (use of words deliberate). God is himself and cannot be another.

In our trinity, "all powerful" means the ability to do anything--so not only does it stand, but with Orthodox's opinion firmly behind it.

This is a pointless thing to say. It makes about as much sense as if I told you to prove you are human by flapping your arms and flying away. You say “in our trinity, all-powerful means the ability to do anything”. Are you accepting that logic denies it’s plausibility in this universe and inviting me to join you in fairyland? If indeed we do accept your definition of all-powerful then your trinity is correct. Prove through logic and analogy the truth of your definition before you come back positing such a statement again.
Honestly, this trinity thing has been around for thousands of years (Epicurus invented it). If it were actually worth it’s salt it would have destroyed religion thousands of years ago. As it is, most of the “Great Atheists” (B. Russell for example) had to abandon it when it failed to stand up against scrutiny.

The trinity has never stood.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Orthodox--

Perhaps there has been some sort of misunderstanding. I think you are actually agreeing with our trinity, though you may not realize it. Here is the "trinity" once again:

1) God is all powerful
2) God does not want evil to exist
3) Evil exists
*these three statements cannot all be true simultaneously.

Now, here is what you seem to be arguing:

1) A rational being like God cannot possibly be able to "do anything" because He has to be consistent with Himself and it is impossible for Him to do bad, etc.
2) Let's make the definition of "all powerful" mean "the ability to do anything, except some things (like contradicting one's self)".
3) This way, we can still say "God is all powerful".

Orthodox, in no way does this reasoning disagree with our trinity. As I have said numerous times, by "all powerful" I mean "the ability to do anything--including things that are illogical/impossible/contradictory". You have made a strong argument as to why the first part of the trinity is false (God is all powerful), and the other two are correct (God is all good, evil exists). Great! You agree that not all three of the statements are true--and I agree with you.

The Christian belief, as supported by Scripture (Heb 6:18 - "it is impossible for God to lie"), is that God is subject to his own rational self-consistency. The laws of logic we have discovered are essentially of the immutable rationality of God (People occasionally say that Aristotle invented logic but if you will think about that idea for a moment it reveals it’s flaws).

Right-- God cannot lie, He cannot do anything. There are some things that are not within his power, he is not all powerful.

I’m going to assume that by symantics you mean semantics (perhaps just a difference of spelling between Australia and America) – the scientific study of the meanings of words and their development.

No, no difference, I spelled it wrong. :lol:

I contest that this is in fact the most debatable part of the trinity.

I contest that there is nothing to debate--it has been made clear what we mean all along. By our definition, if God does not have the ability to do certain things (like lie, contradict himself, be illogical) he is not "all powerful". Once again, let's not debate over semantics.

The trinity, as posited by Ceridwen and yourself is as follows:

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

This really contains a forth part, which goes:
- Therefore God is either not all-powerful or does not object to evil.

Or, evil does not exist.

If we accept that a god, who is all-powerful can do anything, then the trinity does stand. But, if it can be shown that being all-powerful does not mean the ability to do anything, then the trinity is lame and has never stood.

You have yet to show that the words "all powerful" do not mean "the ability to do anything", you have merely argued that it is impossible for God to be able to "do anything", which only supports what we have been saying-- that not all three statements of the trinity can be true.

Even if you do show that the words all-powerful do not mean the ability to do anything, you are just nitpicking at word choice--not meaning. Ceridwen could change the first part of the trinity to "1) God can do anything" and the original meaning, which we have made clear from the start, would still be the same as it has always been. I have stated many times throughout this thread that in the trinity "all powerful" is meant to mean the ability to do literally anything, including that which is illogical or contradictory or evil. You have made great arguments as to why God cannot do things that are illogical or contradictory, but this does not in any way disagree with what we mean by this trinity.

You might remember my first posts about the “heavy stone” problem. In these I endeavoured to demonstrate the less-than-all-powerfulness required in God for to be able to do anything (as in everything). I realise that as we have neared the heart of the debate (IE. What constitutes all-powerful) some things have become muddled and misrepresented (I dealt with this at the end of my second last post).

Now that I have posited God’s rational self-consistency (and thus, his affinity with the rules of logic) I will defend it and show the less-than-all-powerfulness required for him to be anything else. This will also hopefully show that an all-powerful God is necessarily rationally self-consistent.

A "God", if existent, is the first cause of everything. Whether you say that logic comes from the Christian God or an “Alpha God” or from whatever there must be this “first cause” with which transcendental laws (IE. truth and goodness) exist. It is a fact that truth (which is always logical) and goodness are infinite and untruth and badness finite. I have shown this in previous arguments and will only skim the surfaces of these now. Truth is what truth is, Goodness is what goodness is. Untruth is whatever truth is not, badness is whatever goodness is not. It can be demonstrated that untruth and badness are finite contingent things by the fact that truth (and goodness) relies upon what is truth just as untruth also relies upon what is truth, making untruth subject to truth and therefore a contingent, not a necessary, thing. Truth is necessarily existent, it cannot not exist, even if there is nothing to tell an untruth. Like I have said previously, if there was nothing in existence it would still be true that there is nothing in existence. What does this mean? Truth is infinite in nature, uncaused, and bound only to itself. It cannot not exist. Does the fact that it cannot not exist and cannot not be truthful make it less than infinite? I think this would be a faulty conclusion to draw, similar to saying an unbeatable soccer player is not unbeatable because he cannot beat himself - beating himself would only make him beatable.

You are essentially saying in your argument that, “if God were all powerful he would be able to contradict logic”.

No, I have said all along that if God can contradict logic, He is either not all good or evil doesn't exist. The meaning is what is important, not word choice (though I do not see how 'all powerful' is construed to mean 'cannot do anything, but can still do a lot') and I have made the meaning clear form the beginning.

Christians say that God is a rationally self-consistent and all-powerful being (amongst other things). As a necessary being he is logically existent, and the logical laws used to find this stem from his rational self-consistent nature. (There is a lot of other evidence to support the necessity of a rationally self-consistent God – if you want, I can prove this later). If he were to say that A is non-A then he would be going against his own nature and the all-powerful God would be beaten by himself and, as such, would never in fact have been all-powerful.

I think this demonstrates my point that all-powerfulness cannot mean the ability to do anything.

No, all this demonstrates is that God cannot have the ability to do anything. If you like saying "God is all powerful" then you can change the meaning of the words to mean "the ability to do anything other than that which is evil, contradictory, or illogical". It doesn't matter--we still agree, Orthodox!

If indeed we do accept your definition of all-powerful then your trinity is correct.

My point exactly.

Prove through logic and analogy the truth of your definition before you come back positing such a statement again.

Let's consider your definition of "all powerful" first: according to what I have read so far, your definition of all powerful would be "the ability to do everything that one has the ability to do". This definition is inherently meaningless and gets us nowhere. We use words to describe certain aspects of things we would otherwise not know....no knowledge is gained by saying "God has the ability to do anything He has the ability to do".

Here is how I got my definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/

all, adj: Being or representing the entire or total number
powerful, adj: Having or capable of exerting power
power, n: A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude

God does not have the capacity/faculty/power to do a bunch of things (contradict Himself, go against logic, commit evil). There are powers which He cannot exert. Hence, He is not all powerful.

Honestly, this trinity thing has been around for thousands of years (Epicurus invented it). If it were actually worth it’s salt it would have destroyed religion thousands of years ago. As it is, most of the “Great Atheists” (B. Russell for example) had to abandon it when it failed to stand up against scrutiny.

First of all, ours is a little different. Secondly, I disagree--I think a million poor arguments can overwhelm a few good ones. Thirdly, Christianity has had 2,000 years to spread...you need to give atheism a little more time

The trinity has never stood.

Nope--still standing.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I got in this debate on another forum before...

Someone was saying that it is impossible for God to sin. This is true, because no matter what God does, it is never a sin. God does not have to abide by the laws He gives us to live by. Sin just means "ignorant of God". God is never ignorant of Himself.