The 'Trinity' of Religious Contradiction

[Ceridwen018]

god does lie.

1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
2 Chr.18:22
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."
Jer.20:7
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."
Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
2 Th.2:11
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

 

[Runt]

Now that I think about it, I don't really think the question “Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?” really proves the logical fallacy of the “all powerful Christian God” concept. I think if he CAN create such a rock then he is all-powerful, but as soon as he DOES create that rock he becomes limited immediately after that act of creation.

Kind of like the fact that right now I can see, but if I poke out my eyes I can no longer see and the former reality of sight is now forever out of my reach. However, that doesn’t change the fact that BEFORE I poked out my eyes, I COULD see.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If God can create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, then His power is finite. In fact, we could measure the exact strength of God by putting this rock on a scale!

You poking your eyes out proves that your power has limits....you are not powerful enough to be able to see without eyeballs.

No matter how we look at it, the idea of anything being all powerful is illogical....nothing can have literally unlimited power, because if it has unlimited power then it must have the power to limit itself....and if it has the power to limit itself, then its powers must have limits. You could say God can do everything but limit Himself....but then He is "very very very powerful" not literally "all powerful".

I will say this though: God could be all powerful....it would just defy logic.

 

[dan]

If God can create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, then His power is finite.

Y'all have totally ignored the nature of God. God does not lift things. What is lifting an object but trying to force it to do something it will not naturally do? God lifts nothing; He commands things and they obey. The real question is, "Can God create something that will not obey Him?" And the answer is yes, He created all of you didn't He?

Every last one of you is thinking inside this tiny little box in which you know everything and the universe is comfortable and secure; but the reality of the situation is that the universe and everything in it is remarkably unlike the perceptions that you have put your faith in.

An example of just how small the box is in which you think:

What professional baseball player holds the record for most home runs in a single season?

Not a baseball fan? Look it up on the internet; that will do nothing to disprove my point. I await an answer...

 

[Runt]

No matter how we look at it, the idea of anything being all powerful is illogical....nothing can have literally unlimited power, because if it has unlimited power then it must have the power to limit itself...and if it has the power to limit itself, then its powers must have limits. could say God can do everything but limit Himself....but then He is "very very very powerful" not literally "all powerful".

See, I still have to disagree. As you said, an all-powerful God by definition should also have the power to limit itself. That does not make its power limited. It just gives it the power to change itself, to actually undo its own omnipotent nature. It gives it the power to actually put limits on itself, and in doing so take away that omnipotent nature forever. Again, that does not change the fact that BEFORE creating that rock, it is still omnipotent. But that creation of that rock immediately changes its nature from omnipotent to simply very powerful. It all depends on what it can do vs what it DOES.

The question therefore should really be "Can the omnipotent God create a rock too difficult for him to lift without forgoing his omnipotent nature?" I think THAT is where you will find your contradiction.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I am pretty sure this clears up the entire debate:

*God does not want us to want evil (definition of evil: ignorance of God)

So although there is evil, it is not that God is affected by it's existence (or rather, it's lacking quality), it is that God wants us to be happy, and He knows that we will only be truly happy if we come back to His Personal association. Still, God does not force us to do anything. This is where free choice comes in.

So...

1. God is all-powerful
2. God wants us to not want evil (free choice)
3. Evil exists (so to say)

Now because it is not God's Personal preference whether or not evil exists, there is no contradiction. God allows us to be ignorant. That is our choice. God will simply try to remind us that we can only be happy if we give up this materialistic way of life. If we choose to ignore, then evil will persist in the world.

Is any further explanation required?

 

[Ceridwen018]

dan,

Y'all have totally ignored the nature of God. God does not lift things. What is lifting an object but trying to force it to do something it will not naturally do? God lifts nothing

Hey man, if he can't lift it, that's cool. It's not like this is a competition or anything. :lol:

Every last one of you is thinking inside this tiny little box in which you know everything and the universe is comfortable and secure; but the reality of the situation is that the universe and everything in it is remarkably unlike the perceptions that you have put your faith in.

So, correct us! We are indeed blessed to be able to talk to someone who actually knows the true reality of the universe!

I don't see the point you're trying to make with the baseball analogy-- could you explain?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Paraprakrti,

So although there is evil, it is not that God is affected by it's existence (or rather, it's lacking quality), it is that God wants us to be happy, and He knows that we will only be truly happy if we come back to His Personal association. Still, God does not force us to do anything. This is where free choice comes in.

Yes well, I used to be in god's 'personal association', and now that i'm on the outside, I must say I have never been happier.

1. God is all-powerful
2. God wants us to not want evil (free choice)
3. Evil exists (so to say)

Here you're just changing the trinity so that it works. The trinity still stands in its original form. That's the whole point-- it has to be changed to work! The three original concepts cannot coexist!

Runt,
(I put ya in bold so you could see that I'm replying to you in this post as well!)

See, I still have to disagree. As you said, an all-powerful God by definition should also have the power to limit itself. That does not make its power limited.

For this to work, god has to be limited and unlimited at the same time, which is illogical-- but chek on what Mr. Spinkles said about god being able to be all-powerful by defying logic.

mmm...I g2g, but I'll reply to the rest of yours later!

 

[Runt]

For this to work, god has to be limited and unlimited at the same time, which is illogical

I still disagree, but I see where you're coming from. I look at it not as a situation in which God has both natures within himself at the same time, but rather as a situation where he is unlimited, then uses his unlimited power to make himself limited, and from that point forth is limited and is never again unlimited. An unlimited God SHOULD be able to do anything--even make himself limited--but that doesn't mean that an unlimited God can chose to remain unlimited despite doing something that would limit him. That's why I think the question "Can the unlimited God create a rock too heavy for himself to lift and still REMAIN unlimited?" is a better way to show how an unlimited God CANNOT exist because it is impossible for him to do fulfil THAT action (as opposed to simply creating a rock too heavy for himself to lift).

Unless, of course, he is completely outside of logic, as you suggested. When it comes to "Can God defy logic?" I have to resort to the old militant agnostic answer: "I don't know and you don't either!"

 

[anders]

The question "Can the unlimited God create a rock too heavy for himself to lift and still REMAIN unlimited?" (or variations of it) and the discussion that follows just shows the limitations of the logics of the ancient Greek. If you phrase the question "Can the unlimited God create a rock too heavy for him/her/itself to lift, or would that be impossible?", a Taoist or Buddhist might answer something like "Yes and no. Neither, or both; or either, but none." (an existentialist writer would add "or the other way around") and find it quite OK. It is disturbing to Western minds in the beginning, but after reading, say, chapter 1 of Chuang-Tzu (Taoist) or some Buddhist sutra (at 1 a.m., I won't search for examples) a few times, you begin to understand.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Paraprakrti,

So although there is evil, it is not that God is affected by it's existence (or rather, it's lacking quality), it is that God wants us to be happy, and He knows that we will only be truly happy if we come back to His Personal association. Still, God does not force us to do anything. This is where free choice comes in.

Yes well, I used to be in god's 'personal association', and now that i'm on the outside, I must say I have never been happier.

^^^perfect example of why evil exists. Your so-called happiness is simply a counteraction to distress. It's pleasure has no reality separate from it's pain. That is why you are required to constantly seek satisfaction, all material experiences are fleeting. But as long as you feel "happy", you will remain susceptible to pain, disease, death. At this incredibly insignificant moment you may be happy, but you have no control over future conditions which may permit you to suffer greatly.

1. God is all-powerful
2. God wants us to not want evil (free choice)
3. Evil exists (so to say)

Here you're just changing the trinity so that it works. The trinity still stands in its original form. That's the whole point-- it has to be changed to work! The three original concepts cannot coexist!

Then the trinity in it's original form is faulty.
You are not factoring in that it is by our ignorant desires that evil comes into play. Given that circumstance, and the fact that God does not directly interfere with our capacity of free choice, comes your answer. If you do not accept these factors then there is surely no point in discussing this further.

 

[dan]

I don't see the point you're trying to make with the baseball analogy-- could you explain?

When someone answers I will explain. IT's a common phrase, "thinking inside the box." It merely refers to the tendancy that most have of analyzing information based on a restricted mindset or an extensive set of assumptions and inferences already made.

If someone would like to venture a guess I'll be happy to explain.

 

[dan]

definition of evil: ignorance of God

This is a human philosophy. I think it was Spinoza that postulated this, but I could be wrong. It may have been any one of a number of philosophers, from Descartes to Kant. I don't remember, but this idea is purely human.

 

[Paraprakrti]

definition of evil: ignorance of God

This is a human philosophy. I think it was Spinoza that postulated this, but I could be wrong. It may have been any one of a number of philosophers, from Descartes to Kant. I don't remember, but this idea is purely human.

These are human words you are using to communicate with me...

Call it whatever you want. And it might have been Spinoza that more recently postulated this philosophy, but I refer to ancient texts postulated thousands of years ago.

The philosophy is simple and irrefutable:
Activity that is agreeable to God and His laws should be understood as good. And activity that is in ignorance of Him should be understood as evil. What other options do you have? You are either acting in light of God, or you are acting in ignorance of God. Which one of these scenarios will you define as evil?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Runt,

I see what you're trying to say, I think. We're just coming from different angles.

"I don't know and you don't either!"

Too true!

 

[Ceridwen018]

perfect example of why evil exists. Your so-called happiness is simply a counteraction to distress. It's pleasure has no reality separate from it's pain.

But that's just it! I have been so much more devoid of pain lately! I feel so liberated--it's actually an amazing feeling.

You're talking about opposites here I think (correct me if I'm wrong)--happiness cannot exist without pain because the two define each other. I'm sorry to pop your bubble here, but you are susceptible to this same pattern.

That is why you are required to constantly seek satisfaction, all material experiences are fleeting. But as long as you feel "happy", you will remain susceptible to pain, disease, death.

I am not constantly seeking satisfaction any more than you. I am content within my own thoughts.

Sorry to pop your bubble again, but you are also at risk for pain, disease and death. There are plenty of religious people with cancer, experienceing pain of some sort, and millions of them die every day. I don't understand your reasoning on that one.

At this incredibly insignificant moment you may be happy, but you have no control over future conditions which may permit you to suffer greatly.

Neither do you. You can't control whether or not you get cancer, or whether or not your mom dies. The only reason why you think that such occurances might make me suffer more than you is because you think you have god to 'lean' on and to gain 'support' from. It's actually a simple psychological concept. If you tried experienceing a painful situation apart from your belief in god, you would see that the outcome would be the same. It's like worrying-- no matter how much you worry about something, its not going to change anything.

Then the trinity in it's original form is faulty.

It's impossible for the trinity to be faulty, because it is a simple collection of three objective concepts. They can either co-exist or they can't! Why don't you explain where you think the fault lies?

You are not factoring in that it is by our ignorant desires that evil comes into play. Given that circumstance, and the fact that God does not directly interfere with our capacity of free choice, comes your answer.

This has already been discussed. If god were all-powerful, he could create a situation in which there is no evil, and yet we still have free-will. Think of it this way: we do not have the ability to turn invisible. If I wanted to turn invisible, I wouldn't be able to. Does this hinder the abilities of my free-will? You tell me. It could be the same with evil...just because we don't have evil, doesn't mean that our free-will is hindered at all.

 

[Runt]

anders--

If you phrase the question "Can the unlimited God create a rock too heavy for him/her/itself to lift, or would that be impossible?"

But that is an entirely different question. Of course an unlimited God can create a rock too heavy for him/her/itself to lift, but according to Western logic the creation of such a rock would immediately chance his/her/its nature to LIMITED. This does not, however, mean that the unlimited God cannot do so. That's why I suggested the extra condition: can the unlimited God limit itself and still remain unlimited. That is where you get the contradiction that reveals the logical fallacy in the concept of an omnipotent Christian (or Jewish/Muslim) God.

a Taoist or Buddhist might answer something like "Yes and no. Neither, or both; or either, but none." (an existentialist writer would add "or the other way around") and find it quite OK.

That is why the question is so amusing. There ARE so many different answers. It all depends on your defintion of God, and what answer you want the question to give you. For example, if I wanted to disprove the omnipotence of the Christian God, I would ask the question with the Christian definition of God in mind. However, that is not the only approach to the question, as you suggested.

With your question "Is it possible for the unlimited God to create a rock too heavy for it to lift, or is that impossible?", yes, you would get these answers. The existentialist would probably tell the questioner that the question only proves that the universe is incomprehensible and irrational universe (whereas the Taoist would say that it is incomprehensible but perfectly rational). A Taoist (and maybe a Buddhist... I'm not so sure what a Buddhist would say) would tell you that the Eternal Tao does not create but IS creation, and therefore IS the rock and the act of lifting, and leave it at that (for the question doesn't even apply... why would a rock try to lift itself? Why would the Eternal Tao try to lift itself?) A Taoist, rather than letting the logic of the question disprove the Tao, would instead show why the question itself is illogical from a Taoist point of view.

 

[Paraprakrti]

perfect example of why evil exists. Your so-called happiness is simply a counteraction to distress. It's pleasure has no reality separate from it's pain.

But that's just it! I have been so much more devoid of pain lately! I feel so liberated--it's actually an amazing feeling.

You're talking about opposites here I think (correct me if I'm wrong)--happiness cannot exist without pain because the two define each other. I'm sorry to pop your bubble here, but you are susceptible to this same pattern.

But I do not seek happiness devoid of God. Therefore, my bubble remains intact. Actually, my happiness comes without me seeking it at all. Nor does it require any mundane attachments. Experiences in this world are transcendental to those who engage themselves in devotional service of the Supreme Lord. The pattern of material pleasure and pain simply does not apply. Though I speak of something you obviously have no practical experience of.

That is why you are required to constantly seek satisfaction, all material experiences are fleeting. But as long as you feel "happy", you will remain susceptible to pain, disease, death.

I am not constantly seeking satisfaction any more than you. I am content within my own thoughts.

Sorry to pop your bubble again, but you are also at risk for pain, disease and death. There are plenty of religious people with cancer, experienceing pain of some sort, and millions of them die every day. I don't understand your reasoning on that one.

My reasoning is that whatever attachment you have devoid of God is materialistic and thus a never-ending cycle of duality.

At this incredibly insignificant moment you may be happy, but you have no control over future conditions which may permit you to suffer greatly.

Neither do you. You can't control whether or not you get cancer, or whether or not your mom dies. The only reason why you think that such occurances might make me suffer more than you is because you think you have god to 'lean' on and to gain 'support' from. It's actually a simple psychological concept. If you tried experienceing a painful situation apart from your belief in god, you would see that the outcome would be the same. It's like worrying-- no matter how much you worry about something, its not going to change anything.

If you say so... But I have already determined that you have no factual experience of anything I am talking about. The beautiful thing is I am not trying to be in control. By trying to control you become controlled. And it is not merely a belief in God; that will not suffice. No matter how much one believes, that isn't going to change anything. How can I try a painful situation not apart from God? Painful means "apart from God".

Then the trinity in it's original form is faulty.

It's impossible for the trinity to be faulty, because it is a simple collection of three objective concepts. They can either co-exist or they can't! Why don't you explain where you think the fault lies?

I say it is faulty because it is not the complete truth of the matter. I have already explained what it is missing. In and of itself the trinity is fine, but still it is not factual. That is my point.

You are not factoring in that it is by our ignorant desires that evil comes into play. Given that circumstance, and the fact that God does not directly interfere with our capacity of free choice, comes your answer.

This has already been discussed. If god were all-powerful, he could create a situation in which there is no evil, and yet we still have free-will. Think of it this way: we do not have the ability to turn invisible. If I wanted to turn invisible, I wouldn't be able to. Does this hinder the abilities of my free-will? You tell me. It could be the same with evil...just because we don't have evil, doesn't mean that our free-will is hindered at all.

You are mistaking me. I am not saying that by destroying evil our free will would thus be hindered. I am saying that our free will chose evil, therefore it exists. God does not destroy it because we are responsible for rectifying our own positions. God does not directly desire the eradication of evil. It is of no direct concern of God's. But it is due to our ignorance that we suffer, therefore God prescribes that we rectify our position in order to transcend evil/ignorance. In conclusion, one can say that God desires for us to desire what will bring us peace, because we desire peace. If we keep making poor decisions then we keep suffering evil.
God has no desire for Self-interest concerning the material world.
His desires are to satisfy us, plain and simple. This "trinity of contradiction" no longer seems to apply to the facts. What is the point of debating a falsehood?

 

[Ceridwen018]

Paraprakrti,

Therefore, my bubble remains intact. Actually, my happiness comes without me seeking it at all.

Same here.

Nor does it require any mundane attachments.

Yes it does...god.

The pattern of material pleasure and pain simply does not apply. Though I speak of something you obviously have no practical experience of.

So you're saying you don't feel pain?

I obvioiusly have no practical experience of what you speak. When I believed in god, I felt an incredible amount of pain.

My reasoning is that whatever attachment you have devoid of God is materialistic and thus a never-ending cycle of duality.

This is what you're not understanding I think. I don't have any attachments. I am perfectly content with myself. I have no need for material things...well, some need I suppose-- starvation is not my idea of a good time (hehe) but that goes for everyone.

The beautiful thing is I am not trying to be in control. By trying to control you become controlled. And it is not merely a belief in God; that will not suffice. No matter how much one believes, that isn't going to change anything. How can I try a painful situation not apart from God? Painful means "apart from God".

I'm not trying to be in control either. I am glad that you agree that believing in god doesn't change the outcome of anything though.

I say it is faulty because it is not the complete truth of the matter. I have already explained what it is missing. In and of itself the trinity is fine, but still it is not factual. That is my point.

What you have done, is changed the trinity so that it concerns what god wants for us, not what god wants personally. You call this the 'complete truth', but how can you claim that? No one knows what the 'complete truth' is. Bottom line though-- it doesn't matter what god wants for us, he still has a 'personal preference'. He either wants evil, or he doesn't! If god is all-powerful, and evil exists, then obviously god has to WANT evil, so the trinity is broken.

I am saying that our free will chose evil, therefore it exists.

Alright then, I choose to be invisible...nothing's happening...

God does not directly desire the eradication of evil. It is of no direct concern of God's.

If satan were my arch-nemesis, I'd be a little concerned...

In conclusion, one can say that God desires for us to desire what will bring us peace, because we desire peace. If we keep making poor decisions then we keep suffering evil

Are you one of those people who think that our decisions affect our 'karma' so to speak? How do bad decisions bring about cancer?

His desires are to satisfy us, plain and simple.

Well, he's missing the boat somewhere, because there's a lot of unsatisfied people out there.

What is the point of debating a falsehood?

Because people believe it to be true.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Paraprakrti,

Therefore, my bubble remains intact. Actually, my happiness comes without me seeking it at all.

Same here.

Your process is akin to Buddhism. Although I do not accept the authority of it's philosophy, Gautama was prophesied in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as an incarnation of God who came to deliver the atheistic class of men.
The reason I do not accept it as final authority on spiritual matters is because the process is artificially attempting to be rid of all attachments in light of "void" conception, but it is this so-called void that is the object of attachment. It is the fundamental fact that we be attached to something. The choice comes down to attachment to material things or attachment to God. "Void" is a material conception used by Gautama to fool the atheists into indirectly attaching themselves to God's impersonal Brahmajyoti. My point is that if you are not attached to God, then you are attached to some material thing or conception, in some form or another.

Nor does it require any mundane attachments.

Yes it does...god.

If God is a mundane attachment then woe to your existence, because you are only known to exist in your relationship with others. Do you dare imply that you are a self-sufficient living unit?

The pattern of material pleasure and pain simply does not apply. Though I speak of something you obviously have no practical experience of.

So you're saying you don't feel pain?

As long as I am not apart from God.

Also, a little piece of mind...

"A person in the divine consciousness, although engaged in seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving about, sleeping, and breathing, always knows within himself that he actually does nothing at all. Because while speaking, evacuating, receiving, opening or closing his eyes, he always knows that only the material senses are engaged with their objects and that he is aloof from them." -Sri Krsna (Bg. 5.8 - 9)

I obvioiusly have no practical experience of what you speak. When I believed in god, I felt an incredible amount of pain.

Like I said, believing is insufficient.

My reasoning is that whatever attachment you have devoid of God is materialistic and thus a never-ending cycle of duality.

This is what you're not understanding I think. I don't have any attachments. I am perfectly content with myself. I have no need for material things...well, some need I suppose-- starvation is not my idea of a good time (hehe) but that goes for everyone.

So you say, still you cannot sanely consider your self to be sufficient in itself. Therefore, some attachments are required, directly or indirectly relating to God.

The beautiful thing is I am not trying to be in control. By trying to control you become controlled. And it is not merely a belief in God; that will not suffice. No matter how much one believes, that isn't going to change anything. How can I try a painful situation not apart from God? Painful means "apart from God".

I'm not trying to be in control either. I am glad that you agree that believing in god doesn't change the outcome of anything though.

As I was once told by a Christian, "Even Lucifer 'believes' in God".

I say it is faulty because it is not the complete truth of the matter. I have already explained what it is missing. In and of itself the trinity is fine, but still it is not factual. That is my point.

What you have done, is changed the trinity so that it concerns what god wants for us, not what god wants personally. You call this the 'complete truth', but how can you claim that? No one knows what the 'complete truth' is. Bottom line though-- it doesn't matter what god wants for us, he still has a 'personal preference'. He either wants evil, or he doesn't! If god is all-powerful, and evil exists, then obviously god has to WANT evil, so the trinity is broken.

"Complete truth" regarding the paradox of this trinity. If you do not accept, then you can continue seeking another reconciliation. And don't cop-out and say you don't believe in God in the first place, this entire thread is based on the premise that God exists. If we are going to debate the existence of God, there are other threads.
Why does God have to have a Personal preference aside from our desires? If God is Self-sufficient and thus eternally satisfied, then God wants nothing for Himself.

I am saying that our free will chose evil, therefore it exists.

Alright then, I choose to be invisible...nothing's happening...

First rid yourself of this evil... then you become invisible.

God does not directly desire the eradication of evil. It is of no direct concern of God's.

If satan were my arch-nemesis, I'd be a little concerned...

Christian theology can be debated elsewhere.

In conclusion, one can say that God desires for us to desire what will bring us peace, because we desire peace. If we keep making poor decisions then we keep suffering evil

Are you one of those people who think that our decisions affect our 'karma' so to speak? How do bad decisions bring about cancer?

Karma is simply cause and effect. Yes, our decisions have a play in cause and effect. Concerning cancer... initially, if we hadn't fallen into this material energy we would not be susceptible to it. That is the general reason we suffer cancer or any other disease/disorder. Specifically I could not say what it is that leads to cancer. The point is not to learn how to transcend cancer, it is to learn how to transcend material suffering in general.

His desires are to satisfy us, plain and simple.

Well, he's missing the boat somewhere, because there's a lot of unsatisfied people out there.

Then it is not God's fault, it is our fault for desiring that which has brought us suffering.

What is the point of debating a falsehood?

Because people believe it to be true.

Well, those people can have fun attempting to pee in the corner of a round room. I guess I was assuming that you wanted an answer that was reconciling and still based on the premise that God exists.