Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can God be both all powerful and all good?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premiss. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 3:03:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM, phantom wrote:
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premiss. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.

That's an interesting spin on things. Usually the question is a formulation of the problem of evil - if God is all powerful, and thus has created/has the ability to stop anything in the world, and there is evil in the world, can God still be all good? I suggest googling "can god sin" and checking out some links from there. I just tried it and it looked like there were mostly Christian attempts at defending God's omnipotence, which I assume you're looking for.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 3:39:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 3:03:12 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM, phantom wrote:
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premiss. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.

That's an interesting spin on things. Usually the question is a formulation of the problem of evil - if God is all powerful, and thus has created/has the ability to stop anything in the world, and there is evil in the world, can God still be all good? I suggest googling "can god sin" and checking out some links from there. I just tried it and it looked like there were mostly Christian attempts at defending God's omnipotence, which I assume you're looking for.

I don't believe in God's omnipotence any more so no, I'm not looking for that. I'm not sure about God being all good either. In fact this raises another interesting speculation. If God is not all powerful can he be all good? If God is not all powerful that means he can make mistakes. Making a mistake will often be counted as a sin even if it is minor.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 4:17:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God's morality = simply the way things are, what God does. God's moral law is the law of the universe, nature. God does not break these laws.

Man's morality = The art of navigating through what God does to reach a desired outcome while avoiding undesired consequences.

Putting God up to man's standard of morality is absurd, because God operates on a level to where man's standard is irrelevant, and can not possibly apply.

People think that what I'm saying puts limits on God, but it really doesn't. God can and does do everything. God IS all powerful, nothing is done without it's guiding hand of chaos.

People think that God needs to do the supernatural in order to be all powerful.. If that is the case, do you consider someone to be all powerful when they use cheat codes in a video game? Which is more impressive?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 4:36:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 4:17:13 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
God's morality = simply the way things are, what God does. God's moral law is the law of the universe, nature. God does not break these laws.

Man's morality = The art of navigating through what God does to reach a desired outcome while avoiding undesired consequences.

Putting God up to man's standard of morality is absurd, because God operates on a level to where man's standard is irrelevant, and can not possibly apply.

I agree. When did I ever do that?

People think that what I'm saying puts limits on God, but it really doesn't. God can and does do everything. God IS all powerful, nothing is done without it's guiding hand of chaos.


People think that God needs to do the supernatural in order to be all powerful.. If that is the case, do you consider someone to be all powerful when they use cheat codes in a video game? Which is more impressive?

You misunderstand what my post is about. I'm not stating an argument that God is not all powerful. I'm presenting an argument that God cannot be both all good and all powerful. You have only defended Gods omnipotence. While I disagree this is not what I am arguing against.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2011 5:36:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, you are misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying the God is all powerful and all good... But at the same time, I'm saying that your idea of good is faulty.

With God, all is good. Human morality =/= good. When you attempt to judge God based on human moral standards, of course God is going to look bad.

To God, good = right and true. It also just so happens that God is omnipotent.. Now, if God is omnipotent, surely God is the mightiest. You know the old saying? Might = right. If that is true, heeeeeeeey.

That last part was a bit of a joke, but do you get what I'm saying?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 12:41:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 5:36:01 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
No, you are misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying the God is all powerful and all good... But at the same time, I'm saying that your idea of good is faulty.

Yes I know my idea of good is faulty. Why does it matter?

With God, all is good. Human morality =/= good. When you attempt to judge God based on human moral standards, of course God is going to look bad.

I never judged God on human moral standards...


To God, good = right and true. It also just so happens that God is omnipotent.. Now, if God is omnipotent, surely God is the mightiest. You know the old saying? Might = right. If that is true, heeeeeeeey.

That last part was a bit of a joke, but do you get what I'm saying?

Yes, but you haven't really responded to my initial argument. Counter my paradox. How can you reconcile God being all powerful AS WELL AS all good?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 12:52:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM, phantom wrote:
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premiss. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.

I think this argument is very similar to the "infinitely large boulder" argument. Similarly, the flaw in this argument lies in the very definition of omnipotence. Having all-powerful authority or force does not mean God can do anything. For example, we know that water can never be dry (in terms of H2O). In the same manner, God can never sin. Because that would be asking God to create a contradiction, which he cannot do.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 1:53:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 12:41:49 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes, but you haven't really responded to my initial argument. Counter my paradox. How can you reconcile God being all powerful AS WELL AS all good?

Sin is a human construct. God does not follow human constructs.

All powerful in the context of God means that contained within God is the power of all the universe. God literally moves everything, there is nothing in the universe that acts without God.

All good in the context of God means that God is incapable of doing wrong, because humans use God to set the standard that all moral systems are based. God is truth, God is the way things are, God is the ultimate "good". God is right.

God can only be good. If God isn't good, nothing is.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 2:05:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM, phantom wrote:
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premiss. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.

This is why PoE includes the element of Omniscience. He can be all powerful and all good, yet be a complete fvcking idiot.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 2:09:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 5:36:01 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
No, you are misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying the God is all powerful and all good... But at the same time, I'm saying that your idea of good is faulty.

With God, all is good. Human morality =/= good. When you attempt to judge God based on human moral standards, of course God is going to look bad.

Excluding conversations involving God, whenever people use the terms "good" or "evil" we are talking about "Man's" morality. Our human moral standards. We use this for everything in day-to-day life.

What I have never seen justification for is why this should be suspended when analyzing God under this notion that God, a priori is good (but apparently good in a way that is completely at odds with human evolved morality).

No. Good and evil are our terms. We came up with them. When I talk about God being good or evil I'm talking about him being good or evil along the lines with how I talk about anything else being good or evil: according to human standards.

I don't care about any other standard. Oh, so God has a standard by which he is always judged to be good? Whoop-e-dee-doo. Don't care. Anyone can do that. I can create a standard by which all I do is good. To say God's is any more valid than mine is nothing more than special pleading.



To God, good = right and true. It also just so happens that God is omnipotent.. Now, if God is omnipotent, surely God is the mightiest. You know the old saying? Might = right. If that is true, heeeeeeeey.

That last part was a bit of a joke, but do you get what I'm saying?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 2:23:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 1:53:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

All good in the context of God means that God is incapable of doing wrong, because humans use God to set the standard that all moral systems are based. God is truth, God is the way things are, God is the ultimate "good". God is right.

Exactly if God is incapable of doing something wouldn't that rule out the idea that God is all powerful?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 2:30:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 2:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
Exactly if God is incapable of doing something wouldn't that rule out the idea that God is all powerful?
No. I have already clarified this in my previous post.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 3:01:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 2:30:25 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
At 11/15/2011 2:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
Exactly if God is incapable of doing something wouldn't that rule out the idea that God is all powerful?
No. I have already clarified this in my previous post.

I'm not sure about your definition of all powerful. It's not the same as what I usually here.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 3:09:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 3:01:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/15/2011 2:30:25 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
At 11/15/2011 2:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
Exactly if God is incapable of doing something wouldn't that rule out the idea that God is all powerful?
No. I have already clarified this in my previous post.

I'm not sure about your definition of all powerful. It's not the same as what I usually hear.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 3:16:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 3:09:26 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/15/2011 3:01:51 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/15/2011 2:30:25 PM, Buckethead31594 wrote:
At 11/15/2011 2:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
Exactly if God is incapable of doing something wouldn't that rule out the idea that God is all powerful?
No. I have already clarified this in my previous post.

I'm not sure about your definition of all powerful. It's not the same as what I usually hear.

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 4:00:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 2:09:38 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:36:01 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
No, you are misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying the God is all powerful and all good... But at the same time, I'm saying that your idea of good is faulty.

With God, all is good. Human morality =/= good. When you attempt to judge God based on human moral standards, of course God is going to look bad.

Excluding conversations involving God, whenever people use the terms "good" or "evil" we are talking about "Man's" morality. Our human moral standards. We use this for everything in day-to-day life.

What I have never seen justification for is why this should be suspended when analyzing God under this notion that God, a priori is good (but apparently good in a way that is completely at odds with human evolved morality).

No. Good and evil are our terms. We came up with them. When I talk about God being good or evil I'm talking about him being good or evil along the lines with how I talk about anything else being good or evil: according to human standards.

I don't care about any other standard. Oh, so God has a standard by which he is always judged to be good? Whoop-e-dee-doo. Don't care. Anyone can do that. I can create a standard by which all I do is good. To say God's is any more valid than mine is nothing more than special pleading.


You apparently do not comprehend how absurd it is to apply God to measurements that are a complete fabrication of the human mind.

God is literally good, what is right, what is true. Unless you have a problem accepting the way the world is, you aren't going to have a problem with this.

At 11/15/2011 2:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/15/2011 1:53:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

All good in the context of God means that God is incapable of doing wrong, because humans use God to set the standard that all moral systems are based. God is truth, God is the way things are, God is the ultimate "good". God is right.

Exactly if God is incapable of doing something wouldn't that rule out the idea that God is all powerful?

This is a semantical argument, though you may not realize it.

God is incapable of doing wrong, because God sets the standard for what "right" is. God is right. If God does something "wrong", it isn't actually wrong, it is right. You get what I'm saying?

You are basically saying that God isn't all powerful because God doesn't make square circles. God is the "all power". Why does something have to go beyond the natural for it to be considered all powerful? This is foolishness.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 4:16:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 4:00:32 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/15/2011 2:09:38 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/14/2011 5:36:01 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
No, you are misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying the God is all powerful and all good... But at the same time, I'm saying that your idea of good is faulty.

With God, all is good. Human morality =/= good. When you attempt to judge God based on human moral standards, of course God is going to look bad.

Excluding conversations involving God, whenever people use the terms "good" or "evil" we are talking about "Man's" morality. Our human moral standards. We use this for everything in day-to-day life.

What I have never seen justification for is why this should be suspended when analyzing God under this notion that God, a priori is good (but apparently good in a way that is completely at odds with human evolved morality).

No. Good and evil are our terms. We came up with them. When I talk about God being good or evil I'm talking about him being good or evil along the lines with how I talk about anything else being good or evil: according to human standards.

I don't care about any other standard. Oh, so God has a standard by which he is always judged to be good? Whoop-e-dee-doo. Don't care. Anyone can do that. I can create a standard by which all I do is good. To say God's is any more valid than mine is nothing more than special pleading.


You apparently do not comprehend how absurd it is to apply God to measurements that are a complete fabrication of the human mind.

Yes. I do. Every concept, including god, is a fabrication of the human mind.


God is literally good, what is right, what is true. Unless you have a problem accepting the way the world is, you aren't going to have a problem with this.


No. I stated what my problem is.


At 11/15/2011 2:23:11 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/15/2011 1:53:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

All good in the context of God means that God is incapable of doing wrong, because humans use God to set the standard that all moral systems are based. God is truth, God is the way things are, God is the ultimate "good". God is right.

Exactly if God is incapable of doing something wouldn't that rule out the idea that God is all powerful?

This is a semantical argument, though you may not realize it.

God is incapable of doing wrong, because God sets the standard for what "right" is. God is right. If God does something "wrong", it isn't actually wrong, it is right. You get what I'm saying?

You are basically saying that God isn't all powerful because God doesn't make square circles. God is the "all power". Why does something have to go beyond the natural for it to be considered all powerful? This is foolishness.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 4:32:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 4:16:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes. I do. Every concept, including god, is a fabrication of the human mind.

Yes, but depending on how you define it, God can either be a very real thing, or a very unreal thing.

If prescribe God the qualities of being all powerful, all good, all knowing, eternal, and all present, there is really only one thing that God can be. God is a riddle, the problem is, most people think they already know the answer to the riddle before they even knew that it was a riddle.

You can blame culture for that. God is a riddle, remember this.


God is literally good, what is right, what is true. Unless you have a problem accepting the way the world is, you aren't going to have a problem with this.


No. I stated what my problem is.


Yes, you consider it special pleading, but if you know what God is, you will realize that I am making no fallacy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 9:44:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM, phantom wrote:
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premises. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.

--I think the refutation of this lies in the fact that saying "God is all good" means that he doesn't sin, not that he can't sin. God has the power to sin, if he is omnipotent, he just never will.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:28:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 9:44:17 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM, phantom wrote:
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premises. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.

--I think the refutation of this lies in the fact that saying "God is all good" means that he doesn't sin, not that he can't sin. God has the power to sin, if he is omnipotent, he just never will.

Yes, this is exactly what I was implying in my first sentence of the last paragraph. However as I pointed out most theists believe an all good God CAN'T sin.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 10:26:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 10:28:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/15/2011 9:44:17 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/14/2011 2:31:26 PM, phantom wrote:
If God is all powerful God can do anything.
If God can do anything God can do sinful acts.
If God is all good than he cannot sin.
If God can't do something than he's not all powerful.

Therefore if God is all good than he cannot be all powerful, and if God is all powerful he cannot be all good.

I think the main question lies with the third premises. Can an all good God have the ability to sin? But I think most Christians who believe God is all good also say that it is impossible for God to sin. Hence my making this thread.

--I think the refutation of this lies in the fact that saying "God is all good" means that he doesn't sin, not that he can't sin. God has the power to sin, if he is omnipotent, he just never will.

Yes, this is exactly what I was implying in my first sentence of the last paragraph. However as I pointed out most theists believe an all good God CAN'T sin.

Again, I have already clarified this:

-God cannot sin, because that would be contradicting his very nature.
-God cannot create a contradiction. Period.
-Inability to create a contradiction does not limit God's power in any way.
-God is the embodiment of all things truthful and rational, therefore, contradictions are not a part of God.

If God COULD somehow sin:

-God would and wouldn't be able to lift a rock too heavy for him.
-God would be both omnipotent and powerless at the same time.
-God would be both omniscient and foolish at the same time.
-God would be both omnipresent and absent at the same time.
-God would exist and not exist at the same time
-etc.

It is quite clear that God CANNOT contradict himself. If God contradicted himself, this would create a whole list of of irrational conclusions that wouldn't make any sense.

Now, with this clarified, if God did something that we thought was "evil," it would be impossible for it to be a sin; henceforth, it would be impossible for it to be evil. We could only assume, through logical reasoning, that whatever God did was just and true. Unfortunately, we cannot think otherwise because as I have stated earlier, that would make God contradict himself; which is impossible.

You must remember, that sinning is not an ability, it is the absence of Godliness. I have proven through this line of logic, that God cannot sin because he is not evil. Evil is not the by product of corruption, but the absence of God. Therefore, if God is infinitely good, he cannot be infinitely evil. Case closed.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 10:48:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 4:32:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/15/2011 4:16:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes. I do. Every concept, including god, is a fabrication of the human mind.

Yes, but depending on how you define it, God can either be a very real thing, or a very unreal thing.

Any definition of God that references good is referencing the concept of good as defined by humans. Otherwise the definition is nonsensical.


If prescribe God the qualities of being all powerful, all good, all knowing, eternal, and all present, there is really only one thing that God can be. God is a riddle, the problem is, most people think they already know the answer to the riddle before they even knew that it was a riddle.

Inasmuch as we are trying to describe an existing entity, defining it in a specific way does not magically grant it those properties.

Inasmuch as we are defining a novel concept, defining it does not magically grant it existence.

It's one or the other. Either you're attempting to describe something which already exists, in which case the definition alone is not enough to assert that said something has the properties you decided to define it with, or you are attempting to define something from the ground up, in which case the definition alone is not enough to assert that anything exists which meets the definition.

In either case the definition or description must use existing, known, concepts as part of its construction. When you said "God is good" then you are referring to the existing concept of good. Otherwise the definition isn't a riddle, it's a lie.

So if you are attempting to describe or define something as good, then point to some hypothetical entity in which that description or definition is supposed to apply, then I'm going to judge it using the standards that exist and I know of. If it doesn't meet the standard of good, then it isn't good. Either your description is wrong, or you're trying to apply it to the wrong being.


You can blame culture for that. God is a riddle, remember this.

No.



God is literally good, what is right, what is true. Unless you have a problem accepting the way the world is, you aren't going to have a problem with this.


No. I stated what my problem is.


Yes, you consider it special pleading, but if you know what God is, you will realize that I am making no fallacy.

Uhm, no. Knowing God in the sense you have described requires me to abandon the human-defined concept of God. Yet it is precisely this abandonment without justification that has caused me to levie the accusation of special pleading. Provide the justification and I'll consider it. You must first tell me why I should abandon the concept before I can consider applying it to anything.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 12:12:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Buckethead we're just arguing definitions here. If my definitions apply, I'm right, if your definitions apply you're right. You say earlier "we know that water can never be dry (in terms of H2O)." Maybe not so much on ddo, because people are generally smarter, but in the real world most Christians would say that God CAN make water dry.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Buckethead31594
Posts: 363
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 1:40:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 12:12:02 PM, phantom wrote:
@Buckethead we're just arguing definitions here. If my definitions apply, I'm right, if your definitions apply you're right. You say earlier "we know that water can never be dry (in terms of H2O)." Maybe not so much on ddo, because people are generally smarter, but in the real world most Christians would say that God CAN make water dry.

I understand, and I appreciate the response. But with all due respect, my definition comes from a trusted source. Secondly, I have proven through logic that God cannot contradict himself, you cannot deny this. I have proven that God cannot sin; the only way he could, is if he became infinitely evil after setting the standard for sin, which is impossible. Say how you want it friend, I have proven that God can be all powerful and good at the same time.

Christians would say that God can create a contradiction, those who haven't observed arguments like yours.
"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 2:45:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 10:48:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
Any definition of God that references good is referencing the concept of good as defined by humans. Otherwise the definition is nonsensical.


Good being defined as what is objectively true.

If prescribe God the qualities of being all powerful, all good, all knowing, eternal, and all present, there is really only one thing that God can be. God is a riddle, the problem is, most people think they already know the answer to the riddle before they even knew that it was a riddle.

Inasmuch as we are trying to describe an existing entity, defining it in a specific way does not magically grant it those properties.

Inasmuch as we are defining a novel concept, defining it does not magically grant it existence.

It's one or the other. Either you're attempting to describe something which already exists, in which case the definition alone is not enough to assert that said something has the properties you decided to define it with, or you are attempting to define something from the ground up, in which case the definition alone is not enough to assert that anything exists which meets the definition.

In either case the definition or description must use existing, known, concepts as part of its construction. When you said "God is good" then you are referring to the existing concept of good. Otherwise the definition isn't a riddle, it's a lie.

So if you are attempting to describe or define something as good, then point to some hypothetical entity in which that description or definition is supposed to apply, then I'm going to judge it using the standards that exist and I know of. If it doesn't meet the standard of good, then it isn't good. Either your description is wrong, or you're trying to apply it to the wrong being.


No, you still don't understand.

If you take the qualities that are prescribed to God, you will find that there is something out there that actually has these qualities.


You can blame culture for that. God is a riddle, remember this.

No.


Which is why you are being awfully dull about this. You'd rather debate against the patently ridiculous position. You'd rather have a conversation with the woefully incompetent and ignorant than actually discuss things with someone who knows what they are talking about.

Society has built itself off of the assumption of already knowing what God is. A good deal of our culture comes from not understanding the riddle, and then making it concrete into something that is entirely different.

To deny the God I'm speaking of is to either not understand it, or be insane.

Yes, you consider it special pleading, but if you know what God is, you will realize that I am making no fallacy.

Uhm, no. Knowing God in the sense you have described requires me to abandon the human-defined concept of God. Yet it is precisely this abandonment without justification that has caused me to levie the accusation of special pleading. Provide the justification and I'll consider it. You must first tell me why I should abandon the concept before I can consider applying it to anything.

God can be defined as "The supreme or ultimate reality".(merriam-webster)

What I'm saying does not contradict this. If you want to argue that fairy tales are not the supreme and ultimate reality, go ahead, but what I am saying is true. There is no argument against it, and it is very obviously true. The only argument against the God I am speaking of is ignorance. The existence of this God is not only apparent, but like I said, you'd have to either not understand it, or be insane to deny it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 8:32:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 2:45:48 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/16/2011 10:48:05 AM, drafterman wrote:
Any definition of God that references good is referencing the concept of good as defined by humans. Otherwise the definition is nonsensical.


Good being defined as what is objectively true.

I'd like a reference for this. There are hings that are objectively true that aren't good.


If prescribe God the qualities of being all powerful, all good, all knowing, eternal, and all present, there is really only one thing that God can be. God is a riddle, the problem is, most people think they already know the answer to the riddle before they even knew that it was a riddle.

Inasmuch as we are trying to describe an existing entity, defining it in a specific way does not magically grant it those properties.

Inasmuch as we are defining a novel concept, defining it does not magically grant it existence.

It's one or the other. Either you're attempting to describe something which already exists, in which case the definition alone is not enough to assert that said something has the properties you decided to define it with, or you are attempting to define something from the ground up, in which case the definition alone is not enough to assert that anything exists which meets the definition.

In either case the definition or description must use existing, known, concepts as part of its construction. When you said "God is good" then you are referring to the existing concept of good. Otherwise the definition isn't a riddle, it's a lie.

So if you are attempting to describe or define something as good, then point to some hypothetical entity in which that description or definition is supposed to apply, then I'm going to judge it using the standards that exist and I know of. If it doesn't meet the standard of good, then it isn't good. Either your description is wrong, or you're trying to apply it to the wrong being.


No, you still don't understand.

If you take the qualities that are prescribed to God, you will find that there is something out there that actually has these qualities.

Oh? When will I find that out, exactly?



You can blame culture for that. God is a riddle, remember this.

No.


Which is why you are being awfully dull about this.

I'd rather make sense and be dull than not make sense for the sake of entertaining you.

You'd rather debate against the patently ridiculous position.

I can only work with the tools in front of me, so to speak.

You'd rather have a conversation with the woefully incompetent and ignorant than actually discuss things with someone who knows what they are talking about.

Oh, is that you, is it?


Society has built itself off of the assumption of already knowing what God is. A good deal of our culture comes from not understanding the riddle, and then making it concrete into something that is entirely different.

And I'm supposed to adopt your concept over societies? How about this, I adopt no concept of god until I am presented with sufficient reason to? Oh wait! I'm already doing that!


To deny the God I'm speaking of is to either not understand it, or be insane.

Of course I don't understand it, you've already placed it outside the bounds of human understanding by defining it using human created words but insisting that the human created definitions for those words don't apply.


Yes, you consider it special pleading, but if you know what God is, you will realize that I am making no fallacy.

Uhm, no. Knowing God in the sense you have described requires me to abandon the human-defined concept of God. Yet it is precisely this abandonment without justification that has caused me to levie the accusation of special pleading. Provide the justification and I'll consider it. You must first tell me why I should abandon the concept before I can consider applying it to anything.

God can be defined as "The supreme or ultimate reality".(merriam-webster)

Which, if the definition is intended to describe an actual being, magically make it "the supreme or ultimate reality" nor does it actually make such a being exist.


What I'm saying does not contradict this. If you want to argue that fairy tales are not the supreme and ultimate reality, go ahead, but what I am saying is true. There is no argument against it, and it is very obviously true. The only argument against the God I am speaking of is ignorance. The existence of this God is not only apparent, but like I said, you'd have to either not understand it, or be insane to deny it.

Ok. God is the supreme and ultimate reality. And Jacob is a sparkly vampire. Care to provide a reason why I should grant more credibility to the existence of your defined god than Jacob?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:00:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It really isn't that difficult to figure out.

I called it, "The God That Exists As Actuality".

The name itself describes what I'm talking about. You don't have to use the word "god", but you could and would technically still be right.

This definition of God reaches across cultures, and has been confused due to difficult nature of describing it in ancient tongue. The Hebrews called it "I am that I am", or "I exist"

It means the same thing as what I'm saying.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:20:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:00:33 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It really isn't that difficult to figure out.

I called it, "The God That Exists As Actuality".

The name itself describes what I'm talking about. You don't have to use the word "god", but you could and would technically still be right.

This definition of God reaches across cultures, and has been confused due to difficult nature of describing it in ancient tongue. The Hebrews called it "I am that I am", or "I exist"

It means the same thing as what I'm saying.

So... god is existence?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 4:37:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:20:58 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:00:33 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It really isn't that difficult to figure out.

I called it, "The God That Exists As Actuality".

The name itself describes what I'm talking about. You don't have to use the word "god", but you could and would technically still be right.

This definition of God reaches across cultures, and has been confused due to difficult nature of describing it in ancient tongue. The Hebrews called it "I am that I am", or "I exist"

It means the same thing as what I'm saying.

So... god is existence?

Yes.

Existence itself, which I'm sure you get.. Though someone a while back took it to mean their personal existence.. or something.. I'm talking about existence itself.

Which, could be considered a form of pantheism if you go by the accepted definition that "Universe - the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated; the totality of everything that exists."

So you can see that God as an entity that is separate from the universe is a self refuting concept.. By saying that God is separate from all that exists... well.. God doesn't exist. Most supporters of KCA will try to monkey around this by changing the definition of "universe" to something that it doesn't truly mean.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp