Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Can God exist?

Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:39:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

You're defining power in terms of how imperfect someone can be. The more imperfect you can be, the more powerful you are.

There might also be a multitude of equally good possible options.
KwLm
Posts: 472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:49:14 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

Good and bad, good and evil, both are subjective, what one person sees as good another can see as bad
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 12:52:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:39:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

You're defining power in terms of how imperfect someone can be. The more imperfect you can be, the more powerful you are.

There might also be a multitude of equally good possible options.

I thought I was being quite specific in defining power as the amount of choice someone has. Do you not accept that definition?

But, in a sense you are correct. It would appear that it is because of his inability to be anything other than perfect, god has less choice and therefore is less powerful than humans. Which, I believe, leads to the same conclusion.
bulproof
Posts: 25,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:00:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:39:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

You're defining power in terms of how imperfect someone can be. The more imperfect you can be, the more powerful you are.

There might also be a multitude of equally good possible options.

What he is saying is that I can make a decision which is something your god is incapable of, I possess a power that is beyond the capacity of your god therefore it is not all powerful.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:15:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 12:52:48 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:39:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

Don't we all have the freedom to choose our own actions? If so, we all have an equal amount of power in that area.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

Goodness does not make choices. Goodness is a subjective quality not a sentient thing that chooses to be what it is. Sentient beings like people make choices about the qualities of good or evil. People are the embodiment of good or evil. Good people attempt to choose the best action from a set of possibilities but making the best choice does not mean you can only make one choice. The best choice can be a combination of multiple choices which work together to result in a planned outcome.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Humanity is capable of both good and bad since good and bad are subjective. What one judges as good another may judge as bad. There is no absolute world wide standard, no "one size fits all" , when it comes to judgement of good and bad in general.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

Goodness ( God) is a quality which has no choices. It simply is what it is regardless of how people judge it .
People are not more powerful than goodness since goodness, like Love, is a quality which makes people weak or powerful.
Qualities cannot contradict themselves. They are contradicted by opposite qualities.
A good person for example cannot contradict his own good qualities. He can hide them and manifest bad qualities instead but hiding ones good qualities to display bad qualities has nothing to do with goodness contradicting itself. It has more to do with choices people make to manifest their good or bad aspects of character.

You're defining power in terms of how imperfect someone can be. The more imperfect you can be, the more powerful you are.

There might also be a multitude of equally good possible options.

I thought I was being quite specific in defining power as the amount of choice someone has. Do you not accept that definition?

You originally defined power as freedom of choice not the amount of choice. When it comes to choices the amount is infinite till people confine their choices to a limited mind set.
People make choices about what qualities they wish to manifest in their lives. The qualities themselves have no choice in the matter.

But, in a sense you are correct. It would appear that it is because of his inability to be anything other than perfect, god has less choice and therefore is less powerful than humans. Which, I believe, leads to the same conclusion.

Qualities are incapable of making choices. They are incapable of being anything other than perfect. They can be perfectly good or perfectly bad or perfectly neutral in peoples judgements but of themselves they are what they are.
Qualities are not more or less powerful than humans. Qualities make people weak or powerful. To claim a quality is less powerful than you are is as ridiculous as claiming that love in general is less powerful than love which manifests through you.
Obviously you have not thought it through.
When you manifest goodness you are the embodiment of goodness.
When you manifest evil you are the embodiment of evil.
When you manifest an action which some judge as good and others judge as evil, what are you the embodiment of? A living paradox?
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:19:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

I'm not quite sure if the concept of free will persists as such, but this is an interesting view point that I haven't seen yet. Are we to not say that God has a choice as he permits these people's existance and gives them the ability to perform their tasks. Wouldn't without him there be no free will resulting in puppetry?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:29:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:15:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:52:48 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:39:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

Don't we all have the freedom to choose our own actions? If so, we all have an equal amount of power in that area.

A prison warden can choose what time they eat, go to bed, get up, etc... A prisoner cannot. The warden has more choices, so is more powerful.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

Goodness does not make choices. Goodness is a subjective quality not a sentient thing that chooses to be what it is. Sentient beings like people make choices about the qualities of good or evil. People are the embodiment of good or evil. Good people attempt to choose the best action from a set of possibilities but making the best choice does not mean you can only make one choice. The best choice can be a combination of multiple choices which work together to result in a planned outcome.

I take it you are adopting some sort of "we are God" position. In that case, this becomes a non-argument. My argument only applies to a God which is a sentient being.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Humanity is capable of both good and bad since good and bad are subjective. What one judges as good another may judge as bad. There is no absolute world wide standard, no "one size fits all" , when it comes to judgement of good and bad in general.

I don't find much to disagree with in this statement.


Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

Goodness ( God) is a quality which has no choices. It simply is what it is regardless of how people judge it .
People are not more powerful than goodness since goodness, like Love, is a quality which makes people weak or powerful.
Qualities cannot contradict themselves. They are contradicted by opposite qualities.
A good person for example cannot contradict his own good qualities. He can hide them and manifest bad qualities instead but hiding ones good qualities to display bad qualities has nothing to do with goodness contradicting itself. It has more to do with choices people make to manifest their good or bad aspects of character.

OK, I now see that goodness is God is a characteristic, according to your definition. That is not the God my argument seeks to address.

You're defining power in terms of how imperfect someone can be. The more imperfect you can be, the more powerful you are.

There might also be a multitude of equally good possible options.

I thought I was being quite specific in defining power as the amount of choice someone has. Do you not accept that definition?

You originally defined power as freedom of choice not the amount of choice. When it comes to choices the amount is infinite till people confine their choices to a limited mind set.
People make choices about what qualities they wish to manifest in their lives. The qualities themselves have no choice in the matter.

Again, definitions.


But, in a sense you are correct. It would appear that it is because of his inability to be anything other than perfect, god has less choice and therefore is less powerful than humans. Which, I believe, leads to the same conclusion.

Qualities are incapable of making choices. They are incapable of being anything other than perfect. They can be perfectly good or perfectly bad or perfectly neutral in peoples judgements but of themselves they are what they are.
Qualities are not more or less powerful than humans. Qualities make people weak or powerful. To claim a quality is less powerful than you are is as ridiculous as claiming that love in general is less powerful than love which manifests through you.
Obviously you have not thought it through.
When you manifest goodness you are the embodiment of goodness.
When you manifest evil you are the embodiment of evil.
When you manifest an action which some judge as good and others judge as evil, what are you the embodiment of? A living paradox?

I have thought it through. My argument is based around the 99.9999% of definitions of God which don't claim God is a characteristic of people. If that's the definition you want to adopt, that's your prerogative, but this assertion doesn't address that God.
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:33:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:19:26 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

I'm not quite sure if the concept of free will persists as such, but this is an interesting view point that I haven't seen yet. Are we to not say that God has a choice as he permits these people's existance and gives them the ability to perform their tasks. Wouldn't without him there be no free will resulting in puppetry?

God does indeed permit the people to exist (according to the story anyway). But does he have a choice? Remember, in allowing or not allowing them to exist, one option is presumably better than the other, and he chose the better option. He HAD to choose the better option, as to choose the worse option would be against his nature.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:43:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:33:52 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:19:26 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

I'm not quite sure if the concept of free will persists as such, but this is an interesting view point that I haven't seen yet. Are we to not say that God has a choice as he permits these people's existance and gives them the ability to perform their tasks. Wouldn't without him there be no free will resulting in puppetry?

God does indeed permit the people to exist (according to the story anyway). But does he have a choice? Remember, in allowing or not allowing them to exist, one option is presumably better than the other, and he chose the better option. He HAD to choose the better option, as to choose the worse option would be against his nature.

Did he really choose the better option? St. Augustine's Platonic take on Free Will shows how people are allowd to select the good they view the most desirable no matter if it's the best or not. Can we not say the same for God which creation may not have been the best option, but he still elected to do so.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:47:08 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:43:07 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:33:52 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:19:26 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

I'm not quite sure if the concept of free will persists as such, but this is an interesting view point that I haven't seen yet. Are we to not say that God has a choice as he permits these people's existance and gives them the ability to perform their tasks. Wouldn't without him there be no free will resulting in puppetry?

God does indeed permit the people to exist (according to the story anyway). But does he have a choice? Remember, in allowing or not allowing them to exist, one option is presumably better than the other, and he chose the better option. He HAD to choose the better option, as to choose the worse option would be against his nature.

Did he really choose the better option? St. Augustine's Platonic take on Free Will shows how people are allowd to select the good they view the most desirable no matter if it's the best or not. Can we not say the same for God which creation may not have been the best option, but he still elected to do so.

Then you would have to define best, and presumably, that would be the one that suited his purpose, and/or that he was happiest with. Could he go against his own will?
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 5:50:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:47:08 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:43:07 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:33:52 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:19:26 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

I'm not quite sure if the concept of free will persists as such, but this is an interesting view point that I haven't seen yet. Are we to not say that God has a choice as he permits these people's existance and gives them the ability to perform their tasks. Wouldn't without him there be no free will resulting in puppetry?

God does indeed permit the people to exist (according to the story anyway). But does he have a choice? Remember, in allowing or not allowing them to exist, one option is presumably better than the other, and he chose the better option. He HAD to choose the better option, as to choose the worse option would be against his nature.

Did he really choose the better option? St. Augustine's Platonic take on Free Will shows how people are allowd to select the good they view the most desirable no matter if it's the best or not. Can we not say the same for God which creation may not have been the best option, but he still elected to do so.

Then you would have to define best, and presumably, that would be the one that suited his purpose, and/or that he was happiest with. Could he go against his own will?

Well best would be subjective at this point since neither of us can know what is truly the best good whether we are looking for intrinsic or instramental good. There are many ways which someone can say one this is good. It would depend if his own will is set. I find this as a Catch-22 here.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 6:07:03 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 5:29:50 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:15:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:52:48 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:39:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

Don't we all have the freedom to choose our own actions? If so, we all have an equal amount of power in that area.

A prison warden can choose what time they eat, go to bed, get up, etc... A prisoner cannot. The warden has more choices, so is more powerful.

I am referring to people who are free in the first place not to prisoners or slaves who are locked in cages and treated like animals.
Free people are all free to choose their own actions. Some choose to take other peoples freedom away from them.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

Goodness does not make choices. Goodness is a subjective quality not a sentient thing that chooses to be what it is. Sentient beings like people make choices about the qualities of good or evil. People are the embodiment of good or evil. Good people attempt to choose the best action from a set of possibilities but making the best choice does not mean you can only make one choice. The best choice can be a combination of multiple choices which work together to result in a planned outcome.

I take it you are adopting some sort of "we are God" position. In that case, this becomes a non-argument. My argument only applies to a God which is a sentient being.

You said God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. The only real embodiment of goodness of which I am aware are sentient humans. An invisible entity is not an embodiment of anything since you need a physical visible body to be an embodiment of anything.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
A tangible or visible form of an idea, quality, or feeling.

Where is your visible form of God? An embodiment of something is a visible form of it.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Humanity is capable of both good and bad since good and bad are subjective. What one judges as good another may judge as bad. There is no absolute world wide standard, no "one size fits all" , when it comes to judgement of good and bad in general.

I don't find much to disagree with in this statement.


Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

Goodness ( God) is a quality which has no choices. It simply is what it is regardless of how people judge it .
People are not more powerful than goodness since goodness, like Love, is a quality which makes people weak or powerful.
Qualities cannot contradict themselves. They are contradicted by opposite qualities.
A good person for example cannot contradict his own good qualities. He can hide them and manifest bad qualities instead but hiding ones good qualities to display bad qualities has nothing to do with goodness contradicting itself. It has more to do with choices people make to manifest their good or bad aspects of character.

OK, I now see that goodness is God is a characteristic, according to your definition. That is not the God my argument seeks to address.

You're defining power in terms of how imperfect someone can be. The more imperfect you can be, the more powerful you are.

There might also be a multitude of equally good possible options.

I thought I was being quite specific in defining power as the amount of choice someone has. Do you not accept that definition?

You originally defined power as freedom of choice not the amount of choice. When it comes to choices the amount is infinite till people confine their choices to a limited mind set.
People make choices about what qualities they wish to manifest in their lives. The qualities themselves have no choice in the matter.

Again, definitions.


But, in a sense you are correct. It would appear that it is because of his inability to be anything other than perfect, god has less choice and therefore is less powerful than humans. Which, I believe, leads to the same conclusion.

Qualities are incapable of making choices. They are incapable of being anything other than perfect. They can be perfectly good or perfectly bad or perfectly neutral in peoples judgements but of themselves they are what they are.
Qualities are not more or less powerful than humans. Qualities make people weak or powerful. To claim a quality is less powerful than you are is as ridiculous as claiming that love in general is less powerful than love which manifests through you.
Obviously you have not thought it through.
When you manifest goodness you are the embodiment of goodness.
When you manifest evil you are the embodiment of evil.
When you manifest an action which some judge as good and others judge as evil, what are you the embodiment of? A living paradox?

I have thought it through. My argument is based around the 99.9999% of definitions of God which don't claim God is a characteristic of people. If that's the definition you want to adopt, that's your prerogative, but this assertion doesn't address that God.

You defined God as the "supreme embodiment of goodness." The only way I can literally see that " God" is through the general corporate body of humans.
Are you referring to some different god which is not an embodiment of anything since it has no tangible visible form at all?
Skeptical1
Posts: 650
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2016 6:40:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/1/2016 6:07:03 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:29:50 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 5:15:34 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:52:48 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/1/2016 12:39:04 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 10:53:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Just a little thought experiment - feel free to pick it to pieces (like you need to be told that). I'm sure it's been suggested before anyway.

Some working definitions:

God: a supremely powerful, supremely good, supernatural being.

Power: freedom of choice. Someone who has little power has little possibility to choose outcomes. Someone who has great power has freedom to choose their actions.

Don't we all have the freedom to choose our own actions? If so, we all have an equal amount of power in that area.

A prison warden can choose what time they eat, go to bed, get up, etc... A prisoner cannot. The warden has more choices, so is more powerful.

I am referring to people who are free in the first place not to prisoners or slaves who are locked in cages and treated like animals.
Free people are all free to choose their own actions. Some choose to take other peoples freedom away from them.


Even among "free" people, there are degrees of freedom of choice, and thus power. A rich person can choose to go sailing on their yacht on the weekend, a street person cannot.

God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. Goodness actually is His essence. Therefore, in any given situation, God will choose the most good action of the set of all possible actions. This means for every possible choice of actions in all of eternity, God can only make one choice.

Goodness does not make choices. Goodness is a subjective quality not a sentient thing that chooses to be what it is. Sentient beings like people make choices about the qualities of good or evil. People are the embodiment of good or evil. Good people attempt to choose the best action from a set of possibilities but making the best choice does not mean you can only make one choice. The best choice can be a combination of multiple choices which work together to result in a planned outcome.

I take it you are adopting some sort of "we are God" position. In that case, this becomes a non-argument. My argument only applies to a God which is a sentient being.

You said God is the supreme embodiment of goodness. The only real embodiment of goodness of which I am aware are sentient humans. An invisible entity is not an embodiment of anything since you need a physical visible body to be an embodiment of anything.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
A tangible or visible form of an idea, quality, or feeling.

Similar expressions are common in religious literature, as for example, the following taken from a Christian website:

"God is the embodiment of love"
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...

The following alternative definition shows that embodiment refers to giving form to an abstract concept:

"a concrete representation of an otherwise nebulous concept"
https://www.vocabulary.com...

but, if you want to pick over it, we can use another term. What would you prefer? "Personification"? "Realisation"?


Where is your visible form of God? An embodiment of something is a visible form of it.

See above.

According to which theology you accept, humanity is either capable of good or bad, or else incapable of good, but capable of degrees of badness. Either way, for of each decision we face, we have a number of choices from which to select, and the ability to choose between them.

Humanity is capable of both good and bad since good and bad are subjective. What one judges as good another may judge as bad. There is no absolute world wide standard, no "one size fits all" , when it comes to judgement of good and bad in general.

I don't find much to disagree with in this statement.


Since God has no choice in what He does, and men and women do have a choice, we are more powerful than God. Thus God is not the supremely powerful being, contradicting His own existence.

Goodness ( God) is a quality which has no choices. It simply is what it is regardless of how people judge it .
People are not more powerful than goodness since goodness, like Love, is a quality which makes people weak or powerful.
Qualities cannot contradict themselves. They are contradicted by opposite qualities.
A good person for example cannot contradict his own good qualities. He can hide them and manifest bad qualities instead but hiding ones good qualities to display bad qualities has nothing to do with goodness contradicting itself. It has more to do with choices people make to manifest their good or bad aspects of character.

OK, I now see that goodness is God is a characteristic, according to your definition. That is not the God my argument seeks to address.

You're defining power in terms of how imperfect someone can be. The more imperfect you can be, the more powerful you are.

There might also be a multitude of equally good possible options.

I thought I was being quite specific in defining power as the amount of choice someone has. Do you not accept that definition?

You originally defined power as freedom of choice not the amount of choice. When it comes to choices the amount is infinite till people confine their choices to a limited mind set.
People make choices about what qualities they wish to manifest in their lives. The qualities themselves have no choice in the matter.

Again, definitions.


But, in a sense you are correct. It would appear that it is because of his inability to be anything other than perfect, god has less choice and therefore is less powerful than humans. Which, I believe, leads to the same conclusion.

Qualities are incapable of making choices. They are incapable of being anything other than perfect. They can be perfectly good or perfectly bad or perfectly neutral in peoples judgements but of themselves they are what they are.
Qualities are not more or less powerful than humans. Qualities make people weak or powerful. To claim a quality is less powerful than you are is as ridiculous as claiming that love in general is less powerful than love which manifests through you.
Obviously you have not thought it through.
When you manifest goodness you are the embodiment of goodness.
When you manifest evil you are the embodiment of evil.
When you manifest an action which some judge as good and others judge as evil, what are you the embodiment of? A living paradox?

I have thought it through. My argument is based around the 99.9999% of definitions of God which don't claim God is a characteristic of people. If that's the definition you want to adopt, that's your prerogative, but this assertion doesn't address that God.


You defined God as the "supreme embodiment of goodness." The only way I can literally see that " God" is through the general corporate body of humans.
Are you referring to some different god which is not an embodiment of anything since it has no tangible visible form at all?

I am referring to any definition of God which contains the concept of a supreme being, possessed of intelligence. If necessary, I'll amend the definition as required.