Explain to me what heavy means to God, and you might understand what my problem is with saying he has infinite power.
The same as it means to anyone else.
No. This doesn't work.
I'll explain below.
A big problem with this conversation is that (despite Blinking Spirit's warning a few pages back) people have been maintaining the notion that the definitions of words like "morality" and "mass" are non-objective. But those things are defined objectively, and indeed they must be if we hope to have a sane conversation.
Having a coherent definition of what the word Morality means, doesn't mean that Morality is objective, and I reject any claim that Morality is objective, that isn't accompanied by a vigorous argument in support of such a claim.
Likewise, having a coherent definition of the word power, does not mean that Powerfulness is objective.
What's powerful to an ANT is nothing compared to what's powerful for a Tyrannosaurus.
"Mass" means the same thing to God as it does to us, because logic requires that terms are defined objectively. If we are able to determine that the mass of an object is 1kg, then God will make the same determination. (God's observation may, of course, be more accurate than ours, but the thing he's computing -- mass -- is the same thing we're computing.)
The coefficient of Mass is not the same thing as Heaviness. And neither of those words could have any relevance at all to God.
Having an objective definition of Mass does not mean that Heaviness is objective.
Your own words:
"I can no more tell you what "the last number of infinity" is than you can tell me what is the mass of the heaviest ball of lead God could make. And that, I think, is the point."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heaviness
What is heavy to God?
What is he lifting the ball with?
Is gravity involved at all?
How can something have "great weight" to a being that exists outside space-time?
So when someone says that God's powers are infinite, it implies (in the specific context of mass) that his abilities are not confined by any limit or bound on the measured, objective mass of the objects he can work with. There's no number X which has the property that God is unable to manipulate a mass of X kilograms.
I know what people mean when they say it, it doesn't make it a good argument.
What is a kilogram to God?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Having a coherent definition of what the word Morality means, doesn't mean that Morality is objective, and I reject any claim that Morality is objective, that isn't accompanied by a vigorous argument in support of such a claim.
I said objectively defined, not objective -- though I probably should have said "unequivocally defined" to avoid this confusion. If we both agree that morality means "personal opinion concerning the works of Shakespeare," then although morality may not be objective, at least we are talking about the same thing. If, on the other hand, you think it's "personal opinion on Shakespeare" and I think it's "the amount of wood a woodchuck could chuck" then we have a problem.
"Mass" has the virtue of being both objectively defined and objective -- any disagreement about the (rest) mass of an object cannot rest on personal opinion or a difference of perspective. When I ask you if there is a limit to the mass of an object that God can manipulate, I am articulating a coherent sentence using the ordinary, objectively defined and objective, notion of that word. God's involvement doesn't change the meaning of that combination of words.
Likewise, having a coherent definition of the word power, does not mean that Powerfulness is objective.
What's powerful to an ANT is nothing compared to what's powerful for a Tyrannosaurus.
Again, at least according to Aquinian theological thought, God's omnipotence is measured by His absolute ability to do things, not by a comparison between Him and some other being. Even if God were the only being around He would still be omnipotent. The definition of omnipotence that everyone except you is talking about is that one.
So whatever relative definition of power you are attempting to introduce here, the resulting problems and confusion stem from you introducing a new definition, thereby causing an equivocation fallacy.
Focus on the actual question we're discussing: is God's ability to do things limited in space, time, extent, or magnitude?
The coefficient of Mass is not the same thing as Heaviness. And neither of those words could have any relevance at all to God.
Having an objective definition of Mass does not mean that Heaviness is objective.
By "heavy" I meant "massive." I'm not talking about anything based on feeling, subjective evaluation, or even particular gravitational field strength.
As for relevance to God, who cares? Maybe God doesn't care about quantifying the extent of his own power; who can say. What I can tell you is that it is relevant to the debate between us mortals.
I know what people mean when they say it, it doesn't make it a good argument.
It's not an argument. It's an assertion of a property that God has. If you think the property is incoherent, you're the one that has to make the argument.
What is a kilogram to God?
A kilogram is a kilogram. To God and to everyone else as well. This is the law of identity and it is essential to having a sane, logical conversation.
There's really not much we can do with that beyond just going in a circle. "Those actions are important because they are important to God." Anything beyond that would involve knowing the mind of God, which... Best of luck to you with that endeavor.
I perform many actions that I myself would call "meaningless" or "insignificant".
But you are also not God.
How do we know he is extremely interested, versus say moderately interested, and against what are we measuring his level of interest?
Considering he seems to have tabs on literally everything about this universe and is actively manipulating it? Seems to be investing significant concern, right?
Jesus is saying that the poor widow, though she gave only a few coins, gave an offering greater in value than those who gave larger amounts due to the fact that she gave all the money she had.
So, according to you, if God is all-powerful, then he can't give us anything of "great" "value."
That is not what I said at all.
I didn't say "God can't do good"; I said "God can't be good." Jesus' point is that anyone can do good deeds, but they're only evidence of goodness if they're inconvenient to the do-gooder.
No, that's not what Jesus is saying. I said exactly this on the second post of this thread.
How do we know he is extremely interested, versus say moderately interested, and against what are we measuring his level of interest?
Considering he seems to have tabs on literally everything about this universe and is actively manipulating it? Seems to be investing significant concern, right?
To an omnipotent, omniscient being? Nah. Any finite amount over infinity is insignificant. For all we know, he has a bunch of other universes he's more involved in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Yeah the good God wants from his followers is different from the good he is. He does not want his perfect goodness if you will from his followers but just asks that we try as best as e can to follow in his perfect goodness example.
I get what you're saying. You're saying that God holds Himself to different--and higher--standers than He does his followers.
Because He's perfect and humans aren't.
What standard would that be?
Why would you quote me talking about bakgat's God to ask me what standard bakgat thinks His God holds Himself too?
Yeah the good God wants from his followers is different from the good he is. He does not want his perfect goodness if you will from his followers but just asks that we try as best as e can to follow in his perfect goodness example.
I get what you're saying. You're saying that God holds Himself to different--and higher--standers than He does his followers.
Because He's perfect and humans aren't.
What standard would that be?
Why would you quote me talking about bakgat's God to ask me what standard bakgat thinks His God holds Himself too?
He said he wasn't sure if he was getting his point across, you rephrased what he said, and he thanked you. The question was aimed at anyone who feels like answering?
Let me try to explain what I mean again.
Mainly because the way I was trying to explain myself a) didn't work, and b) was stated with incorrect usage of words
(So you're right Crashing and Magic, and whoever else was pointing out my misapplication of the term infinite)
If time, energy, and even gravity, do not apply to God, seeing as he is supposed to exist apart from, and/or outside of such constraints, how can we then say that he is powerful?
Especially if you're going to say that he would be all powerful even if the universe didn't exist (all by himself).
How do we determine what units of energy are used over time by God to perform work?
How much energy did it take for God to create the universe? How can we answer that question if energy doesn't apply to him? Do his actions cause him fatigue?
For instance, if energy did not exist prior to creating the Universe, then can it not be said that it took no energy to create it? If it took no energy to create the Universe, how can it be said that it was was a powerful thing to do?
I do not think these questions are answerable (at the moment).
Because of this, I think the assertion that God is all powerful (or omnipotent) is basically a meaningless catchphrase. We say these things because we don't understand the nature of God's abilities.
Our lack of understanding doesn't strike me as a good excuse to call God omnipotent. Or omni-anything.
We don't actually know what it means to have all the power, and even if we agree to call it all the power in the universe - that is neither limitless, nor well defined.
He said he wasn't sure if he was getting his point across, you rephrased what he said, and he thanked you.
Yeah, I had a good idea of what he was saying because I head something like it before, and I clarified because I hate miscommunication.
However, I don't know the specifics of bakgat's religion's Dogma. I don't even know what flavor of Christian he is, so I can't even make a guesstimate to your question based on wiki or something. But, I doubt even if I DID have all that info I would be able to get at "what this person thinks his God thinks about God," which--I guess--is what you're asking.
]No, that's not what Jesus is saying. I said exactly this on the second post of this thread.
Oh, you mean the one that I quoted?
Since I know the irony of this post is going to go over your head, let me explain:
Your argument was refuted on the second post of this thread, which was a post you not only read, but quoted. You are now, in a sarcastic tone of imagined superiority, drawing attention to the fact that you quoted it, despite the fact that you completely misunderstood the content of the post, which specifically went against what you are arguing.
If time, energy, and even gravity, do not apply to God, seeing as he is supposed to exist apart from, and/or outside of such constraints, how can we then say that he is powerful?
Reread that.
You're asking if God has no constraints, how can we say he is powerful? You just answered your own question.
Jesus is saying that the poor widow, though she gave only a few coins, gave an offering greater in value than those who gave larger amounts due to the fact that she gave all the money she had.
Your explanation could be read to imply that the value of a person's offering is measured by its proportion of that person's possessions. If that's the case, then any finite gift God might give is approximately valueless compared to any mortal gift (any finite amount divided by infinity, etc.).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
To an omnipotent, omniscient being? Nah. Any finite amount over infinity is insignificant. For all we know, he has a bunch of other universes he's more involved in.
Well played.
The thing is, God is also characterized by his love, in particular for this universe and in particular for us.
Let me try to explain what I mean again.
Mainly because the way I was trying to explain myself a) didn't work, and b) was stated with incorrect usage of words
(So you're right Crashing and Magic, and whoever else was pointing out my misapplication of the term infinite)
If time, energy, and even gravity, do not apply to God, seeing as he is supposed to exist apart from, and/or outside of such constraints, how can we then say that he is powerful?
I say again that this comes down to equivocation. You are attempting to introduce a physical definition of power into this conversation, as if the theology of God's power comes down to measuring some number of watts. But the notion of God's metaphysical power is simply not defined in that fashion, and so you are equivocating with your opponents.
The mainstream theological notion of God's power comes from Aquinas' De Potentia Dei -- God's power is in his capacity to act; it is the set of actions he can perform. He is omnipotent if his capacity to act encompasses all logically possible actions.
As a mental aid to you in avoiding this equivocation, it may help you to think of God's powers (like a superhero's powers) rather than his power (as in number of watts).
(Not for nothing, but it also happens that many people argue that the "number of watts" kind of power follows from theological omnipotence in the following sense: insofar as there is no reason to suppose that the notion of generating X watts is contradictory for any X, it is logically possible to generate X watts and therefore an omnipotent God can generate X watts. Since X is unbounded, the number of watts God can generate is similarly unbounded, and therefore God's power is properly called infinite even in the context of wattage.)
Especially if you're going to say that he would be all powerful even if the universe didn't exist (all by himself).How do we determine what units of energy are used over time by God to perform work?How much energy did it take for God to create the universe? How can we answer that question if energy doesn't apply to him? Do his actions cause him fatigue? For instance, if energy did not exist prior to creating the Universe, then can it not be said that it took no energy to create it?
Irrelevant. These issues only arise because of the equivocation. The question is "what kinds of things can God do?" -- not "how tired does God get?" or "how energetic is God?"
If it took no energy to create the Universe, how can it be said that it was was a powerful thing to do?
The creation of a universe is an action God could take; it's one of the powers of God.
We don't actually know what it means to have all the power, and even if we agree to call it all the power in the universe - that is neither limitless, nor well defined.
Again, equivocation. "Has all the wattage" may or may not be incoherent, but "can do anything that is logically coherent" isn't. In fact, it can't be. The definition of omnipotence is constrained such that anything incoherent is left outside of its scope.
If we apply a value for "good" that we apply to ourselves. Such as "no killing" and "helping others when they are in need" and then turn and apply that same value to god, we see that humanity is far greater at doing "good" than the supposedly "all good" god. God has been documented as someone who decides on a whim when to kill someone, Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, etc. and the his either inability to end suffering, or his inaction to end it, shows that people are more concerned with the end of suffering than god himself is...
The theists are the ones that make the definition of "good" different for god than they do for people, and this is clearly moving the goal posts. If we cannot apply what we know as good to god, how do we even assign a value of "all goodness" to him?
If we assume that god is also omniscient, how does the blame for creating Lucifer not fall squarely on his shoulders? If he is responsible for the creation of evil, then how is he absolved from it? ESPECIALLY if he has the foreknowledge that what he's doing will result in evil?
It may have been emotionally distressing, but it was not inconvenient. When you are inconvenienced, that means that you have been prevented by circumstances from doing something you wanted to do. God was not prevented from doing anything, because as an omniscient being he cannot be prevented from doing anything. In fact, Jesus' sacrifice (according to orthodox Christian theology) allowed God to do something that he couldn't otherwise have done: allow sinners into Heaven. So it may actually be said to have been convenient for him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
]No, that's not what Jesus is saying. I said exactly this on the second post of this thread.
Oh, you mean the one that I quoted?
Since I know the irony of this post is going to go over your head, let me explain:
Your argument was refuted on the second post of this thread, which was a post you not only read, but quoted. You are now, in a sarcastic tone of imagined superiority, drawing attention to the fact that you quoted it, despite the fact that you completely misunderstood the content of the post, which specifically went against what you are arguing
No problem, I'll back up and go slower for you.
According to what logic did "this poor widow... put more into the treasury than all the others?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
It's the community's thread. If it were my thread, I would have banned you for trolling.
I think you know what he means when he says it's your thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
The biggest paradox is whether god is omnipotent. the answer is no. god cannot be ominpotent and give free will. the two cannot co-exist. god knows with 95% certainty what your fate is, but cannot say for sure because of free will. The Hardy–Weinberg principle is consistent with this philosophy.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, as goes the common aphorism, then it follows that an all powerful god can't be 'good.' However, if you don't believe that absolute power corrupts... perhaps you reach a different conclusion.
In any case, this line of thought suggests that most monotheists believe in absolute power and don't think it corrupts, which is a bit scary.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, as goes the common aphorism, then it follows that an all powerful god can't be 'good.' However, if you don't believe that absolute power corrupts... perhaps you reach a different conclusion.
In any case, this line of thought suggests that most monotheists believe in absolute power and don't think it corrupts, which is a bit scary.
How would it be possible for an infinitely good being to be corrupted?
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, as goes the common aphorism, then it follows that an all powerful god can't be 'good.' However, if you don't believe that absolute power corrupts... perhaps you reach a different conclusion.
In any case, this line of thought suggests that most monotheists believe in absolute power and don't think it corrupts, which is a bit scary.
How would it be possible for an infinitely good being to be corrupted?
Something can be good and all-powerful. (assuming it is possible for something to exist that can be considered all-powerful.)
Something can be powerful and 100 percent good. (in theory)
But something cannot be 100 percent good and all-powerful.
Why not?
If he was all-powerful, what could he do that would serve as evidence of him being good? Keeping in mind, Jesus said that rich guys donating money to charity doesn't necessarily prove that they're good (since it's easy).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, as goes the common aphorism, then it follows that an all powerful god can't be 'good.' However, if you don't believe that absolute power corrupts... perhaps you reach a different conclusion.
In any case, this line of thought suggests that most monotheists believe in absolute power and don't think it corrupts, which is a bit scary.
How would it be possible for an infinitely good being to be corrupted?
No. This doesn't work.
I'll explain below.
Having a coherent definition of what the word Morality means, doesn't mean that Morality is objective, and I reject any claim that Morality is objective, that isn't accompanied by a vigorous argument in support of such a claim.
Likewise, having a coherent definition of the word power, does not mean that Powerfulness is objective.
What's powerful to an ANT is nothing compared to what's powerful for a Tyrannosaurus.
The coefficient of Mass is not the same thing as Heaviness. And neither of those words could have any relevance at all to God.
Having an objective definition of Mass does not mean that Heaviness is objective.
Your own words:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heaviness
What is heavy to God?
What is he lifting the ball with?
Is gravity involved at all?
How can something have "great weight" to a being that exists outside space-time?
I know what people mean when they say it, it doesn't make it a good argument.
What is a kilogram to God?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I said objectively defined, not objective -- though I probably should have said "unequivocally defined" to avoid this confusion. If we both agree that morality means "personal opinion concerning the works of Shakespeare," then although morality may not be objective, at least we are talking about the same thing. If, on the other hand, you think it's "personal opinion on Shakespeare" and I think it's "the amount of wood a woodchuck could chuck" then we have a problem.
"Mass" has the virtue of being both objectively defined and objective -- any disagreement about the (rest) mass of an object cannot rest on personal opinion or a difference of perspective. When I ask you if there is a limit to the mass of an object that God can manipulate, I am articulating a coherent sentence using the ordinary, objectively defined and objective, notion of that word. God's involvement doesn't change the meaning of that combination of words.
Again, at least according to Aquinian theological thought, God's omnipotence is measured by His absolute ability to do things, not by a comparison between Him and some other being. Even if God were the only being around He would still be omnipotent. The definition of omnipotence that everyone except you is talking about is that one.
So whatever relative definition of power you are attempting to introduce here, the resulting problems and confusion stem from you introducing a new definition, thereby causing an equivocation fallacy.
Focus on the actual question we're discussing: is God's ability to do things limited in space, time, extent, or magnitude?
By "heavy" I meant "massive." I'm not talking about anything based on feeling, subjective evaluation, or even particular gravitational field strength.
As for relevance to God, who cares? Maybe God doesn't care about quantifying the extent of his own power; who can say. What I can tell you is that it is relevant to the debate between us mortals.
It's not an argument. It's an assertion of a property that God has. If you think the property is incoherent, you're the one that has to make the argument.
A kilogram is a kilogram. To God and to everyone else as well. This is the law of identity and it is essential to having a sane, logical conversation.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
There's really not much we can do with that beyond just going in a circle. "Those actions are important because they are important to God." Anything beyond that would involve knowing the mind of God, which... Best of luck to you with that endeavor.
But you are also not God.
Considering he seems to have tabs on literally everything about this universe and is actively manipulating it? Seems to be investing significant concern, right?
That is not what I said at all.
No, that's not what Jesus is saying. I said exactly this on the second post of this thread.
To an omnipotent, omniscient being? Nah. Any finite amount over infinity is insignificant. For all we know, he has a bunch of other universes he's more involved in.
He said he wasn't sure if he was getting his point across, you rephrased what he said, and he thanked you. The question was aimed at anyone who feels like answering?
Oh, you mean the one that I quoted?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Mainly because the way I was trying to explain myself a) didn't work, and b) was stated with incorrect usage of words
(So you're right Crashing and Magic, and whoever else was pointing out my misapplication of the term infinite)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/powerfulness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
If time, energy, and even gravity, do not apply to God, seeing as he is supposed to exist apart from, and/or outside of such constraints, how can we then say that he is powerful?
Especially if you're going to say that he would be all powerful even if the universe didn't exist (all by himself).
How do we determine what units of energy are used over time by God to perform work?
How much energy did it take for God to create the universe? How can we answer that question if energy doesn't apply to him? Do his actions cause him fatigue?
For instance, if energy did not exist prior to creating the Universe, then can it not be said that it took no energy to create it? If it took no energy to create the Universe, how can it be said that it was was a powerful thing to do?
I do not think these questions are answerable (at the moment).
Because of this, I think the assertion that God is all powerful (or omnipotent) is basically a meaningless catchphrase. We say these things because we don't understand the nature of God's abilities.
Our lack of understanding doesn't strike me as a good excuse to call God omnipotent. Or omni-anything.
We don't actually know what it means to have all the power, and even if we agree to call it all the power in the universe - that is neither limitless, nor well defined.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
However, I don't know the specifics of bakgat's religion's Dogma. I don't even know what flavor of Christian he is, so I can't even make a guesstimate to your question based on wiki or something. But, I doubt even if I DID have all that info I would be able to get at "what this person thinks his God thinks about God," which--I guess--is what you're asking.
Seems pretty convoluted.
Since I know the irony of this post is going to go over your head, let me explain:
Your argument was refuted on the second post of this thread, which was a post you not only read, but quoted. You are now, in a sarcastic tone of imagined superiority, drawing attention to the fact that you quoted it, despite the fact that you completely misunderstood the content of the post, which specifically went against what you are arguing.
Reread that.
You're asking if God has no constraints, how can we say he is powerful? You just answered your own question.
I think I see what The_AC might be trying to get at.
You say:
Your explanation could be read to imply that the value of a person's offering is measured by its proportion of that person's possessions. If that's the case, then any finite gift God might give is approximately valueless compared to any mortal gift (any finite amount divided by infinity, etc.).
Well played.
The thing is, God is also characterized by his love, in particular for this universe and in particular for us.
It could if I didn't specifically say that wasn't how it was supposed to be interpreted already.
The thread is only six pages long, and The_AC clearly could not be bothered to read even that much. And it's HIS thread.
If he has the audacity to be snide after publicly demonstrating such disregard for this discussion, then there's no reason to bother with him.
I say again that this comes down to equivocation. You are attempting to introduce a physical definition of power into this conversation, as if the theology of God's power comes down to measuring some number of watts. But the notion of God's metaphysical power is simply not defined in that fashion, and so you are equivocating with your opponents.
The mainstream theological notion of God's power comes from Aquinas' De Potentia Dei -- God's power is in his capacity to act; it is the set of actions he can perform. He is omnipotent if his capacity to act encompasses all logically possible actions.
As a mental aid to you in avoiding this equivocation, it may help you to think of God's powers (like a superhero's powers) rather than his power (as in number of watts).
(Not for nothing, but it also happens that many people argue that the "number of watts" kind of power follows from theological omnipotence in the following sense: insofar as there is no reason to suppose that the notion of generating X watts is contradictory for any X, it is logically possible to generate X watts and therefore an omnipotent God can generate X watts. Since X is unbounded, the number of watts God can generate is similarly unbounded, and therefore God's power is properly called infinite even in the context of wattage.)
Irrelevant. These issues only arise because of the equivocation. The question is "what kinds of things can God do?" -- not "how tired does God get?" or "how energetic is God?"
The creation of a universe is an action God could take; it's one of the powers of God.
Again, equivocation. "Has all the wattage" may or may not be incoherent, but "can do anything that is logically coherent" isn't. In fact, it can't be. The definition of omnipotence is constrained such that anything incoherent is left outside of its scope.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
If we apply a value for "good" that we apply to ourselves. Such as "no killing" and "helping others when they are in need" and then turn and apply that same value to god, we see that humanity is far greater at doing "good" than the supposedly "all good" god. God has been documented as someone who decides on a whim when to kill someone, Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, etc. and the his either inability to end suffering, or his inaction to end it, shows that people are more concerned with the end of suffering than god himself is...
The theists are the ones that make the definition of "good" different for god than they do for people, and this is clearly moving the goal posts. If we cannot apply what we know as good to god, how do we even assign a value of "all goodness" to him?
If we assume that god is also omniscient, how does the blame for creating Lucifer not fall squarely on his shoulders? If he is responsible for the creation of evil, then how is he absolved from it? ESPECIALLY if he has the foreknowledge that what he's doing will result in evil?
Do you think watching his only son take on the worlds sins and become a sacrifice for all of man wasn't inconvenient?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No problem, I'll back up and go slower for you.
According to what logic did "this poor widow... put more into the treasury than all the others?"
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
According to the logic I've already explained in this thread. You should read the thread sometime, seeing as how it's your thread.
It's the community's thread. If it were my thread, I would have banned you for trolling.
Flame infraction for trolling accusation. - Blinking Spirit
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
I think you know what he means when he says it's your thread.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
In any case, this line of thought suggests that most monotheists believe in absolute power and don't think it corrupts, which is a bit scary.
Something can be powerful and 100 percent good. (in theory)
But something cannot be 100 percent good and all-powerful.
Why not?
If he was all-powerful, what could he do that would serve as evidence of him being good? Keeping in mind, Jesus said that rich guys donating money to charity doesn't necessarily prove that they're good (since it's easy).
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Because then there would not be evil and/or suffering.