God only lies for fun. Everyone knows that. lol jk

(May 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm)Caecilian Wrote:

(May 11, 2010 at 6:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Following Aquinas :

You can't attribute human failings to God, because what God creates is lesser than God. The earth isn't God, but god created earth. God is more than the sum of the earth. Working back God is the originating positive force necessarily positive because he couldn't create if he wasn't.

If you can't attribute human failings to god, then what makes you think that you can attribute human virtues to him- goodness, mercy and so on?

I just explained that. These are Godly attributes... eminating from a perfect being. We're not attributing human virtues. Human virtues don't match up... they're half way up the scale.

(May 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm)Caecilian Wrote:

Quote:Now negativity is the opposite of God. What causes decay is in opposition to God

.

We live in a Universe in which decay is steady and unrelenting. Any increase in order can only be local, for within any closed system (such as the Universe), disorder must increase over time. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Entropy 1 God 0

lol yes

The bible has that covered tho'

(May 11, 2010 at 6:43 pm)Caecilian Wrote:

Quote:God can't choose to do evil, because his nature is pure good. He is the epicentre of goodness... the point at which that choice doesn't exist.

And because of this, the christian god is clearly not omnipotent.

To illustrate my point, lets try a quick thought experiment. Lets think of a being called Schmod. Schmod is omnipotent except that he has no ability to affect anything that is coloured purple. The 'can't affect purple' clause is part of how we define Schmod, so it would be logically contradictory if he could do anything to purple stuff.

Schmod is clearly a very powerful entity. But limited, finite beings can affect purple things, thus any putative omnipotent being must also be able to do so. So by definition Schmod isn't omnipotent.

So fr0d0: how is god different from Schmod?

Schmod isn't all powerful in his logical environment. God is.

To those interested, i just tested the reasoning i explained in the OP, and it works ! i have managed to make a hardcore creationist admit that the Bible was at least partly written by men and that the Earth is not 6000 years old.

There is no such thing as a little victory right ?

(May 12, 2010 at 7:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I just explained that. These are Godly attributes... eminating from a perfect being. We're not attributing human virtues. Human virtues don't match up... they're half way up the scale.

Highlighting added.

Its weird how you talk about virtues as if they were substances, when in reality they're properties. Goodness can't emanate from something any more than blueness or silliness can. And yes, I know its probably meant as a metaphor, but its misleading rather than informative.

And you still haven't answered my earlier point, which is this:

We attribute goodness to people when they choose morally good courses of action, have good as opposed to bad intentions etc. If we had no choice but to make good decisions (if we really could not do otherwise), then would we really be good ourselves? I would say not- we'd just be ethical automatons.

God, as you describe him, is an ethical automaton.

Quote:Schmod isn't all powerful in his logical environment. God is.

Well, thats disputable, but I don't see the point in arguing about Schmod. Whats important is that you're now saying that god is all powerful in his logical environment. Since god's logical environment isn't isomorphic with the logical environment of the universe, you're therefore conceding that god is not all powerful within the universe. In other words, he isn't omnipotent.

Quote:Posted by Rwandrall - Today 15:53
To those interested, i just tested the reasoning i explained in the OP, and it works ! i have managed to make a hardcore creationist admit that the Bible was at least partly written by men and that the Earth is not 6000 years old.

(May 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Caecilian Wrote: Its weird how you talk about virtues as if they were substances, when in reality they're properties. Goodness can't emanate from something any more than blueness or silliness can. And yes, I know its probably meant as a metaphor, but its misleading rather than informative.

Love emanamtes. Not physically, but spiritually it does. That is what fr0do is describing; spiritual emanation of goodnes originates with God.

(May 12, 2010 at 10:53 am)Rwandrall Wrote: To those interested, i just tested the reasoning i explained in the OP, and it works ! i have managed to make a hardcore creationist admit that the Bible was at least partly written by men and that the Earth is not 6000 years old.

There is no such thing as a little victory right ?

You did? Kudos then!

(May 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Caecilian Wrote:

(May 12, 2010 at 7:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I just explained that. These are Godly attributes... eminating from a perfect being. We're not attributing human virtues. Human virtues don't match up... they're half way up the scale.

Highlighting added.

Its weird how you talk about virtues as if they were substances, when in reality they're properties. Goodness can't emanate from something any more than blueness or silliness can. And yes, I know its probably meant as a metaphor, but its misleading rather than informative.

A poor choice for a word, I'd grant you. But I think you got my point.

(May 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Caecilian Wrote: And you still haven't answered my earlier point, which is this:

We attribute goodness to people when they choose morally good courses of action, have good as opposed to bad intentions etc. If we had no choice but to make good decisions (if we really could not do otherwise), then would we really be good ourselves? I would say not- we'd just be ethical automatons.

God, as you describe him, is an ethical automaton.

You can't limit God to humanity. If God were a person, he would indeed be an automaton. What he is is the instigator of this reality.

(May 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Caecilian Wrote:

Quote:Schmod isn't all powerful in his logical environment. God is.

Well, thats disputable, but I don't see the point in arguing about Schmod. Whats important is that you're now saying that god is all powerful in his logical environment. Since god's logical environment isn't isomorphic with the logical environment of the universe, you're therefore conceding that god is not all powerful within the universe. In other words, he isn't omnipotent.

Schmod can't be all powerful in his logical environment unless purple is logically non affect-able. In that case we're promoting him to God - who we already have a name for.

If God was only within the universe, and restricted to universal law, he wouldn't be omnipotent. But God isn't contained by the universe.

What you're proposing is that God should be able to act illogically. What we have in God is a proposition of something logical and positive. The opposite of that, and the root cause of theological consideration is the separation of confusion and illogic as negative and the opposite of God. The opposite is possible only if you don't logically separate the two in your construction of God.

Dark is nothingness. Light adds something to nothing. Light can't be dark, or nothing, only degrees of 'something'. This positive force cannot in itself produce dark.

(May 11, 2010 at 11:24 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: God only lies for fun. Everyone knows that. lol jk

OF course! He has a wicked sense of humour. His torture of Job and Abraham are very witty.The Flood and plagues of Egypt are downright hilarious.

My favourite for inventive humour is the Tower of Babel. I reckon that would have been side splitting to watch from above.

(May 12, 2010 at 7:05 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Caecilian Wrote: And you still haven't answered my earlier point, which is this:

We attribute goodness to people when they choose morally good courses of action, have good as opposed to bad intentions etc. If we had no choice but to make good decisions (if we really could not do otherwise), then would we really be good ourselves? I would say not- we'd just be ethical automatons.

God, as you describe him, is an ethical automaton.

You can't limit God to humanity. If God were a person, he would indeed be an automaton. What he is is the instigator of this reality.

This is beginning to look messy, with quotes inside of quotes inside of....

Anyway, I don't get your point here. How are 'being an ethical automaton' and 'being the instigator of reality' contradictory? I don't see any inconsistency. If anything, it seems rather elegant, since it removes the whole issue of ethical intent from the business of creation.

Quote:Schmod can't be all powerful in his logical environment unless purple is logically non affect-able. In that case we're promoting him to God - who we already have a name for.

That was my point. Schmod = god.

I think that we're operating from 2 different definitions of 'omnipotent' here. For me, an absolute minimum for omnipotence would be the capacity to do anything that is nomologically possible for a finite being to do. Both Schmod and god as you've decribed him are clearly not omnipotent in this sense.

An extreme case would be a deist god, who could create the universe but then play no causal role in subsequent events. Now for me, such a causally impotent being could not possibly be omnipotent. Whereas for you, he/she/it seemingly could be, as long as the causal impotence was a logically necessary part of the nature of the entity.

Quote:If God was only within the universe, and restricted to universal law, he wouldn't be omnipotent. But God isn't contained by the universe.

Now you've got me really confused. The Universe as I understand it includes everything that could possibly interact with its constituents. God in his totality is therefore definitionally part of the universe. When you say 'universe' do you actually mean 'material universe'?

Quote:What you're proposing is that God should be able to act illogically. What we have in God is a proposition of something logical and positive. The opposite of that, and the root cause of theological consideration is the separation of confusion and illogic as negative and the opposite of God. The opposite is possible only if you don't logically separate the two in your construction of God.

Dark is nothingness. Light adds something to nothing. Light can't be dark, or nothing, only degrees of 'something'. This positive force cannot in itself produce dark.

And this is even more confusing. You seem to be conflating what is logical with what is ethical, and throwing in some dark/ light metaphors for good measure. You're obviously an intelligent and rational person, so I'm sure you mean something by this, but frankly I'm not sure what.

Was that an atheist using the second law of thermodynamics in relationship to the universe in a religious debate...

hmmm where's Void when you need him

So fr0d0's running around like a chicken without a head trying to rationalize how he has a personal relationship with an automated being that exists outside of our universe.