The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Esquilax]

Says the evidence

Then please present some, instead of just stating an assertion.

[ManMachine]

Ah, logic, the foundation of religion. Silly me.

No... the foundation of religion is death, most likely.
Logic is just a way to get from A to B without making a mistake.
If A is true, then B will very likely also be true.
If A is false, then B will very likely be false.
Either way, logic applies.

I was being ironic.

[PhilipD]

Nice to see that the topic is another two pages of wandering in circles. The original question is answered so unless you guys really are just having fun throwing faeces at each other, I'd recommend letting it die! If you have any qualms regarding the assertions that have been made then why not create a second topic about it, for the sake of organisation and some vague semblance of order! If you anybody has forgotten the formal response written by fr0d0 (who happens to be leading the response) it is this:

I don't see God's omnipotence limited at all. What is seen as God unable to do something is God's overall plan to do something that in the minutiae will be very confusing to you.

As we don't have the option of omniscience, this cannot be known to us.

God is never malevolent to us. But God's benevolence doesn't involve preventing us from harm of every kind. God's benevolent plan for us is primarily that we enjoy life to the full. A life without the potential for extremes would never attain that.
Natural disaster is the mechanism by which life on earth exists. Assuming God, his greater plan is facilitated by the laws of physics. By life and death, by happiness and suffering.
Omnibenevolence isn't a characteristic of the Christian God. God is love. Love is Gods moving force. That's how we define him. Mistranslating biblical text to show the opposite it nonsensical. Why would the Jews hold that God was loving with reference to their own record that says the opposite. Someone is reading it wrong there, and I would suggest to you that it isn't them.

And without distorting what fr0d0 has said here, I feel that the only error in this response is this. You state "God's overall plan to do something that in the minutiae will be very confusing to you" and then state "That's how we define him" along with "As we don't have the option of omniscience, this cannot be known to us" and I'd really like to ascertain what you do and do not know regarding your god's intentions and powers and how you are more 'qualified' to educate us on such a topic. I have a strong feeling that you are assuming on many parts that you share the same belief as others of your particular faith and that said belief is right. If we cannot know all things regarding god due to our lack-of omniscience, then how can you validate your statement to be true other than through your own personal experience with your god? It seems as though you are walking the fine line of asserting and assuming and not making it abundantly clear what is what.

[Mystical]

This is where I get all confused. How can you think god is just, if he sends people to hell? Before you answer that with we send ourselves to hell--I'm not sending myself to hell, he would be doing the sending. If I did get sent to hell, it'd be for something as trivial as lying or jealousy, as I am a good person without god. How can you say that god is qualified to judge if he is subject to his own faults of, say, jealousy--then sends me to hell for the same thing? The injustice of my treatment by him would still be there, even if he pulled me out of hell at some point (show me in the bible where it says that!).

No answer? Can't say I'm surprised

[Violet]

That being said, it's very telling that you consider it 'warped' to interpret genocide, rape, slavery, child murder and torture as bad and undesirable things.

Slavery isn't either bad or necessarily undesirable... infact, your 'modern societies' still contain it in many extents.

You really want to call torture out as wholly bad and undesirable? Be my guest... I'm rather comfortable with my state engaging in such behavior

Evolutionarily thinking... rape is actually *quite good*, as it propagates one's DNA.

Genocide is the cultural annihilation of a nation/ethnicity, politically valuable in many ways.

Child murder can be a good thing, especially since children are a massive expense which many poor people do not need.

[Esquilax]

Slavery isn't either bad or necessarily undesirable... infact, your 'modern societies' still contain it in many extents.

Except you have the option to quit being a wage slave.

You really want to call torture out as wholly bad and undesirable? Be my guest... I'm rather comfortable with my state engaging in such behavior

You can be comfortable with whatever you like. Doesn't make it moral.

Evolutionarily thinking... rape is actually *quite good*, as it propagates one's DNA.

There's no such thing as "evolutionary thinking." Evolution isn't a directed process, it's not striking out toward something. Yes genetic propagation is a part of the process, but we as evolved beings are quite capable of tempering that with additional moral principles that are in themselves advantageous from the viewpoint of evolution. We are a social animal, our societies are our greatest strength, and the things that aid in the maintenance of our social structure- like a prohibition on rape- are evolutionarily advantageous to humanity as a species.

Genocide is the cultural annihilation of a nation/ethnicity, politically valuable in many ways.

And yet we have sanctions against it for a reason. It's not socially healthy for everyone to be pogrom-ing on everyone else.

Child murder can be a good thing, especially since children are a massive expense which many poor people do not need.

You got a modest proposal to deal with that?

[Violet]

Except you have the option to quit being a wage slave.

Do you have the option to quit being a child?

You can be comfortable with whatever you like. Doesn't make it moral.

It doesn't make it amoral to be uncomfortable with torture either

There's no such thing as "evolutionary thinking." Evolution isn't a directed process, it's not striking out toward something. Yes genetic propagation is a part of the process, but we as evolved beings are quite capable of tempering that with additional moral principles that are in themselves advantageous from the viewpoint of evolution. We are a social animal, our societies are our greatest strength, and the things that aid in the maintenance of our social structure- like a prohibition on rape- are evolutionarily advantageous to humanity as a species.

Evolution *can* be a directed process, and often is when we approach it... domesticated animals, selective breeding, eugenics: these things should have clued you into that.

Absolutely, if your goal is to get your DNA into as many babies as possible (or, as a woman: to have a baby ASAP and maybe with 'the right guy')... rape is absolutely an effective method.

All beings on this planet are 'evolved beings', and morals are wholly subjective, our evolutionary goals interpretable. Not every one of us is a social animal, nor is society the greatest strength for many (observe criminals)... and things like a prohibition on rape hold back what humanity could be. It is specifically designed because people don't like rape, well if you pass on rape-willing genetics and/or mentality to your children: one day their opinions won't matter, because rapists will be everywhere.

And yet we have sanctions against it for a reason. It's not socially healthy for everyone to be pogrom-ing on everyone else.

I'm pretty sure the reason we have sanctions against it is *also* political. The geneva convention won't last forever, though

Also, under certain lines of thought... it's rather socially beneficial for your community

You got a modest proposal to deal with that?

Yeah, abortion helps... also condoms. But sometimes you don't have access to the first one, and shit happens.

Babies get binned unfortunately often.

[Esquilax]

Do you have the option to quit being a child?

You do grow out of that. Beyond which, is there really that big a similarity between childhood and slavery? Assuming you don't live in a Dickens novel, I mean.

All beings on this planet are 'evolved beings', and morals are wholly subjective, our evolutionary goals interpretable. Not every one of us is a social animal, nor is society the greatest strength for many (observe criminals)... and things like a prohibition on rape hold back what humanity could be. It is specifically designed because people don't like rape, well if you pass on rape-willing genetics and/or mentality to your children: one day their opinions won't matter, because rapists will be everywhere.

Ooh, almost. Yes, rape willing genetics would be passed on, but rape is traditionally something done unto, it's not a solo activity; the genes for not liking being raped will also be passed on, so it's kind of a wash. We'd have people who like to rape, but hate being raped, and they'd have to put strictures in place to protect themselves from that, surely.

And if the genes for disliking rape aren't passed on, we're left with... consensual, rough sex? Sounds like a party to me. (Within reason!)

Yeah, abortion helps... also condoms. But sometimes you don't have access to the first one, and shit happens.

Babies get binned unfortunately often.

Aww, I was really hoping you'd go with the baby eating line, there. I'd set you up for it and everything.

[Violet]

undefined

Sounds like a browser error to me... have you tried chrome or firefox? They're pretty good

[Esquilax]

undefined

Sounds like a browser error to me... have you tried chrome or firefox? They're pretty good

Browser error indeed. From my Chrome browser

Anyway, I've edited in what I meant to say. Good job, internet.