Root of all evil
Pages
| Author | Topic: Root of all evil |
|---|---|
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 03:28
Profile
In modern interpretations, God is usually thought of as infinitely wise. While the Old Testament seems to conflict with this at some points, the Abrahamic tradition more or less agrees on God's limitless knowledge AFAIK. Therefore, if anyone is in a position to figure out what the most practical standards of morality are, it's God. And, of course, power doesn't hurt. The courts can only tell us what to do because they have the police to back them up, but most people don't see that as proof that their judgements are inherently invalid. [ Monday, January 24, 2005 03:29: Message edited by: Turumby ] Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 04:13
Profile
Homepage
But nevermind the implications of depicting heaven as the fulfillment of commodity fetishism... No, having power doesn't invalidate a point (and I'd be going against my grammatological leanings to insinuate that any law can have absolute cogency), but the way it's used and the morals that are displayed must be put under careful scrutiny to determine the motives they were enacted with. Drakey, you're Jewish, right? Do you believe that Jesus and Mohammed were both profits, or that one and not the other was? EDIT: Re-read most of what I wanted to in the thread. A few thoughts, then: Why are we having this discussion? Essentially, this sort of philosophy, wherein "evil" is tossed around like flapjacks, is bound to produce no result whatsoever. So then the implications of determining what evil is becomes moot, and what gains greater import is why evil is being discussed. To wit, the notion of solipsism is inherently society-serving. Based on engenderment as the primary, acting form of recognizable determinism, all acts of introspection are merely hotlines to Brown and Root et al. Furthermore, when posing paradoxes to one's self and not expecting an answer- as this discussion is an example of- one spurns Hegel, Marx et al. and places coffee house antics in their stead. This discussion, as far as I'm concerned, is a device of control and should be recognized as such. As to that which society considers evil, not only is it moot, but it is wholly evident in the way that one thinks- thus Phenomology of the Mind, using introspective thinking as a viewing glass into the machinery which all participants in society (especially those blessed with the affluency to post online) have become laden with. [ Monday, January 24, 2005 04:43: Message edited by: General Leon ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 05:00
Profile
Homepage
Mmm, flapjacks. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 05:02
Profile
quote:Yeah the second part, in fact that was almost the exact wording of my thought. Morality might need a deity to enforce it if it is to be followed, but if the deity were only an enforcer a moral law HERE is an excerpt from a text that deals with this subject, and argues for absolutism. (rereading it myself I realize that in one part at least the author is wrong, LOTS of people say "To Hell with your standard". times change I guess." TM, aren't you being a little histrionic? And going over the thread again, I read this. quote:I think you misunderstand. If God was the definition of "good" and he was a child molester than that would be "good" (at least according to the argument that I am running with) However you do make me realize something. What I am talking about is not absolutism. It is still relative. Good and Evil would change based on the "mood" or whatever of the defining god. Probably why the statement that "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever" is needed [ Monday, January 24, 2005 05:30: Message edited by: Macrsp ] Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 06:11
Profile
To SkeleTony - I think you've done a good job defining how ours is a world of limitations. I think that using this as a basis for explaining god(s) out of the picture is incorrect, however. In your definition, you assert that a god would have to follow the limitations of our universe. In essence, this seems to me to be assuming that a god would have to obey the rules as we understand them. I think the flaw here is that we certainly don't have a monopoly on the rules (they've tended to change over the years, and undoubtedly will continue to do so), and given that, there's no reason why god(s) could not exist outside the scope of our (what I perceive to be very) limited perception and obsession with limitation. It does not follow that because I am finite, everything else must be. A person declaiming the existence of God seems to me not disimilar to a blind person declaiming the existence of color. To Alex - Lighten up, man. This is all for fun. For others - Does the root of evil necessarily have to be evil itself? I would argue that sapience/sentience is not. [ Monday, January 24, 2005 06:13: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3978
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 06:30
Profile
I read the first part of this thread, and the last part of this thread. Seems the question still isn't answered, and it's moving more on to religion now. Well, ALL RELIGION ASIDE FOR A MOMENT, here are my thoughts on the issue. Something is evil when it is "wrong", I do not believe anyone will disagree with me there as it's simply the words definition. Now, what is wrong? First, we must ascertain how we find out what is wrong. Simple. We each have a set of morals. That can come from religion, social teachings, human nature, whatever. However you got your moral compass or lack thereof, you have it (or have it not). This moral compass tells you what's right and wrong (good and evil). When you do something that you yourself think is wrong, you are commiting evil. When you yourself do what you consider right, your doing good. Therefore, good and evil are interpretations of actions. Now testing the theory....let's say a person kills another person. That is evil springs to mind, but why did he kill the person? If he did it in self-defense, or did it to save others, is it still evil? Regardless of your own opinion, it is what the KILLER thought of his actions that matter. If he really thought he was doing a good deed, and was did something we consider evil because he was ignorant by our standards, how is he less innocent than creatures such as alligators? He did not know better, he did the best he could in the circumstances. So it is my belief that therefore, whether a deed is good or evil depends on the person commiting the deeds view of such. And this answers the original question, as well: The root of all evil is morals. The root of all good is morals. That's my view on the issue, I'll get around to reading the "meat" of the posts later. Posts: 125 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4557
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 06:34
Profile
quote:We should probably first agree on a definition, although I'm not sure why we're continuing with this "absolutism" arguement, as there does not have to be a specification concerning how many moral codes there are or who defines them in the definition of moral good/evil. Unless there are any other arguments, we should move on. Soldoric: I believe something of the like has already been said (i think by me ) earlier. ;) [ Monday, January 24, 2005 06:59: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 | Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 07:01
Profile
Homepage
Histrionic? No moreso than an ideology which superfluously flaunts about its moot notions of adherence to the dissolution of the subject. Let me clarify: What evil IS does not matter. What matters is that we are discussing it, and in doing so, we sacrifice the subject; that is, the individual morals and beliefs that we espouse; to further benefit the overwhelming objectivity of history; that is, the advance of society as it drags along the lifeless appendage of our personal beliefs and desires, which is what the philosophers used to call the good life. Essentially, by merely holding this discussion, we are being used. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 08:24
Profile
What Soldoric said was one of the simplest definitions of Good/Evil. Only one problem it seems slightly circular- You are doing good when you think you are doing good. You are doing evil when you think you are doing evil. Evil/good according to this is what each person thinks for himself. Comparison to animals is difficult as well. Does the alligator think it is doing good when it kills my dog as it walks by the lake? It seems like it is just doing what is natural to it. Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 09:23
Profile
I guess good and evil are truly relative, as we freely assign these values to natural occurances. The alligator probably saw the dog as either a threat to its nest or as food (or both!), but probably doesn't consider its act to be good or evil. You love your dog, and so see the act as evil. A neighbor, on the other hand, who was annoyed by your dog's shrill bark early in the morning as well as the "gifts" it left in his lawn could see the alligator's act as a good thing. I think this is a great example of how the root of evil is sentience. :) [ Monday, January 24, 2005 09:25: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 10:25
Profile
I don't see how we could disagree to sentience being needed for evil. However is that a sufficient cause or just a necessary one? Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, January 24 2005 12:41
Profile
The topic is looking for the root of all evil, not necessarily the cause. As for the cause, I would say that sentience is necessary for the production of evil, but not sufficient; evil requires both a stimulus (some act) as well as someone perceiving the act and passing judgement on it (from the sentience). Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 02:31
Profile
Homepage
t TM: No, I don't believe that Jesus and Mohammed were prophets (or profits). -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 04:17
Profile
Homepage
...I really said that? Talk about your freudian slips. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 2626
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 05:41
Profile
There is no good or bad,(evil). There is no right or wrong. etc., etc., etc. There is only perspective. "Knowledge is a three edged sword: Your opinion, My opinion and the Truth." [ Tuesday, January 25, 2005 05:43: Message edited by: Ahbleza ] Posts: 257 | Registered: Wednesday, February 12 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 08:43
Profile
quote:Yeah but this does not address the points raised in reagrds to whether "good" or "evil" are simply determined by "God" or whether they simply ARE and God recognises them as such. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 09:18
Profile
quote:But "God" is not a definition for "Good"(at least not one that does us any good here). I am not misunderstanding(I don't think) in the least. You have taken up the position of the theistic absolutist/moral objectivist here, so it is upon you to tell us, not only what "good" is(in the same manner that someone would define 'gravity' objectively when asked what that was) but also whether "good" simply IS(in the same way that gravity simply is what it is regardless of what Einstein might want it to be) OR whethert "good" is what it is BECAUSE God says so(analogous to Einstein BEING the very determinent of what gravity is, so that he could arbitrarily point to whatever phenomenom he so desired and say "That is gravity!"). Now of course the absolutist is going to be inclined, as any rational thnker would be, to take up the position that "good" is NOT simply some arbitrary decree of God's but rather an objectively existent thing itself which God is the ultimate 'recogniser' of and(presumably) enforcer of. This leaves us with the problem I mentioned earlier. That God is not necessary for "good" and only serves the role of a sort of divine "CHief of police" of sorts. Now if you are saying that(and I think after reading your reply to Thuryl that you are) God IS necessary in this role only, then my truck is not with you as a moral objectivist because you are not one. In fact I don't seem to have much of any truck with you period beyond my wondering where this alleged 'Chief of Police' is? It becomes a case of the proverbial "Kissing Hank's Ass"( www.jhugger.com/kisshank.mv ). quote:Well one of these days I am going to learn to read the entriety of what someone posts BEFORE deciding to interject... :o -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 10:10
Profile
quote:[/b] I am not saying and have NEVER said that because I am finite, everything else must be. What I AM saying is that because REALITY(re:my universe) is finite, everything within it must act accordingly. Logic dictates(nay DEMANDS!) this. "God" = 'infinite possibility'. Infinite possibility cannot exist within a reality of finite possibility. Let me try an analogy here that I suspect will make my position unmistakably clear. If someone walks up to me and says "You know, 'vampires exist.", I am going to respond: "What's a "vampire"?" If the claimant then tells me it is any senteient creature with a desire to drink teh blood of sentients, then I will agree these things either do exist or at least there is no logical reason they cannot. But if the claimant tells me that "vampires" are "non-reflecting, garlic-allergic, homo nocturnus" I will be a "weak a-vampirist" because I see no reason to think such a think actually exists. I would LACK a positive conviction that these vampires exist. Now let's say the claimant tells me that vampires are entities which exist, just as I exist, but are not bound by linear time, are "undead"(defined as having will, survival instincts, emotions and intellect but not being physically "alive"), omniscient(defined as knowing ALL, even that which has not yet come to pass), omnimalevolent(purely "evil" and omnipresent(everywhere at once). THIS "vampire" I will be a 'strong' a-vampirist' towards. Why? For the same reason I conclude that round squares do not exist. Because a sentient cannot know that which has not transpired yet and even if he COULD, he cannot maintain a "will((ability to ponder or make decisions himself) if he has such certainty of knowledge. ALso this entity cannot be omnimalevolent AND omnipresent in a universe where ANY "good" exists for any reason. Teh existence of "good" cannot be explained by other free willed beings because these beings also could not have said free will if these vampires have certainty of knowledge of events which are yet to transpire. and so on... quote:It DOES. IF God, for example, is "all good" then whence cometh evil? Even ignoring my above contentions for a second, if God were all benign adn he created beings capable of the sort of "evil" we humans are capable of, then he could not be "all benign". ANother logical contradiction. The "potential for evil" argument does not work either because if God desired for the poetntial of evil to exist then that means the potential for evil must serve a purpose(re: it must itself be "good") adn in order for it to truly be a "potential", it CANNOT be something which will NEVER occur. Let me try another analogy because this issue can cause one to begin gnawing one's thumbs and never stop. I am the God of sequential numerology. I am omnieven-numbered and my desire is that odd-numbers should never exist for any existential things. There should never be an odd nhumber of apples or roads or claps during school assembly. But I recognise that counting/qunatifying for humans is impossible without there being odd numbers potential. So I allow for humans to be able to count adn quantify things. So there is Adam and Even in my perfect garden one day frolicking and such. I have warned them that a number of talking snakes may try and creep into my perfect garden adn trick them into recognising odd numbers in a way I find most distasteful. He may try and con them into doing something with an odd number of fruits from an odd number of trees which should not even exist in my garden but do. How does Adam even make sense of or recognise the danger when Mr. Talking snake strolls up to him? How does Adam even determine there is an odd number of talking snakles trying to con him into eating an odd number of fruits from the odd tree? How can I, the God of even-numberedness, desire that no human ever count "one" of a number of apples if they must do so in order to even get to "two" apples? Getting away from the screwy analogy...is 'rape' "evil"(I think so but bear with me)? If so then where does this evil come from if not from the alleged fact that God created humans of a bi-sexual(as in having two genders that reproduce sexually) nature with an amazing capacity to enfore will through violence? -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 12:52
Profile
quote:A blind person could make a similar assertion about color not existing, if he was limited to his terms and his current comprehension of color. As things stand, our current comprehension of a god/gods/God is based on our understanding of concepts like infinity/omniscience/omnipotence which, based on our very finiteness, I believe are impossible to conceive of in full, just as a blind person can't conceive of color. Certainly, for practical purposes, color does not exist for the blind person. Likewise, for you and I, God as defined by any of the world's religions may not be apparent. However, using the logic you present to rule out the existence of a god/gods/God, even one couched in the terms of one of the major world religions, seems to me to be the height of arrogance, because frankly, you and I have no means of truly comprehending the infinite, omnipresent, and omniscient, let alone what's occurring on Earth outside of the realm of our experience). It's as though we lack a sense to perceive these things, just as a blind person lacks sight. Given that, it seems a bit hasty to me to make such a weighty assertion such as "God does not exist in reality." EDIT: Please also note that I think that the major world religions are just as arrogant in asserting that they have the monopoly on the concept of the divine. Given how little any of us know about "Life, the Universe, and Everything," I think the most reasonable assertion is that the jury's still out on divinity. [ Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:56: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 13:43
Profile
 I have a moral compass. I bought it at a garage sale for $5. Both Jesus and Muhammed are prophetable because they are prophetic. However they are not poetic like Kahlil Gibran the Prophet. I think anger which is the root of hatred is a major cause for evil in this lord. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 360
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 13:59
Profile
I think the root off evil lies in our own perception, we can't fully percieve(not rightly spelled I know) our own reality, so our judgment over everything is flawed, the conflicts between our judgments are evil to the other party. Evil and good are so linked to perception that it's impossible for us humans to judge over. -------------------- I'm back with less posting than ever. We Was Tim Alta vendetta D'alto silenzio e figlia. - Vittorio Alfieri, You purchase pain with all that joy can give, And die of nothing but a rage to live. - Alexander Pope, Moral Essays (ep. II, l. 99) Posts: 226 | Registered: Saturday, December 8 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 14:04
Profile
quote:The "blind man doesn't know about color" argument/analogy, common as it is, does not work. For starters, the blind man would have to also be a solopsist(in which case his blindness won't matter anyway) to deny the concurrent observations of other humans who are not saddled with his disability. Secondly, it IS possible to devise a scientific experiement by which a blind man COULD verify the existence of and discern colors using his other senses. Colors are just variations in wavelengths of radiation/light-energy IIRC and theoretically a device could be constructed which enabled the blind man to experience different colors via the sense of touch or hearing. Hell he could even invent the thing himself if you want to assume that he had no good reason to trust the scientist who invented the device and oversaw the experiement. Thirdly and most importantly, the analogy is a false one because colors are not something with an independent existence which is in serious doubt by many rationalists. Colors can be demonstrated under controlled conditions, repeatedly and consistently. We know that people who do not experience colors are people with a disability(i.e. a man with no legs does not doubt the 'existence' of "walking". He simply lacks the capacity to do so). To date no one has ever been able to show that gods or spirits or souls or anything supernatural exists in such a way as colors do EXCEPT as imaginary things. If someone did do such THEN we could talk about whatever 'disability' atheists or skeptics must have which prevents them/us from experiencing gods or spirits. quote:Then what you are saying is that we have no way to distinguish between a 'really existing God' and a sketchily defined imaginary concept-entity? This just brings us back to Sagan's "Garage Dragon". There is effectively NO difference between an invisible, intangible, in no way detectable or measurable dragon in my garage and one that lives only in my head. Occam's razor suggests then that such an entity is indeed a figment of my imagination. quote:[/b] Why not? Especially for those who were not born blind or who were temporarily able to see when some operation or experiemental treament almost worked. This is a God of the gaps argument. In effect, "I don't know what is in my friend's antique vase right now so a genie might live there". This same argument can be and IS offered in support of fairies, dragons(yes there are believers in dragons in the 21st century. I have met them), perpetual motion machines, magic and cars which run entirely on water. To be consistent, if one is to believe in God on such an argument then one must also believe in every other claim uttered which is supported by the same argument. I don't buy ANY gap arguments for ANY claim. Why? Because I have not checked out every single street legal automobile on the planet and yet I KNOW for 100% certain that there are NONE which are made entirely of gelatin. I am also a materialist so arguments which appeal to idealists and solopsists and other non-materialists will have no more effect on me than my appealing to logic and rules of inference will on many non-materialists. Different axioms. quote:I am not sure why it is but at some point in every one of these discussions, the skeptic/materialist/atheist will be refered to as "arrogant", "blind", "bitter", "hard headed", and/or "closed-minded". I was going to ask in my first post in this thread that we try to avoid this but I did not want "presumptuous" to be added to the list. I will answer this charge by simply asking you if you believe in Santa Claus. If you do not then you are either too arogant or blind to see that a fat man using flying rheindeer pulled sleigh to deliver presents to every child of the world within a 12 hour period( burglarizing homes via the chimney which many homes lack) is possible. I am not trying to be offensive or facetious here, I am serious. No one's existential claim gets a free pass from skeptical scrutiny if you are being consistent. Santa and God are on the exact same footing until proven otherwise. quote:See above. IF we have no reason to infer the existence of a thing we have invented, it is logically fallacious to assume we lack the capability to observe such. Until we have reason to warrant the claim/belief we should not assume it exists and if the claim itself is not logically consistent then it should be dismissed out of hand. I do not need to search every inch of the universe to know that square shaped circles do not exist. quote:DO you make the weighty assertion that Wile E. Coyote does not exist in reality? I do. Let me tell you why... Wile E. Coyote is one of a plethora of similar imagined things we have witnessed humans creating for many years. He systematically violates physical laws in ways that, if real, would leave us in an "anything is possible" universe. When I assume Wile E. is an actual coyote, his ways make no sense. I find myself asking "Why doesn't he just buy food instead of rocket skates?" or "How come gravity does not take effect until he looks down and pulls a "YIKES!" sign from his ass?". When I assume that Wile E.(like gods) is a human invention, created for the purpose of entertaining me and/or teaching me something, then his ways make perfect sense. Buying rocket skates to chase Roadrunner into a painted false tunnel cliff face is funny! When I assume that God is an independently existing entity who has created and, to some degree or other, controls the universe, his ways make no sense. I find myself asking "If God wants us to know he exists and have a 'personal relationship' with him then why not just come out as a 900' Jesus and carve "Here I am" into the side of Mt. Everest or something? OR perform one of those unmistakable miracles described in the Bible? When I recognise that God is a made up thing, created to serve a purpose for humans(entertain, educate, persuade/control) then his ways make perfect sense. I can understand why a human suffering male pattern baldness would write a story about children who taunt a bald man being mauled by bears or why adultry made the list of commandments. quote:Ironic that you refer to/quote Adams(another strong atheist) above :) . The jury is NOT still out on God. The jury has spoken loudly and clearly that something cannot be 'A' and 'not A' at once. Something cannot be "beyond time" and still "existent". Something cannot be "omniscient" and yet "free willed". Something cannot be "omnibenevolent" and create a universe where evil is in such abundance. Something cannot be "omnipresent" and yet undetectable/immeasureable by humans because we lack the proper tools or the God is not physcial in nature. [ Tuesday, January 25, 2005 15:34: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 14:13
Profile
Homepage
I think there are logical contradictions involved in being omnipotent, and probably in being omniscient, too. I think there's some sort of Catholic theology from some point (Aquinas, maybe? don't know) that says that although good exists independent of God, God loves good and things that are good and nice and pretty and wonderful, so he tries to make everyone do good whenever possible and he pets happy bunnies and that sort of thing. And he's not all-powerful, just super-powerful, avoiding the dangerous contradictions involved in omnipotence. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 15:23
Profile
quote:Actually less so for omnipotence than omniscience. The reason I do not use teh "rock so heavy..." argument is because the question is nonsensical. Rocks are defined as (for all intents and purposes) "liftable objects" so asking if God could create a liftable object which cannot be lifted does nothing to disprove God(logically at least). One COULD theoretically define omnisicence in such a way that only that which is knowable is known by the "all knowing"(so, for example, an omniscient God could NOT know the future adn such) and this would do away with the paradox of omniscience vs. free will but then the theist runs into the other problem...he is about two steps from relegating his God to simply being the natural universe itself, sans sentience and therefore conceding to the atheist the non-existence of the metaphysical/supernatural God that exists independently. Also, he is still stuck with the problems of omnibenevolence(assuming he adheres to such concepts) and the omnipresence... quote:Beyond studying and refuting Aquinas' flawed "Ontological argument" I am not too familiar with his works but I think the rationalization concerning omnipotence that you refer to is not so much downgrading "all powerful" to "Super powerful" as it is pointing out that even an entity capable of all the power in the universe cannot do the illogical(i.e. create a round square or a rock so heavy he cannot lift it). -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 15:46
Profile
Homepage
You speak a lot about logic, but logic is really no different from any other branch of science; a model used to make sense of observations. We believe that something can't exist and not exist at the same time because we never observe things doing so, and therefore assume we live in a world where that can't happen. Even in this universe, there are many different systems of logic favoured by different philosophical schools. Which one do you favour? Classical logic? Intuitionistic logic? Relevance logic? None is immune to criticism. The objective ones have counterintuitive aspects, and the intuitive ones rely on subjective assessments. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |