Fun with Logic

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Surprised that this went by unchallenged.

This presumes that Good can only be defined in opposition to something bad, and vice versa.

Consider this, if good and evil were mere opposites, how would we know which was which? Could we not just as easily say that what is evil is good and what is good is evil?

In short, unless you have some external concept of goodness, you could never declare something to be good.

Ooh, I like that. I very often disagree with your specific opinions, Obiwan (my name is Ben, I just can't call you by your handle), but I like what you say.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


If your god can defy logic, this god will be incomprehensible to humans. As a result, you are just uttering nonsense.

Until God so chooses to elevate humans to a level where he is comprehensible to us. Do your homework, or don't play.

[Ben Kenobi]

though it does go against the idea that God is omnipotent.

Now we get back into Free Will. God placing voluntary limitations on himself does not render him less omnipotent.

It's just hard to figure out why he would make us like the way we are since we only get to peek at a tiny portion of the plan.

[David Floyd]

So when are ya gonna respond to my last post in the assisted suicide thread?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Now we get back into Free Will. God placing voluntary limitations on himself does not render him less omnipotent.

It's just hard to figure out why he would make us like the way we are since we only get to peek at a tiny portion of the plan.

No no no, your analogy suggests that God is incapable of creating a perfect man, not that he chooses not to.

even the best potter cannot make an indestructable pot of clay, nor can God make a perfect man.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Surprised that this went by unchallenged.

This presumes that Good can only be defined in opposition to something bad, and vice versa.

Of course. If there were no evil, the notion of good would have never occurred to humans in the first place. If something is unconditionally present, you never realize it is there.

Consider this, if good and evil were mere opposites, how would we know which was which? Could we not just as easily say that what is evil is good and what is good is evil?

What do you mean how we would know? Even an animal knows perfectly well what is good and what is bad for him. IMHO, you overcomplicate the problem a little bit.

BTW, they are opposites, but perhaps not mere opposites.

In short, unless you have some external concept of goodness, you could never declare something to be good.

External or not external doesn't matter for what we are discussing. Without evil present, humans wouldn't be able to grasp the notion of good, no matter how hard the "external" teacher tried to show them. For all his omnipotence, even God would not be able to explain what good is if evil didn't exist.

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Of course. If there were no evil, the notion of good would have never occurred to humans in the first place. If something is unconditionally present, you never realize it is there.

Would God not also be the one who originally posited the existence of something called 'good' and something which contrasted it, called 'evil'? Or do you think that man somehow came up with these two ideas in relation to something which affected him directly?

In order to know what would strike God as good or evil, God would have to have made some attempt to define good and evil, and then he would have had to have an example of what he considered to be good and one of evil, which could simply be the same example.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
What do you mean how we would know? Even an animal knows perfectly well what is good and what is bad for him. IMHO, you overcomplicate the problem a little bit.

Perhaps God is in all living things, whether self-aware or not, since they have an intrinsic definition of good and bad using their own self as a focus. Knowing what is good or evil for oneself, one may attribute this knowledge to God, and therefore become God by proxy.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
BTW, they are opposites, but perhaps not mere opposites.

I would say they are more like extremes of one spectrum, the way that violet light is one extreme of the visible spectrum, and red light being the other. A stationary point between them allows us to determine how far away one is from the other, and we can use those relative distances to draw a quantitative comparison. If good is red and evil is violet, and God is, for example, yellow, then God is closer to good than evil. Of course if God is green, then God is closer to evil than good. (For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the visible spectrum is the range from 400 - 700 nm.)

Originally posted by The Vagabond
External or not external doesn't matter for what we are discussing. Without evil present, humans wouldn't be able to grasp the notion of good, no matter how hard the "external" teacher tried to show them. For all his omnipotence, even God would not be able to explain what good is if evil didn't exist.

So God needs an example, and probably uses his own experience as that example. Swap out 'I say' with 'God says' and you've effectively become God - a self-taught God.