philosophy about god

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DaShi
It can always create a way back. It's all-powerful afterall.

No, it WAS all-powerful. It IS no longer.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by skywalker


If you win a game of Risk, it's no fun to keep playing, is it? You have to bring back the "evil".

Not really.

The potential to live in eternal Napoleonic splendour has it's appeal.

[Kuciwalker]

You have a point

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


A law either can be changed or it can't. If it can't, then it can't, so there wouldn't be "catastrophic consequences" if it was, because it wouldn't be. If it can, then the nature of the universe is such to allow changes to those physical laws, so any "catastrophic consequences" would be a natural result of the physical laws of that universe.

I challenge you to name one natural law that can be broken without unraveling the whole. Can, for example, electrons be changed to attract to one another rather than repell?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Ned
All this discussion shows that to the extent that one attempts to define the attributes of God, clever people can quickly show that such attributes cannot possibly exist in a "supreme being." This either means that the definition of the attributes of God is incorrect, or that there is no God.

Well said

[Ben Kenobi]

But it still is similar to using your Spectrum ZX-28 manual to work out what is going on with a Advent 3.2Ghz PC.

Curtsibling:

So have people really changed their nature in 4000 years? I find this a dubious statement. We may have all these cool trappings, but people are still essentially unchanged.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Aeson
To me the 'stone too heavy' argument fails to deal with an entity which is not only all powerful, but all encompassing as well.

An all encompassing entity is going to be a black hole

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
But you're assuming that an all-powerful being can't have it's powers taken away without proving that to be true.

If a being can have its power taken away, that means whatever takes that power away, is more powerful than this being. Thus, this being is not omnipotent.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yes it can. It could prevent the removal of its power, but CHOOSES NOT TO.

No, no.

The operative word is "can." An entity whose power can be taken away cannot be the greatest, thus, not omnipotent.

Furthermore, if it has omnipotence taken away, it is no longer omnipotent, thus, any discussions about omnipotence do not apply to this entity anymore.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
If you win a game of Risk, it's no fun to keep playing, is it? You have to bring back the "evil".

Hm, you are positing that we cannot change our goal(s) once the original ones are attained.

[DaShi]

It can take its own powers away. Read the entire thread please.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Curtsibling:

So have people really changed their nature in 4000 years? I find this a dubious statement. We may have all these cool trappings, but people are still essentially unchanged.

Why 4000 years?
Are you one of the people who adhere to the world being 6000 years old?

If so, I find that a dubious statement.

Anyway, I beleive people have changed.
Compare the attitudes of a man in 150AD to one in 1980AD and you would see a huge difference.

That much is obvious.
And if you are seeking something deeper than that;

How many people now live in quaking fear of the pope, or theocrats like him?

How many people leap up in their 100,000s to be mown down for king and country?

Not many, I can tell you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you one of the people who adhere to the world being 6000 years old?

No.

4000 years, because that is when we can start to reliably date events in the bible. That is around the time of the Mosaic code.

Compare the attitudes of a man in 150AD to one in 1980AD and you would see a huge difference.

How have they changed? Most people sit and drink beer, watching a football game rather than going to the Colosseum for a gladiator match.

Or how about the Greeks discussing philosophy, like we do here on Apolyton? Nothing has changed.

How many people now live in quaking fear of the pope, or theocrats like him?

My girlfriend for one.

How many people leap up in their 100,000s to be mown down for king and country?

War in Iraq.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hm, you are positing that we cannot change our goal(s) once the original ones are attained.

If you change your definition of evil such that there is now evil in the world, then you've effectively done the same thing as wiping the board. I'm saying that without some sort of evil, life is boring and pointless.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
I challenge you to name one natural law that can be broken without unraveling the whole. Can, for example, electrons be changed to attract to one another rather than repell?

IF the physical laws allowed for such a change to occur, then yes, such a change could occur. Yes, the world as we know it would disappear (as it is a construct of our natural laws), but as I said, that would be a consequence inherent to the new law, NOT some sort of catastrophic thingamajigger from "breaking" a law of physics.