Tweet
Some pondering in a discussion with a straw-man.
Q: Can God create a stone which is that heavy that God can't lift it anymore?
A: Yes, God can do that
Q: So, God isn't omnipotent, since he can't lift that stone
A: He wouldn't be omnipotent if he would create such a stone, though as long as he won't create such a heavy stone (while he could do it) there would be no stone that he cannot lift.
Q: So, omnipotency can't be defined as being able to do all things imaganable but it can be defined as being able to do all things that you want to do.
A: That's true. Why would somebody who has the power to destruct himself be omnipotent if he does so? Is self-destruction not the the same as making yourself impotent? Would self-destruction not be the end of the subject? It's impossible that something that is not, is omnipotent, since that would mean that being omnipotent is the same as being impotent.
Q: So being able to do what you want to do makes one omnipotent. That means that if I want to do nothing I am omnipotent!
A: No, since if you want to do nothing, then that's actually what you want to do. Nothing. It's as in budhism. If you want to end suffering by eliminating all desires, you apprantly have the desire to not desire at all.
Q: But if I have simple goals in my life to reach, I may reach them, which makes me omnipotent.
A: That's true. Every man has the potence to become omnipotent. In fact, that's why we are gods. We all got the change to decide for ourselves to do what we want to do. To decide on what is good to be done and what is evil and shouldn't be done. Being omnipotent and being allowed to decide on good and evil is the key to be god.
Q: But I fail to perfectly live up to my own goals and morals
A: If you do so you apparantly are corrupted, and you're not omnipotent and neither are you able to live a good life according to your own moral standards. Which makes you quiet a misarable god.
Q: Ok, imagine that I would admit that I'm quiet a misarable god, so what? I never have chosen to be a god and neither did I ever claim to be any good at it.
A: If you don't claim so, why do you criticize others, if not to mention God himself, on their actions? And oftenly presume to know better then them?
Q: Why not? The fact that I'm unable to perfectly live up to my own desires and morals doesn't mean I can't judge others.
A: How could you judge others if you do not know their morals and desires? You can only judge them according to your own morals and desires. And what does make you that sure that your own morals and desires are good in itself if you admit that you're quiet a miserable god yourself? If you're not perfect it's most obviously that neither is your moral code.
Q: I don't dare to claim that my full moral code is totally perfect, but there are parts of my moral code in which I'm pretty sure that they are perfect. In example the part that says that one man shouldn't kill another man.
A: Do you agree with the death penalty? Do you agree with abortion? Do you wish Adolf Hitler would have been killed at the age of 12? If someone is suffering an enormous amount of pain and is clearly dying, should you end his suffering?
Q: What does this have to do with the matter we're discussing?
A: You may or may have not opinions on these issues. And there are others who have different opinions. Do you claim that you, while you admit that you are unable to live up to your own moral code or do everything you want to desire to do, that your opinion is the perfect opinion though? Does the fact that you're a miserable god not prevent you from being that arrogant that you claim that your opinion on when a man should be killed or not is perfect?
Q: Well, the issues you named are quiet complicated, I dare not to claim that I am perfectly right in every imaginable situation in which one man killed another man.
A: So, you admit that you're not able to be perfectly sure that your moral code on the issue of one man killing another man is right?
Q: Not in every situation
A: In which situation are you sure?
Q: In example if someone kills a totally healthy innocent 6 year old child who has a whole life in front of it.
A: What if this child appears to be Adolf Hitler?
Q: My moral code is right within the knowledge I have. I cannot see in advance, thus am I incapable to base my moral code on that which I don't know.
A: So you factually claim that anybody needs to know all information and knowledge to make a perfect judge on anything?
Q: In the end, yes. But since we're only humans and we lack the knowledge of all knowledge, we have to use the knowledge we have and base our moral code on that.
A: though somebody who would have all knowledge can't be judged or be frowned upon or be criticized by those who don't have all knowledge.
Q: Presuming that this all-knowing person has good intentions.
A: But how can anybody who is not all-knowing ever know if somebody has good intentions or not? And again, what is good? How could anybody who admits that he doesn't even live up to his own moral code and who cannot claim that his own moral code is perfectly good ever decide if anybody else is totally good and that his intentions are good?
Q: Ok, I admit, if I'm not omniscient, I can't.
A: So, back to the original question: why do you criticize others, if not to mention God himself, on their actions?
Q: I admit that I'm imperfect though since I know that the other humans aren't imperfect as well I think it's a good thing that we correct each other and criticise each other.
A: So, if one person who's imperfect criticises someone else who's imperfect, that's a good thing.
Q: I guess so.
A: So, presume that God is omniscient and omnipotent and his moral code is perfect, how could any imperfect being ever criticize him?
Q: If God would be like all you said, it would be impossible. Though if we take a look at the God of the Bible, I don't concider him to be perfectly good.
A: How do you know? Are you omniscient and all good?
Q: No, I'm not.
A: So, how can you decide if God is all good or not?
Q: Because he goes against some of my moral values on which I'm pretty sure that they are good.
A: Like the "don't ever kill another person" moral we discussed earlier and about which you admitted that it wasn't that infallable as you claimed earlier?
Q: Ok, if God does exist it is fair that I couldn't criticize hmi.
A: So, if there's no god, then there's nobody who's omniscient, omnipotent and all-good, since we call anybody who is omniscient and omnipotent and all-good god.
Q: That's true, I don't believe in devine beings like that.
A: Well, that means that everything and everybody is partly impotent, which means that in the end everything is chaos.
Q: Why so?
A: Because if things go not like the combination of everything wants thing to go (we're partly impotent, remember) and we can't even control what goes like we want it to go (which would make us omnipotent again) things apparantly go without a plan, which means chaos.
Q: Well, that's true, I believe that evolution and our existence is the result of chaos.
A: So, why do you have a moral code if in the end there's nothing to match your moral code with which is perfect enough to make it worthwile to have such a moral code or to try to live up to this moral code, while you admit that your moral code is imperfect. Why do you even start to try to live up to this moral code if you're sure in advance that you won't make it and even if you would make it you can't even be sure if you made something good since your moral code is imperfect?
Q: Well, man tries.........
A: But why?
Q: To make it the best!
A: The best what? The best chaos?
Q: To try to keep the chaos as little as possible.
A: While you are the result of chaos, in your own opinion, you try to get rid of this chaos.
Q: So?
A: If you try to get rid of the chaos that "created" you, you try to get rid of yourself as well.
Q: So?
A: That would make you impotent.
Q: So?
A: Everything you believe in, everything you stand for, everything you try to do is in vain.
Q: So?
A: If you agree so, what makes you read this post till the very end? Is it because you want to counter it? Is it because you want to find some truth in it? What are you looking for? A god who can create a stone that heavy that he won't be able to lift it?
Q: ...
A: Or is it just that you want to be your own god and having nobody interfering with what you do and what you don't, nobody telling you what your moral codes should be. Nobody who should tell you that you're imperfect, not capable to have a perfect moral code and surely not omniscient. In fact you'd rather depend on your self, being a miserable god, then accepting and searching for the omnipotent god? You rather prove to yourself that God does not exist then that?
Q: I'm a rational person. I want to find the truth by ratio.
A: How can anbody who's imperfect can ever find a rational answer within himself?
Q: So, where should I look for the rational truth?
A: Outside yourself. un-god yourself and let God be god and obey to his moral codes and be man again. Eventhough you are a miserable god, I'm sure that you would do a good job as a human. Just ask God (it doesn't matter if you believe in his existance or not) to make you fully human again and make you what he ever wanted you to be. Not a wannabe-god but completely human.
Q: So, that's the question? If I want to be a god or not?
A: Indeed, that's the question. Do you want to be human and do you want God to be god.
Q: Can God create a stone which is that heavy that God can't lift it anymore?
A: Yes, God can do that
Q: So, God isn't omnipotent, since he can't lift that stone
A: He wouldn't be omnipotent if he would create such a stone, though as long as he won't create such a heavy stone (while he could do it) there would be no stone that he cannot lift.
Q: So, omnipotency can't be defined as being able to do all things imaganable but it can be defined as being able to do all things that you want to do.
A: That's true. Why would somebody who has the power to destruct himself be omnipotent if he does so? Is self-destruction not the the same as making yourself impotent? Would self-destruction not be the end of the subject? It's impossible that something that is not, is omnipotent, since that would mean that being omnipotent is the same as being impotent.
Q: So being able to do what you want to do makes one omnipotent. That means that if I want to do nothing I am omnipotent!
A: No, since if you want to do nothing, then that's actually what you want to do. Nothing. It's as in budhism. If you want to end suffering by eliminating all desires, you apprantly have the desire to not desire at all.
Q: But if I have simple goals in my life to reach, I may reach them, which makes me omnipotent.
A: That's true. Every man has the potence to become omnipotent. In fact, that's why we are gods. We all got the change to decide for ourselves to do what we want to do. To decide on what is good to be done and what is evil and shouldn't be done. Being omnipotent and being allowed to decide on good and evil is the key to be god.
Q: But I fail to perfectly live up to my own goals and morals
A: If you do so you apparantly are corrupted, and you're not omnipotent and neither are you able to live a good life according to your own moral standards. Which makes you quiet a misarable god.
Q: Ok, imagine that I would admit that I'm quiet a misarable god, so what? I never have chosen to be a god and neither did I ever claim to be any good at it.
A: If you don't claim so, why do you criticize others, if not to mention God himself, on their actions? And oftenly presume to know better then them?
Q: Why not? The fact that I'm unable to perfectly live up to my own desires and morals doesn't mean I can't judge others.
A: How could you judge others if you do not know their morals and desires? You can only judge them according to your own morals and desires. And what does make you that sure that your own morals and desires are good in itself if you admit that you're quiet a miserable god yourself? If you're not perfect it's most obviously that neither is your moral code.
Q: I don't dare to claim that my full moral code is totally perfect, but there are parts of my moral code in which I'm pretty sure that they are perfect. In example the part that says that one man shouldn't kill another man.
A: Do you agree with the death penalty? Do you agree with abortion? Do you wish Adolf Hitler would have been killed at the age of 12? If someone is suffering an enormous amount of pain and is clearly dying, should you end his suffering?
Q: What does this have to do with the matter we're discussing?
A: You may or may have not opinions on these issues. And there are others who have different opinions. Do you claim that you, while you admit that you are unable to live up to your own moral code or do everything you want to desire to do, that your opinion is the perfect opinion though? Does the fact that you're a miserable god not prevent you from being that arrogant that you claim that your opinion on when a man should be killed or not is perfect?
Q: Well, the issues you named are quiet complicated, I dare not to claim that I am perfectly right in every imaginable situation in which one man killed another man.
A: So, you admit that you're not able to be perfectly sure that your moral code on the issue of one man killing another man is right?
Q: Not in every situation
A: In which situation are you sure?
Q: In example if someone kills a totally healthy innocent 6 year old child who has a whole life in front of it.
A: What if this child appears to be Adolf Hitler?
Q: My moral code is right within the knowledge I have. I cannot see in advance, thus am I incapable to base my moral code on that which I don't know.
A: So you factually claim that anybody needs to know all information and knowledge to make a perfect judge on anything?
Q: In the end, yes. But since we're only humans and we lack the knowledge of all knowledge, we have to use the knowledge we have and base our moral code on that.
A: though somebody who would have all knowledge can't be judged or be frowned upon or be criticized by those who don't have all knowledge.
Q: Presuming that this all-knowing person has good intentions.
A: But how can anybody who is not all-knowing ever know if somebody has good intentions or not? And again, what is good? How could anybody who admits that he doesn't even live up to his own moral code and who cannot claim that his own moral code is perfectly good ever decide if anybody else is totally good and that his intentions are good?
Q: Ok, I admit, if I'm not omniscient, I can't.
A: So, back to the original question: why do you criticize others, if not to mention God himself, on their actions?
Q: I admit that I'm imperfect though since I know that the other humans aren't imperfect as well I think it's a good thing that we correct each other and criticise each other.
A: So, if one person who's imperfect criticises someone else who's imperfect, that's a good thing.
Q: I guess so.
A: So, presume that God is omniscient and omnipotent and his moral code is perfect, how could any imperfect being ever criticize him?
Q: If God would be like all you said, it would be impossible. Though if we take a look at the God of the Bible, I don't concider him to be perfectly good.
A: How do you know? Are you omniscient and all good?
Q: No, I'm not.
A: So, how can you decide if God is all good or not?
Q: Because he goes against some of my moral values on which I'm pretty sure that they are good.
A: Like the "don't ever kill another person" moral we discussed earlier and about which you admitted that it wasn't that infallable as you claimed earlier?
Q: Ok, if God does exist it is fair that I couldn't criticize hmi.
A: So, if there's no god, then there's nobody who's omniscient, omnipotent and all-good, since we call anybody who is omniscient and omnipotent and all-good god.
Q: That's true, I don't believe in devine beings like that.
A: Well, that means that everything and everybody is partly impotent, which means that in the end everything is chaos.
Q: Why so?
A: Because if things go not like the combination of everything wants thing to go (we're partly impotent, remember) and we can't even control what goes like we want it to go (which would make us omnipotent again) things apparantly go without a plan, which means chaos.
Q: Well, that's true, I believe that evolution and our existence is the result of chaos.
A: So, why do you have a moral code if in the end there's nothing to match your moral code with which is perfect enough to make it worthwile to have such a moral code or to try to live up to this moral code, while you admit that your moral code is imperfect. Why do you even start to try to live up to this moral code if you're sure in advance that you won't make it and even if you would make it you can't even be sure if you made something good since your moral code is imperfect?
Q: Well, man tries.........
A: But why?
Q: To make it the best!
A: The best what? The best chaos?
Q: To try to keep the chaos as little as possible.
A: While you are the result of chaos, in your own opinion, you try to get rid of this chaos.
Q: So?
A: If you try to get rid of the chaos that "created" you, you try to get rid of yourself as well.
Q: So?
A: That would make you impotent.
Q: So?
A: Everything you believe in, everything you stand for, everything you try to do is in vain.
Q: So?
A: If you agree so, what makes you read this post till the very end? Is it because you want to counter it? Is it because you want to find some truth in it? What are you looking for? A god who can create a stone that heavy that he won't be able to lift it?
Q: ...
A: Or is it just that you want to be your own god and having nobody interfering with what you do and what you don't, nobody telling you what your moral codes should be. Nobody who should tell you that you're imperfect, not capable to have a perfect moral code and surely not omniscient. In fact you'd rather depend on your self, being a miserable god, then accepting and searching for the omnipotent god? You rather prove to yourself that God does not exist then that?
Q: I'm a rational person. I want to find the truth by ratio.
A: How can anbody who's imperfect can ever find a rational answer within himself?
Q: So, where should I look for the rational truth?
A: Outside yourself. un-god yourself and let God be god and obey to his moral codes and be man again. Eventhough you are a miserable god, I'm sure that you would do a good job as a human. Just ask God (it doesn't matter if you believe in his existance or not) to make you fully human again and make you what he ever wanted you to be. Not a wannabe-god but completely human.
Q: So, that's the question? If I want to be a god or not?
A: Indeed, that's the question. Do you want to be human and do you want God to be god.
Comment