Aqualung said:
It doesn't limit his goodness. It limits his goodness to stop it now. It's "a few years out of eternity of suffering to allow for an eternity of true joy" vs. "no suffering, and no growth, no joy, no nothing, just stagnacy." You're the one limiting his goodness.
Thanks very much. I never knew i was that powerful to be able to limit a all-powerful beingKnockout . Woohoo :jam:. Lol, kidding aside, you have offered 2 opinions on possible outcomes, when there are others such as "no suffering, ability to grow, ability to experience joy, everything, eternity of true joy". Why is that not a possible outcome? Why do
we have to experience suffering to grow and experience joy when it was God who made the rules? He could have made them any way(unless you don't believe god had this choice but does this not limit him somewhat?)
Aqualung said:
No, it doesn't. Everybody who will ever live has already been created in spirit. Nobody else is being created.
Ok, i was unaware that this was your belief. And i don't remember how this fits into the argument.
Aqualung said:
Then stop twisting, inferring, and illogically using my words.
Please explain where i did this? Where i told you to stop making a personal attack i showed the quote which, most certainly, was intended to be personal.
Aqualung said:
There's no proof of anything!! You can't just pick and choose which non-proven things to argue.
I know that I exist. Is this not proof of me at least to myself? Other thing are sensory and i believe them to be true as I have seen the proof and trust my senses. Other things such as the supernatural, there is absolutely no proof which can be shown from one person to another.
Aqualung said:
Pretty much the same stuff that happens here, except of course for the stuff that you neeed a body for.
In what way do you suffer and learn?
Aqualung said:
You can if you want, but since the sprit world is part of my argumetn about god's goodness, I'm goping to continue using it in this thread.
But you cannot use something as proof which you and you only(out of me and you)believe. If you are to use it as proof, you must prove it exists.
Aqualung said:
Because then we can become like him.
When and how did God suffer? The only way we would be like him is if we experienced what he has experienced. If we become like him, does that not make us also gods? Did not God say he is the only God?
Aqualung said:
I've seen lots of differnt definitions of God on this forum, probably because there are lots of differnt theists in this forum.
But most follow the same basic structure of a being greater than ourselves, most of which are omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent, creators of the universe.
Aqualung said:
It's really only widely accepted by non-theists. Very few theists veiw god the way you do.
Is that why theologians when discussing gods describe them as such? Why we atheists make up definitions of a being they don't even believe in? The definitions have came from phylosophers, theologians, and religious books. God is omnipotent acording to the Bible(the only holy book I really know much about), "
God Almighty"
Aqualung said:
I'm not the one who needs to define God. You say stuff like, "God is not God because he is not perfect (perfection being this)." All I have to say is you're wrong, and why. I don't have to provide an alternative to your sentence or to your definitions, but just tell you why you're wrong.
Well i will never be able to discuss
your god, which you keep telling me I'm wrong about, because you wont describe it, will I? So it is up to you to describe your god. I have describe the god I am discussing and you keep telling me this is not your god. I will keep arguing about the god i have repeatedly described until your describe yours. Or are you not telling me because if/when the worst comes to the worst and you cannot offer opposing arguments, you will just tell me that I'm not discussing
your god? Therefore eliminating your need for a reply.
Aqualung said:
I know that. I just don't think perfect means "doing whatever pandamonk thinks in humanity's best interest" or that omnibenevolent means "doing whatever pandamonk thinks causes the least amount of suffering."
Well please explain what you do think they mean? Also I have never said that I am right and that doing what i say is in the best interest of humanity. I've just offered my opinion. Maybe you cannot except my opinion because it does not contain your God and this leads to personal attacks on me like the one quoted above.
Aqualung said:
When did I say that God is learning? I said he had to learn in the past... but I don't think he's learning now.
So are you saying that God was once not omniscient and had to learn to become omniscient? I believe this to be impossibly as omniscient means all-knowing, ie infinite knowledge. If you start without infinite knowledge, no matter how much you learn there will always be more knowledge to be learnt.
Aqualung said:
If he was omnicient, he hasn't had to learn. Don't change verb tense like that.
So you're saying he is now but once wasn't? Read above for my argument against.
Aqualung said:
I think he's omnipotent, but I don't believe that omnipotent things can create sqare circles or rocks too big to lift.
I never said he need to be able to do these things to be omnipotent(maybe in past debates but never in this one). I just said that he could of made us differently unless he was limited in the way he created us. But surely he would have the choice of allowing us the knowledge of good and evil while creating rather than planting a tree in the garden. He put the knowledge into the tree, why not put it in their minds?
Aqualung said:
Just bcause I have differnt veiws don't go assuming I'm retarded.
When did I ever assume you were retarded? I explained what was meant by omnipotent because you keep telling me I'm miss using the words and don't have the correct meanings and that i should explain what i mean by certain words before i use them.
Aqualung said:
Sicne when did all and infinite have the same meaning? If I have all the tables in teh world, does that mean I have an infinite number of tables? Of course not. I have a finite number of tables, because I have all of them.
Well, is there limit to power?
Aqualung said:
...rife with logical inconsistencies...
Please show these and explain how and why they are inconsistent.
Aqualung said:
He learned in much the same way you and I and the rest of mankind are learning. I don't know where it says that. I'd have to dig up the quote.
Please do so. And knowledge is infinite in my opinion, so you cannot go from haveing average knowledge to infinite as i showed before.
Aqualung said:
Yes, but only because all does not equal infinite, and omnipotent doesn't mean being able to create square circles and rocks so big he can't lift them.
Omnipotent means all-power, power=energy and energy is infinite.
Aqualung said:
Pretty easily. I can conceive of a dog so big it could mush houses under its paws, but no such dog can exist.
Why is that better than perfection?
Aqualung said:
Don't be so egotistical. "Your" definition is not "the standard definition."
I disagree. I have read a few phylosophical books and they all mention God in this way. They didn't just make it up so they could argue against it. They got the definitions from theologians and religious books and use the most widely used definitions of gods in their arguments. They do not use the ones held by individual belief systems, if they did they would not be discussing gods in general, but a certain god.