Epicurus' riddle

[prometheus11]

Oh, sorry, thought there was more to you than insults. How sad.

 

[Town Heretic]

No its a series of conditional logic based on common assumptions of God. It covers several possible assumptions about God and addresses them all. The idea is to show how several ideas of God cannot logically be held at the same time--for instance that God is all good and all powerful.

I don't find a contradiction in suffering, God's perfect goodness and omnipotence.

 

[Town Heretic]

Oh, sorry, thought there was more to you than insults. How sad.

Yes, you seem broken up about it. But what was it you offered again? I'll wait while you don't consider it.

 

[prometheus11]

Oh don't get me wrong. It's nothing to me other than you have caused me sadness because of your eagerness to insult whenever you can. It's saddening. Doesn't insulting others for fun make you sad, or has your soul calloused over? You see it makes me sad when I see someone wallow in spite. You cause sadness. You really do. Did you break recently of was it a while ago?

 

[serp777]

I don't find a contradiction in suffering, God's perfect goodness and omnipotence.

Well its easy to show and doesn't depend on suffering in the world.. If God is perfectly good, then it means he can do no evil. If he can do no evil, then not only does he not have free will, since he only has the selection of being good, but there are things can't do--all evil things. That's a huge number of choices God can't make since he's all good. Therefore saying God is all good and omnipotent is completely contradictory. Omnipotent, after all, means God is capable of doing everything. To make the assertion that God is all good is ridiculous--why would God be all good? Morality is a human invention--God isn't subject to human morals. God is beyond morality which is why God being omnipotent on its own is fair--God does whatever God wants and is able to do anything he wants.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well its easy to show and doesn't depend on suffering in the world.. If God is perfectly good, then it means he can do no evil. If he can do no evil, then not only does he not have free will, since he only has the selection of being good, but there are things can't do--all evil things.

It means He won't desire it. Here's another way of answering you on the point of will and limitation...I can't add two and two and get five because I know how to add. Now does that limit my will or freedom? Only in a sense that knowing limits. Before you know better anything you put in your mouth may look like food. God's nature is the source of what we call the good. He isn't limited any more than I'm limited in expression by virtue of understanding subject-verb agreement.

That's a huge number of choices God can't make since he's all good. Therefore saying God is all good and omnipotent is completely contradictory.

Therefore isn't an argument, its an assumption. Again, perfection is limitation in the sense that knowledge is limitation. Before you know anything you're free to assume everything. But you're assuming a superior value that simply isn't in play. It's the same mistake some argue is made ontologically when asserting that physical being is superior to the idea of being. It's not objectively true, only a valuation wearing the robes of a truth.

Omnipotent, after all, means God is capable of doing everything

Not in my dictionary. It means "having complete or unlimited power". Choice isn't a power. Else you're arguing against God on the basis of the impossibility of a square circle.

To make the assertion that God is all good is ridiculous--why would God be all good?

I was answering the question of my definition of God. If God is less than perfectly good then he is morally imperfect, unless the standard of moral perfection is something other than being perfectly good. But to assume anything less of God is to render Him useless in relation. If God is less than perfectly good, exist or not, we shouldn't care, since He cannot then be relied upon and all you're left with is an unfathomable power that might as well be the mechanism of the universe. So if you're going to have faith in God that faith has to be formed in the foundational truth of His goodness or you're inarguably wasting your time instead of arguably.

Morality is a human invention--God isn't subject to human morals.

No one believes God is subject to human morals. Rather, many humans believe we are subject to or define morality properly by His light, which is manifest in us and available to us.

 

[serp777]

It means He won't desire it. Here's another way of answering you on the point of will and limitation...I can't add two and two and get five because I know how to add. Now does that limit my will or freedom? Only in a sense that knowing limits. Before you know better anything you put in your mouth may look like food. God's nature is the source of what we call the good. He isn't limited any more than I'm limited in expression by virtue of understanding subject-verb agreement.


Therefore isn't an argument, its an assumption. Again, perfection is limitation in the sense that knowledge is limitation. Before you know anything you're free to assume everything. But you're assuming a superior value that simply isn't in play. It's the same mistake some argue is made ontologically when asserting that physical being is superior to the idea of being. It's not objectively true, only a valuation wearing the robes of a truth.


Not in my dictionary. It means "having complete or unlimited power". Choice isn't a power. Else you're arguing against God on the basis of the impossibility of a square circle.


I was answering the question of my definition of God. If God is less than perfectly good then he is morally imperfect, unless the standard of moral perfection is something other than being perfectly good. But to assume anything less of God is to render Him useless in relation. If God is less than perfectly good, exist or not, it's of no real consideration since He cannot then be relied upon. So if you're going to have faith in God that faith has to be formed in the foundational truth of His goodness or you're inarguably wasting your time instead of arguably.


No one believes God is subject to human morals. Rather, many humans believe we are subject to or define morality properly by His light, which is manifest in us and available to us.

It means He won't desire it. Here's another way of answering you on the point of will and limitation...I can't add two and two and get five because I know how to add. Now does that limit my will or freedom? Only in a sense that knowing limits. Before you know better anything you put in your mouth may look like food. God's nature is the source of what we call the good. He isn't limited any more than I'm limited in expression by virtue of understanding subject-verb agreement.

So in other words he can do it, he just doesn't want to? Well then he can't be all good. If he is capable of evil he can't be all good. Someone who is all good by definition is not capable of doing evil. The most good you could possibly be would be if you could never be evil no matter what.

I can't add two and two and get five because I know how to add. Now does that limit my will or freedom?

Seriously? Sure you can. You have the freedom to be wrong. 2 + 2 = 5
5 - 2 = 2.
I just did it. Not being able to do that would limit your choice, if you physically couldn't do that. Having free will means the freedom to be wrong as well. If you can only do the right thing then it isn't free will since your actions are predetermined by what is right. A computer program doesn't have free will because its results are determined by what is logical and it can't be wrong assuming proper hardware operation and a flawless algorithm. if God cannot be wrong then he is simply a computer program that takes in input and outputs a result according to an algorithm that determines what is right.

Therefore isn't an argument, its an assumption.

Its not an assumption, its a deduction. Its A and B does not imply C.

Not in my dictionary. It means "having complete or unlimited power". Choice isn't a power. Else you're arguing against God on the basis of the impossibility of a square circle.

If there is something you can't do then it means you don't have unlimited power. Your power is then limited by what you can't do. The definition of power is : "the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality"
Power and choice are absolutely related. The reason why its ridiculous to say power and choice aren't related is because you would be implying that a God who could only make 1 decision regarding 1 thing, but was able to have unlimited power in regards to that thing, would be omnipotent. For instance, if the only thing God could do was have unlimited love then that would make him omnipotent if choice is irrelevant to having unlimited power. It makes way more sense to say God has maximal power--the most power he can have without being logically contradictory. It also only makes sense to say God is maximally good--that God is only as good as he can be while maintaining free will and being maximally
powerful. Finally if God can make an evil decision then he is only maximally good by definition anyways,

If God is less than perfectly good, exist or not, it's of no real consideration since He cannot then be relied upon.

God is not less than perfectly good he is beyond morality. He is not limited by morality if he has unlimited power.

 

[Town Heretic]

So in other words he can do it, he just doesn't want to? Well then he can't be all good. If he is capable of evil he can't be all good. Someone who is all good by definition is not capable of doing evil. The most good you could possibly be would be if you could never be evil no matter what.

I can't tell what it is in particular you believe that sums, which was possibly the point of declaring that after a rather large block quote. It doesn't follow as a conclusion from what it follows literally.

Seriously? Sure you can. You have the freedom to be wrong. 2 + 2 = 5

That's not really freedom. That's just a peculiar way to describe ignorance. The point of adding is to come to a sum. It's no limitation to know a thing. It's a limitation to not know--an imperfect and inferior sum of sorts.

Having free will means the freedom to be wrong as well.

No, it doesn't. Here's an exercise in free will having nothing whatsoever to do with being wrong: jazz or something else?

If you can only do the right thing then it isn't free will since your actions are predetermined by what is right.

No, you're assuming that choice is only between a right thing and the multitude of wrong decisions. It isn't, supra. Nor is a greater number of choices a superior state, which is why the rapist isn't your social superior, assuming.

A computer program doesn't have free will because its results are determined by what is logical and it can't be wrong assuming proper hardware operation and a flawless algorithm. if God cannot be wrong then he is simply a computer program that takes in input and outputs a result according to an algorithm that determines what is right.

The problem isn't with God, but with your conflation and

Its not an assumption, its a deduction. Its A and B does not imply C.

Try directly applying that formula to your statement.

If there is something you can't do then it means you don't have unlimited power.

No, it doesn't. There's no definition in which that statement is true. If there is something for which you lack sufficient power then you can't be omnipotent, which is a very different thing. But you cannot do that which is impossible and there's no limitation in not being capable of doing what can't be done.

Your power is then limited by what you can't do. The definition of power is : "the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality"

Your failure is in the application, the "something" for which there is insufficient power to accomplish.

Power and choice are absolutely related.

No, but they can be. I may be absolutely still in absolute power, doing nothing.

The reason why its ridiculous to say power and choice aren't related is because you would be implying that a God who could only make 1 decision regarding 1 thing, but was able to have unlimited power in regards to that thing, would be omnipotent.

Again, you're conflating things unrelated to power. Perfection of the good by definition limits choice, by virtue of denying an evil action, but that only limits a numerical rendering of choice, and one that leaves the greater number in an inferior position. Perfection is first and foremost the definition advanced for God. Perfect power isn't a mandate for any action nor is its nature diminished by relation to perfection in moral understanding.

 

[serp777]

I can't tell what it is in particular you believe that sums, which was possibly the point of declaring that after a rather large block quote. It doesn't follow as a conclusion from what it follows literally.


That's not really freedom. That's just a peculiar way to describe ignorance. The point of adding is to come to a sum. It's no limitation to know a thing. It's a limitation to not know--an imperfect and inferior sum of sorts.


No, it doesn't. Here's an exercise in free will having nothing whatsoever to do with being wrong: jazz or something else?


No, you're assuming that choice is only between a right thing and the multitude of wrong decisions. It isn't, supra. Nor is a greater number of choices a superior state, which is why the rapist isn't your social superior, assuming.


The problem isn't with God, but with your conflation and


Try directly applying that formula to your statement.


No, it doesn't. There's no definition in which that statement is true. If there is something for which you lack sufficient power then you can't be omnipotent, which is a very different thing. But you cannot do that which is impossible and there's no limitation in not being capable of doing what can't be done.


Your failure is in the application, the "something" for which there is insufficient power to accomplish.


No, but they can be. I may be absolutely still in absolute power, doing nothing.


Again, you're conflating things unrelated to power. Perfection of the good by definition limits choice, by virtue of denying an evil action, but that only limits a numerical rendering of choice, and one that leaves the greater number in an inferior position. Perfection is first and foremost the definition advanced for God. Perfect power isn't a mandate for any action nor is its nature diminished by relation to perfection in moral understanding.

I can't tell what it is in particular you believe that sums, which was possibly the point of declaring that after a rather large block quote. It doesn't follow as a conclusion from what it follows literally.

What doesn't follow as a conclusion and how doesn't it follow?

That's not really freedom. That's just a peculiar way to describe ignorance. The point of adding is to come to a sum. It's no limitation to know a thing. It's a limitation to not know--an imperfect and inferior sum of sorts.

That's not ignorance. I know how to add-- 2 + 2 = 4, i just chose to add incorrectly to prove that I could make the choice to be wrong in spite of knowing otherwise. Since i do know the actual answer of 2 + 2 it means i can't be ignorant of the fact by the definition of ignorance.

No, it doesn't. Here's an exercise in free will having nothing whatsoever to do with being wrong: jazz or something else?

Sure it does; I have the freedom to be wrong if I want, even knowing that I'm wrong. This is an example that has no right or wrong answer and so its not relevant to the question of whether God can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent because omnibenevolence is about what's right and wrong..

No, it doesn't. There's no definition in which that statement is true. If there is something for which you lack sufficient power then you can't be omnipotent, which is a very different thing. But you cannot do that which is impossible and there's no limitation in not being capable of doing what can't be done.

Actually its true based on the standard definition

Power, a noun, "the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality."

Furthermore the definition of omnipotence:
"(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything."

What you're saying is that God is maximally powerful--that he has the maximum amount of power he could have without being logically inconsistent. Someone with unlimited power would be able to determine what logic is and how it works, create whatever reality they wanted, and be beyond any kind of standard or limitation and actually redefine what limitations are in the first place. You're limiting God by the fact that he needs to be logically consistent and fit within the bounds of what you determine to be impossible. So your God is only maximally powerful within the confines of logic, or are you saying that's the same thing as unlimited? You certainly haven't demonstrated that unlimited power needs to be within the bounds of logical consistency. Unlimited isn't limited by any standard that determines what is impossible--unlimited by definition rejects anything that would impose a limit.

Again, you're conflating things unrelated to power. Perfection of the good by definition limits choice, by virtue of denying an evil action, but that only limits a numerical rendering of choice, and one that leaves the greater number in an inferior position. Perfection is first and foremost the definition advanced for God. Perfect power isn't a mandate for any action nor is its nature diminished by relation to perfection in moral understanding.

So exactly, which is why I brought up this point : "you would be implying that a God who could only make 1 decision regarding 1 thing, but was able to have unlimited power in regards to that one thing, would be omnipotent." I mean you're suggesting the number of choices you have doesn't impact the limitations of your power. Suppose for whatever reason that God was limited to only make one choice for all time--is he still omnipotent because he has unlimited power with regards to that one choice? How many choices does it take to allow you to have unlimited power? Is it the total number of choices minus the number of mutually exclusive choices based on logic?

 

[Town Heretic]

What doesn't follow as a conclusion and how doesn't it follow?

I don't know what your answer was aimed at because of the large, block quote that preceded it, which covered some ground.

That's not ignorance. I know how to add-- 2 + 2 = 4, i just chose to add incorrectly to prove that I could make the choice to be wrong in spite of knowing otherwise.

Why would you? Of what value is that choice except to underline your imperfection? Again, number isn't freedom and knowledge isn't limitation, except in that numerical sense.

Since i do know the actual answer of 2 + 2 it means i can't be ignorant of the fact by the definition of ignorance.

Similarly, you could know what the good is and choose to do that which you know to be in opposition. Doesn't impact my illustration or argument.

Sure it does;

I only just illustrated that it needn't have, supra. Again, Jazz or something else, chocolate or strawberry, that hill or this valley, and on and on.

Power, a noun, "the ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality."

To do something, entailing by logical necessity that the thing can be done or it's a nonsensical circle.

Furthermore the definition of omnipotence: "(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything."

To do anything that power can do and even then within the context of what He wills. He will not do that which is contrary to His nature. The power to be imperfect is not, in point of fact, a power at all. It's a symptom of a weakness, a flaw.

What you're saying is that God is maximally powerful--that he has the maximum amount of power he could have without being logically inconsistent.

I'm saying there is nothing to do beyond that which can be done. The rest is a word game, meaningless.

Someone with unlimited power would be able to determine what logic is

No, that's like suggesting God could randomly choose His nature. Not if perfect is meaningful and God is perfect.

You're limiting God by the fact that he needs to be logically consistent and fit within the bounds of what you determine to be impossible.

No. You're continuing to confuse volume with something that it isn't, supra.

So your God is only maximally powerful within the confines of logic, or are you saying that's the same thing as unlimited?

I'm saying that God is the sum of power, of goodness, of knowledge. Logic is a means to reflect and understand that and not a shackle.

You certainly haven't demonstrated that unlimited power needs to be within the bounds of logical consistency.

You're conflating power and the use of power.

Unlimited isn't limited by any standard that determines what is impossible--unlimited by definition rejects anything that would impose a limit.

No, it really doesn't. By way of example, unlimited goodness would necessarily have no place within it for evil. Again, it's the number/value problem with your thinking.

So exactly, which is why I brought up this point : "you would be implying that a God who could only make 1 decision regarding 1 thing, but was able to have unlimited power in regards to that one thing, would be omnipotent." I mean you're suggesting the number of choices you have doesn't impact the limitations of your power.

That's absolutely correct. If God is and if God is perfect in His goodness then His power is absolute, even as His nature defines what that power will be used for and what it will not.

 

[serp777]

I don't know what your answer was aimed at because of the large, block quote that preceded it, which covered some ground.


Why would you? Of what value is that choice except to underline your imperfection? Again, number isn't freedom and knowledge isn't limitation, except in that numerical sense.


Similarly, you could know what the good is and choose to do that which you know to be in opposition. Doesn't impact my illustration or argument.


I only just illustrated that it needn't have, supra. Again, Jazz or something else, chocolate or strawberry, that hill or this valley, and on and on.


To do something, entailing by logical necessity that the thing can be done or it's a nonsensical circle.


To do anything that power can do and even then within the context of what He wills. He will not do that which is contrary to His nature. The power to be imperfect is not, in point of fact, a power at all. It's a symptom of a weakness, a flaw.


I'm saying there is nothing to do beyond that which can be done. The rest is a word game, meaningless.


No, that's like suggesting God could randomly choose His nature. Not if perfect is meaningful and God is perfect.


No. You're continuing to confuse volume with something that it isn't, supra.


I'm saying that God is the sum of power, of goodness, of knowledge. Logic is a means to reflect and understand that and not a shackle.


You're conflating power and the use of power.


No, it really doesn't. By way of example, unlimited goodness would necessarily have no place within it for evil. Again, it's the number/value problem with your thinking.


That's absolutely correct. If God is and if God is perfect in His goodness then His power is absolute, even as His nature defines what that power will be used for and what it will not.

Why would you? Of what value is that choice except to underline your imperfection? Again, number isn't freedom and knowledge isn't limitation, except in that numerical sense.

The why is irrelevant. I would do it to demonstrate that I am capable of doing it in order to prove a point that I have the freedom to be wrong. What you're describing, as i've already said, is maximally powerful, not unlimited. There's a big difference. I'm also not interest in perfect, so the fact that there are imperfections is a non issue for me. Again, when there's something you can't do then its limited by whatever criteria you're giving. Unlimited literally means this: "not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent." you're limiting both the quantity and extent here.

Similarly, you could know what the good is and choose to do that which you know to be in opposition. Doesn't impact my illustration or argument.

It absolutely defeats your previous argument about ignorance, which i've shown can't be the case since I know the result that 2 + 2 = 4 is the correct result, but i've shown i can do 2 + 1 = 4 to prove that I have the freedom to be wrong.

To do something, entailing by logical necessity that the thing can be done or it's a nonsensical circle.

Then its limited by logic and what you define to be nonsense. And no where in the definition does it say that. It doesn't require there to be logical consistency--you're redefining all the words to include the caveat *within the confines of reason. I mean if I can imagine a being with fewer limits than the God you're proposing, then is it the case that the deity i imagine is more unlimited? If the deity i imagine is entirely supernatural and isn't subject to any considerations regarding logic or reality, and can define those whimsically whenever and however he/she wants, then clearly that's one less limit than your God which is beholden to logic. How are you defining unlimited exactly?

I'm saying that God is the sum of power, of goodness, of knowledge. Logic is a means to reflect and understand that and not a shackle.

That means God is beholden to logic, which thus controls and limits God's actions. God cannot do that which is beyond logic. Therefore this is the definition of maximal power--the maximum amount of power that one could have within a limiting framework. Logic is the limiting framework. I mean the definition could not be more clearcut.

Real unlimited power would be able to change logic and or create it. Unlimited power includes unlimited supernatural power which isn't limited by any form of reality. Again, what you're describing is God being maximally powerful within the confines of logic.
What you actually said or at least implied is that God is the sum of unlimited power, unlimited benevolence, and unlimited knowledge. What you should have implied is that God is the sum of maximal power, maximal benevolence, and maximal knowledge within the limits established by logic and reason so that nothing falls into contradiction. That's what maximal means. That's what you're redefining unlimited to mean--without a limit except within the confines of a logical framework. Also just so you know the axioms of logic and math aren't themselves proven--no single set of axioms is necessarily correct since there will always be statements that are unknowable and so to even say that God follows logic presupposes that there is a single kind of logic that is universally true which isn't necessarily true, at least according to Godel.

To do anything that power can do and even then within the context of what He wills. He will not do that which is contrary to His nature. The power to be imperfect is not, in point of fact, a power at all. It's a symptom of a weakness, a flaw.

So God is now also limited by his nature in addition to logic since God is defined by his nature. he doesn't control or determine his nature, his nature controls/ determines him. That's sort of funny considering some humans have the power to determine their own nature and change it. Not being able to change your nature is a serious limitation and it shows that nature is in charge, not God.

Also power has nothing to do with striving for perfection.

You're conflating power and the use of power.

My point has nothing to do with conflating power and the use of power. its whether God's power is limited by a logical framework. If he is then he's only maximally powerful by definition. He's as powerful as he can be within logic.

That's absolutely correct. If God is and if God is perfect in His goodness then His power is absolute, even as His nature defines what that power will be used for and what it will not.

So then you would also say that a being which has unlimited power in regards to one thing--such as the ability to create a car that can drive an unlimited number of miles per gallon, therefore has unlimited power? I mean after all the number of choices don't matter right? What that actually is not unlimited power, but rather a power that is unlimited. Having a bunch of powers that are unlimited isn't the same thing as having unlimited power.

It also doesn't follow that if God is perfect in his goodness that therefore he has unlimited power. How on earth do you prove that statement? You're making a massive quantum leap with no justification. But no, as you've said, goodness determines what that power will or will not be used for by God because its very problematic if God created goodness--it would mean that there was a point where God wasn't good since God didn't yet create it. And if God and goodness came into existence at the same time then God did not create goodness which means God is complying to yet another external standard--both goodness and logic. He's very limited then.

So let me ask you specifically, how isn't God maximally powerful? What about maximally powerful is inconsistent with what you've said. What should God be unlimited as opposed to maximal? I mean i hope you realize that many theologians have conceded that God is maximally powerful due to the logical inconsistencies of saying he has unlimited power. Unlimited power is not applicable to the God you're talking about.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

It seems like no religious person in the Abrahamic faiths takes Epicurus' riddle seriously:
... You're still left with malevolence or he just doesn't care about the pettiness of human sin.

Lots of ways to answer this. Let me try this:

You're the dungeonmaster in a DND game.
You try and make a game without evil for the players to overcome.
The game is so boring that nobody wants to play anymore.

So you include the evil even though the players keep complaining about
how you're always doing nasty things to them. But they keep coming back for more.

You have all the ability to be rid of evil, but it is the players that demand it even though
they always complain about it.

But why are people like this?
Why do they always seek out disaster?
Why do they volunteer to be in the military knowing that they could get their limbs blown off?

You see: That which is good and that which is evil can only be defined relative to one another.
The widest variety of evil and good is what makes the good what it is.

A cool iced drink is most enjoyable after a day in the hot dry sun.

In the context of the DND game, the players are most happy when they have defeated the most evil.
Boredom is itself possibly the most evil thing due to its nothingness.

Another way to answer the question would be with free choice offering the widest variety of
experiences, which enhances both the extremities of good and evil, which thus generates
the best feelings due to the contrasts in possible outcomes.

Now the danger is that this might seem to justify malevolence.
But if the dungeonmaster slaughtered everyone all the time (extreme malevolence)
this would not be the same as offering a worthy foe to overcome (mischievous malevolence).

One of the reasons why Epicurus' riddle results in lack of belief in God, is that
one's perception of death is often clouded by a lack of understanding of a transcendent soul.

Ask yourself, what is the worst experience the DND character can have?
Death just means a new character and a new game, and without death,
the characters would have nothing to keep them excited and motivated.
A permanent resurrection spell for everyone would make the game very boring.

So even the illusion of the perception of no life beyond death is what gives life so much value.

Now what about physical pain?
The DND characters obviously do not feel this.
Perhaps try and play a game where one is hit in the face with a pillow each time one sustains
an injury and one is only allowed food or drink for real when one actually
reaches the friendly tavern.

Such games are normally much more fun than the 'dry' version.

Now I try and push it further.
What about (the worst) root canal dentistry pain?

How much of that is real?
How much of it is superficial?
How much of it is shock and horror?
How much of it is karma for past sins?

This last question troubles me most, but following on from the way in which I have answered
the previous questions, I can only see that it must be necessary in ways which are perhaps
not perceivable immediately.

But I know that such pain certainly affects me much less than it used to.
And most of that was a perceptive mind-set which made me realize to what
extent pain is a construct - largely a placebo affect.

Consider the pain women claim to feel in childbirth.
Does this stop them from having sex?

But what one REALLY MUST consider when considering faithlessness,
is what particular event has left the individual feeling that God has taken it all too far?
Thus people that persist in such discussions in ways the declaim God,
will seldom mention the particular instance which most grieves them.

In the DND game I offer the players the advice of a sage which can explain to the players
why and what is expected of them in confronting evil.

This only has merit when dealing with particular instances of evil and its purpose.
The key word here is Gnosis.

Seek to know the purpose of that which troubles you to such a great degree that leaves
one feeling faithless.

In my own life, I have proven that Einstein's relativity is false and I have reworked
his theory and fixed all his errors, and at each turn I am mostly met with thoughtless
scorn, ridicule and outright evil ignorance.

This to me is far worse than root canal. Even worse than having my jaw cut open
with an electric saw to extract a particularly skew tooth, and then finding that
the bloody dentist has been working on the wrong tooth by mistake.

I would gladly suffer that over repeatedly if my work was accepted and given
its just dues. But would my revision of relativity have the same meaning if it
had been accepted on the same day as it was published?

Surely the sense of relief that i feel will be highest given the psychological
obstacles that need to be overcome are actually greater than the computational obstacles?

The cornerstone of my work is actually a unification of science and religion.
It was always a work of philosophy primarily, and physics, computer programming, and
psychology only as secondary aspects to the core philosophical methodology.

My central method being to examine any process in terms of its own terms.
Thus as I suggest that the unfaithful express their doubt in personal context,
so I must do the same.

Well, here is my theory anyhow:

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm