God is not all powerful and loving debate.

[Aqualung]

Sorry that i replied to yours, I'm getting quite confussed and lost. I'm discussing totally different things with mr. guy and disgusing the same debate as you with people who do believe they sinned and that they knew the concequencies. You you have told me why, but then i have replied and don't remember any of the replies back, if there were any.

Well, okay. But don't let it happen again! :tsk:

Could God have made a world without suffering? You have probably answered this many times but i really can't remember. Like I said, my brain is mushifying.

He could and did (the garden of Eden), but it didn't do much good for anybody there.

You said that what came with knowing good and evil were the natural concequencies. I asked what natural concequencies pain in child birth and having to farm the land were? Why are they natural concequencies of knowing good and evil?

Those aren't natural consequences of knowing good and evil. Those are things that make us learn and grow.

What is the rules of possibility?

Stuff that by definition can't happen (liek a square circle, because by definition circles are round, not square) are impossible. Another example would be Dogs siring full-grown dogs, or god siring full grown gods.

Explained what? Wait, where am i? Aghh. lol, I'm so lost.

Explained about why it had to be their choice, I think.

Yeh. But still, what is wrong with that? It is not disallowing them free will ,and it is meaning they are making all the right choices

Well, of course, there's also the thing about no unclean thing can enter God's presence. How can you choose between good and evil if there is no evil there to choose. How can you experience suffering (and therefore learn and grow) if you aren't given the choice of evil, which necessarily leads to suffering?

 

[jewscout]

I never said that the universe created itself the same as you never said that God created himself. I said that maybe the universe just began, or Was, Is, Always will be.

well based on what science has uncovered the universe has a beginning called the Big Bang.

 

[pandamonk]

well based on what science has uncovered the universe has a beginning called the Big Bang.

They may be wrong, and if not it does not mean that it was the beginning because that big bang could have been caused by the last universe collapsing. There may not have been any beginning, but an infinite big bangs and collapses.

 

[pandamonk]

Certainly. Here, we look back at omnipresence. If he's everywhere, he's the cause and result for all that happens.

You'll be unable to. "Weakness" is not an issue in an infinite (potential) field.

You're understanding of what is "weakness" is flawed. That's the crux of your difficulty.

Sorry. I took you up with "can god suffer?", which seemed to apply any monist diety concept. The reason i initially suggested that you'd "set yourself up" is that christians should have a particularly easy time with this one. I'm arguing about a qualitative god (omni-potent, -scient, -present). If the larger, general idea of a suffering god disinterests you, let me know and i'll desist.

Your logic is too specialized; this progression <suffer -> pain ->harm ->breaking (damage?)> is not complete. One can suffer without (sensational) pain, can be in pain without harm, can be harmed without damage.
At the end of the day, none of these things are truly weak unless you can demonstrate specifically what is stronger then "pain" or "suffering".

AGHHH pressed backspace and i went back a page, so i lost all that i said. I know that ""Weakness" is not an issue in an infinite (potential) field" and this is why I'm trying to show that suffering is caused by a weakness, and in doing this show that any belief that a god suffered is false. I do not understand what you mean by "You're understanding of what is "weakness" is flawed. That's the crux of your difficulty", mainly because i do know what weakness is. I do not see what is wrong with the progression.
suf·fer
v. suf·fered, suf·fer·ing, suf·fers
v. intr.

1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment.
2. To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death. See Synonyms at bear[size=-1]1[/size].
3. To appear at a disadvantage: “He suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary” (Albert C. Baugh).

Any experience of suffering includes pain of some kind, be it sensational or emotional, unless you can show otherwise. Any pain, includes some kind of harm be it sensational or emotional, unless you can show otherwise.
harm
n.

1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.

harm is "Physical or psychological injury or damage".

I see nothing wrong with this progression. If you do, please show me.

 

[mr.guy]

Any experience of suffering includes pain of some kind, be it sensational or emotional, unless you can show otherwise. Any pain, includes some kind of harm be it sensational or emotional, unless you can show otherwise.

Didn't the first definition you posted (some pages back) include annoyance among sufferings' meanings?

I see nothing wrong with this progression. If you do, please show me.

If each step is inevitable, one could make suffering synonymous with breaking. Feel free to post their definitions (if you come to the same conclusion) and demonstrate how it is so.

 

[pandamonk]

We're not just things god created out of nowhere, just like, "Oh, I think I'll create these things now." We're his literal children. It's impossible in the same way that it's impossible for a dog to have full grown doggy children. They have to have puppies.

What about the animals, mostly from eggs, who are left by their mothers from birth to fend for themselves. They have the knowledge of what they have to do to survive.

It really doesn't. I'm making my own judgements. LDS scripture states that through eternal progression we can become like God. I take that further and state that by eternal progression, god became God. I again take that and state that his eternal progression was at least somewhat similar to our own (through reasoning that he really wouldn't be all loving if he placed us in this world when there was another alternative, and that therefore there must be no other alternative, and that therefore he went about becoming a god the same way we are doing right now).

Who was God's god? Where is it now?

Perhaps, but I still don't think it's true.

Don't matter

What was the question? MY mind is about as mushy as yours is, too.

Don't matter i can't remember.

What made you think power is infinite? If it were, the word would be infinipotent, or something, but it isn't. It's allpowerful.

What is the limit to power? logic? But what is the limit to power within logic? Is there not an infinite amount of things which are possible?

Well, I guess if you really wanted me too... But you'll have to tell me what beliefs to explain.

I would like you to explain what you believe God is. Such as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, creator of the universe.

Yes, I can, but it is something that just can't exist.

then it is not better because it is unable to exist, lol.

Fine. Let's just say, that if somebody personally attacks somebody, to just pretend it didn't happen.

yeh, good idea.

 

[pandamonk]

Didn't the first definition you posted (some pages back) include annoyance among sufferings' meanings?

That was an informal definition of pain, such as "You're a pain".

If each step is inevitable, one could make suffering synonymous with breaking. Feel free to post their definitions (if you come to the same conclusion) and demonstrate how it is so.

Well, suffering with damage. Surely damage is cause by a weakness.

suf·fer
v. suf·fered, suf·fer·ing, suf·fers
v. intr.

1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment.
2. To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death. See Synonyms at bear[size=-1]1[/size].
3. To appear at a disadvantage: “He suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary” (Albert C. Baugh).

pain
n.

1. An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder.
2. Suffering or distress.
3. pains The pangs of childbirth.
4. pains Great care or effort: take pains with one's work.
5. Informal. A source of annoyance; a nuisance.

harm
n.

1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.

Surely we do not need pain in this as suffering includes harm. All other definition of suffering relate to harm in some way. Would you agree?

 

[pandamonk]

Well, okay. But don't let it happen again! :tsk:

I'll try, wont promise because i hate going back on promises, which i may do if i did.

He could and did (the garden of Eden), but it didn't do much good for anybody there.

Surely the tree was the part of the garden which could cause suffering, so Eden is not such a place

Those aren't natural consequences of knowing good and evil. Those are things that make us learn and grow.

Why does pains in child birth help you to learn and grow? Because it teaches you not to have sex and get pregnant? Why would God want that after telling you to "go forth and multiply"?

Well, of course, there's also the thing about no unclean thing can enter God's presence. How can you choose between good and evil if there is no evil there to choose. How can you experience suffering (and therefore learn and grow) if you aren't given the choice of evil, which necessarily leads to suffering?

Why does evil necessarily lead to suffering? There may be someone with an evil mind which incapable of causing suffering? Your logic is false.
suf·fer
v. suf·fered, suf·fer·ing, suf·fers
v. intr.

1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment

You may feel physical pain or injury without evil existing. So suffering does not need evil to exist.

 

[Aqualung]

What about the animals, mostly from eggs, who are left by their mothers from birth to fend for themselves. They have the knowledge of what they have to do to survive.

Yes, they do. So? I don't understand what that has to do with anything...

Who was God's god? Where is it now?

See, these things are stuff that don't really matter very much to anybody. His god was just his god. I don't know where specifically he is. He's probably in his own little heaven...

Don't matter

Don't matter i can't remember.

What is the limit to power? logic? But what is the limit to power within logic? Is there not an infinite amount of things which are possible?

I hate how when you quote people, it doesn't say what they were quoting. I always have such trouble remember what you're responding to. The limit to power is possibility and definition. Like the fact that we are defined as being his children. You can't make adult children. You can't make square circles. You can't defy the laws of physics (though I'm sure that with his perfect understanding of the laws of physics, he can do stuff that we may think is in defiance)

I would like you to explain what you believe God is. Such as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, creator of the universe.

Okay. He is omnipotent, but omnipotent is taken to mean "able to do every possible thing" not "able to do the impossible." It means "all powerful" not "infinitely powerful." Omnicient - Yes. Perfect, in that no greater being can exist. Creator of the universe, sure.

then it is not better because it is unable to exist, lol.

Exactly! (I don't know what I said before that. )

 

[Aqualung]

Surely the tree was the part of the garden which could cause suffering, so Eden is not such a place

By "such a place" do you mean a perfect place? I can't remember. It was, however, perfectly created for its purpose. That's like saying, "This car isn't perfect because it doesn't sharpen my pencils." It's like ARistotle's theory of the good. There is no one thing that you can call good, no one standard of good. You have to look at it in context to see if it is really good. In the same manner, you think the garden was not perfect, because you do not understand its purpose. You think its purpose was to be a perpetually perfect place. I think its purpose was to be the starting place of our growth. Tehrefore, I see it as perfect, whereas you do not.

Why does pains in child birth help you to learn and grow? Because it teaches you not to have sex and get pregnant? Why would God want that after telling you to "go forth and multiply"?

It teaches you that things come with a price. It teaches you to think carefully before you have children. It teaches you to deal with stress and pain in a constructive, non-hermful manner.

Why does evil necessarily lead to suffering? There may be someone with an evil mind which incapable of causing suffering? Your logic is false.
suf·fer
v. suf·fered, suf·fer·ing, suf·fers
v. intr.

1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment

You may feel physical pain or injury without evil existing. So suffering does not need evil to exist.

Evil necessarily causes suffering, whereas suffering is not necessarily caused by evil. Suffering is always the end result of evil.

 

[mr.guy]

Well, suffering with damage. Surely damage is cause by a weakness.

Again, i ask: how is suffering weakness?

 

[pandamonk]

Yes, they do. So? I don't understand what that has to do with anything... It's impossible in the same way that it's impossible for a dog to have full grown doggy children.

Why could God not have made us in the same way as the animals who are born knowing everything they need to know? You say this is impossible, yet you have just agreed that there are animals that it happens to?

See, these things are stuff that don't really matter very much to anybody. His god was just his god. I don't know where specifically he is. He's probably in his own little heaven...

Why don't you know or care? Surely if he was God's god, he would be very important, so important that your god worshipped him. Would he not be mentioned in holy books?

I hate how when you quote people, it doesn't say what they were quoting. I always have such trouble remember what you're responding to. The limit to power is possibility and definition. Like the fact that we are defined as being his children. You can't make adult children. You can't make square circles. You can't defy the laws of physics (though I'm sure that with his perfect understanding of the laws of physics, he can do stuff that we may think is in defiance)

I hate that too, so i open another window to what your replying to and flick between them. I know this takes away from power, but it still does not mean power is not infinite. It just means that the impossible is not possible, it does not mean power is not infinite. Where does it start and end?

Okay. He is omnipotent, but omnipotent is taken to mean "able to do every possible thing" not "able to do the impossible." It means "all powerful" not "infinitely powerful." Omnicient - Yes. Perfect, in that no greater being can exist. Creator of the universe, sure.

Do you believe he has any more attributes along with these? I just gave them as examples. infinitely powerful does not mean "able to do the impossible", it just mean there is no end to his power.

Exactly! (I don't know what I said before that. )

Thank you. You said that you can think of something better than perfect, and i said that "it is not better because it is unable to exist".

 

[Aqualung]

[/i]Why could God not have made us in the same way as the animals who are born knowing everything they need to know? You say this is impossible, yet you have just agreed that there are animals that it happens to?

Ah, I see what you're saying. See, the things dogs know when they are born is just stuff for survival. We know stuff for survival. But, by nature, we have to learn the stuff for exhaltation.

Why don't you know or care? Surely if he was God's god, he would be very important, so important that your god worshipped him. Would he not be mentioned in holy books?

Because it just doesn't matter. It's like, when I was a kid, I didn't really care what the president had to say. My parents' rules were the only things that mattered. We're essentially still kids in that respect. It doesn't matter who god's god is. It doesn't effect us at all. Maybe some day, we'll find out, but for now, it's moot. That's also why it isn't mentioned in any holy books.

I hate that too, so i open another window to what your replying to and flick between them. I know this takes away from power, but it still does not mean power is not infinite. It just means that the impossible is not possible, it does not mean power is not infinite. Where does it start and end?

Well, it starts and ends with impossibilty. I don't really know how to explain that any differntly.

Do you believe he has any more attributes along with these? I just gave them as examples. infinitely powerful does not mean "able to do the impossible", it just mean there is no end to his power.

Yes, I believe he does. But it's hard to just sit down and think up the attributes, without somebody saying, "well, what do you believe about this..." One thing off the top of my head - he's a personal god who has always and continues to communicate through prophets.

Thank you. You said that you can think of something better than perfect, and i said that "it is not better because it is unable to exist".

Oh, I see. Exactly! It's not better, ie, it's not perfect, because it can't exist. So my defnintion still stands.

 

[pandamonk]

Again, i ask: how is suffering weakness?

Because suffering is caused by damage. Damage can only happen when something isn't strong enough to stop it. Surely an omnipotent being is strong enough to stop anything, so nothing can hurt it. Surely an omnipotent being is strong enough to hurt anything, so nothing can resist being hurt from it. So if an omnipotent being can hurt itself, it shows it is not strong enough to stop anything and isn't omnipotent. If it can't it shows it's not strong enough to hurt anything and isn't omnipotent.

 

[pandamonk]

By "such a place" do you mean a perfect place? I can't remember. It was, however, perfectly created for its purpose. That's like saying, "This car isn't perfect because it doesn't sharpen my pencils." It's like ARistotle's theory of the good. There is no one thing that you can call good, no one standard of good. You have to look at it in context to see if it is really good. In the same manner, you think the garden was not perfect, because you do not understand its purpose. You think its purpose was to be a perpetually perfect place. I think its purpose was to be the starting place of our growth. Tehrefore, I see it as perfect, whereas you do not.

We were talking about a place created without suffering, not perfect.

It teaches you that things come with a price. It teaches you to think carefully before you have children. It teaches you to deal with stress and pain in a constructive, non-hermful manner.

ok

Evil necessarily causes suffering, whereas suffering is not necessarily caused by evil. Suffering is always the end result of evil.

no it isn't, like i said before, someone might be evil, but in no position to cause suffering, ie handicapped/disabled.

 

[mr.guy]

Because suffering is caused by damage.

Wrong. Suffering can be caused by damage. Suffering can also be defined as permissive; in which case, is to allow an action a weakness?

Surely an omnipotent being is strong enough to hurt anything, so nothing can resist being hurt from it.

That is not a certainty. An omnipotent being (coupled with omnipresence) may not be able to hurt anything. Entropically speaking, if everything is doomed to complete energetic and molecular homogeneousity, everything would be equally "damaged"; If the field of differentiation is to be subsequently indistiguishable, no meaningful "weakness" is possible, as nothing can "stronger" then anything else.

Assuming reality is a closed system (big assumption on my part, of course), no part can truly damage another. To the best of my knowlegde, thermodynamics still assures us that we can't destroy energy; anything short of that is simply internal reorganization.

 

[pandamonk]

Ah, I see what you're saying. See, the things dogs know when they are born is just stuff for survival. We know stuff for survival. But, by nature, we have to learn the stuff for exhaltation.

But they are born knowing everything they need to know to survive, which is all they need to know to do. If they are born with all the knowledge they need, why is it not possible we can know everything we need to know without having to learn?

Because it just doesn't matter. It's like, when I was a kid, I didn't really care what the president had to say. My parents' rules were the only things that mattered. We're essentially still kids in that respect. It doesn't matter who god's god is. It doesn't effect us at all. Maybe some day, we'll find out, but for now, it's moot. That's also why it isn't mentioned in any holy books.

Ok. But surely you still knew of the president. Why do so many not know of this other god?

Well, it starts and ends with impossibilty. I don't really know how to explain that any differntly.

This does not show that it is not infinite though, because there may be infinitely possible power.

Yes, I believe he does. But it's hard to just sit down and think up the attributes, without somebody saying, "well, what do you believe about this..." One thing off the top of my head - he's a personal god who has always and continues to communicate through prophets.

If he was personal would he not communicate personally instead of through prophets? Sorry just noticed this. Thank you for defining him to this stage. If anything else pops in please don't refrain from saying.

Oh, I see. Exactly! It's not better, ie, it's not perfect, because it can't exist. So my defnintion still stands.

I never doubted your definition, but you did doubt mine. It's not better so you cannot conceive of something better than perfect.

 

[pandamonk]

Wrong. Suffering can be caused by damage. Suffering can also be defined as permissive; in which case, is to allow an action a weakness?

I don't really understand what you are saying. (You must get that all the time, lol, )

That is not a certainty. An omnipotent being (coupled with omnipresence) may not be able to hurt anything. Entropically speaking, if everything is doomed to complete energetic and molecular homogeneousity, everything would be equally "damaged"; If the field of differentiation is to be subsequently indistiguishable, no meaningful "weakness" is possible, as nothing can "stronger" then anything else.

Ok you have confused me with this too. Please explain.

Assuming reality is a closed system (big assumption on my part, of course), no part can truly damage another. To the best of my knowlegde, thermodynamics still assures us that we can't destroy energy; anything short of that is simply internal reorganization.

Is what you're saying that what we are made of cannot be damaged therefore nothing can be damaged, and that it is just reorganization? But surely, we defined damage as the reorganization of these, so damage is possible because, when used, it referes to the reorganization of what we are made from.

 

[mr.guy]

I don't really understand what you are saying. (You must get that all the time, lol, )

Simple. You've decided that to suffer is to be damaged; that is not the entirety of defined suffering. To suffer can imply damage, but does not necessitate it.

Is what you're saying that what we are made of cannot be damaged therefore nothing can be damaged, and that it is just reorganization?

Depends somewhat on what you think organization, or rather order, is in the first place.

But surely, we defined damage as the reorganization of these, so damage is possible because, when used, it referes to the reorganization of what we are made from.

Another vague trail. If reorganization is now to be definative damage, then everything is damage until complete universal uniformity. The "reference" of our self-perception as judge to what is organized might be insufficient to impartially objectify (if that's really possible in the first place) what is truly distinct (or not). For example, if pain is as real as damage, how do you quantify pain?

 

[pandamonk]

Simple. You've decided that to suffer is to be damaged; that is not the entirety of defined suffering. To suffer can imply damage, but does not necessitate it.

Please show me a circumstance where suffering is not to be damaged(physically or emotionally). Ohh and thanks for explaining.

Depends somewhat on what you think organization, or rather order, is in the first place.

I was unsure what you were saying, so said what i thought you meant. What did you mean?

Another vague trail. If reorganization is now to be definative damage, then everything is damage until complete universal uniformity. The "reference" of our self-perception as judge to what is organized might be insufficient to impartially objectify (if that's really possible in the first place) what is truly distinct (or not). For example, if pain is as real as damage, how do you quantify pain?

By the way, have you done a degree in philosophy? I have read a couple of philosophical books, none of which have been as advance linguistically as yourself. I never meant that all reorganization is damage, i meant that what we perceive as damage, although reorganization of atoms, or what have you, is still damage as that is what we have named it in the English language. If this is not what you meant, then i am sorry, but much of what you say i struggle to comprehend.