I' d like to respond to one or two of Mr_Sprinkles points. One, God wants evil to exist (for now). Everyone needs to stop putting that one down. It's false in every way. Two, God can do anything, but He chooses not to do many things, so it is inaccurate for you to say He "cannot do this that and the other, hence He is not all-powerful."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The 'Trinity' of Religious Contradiction
- Thread starter Ceridwen018
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
dan-- what God chooses to do (prevent evil, allow it) is indicative of what He wants. If He chooses to allow evil, it is either because He wants evil or because He is not all powerful and evil must be (reluctantly) allowed in order to acheive some other goal.
I thought I made myself clear much earlier. God wants evil to exist, for now. His goal is to see us become like Him, and that is possible only through trial and progress. Without evil there can be no progress. Once everyone has been given the opportunity to overcome evil it will be done away with, but for the time being it is in every way in accordance with His will.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Right, so you're saying that God only wants evil/trial/suffering etc. to exist because that is the only way we can become like Him. God is forced to allow evil in order to accomplish some other goal. In other words, He is not all powerful (He can't make us become like Him without allowing trial).dan said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Right--He chose for evil to be necessary to accomplish a greater good. So He is not all good (if He was all good, He would have chosen for evil not to be in His plan in order to accomplish greater good).
Is there an echo in here or do I hear more if/then statements based on inferences? Your statement only makes sense if you are the possessor of all good, and can tell me with authority what an "all good" person WOULD do had he possession of "all good." Please, present an argument that is verifiable, not assumption and inference.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
IF you think a universe with evil is "more good" than a universe without evil, THEN you have your definitions mixed up. Check the dictionary. :goodjob:
The dictionary is hardly an authority on absolute truth. Allow me to quote a scripture for you.
For it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life, neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and His eternal purposes, and also the power and the mercy, and the justice of God.
For it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life, neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and His eternal purposes, and also the power and the mercy, and the justice of God.
Hey Spinkles,
Where are your analogies and logic to prove that an all-powerful being can do anything?
I think that you, in fact, have proven the trinity false. It stands on faulty premises. (IE that all-powerful is what being able to do anything means).
This is your making it incorrect from the start. Prove to me that your trinity is valid outside of your imagination. I mean, if you can't show, via logic and example, how an all-powerful (by your definition) thing can be un-powerful and still remain all-powerful, then your just making up rubbish. You haven't yet demonstrated anything. All you have said is "but an all-powerful God should be able to... ect ect". Prove it is true. Being an Atheist you should, presumably, rely upon data and evidence not presumtion. It sounds like you have an awfull lot of faith for a atheist.
By the way, about "giving atheism a chance". Epicuras was an atheist and he lived before Christ. Hummanism has been around for 400 years and in that time Christianity had absorbed the Roman Empire. The greatest Atheististic power has been Communism and that is disappearing fast after less than a hundred years in practice.
orthodox
Where are your analogies and logic to prove that an all-powerful being can do anything?
I think that you, in fact, have proven the trinity false. It stands on faulty premises. (IE that all-powerful is what being able to do anything means).
This is your making it incorrect from the start. Prove to me that your trinity is valid outside of your imagination. I mean, if you can't show, via logic and example, how an all-powerful (by your definition) thing can be un-powerful and still remain all-powerful, then your just making up rubbish. You haven't yet demonstrated anything. All you have said is "but an all-powerful God should be able to... ect ect". Prove it is true. Being an Atheist you should, presumably, rely upon data and evidence not presumtion. It sounds like you have an awfull lot of faith for a atheist.
By the way, about "giving atheism a chance". Epicuras was an atheist and he lived before Christ. Hummanism has been around for 400 years and in that time Christianity had absorbed the Roman Empire. The greatest Atheististic power has been Communism and that is disappearing fast after less than a hundred years in practice.
orthodox
Proverbial Flamethrower
Member
Mr_Spinkles,
I've just read what you have said about my analogy, and because you didn't really prove me wrong, well, I'll do the same now: nah, you are wong.
As far as I'm concerned this thread is over, the "trinity" of yours was long ago put down, and all you're doing now is making us (Orthodox, Dan and I) reapeat ourselfeves over and over. Sorry, I like my amusement to not be nauseating.
And now I can't really believe it! Your claiming to know God himself! And you know all of this because you have a dictionary? Man you're just getting too far off now.
Not to mention that every analogy put down in this entire thread was deliberately interpreted in the wrong way in order to have some sort of an arguement. Do you know what an analogy is?
I'm leaving this thread now, it is impossible to prove you wrong because your ego or something just won't let us. Bye.
I've just read what you have said about my analogy, and because you didn't really prove me wrong, well, I'll do the same now: nah, you are wong.
As far as I'm concerned this thread is over, the "trinity" of yours was long ago put down, and all you're doing now is making us (Orthodox, Dan and I) reapeat ourselfeves over and over. Sorry, I like my amusement to not be nauseating.
And now I can't really believe it! Your claiming to know God himself! And you know all of this because you have a dictionary? Man you're just getting too far off now.
Not to mention that every analogy put down in this entire thread was deliberately interpreted in the wrong way in order to have some sort of an arguement. Do you know what an analogy is?
I'm leaving this thread now, it is impossible to prove you wrong because your ego or something just won't let us. Bye.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Here it is, again, this time please read it carefully:Orthodox said:
Lying is a verb. When you lie, you are doing something. When you do something, you have the capacity to do it. To have the capacity to do something is to have the power to do it. To be powerful is to be able to exert powers (like lying). If something is all powerful there is no power it cannot exert--it has the "entire or total number" of powers. You have argued that God does not have the entire number of powers--God does not have the power to lie. I don't think this is too difficult.
I have made this definition clear throughout the thread. Have I ever said that God must be all powerful, by this definition? No.
If God cannot possibly be all powerful in your mind by this definition, then good for you--you agree with the trinity.
Alas, that is how the english language works. Words have certain meanings, and that is indeed what all + powerful means (see above). Because I was afraid there would be some confusion, I said many many times earlier exactly what the definition of "all powerful" was, so people could know what was actually meant by it (the ability to do anything). From what I gather, you do not agree that God can do anything, so you agree God is not all powerful. EDIT Keep in mind that some theists would disagree with you, and say that God is all powerful and literally does have the power to do anything.
I know it sounds heretical to say "I think God is not all powerful".....maybe you should write to the dictionary company and have them change the meaning of the word "all" to mean "most".
I am not really sure what you are saying here. Could you please clarify? I never argued that God must be all powerful, I only argued that the three statements in the trinity cannot all be true. You seem to have misunderstood.
I'm not really into 'my worldview vs. your worldview in history' arguments (although good call on the Epicuras I did not know what time period he was around in). What I meant by "give atheism more time" is that atheism needs longer than 2,000 years to spread (lol no I'm j/k--I didn't have my dates straight). At any rate, communism is going fast, and the Christian theocracies of the Middle Ages have gone. I think we can agree we are glad to see both governments go.
Now on to Flamethrower...
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Flamethrower--
This is what I wrote, in response to you (apparently) saying that I had no right to criticize or find holes in anyone's analogies:
The biker/teacher analogies were flawed because they failed to recognize that (theoretically) an all powerful being would not have to suffer unwanted consequences A in order to acheive goal B. So for example, the biker would not need to fall down in order to learn to ride....he could just snap his fingers and know how to ride perfectly already, or he could change the laws of physics so that no matter what he does on the bike he will always remain upright. By giving this analogy, MB was suggesting that God is not all powerful, and I do not think that is what he meant to suggest, since he was trying to disprove the trinity (not support it).
Yes, I too feel like I have to keep repeating myself, and it is getting old.
Ok, goodbye. Please forgive me if my opinions have offended you, as it was not my intention. For future reference, always remember that in the debate forum, you're likely to find people with views other than yours who are going to disagree with you (as rude as that may sound).
This is what I wrote, in response to you (apparently) saying that I had no right to criticize or find holes in anyone's analogies:
Since you do not feel this reasoning as to why I should be allowed to find flaws in the analogies of others arguing an opposing view is enough, I will provide more.Mr_Spinkles said:
The biker/teacher analogies were flawed because they failed to recognize that (theoretically) an all powerful being would not have to suffer unwanted consequences A in order to acheive goal B. So for example, the biker would not need to fall down in order to learn to ride....he could just snap his fingers and know how to ride perfectly already, or he could change the laws of physics so that no matter what he does on the bike he will always remain upright. By giving this analogy, MB was suggesting that God is not all powerful, and I do not think that is what he meant to suggest, since he was trying to disprove the trinity (not support it).
Yes, I too feel like I have to keep repeating myself, and it is getting old.
I'm as surprised as you are. Could you please show me where I made this claim?
Not only do I know what an analogy is, I also know the difference between a good and a bad analogy.
Hey, leggo my ego!
Ok, goodbye. Please forgive me if my opinions have offended you, as it was not my intention. For future reference, always remember that in the debate forum, you're likely to find people with views other than yours who are going to disagree with you (as rude as that may sound).
Spinkles,
I would just like to say that you are wrong in your summary of my last argument. I am getting weary repeating myself and as such will join yourself and flamethrower elsewhere as this thread is on continuous repeat. If you want to focus on the original argument once again (we both and flamer got off the topic - drastically) lets start a new thread and somehow make sure spiritualson can't find it.
Once again I feel more strongly than ever that the bibles position is correct.
Lastly I would like to extend my sincerest thans to you and Ceridwen for being such mighty opponents!
Also, thanks to dan and flamethrower for a bit of quasi support from time to time. Thanks MB (if your out there) for leaving.
orthodox
I would just like to say that you are wrong in your summary of my last argument. I am getting weary repeating myself and as such will join yourself and flamethrower elsewhere as this thread is on continuous repeat. If you want to focus on the original argument once again (we both and flamer got off the topic - drastically) lets start a new thread and somehow make sure spiritualson can't find it.
Once again I feel more strongly than ever that the bibles position is correct.
Lastly I would like to extend my sincerest thans to you and Ceridwen for being such mighty opponents!
Also, thanks to dan and flamethrower for a bit of quasi support from time to time. Thanks MB (if your out there) for leaving.
orthodox
optimal priest
New Member
hi
i have been watching this riveting battle of intelectual toddlers. it is plan to me that mr sprinkles uses the same logic as the vilagers on monty pythons holy grail when they are trying to deduce a witch by weighing a girl against a duck. hmmmmmm
speaking of ducks .... spiritual son if you ever go to new zealand thats what the locals will call you. Ahh... thets a but spishul usnt ut! dont you think flamethrower?
i think that you( spiritual son) must have learnt to grasp logical concepts from reading alice in wonderland while sitting on your fathers lap as a child. (just quietly your father was almost your brother as well and you both could only look at the pictures to try and grasp whats going on).man you crazy
orthodox to you i say get a rabbit up your bum and go outside and get some fresh air sometime this fortnight eh? although form an impartial point of view here you make the most sense by a country mile.
so spiritualson i am keenly awaiting your next sprouting of poetic bable.
realy i am
love optimalarty:
i have been watching this riveting battle of intelectual toddlers. it is plan to me that mr sprinkles uses the same logic as the vilagers on monty pythons holy grail when they are trying to deduce a witch by weighing a girl against a duck. hmmmmmm
speaking of ducks .... spiritual son if you ever go to new zealand thats what the locals will call you. Ahh... thets a but spishul usnt ut! dont you think flamethrower?
i think that you( spiritual son) must have learnt to grasp logical concepts from reading alice in wonderland while sitting on your fathers lap as a child. (just quietly your father was almost your brother as well and you both could only look at the pictures to try and grasp whats going on).man you crazy
orthodox to you i say get a rabbit up your bum and go outside and get some fresh air sometime this fortnight eh? although form an impartial point of view here you make the most sense by a country mile.
so spiritualson i am keenly awaiting your next sprouting of poetic bable.
realy i am
love optimal
arty:
Paraprakrti
Custom User
Mr_Spinkles said:
God is all Good by default. God is good when He gives pleasure. God is good when He gives pain. You may not think God is good, but God is not subject to your opinion of Him.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
***UPDATE***
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what is meant by the definition of 'all-powerful'. dictionary.com states that 'all-powerful' means : adj : having unlimited power.
To clear up this little bit of confusion, I would like to edit the trinity. Here is the new and improved trinity:
1. god can do ANYTHING (power without limitation)
2. god does not want evil
3. evil exists in the world
I hope that that clears things up a bit. Orthodox, Flamethrower, I am very sad to see both of you go, and if you're still watching this thread and read this, I entreat you to come back! This is a difficult subject and not in any way meant to be decided quickly. We've hit a bit of a bump, but I would hope that we can work through it and carry on! Even if you aren't coming back, might still reply to your last posts for whomever else wants to join the conversation.
There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what is meant by the definition of 'all-powerful'. dictionary.com states that 'all-powerful' means : adj : having unlimited power.
To clear up this little bit of confusion, I would like to edit the trinity. Here is the new and improved trinity:
1. god can do ANYTHING (power without limitation)
2. god does not want evil
3. evil exists in the world
I hope that that clears things up a bit. Orthodox, Flamethrower, I am very sad to see both of you go, and if you're still watching this thread and read this, I entreat you to come back! This is a difficult subject and not in any way meant to be decided quickly. We've hit a bit of a bump, but I would hope that we can work through it and carry on! Even if you aren't coming back, might still reply to your last posts for whomever else wants to join the conversation.
Paraprakrti
Custom User
New trinity:
1. God can do ANYTHING
2. God is all Good
3. God wants us to not want evil
(evil is anything thought or sought lacking regard to God)
1. God can do ANYTHING
2. God is all Good
3. God wants us to not want evil
(evil is anything thought or sought lacking regard to God)
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
sorry Paraprakrti,
Typo in the 'new trinity'...I edited it so it's good to go now, though!
Typo in the 'new trinity'...I edited it so it's good to go now, though!
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I am not saying you are wrong, but I will say that this does not go against the trinity. Here, you are denying that the evil in our world is truly "evil" in the sense of the direct opposite of good (directly opposite of God, who is supposed to be all good). In this case, evil/pain/suffering are actually not "evil" but are sub-categories of "good". This is a good argument, and one rarely used....though it does fit with the trinity, because you are saying statement #3 is wrong (not all three statements are correct).Paraprakrti said: