|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 11:25:00 GMT
The food chain (animals eating other creatures) is part of nature but it isn’t evil.
The food chain balances nature so that some animals don’t overrun things and create other problems by overpopulating.
Some creatures eat shit, literally, as part of this balance.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 11:35:19 GMT
The food chain (animals eating other creatures) is part of nature but it isn’t evil. The food chain balances nature so that some animals don’t overrun things and create other problems by overpopulating. Some creatures eat shit, literally, as part of this balance. Indeed, but that does not affect the point I made about the notion of reality reflecting the God that made it. If from your words we might deduce that your God favours eating shit, then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 11:41:20 GMT
The food chain (animals eating other creatures) is part of nature but it isn’t evil. The food chain balances nature so that some animals don’t overrun things and create other problems by overpopulating. Some creatures eat shit, literally, as part of this balance. Indeed, but that does not affect the point I made about the notion of reality reflecting the God that made it. If from your words we might deduce that your God favours eating shit, then so be it. The Jewish perspective is that nature balances itself and the food chain is part of it. It isn’t evil.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 11:46:55 GMT
The premise of this discussion is that God can do anything. Challenging that presumption is fine and dandy, but doing so ignores the actual question. Sagan's dragon analogy fails in this case because you are told upfront that the dragon is everything he discovered during his investigation. First off, Sagan still holds since his analogy begins with the assertion that there is a dragon and ends with a succession of reasons why, in the event, its existence cannot be reconciled with reality This discussion started since I questioned the logicality of something able to think in the linear fashion outside of time, and also to be said to exist meaningfully when apparently occupying no space. You then told me that it was fine, all objections can be overcome, since 'Presuming omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything - even impossible things - those little "snags" just don't apply.' - which is exactly the sort of qualifiying into existence I am talking about. For clarity's sake, let's call the dragon guy Rick. All Rick said was that he had a dragon in his garage. Had he began with "I have a completely undetectable dragon in my garage," Carl would not have asked to see it then later accuse Rick of shifting the golpoasts. This thread begins with the premise that "God can do anything," which should preclude any investigations into any questions regarding God's ability to do anything because the answer will always be yes. My statement you just quoted wasn't a return kick; it was an elaboration of the premise that came long before that dragon.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 11:50:15 GMT
Indeed, but that does not affect the point I made about the notion of reality reflecting the God that made it. If from your words we might deduce that your God favours eating shit, then so be it. The Jewish perspective is that nature balances itself and the food chain is part of it. It isn’t evil. I didn't say it was, I was pointing out that if nature supposedly reflects the Creator as you suggested, which made it then we have to contend with a something which can be at times cruel, wasteful and pointless.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 12:00:36 GMT
First off, Sagan still holds since his analogy begins with the assertion that there is a dragon and ends with a succession of reasons why, in the event, its existence cannot be reconciled with reality This discussion started since I questioned the logicality of something able to think in the linear fashion outside of time, and also to be said to exist meaningfully when apparently occupying no space. You then told me that it was fine, all objections can be overcome, since 'Presuming omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything - even impossible things - those little "snags" just don't apply.' - which is exactly the sort of qualifiying into existence I am talking about. For clarity's sake, let's call the dragon guy Rick. All Rick said was that he had a dragon in his garage. Had he began with "I have a completely undetectable dragon in my garage," Carl would not have asked to see it then later accuse Rick of shifting the golpoasts. This thread begins with the premise that "God can do anything," which should preclude any investigations into any questions regarding God's ability to do anything because the answer will always be yes. My statement you just quoted wasn't a return kick; it was an elaboration of the premise that came long before that dragon. To be relevant here, your Rick would actually be saying "I have a completely omnipotent and undetectable dragon in my garage". To which I might reasonably ask it to perform something truly impossible so that it might in fact be detected - against which there would be some reason why it would not, obviously. "No one can know the mind of a dragon" is a perennial favourite; or "Put not my dragon to the test"; "My dragon works in mysterious ways" etc. All of which are qualifications. LOL But remember I have already given good logical reasons why complete omnipotence is impossible. So it looks like those "little snags" do apply after all.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 12:04:46 GMT
The Jewish perspective is that nature balances itself and the food chain is part of it. It isn’t evil. I didn't say it was, I was pointing out that if nature supposedly reflects the Creator as you suggested, which made it then we have to contend with a something which can be at times cruel, wasteful and pointless. It’s part of free will and natural events like volcanos.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 12:07:56 GMT
I didn't say it was, I was pointing out that if nature supposedly reflects the Creator as you suggested, which made it then we have to contend with a something which can be at times cruel, wasteful and pointless. It’s part of free will and natural events like volcanos. If you are saying that both of these are natural then I would agree. But that still does not affect my point.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 12:09:52 GMT
It’s part of free will and natural events like volcanos. What is? Whatever you think is a drag. Free will and natural events come with the package.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 12:16:45 GMT
Whatever you think is a drag. Yes, it can be annoying having to think about things can't it? A good job you are just here to 'offer information about an interesting religion'. Indeed; but that still does not affect my point based on your claim that our reality might reflect the deity that made it.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 12:37:19 GMT
Whatever you think is a drag. Yes, it can be annoying having to think about things can't it? A good job you are just here to 'offer information about an interesting religion'. Indeed; but that still does not affect my point based on your claim that our reality might reflect the deity that made it. You’re wasting time yourself right now. You can only blame yourself when your life is a drag.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 12:42:27 GMT
Yes, it can be annoying having to think about things can't it? A good job you are just here to 'offer information about an interesting religion'. Indeed; but that still does not affect my point based on your claim that our reality might reflect the deity that made it. You’re wasting time yourself right now. You can only blame yourself when your life is a drag. I see we are back to n on-sequiturs lol.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 12:57:06 GMT
For clarity's sake, let's call the dragon guy Rick. All Rick said was that he had a dragon in his garage. Had he began with "I have a completely undetectable dragon in my garage," Carl would not have asked to see it then later accuse Rick of shifting the golpoasts. This thread begins with the premise that "God can do anything," which should preclude any investigations into any questions regarding God's ability to do anything because the answer will always be yes. My statement you just quoted wasn't a return kick; it was an elaboration of the premise that came long before that dragon. To be relevant here, your Rick would actually be saying "I have a completely omnipotent and undetectable dragon in my garage". To which I might reasonably ask it to perform something truly impossible so that it might in fact be detected - against which there would be some reason why it would not, obviously. "No one can know the mind of a dragon" is a perennial favourite; or "Put not my dragon to the test"; "My dragon works in mysterious ways" etc. All of which are qualifications. LOL But remember I have already given good logical reasons why complete omnipotence is impossible. So it looks like those "little snags" do apply after all. It wouldn't be reasonable to attempt to detect that undetectable dragon. It's undetectable. Likewise, it also wouldn't be reasonable to attempt to impose limits on a "God that can do anything," including the inability to put thought into action without time. As I said before, challenging the premise is fine and dandy - especially if the objective is to make those snags fit.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 13:14:53 GMT
To be relevant here, your Rick would actually be saying "I have a completely omnipotent and undetectable dragon in my garage". To which I might reasonably ask it to perform something truly impossible so that it might in fact be detected - against which there would be some reason why it would not, obviously. "No one can know the mind of a dragon" is a perennial favourite; or "Put not my dragon to the test"; "My dragon works in mysterious ways" etc. All of which are qualifications. LOL But remember I have already given good logical reasons why complete omnipotence is impossible. So it looks like those "little snags" do apply after all. It wouldn't be reasonable to attempt to detect that undetectable dragon. It's undetectable. But it would not be unreasonable to ask that an omnipotent dragon which is otherwise undetectable (which is after all what we are discussing) in the event prove itself by any impossible act, if one also wishes to prove omnipotence. Or failing that, any clearly attributable act at all. Which would inevitably bring forth reasons why it could, or would not - qualifications sceptics are only too familiar with. You seem to be following in the usual footsteps by offering up reasons why what you suppose cannot, ever, be evidenced or shown. All very convenient. However the defence ultimately crumbles for, if such a god can really do the illogical or even the impossible, then the undetectable deity can be detectable even if, er, it isn't. So, by the standard of your own qualified exceptionalism, where's the dragon? What you think is reasonable is entirely up to you, but the possibility of complete omnipotence is just not a view held by (for instance) the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy as I have shown, for the reasons they and I give. All you seem to be saying is that such a thing can be and so there it is. It is those who make more and more qualifications as to why their dragon, or deity, cannot be evidenced who make the snags to fit. Or those who tell us that the deity can do anything except, it seems, show itself unambiguously.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 17:03:44 GMT
An omnipotent being can do anything the being WANTS TO DO.
Such a being wouldn’t submit to tests from finite beings who are attempting to engage in more mass slander of believers.
The Jewish perspective is that people would lose free will if it were proven that everyone is being judged by an omnipotent being all the time.
The Jewish perspective is that it’s better to believe and do the right things without proof that the being exists.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 21:35:57 GMT
It wouldn't be reasonable to attempt to detect that undetectable dragon. It's undetectable. But it would not be unreasonable to ask that an omnipotent dragon which is otherwise undetectable (which is after all what we are discussing) in the event prove itself by any impossible act, if one also wishes to prove omnipotence. Or failing that, any clearly attributable act at all. Which would inevitably bring forth reasons why it could, or would not - qualifications sceptics are only too familiar with. You seem to be following in the usual footsteps by offering up reasons why what you suppose cannot, ever, be evidenced or shown. All very convenient. However the defence ultimately crumbles for, if such a god can really do the illogical or even the impossible, then the undetectable deity can be detectable even if, er, it isn't. So, by the standard of your own qualified exceptionalism, where's the dragon? What you think is reasonable is entirely up to you, but the possibility of complete omnipotence is just not a view held by (for instance) the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy as I have shown, for the reasons they and I give. All you seem to be saying is that such a thing can be and so there it is. It is those who make more and more qualifications as to why their dragon, or deity, cannot be evidenced who make the snags to fit. Or those who tell us that the deity can do anything except, it seems, show itself unambiguously. I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be having some trouble understanding why the dragon story isn't a valid analogy. I'll try once more, a bit more simplified: Carl didn't know the dragon was invisible because Rick "neglected to mention" that, so Carl asked to see it. The title of this thread does not neglect to mention that "God can do anything," and yet some still ask if there's something he can't do, while others are outright saying he can't do some things, such as putting thought into action without time. It wouldn't be unreasonable to question the comprehension of someone who asks to see something described as invisible. (Note how Carl stopped asking to see it when he was told that the dragon couldn't be seen.) Likewise, it wouldn't be unreasonable to question the comprehension of someone asking if there's something that God (described as being able to do anything) can't do. I never said, nor even implied, that such a being can be. It is presumed in the title of this thread for the sake of discussion. You are told this upfront because the OP, unlike Rick, did not neglect to mention it. If you could be a werewolf or a vampire, which would you be? Let me guess. That question is to be dismissed in favor of an argument about the existence of vampires and werewolves during which you will accuse me of merely saying that werewolves and vampires can be and so there they are.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 23:26:49 GMT
But it would not be unreasonable to ask that an omnipotent dragon which is otherwise undetectable (which is after all what we are discussing) in the event prove itself by any impossible act, if one also wishes to prove omnipotence. Or failing that, any clearly attributable act at all. Which would inevitably bring forth reasons why it could, or would not - qualifications sceptics are only too familiar with. You seem to be following in the usual footsteps by offering up reasons why what you suppose cannot, ever, be evidenced or shown. All very convenient. However the defence ultimately crumbles for, if such a god can really do the illogical or even the impossible, then the undetectable deity can be detectable even if, er, it isn't. So, by the standard of your own qualified exceptionalism, where's the dragon? What you think is reasonable is entirely up to you, but the possibility of complete omnipotence is just not a view held by (for instance) the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy as I have shown, for the reasons they and I give. All you seem to be saying is that such a thing can be and so there it is. It is those who make more and more qualifications as to why their dragon, or deity, cannot be evidenced who make the snags to fit. Or those who tell us that the deity can do anything except, it seems, show itself unambiguously. I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be having some trouble understanding why the dragon story isn't a valid analogy. I'll try once more, a bit more simplified: Carl didn't know the dragon was invisible because Rick "neglected to mention" that, so Carl asked to see it. LOL A bit desperate this. Such hair-splitting represents just the belated introduction of the same old qualification under a different name (and why would Rick 'forget to mention something' so important and unique an aspect when describing his dragon? Why would Carl ask to see the dragon at all if it was not invisible?) Also, the main point we are discussing is a being which is omnipotent just as much as invisible. Since you now go onto mention this then I can assume you really know it. The consensus, of which the entry from Stanford is pretty typical, is that "It does not follow that a maximally powerful being can bring about any state of affairs, since ... bringing about some such states of affairs is impossible." But this has been patiently explained to you already. As already mentioned if, as you insist your being is utterly omnipotent and can really do the impossible then, along with other self-contradictory things, then it can be both invisible and visible at the same time, in effect killing two birds of contention with one stone - a fact which, as already mentioned, destroys your argument. What further excuse this time would be offered for something impossible not being done, even by an invisible being? Perhaps one of the more common ones I mentioned earlier? This however would, in our example still not stop Carl then asking to see the invisible being doing the impossible. For which a further excusing qualification (or special pleading) would, inevitably have to be made by Rick. And suppose Carl had then asked to see the dragon's breath fogging a mirror, or to smell its invisible droppings, or just hear it roar? (I would have) More excuses! LOL There is nothing wrong with the comprehension of anyone in this instance. It is perfectly clear, for instance that, promised an invisible dragon which can do the impossible living in the garage, there would be - no surprise - once qualified or special pled for, absolutely no difference between a garage which contains nothing of the sort and one that does. The burden of proof has not been discharged, it has just been dodged. Once again, this just sounds disingenuous. I can't see the difference when such special pleading is made, it is still basically an excuse. Whether or not one is in the garage to be confronted by such qualifications or not the result will always be just as disappointing. This is rather tangled logic for, if I make a claim, then then burden of proof is with me not with you. But if one qualifies a claim enough then that does not make the burden of proof go away, it just makes it more impossible to discharge. Which in the case of those who argue for the existence of a deity which exists but cannot be unambiguously discovered, or can supposedly do things which can't be and so is logically incoherent, is the ultimate point of it all.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 23:59:11 GMT
I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be having some trouble understanding why the dragon story isn't a valid analogy. I'll try once more, a bit more simplified: Carl didn't know the dragon was invisible because Rick "neglected to mention" that, so Carl asked to see it. LOL A bit desperate this, and represents just the belated introduction of the same old qualification under a different name (and why would Rick 'forget to mention something' so important and unique when describing his dragon?) Also, the main point we are discussing is a being which is omnipotent just as much as invisible. Since you now go onto mention this then I can assume you really know it. It was literally the very first thing mentioned: "If God can do anything..." It follows when the premise is that anything can be done. Thanks for your patience, but I already explained that long before you came strutting in here with your invalid dragon analogy. My argument is that, given the premise that God can do anything, the answer to any question that begins with "Can God..." is "yes." What you're calling an excuse is actually the premise, and it was laid out in no uncertain terms right out of the gate. Maybe you missed that, too, but that's hard to believe considering how many times it's been pointed out to you. It helps me to understand that you refuse the premise as stated. And that's fine and dandy. What's that you often say? Oh yeah... Evasion noted. And of course, the so very important LOL.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 24, 2020 1:02:26 GMT
LOL A bit desperate this, and represents just the belated introduction of the same old qualification under a different name (and why would Rick 'forget to mention something' so important and unique when describing his dragon?) Also, the main point we are discussing is a being which is omnipotent just as much as invisible. Since you now go onto mention this then I can assume you really know it. It was literally the very first thing mentioned: "If God can do anything..." Indeed. But the point of Sagan (and Flew's) analogies is, still, simply that unique claims of any sort about a being qualified into existence are basically just offering excuse after excuse why the burden of proof is not discharged until falsification is effectively impossible. I hope that helps. (And I see you are still dodging the bullet when I suggest that an invisible being that can do the impossible can, well, do just that and thus be both unambiguously visible and invisible lol.) Nope. See my final words below. The actual original premise actually reads ' if God can do anything...' Any certainty here is all yours. Look back and check. And even then if something is possible that does not mean it is likely. Is that something "I failed to mention" before? And, as has been pointed out to you with good logical reasons, the premise is, quite simply a false one. To accept it as valid, as it appears you do with that "my argument" above, is to misunderstand the way biblical scholars and thinkers commonly view the nature of an 'all-powerful' deity. Sorry about that. The point is, still, that to go on as one might and argue in favour of that type of god, inevitably leads to qualifying such a being into existence, as I have shown ... a process of special pleading that we are surely all over-familiar with elsewhere. In short, what you are so taken with here is a duff idea, one inevitably propped up by with logic-busting special pleading ('... so a triangle can have four sides if ever God wills it' 'God can lift rocks that He made that are unliftable' etc). I can't falsify such assertions, other with logic, which of course is rendered useless by qualifying a supreme being as one which, being special, of course can do the illogically incoherent, can't it now? I don't refuse it. I refute it- most especially when, as you have done, it is taken as an absolute, rather than the conditional, statement that the original poster submitted. And even then only when normal rules of logic apply, without special pleading.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 24, 2020 1:21:19 GMT
It was literally the very first thing mentioned: "If God can do anything..." Indeed. But the point of Sagan (and Flew's) analogies is, still, simply that unique claims of any sort about a being qualified into existence are basically just offering excuse after excuse why the burden of proof is not discharged until falsification is effectively impossible. I hope that helps. (And I see you are still dodging the bullet when I suggest that an invisible being that can do the impossible can, well, do just that and thus be both unambiguously visible and invisible lol.) See my final words below. The actual original premise actually leads with ' if God can do anything...' Any certainty here is all yours. Look back and check. Is that something "I failed to mention" before? And, as has been pointed out to you with good logical reasons, the premise is, quite simply a false one. To accept it as valid, as it appears you do with that "my argument" above, is to misunderstand the way biblical scholars and thinkers commonly view the nature of an 'all-powerful' deity. Sorry about that. The point is, still, that to go on as one might and argue in favour of that type of god, inevitably leads to qualifying such a being into existence, as I have shown ... a process of special pleading that we are surely all over-familiar with elsewhere. In short, what you are so taken with here is a duff idea, one inevitably propped up by with logic-busting special pleading ('... so a triangle can have four sides if ever God wills it' 'God can lift rocks that He made that are unliftable' etc). I can't falsify such assertions, other with logic, which of course is rendered useless by qualifying a supreme being as one which, being special, of course can do the illogically incoherent, can't it now? I don't refuse it. I refute it- but only when, as you have done, it is taken as an absolute, rather than the conditional, statement that the original poster submitted. And even then only when normal rules of logic apply, without special pleading. It's not my premise. I am not the OP. I say omniscience doesn't include the ability to know things that can't be known, and omnipotence doesn't include things that can't be done. But the OP's premise (ie, the conditional you acknowledge) does not exclude intrinsic impossibilities. Therefore, if God can do anything, then there's nothing he can't do. It doesn't destroy my argument to point out that he could be both visible and invisible simultaneously given the premise as stated - it bolsters it.
|
|