|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 11:08:36 GMT
“Moreover, if we are to deduce the nature of a God from His creation, then what deduction do we make from an existence which is often cruel, wasteful and pointless (the way that so much of reality works)?”
————-
Jewish perspective:
1. Free will means that bad things can happen, but free will is still valuable and important.
2. There is divine justice when people die. Good people are rewarded and bad people are punished by God because there is no hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 11:11:48 GMT
Natural in whatever way a being capable of creating a universe feels natural about having that kind of power.  So higher than nature, then. Super nature, if you will. Like quantum mechanics.  This just seems a subjective judgement. The working of the quantum is just part and parcel of existence (indeed at the foundation of it all) and is not 'super' more than any other part; in the same way as we might question a supposed 'higher' realm.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 11:15:07 GMT
“Moreover, if we are to deduce the nature of a God from His creation, then what deduction do we make from an existence which is often cruel, wasteful and pointless (the way that so much of reality works)?” ————- Jewish perspective: 1. Free will means that bad things can happen, but free will is still valuable and important. 2. There is divine justice when people die. Good people are rewarded and bad people are punished by God because there is no hell. 1. Free will has nothing to do with the manifestation of natural evil. 2. I am not for the most part talking about people, but of natural reality in general. 2b There is no way of falsifying anything you have said, purely by way of information concerning a very interesting religion of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 11:21:56 GMT
says who and with what evidence other and a nice thought of wishful thinkig on their part? "If such a being exists" means no evidence is required.
'If such a being doesn't exist' needs none either. All things being equal then we are into burden of proof.
|
|
|
|
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 Toasted Cheese on Dec 23, 2020 20:18:59 GMT
No, not at all, and me highlighting the first part is irrelevant to your 'entire' post, which my comment encapsulated. I was largely focusing on the discovery part though, for is God not the subject?
To the op's mind, who is theist by my recollection, the discovery part is negligible, because God is already a part of her belief system, yet whose God, which God, what God is she referring too? The rest of the subtext to answer, like doing anything, or being capable of mistakes is logically rendered moot, because first God must be defined and evidenced above all else by what she is then really asking to follow on from the subject.
Sagan's dragon story doesn't work for several reasons on its own, but because this discussion presumes the existence of God and defines it as being able to do anything (see thread title), the dragon isn't a valid analogy. Again, that is irrelevant, because you have claimed the question has been ignored. It is not a rational question to answer, because like the dragon, there is NO reasonable explanation for its existence of being. The subject itself is not even defined so how can an abstract be capable of anything, let alone make a mistake? You are free to answer the preposterous question if you know something others don’t.
|
|
