|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 5, 2022 16:48:08 GMT
Both questions are intimately linked, at least how I think about them. I do think there is a higher power out there, but for the purposes of this thread, it can be the "God" of any religion or worldview. I.e. it could be anything from a political ruler like Jehovah or Allah, to something a bit more transcendental like the Hindu Brahman, or even the conscious universe of cosmopsychism itself (the latter two of which could admittedly be construed as being very similar).
Edit: God could also be a high powered AI (maybe conscious or even sentient, maybe not, or maybe has the ability to appear so to us but isn't) running a simulated universe, where it normally follows certain rules and laws but has the ability to intervene and change things up when it wants.
Anyway, I can imagine God being omniscient. It wouldn't be hard for him/her/it to know everything there is to know inside the universe. The problem is how would he know for sure there wasn't more outside of his realm of knowledge? That part would seem impossible. So she could be omniscient, ostensibly, but couldn't know for sure that in fact she was, which would ultimately render her not truly omniscient. The only possible way out of this would be to say something like "God could know for sure but our brains simply aren't set up to understand how this would all work", which doesn't hold too much water for me currently but there could be some truth to it I guess.
Similarly, God could have the power to do anything it wanted in the universe or metaverse, which I believe is highly possible, but if there were other realms outside of these places it didn't know about, then God wouldn't truly be omnipotent because it wouldn't be able to affect these other places at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Sept 5, 2022 17:36:29 GMT
This reminds me of a joke that George Carlin told about a question he asked his teacher in Catholic school. "If God can do absolutely anything, can he make a rock that is so big that he himself can't lift it?" An early "mental hotfoot" of his, apparently. He didn't mention whether or not the teacher tried to answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 5, 2022 17:51:26 GMT
This reminds me of a joke that George Carlin told about a question he asked his teacher in Catholic school. "If God can do absolutely anything, can he make a rock that is so big that he himself can't lift it?" An early "mental hotfoot" of his, apparently. He didn't mention whether or not the teacher tried to answer. Who says that He Can't or Didn't? When He Became Incarnate as Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Cross He Carried on the way to Golgotha was so heavy on His Shoulder, it caused Him to Fall several times, so the Romans had to get a passerby (St. Simon of Cyrene)to assist Him Carrying it.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 560
|
Post by gw on Sept 5, 2022 18:28:10 GMT
Omnipotence is a self defeating concept. A god could theoretically make any number of different worlds but merely making a decision on what exists and what doesn't means that they can't do literally anything. They could make an endless amount of alternate worlds to do what they couldn't do in any particular ones. It's like an endless series of paintings. A god could always make another but that doesn't change how the one that is already there is formed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 5, 2022 19:10:29 GMT
God if fictional so God can be anything you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 5, 2022 19:31:14 GMT
This reminds me of a joke that George Carlin told about a question he asked his teacher in Catholic school. "If God can do absolutely anything, can he make a rock that is so big that he himself can't lift it?" An early "mental hotfoot" of his, apparently. He didn't mention whether or not the teacher tried to answer. That type of question seems to be more of a linguistic trick. Ultimately it's asking "if God is omnipotent, can he make him self not omnipotent?" Probably not, because omnipotence, by definition, excludes being not-omnipotent. Sort of like asking of God can make a bachelor that is married. Maybe he could though. All he'd have to do is change the dictionary definition of the word "bachelor".  Or another way you could answer is to consider Hinduism, where "God" regularly makes himself into mortals that face all sort of challenges and limitations.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 5, 2022 20:24:09 GMT
This reminds me of a joke that George Carlin told about a question he asked his teacher in Catholic school. "If God can do absolutely anything, can he make a rock that is so big that he himself can't lift it?" An early "mental hotfoot" of his, apparently. He didn't mention whether or not the teacher tried to answer. You will believe anything wont you? Firstly it's hardly George Carlin's question, and secondly it's not a hard question to answer, most first year philosophy or religious students can tell you the answer in seconds. You know comedians embellish stories and out right make them up for humour right?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 5, 2022 20:32:00 GMT
This reminds me of a joke that George Carlin told about a question he asked his teacher in Catholic school. "If God can do absolutely anything, can he make a rock that is so big that he himself can't lift it?" An early "mental hotfoot" of his, apparently. He didn't mention whether or not the teacher tried to answer. That type of question seems to be more of a linguistic trick. Ultimately it's asking "if God is omnipotent, can he make him self not omnipotent?" Probably not, because omnipotence, by definition, excludes being not-omnipotent. Sort of like asking of God can make a bachelor that is married. Maybe he could though. All he'd have to do is change the dictionary definition of the word "bachelor". Or another way you could answer is to consider Hinduism, where "God" regularly makes himself into mortals that face all sort of challenges and limitations. Actually it simply asks the definition of omnipotence, there are two possible answers: Omnipotence means being able to do anything, however it is bound by the rules and logic of the environment, in which case an omnipotent god cannot create a rock that it cannot lift as it would break the rules Omnipotence means being able to do anything regardless of the rules (ie manage the absurd) then god can create a rock it cannot lift and it can lift it. In the end the question simply asks the listener to define omnipotence. So yeah I guess it it a linguistic trick actually in a lot of ways, it's asking about how we use language.
|
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Sept 6, 2022 7:53:58 GMT
This reminds me of a joke that George Carlin told about a question he asked his teacher in Catholic school. "If God can do absolutely anything, can he make a rock that is so big that he himself can't lift it?" An early "mental hotfoot" of his, apparently. He didn't mention whether or not the teacher tried to answer. You will believe anything wont you? Firstly it's hardly George Carlin's question, and secondly it's not a hard question to answer, most first year philosophy or religious students can tell you the answer in seconds. You know comedians embellish stories and out right make them up for humour right? No, I will not believe anything. Actually, when I posted that, I was hoping I might get one or more likes from anybody who could see the humor in the original idea. I forgot I was posting on a board inhabited by idiots. Except for one interesting post from the OP, nobody has replied to me but a couple of shitheads. Too bad none of you have a sense of humor. It was a joke, folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 6, 2022 14:23:36 GMT
You will believe anything wont you? Firstly it's hardly George Carlin's question, and secondly it's not a hard question to answer, most first year philosophy or religious students can tell you the answer in seconds. You know comedians embellish stories and out right make them up for humour right? No, I will not believe anything. Actually, when I posted that, I was hoping I might get one or more likes from anybody who could see the humor in the original idea. I forgot I was posting on a board inhabited by idiots. Except for one interesting post from the OP, nobody has replied to me but a couple of shitheads. Too bad none of you have a sense of humor. It was a joke, folks. Butt hurt much?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 6, 2022 16:56:43 GMT
You will believe anything wont you? Firstly it's hardly George Carlin's question, and secondly it's not a hard question to answer, most first year philosophy or religious students can tell you the answer in seconds. You know comedians embellish stories and out right make them up for humour right? No, I will not believe anything. Actually, when I posted that, I was hoping I might get one or more likes from anybody who could see the humor in the original idea. I forgot I was posting on a board inhabited by idiots. Except for one interesting post from the OP, nobody has replied to me but a couple of shitheads. Too bad none of you have a sense of humor. It was a joke, folks. Aww sweetie, it's ok you are still important.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Sept 14, 2022 11:39:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 14, 2022 15:33:01 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 14, 2022 18:52:59 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. I can attest, as someone who has verifiably suffered during several periods in my life (treatment for cancer, childhood emotional abuse and death of a spouse) that the suffering I experienced was real. The treatment for cancer made me a healthy person, but did not make me a better more complete person. The effects of the childhood emotional abuse negatively affect me to this day. The suffering during my late husband's protracted illness (and yes, he suffered) and after his death was real. Was I better, or more complete? That is a subjective question. Life is what it is. Some of it is positive, some of it is negative, and everything in between. Natural law just is, and some suffer from the experience, and others gain happiness from the experience. I really don't see an all-powerful god who created the entire universe being so 'one-on-one' in each person's life.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 14, 2022 18:56:09 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. I just found a really cool pick a path around that
I think at the end of the day the omnipotence thing can be dealt with by defining omnipotence as being unable to break the rules (as in the rock argument) God™ has set the rules for what ever reason and changing them would invalidate creation, in other words God™ did not create the malaria carrying mosquito, instead evolution was set in place by God™ and the mosquito is the result. God™ *might* be able to destroy the mosquito (in terms of power) but be unable to as it would undo the rules of creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Sept 15, 2022 0:34:49 GMT
I am almost laughing out loud at the expression "rock argument" in the post above. It is actually not an argument. It is a joke about word usage.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 15, 2022 0:42:58 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. I can attest, as someone who has verifiably suffered during several periods in my life (treatment for cancer, childhood emotional abuse and death of a spouse) that the suffering I experienced was real. The treatment for cancer made me a healthy person, but did not make me a better more complete person. The effects of the childhood emotional abuse negatively affect me to this day. The suffering during my late husband's protracted illness (and yes, he suffered) and after his death was real. Was I better, or more complete? That is a subjective question. Life is what it is. Some of it is positive, some of it is negative, and everything in between. Natural law just is, and some suffer from the experience, and others gain happiness from the experience. I really don't see an all-powerful god who created the entire universe being so 'one-on-one' in each person's life. I'm sorry for your and your husband's suffering. I know it is real. But from a philosophical perspective, there are still multiple ways this doesn't make the Epicurus argument work. An omnipotent God could have simply put those memories into your brain without you actually suffering. There could also be ways this suffering makes you a better person that you're simply not aware of and God is.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 15, 2022 5:38:30 GMT
I can attest, as someone who has verifiably suffered during several periods in my life (treatment for cancer, childhood emotional abuse and death of a spouse) that the suffering I experienced was real. The treatment for cancer made me a healthy person, but did not make me a better more complete person. The effects of the childhood emotional abuse negatively affect me to this day. The suffering during my late husband's protracted illness (and yes, he suffered) and after his death was real. Was I better, or more complete? That is a subjective question. Life is what it is. Some of it is positive, some of it is negative, and everything in between. Natural law just is, and some suffer from the experience, and others gain happiness from the experience. I really don't see an all-powerful god who created the entire universe being so 'one-on-one' in each person's life. I'm sorry for your and your husband's suffering. I know it is real. But from a philosophical perspective, there are still multiple ways this doesn't make the Epicurus argument work. An omnipotent God could have simply put those memories into your brain without you actually suffering. There could also be ways this suffering makes you a better person that you're simply not aware of and God is. Sorry, but I see all that as subjective speculation.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 15, 2022 8:20:29 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. I don't think this avoids the problem. If I think people are suffering, it makes me sad which is another form of suffering and in this case genuine.
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Sept 15, 2022 15:34:47 GMT
I think I posted about this argument once before. An easy way out of the riddle is to say God makes it so you think there’s evil but really there isn’t. For example, if a small child in a third world country dies of starvation, during the suffering part, God could turn him into an AI or p-zombie if you like. This would mean the suffering looks real to the rest of us, but is not actually happening. Could also be true that some suffering really does make you a better more complete person. This may not necessarily apply to all types of suffering though. I don't think this avoids the problem. If I think people are suffering, it makes me sad which is another form of suffering and in this case genuine. I understand but I don’t think that’s the type of suffering Epicurus was talking about. |
|
Or another way you could answer is to consider Hinduism, where "God" regularly makes himself into mortals that face all sort of challenges and limitations. 
