G
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Because they want to.
K
KingCoil
Guest
QUOTE=Bahman;12059873 ]
Forgive me, Bahman, but I will just invite you to consider with me your statement above,
“I am sure that we both could agree that good and evil are subjective.”
I consider that statement from you to be actually a most crucial idea which can really bring an atheist to order, i.e. not to be throwing in a wild goose for folks to chase around, and forget that the agenda he is pursuing is to make people think that atheists have a solid case against the existence of God – do you notice how everyone now is into chasing a wild goose, instead of attending to the real thrust of Centerpoint here, that God cannot be existing because He is full of self-contradiction.
Now, you say “good and evil are subjective,” are you understanding the word subjective to mean insofar as the subject saying the words are humans?
If you mean that, then it is precisely correct, good and evil with humans are subjective to themselves, but when we talk God there cannot be good and evil with Him: because He is all good, still He knows what is good and what is evil with humans, and that is anything that is contrary to what God He Himself wills for humans to obey, that is good, and evil is what He orders humans to not do, that is evil, namely, humans doing what He orders them to not do.
So, back to the dilemma by which Centerpoint wants to submit God to, he Centerpoint is into the fallacy of illicit transit, shitfting from the standpoint of human discourse to the standpoint of discourse with God, and his purpose? To make everyone go on a wild goose chase, and not working out his fallacious conundrum feigning to show that God is all self-contradictions – wherefore He can’t exist.
KingCoil
Originally Posted by KingCoil ]
Perhaps we should for both our pleasure determine what exactly is the dilemma to which Centerpoint wants to submit God to.
Here is his OP:
…]
I am sure that we both could agree that good and evil are subjective.
…]
/QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should for both our pleasure determine what exactly is the dilemma to which Centerpoint wants to submit God to.
Here is his OP:
QUOTE=Counterpoint;12046833 ]
Does God have the capacity to choose evil? If yes, why hasn’t he chosen evil? If no, then how does he know the difference between good and evil?
/QUOTE ]
We have to see what Centerpoint is driving at in its core direction, notwithstanding the fuzzy wording of his presentation.
I see it to be in the category of “If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it?”
Appearing in the guise of “If God is all good, why did He create evil?”
What about you, what exactly is the core dilemma Centerpoint is posing to God to challenge God to face the fact that He is not God ultimately.
KingCoil
/quote ]
- Sorry, the quote from Centerpoint did not come out in my previous attempt, owing to the software of this forum which does not reproduce a quote inside a quote. ]*
Does God have the capacity to choose evil? If yes, why hasn’t he chosen evil? If no, then how does he know the difference between good and evil?
/QUOTE ]
We have to see what Centerpoint is driving at in its core direction, notwithstanding the fuzzy wording of his presentation.
I see it to be in the category of “If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it?”
Appearing in the guise of “If God is all good, why did He create evil?”
What about you, what exactly is the core dilemma Centerpoint is posing to God to challenge God to face the fact that He is not God ultimately.
KingCoil
/quote ]
…]
I am sure that we both could agree that good and evil are subjective.
…]
/QUOTE ]
Forgive me, Bahman, but I will just invite you to consider with me your statement above,
“I am sure that we both could agree that good and evil are subjective.”
I consider that statement from you to be actually a most crucial idea which can really bring an atheist to order, i.e. not to be throwing in a wild goose for folks to chase around, and forget that the agenda he is pursuing is to make people think that atheists have a solid case against the existence of God – do you notice how everyone now is into chasing a wild goose, instead of attending to the real thrust of Centerpoint here, that God cannot be existing because He is full of self-contradiction.
Now, you say “good and evil are subjective,” are you understanding the word subjective to mean insofar as the subject saying the words are humans?
If you mean that, then it is precisely correct, good and evil with humans are subjective to themselves, but when we talk God there cannot be good and evil with Him: because He is all good, still He knows what is good and what is evil with humans, and that is anything that is contrary to what God He Himself wills for humans to obey, that is good, and evil is what He orders humans to not do, that is evil, namely, humans doing what He orders them to not do.
So, back to the dilemma by which Centerpoint wants to submit God to, he Centerpoint is into the fallacy of illicit transit, shitfting from the standpoint of human discourse to the standpoint of discourse with God, and his purpose? To make everyone go on a wild goose chase, and not working out his fallacious conundrum feigning to show that God is all self-contradictions – wherefore He can’t exist.
KingCoil
R
Richca
Guest
It is not possible for God to choose evil. For the proper object of God’s will is Himself who is essentially good and who is essential being. God possesses the fullness of being and since goodness follows upon being God possesses the fullness of goodness whereas evil is the absence of good or being which does not belong to God.
God knows evil in the things he created by the absence of good in those things for evil is founded upon the good and it can only exist in the good.
P
Patty23
Guest
Does God have the capacity to do evil?
The question makes sense but if you examine carefully or depending on your background the question might be invalid.
It’s like can a father be a non-father at the same time under the same respect?
Or
Can God be not God at the same time under the same respect?
Capacity is equal to potentiality and God doesn’t have potentialities.
Potentialities indicate perfections not yet realized and therefore an imperfection.
If God is perfect, then there are no potencies in God.
Let’s talk about evil. Evil perse doesn’t exist. It is a privation and adheres only to a good or something that actually exists. Don’t think of evil in the moral sense yet, just think of the hole in a donut. It doesn’t actually exist but is looks to be insofar as there is an actual donut.
Are we to go so far as to say a donut gained more by having the capacity to have a hole? Common sense should tell you it lessened the dimension of the bread or it didn’t add anything at all to say the least.
Do amputees gain more by not having certain parts of the body?
And now for God, does it really add something to him if he can create a boulder he can’t lift? Either a yes or a no answer would pin him down for having incapabilities.
Again I’m saying the question makes sense to ask but if one tries to examine the terms involved, then the proposition or the question might be invalid.
The question makes sense but if you examine carefully or depending on your background the question might be invalid.
It’s like can a father be a non-father at the same time under the same respect?
Or
Can God be not God at the same time under the same respect?
Capacity is equal to potentiality and God doesn’t have potentialities.
Potentialities indicate perfections not yet realized and therefore an imperfection.
If God is perfect, then there are no potencies in God.
Let’s talk about evil. Evil perse doesn’t exist. It is a privation and adheres only to a good or something that actually exists. Don’t think of evil in the moral sense yet, just think of the hole in a donut. It doesn’t actually exist but is looks to be insofar as there is an actual donut.
Are we to go so far as to say a donut gained more by having the capacity to have a hole? Common sense should tell you it lessened the dimension of the bread or it didn’t add anything at all to say the least.
Do amputees gain more by not having certain parts of the body?
And now for God, does it really add something to him if he can create a boulder he can’t lift? Either a yes or a no answer would pin him down for having incapabilities.
Again I’m saying the question makes sense to ask but if one tries to examine the terms involved, then the proposition or the question might be invalid.
K
KingCoil
Guest
Allow me to point out how fallacious are these two challenges against God’s existence:
A. “If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it?”
B. “If God is all good, why did He create evil?”
You see, there are in each statement two clauses, a main principal one and a secondary one.
The primary clause is an admission, and the secondary is a consequence of the primary.
But in each statement the secondary clause is not in fact not a consequence that should follow logically from the primary clause, but the speaker is playing the trick of distracting the audience by diverting their attention into another direction, a wrong direction.
Here is the comparative representation showing the trick formulation of the statement and the non-trick formulation:
With statement A.
Trick formulation: A. “If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it?”
Correct non-trick formulation: A. “If God is omnipotent, yes then He can carry any rock however heavy He creates it.”
With statement B.
Trick formulation: B “If God is all good, why did He create evil?”
Correct non-trick formulation: B. “If God is all good, yes then He cannot create evil.”
So, readers here, let us do further thinking to p(name removed by moderator)oint even more exactly what is the trick fallacy of atheists who challenge God with such statements which are all tricks, but we are misled by distraction into thinking in another direction and getting ourselves all baffled up.
Let me read your further examination of the fallacious trick of atheists in all such challenges to God, by their first admitting an attribute of God and then following it up with what I see to be a consequential implication, that makes it appear that God is self-contradictory, wherefore He cannot be existing.
KingCoil
A. “If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it?”
B. “If God is all good, why did He create evil?”
You see, there are in each statement two clauses, a main principal one and a secondary one.
The primary clause is an admission, and the secondary is a consequence of the primary.
But in each statement the secondary clause is not in fact not a consequence that should follow logically from the primary clause, but the speaker is playing the trick of distracting the audience by diverting their attention into another direction, a wrong direction.
Here is the comparative representation showing the trick formulation of the statement and the non-trick formulation:
With statement A.
Trick formulation: A. “If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy He cannot carry it?”
Correct non-trick formulation: A. “If God is omnipotent, yes then He can carry any rock however heavy He creates it.”
With statement B.
Trick formulation: B “If God is all good, why did He create evil?”
Correct non-trick formulation: B. “If God is all good, yes then He cannot create evil.”
So, readers here, let us do further thinking to p(name removed by moderator)oint even more exactly what is the trick fallacy of atheists who challenge God with such statements which are all tricks, but we are misled by distraction into thinking in another direction and getting ourselves all baffled up.
Let me read your further examination of the fallacious trick of atheists in all such challenges to God, by their first admitting an attribute of God and then following it up with what I see to be a consequential implication, that makes it appear that God is self-contradictory, wherefore He cannot be existing.
KingCoil
E
ericc
Guest
I always thought Statement A was silly. It portrays God as a human or some other creature that uses muscular strength to lift things up. First, God is Spirit. He is everywhere. To lift something, you need to stand on something firm such as solid ground. Just don’t reduce God to mere mortal conditions. It is same as asking can God make something that God can not do. It is a contradiction. Such as, can God make a 4-sided triangle. Or can God commit sin. He can’t so he can not be omnipotent then.
Statement B is slightly different. Evil is not something that God makes. It is absence of good. Like heat, absence of heat makes it feel cold, not that you create coldness.
B
Bahman
Guest
That is correct which means that the concepts of good and evil is agent dependent as well meaning that all subject realities are agent dependent as well. This means that God can be only good since he by its nature cannot know evil which in return implements that God can only do good. Please read the following for further explanation.
This however turn the truth inside out namely how possibly an created agent have such capacity to experience some sort of subjective reality which the Creator, God cannot know. To open the problem we have to notice that any agent is capable to experience a certain sort of subjective reality depending on 1) agent nature, 2) what the agent is exposed to and 3) what the agent can create as a subjective reality. The first item is not agent dependent. The second item is partially agent dependent and partially not. The last item is agent dependent. Hence it is possible to have a neutral creation with the outcome an agent who could conceive the evil and good concept. The neutral nature however necessary and sufficient to conceive good and evil equally yet the creation can be good yet it leads to concept of good and evil with a bias toward good rather than evil which is the idea behind suffering. This also means that the creation is necessary to brings the turn the truth inside outside which is the goal for the growth.
This however entails that God cannot know evil hence questioning Gods omniscience. Please read the following.
We are in the same page. The only problem is the Gods omniscience here namely, if God is omniscience and the concept of good and evil are subjective reality from God preservative then God cannot only be good since either God is omnipotent meaning that he could perform evil or he is not omnipotent which either way around question Gods omniscience and omnipotence and we cannot resolve the problem unless we refrain one of these concepts, namely either God does not know evil or he is unable to perform evil.
O my humble opinion, Gods idea stays self-contrary as our existence. We however have to be positive to such a problems since they are the door to divine truth.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Catholics may not hold, believe, or suggest that God causes evil or creates evil. By Defined Catholic Dogma, God is Good, period.
Linus2nd
Linus2nd
T
tonyrey
Guest
God obviously chose to create a universe in which evil events occur but that is a far cry from choosing evil. He permits evil because it is the inevitable result of creating persons capable of choosing to love or not to love…
K
KingCoil
Guest
QUOTE=ericc;12065107 ]
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post ]
Allow me to point out how fallacious are these two challenges against God’s existence:
Etc. ]
/quote ]
I always thought Statement A was silly. It portrays God as a human or some other creature that uses muscular strength to lift things up. First, God is Spirit. He is everywhere. To lift something, you need to stand on something firm such as solid ground. Just don’t reduce God to mere mortal conditions. It is same as asking can God make something that God can not do. It is a contradiction. Such as, can God make a 4-sided triangle. Or can God commit sin. He can’t so he can not be omnipotent then.
Statement B is slightly different. Evil is not something that God makes. It is absence of good. Like heat, absence of heat makes it feel cold, not that you create coldness.
/QUOTE ]
Thanks, I concur with you wholeheartedly!
KingCoil
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post ]
Allow me to point out how fallacious are these two challenges against God’s existence:
Etc. ]
/quote ]
I always thought Statement A was silly. It portrays God as a human or some other creature that uses muscular strength to lift things up. First, God is Spirit. He is everywhere. To lift something, you need to stand on something firm such as solid ground. Just don’t reduce God to mere mortal conditions. It is same as asking can God make something that God can not do. It is a contradiction. Such as, can God make a 4-sided triangle. Or can God commit sin. He can’t so he can not be omnipotent then.
Statement B is slightly different. Evil is not something that God makes. It is absence of good. Like heat, absence of heat makes it feel cold, not that you create coldness.
/QUOTE ]
Thanks, I concur with you wholeheartedly!
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
QUOTE=Bahman;12065797 ]
That is correct which means that the concepts of good and evil is agent dependent as well meaning that all subject realities are agent dependent as well. This means that God can be only good since he by its nature cannot know evil which in return implements that God can only do good. Please read the following for further explanation.
Etc. ]
O my humble opinion, Gods idea stays self-contrary as our existence. We however have to be positive to such a problems since they are the door to divine truth.
/quote ]
Thanks, Bahman, for your expatiation on a most complicated issue.
I will just say that instead of your statement, “Gods idea stays self-contrary as our existence,” I would rather put it this way: “God’s idea stays -]self-contrary as/-] above our existence.”
KingCoil
That is correct which means that the concepts of good and evil is agent dependent as well meaning that all subject realities are agent dependent as well. This means that God can be only good since he by its nature cannot know evil which in return implements that God can only do good. Please read the following for further explanation.
Etc. ]
O my humble opinion, Gods idea stays self-contrary as our existence. We however have to be positive to such a problems since they are the door to divine truth.
/quote ]
Thanks, Bahman, for your expatiation on a most complicated issue.
I will just say that instead of your statement, “Gods idea stays self-contrary as our existence,” I would rather put it this way: “God’s idea stays -]self-contrary as/-] above our existence.”
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
QUOTE=Linusthe2nd;12066238 #68 ]
So, now I am enlightened, your goal here, Oh Linus2, is to perform by self-appointment the job of reminding Catholics what they can think and what not, on pain of exclusion from God’s kingdom.
Is that why some misled historians call the centuries of faith the dark ages?
Oh, I have got to be careful, that idea above is thinking against the dogmatic and disciplinary position of the Catholic Church.
You are not here to talk philosophy, period; but to be a kind of a continual what, censor deputatus? – self-appointed though, I dare say.
Here is an excerpted portion of Google’s hits on censor deputatus
Dear Linus2, please forgive me for I was thinking all the time that you are here to talk philosophy.
On my part I am here just to enjoy the pleasure of doing philosophy.
KingCoil
Catholics may not hold, believe, or suggest that God causes evil or creates evil. By Defined Catholic Dogma, God is Good, period.
Linus2nd
/QUOTE ]
Linus2nd
/QUOTE ]
So, now I am enlightened, your goal here, Oh Linus2, is to perform by self-appointment the job of reminding Catholics what they can think and what not, on pain of exclusion from God’s kingdom.
Is that why some misled historians call the centuries of faith the dark ages?
Oh, I have got to be careful, that idea above is thinking against the dogmatic and disciplinary position of the Catholic Church.
You are not here to talk philosophy, period; but to be a kind of a continual what, censor deputatus? – self-appointed though, I dare say.
Here is an excerpted portion of Google’s hits on censor deputatus
Dear Linus2, please forgive me for I was thinking all the time that you are here to talk philosophy.
On my part I am here just to enjoy the pleasure of doing philosophy.
KingCoil
K
KingCoil
Guest
Dear author of this thread, Centerpoint, please come forward and exchange thoughts with me on what is your challenge to God all about?
And talk philosophy, but please straight philosophy not any kind of tricks in philosophical discourse.
KingCoil
And talk philosophy, but please straight philosophy not any kind of tricks in philosophical discourse.
KingCoil
- Status