Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

I did say "for certain values of God"
Adding to that, for your second argument: and for certain values of "Good".

What is "Good" compared to "Ultimate"? If you cannot see the greater good, how would you know it is good or bad?

If killing one saves many, that one will think you are malevolent. The idea of benevolence or malevolence is therefore very subjective, and very much depends on your scope, which is limited. If it were unlimited, you would be God. Therefore, no-one could judge God to be Benevolent or Malevolent but God himself.

[Armok]

I did say "for certain values of God"
Adding to that, for your second argument: and for certain values of "Good".

What is "Good" compared to "Ultimate"? If you cannot see the greater good, how would you know it is good or bad?

If killing one saves many, that one will think you are malevolent. The idea of benevolence or malevolence is therefore very subjective, and very much depends on your scope, which is limited. If it were unlimited, you would be God. Therefore, no-one could judge God to be Benevolent or Malevolent but God himself.

Except, if something was omnipotent it could per definition save everyone, and wouldn't have to make compromises.

[Siquo]

Unless it chooses not to for benevolent reasons beyond your comprehension.

Explaining Gods motives is so very easy. 

[Dakk]

Unless it chooses not to for benevolent reasons beyond your comprehension.

Explaining Gods motives is so very easy. 

Which spirals back to ye old argument it doesn't matter what god do! He's purrrrfect! God works in mysterious ways, we're dumb and we can't understand it!

Its easy to say things are the way you say them to be without explaining. This is why its easy to create a religion and force it on other people.

[Armok]

Besides, it dosn't matter how smart or perfect you are, game theory and logic is the same for everyone, and the linear scale up of "goodness" is a really, really simple case of those.

[Siquo]

Forcing has nothing to do with it. It's that God can only be described with a lack of logic.

Ancient Greek Orthodox theologicians used double negatives, for instance: It is not so that God does not exist. In logic it means the same as "God exists", but in language it's subtly different. Zen koans also use "beyond logic", trying to describe the spirit of Buddha with paradoxes and confusing statements.

(A monk asked Zhaozhou, "What is the meaning of the ancestral teacher's (i.e., Bodhidharma's) coming from the west?" Zhaozhou said, "The cypress tree in front of the hall". )

It's a revelation in the way that logic is not the end-all, be-all of the universe, logic is merely a useful, but limited subset of what is actually available. Acknowledging those limitations allows you to grow beyond them.

[Armok]

Forcing has nothing to do with it. It's that God can only be described with a lack of logic.

Ancient Greek Orthodox theologicians used double negatives, for instance: It is not so that God does not exist. In logic it means the same as "God exists", but in language it's subtly different. Zen koans also use "beyond logic", trying to describe the spirit of Buddha with paradoxes and confusing statements.

(A monk asked Zhaozhou, "What is the meaning of the ancestral teacher's (i.e., Bodhidharma's) coming from the west?" Zhaozhou said, "The cypress tree in front of the hall". )

It's a revelation in the way that logic is not the end-all, be-all of the universe, logic is merely a useful, but limited subset of what is actually available. Acknowledging those limitations allows you to grow beyond them.

ERROR, DOES NOT COMPUTE. RERUN IN DEBUG MODE:

Code: [Select]

"Forcing has nothing to do with it."
Could not find statment to wich this is a response.
"It's that God can only be described with a lack of logic."
Statement faulty, action "describe" equals symbolically representing something equals symbolic thinking implies logic.
"Ancient Greek Orthodox theologicians used double negatives, for instance: It is not so that God does not exist. In logic it means the same as "God exists", but in language it's subtly different."
Affirmative: "!( !('god exist'))"="God exist"
"Zen koans also use "beyond logic", trying to describe the spirit of Buddha with paradoxes and confusing statements. "
Isolated"beyond logic": Statement nonsensical, could not define "beyond" due to divide by zero error in vector between "logical point of view"[0, 0] and "logical point of view"[0, 0]
"A monk asked Zhaozhou, "What is the meaning of the ancestral teacher's  coming from the west?" Zhaozhou said, "The cypress tree in front of the hall"."
INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

[Smitehappy]

I just never understood how people to think a supreme being would give two craps about an idea as small as "Morality".

[Ohaeri]

Lol, English please. Someone once did a girls = evil thing with logic

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's math and it fails at the very first step. Girls != Time * Money

They require Time AND Money. So Girls = Time + Money.

Thank you! You're the first person I've seen besides me who has picked up on this.

[Cthulhu]

Also, the love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself.  Just like Hamlet never said he knew Yorick "well", and Marie Antoinette never said for her subjects to eat cake, and that one guy never said "You dirty rat!"

[Siquo]

ERROR, DOES NOT COMPUTE. RERUN IN DEBUG MODE:

I understand your viewpoint. However, logic and non-logic are not mutually exclusive, nor can logic exist without non-logic. Recommended reading: Gödel Escher Bach.

[Chutney]

This is related to a couple pages back:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080923104410.htm

There is a force independent of our universe...
Oh dear, there is something outside of the bounds of our universe... Something that has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
Multiple universes are pro.

[Glacial Eidolon]

On the subject of logic:

Omnipotence is impossible, due to the fact that it requires you to be able to do anything and everything possible. This, naturally, would create a paradox due to the fact that you'd be able to create something that was impossible for you to do - but you could do it anyways. Thus, you couldn't do anything because it'd require you to do something that you couldn't do, thus creating a stable loop.

[Siquo]

On the subject of logic:

Omnipotence is impossible, due to the fact that it requires you to be able to do anything and everything possible. This, naturally, would create a paradox due to the fact that you'd be able to create something that was impossible for you to do - but you could do it anyways. Thus, you couldn't do anything because it'd require you to do something that you couldn't do, thus creating a stable loop.

As stated before, not logical does not equal impossible.

[Yanlin]

Lol, English please. Someone once did a girls = evil thing with logic

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's math and it fails at the very first step. Girls != Time * Money

They require Time AND Money. So Girls = Time + Money.

Thank you! You're the first person I've seen besides me who has picked up on this.

Must you people constantly temp me to reply?! I'm trying to pretend I'm not reading this topic!