Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 12-09-2010, 01:00 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Er, no.

Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.
First off, Job was face to face with an almighty being who happened to be pissed off at him. You'd be flattering him in an attempt to make him less likely to smite you too. If you read on he calls himself as worthless as ash later, it's rather amusing.

Aside from that, it doesn't imply that he can do all things, including the impossible. He's saying exactly what I said before, nothing else in the universe can get in the way of what God wants. He was apologizing for trying to hide things from Him, which was pretty damn stupid anyway.

Quote:
Genesis 18:14 Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.
"Is there anything the Fonz can't make work by hitting it?" He was amused at the notion Sarah seemed to have that she couldn't get pregnant even though He said she would. This isn't the Quran and God's word is not necessarily literal.

Quote:
Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Pay attention to context broski, because if you note the whole passage "impossible" actually means "so freaking difficult I doubt any man alive could do it" as it's referring to a rich man getting into the Kingdom of Heaven, which according to him is about as difficult as getting a camel through the eye of a needle. It's hyperbole and metaphor. Beyond that, he isn't referring to God's power, but rather that particular note seems more along the lines of the modern expression "I've seen weirder," or else that it could possibly happen.

Quote:
God is omnipotent, end of story. If the Islamic God is not omnipotent, that is a different matter. If this is the case I expect Hassan to say so and end the debate.
Technically, you are right. But it depends on whose definition you're referring to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. "Hence," says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it." To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. "God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power," says Hugh of St. Victor, "and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless" (De sacram., I, ii, 22).

As intrinsically impossible must be classed:

1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.
And, as has been pointed out, "free will without evil" would fall under the second point, being as mutually repellent as a square circle or dry water.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-09-2010, 02:44 PM
Rinn's Avatar
Rinn Offline
Experienced Trainer
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Inhabitable
Posts: 166
Send a message via AIM to Rinn Send a message via MSN to Rinn
Default Re: The problem of Evil

There is no problem of evil. There is a balance. Without good, there can be no evil, and vice-versa. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. And this isn't religious talk, either.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-09-2010, 02:57 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinn View Post
There is no problem of evil. There is a balance. Without good, there can be no evil, and vice-versa. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense. And this isn't religious talk, either.
This of course begs the question: Why wouldn't it make sense? If talking from a balance-of-the-universe sense that would be a valid argument, but that of course implies religious talk, which you have stated this isn't.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-09-2010, 05:42 PM
Rinn's Avatar
Rinn Offline
Experienced Trainer
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Inhabitable
Posts: 166
Send a message via AIM to Rinn Send a message via MSN to Rinn
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer View Post
This of course begs the question: Why wouldn't it make sense? If talking from a balance-of-the-universe sense that would be a valid argument, but that of course implies religious talk, which you have stated this isn't.
It wouldn't make sense, period. If you're religious, and you do believe in God, you must believe in the Devil for the balance to be there. Otherwise there is no punishment for doing wrong, only rewards for doing right. While quite the idealistic world to live in, it can't be so, thus bringing into play the balance factor.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-09-2010, 06:41 PM
Starkipraggy's Avatar
Starkipraggy Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gundam Porygon ZZ
Posts: 3,151
Send a message via MSN to Starkipraggy
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinn View Post
It wouldn't make sense, period. If you're religious, and you do believe in God, you must believe in the Devil for the balance to be there. Otherwise there is no punishment for doing wrong, only rewards for doing right. While quite the idealistic world to live in, it can't be so, thus bringing into play the balance factor.
Given that idealistic situation, the counter to the rewards of doing right is that you get nothing, therefore not doing right would then be considered evil as you do not reap the benefits. Beyond a certain point everyone will be expected to reap the same benefits and not having those benefits is regarded as a punishment. Good and evil will thus always exist.

By the way Lus, he was actually replying to me with the "emotional appeals" and "you must prove your case". Just saying.
__________________


Mons are here though

私はグレダーです--I am a Grader
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-09-2010, 11:57 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer View Post
First off, Job was face to face with an almighty being who happened to be pissed off at him. You'd be flattering him in an attempt to make him less likely to smite you too. If you read on he calls himself as worthless as ash later, it's rather amusing.

Aside from that, it doesn't imply that he can do all things, including the impossible. He's saying exactly what I said before, nothing else in the universe can get in the way of what God wants. He was apologizing for trying to hide things from Him, which was pretty damn stupid anyway.

"Is there anything the Fonz can't make work by hitting it?" He was amused at the notion Sarah seemed to have that she couldn't get pregnant even though He said she would. This isn't the Quran and God's word is not necessarily literal.

Pay attention to context broski, because if you note the whole passage "impossible" actually means "so freaking difficult I doubt any man alive could do it" as it's referring to a rich man getting into the Kingdom of Heaven, which according to him is about as difficult as getting a camel through the eye of a needle. It's hyperbole and metaphor. Beyond that, he isn't referring to God's power, but rather that particular note seems more along the lines of the modern expression "I've seen weirder," or else that it could possibly happen.
Attempting to understand the implications and context of a thousands-years old text that has been copied, recopied, translated, and retranslated is difficult to say the least. There's no reason to assume that these quotations are not to be taken literally. At the very least, a literal interpretation is less subject to distortion. Your interpretation of exaggeration is no more valid than mine.

Quote:
And, as has been pointed out, "free will without evil" would fall under the second point, being as mutually repellent as a square circle or dry water.
First, let it be pointed out that Christians themselves debate the nature of God's omnipotence.

And second, omnipotence is, by definition, unlimited. There is little point in trying to come up with pseudological explanations to create limits on God's power that "aren't really limits". If what you say is true, then God is not omnipotent. Boom, done. End of debate, problem solved.

@Star: Okay then, sorry.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-10-2010, 04:45 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
First, let it be pointed out that Christians themselves debate the nature of God's omnipotence.

And second, omnipotence is, by definition, unlimited. There is little point in trying to come up with pseudological explanations to create limits on God's power that "aren't really limits". If what you say is true, then God is not omnipotent. Boom, done. End of debate, problem solved.

@Star: Okay then, sorry.
I repeat myself, according to the official stance of the Catholic Church God is not omnipotent by the definition you gave. He fulfills their definition of omnipotence, which I explained above. Please bear in mind, Lus, that words only have the meaning which we attributed to them; language is not a natural thing, but an invented one, and not even close to universal. When a Catholic refers to God as omnipotent, they are most likely using the definition listed above. Same to Muslims and Jews (our friend Hassan gets a pass because I'm assuming English isn't his first language).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinn View Post
It wouldn't make sense, period. If you're religious, and you do believe in God, you must believe in the Devil for the balance to be there. Otherwise there is no punishment for doing wrong, only rewards for doing right. While quite the idealistic world to live in, it can't be so, thus bringing into play the balance factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starkipraggy View Post
Given that idealistic situation, the counter to the rewards of doing right is that you get nothing, therefore not doing right would then be considered evil as you do not reap the benefits. Beyond a certain point everyone will be expected to reap the same benefits and not having those benefits is regarded as a punishment. Good and evil will thus always exist.
Except that in a world where no one wanted to do wrong, with or without rewards/punishments, then evil wouldn't exist by virtue of no one desiring it, and yet there would still be good because everyone is doing right. This would require a world with no free will, but we've already established that, barring a God that fulfills Lus's definition of omnipotence, which in and of itself I've disproven, evil and free will are intrinsically tied. You're correct in your assertion that good without evil is logically impossible because free will exists, but to say that good-evil=logically impossible in and of itself is wrong.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.

Last edited by Lord Fedora; 12-10-2010 at 04:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-10-2010, 01:56 PM
Starkipraggy's Avatar
Starkipraggy Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gundam Porygon ZZ
Posts: 3,151
Send a message via MSN to Starkipraggy
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer View Post
Except that in a world where no one wanted to do wrong, with or without rewards/punishments, then evil wouldn't exist by virtue of no one desiring it, and yet there would still be good because everyone is doing right. This would require a world with no free will, but we've already established that, barring a God that fulfills Lus's definition of omnipotence, which in and of itself I've disproven, evil and free will are intrinsically tied. You're correct in your assertion that good without evil is logically impossible because free will exists, but to say that good-evil=logically impossible in and of itself is wrong.
Yes, without free will, my equation falls apart. Thanks for pointing that out. (I assumed free will is in play since Rinn did as well)

@Lus: Just preventing you from blasting him in perceived defense when he wasn't even aiming in your direction. :x
__________________


Mons are here though

私はグレダーです--I am a Grader
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-10-2010, 09:56 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer View Post
I repeat myself, according to the official stance of the Catholic Church God is not omnipotent by the definition you gave. He fulfills their definition of omnipotence, which I explained above. Please bear in mind, Lus, that words only have the meaning which we attributed to them; language is not a natural thing, but an invented one, and not even close to universal. When a Catholic refers to God as omnipotent, they are most likely using the definition listed above.
And they would be wrong. End of story. I can call a cat a dog all I want, I can use whatever logic I can come up with to make it seem like a dog, but it is a cat no matter how much I want it to be a dog. I can say "A phone is a device used to make calls", and if I try and argue that a MP3 player that can't make calls is a phone, I would be wrong. This is not debatable. If there are things God cannot do, then he is not omnipotent. Anything else is not valid, or somewhat valid, or almost valid, or even has a viable thread of logic that might be conceived of as valid. It is simply wrong. So when a Catholic refers to God as omnipotent using the definition listed above, they are wrong. The end.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 12-10-2010 at 09:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-10-2010, 11:02 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
And they would be wrong. End of story. I can call a cat a dog all I want, I can use whatever logic I can come up with to make it seem like a dog, but it is a cat no matter how much I want it to be a dog. I can say "A phone is a device used to make calls", and if I try and argue that a MP3 player that can't make calls is a phone, I would be wrong. This is not debatable. If there are things God cannot do, then he is not omnipotent. Anything else is not valid, or somewhat valid, or almost valid, or even has a viable thread of logic that might be conceived of as valid. It is simply wrong. So when a Catholic refers to God as omnipotent using the definition listed above, they are wrong. The end.
Really Lus? There's only one definition for every word and any other definition is wrong? I think you need to pay closer attention to what I'm saying: words are not absolute. What they mean to one person they don't necessarily mean to another. Perfect to me means as good as I can possibly make it, while to another it means the best it could possibly be. Likewise, to some people omnipotence means being able to do anything regardless of logic or the laws of the universe, while to others it means having the power to do anything that it is possible to do. You can't say "this is my definition of omnipotence and since God doesn't fit it then you can't call him omnipotent" because within the context of what the other person is saying, they aren't using your definition, any more than my saying "I love chocolate" means I want to marry it. It's a different sense of the word.

You are absolutely right. You can't call an MP3 player that doesn't answer calls a phone. Because there is no definition of the word "phone" which includes such a device. There is, however, a definition of "omnipotent" which includes God, who is able to do anything that it is possible to do.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12-12-2010, 11:24 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer View Post
Really Lus? There's only one definition for every word and any other definition is wrong? I think you need to pay closer attention to what I'm saying: words are not absolute. What they mean to one person they don't necessarily mean to another. Perfect to me means as good as I can possibly make it, while to another it means the best it could possibly be. Likewise, to some people omnipotence means being able to do anything regardless of logic or the laws of the universe, while to others it means having the power to do anything that it is possible to do. You can't say "this is my definition of omnipotence and since God doesn't fit it then you can't call him omnipotent" because within the context of what the other person is saying, they aren't using your definition, any more than my saying "I love chocolate" means I want to marry it. It's a different sense of the word.

You are absolutely right. You can't call an MP3 player that doesn't answer calls a phone. Because there is no definition of the word "phone" which includes such a device. There is, however, a definition of "omnipotent" which includes God, who is able to do anything that it is possible to do.
It's not my definition. It's the definition used in the Problem. You don't seem to understand. The Problem of Evil only arises when God is assumed to be omnipotent by the definition used in the Problem. By using a different definition, you are thus admitting that God is not omnipotent according to the definition of the Problem of Evil, and thus that the Problem of Evil is resolved in that God is not omnipotent.

It's true, in a vacuum, you could be using different definitions of the same word. This, however, is not a vacuum. All the terms we use: God, evil, omnipotence, are used in the context of the Problem we are debating. Thus, if you do not use the definition given by the Problem, then you are not arguing the Problem and your argument is irrelevant and meaningless. As far as the Problem is concerned, by your argument, God is not omnipotent.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 12-12-2010 at 11:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-12-2010, 11:35 PM
DaRkUmBrEoN's Avatar
DaRkUmBrEoN Offline
M.D.
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Holland
Posts: 7,874
Send a message via AIM to DaRkUmBrEoN Send a message via Yahoo to DaRkUmBrEoN
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Can't be asked to meticulously reread everything in the last 3 pages, but riddle me this:

What defines evil? Is it God, is it us, or is it the lack of good that has been defined? Like a person I can't remember once said: "Evil is when good people do nothing."
Evil is more likely not a definition on its own. It's more a general lack of what is considered good. Therefor taking a life could at the same time be just and unjust. And the more it lacks any form of good, the more evil it becomes. So that just might be why there is evil in various degrees.
__________________

Near a tree by a river, there's a hole in the ground.
Where an old man of Aran goes around and around
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-13-2010, 12:50 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,471
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
It's not my definition. It's the definition used in the Problem. You don't seem to understand. The Problem of Evil only arises when God is assumed to be omnipotent by the definition used in the Problem. By using a different definition, you are thus admitting that God is not omnipotent according to the definition of the Problem of Evil, and thus that the Problem of Evil is resolved in that God is not omnipotent.

It's true, in a vacuum, you could be using different definitions of the same word. This, however, is not a vacuum. All the terms we use: God, evil, omnipotence, are used in the context of the Problem we are debating. Thus, if you do not use the definition given by the Problem, then you are not arguing the Problem and your argument is irrelevant and meaningless. As far as the Problem is concerned, by your argument, God is not omnipotent.
As far as the Problem is concerned, yes, God is not omnipotent. You're absolutely right. However, the Problem is irrelevant, because no one makes the argument that God is omnipotent by the definition given within the Problem. I have never once disagreed that the Problem of Evil is false, only that it does not prove that religious teachings proclaiming God to be "omnipotent" as it were are wrong.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-19-2010, 09:05 PM
Ender the Xenocide's Avatar
Ender the Xenocide Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 56
Default Re: The problem of Evil

Just a small line to stir things up:

Shut the freakity freak freak up, and believe what you want to believe.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-20-2010, 06:18 AM
bbecham's Avatar
bbecham Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24
Default Re: The problem of Evil

I'll not give so many explanations but just 3 words for the evil and that is women,wealth & land. now you can realize there is whole world is fighting for these 3 things only. think carefully.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com