The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Bit of Philosophy for you
The Bible claims God is:
All powerful (omnipotent)
All knowing (omniscient)
All loving
everywhere at once (omnipresent)
However because of the existence of pain the bibles version of god can only be three of the four things.
either Gods not all powerful (eg. can't stop pain)
not all knowing (doesn't know how to stop all pain)
not all loving (he couldn't care less)
not everywhere at once (cannot get to everywhere pain is)
What do you reckon? I don't exactly believe in God but its an interesting discussion.
The Bible claims God is:
All powerful (omnipotent)
All knowing (omniscient)
All loving
everywhere at once (omnipresent)
However because of the existence of pain the bibles version of god can only be three of the four things.
either Gods not all powerful (eg. can't stop pain)
not all knowing (doesn't know how to stop all pain)
not all loving (he couldn't care less)
not everywhere at once (cannot get to everywhere pain is)
What do you reckon? I don't exactly believe in God but its an interesting discussion.
Page:
That's a very good point, and I'd probably quite enjoy talking about it. Brings in the whole free will vs determinism thing and the nature of right and wrong. However, as the total time I've actually spent learning this theory can be counted in hours on the fingers of one hand - and you wouldn't even need most of them - I'm rapidly speeding far out of my depth. And as don't have a text I could refer to about it so I could argue from his point of view this conversation would collapse entirely.
That and I'm tired and want to go to bed.
Personally, I have no problem with God existing as long as I don't have to believe in him.
That and I'm tired and want to go to bed.
Personally, I have no problem with God existing as long as I don't have to believe in him.
BEARDS. wrote:
> Evil simply doesn't exist, we're just misinterpreting good. We're
> nowhere near intelligent enough to understand the plans and ideas of a
> being who can create a universe and we're definitely in no position to
> question them when 99% of us don't even understand how our toasters
> work.
Heh. It'd probably make for a shorter discussion though
> Evil simply doesn't exist, we're just misinterpreting good. We're
> nowhere near intelligent enough to understand the plans and ideas of a
> being who can create a universe and we're definitely in no position to
> question them when 99% of us don't even understand how our toasters
> work.
Heh. It'd probably make for a shorter discussion though
BEARDS. wrote:
> That's where evolution fits in. It seems to say that we'll make plenty
> of wrong choices before we achieve the goal, but the correct choices
> will be stronger and survive to be the foundations for the next
> decision.
Hmm, survival of only the 'right' decisions, as they're stronger. Doesn't this set humanity on a largely pre-determined path, ensuring that later generations must follow 'right'?
If so, isn't this inconsistent with the central notion of freedom of people to chose whether to follow 'right' or 'wrong'?
Thus having evolution develop inevitably to a particular outcome by evolution only heading towards 'right' is largely the same as never giving people the freedom in the first place?
> That's where evolution fits in. It seems to say that we'll make plenty
> of wrong choices before we achieve the goal, but the correct choices
> will be stronger and survive to be the foundations for the next
> decision.
Hmm, survival of only the 'right' decisions, as they're stronger. Doesn't this set humanity on a largely pre-determined path, ensuring that later generations must follow 'right'?
If so, isn't this inconsistent with the central notion of freedom of people to chose whether to follow 'right' or 'wrong'?
Thus having evolution develop inevitably to a particular outcome by evolution only heading towards 'right' is largely the same as never giving people the freedom in the first place?
Dr Duck wrote:
> Since the theory expressly shows we've not yet 'evolved' to the
> god-like state required, this means our morality must be flawed,
> making it impossible to fill in the gaps with any confidence...
That's where evolution fits in. It seems to say that we'll make plenty of wrong choices before we achieve the goal, but the correct choices will be stronger and survive to be the foundations for the next decision.
> Since the theory expressly shows we've not yet 'evolved' to the
> god-like state required, this means our morality must be flawed,
> making it impossible to fill in the gaps with any confidence...
That's where evolution fits in. It seems to say that we'll make plenty of wrong choices before we achieve the goal, but the correct choices will be stronger and survive to be the foundations for the next decision.
Of course, I could have just used the theory of Monism, which fits in with most beliefs in the Judaeo-Christian God.
Evil simply doesn't exist, we're just misinterpreting good. We're nowhere near intelligent enough to understand the plans and ideas of a being who can create a universe and we're definitely in no position to question them when 99% of us don't even understand how our toasters work.
Evil simply doesn't exist, we're just misinterpreting good. We're nowhere near intelligent enough to understand the plans and ideas of a being who can create a universe and we're definitely in no position to question them when 99% of us don't even understand how our toasters work.
Hmm.
So where you divert from the exact word of the bible, you're left to fill in the gaps from your own morality.
Since the theory expressly shows we've not yet 'evolved' to the god-like state required, this means our morality must be flawed, making it impossible to fill in the gaps with any confidence...
So where you divert from the exact word of the bible, you're left to fill in the gaps from your own morality.
Since the theory expressly shows we've not yet 'evolved' to the god-like state required, this means our morality must be flawed, making it impossible to fill in the gaps with any confidence...
Yeah, the theodicy of Ireneaus does require basic belief of the ideas in the Bible, like that God created mankind and that he sent Jesus to die on the cross and that killing people is generally not very nice etc. I stuck the belief in the Bible bit there because the theodicy of Augustine requires near-literal interpretation, which I'd have no chance of pushing. Especially as it requires a literal belief in the story of Adam, Eve and the fall.
Heh, so many Bill Hicks quotes, so little memory...
Nah, plently of people I know believe in God as onmi-various but discard the Bible as anything but moral allegory and think most of it is outdated and irrelevent to modern life.
And a few people I know are Fundamentalists who think the world is 6000 years old and say they can trace their ancestry to one of the 12 tribes of Israel.
And a few people I know are Fundamentalists who think the world is 6000 years old and say they can trace their ancestry to one of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Oh, and if any of that sounded condescending, which it may have looking back, I didn't mean it to (and obviously it isn't even your theory as such), it was just the frame of mind I'm in at the moment - it leads to an overly elaborate writing style that may seem patronising.
Which it isn;t meant to be.
BEARDS. wrote:
> Yes, he may well have created the universe and all the life in it, but
> what the **** was he doing it FOR? Some kind of Super-being
> trans-dimensional science contest?
Look at all the ants in the farm!
Which it isn;t meant to be.
BEARDS. wrote:
> Yes, he may well have created the universe and all the life in it, but
> what the **** was he doing it FOR? Some kind of Super-being
> trans-dimensional science contest?
Look at all the ants in the farm!
Page: