Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why do christians put limits on their gods's power?

123457

Comments

  • #182
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Now stop wasting all of our time.

    Indeed ... do you actually have something you want to discuss with me or would you like to continue inventing straw men to beat? :rolleyes:

    As for being in the wrong thread PDN you seem to have consistently made comments that don't relate to what anyone is actually saying in this thread (your little rant earlier being a prime example)

    So I can't help feel perhaps you are in the wrong thread and would prefer to be in a thread that you would find easier to argue in.


  • #183
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Wicknight, by trying to dismiss something (perfection) purely on the grounds of the difficulties in defining it, or its immeasurability, you are in effect admitting that you cannot make an a priori case against the Christian God.

    Perhaps I should clarify this in case someone reading just reads PDN's post and assumes this is actually what I'm trying to do rather than reading my own posts and seeing that this is just a straw man to beat me with.

    I'm not dismissing perfection. I'm dismissing our ability to determine perfection.

    I'm saying that the statement "God is perfect" is indeterminable by humans. It might be true, but to determine it is true one would have to be a god (ie have access to all knowledge about God) in order to assess every aspect of God to determine He is actually perfect. Interestingly enough this point is often made by Christians themselves when someone dares to say they don't think God is perfect, the idea that we lack the knowledge to judge God imperfect, right before the Christians go back judging God to be perfect.

    Such an assertion as "God is perfect" is ultimately pointless for a human to make since they can't possible know it is true.

    The second point, stemming from that, is that it is impossible to define perfect in relation to God anyway because we have nothing to judge it by, no standards to determine it. We don't know what "perfect" is in relation to a god. We don't have an imperfect god to compare God to and say he is better.

    Neither of these points dismiss perfection. God may exist and may well be perfect. But no human can determine this so it is rather irrelevant from the point of view of humans discussing stuff with other humans.

    I'm always fascinated by the focus on this forum about what can exist, largely at the expense of the question of does it exist and can you determine this.

    It is almost as if people think that if something can exist (and lets be honest everything imaginable could theoretically exist) this is some how the end of it and we can all go back to happily worshipping what ever we like to believe is real.

    God could exist. To me the far more interesting question is can we determine he does and can we determine anything about him in any meaningful way.

    This thread is a response to assertions about God's existence and his properties made by Christians. It is a response to those assertions and the purpose I assume (Mr Pudding correct me if I'm wrong) is to raise issues about potential flaws in those assertions.

    So I don't in anyway mind if PDN thinks there are flaws and problems with what I'm saying. But it would be polite if he could stick to what I'm actually saying for a minute. We might actually get some where then.


  • #184
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    So I don't in anyway mind if PDN thinks there are flaws and problems with what I'm saying. But it would be polite if he could stick to what I'm actually saying for a minute. We might actually get some where then.

    I'm polite enough to discuss the issue of theodicy which is the subject of this thread. I see little merit in discussing your off-topic rants just because you've lost the real debate.


  • #185
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I see little merit in discussing your off-topic rants just because you've lost the real debate.

    you think my posts are off-topic rants of such little merit you see little point in discussing them which is why you keep replying to them with big long posts (which include things I didn't even say) even the ones not directed to you specifically ... ok then, glad we cleared that up then.

    Moving on.

    The perfection of God is central to the issue of theodicy because the "problem of evil" is only a problem when one asserts that God is both perfect and good. Given that it is not possible to actually determine either of those statements it isn't really a problem if one simply assumes that God could be imperfect or could be evil.

    To me theodicy is a useful process, not as an argument against God, more as a demonstration of how much religious people profess knowledge of things they can't possible determine are true.


  • #186
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The concept of perfection and theodicy are inextricably linked. I definitely don't see any problem in bringing up the issue of perfection when talking about theodicy; I don't see how it could considered an "off topic rant".


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    The concept of perfection and theodicy are inextricably linked. I definitely don't see any problem in bringing up the issue of perfection when talking about theodicy; I don't see how it could considered an "off topic rant".

    There's no problem with bringing up the issue of perfection. We have been discussing the issue of perfection for several pages of posts.

    It is an off topic rant if a poster is asserting that perfection (and by implication omnipotence and being all-loving) are empty and meaningless terms. Such a claim, if admitted, effectively ends the debate in favour of the Christians since, if such terms are meaningless, they cannot be used in an a priori argument against Christianity.

    Just think about this for a moment, and you will see that it is self evidently true. The theodicy argument is essentially saying that A+B cannot in any circumstances equal C (where A stands for God's perfect power, B for his perfect love and C stands for a universe where evil exists). If you claim that A or B are empty and meaningless terms then you can no longer argue that A+B≠ C. Therefore the Christian has no need to respond to a meaningless and empty argument and the debate has been effectively been conceded by the atheist side.

    Are any posters out there interested in discussing theodicy any further? the questions posed by Mr Pudding in his OP are interesting and, at least in the days when I was at College, were considered one of the most pressing issues in our Philosophy of religion class.

    Mr Pudding raised the issue of how can the existence of evil in the world be reconciled with the Christian belief in an all-loving yet all-powerful God. He also challenged the standard Christian defence of free will by asserting that this limits God's power. There have been good contributions from either side of the debate, and some bracing disagreements, and I for one would be interested in seeing how that discussion continues.

    If anyone else genuinely wants to discuss the separate issue of evidence for Christian beliefs then I suggest they start a new thread rather than derailing this one.


  • #188
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I wish I was a moderator, I would ban anyone putting "science" and "prove" together in the same sentence. :pac:
    Careful what you wish for:P


  • #189
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Noel brings brought up an interesting point in Darragh's "moving to CoI" thread.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    The immaculate conception means that Mary was humanly conceived without any stain of original sin and was so filled with God's grace that she never sinned.
    I know that giving birth to god/son of god/holy spirit was a great honour, but is it not a bit unfair that Mary had no free will?

    MrP


  • #190
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Noel brings brought up an interesting point in Darragh's "moving to CoI" thread.


    I know that giving birth to god/son of god/holy spirit was a great honour, but is it not a bit unfair that Mary had no free will?

    MrP

    If it were true.


  • #191
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    PDN wrote: »
    If it were true.

    On a related question to MrPuddings: Had Mary a choice in the conception of Jesus, or was it predestined (Even if you don't know, just your opinion counts)?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    On a related question to MrPuddings: Had Mary a choice in the conception of Jesus, or was it predestined (Even if you don't know, just your opinion counts)?

    It sounds like it was pretty much presented to her as a fait accompli. But who knows, if she had stamped her feet and objected enough maybe He could have picked someone else?


  • #193
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    PDN wrote: »
    It sounds like it was pretty much presented to her as a fait accompli. But who knows, if she had stamped her feet and objected enough maybe He could have picked someone else?

    But, perhaps Mary was the only person born immaculately; that's what we're lead to believe. If she was, that would indicate that God had her in mind all along, wouldn't it? And, if she was the only person born immaculately, perhaps there could have been no one else who could have taken her place?


  • #194
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    But, perhaps Mary was the only person born immaculately; that's what we're lead to believe.
    It's certainly not what I was lead to believe, but then I get my beliefs from the Bible. Probably better to take this up with a Roman Catholic.


  • #195
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    It is an off topic rant if a poster is asserting that perfection (and by implication omnipotence and being all-loving) are empty and meaningless terms.

    And as soon as you have found that poster I'm sure we can all gather around and mock him for this :rolleyes:

    The point I raised, which you apparently ignored for your far easier to argue against straw man, is not that perfection is meaningless, but that the state of perfection is unknowable

    This doesn't stop someone making a prior arguments for or against a perfect God, but it certainly does stop anyone actually determining if God is in fact perfect


  • #196
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    This doesn't stop someone making a prior arguments for or against a perfect God, but it certainly does stop anyone actually determining if God is in fact perfect

    And nobody, as as I am aware, has said anything about determining if God is in fact perfect.

    As a moderator I'm asking you for the last time to please stop this off topic nonsense. If you want to engage in the theodicy debate then do so. If you want to start a thread about determining if God is perfect then do so and, if others want to debate that, then they may respond.

    This thread is not about how we determine if God is in fact perfect (or all-loving, or omnipotent). It is about whether those qualities are reconcilable with the existence of evil in the world, and whether the free will defence is, in fact, a denial of omnipotence by placing limits on God.


  • #197
    sukikettle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭sukikettle


    Mary wasn't immaculate...that is a catholic doctrine


  • #198
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    sukikettle wrote: »
    Mary wasn't immaculate...that is a catholic doctrine

    On what grounds can you claim she wasn't?


  • #199
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    On what grounds can you claim she wasn't?

    Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception of Jesus. This is mentioned in the Bible. The "Immaculate Conception" is the RCC doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without the "stain" of original sin. God provided her with grace, grace the rest of us lack due to the Fall.

    This is never mentioned in the Bible. The Catholic doctrine originated in the 9th century.


  • #200
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Wicknight wrote: »
    This is never mentioned in the Bible. The Catholic doctrine originated in the 9th century.

    Oh right right, I've just always assumed that it was mentioned in the Bible somewhere or other. Thanks for the clarification.


  • #201
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    As a moderator I'm asking you for the last time to please stop this off topic nonsense. If you want to engage in the theodicy debate then do so. If you want to start a thread about determining if God is perfect then do so and, if others want to debate that, then they may respond.

    I have no interested in engaging in a debate about the perfection of God, particularly when I have already taken the position that the perfection of God is unknowable.

    JammyDodger (after debating the nature of the perfection of God for 5 pages with, among other posters, your good self) made the comment that this is debate was simply going around in circles. I posted one post in reply to him that said yes it was, and that ultimately such a debate is pointless anyway because it is impossible for a human, any human, to determine if God actually is perfect or not.

    Apparently this comment was so off topic that it required far more than the usual PM or red card caution from a moderator, but in fact a 590 word post debating the points I had mentioned and how they damn the atheist argument completely.

    In fact it was such an infringement it required a 590 word post debating what was actually a fictitious straw man version of the points I had made that didn't actually contain my points at all but instead contained a total misrepresentation of it, along with a comment that I was behaving like JC on the Creationist thread (given your posts in the Creationist thread I'm not sure if that was a complement or not), and the assertion that I either suck a science or philosophy.

    Now while most other reasonable posters would have determined from such a post that the topic was clearly, to the moderators mind, off topic I am apparently pretty dumb, because when the moderator of the Christian forum proceeds to debate with other posters about the nature of God's perfection, and then proceeds to post a long, detailed, and some what insulting reply to my brief comments on the subject, I didn't realise that this was him in fact warning me and everyone else that the issue and my comments were off topic and not to be discussed at all.

    So, in my stupidity I responded to this long and detailed post, pointing out what I believed were the flaws in it and, among other things, that he was totally misrepresenting my position to arrive at a conclusion I did not feel was warranted.

    The moderator obviously took pity on my spectacular stupidity at this point by explicitly declaring that discussion of this was off topic (he did some what confuse the matter by declaring the exact opposite here but I'm a bit dumb so I'm sure the reason for that was clear to everyone else but not me)

    This topic (as Mr Pudding has no doubt been complaining to PDN already) is nothing to do with the issue of the perfection of God and my comments that came at the end of a long discussion about the perfection of God were totally off topic and irrelevant to anything anyone else were discussing.

    I humbly apologise to Mr Pudding for dragging his thread so off topic, and humbly hope he can forgive me. I'm sure his comments have caused him great annoyance.

    Now, with this mess behind us we can get back to the issues at hand. What were we discussing? ... oh yes, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, a topic quite relevant and important to the existence of evil in the world and the limitations of God's power ...


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Wicknight wrote: »

    I humbly apologise to Mr Pudding for dragging his thread so off topic, and humbly hope he can forgive me.
    I forgive you Wickie <MrP waves hands dramatically around Wickie's head....> . I was actually enjoying the slight diversion.

    MrP


  • #203
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I agree 100% with what Wicknight had to say in the previous post. It's ridiculous that an argument about perfection can be deemed off topic while talks about the immaculate conception are permitted. Perfection is key in theodicy, and I don't see how it could be considered very far off topic. It's no more off topic than any other individual post.


  • #204
    40crush41
    Closed Accounts Posts: 367 ✭✭40crush41


    A lot has been written here, I've skimmed through...
    To Mr. P, I think thats a great quesiton to think about, I'm up for the idea that we could have evolved in a different way and would have been able to do different things.. like not feel pain, perhaps not burn? Perhaps though we could still be evolving...but that is surely off-topic.
    I would say that our nervous system is a wonderful system -even a miracle, theres a lot about it we still don't know. The human brain? incredible. I think that our Creator did a good job with our design. Could it be better? That I don't know. Perhaps it was meant to be better than it is, whose to say we didn't mess something up. If I am to say I believe that my Creator is perfect (a point I think is relevant, as I'm talking about the Christian God) then my God didn't mess up. But, we're not God, we're the creation, why couldn't have we gone astray?


    As far as why there is evil.. its a good question. Bugged me a lot as a kid -"Why oh why didn't God just warn Adam that the serpent was going to trick him!" Sure, it could have been different.
    The reason I came to understand more recently is due to Love. That God wants us to love Him freely. Take Adam and Eve.. if God were to tell them about the serpent and what would have happened if they ate the fruit, then they wouldn't have done it out of love or obedience, but maybe b/c of the punishment -maybe they would have done it anyway.
    After all, we do a lot of things that could possibly have neg. consequences of our actions.. I'm sure we could all think of plenty of examples.

    I'd say a lot has to do with, if not everything, our selfish nature -our own will that we create independently from God's will messes up that perfect plan He had. And He allows it to happen, almost unfortunately, ironicaly b/c of Love. As my 5th grade teacher said "sometimes I think it would have been better to not have free-will, it would have made it all much easier...but then we wouldn't be able to love him freely" So instead, I have this abilty to prepare myself as best I can for when I meet the Good.
    (I do read a lot of C.S. Lewis.. )

    Hopefully that makes sense, I'm not really sure if these questions can really be understood.. but, its important to challenge and think about it. So thanks for the question.

    peace


  • #205
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Well anyways going back to the idea a while ago that God couldn't have made a 'painless' world without also making it in some way 'boring' or 'unfulfilling'. That strikes me as a very silly argument.

    Saying if the world was painless we couldn't have things like hammers or fire? That's madness...in the world of steel and fire humans could be anything - even just humans or the necessity to burn or smash things wasn't there because we'd have other ways of doing those things or those things simply weren't needed.

    If he wanted to make the world interesting/fulfilling humans could have been assigned various tasks to master etc. the idea that pain and suffering must be involved is nonsense. Pain and suffering does add a lot of character to the human condition..it teaches us stuff blah blah blah etc etc...but why it's necessary for it to be a vital component of human existence is baffling.

    Arguments that say we couldn't have all the good parts without the bad parts are rubbish and clearly set a limit on what the deity can and can't do, at the very least they second guess the deity in question, speculating he purposely introduces these 'bad' elements in order to have human beings go through a process. This is an even worse argument as everyone knows that human lives have no smooth or graceful transition, there is no even distribution of pain and suffering, most of the time is just random therefore in no way congruent with any kind pattern one would see if a benevolent dictator were testing us individually.

    The only thing left now is to say that random pain and suffering is dished out by the almighty and humans on the whole have to take the burden. Again though this makes no sense as in some parts of the world people haven't even heard of a Christian god (remote tribes etc.) and because of geography other people are born into non Christian families (and therefore do not practice Christianity) and so on and son on which means that all these non-practicing Christians (through no fault of their own, I can't imagine any argument that could convince me that people in remote tribes or those geographically dislocated have a 'Christian duty') and therefore have no Christian obligation (that is using the assumption - for the sake of argument - that the rest of us have got a Christian obligation) so that leaves us with a an all powerful deity who is dishing out random pain and suffering, the burden of which can only be dealt with by practicing Christians...does anyone really believe that?


  • #206
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    Well anyways going back to the idea a while ago that God couldn't have made a 'painless' world without also making it in some way 'boring' or 'unfulfilling'. That strikes me as a very silly argument.
    It is a very silly argument, but I think it is the only one they have. They live their lives by a certain set of beliefs:

    God is the creator, he rocks, he is really good / holy / just / forgiving / kind etc. IF there is behaviour that falls outside of any of these characterististics then it has to be rationalised away, rationalised from a chrisitian POV that is, or else the whole house of cards falls down.

    The perfection arguement is a perfect good example. Christians will create new definitions of perfect, or try to apply special rules to apply to their god. It seems fairly obvious to most people that this is not a perfect world. It seems fairly obvious that if you we an all knowing and all powerful being you could probably do a better job. But no. This is not acceptable because it casts doubt on one of more of the undeniable aspects of the gods powers.

    And we always have the old, "he works in mysterious ways / I will ask him when I get to heaven" to finish anything off.

    MrP


  • #207
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MrPudding wrote: »
    The perfection arguement is a perfect good example. Christians will create new definitions of perfect, or try to apply special rules to apply to their god. It seems fairly obvious to most people that this is not a perfect world.

    I don't see anywhere that anyone has produced a new definition of 'perfect'.
    It seems fairly obvious that if you we an all knowing and all powerful being you could probably do a better job. But no. This is not acceptable because it casts doubt on one of more of the undeniable aspects of the gods powers.
    Acceptable? It's acceptable that it seems that way to you. No-one can dictate how anything seems to you, Mr P. If it seems to you that blue is really green then that is acceptable.

    However, it is not acceptable that we have to agree with your impressions. For that you would have to produce some reasoning or arguments that we would find to be in some way convincing.


  • #208
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    PDN wrote: »

    However, it is not acceptable that we have to agree with your impressions. For that you would have to produce some reasoning or arguments that we would find to be in some way convincing.
    Of course you don't have to agree. I would hazard that there simply is not any way I, or anyone, could convince you of anything that goes against what you have decided is rational.

    MrP


  • #209
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If absolute perfection means no lacking, completeness, all-encompassing wholeness. Then, should a perfect God not be evil too? As if He were not evil, he would not be complete; in the sense that He would lack something: Evil.


  • #210
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    If absolute perfection means no lacking, completeness, all-encompassing wholeness. Then, should a perfect God not be evil too? As if He were not evil, he would not be complete; in the sense that He would lack something: Evil.

    That's like arguing for something to be perfectly white it should also be a perfectly black.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MrPudding wrote: »
    The perfection arguement is a perfect good example. Christians will create new definitions of perfect,
    PDN wrote:
    I don't see anywhere that anyone has produced a new definition of 'perfect'.
    JammyDodger wrote:
    If absolute perfection means no lacking, completeness, all-encompassing wholeness. Then, should a perfect God not be evil too? As if He were not evil, he would not be complete; in the sense that He would lack something: Evil.

    Mr Pudding, I owe you an apology. I'm not sure, however, that JammyDodger qualifies as a Christian.


Advertisement