This week, I've been hammering at a particular point, which none have managed to successfully refute. So I thought I'd put it out on Dakka for wider discussion.
The statement is as follows.
We are told that the Abrahamic God is omniscent, ominpotent and omnipresent. In short, absolutely all knowing and all powerful. We are also told that he is our creator. Addtionally, he gave mankind free will, essentially the ability to say 'no' to him, and thus condem myself to hell. Yet, if he is my creator, and the three o's listed above, then he already knows the outcome of my life. How can he not, being omniscent? Therefore he has known from the inception of my personal creation whether I will turn from him or not, thanks to Free Will. Yet, this knowledge defies free will, instead making my life (or certainly the end result) pre-determined. And in creating me, knowing I will never accept his existence, and instead being of a rational scientific mind, he has chosen to condem me. Therefore, we have proof of God as a malevolent entity.
So, off you go. Pick holes, test the theory. This came up on a thread where we are discussing evolution vs creationism, and rather than trying to prove God is malevolent, and looking for your validation, I reckon there is at least one gaping flaw in the above statement, but I can't see it.
Enjoy!
P.S. Not saying whether this is or is not my personal stand point. It's a statement to be taken in isolation.
dogma wrote:Is there enough mass in the universe to contain data about everything in the universe?
Depends on what you count as Data. I could spout absolutely gibberish of no real value (and often do. You might have noticed) so does that count, or is it accurate data?
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yes, rather than discussing the various interpretations of free will etc, I am looking for comments on my statement in particular.
God determines what shall happen, we are left to our free decisions, which will eventually lead there. So there are a whole bunch (near limitless) amount of paths to choose, so you COULD define that as not free will, but that many options is still pretty good.
micahaphone wrote:God determines what shall happen, we are left to our free decisions, which will eventually lead there. So there are a whole bunch (near limitless) amount of paths to choose, so you COULD define that as not free will, but that many options is still pretty good.
Ah, but as you said, God has determined what the outcome is, therefore there is no freewilll, as no matter the choices made and indeed when, the destination is of course pre-dertermined.
Theoretically a willful omnipotent and omniscient being that exists outside of causal logic could very well both coexist with free will and be something that would seemingly conflict with free will conceptually.
It all depends on how willing you are to imagine states of existence that are separate from human logic. For a being to be omnipotent and omniscient it necessarily has to exist outside of that which it views and controls, otherwise it has no frame of reference by which it can be independent at all.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sounds it may be worth checking out Monster.
Oh it is, if you're into that sort of thing. Very, very good.
Mr Mystery wrote:
micahaphone wrote:God determines what shall happen, we are left to our free decisions, which will eventually lead there. So there are a whole bunch (near limitless) amount of paths to choose, so you COULD define that as not free will, but that many options is still pretty good.
Ah, but as you said, God has determined what the outcome is, therefore there is no freewilll,
Not really an original question, i am sure that Orlanth or some other educated theist can come up with (at least on some level) an adequate/intelligent answer, but i think it simply boils down to "does that answer really suffice?"
Why do i have the urge to stare at a womans arse if she bends over to pick something up? Or stare at the hot woman on the movie poster? Is it because God created me broken and wishes me punished for the sin of doing what i appear to be programmed to do (lusting) ?
Or is it because it is a perfectly natural response from an evolved creature that is required to breed for its species survival?
Personally i am not a believer because it appears to be a grand nonsense. And considering evolution is a proven fact and pretty much the whole of the first page of genesis is now known to be flat out wrong, how can the rest of the book be trusted?
I honestly dont believe for a moment that Religion would exist if it wasnt forced onto children at a young age. Most devout people are raised to be that way, barring of course people who suffer great personal trauma as this also seems to lead people to "God"
The simple fact is that the universe makes far far more sense without a theistic God. Im all up for some sort of intricate "prime mover" or Deistic analogy sort of "God" but i am absolutely 100% certain that there is no God who sits and watches absolutely all of us and disaproves of me masturbating.
dogma wrote:Is there enough mass in the universe to contain data about everything in the universe?
Depends on what you count as Data. I could spout absolutely gibberish of no real value (and often do. You might have noticed) so does that count, or is it accurate data?
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yes, rather than discussing the various interpretations of free will etc, I am looking for comments on my statement in particular.
Basically agree with your statement,and have used similar in various theological debates.
An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.
Mr Mystery wrote:So seriously, where is the flaw in my argument? I want it deconstructed and critiqued.
Apologies if any of my posts seem confrontational. They aren't intended that way.
An Omnipotent Omniscient being that exists outside of causal logic (as god is described as doing) can be both conflicting with the idea of free will while coexisting on it. An omnipotent being that exists outside of logic can do pretty much anything. By some arguments and opinions if god wanted to lift a taco so heavy he couldn't lift he he could despite the rule of him not being able to lift it even after having done so holding together as truthful. Objectivity and logic are not concrete when discussing things capable of violating them. That is the flaw in your argument.
FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.
It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?
Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.
Mr Mystery wrote:So seriously, where is the flaw in my argument? I want it deconstructed and critiqued.
Apologies if any of my posts seem confrontational. They aren't intended that way.
Knowledge of something does not determine anything (unless our thoughts entail the things we see in some strange brain in a vat sense), therefore omniscience is not relevant to the point. The being in question would have to exercise his omnipotence in order to negate any sort of free will, but since the initial argument includes the premise that the being induces free will in the universe, it can be supposed that he is actively exercising his omnipotence to maintain free will.
Whether or not you accept that idea depends on your stance regarding omnipotence and contradictions.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Better be bloomin good Monster coz I just bought a used copy!
£0.30 plus £2.75 shipping from Atlanta
I'll be sending you the bill if I don't like it!
That's so cool! I'm sure you'll enjoy it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Mr Mystery wrote:So seriously, where is the flaw in my argument? I want it deconstructed and critiqued.
Apologies if any of my posts seem confrontational. They aren't intended that way.
Knowledge of something does not determine anything, therefore omniscience is not relevant to the point. The being in question would have to exercise his omnipotence in order to negate any sort of free will, but since the initial argument includes the premise that the being induces free will in the universe, it can be supposed that he is actively exercising his omnipotence to maintain free will.
Exactly what I would have liked to have said if I was a bit more articulate.
FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.
It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?
Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.
Interesting points MR,as I've said,I'm not a Christian so..some of the tenants/beliefs are a unknown to me...I wasn't aware that there are Christians who don't believe in "Hell".
FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.
It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?
Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.
Interesting points MR,as I've said,I'm not a Christian so..some of the tenants/beliefs are a unknown to me...I wasn't aware that there are Christians who don't believe in "Hell".
There's a few ways that the "undesirable post-death condition" can be determined. It's sometimes referred to as "the grave" so there's those that believe it's just eternal death with no afterlife, tormented or otherwise.
It's a very confusing book at times, I'll grant you.
I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Theodicy is a pretty tough issue.
As a believer, I think its kind of a fallacy to try and put one's own understanding on the same level as a deity. That's just my take on it.
The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Theodicy is a pretty tough issue.
As a believer, I think its kind of a fallacy to try and put one's own understanding on the same level as a deity. That's just my take on it.
This is one of the things concerning God existence/non-existence that I often find myself mulling over.
I have no problem accepting death,pain,misery,war,etc as all part of the "human condition"...particularly as a "non believer".
However...the idea of a "higher power" observing these events in a "dis attached" manner,or in a manner "I can not understand because I am not that higher power"..bothers me.
The concept of a loving and caring deity who allows his "children" to suffer in such manners is indeed perplexing.
FITZZ wrote: An all knowing Deity who,despite knowing that his creations will fail to meet his standards and thus be condemned to an eternity of misery,yet continues to create them,doesn't sound very all loving to me.
It depends on how much one values their Free Will, I suppose. What are some of the other options? Not being created at all? Everyone being a robot built solely for worshiping their creator?
Then there's the different ways of considering the afterlife of someone who isn't a believer. Not all Christian denominations buy into the eternal torment gimmick.
Interesting points MR,as I've said,I'm not a Christian so..some of the tenants/beliefs are a unknown to me...I wasn't aware that there are Christians who don't believe in "Hell".
There's a few ways that the "undesirable post-death condition" can be determined. It's sometimes referred to as "the grave" so there's those that believe it's just eternal death with no afterlife, tormented or otherwise.
It's a very confusing book at times, I'll grant you.
There's also various interpretations of hell from the distinctly medieval 'getting bummed off Satan for ever and ever and ever' to the more benign sounding 'abscence of God's grace'.
Personally, I'm agnosticish (bordering atheism, but that's a lot of hard work) and I genuinely believe this is all we get!
Shuma and Dogma beat me to the two big holes in the argument.
Knowledge is not causation. I know that when I see lightning, there will be thunder. I don't cause the thunder though.
God isn't the most powerful being in the monotheistic metaphysics: he exists beyond power. Why can god simultaneously create us, know the outcome, and still give us free will? Because he can break the rules! Its the same way he can create matter out of void, start time, etc.
If these answers sound a little mystical, it's because they are. Assuming a god that preexisted creation, and exists beyond and above it, is inherently mystical.
The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Thing is, there's natural, logical limits to omnipotence. If a being endeavoured to create a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it... he can't have both. Either he has the power to create the rock, or he has the power to lift it.
Free will exists on the same level, because He can't give us free will without that granting us the ability to do evil. To remove the possibility of evil is to remove free will.
sebster wrote:Thing is, there's natural, logical limits to omnipotence.
Nope. Not even close. Why would the thing that creates the rules for logic be bound by them? Why would a being that's not natural care about natural limits?
sebster wrote:
Thing is, there's natural, logical limits to omnipotence. If a being endeavoured to create a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it... he can't have both. Either he has the power to create the rock, or he has the power to lift it.
The 3 O argument (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) isn't something that applies to beings of any realistic sort. By granting something the ability too see everything, and make all the right decisions you're effectively talking about a natural "force" of the same kind as gravity or electromagnetism. These things will always react in largely the same way given a certain set of variables, and so would a 3 O God. The thing about this is that, just as a 3 O God defines the principles of reality, it would also define the principles of physics such that its actions would be universally definitive of our environment.
As such, a 3 O God can't create a rock too heavy to lift because, even it were impossible given a certain set of properties in our environment, those same properties would be subject to modification by a 3 O; most likely in a fashion that was consistent with what it "chose" to do.
Omnipotence should not have limitations, as that would mean omnipotence is impossible- simply a theoretical concept that could not be logically achievable.
Polonius wrote:Nope. Not even close. Why would the thing that creates the rules for logic be bound by them? Why would a being that's not natural care about natural limits?
Okay. So can that being create a rock so heavy that even it can't lift it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Don't follow your reasoning Sebster.
The reasoning is that omnipotence has logical limitations. That no matter how great the power you grant to God, there is a point where even He cannot eat his cake and still have it to look at.
That can then be extended to free will, and to the question of evil in the universe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The 3 O argument (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) isn't something that applies to beings of any realistic sort. By granting something the ability too see everything, and make all the right decisions you're effectively talking about a natural "force" of the same kind as gravity or electromagnetism. These things will always react in largely the same way given a certain set of variables, and so would a 3 O God. The thing about this is that, just as a 3 O God defines the principles of reality, it would also define the principles of physics such that its actions would be universally definitive of our environment.
As such, a 3 O God can't create a rock too heavy to lift because, even it were impossible given a certain set of properties in our environment, those same properties would be subject to modification by a 3 O; most likely in a fashion that was consistent with what it "chose" to do.
Except, by the argument for free will, God has created a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. He's granted us free will, and with that comes the ability to do evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:Omnipotence should not have limitations, as that would mean omnipotence is impossible- simply a theoretical concept that could not be logically achievable.
Okay. So can that being create a rock so heavy that even it can't lift it?
It would then lift it despite not being capable. Then to really get you it might both lift and not lift it then change the concept of lifting without altering it's perceived meaning even if it's new form is entirely dissimilar from the previous. It can do this because it's lot defined by logica structure and can "naturally" change the "nature" of such a structure.
The reasoning is that omnipotence has logical limitations. That no matter how great the power you grant to God, there is a point where even He cannot eat his cake and still have it to look at.
I don't understand the reasoning behind claiming that something with enough mastery over existence and reality can't both have it's cake and eat it too by simply wanting to do so. Or have it's cake, lose it's cake, and eat it's cake simultaneously. You seem to be putting a ceiling on something that doesn't conceptually have one.
If an immovable object and an unstoppable force knock over a tree in the forest and it lands on someone arguing metaphysics on a wargaming forum, does anyone care?
Monster Rain wrote:If an immovable object and an unstoppable force knock over a tree in the forest and it lands on someone arguing metaphysics on a wargaming forum, does anyone care?
More then they care about your opinion on the deffrolla rule.
Not that I have studied Divinity but as I understand the theology God is beyond human comprehension.
The argument of the rock applies only to our limited world. God is transcendant of our limitations. Hence the 3 O's as Dogma puts it. God acts from eternity which is Nowhere/Now Here
Omniscience etc is limitless you can't have more than all God is the all and yet transcends the all that's all folks
Monster Rain wrote:If an immovable object and an unstoppable force knock over a tree in the forest and it lands on someone arguing metaphysics on a wargaming forum, does anyone care?
More then they care about your opinion on the deffrolla rule.
Shows what you know.
That's been FAQed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Not that I have studied Divinity but as I understand the theology God is beyond human comprehension.
The argument of the rock applies only to our limited world.
God is transcendant of our limitations. Hence the 3 O's as Dogma puts it.
God acts from eternity which is Nowhere/Now Here
Omniscience etc is limitless
you can't have more than all
God is the all and yet transcends the all
that's all folks
ShumaGorath wrote:It would then lift it despite not being capable. Then to really get you it might both lift and not lift it then change the concept of lifting without altering it's perceived meaning even if it's new form is entirely dissimilar from the previous. It can do this because it's lot defined by logica structure and can "naturally" change the "nature" of such a structure.
Which is an answer. But it isn't the only answer.
I don't understand the reasoning behind claiming that something with enough mastery over existence and reality can't both have it's cake and eat it too by simply wanting to do so. Or have it's cake, lose it's cake, and eat it's cake simultaneously. You seem to be putting a ceiling on something that doesn't conceptually have one.
You're claiming that no such ceiling can exist. Which is something you cannot know.
Given that people have offered belief in an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, but also observed evil in the world, one possible explanation is that a being with all possible power may still have not have the power to do all things, because somethings remain a logical impossibility. In this case, God cannot grant man free will, including the will to do evil, and protect all other men from that evil. That would be one of those logical impossibilities.
Given that people have offered belief in an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God, but also observed evil in the world, one possible explanation is that a being with all possible power may still have not have the power to do all things, because somethings remain a logical impossibility. In this case, God cannot grant man free will, including the will to do evil, and protect all other men from that evil. That would be one of those logical impossibilities.
Is it actually stated in scripture that god is omnibenevolent? The other two are definitely in there, but there is a significant amount of imoral action directly undertaken by god in those books. Also, I suppose I was arguing more from the position of the term omnipotent which means "almighty" or "infinite in power" both of which imply a lack of limits. Both sides of the argument can certainly exist, though omnipotence does not function logically when it is constrained by logic, making it an impossibility and thus making it a poor definition by which to consider an omnipotent being.
sebster wrote:
Except, by the argument for free will, God has created a rock so heavy even he can't lift it. He's granted us free will, and with that comes the ability to do evil.
Not necessarily, as a 3 O God can create any sort of universe that it so desired. You can have free will without the ability to do evil if evil simply doesn't exist. There are a number of ways that this could be accomplished, ranging from the provision of supernatural immorality, to the elimination of the unpleasant aspects inherent in evil such that it no longer resembles evil at all.
In essence, its not that God can't do what you describe, its that God simply doesn't do it.
Personally, I think its easier to simply posit that the Big Guy is not a 3 O God, but merely really powerful, wise, and perceptive; though strictly speaking merely eliminating the quality of omnipotence cleans up most of the problems. But that doesn't jive with traditional Christian theology.
There is another argument that states that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are conflicting ideas because an omnipotent being would be omnibenevolent simply because benevolence would be whatever it chose to be by its own decree, which kind of throws a wrench in the works insofar as we're talking about consistent ideas of God.
Personally, I think its easier to simply posit that the Big Guy is not a 3 O God, but merely really powerful, wise, and perceptive; though strictly speaking merely eliminating the quality of omnipotence cleans up most of the problems. But that doesn't jive with traditional Christian theology.
How far back are we talking "traditional Christian theology," as medieval Christian theologans attempted to describe the omnipotence of God. Failing to do so, they simply shrug and say "We cannot describe the full glory of our Lord (We don't know)."
WarOne wrote:
How far back are we talking "traditional Christian theology," as medieval Christian theologans attempted to describe the omnipotence of God. Failing to do so, they simply shrug and say "We cannot describe the full glory of our Lord (We don't know)."
Well, there's a difference between refusing the idea that a property describes God, and acknowledging one's inability to understand it; witness the Trinity.
God is described as omnipotent in the Bible. The majority of debates regarding the matter reinterpret the meaning of the term; usually distinguishing power as a manifestation of force, and power as a manifestation of ability. The basic idea is that omnipotence only references God's ability to do anything physically possible where the physical is understood in the Platonic sense, which is also the colloquial one.
There's also an argument which posits that things that exist have a nature, and that in order to define that nature they must act, if they can act in accordance with their nature then the thing that created them does no have absolute power. This is because a being with absolute power still be limited by its own nature, and so would lack the ability to go against itself in denying free will to man (assuming it has given free will to man). This also ties in with the problems inherent in combining omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
The Bible never specifically states that God is omnipotent. It does use the term El shadai "allmighty". In fact the Bible says that God cannot lie, God cannot sin. So the Bible refers to Gods nature, and God cannot do things outside of His nature.
By the way the "Can God create a rock that he can't lift" thing is as old as Aristotle.
Can God create a spherical triangle? Can God make 2+2 = 3? Can God divide by 0? Can God create a sandwich too big for him to eat? If God is infinite can he make himself finite? All of these questions are similar in nature.
dogma is a logistician so maybe he can shed light on this..but aren't these things logically impossible?
So the real question is, can God do things that are logically impossible.
If we say that God is the only infinite being... can he create another infinite thing? For example the aforementioned infinite rock. The rock would have to be infinite in order for it to be too big for God to lift.
Logically impossible.
As to Mr. mystery's question...he is basically asking why does God create men, when he knows that some of those men he creates will be condemned to hell. It's kind of ironic because I was pondering the same question myself a few days ago. In fact I was taking it bit further than that. Why does God create people that will never hear the gospel, and therefore never get a chance to know that Jesus exists. It is a theological conundrum for sure. Is it possible that God set it up, so that people that he foresaw would be believers, were born at the right places and right times? It's possible but is it the answer? I don't know.
I'm not a calvinist, but a calvinist would say that Christians are predestined from the foundation of the world to become believers, and all others are the "tares" that grow up with with the wheat. That is a hard teaching, and I have a hard time accepting that approach. (in fact I don't totally accept it)
Jehovas witness' have a problem with this as well, and they just do away with hell in their doctrine completely, which is in error because hell is a place clearly talked about, and described by Jesus and others in the Bible.
We also don't know what hell is "exactly" by the way.
ShumaGorath wrote:Is it actually stated in scripture that god is omnibenevolent?
I don't know, I'm not all that well read when it comes to religion. The folk who are will likely come along to point out passages for you, no doubt.
The other two are definitely in there, but there is a significant amount of imoral action directly undertaken by god in those books. Also, I suppose I was arguing more from the position of the term omnipotent which means "almighty" or "infinite in power" both of which imply a lack of limits. Both sides of the argument can certainly exist, though omnipotence does not function logically when it is constrained by logic, making it an impossibility and thus making it a poor definition by which to consider an omnipotent being.
I know that the argument that evil exists because God granted man free will is a Catholic teaching, so they certainly consider free will a limit on God's power to exercise his omni-benevolence.
I think you can consider a being all powerful if it has all the power which is possible, even if it lacks powers that are logically impossible. It wouldn't be the only possible definition, but it would be a perfectly reasonable one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:In essence, its not that God can't do what you describe, its that God simply doesn't do it.
Personally, I think its easier to simply posit that the Big Guy is not a 3 O God, but merely really powerful, wise, and perceptive; though strictly speaking merely eliminating the quality of omnipotence cleans up most of the problems. But that doesn't jive with traditional Christian theology.
That's another way of doing it, yeah.
There is another argument that states that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are conflicting ideas because an omnipotent being would be omnibenevolent simply because benevolence would be whatever it chose to be by its own decree, which kind of throws a wrench in the works insofar as we're talking about consistent ideas of God.
Typically omni-benevolence assumes a human, emotive quality, the assumption that God cares infinitely for us, and for all the things we care about. Which, of course, may very well not be true. God could be all caring, just not about us.
generalgrog wrote:The Bible never specifically states that God is omnipotent. It does use the term El shadai "allmighty".
I though El shadai was "God Allmighty".
Either way, I was thinking of pantokratór, which also means "almighty", but is frequently taken to indicate omnipotence because the ancient Greeks didn't have an effective understanding of the infinite.
generalgrog wrote:
Can God create a spherical triangle? Can God make 2+2 = 3? Can God divide by 0? Can God create a sandwich too big for him to eat? If God is infinite can he make himself finite? All of these questions are similar in nature.
dogma is a logistician so maybe he can shed light on this..but aren't these things logically impossible?
A few of them are. For example, a spherical triangle is logically impossible due both to definitional limitations; basically a two dimensional object with three sides cannot ever also be spherical. The same goes for 2+2 equaling three, at least where what's being accomplished is more than a semantic change; ie. not just calling the result of 2+2 3 instead of 4, which any human could reasonably do.
However, it isn't logically impossible to create a sandwich too big to eat because its the ability to eat a thing isn't tied to the ability to make a thing. Its only logically impossible if we posit that God is bound by the laws of the Universe, and omnipotent. If he isn't, then it doesn't matter because an omnipotent being that can alter the laws of existence in arbitrary ways would not logically be subject to those laws.
generalgrog wrote:
So the real question is, can God do things that are logically impossible.
Essentially, yes.
generalgrog wrote:
If we say that God is the only infinite being... can he create another infinite thing? For example the aforementioned infinite rock. The rock would have to be infinite in order for it to be too big for God to lift.
Logically impossible.
Well, an infinite thing is still defined by its properties. For example, you can't say that an infinite series of events is not infinite because it does not include all possible events, or that an infinite line is not infinite because it isn't a plane. So yes, you can have more than 1 infinite thing insofar as the parameters of both things are not mutually exclusive. For example, you can't have to infinite lines defined by the equation y=2x+1.
Additionally, we aren't certain that a rock would have to be infinitely large to prevent God from lifting it, we only know that there might be a possible rock too large for God to lift. A being can be infinite, and very strong, but not omnipotent. Similarly, infinite power and infinite size do not conflict as size isn't necessarily defined as being predicted on immovability, unless infinite size is thought to mean an object that occupies all possible space and so cannot actually move anywhere.
The rock criticism really only attacks the notion of an omnipotent God anyway.
God defies all human logic. To understand the true nature of a being is to gain power over the said being by knowing all its parts, faults, and weaknesses, so God is all powerful because we cannot understand or know Him.
The Dreadnote wrote:I don't really fancy having another big debate about free will, but since God was mentioned I thought I'd leave this here:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Theodicy is a pretty tough issue.
As a believer, I think its kind of a fallacy to try and put one's own understanding on the same level as a deity. That's just my take on it.
This is one of the things concerning God existence/non-existence that I often find myself mulling over.
I have no problem accepting death,pain,misery,war,etc as all part of the "human condition"...particularly as a "non believer".
However...the idea of a "higher power" observing these events in a "dis attached" manner,or in a manner "I can not understand because I am not that higher power"..bothers me.
The concept of a loving and caring deity who allows his "children" to suffer in such manners is indeed perplexing.
I know this was from a page ago but I wanted to share my view on this point. If our souls are eternal (a pretty common understanding among most religions) then this life is an almost infinitesimally small portion of our existence. And if god is omnipotent, then there are no surprises to him. The baby who dies from being shaken by the baby sitter, the parents who die in a car accident leaving children behind, and even the women who is brutally raped- none of these things are a surprise. God, being an omniscient and omnipotent God, could render us physically unable to harm one another or suffer injury (or otherwise "sin") but then our free will would be for naught. Also if one believes we are here to choose and be tested (another belief common to many religions) then we must be free to choose and act on our choices. And in order for God's judgments to be just he must allow us to carry out our actions (even when they are bad).
Having said that, I do believe god does spare people from much of the pain in the world as he is also a God of mercy.
yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!
By the way, I briefly skimmed through some of the replies to your post....I love that people are postulating the attributes of God and also gauging his abilities and their effectiveness. Arbitrarily pulling things out of the air makes you even less credible on the subject.
Not to offend anyone on this thread, but I suggest you take your argument to a level of higher education where you will get better responses...otherwise, expect to recieve some of the most ignorant retort you have ever heard in your life from the people in here.
Element206 wrote:Not to offend anyone on this thread...expect to recieve some of the most ignorant retort you have ever heard in your life from the people in here.
"I'm not a racist, but I think all black people are lazy and stupid"
undivided wrote:God defies all human logic. To understand the true nature of a being is to gain power over the said being by knowing all its parts, faults, and weaknesses, so God is all powerful because we cannot understand or know Him.
I would agree and disagree with this statement.
I disagree that God defies "ALL" human logic. God certainly can defy "SOME" human logic. In fact I believe that logic, and that mankind uses it, is a confirmation that men were made in God's image.
I also disagree with the statement that God is all powerful "because we cannot understand or know Him", because
A. We can know Him through Jesus Christ, and
B. God is God and all powerful regardless if we understand Him or know Him.
I however, do agree with the statement that we cannot "completely" understand God.
Element206 wrote:yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!
Even a half assed catholic like myself can answer that: it's because god doesn't care about our plight here on earth. It's not pretty, but god is truly loving with regards to the long term, not the time we spend on the mortal coil.
It's also worth noting that evil can be most easily defined in theological terms as "opposing the will of god." Floods aren't evil, nor is cancer. Killing a person in battle isn't evil. Murdering another without cause is evil.
Polonius wrote:Even a half assed catholic like myself can answer that: it's because god doesn't care about our plight here on earth. It's not pretty, but god is truly loving with regards to the long term, not the time we spend on the mortal coil.
It's also worth noting that evil can be most easily defined in theological terms as "opposing the will of god." Floods aren't evil, nor is cancer. Killing a person in battle isn't evil. Murdering another without cause is evil.
This makes no sense. Your inferring God has more important things to do in the universe than worry about his creation on earth? Maybe thats true, since OBVIOUSLY he has so many other worlds to focus on. This honestly makes sense to you??? So would you buy a animal, feed it once, then walk away and not concern yourself with it? --because thats what your expecting me to believe that god is doing.
Nice to see you wrote the book on what is evil and what isnt; but im not buying your personal interpretation of evil. I was referring directly to the philisophical argument about the 'problem of evil.' It defines evil in two categories, natural evil and moral evil. Killing someone would be a moral evil, Blasting the coast of Sri Lanka with a typhoon killing hundreds of thousands is considered a natural evil. Maybe you should look up and research some common thiestic arguments before replying to what I said.
I like that you said killing someone in battle isnt evil yet murdering without cause is evil....hmm, I forgot God is patriotic. I am barely going to waist my time or dignify this comment with a lengthly explanation, so I will just ask you this. How exactly does that work? Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????
In my opinion, God isn't concerned with our comfort of safety on earth because he's concerned with our spiritual and moral decisions. Life on earth is like a job interview, it's the means, not the end. God is looking for those people that seek him out, play by his rules, and freely choose to associate with him. I'm not a fire and brimstone guy, I think that salvation is a reward, but the alternative is simply the destruction of the soul, so that when you die you die.
There is this view among a lot of non-christians, and IMO too many christians that God is a fairy godmother. It doesn't work that way. So god doesn't save us from famine or plague because it doesn't matter to him. He wants to know what we do under pressure.
Hey, I don't know much about the problem of evil, but if you expect people to do some reading before they reply, it's a pretty common courtesy to include some links to the appropriate material. I think that my definition of evil slides neatly into the idea of moral evil.
God, at least the old testament version, was highly patriotic. The bible never says that war is inherently immoral. I think god recognizes that political and economic pressure can lead to war, and that serving as a soldier and killing in war is something that people do out of obligation, not out of moral choice.
I'm not sure what you mean about naming a war that didn't have murder. Most wars, like most times in general, include crimes, including murder. But there's a difference between killing in the heat of combat and massacering villagers.
Element206 wrote:yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!
It really isn't. Its a mildly interesting question to ask of someone who isn't particularly convinced of all their religion's teaching, but most "true believers" can find refuge in a defense from wickedness; ie. whatever God does is correct, therefore the people in question were dealt with as they should have been.
The rest can use a combination of Sebster's free will argument, and either divine intention or limitation's upon God's power. The latter being a literalistic interpretation of "almighty".
Honestly, the problem of evil isn't really a problem at all, there have been many, many solutions to it throughout history; primarily based on the ambiguity of terms like good and evil. Honestly, the question "What is the good?" is a much more problematic for the a theist than any question regarding evil because questions regarding the Good entail questions regarding the nature of God. Hence the Bible talks a whole lot about proper practice, and relatively little about improper practice.
Element206 wrote:
By the way, I briefly skimmed through some of the replies to your post....I love that people are postulating the attributes of God and also gauging his abilities and their effectiveness. Arbitrarily pulling things out of the air makes you even less credible on the subject.
Who has been arbitrarily pulling things out of the air? I mean, yeah, theology is based, to a degree, on a sort of arbitrary blend of plausibility and possiblity, but that's the nature of the discipline. You can't discuss it at all without accepting that, unless you're going to write it all of as absurd, which is just boring.
Element206 wrote:
Not to offend anyone on this thread, but I suggest you take your argument to a level of higher education where you will get better responses...otherwise, expect to recieve some of the most ignorant retort you have ever heard in your life from the people in here.
Have we found a new Gailbraithe?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Element206 wrote:Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????
Element206 wrote:
I like that you said killing someone in battle isnt evil yet murdering without cause is evil....hmm, I forgot God is patriotic. I am barely going to waist my time or dignify this comment with a lengthly explanation, so I will just ask you this. How exactly does that work? Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????
If I may respond logically, let us look at the example of God and the Egyptians. God killed the firstborns of every household in Egypt that did not mark its doors. He did this so that his people, the Jews, could go free and be their own nation. Let us assume that God is benevolent, and as such incapable of evil.
1. God is incapable of evil.
2. God sent his angel to kill every firstborn Egyptian.
3. There are times when killing is not evil.
Element206 wrote:yep, your argument is similar to the "problem of evil" : If god is a truly loving god and demontrates the big O's, then why does he allow for natural disasters and other evils to occur. Its a good question to ask a hardcore bible beater!
Even a half assed catholic like myself can answer that: it's because god doesn't care about our plight here on earth. It's not pretty, but god is truly loving with regards to the long term, not the time we spend on the mortal coil.
It's also worth noting that evil can be most easily defined in theological terms as "opposing the will of god." Floods aren't evil, nor is cancer. Killing a person in battle isn't evil. Murdering another without cause is evil.
I totally disagree with this interpretation(but then again I'm not Roman Catholic).
I believe that God does care about our plight on earth, in fact Jesus Himself said that our very hairs are numbered, and that God takes care of the birds of the air how much more so would he not take care of us. Also the doctrine of the Trinity includes the person of God The Father, so when does a father not care for his children?
As far as evil... the age old problem of evil includes not only moral evils but also natural evils. This can be traced back to the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden whereby the universe was cursed through Adam and Eves sin. So floods and cancer are evil in the sense that it was evil that led to the cursed creation and the legacy thereof.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote:
Element206 wrote:
I like that you said killing someone in battle isnt evil yet murdering without cause is evil....hmm, I forgot God is patriotic. I am barely going to waist my time or dignify this comment with a lengthly explanation, so I will just ask you this. How exactly does that work? Furthermore, name a war that didnt have murder without cause????
If I may respond logically, let us look at the example of God and the Egyptians. God killed the firstborns of every household in Egypt that did not mark its doors. He did this so that his people, the Jews, could go free and be their own nation. Let us assume that God is benevolent, and as such incapable of evil.
1. God is incapable of evil.
2. God sent his angel to kill every firstborn Egyptian.
3. There are times when killing is not evil.
From a Biblical perspective I think this is true. Many times God commanded the Israelite's to slay every last man, woman and child, including the livestock during the cannanite wars. This was not evil because
A. It was a command from God and
B. It was God's judgment being poured out on the Caananites, who worshiped Baal and performed child sacrifice and other evils.
The problem with any interpretation of god's love that features material aspects raises some pretty tricky questions about how it get's doled out. Do those that work hard but fail not deserve success or love? What about bad people that have great wealth?
The story of the birds shows that god does love and care about every person. It doesn't mean he's going to heal my cancer or get my brother a job or whatever. Jesus spends far more time talking about the rewards that come later than he does talking about how god can help you now. Not that he was against wealth, I think the takeaway message is that life on earth is short and transitory, the life eternal is the real concern.
If you look at the beatitudes, they explicitly state that there are meek, and poor, and they'll be rewarded... later. Christinaity was one of the first western religions to be truly universal: you didn't need to be born a jew, or be able to afford sacrifices, or have some special connection. It offers salvation and eternal life, but only after the fact.
i don't think there's anything wrong with giving thanks to god for what you've been given, and I sure do. But if a person is poor and sick, it doesn't mean god doesn't love them.
Polonius wrote:...salvation is a reward, but the alternative is simply the destruction of the soul, so that when you die you die.
So your saying Hell is not actually a place where you are punished? Because in the bible, it never actually says anything about Hell, except for the fire, so I'd say thats a pretty good interpretation.
The Dante's inferno view of hell comes from the greek idea of Hades, mixed with increasingly dramatic medieval attempts to scare people into believing, and finally capped off by Paradise Lost. I don't feel that it jives with the biblical concept of the afterlife, which really doesn't mention hell at all. How many times does Jesus say he offers salvation from death?
The current Catholic view of Hell is that it's a state of being, of total removal from god. Sounds a lot like death to me. It also eliminate the tireseome "if god loves me, why would he send me to hell" argument. Christianity isn't a test as much as it is an offer. It's available, and God would be happier if people took it, but if people don't, they simply cease to exist when they die.
Gitzbitah wrote: If I may respond logically, let us look at the example of God and the Egyptians. God killed the firstborns of every household in Egypt that did not mark its doors. He did this so that his people, the Jews, could go free and be their own nation. Let us assume that God is benevolent, and as such incapable of evil.
1. God is incapable of evil. 2. God sent his angel to kill every firstborn Egyptian. 3. There are times when killing is not evil.
From a Biblical perspective I think this is true. Many times God commanded the Israelite's to slay every last man, woman and child, including the livestock during the cannanite wars. This was not evil because A. It was a command from God and B. It was God's judgment being poured out on the Caananites, who worshiped Baal and performed child sacrifice and other evils.
GG
Soooooooooo, your saying it's alright to kill people if God tells you to?
In regard to the question of free will. . .
We all are a part of nature, of the universe. My personal belief is that the universe is like a huge plant. A living organism, but not sentient. This organism is what I call God. The universe.
We are like the cells that make up this living thing. (Analogy not to scale) All of nature, all living and non living things, are a part of one greater organism.
So I guess we have as much free will as the cells that make up our own bodies.
In the end, I don't think it really matters one way or the other, so I tend to not worry about it too much.
Oh that's a whole other question. I was just disproving the idea that killing people is always evil. That part's easy, if we're arguing in a theist style. Deciding when it is ok to kill people is a vastly more complicated subject.
Gitzbitah wrote:Oh that's a whole other question. I was just disproving the idea that killing people is always evil. That part's easy, if we're arguing in a theist style. Deciding when it is ok to kill people is a vastly more complicated subject.
I would agree that killing people is not always evil, such as if someone is trying to kill you/if you are in a you-or-them type situation, but the problem I had with GG's post was the fact that he seems to find using divine will as justification to kill someone to be perfectly fine.
Polonius wrote:The problem with any interpretation of god's love that features material aspects raises some pretty tricky questions about how it get's doled out. Do those that work hard but fail not deserve success or love? What about bad people that have great wealth?
The story of the birds shows that god does love and care about every person. It doesn't mean he's going to heal my cancer or get my brother a job or whatever. Jesus spends far more time talking about the rewards that come later than he does talking about how god can help you now. Not that he was against wealth, I think the takeaway message is that life on earth is short and transitory, the life eternal is the real concern.
If you look at the beatitudes, they explicitly state that there are meek, and poor, and they'll be rewarded... later. Christinaity was one of the first western religions to be truly universal: you didn't need to be born a jew, or be able to afford sacrifices, or have some special connection. It offers salvation and eternal life, but only after the fact.
i don't think there's anything wrong with giving thanks to god for what you've been given, and I sure do. But if a person is poor and sick, it doesn't mean god doesn't love them.
Sorry... but you are backtracking now. Maybe you just misstated what you really believe in your earlier post? I mean, either God cares about his creation or not.
Also I'm particularly concerned with your views on salvation and hell. You seem to be positing a works salvation, independent of Grace. I know the classic Roman Catholic teaching of works go hand in hand with grace, and I would agree mostly with that. (Although I don't think I totally understand what the Roman Catholic church leaders' view is)
Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.
Jesus was very emphatic about what he thought hell was. Read Matt.25:41,Matt25:46, Jude 7, Rev.20:15 Also the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke16 19-31.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:
Soooooooooo, your saying it's alright to kill people if God tells you to?
Well if God told Joshua to have the people of Israel slaughter the Canaanites and Joshua said "God I will not do that because it isn't alright". Who is right, God or Joshua?
This isn't to say that I think God would ask anyone in modern times to do this, since we are under a different covenant. A covenant of grace. This is why Holy Wars (the crusades for example) after Jesus' resurrection would be outside of God's will. Whereas the Israelite's entering the "promised land" was God's will because he was using the Israelite's to pass judgment on caanan, much like he did with the earth during the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah.
Well, I think god cares about his creation. I just don't think that care translates into cash and prizes.
I think grace is essential to salvation. I think you have to walk the walk, as well as talk the talk, but salvation is only through god.
As for the biblical description of hell, I think that the writers were poetic. I don't think heaven is literally full of many rooms, nor do I think that hell is literally a fiery pit of torment. I suppose I'm more of annhiliationist, in that I feel that the soul is only immortal through salvation. It's accepted in the Church of England, and not exactly incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.
Reformed denominations; Cult- what's the difference? I'm not a J-dub but when I hear christians calling a group a cult I think of the "cool" nerds calling other people nerds and ostracizing them for it. It seems like calling a church a cult is a convenient way of invalidating their beliefs without actually addressing them.
Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.
Reformed denominations; Cult- what's the difference? I'm not a J-dub but when I hear christians calling a group a cult I think of the "cool" nerds calling other people nerds and ostracizing them for it. It seems like calling a church a cult is a convenient way of invalidating their beliefs without actually addressing them.
I would love to address them, but that would derail the thread. Basically reformed denominations such as baptists, lutheran,episcopalian, methodists, pentacostal, anglican etc,etc. are orthodox denominations in that they accept orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, bodily resurection of Christ, diety of Christ. Stuff like that. Any group not espousing these beliefs are considered cults. and most of them are harmful to their members as well. Mormonism, Jdubs, christian science, etc.
Also when you say hell is the grave you sound like a Jehovas witness, which is considered by most reformed denominations as a cult. Hell is not the grave.
Reformed denominations; Cult- what's the difference? I'm not a J-dub but when I hear christians calling a group a cult I think of the "cool" nerds calling other people nerds and ostracizing them for it. It seems like calling a church a cult is a convenient way of invalidating their beliefs without actually addressing them.
I would love to address them, but that would derail the thread. Basically reformed denominations such as baptists, lutheran,episcopalian, methodists, pentacostal, anglican etc,etc. are orthodox denominations in that they accept orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, bodily resurection of Christ, diety of Christ. Stuff like that. Any group not espousing these beliefs are considered cults. and most of them are harmful to their members as well. Mormonism, Jdubs, christian science, etc.
GG
So you're one of Those people. I thought you were reasonable fellow. Have you witnessed first hand the "harmful" nature of these religions? their beliefs don't fit into the big christian churches' framework so you call them harmful to keep people away. this is one reason why people who believe in god don't trust in organized religion and why otherwise religious people call themselves agnostics.
Having said my peace, perhaps I should withdraw before yet another philosophical thread sees an early grave. you can PM if you want.
I think that while GG is being a bit overly dismissive, you're overreacting.
Even an ecumenical christian like myself feels that not all beliefs are equal. I respect all beliefs, and I feel everybody has the right to practice in their own way, but I'm not a complete relativist.
the big three branches of Christianity (Catholicism, orthodoxy, and protestantism) all fundamentally share a pretty common theology and set of scriptures. Most of the difference between them are in practice and structure. There is a lot of common ground, and frankly a lot of historical heft to those groups.
Other christian groups tend share fewer beliefs, and some even include substantial new scriptures (Mormonism in particular). I wouldn't lump all of them together in terms of harm, but it is worth noting that those denominations more actively separate themselves from society, and some do cause some harm on their members (by forbidding medical care in some cases).
And harm can be spiritual too. I think many of the more recent christian or semi-christian religions stray too far from the core message of the gospels. I feel that most established religions do too, but the newer sects tend to either focus on completely new material, or extremely narrow readings of the bible. They can, at best, often "miss the forest for the trees."
I think one of the points being missed in the whole "why does God allow evil" sub-topic to this thread is man's understanding of evil is flawed in comparison to God's.
A perfect, omnipotent being has a different frame of reference as to what is evil. As God is perfect, all sin is infinitely evil just as 1 is infinitely larger than 0. Therefore, stealing a loaf of bread is the moral equivalent to killing someone is God's eyes. Since all people have sinned in God's eyes, asking why God allows evil to exist is the same as asking "Why does God allow me to exist?"
The answer is because God is Love and he desires that you love Him. He will give you a huge number of chances to come to him. He doesn't follow the Kantian principles of coming to God with perfect motives - otherwise he would not have us at all.
EDIT: small little theological correction to several posters in the thread. God is eternal, not infinite. Infinite suggests a beginning but no end while eternal has neither a beginning nor an end. As a matter of fact God is both The Beginning and The End of all things (I am the Alpha and the Omega) Rev 1:8, Rev 1:17, Rev 22:13, Isaiah 48:12 (all NIV)
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I think one of the points being missed in the whole "why does God allow evil" sub-topic to this thread is man's understanding of evil is flawed in comparison to God's.
A perfect, omnipotent being has a different frame of reference as to what is evil. As God is perfect, all sin is infinitely evil just as 1 is infinitely larger than 0. Therefore, stealing a loaf of bread is the moral equivalent to killing someone is God's eyes. Since all people have sinned in God's eyes, asking why God allows evil to exist is the same as asking "Why does God allow me to exist?"
The answer is because God is Love and he desires that you love Him. He will give you a huge number of chances to come to him. He doesn't follow the Kantian principles of coming to God with perfect motives - otherwise he would not have us at all.
Umm okay. How does God been perfect equate to sin been infinitely evil? And 1 isnt infinitely larger than 0. Its 1 larger than 0.
So you're one of Those people. I thought you were reasonable fellow. Have you witnessed first hand the "harmful" nature of these religions? their beliefs don't fit into the big christian churches' framework so you call them harmful to keep people away. this is one reason why people who believe in god don't trust in organized religion and why otherwise religious people call themselves agnostics.
Having said my peace, perhaps I should withdraw before yet another philosophical thread sees an early grave. you can PM if you want.
None. You can add as many zeroes as you want and you wont ever get 1.
Just because people arent perfect doesnt make them evil.
And i, unlike God, didnt kill the entire population of the world barring Noah and his family. I didnt wipe out the Sodomites. God is evil and anything but loving. We can't just say "God is Love" and then ignore all the things he does that are anything but.
Genesis 6:5 (NIV) The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Genesis 6:9 9This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God
Calling the Creator of all things evil for destroying his works is akin to calling you evil for destroying your favorite warhammer army or tearing down your backyard hut.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Is there a difference between justice and evil?
Genesis 6:5 (NIV) The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Genesis 6:9 9This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God
Calling the Creator of all things evil for destroying his works is akin to calling you evil for destroying your favorite warhammer army or tearing down your backyard hut.
My warhammer army isnt sentient. My backyard hut doesnt live. Heck those are my possessions. Are you saying we are are god's possessions? So he can do whatever he wants with us just cause he made us? Some perfect being. Children throw tantrums and destroy things.
This (christian) god is no god of mine, and definitely not perfect.
God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36)
God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17).
Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20)
God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21).
God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9)
Heck this God turned Lot's wife to salt just because she turned around. What a guy!
While the rumblings where always there it seems it took 3 pages for this to turn into a full blown christian versus atheist thread. That is one more page than I expected honestly.
Ahtman wrote:While the rumblings where always there it seems it took 3 pages for this to turn into a full blown christian versus atheist thread. That is one more page than I expected honestly.
generalgrog wrote:By the way the "Can God create a rock that he can't lift" thing is as old as Aristotle.
Everything is as old as Aristotle
dogma wrote:A few of them are. For example, a spherical triangle is logically impossible due both to definitional limitations; basically a two dimensional object with three sides cannot ever also be spherical. The same goes for 2+2 equaling three, at least where what's being accomplished is more than a semantic change; ie. not just calling the result of 2+2 3 instead of 4, which any human could reasonably do.
However, it isn't logically impossible to create a sandwich too big to eat because its the ability to eat a thing isn't tied to the ability to make a thing. Its only logically impossible if we posit that God is bound by the laws of the Universe, and omnipotent. If he isn't, then it doesn't matter because an omnipotent being that can alter the laws of existence in arbitrary ways would not logically be subject to those laws.
Only if you consider it just a sandwich, and not an item with specific properties. In this case, it would need to be an item with the specific properties 'too big for God to eat' and 'not so big that God can't eat it'. Which is exactly as impossible as making 2+2=3.
Essentially, yes.
If you choose to believe so, then sure. But that's hardly the only possible understanding of God.
The rock criticism really only attacks the notion of an omnipotent God anyway.
It doesn't attack the notion of His omnipotence. It questions the nature of omnipotence, and suggests that even absolute power might be bounded by some fundamental limits.
generalgrog wrote:I would love to address them, but that would derail the thread. Basically reformed denominations such as baptists, lutheran,episcopalian, methodists, pentacostal, anglican etc,etc. are orthodox denominations in that they accept orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, bodily resurection of Christ, diety of Christ. Stuff like that. Any group not espousing these beliefs are considered cults. and most of them are harmful to their members as well. Mormonism, Jdubs, christian science, etc.
Having heretical beliefs would make them heretical, not cults. To be a cult you really need to be a tightly closed organisation that controls access to the outside world, and that is harmful to members. I'm not saying these groups aren't (although given the scope of something like the Church of Mormon you really can't generalise the whole thing, and instead have to look at individual groups), just saying that simply heretical beliefs alone do not make a cult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Well, Dakka has always been home to more than it's share of feisty atheists that really seem to have an ax to grind with religion.
Even as an atheist, I've found the atheists in Dakka threads consistently more annoying than the Christians in these threads.
I guess as a person who takes comfort in my faith and thus doesn't feel the need to get riled up about it, I secretly wonder if it's a personality thing that leads to annoying zealotry, or just some sort of overcompensation.
If I for a minute thought that somebody wasn't hip to the idea of Christianity, I'd do my duty and bring them up to speed. At this point, I feel like most people have made up their minds, and if they haven't, they know where to get some Jesus. I'm a semi-practicing cafeteria Catholic because it works for me, I like the ritual, and the odds of me finding the sermon intellectually or personally upsetting are slim. But i could give damn what anybody else does.
Fundamentalist christians at least have a bit of an excuse in that they feel it's their duty to save non-believers. I'm a fan of the soft sell, in business, with the ladies, and I don't see why I should change my approach with religion. I mean, you'd think that after the spiritual catharsis of being reborn, you'd chill the hell out, but since most active Christian recruits fall into evangelical movements that are full of energy, i guess we have to listen to it.
It's cranky atheists that confuse me. For people that have figured it out and gotten out of the game, why aren't they just enjoying it? What drives people that reject the idea of god to become missionaries for it?
Even though I do not agree with much of what Richard Dawkins has to say, at least he is not an angry athiest and is a gentlemen. Unlike Bill Mahrer for example.
I think the question is why are they so angry?
Are they angry because they feel betrayed by a religious upbringing? Maybe like mattyrm they feel that religion is harmful and they feel that they must do something about it? Kind of an athiest crusade if you will?
I used to be an angry athiest myself, mainly because I was just miserable with my life and I had to take it out on someone. Also I was very arrogant in my late teens, thinking I was smarter than everyone else.
It's cranky atheists that confuse me. For people that have figured it out and gotten out of the game, why aren't they just enjoying it? What drives people that reject the idea of god to become missionaries for it?
Kind of hard to be out of the game when it is all around.
Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.
Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.
@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.
Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.
@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental
Okay i was going to reply but realised i'm arguing about a being that i don't even believe exists. If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum.
So going back to the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it" discussion. I was listening to a podcast on Logic today and this very issue came up. The lecturer basically called statements like that nonsense statements.
He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.
Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.
@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental
Okay i was going to reply but realised i'm arguing about a being that i don't even believe exists. If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum.
I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer to this quesion: why are you so upset? And why are you directing that emotion into words intended to demean the beliefs of others?
I mean, I can see deciding you don't need religion. I can understand not needing spirituality. I don't feel the same way, but I don't feel the need to mock those that do. Why are you so clearly irked by the concept of faith?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:So going back to the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it" discussion. I was listening to a podcast on Logic today and this very issue came up. The lecturer basically called statements like that nonsense statements.
He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.
GG
yeah, it's not exactly upper level logical thinking.
The free will debate shouldn't get sucked into it. Maybe I'm too steeped in paradoxical beliefs, but I guess I don't have a problem with the idea of God giving us true free will, and playing by the rules. Sure, he could figure out what will happen, but he doesn't. We have free will despite god being all knowing because god is also able to bend the rules to allow it.
In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.
I think one of the greatest misconceptions of our time is that one side or the other (religion vs. atheism) is "forcing" their views on the other side. From the whole prayer in school debate to evolution to nativity scenes in the public square. These have all been used by both sides as examples of how the other is oppressing us OH NOES!
I think a lot of the vehemence seen on these forms is more a result of political differences and the 24 hour news cycle than real hatred.
sebster wrote:
Only if you consider it just a sandwich, and not an item with specific properties. In this case, it would need to be an item with the specific properties 'too big for God to eat' and 'not so big that God can't eat it'. Which is exactly as impossible as making 2+2=3.
Never mind, you're right. I was going to make an argument from para-consistency, but it would apply to all the cases described.
sebster wrote:
It doesn't attack the notion of His omnipotence. It questions the nature of omnipotence, and suggests that even absolute power might be bounded by some fundamental limits.
That's what I was getting at. It isn't especially dissimilar from the argument from the limitations of the will that I made earlier.
Hey, I dislike bible bangers as much as most atheists, especially since many of them don't even consider me a Christian. But you learn to just ignore them.
I think I see what you're saying: religion is a pretty big, organized force trying to get it's way. Atheists really have to just take their shots when they can.
I still think that if you've attained what you consider to be a higher moral form, you shouldn't act like an ass about it (this applies to everybody), but that's just my opinion.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Agree with Polonius. Although I grew up in the evangelical community, I never really felt that "fire" to go out and convert the heathen masses.
Any debate I have on here is for philosophical/amusement purposes.
@ ChaosGalvatron: It is also said in the Bible that he who is without sin cast the first stone. Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself. God is Love. There are many more passages in the bible about how God is benevolent and loving than there are about God being judgmental
Okay i was going to reply but realised i'm arguing about a being that i don't even believe exists. If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum.
I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer to this quesion: why are you so upset? And why are you directing that emotion into words intended to demean the beliefs of others?
I mean, I can see deciding you don't need religion. I can understand not needing spirituality. I don't feel the same way, but I don't feel the need to mock those that do. Why are you so clearly irked by the concept of faith?
I dont think i am upset. Im not angry or irked by the concept of faith. I dont say things to deliberately demean peoples beliefs. I know religious people (friends and relatives) who i couldnt think higher of in their care for other people and their kindness. I also know religious jerks. I also know non-religious jerks (i may be one)
I personally don't believe in any deity, afterlife or greater power which kind of by default means i am anti-religion.
Its kind of hard to say "i dont believe in any god" without it coming across as "all your beliefs are nonsense and make believe" since really that is what it means.
I find religion fascinating from an anthropological view, currently im reading 2 books about a historical basis for jesus, as well as another book that theorises that much of the old testament was written between about 800-600 BC and reflects the viewpoints and reality of that time. I've also read other books about the origin of egyptian gods (promoted proto-pharoahs in many cases or absorbed from different tribes).
I also find philosophy very interesting, such as the arguments for/against Free Will in the other thread.
generalgrog wrote:
He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.
Well, its not quite that bad, as the term "God" is sufficiently vague as to open the possibility for a basic "If, then" solution. Granting the color green physical properties that are unrelated to light properties, on the other hand, is ridiculous given our present knowledge of green.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.
Given the longevity of the philosophical free will debate, I'd say that's a fair assessment.
Sorry, but when you say things like "God is evil and anything but loving" or "If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum" it's hard to paint yourself as a dispassionate commentator.
And it's actually not that hard to state a belief without coming across as saying somebody else's belief is make believe. Not referring to those beliefs as "imaginary" is a good start. Another way is to focus less on what you don't believe in, and more on what you do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Polonius wrote:
In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.
Given the longevity of the philosophical free will debate, I'd say that's a fair assessment.
I didn't have the mettle for philosophy. So exacting and precise, yet oddly useless. I think that's why I like the law: I can take the analytical and logical skills I learned, but actually come to a freaking conclusion. It's one reason I ended up rekindling my faith: at some point I wanted to have some available answers to questions nothing else can answer. Not that I listen to religion over science or medicine or anything that's actually capable of forming an answer, but it's just easier for me to accept the idea of god than to deal with existentialism.
Polonius wrote:Sorry, but when you say things like "God is evil and anything but loving" or "If i wanted to argue about imaginary things i'll go to 40k background forum" it's hard to paint yourself as a dispassionate commentator.
And it's actually not that hard to state a belief without coming across as saying somebody else's belief is make believe. Not referring to those beliefs as "imaginary" is a good start. Another way is to focus less on what you don't believe in, and more on what you do.
Im not a dispassionate commentator, but im also not bitter or angry at religion.
When i read what is in the old testament about God i do find him evil and hardly loving (heck this guy tested the devoutness of abraham by ordering him to sacrifice his son, let Job go through immense torment just to show how much he believed in him).
But i am an atheist so my belief is that God is imaginary and make believe. How do i sugar coat that to not make religious people feel demeaned? That im practically the same as you only i dont believe in 1 more deity than you do?
I didn't have the mettle for philosophy. So exacting and precise, yet oddly useless. I think that's why I like the law: I can take the analytical and logical skills I learned, but actually come to a freaking conclusion. It's one reason I ended up rekindling my faith: at some point I wanted to have some available answers to questions nothing else can answer. Not that I listen to religion over science or medicine or anything that's actually capable of forming an answer, but it's just easier for me to accept the idea of god than to deal with existentialism.
How did you decide that the faith/denomination you chose had the answers versus other denominations/faiths?
And isnt your last sentence indicating that you use facts where available, and where they are unavailable you turn to religion?
Polonius wrote:
I didn't have the mettle for philosophy. So exacting and precise, yet oddly useless.
No joke. Funny thing is, I'm inherently far more critical of any philosopher who tries to sell me on the usefulness of philosophy. Don't get me wrong, it has its uses in terms of amusement, and even occasionally with respect to physical achievement, but the people that get to manifest those ideas are few and far between; and usually more than just philosophers.
I mean, if I'm being honest, the best thing I got out of my philosophy major was my training in logic and math; both of which have many, many uses.
Polonius wrote:
I think that's why I like the law: I can take the analytical and logical skills I learned, but actually come to a freaking conclusion. It's one reason I ended up rekindling my faith: at some point I wanted to have some available answers to questions nothing else can answer. Not that I listen to religion over science or medicine or anything that's actually capable of forming an answer, but it's just easier for me to accept the idea of god than to deal with existentialism.
I would have shared that sentiment at one point. Though my faith would have been more towards the "angry atheist" end of the spectrum. Now I'm just here for the vodka and the existentialism.
Maybe the flaw isn't in the statement, but the point of view. God may not be acting in malevolence, we can't say. We can't even begin to apply logic to this debate, because we're all interpreting things differently, and as we're all are so very well fond of, logic is, by definition "solid". How are differing interpretations even remotely solid? "I think so" is not logical, "I think so" is just an opinion, and while it might be based in logic, that's what it is. Based. As in, twisted by all of our biases as human beings. So, we can't say we used logic to prove God exists/doesn't exist, because real "solid logic" requires absolute impartial fact.
The problem with these ridiculous and pointless religious discussions is that we're all arguing something we can't really solve. "He doesn't exist 'cause science says so" is ridiculous, that's like if I lived in the 1400s and tried to tell people the future would have wagons that could move by themselves. I wouldn't have any proof, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sure most would say "Then why haven't we found him yet?" I say "Well, why didn't they have cars in the 1400s?"
However, in the same vein, it's stupid to say "Oh, God exists 'cause the Bible says he does." The Bible was written by men, and they didn't really know if God existed either. They BELIEVED he did, but that doesn't mean they had proof.
Essentially, all these stupid "God's not real" threads devolve into people stroking their pointless internet egos in an attempt to say "Ha ha ha I win because my logic is the best" when in reality the only person who seems to support that claim is the person themselves. Logic is a double-edged sword, just because you can use it to disprove God doesn't mean you can't use it to prove his existence, it's just that much harder without evidence. But as Sherlock Holmes said "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
And amen to you, Polonius and dogma. Philosophy is just a bunch of pricks arguing something from their own viewpoint and refusing to back down because they're too busy holding the things they say as absolute truth. GOOD Philosophy, on the other hand, is much more calm, with a frank yet polite exchange of ideas where both parties leave accepting new ideas, rather than using logic as a lame cop-out to make themselves look right.
So while both sides are laughing at each other, I hope both of you (Religious people and Atheists) realize the only real important message these debates bring, that unshakable and illogical belief in something, whether it's God, Science, or whatever, doesn't do ANYbody any good whatsoever. Because real logic can't be proven itself. (If you're a real die-hard skeptic you'd doubt your own existence) and on top of that, it provokes violence, which if anything makes these situations worse. If you REALLY want to do something notable, rather than try to piss off religious folk and stroke arguments, go feed homeless people or something.
Cryonicleech wrote: GOOD Philosophy, on the other hand, is much more calm, with a frank yet polite exchange of ideas where both parties leave accepting new ideas, rather than using logic as a lame cop-out to make themselves look right.
Wittgenstein, Popper, and a fire poker would disagree.
Cryonic these threads serve a very valuable purpose for me. Believe it or not I learn stuff from them, so I disagree with your notion that they are pointless. It also helps me to see what other people are thinking, to help me evaluate my own point of view. And of course they are valuable testing grounds for real life debates I may have in the future.
Cryonicleech wrote: GOOD Philosophy, on the other hand, is much more calm, with a frank yet polite exchange of ideas where both parties leave accepting new ideas, rather than using logic as a lame cop-out to make themselves look right.
Wittgenstein, Popper, and a fire poker would disagree.
Probably. Then again, I'm sure plenty others would disagree.
Eh, I could suppose as much generalgrog, but honestly these threads are born like, once-twice a month and eat away at about a week or so before closed for personal attacks and flamefests.
Polonius wrote:It's cranky atheists that confuse me. For people that have figured it out and gotten out of the game, why aren't they just enjoying it? What drives people that reject the idea of god to become missionaries for it?
Yeah, it's a weird one. I don't believe, and part of that non-belief is that it really doesn't bother me if you believe or not. Why would it?
I think in a lot of cases people aren't just content with making their own choices, they have to support them by telling someone else their choice is wrong. It's like you ask someone if they like chocolate or vanilla, they pick chocolate and then you ask them why, and as often as not they'll say it's because vanilla is bland. It isn't just enough for a person to choose chocolate, they have to believe the other option is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:They are called "angry athiests".
Even though I do not agree with much of what Richard Dawkins has to say, at least he is not an angry athiest and is a gentlemen. Unlike Bill Mahrer for example.
I think the question is why are they so angry?
Bill Maher is a jerk on a whole lot of topics other than atheism, so in that case it might just be him. In a lot of other cases, I think it's just about people being unable to be happy in their own choice, they have to argue the other choice is wrong.
Though I accept that some people were raised with religion forced upon them, I think if I was made to sit a church every week and listen to stuff I didn't believe in, I'd be a little resentful. It wouldn't justify criticising other people's choices, but it might explain some of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:So going back to the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it" discussion. I was listening to a podcast on Logic today and this very issue came up. The lecturer basically called statements like that nonsense statements.
He compared it to asking, "Is green round?" or "is green 5 feet high?". They have nothing to do with each other, therefore they are nonsense questions. They are implied contradiction questions. A rock that God cannot lift is by definition a contradiction. I.E. a Logical impossibility.
GG
It would be a logical impossibility, if one takes as granted the idea that's God's power is truly, completely absolute, without limitation for any logical paradox. The point of the argument, in my opinion, is to get people thinking about whether or not power really exists at that level, and how that relates to their view of God.
The problem with the answer you give comes up when you look at free will, which is basically a variation on the 'rock so heavy even God could not lift it' argument, albeit one with a far greater level of relevance. See, free will argues there is evil because God cannot grant us the free will to do evil if we please, but keep us safe from the consequences - something that doesn't work if God is capable of building a world beyond our logical limitations.
This is not a problem if you don't have any time for the argument of free will and have some other explanation to reconcile God's 3 O status and the presence of evil in the world, but if you do rely on free will it is problematic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:yeah, it's not exactly upper level logical thinking.
The free will debate shouldn't get sucked into it. Maybe I'm too steeped in paradoxical beliefs, but I guess I don't have a problem with the idea of God giving us true free will, and playing by the rules.
Because if God has power beyond what we see as logical limitations, then he didn't need to create a world where free will necessitated evil.
Because if he is capable doing the logically impossible, such as creating a rock so heavy even he can't lift it, and then lifting it anyway, he is capable of granting us free will, and then keeping us safe from the evil that would follow.
In many ways, it's easier to explain free will under God than without, as at least with God you can simply say "it's magic" and move on with your life.
I personally think it's only possible to explain free will with a God, or something very much like it. I don't believe free will is possible in an entirely materialist world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Never mind, you're right. I was going to make an argument from para-consistency, but it would apply to all the cases described.
Yeah, an argument from para-consistancy would work, but would work for all examples like you said. I think it would end up taking a form more or less equivalent with the lecture in the podcast GG mentioned.
That's what I was getting at. It isn't especially dissimilar from the argument from the limitations of the will that I made earlier.
Heh, when you wrote that I quoted it and started to write a post saying it was largely what I'd been saying. I'm not sure why I decided to cancel that post.
Ahtman wrote:
Wittgenstein, Popper, and a fire poker would disagree.
I was going to say "How did you miss Russell?", but then I remembered that Russell's ultimate argument was sleeping with his opponent's wives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Yeah, an argument from para-consistancy would work, but would work for all examples like you said. I think it would end up taking a form more or less equivalent with the lecture in the podcast GG mentioned.
Ah, not that sort of para-consistency. One of the other sorts. The one that allows for P and -P to be simultaneously true.
ChaosGalvatron wrote:How did you decide that the faith/denomination you chose had the answers versus other denominations/faiths?
And isnt your last sentence indicating that you use facts where available, and where they are unavailable you turn to religion?
I didn't really select my denomintion. I was born and raised in it, and Catholicism is a very cultural religion, whereas Protestentism is far more focused on the individual and his relationship with God. It's simply a matter of comfort. It helps that I can find a Catholic church pretty much anywhere in the world and know what to expect.
As for other faiths, I'm ecumenical. I'm not 100% sure that my faith wasn't an elaborate pyramid scheme created by four unemployed writers in the levant two thousand years ago, so I'm really not going to overly critical of other religious traditions. I'm not sure non-christians enjoy the same salvation, but there doesn't seem to be any reason they won't get the afterlife they believe in.
And of course I use facts where available. Religion has always been a source of answers to questions that emperical fields can't answer. As science answers more and more questions, we need to rely on religion less and less. Wise denominations recognize this. For example, as psychology has flowered, the Catholic Church has softened it's stance on suicide (if committed under mental illness, it's by definition not a sin) and divorce/annulment (a person incapable of understanding marriage can't be held to it).
Cryonicleech wrote: Essentially, all these stupid "God's not real" threads devolve into people stroking their pointless internet egos in an attempt to say "Ha ha ha I win because my logic is the best"
This may be true, but it sure is fun to watch. And it's not all just internet chest thrumping; I have learned things from thread like this. Often times people will bring up something new to me that sparks my interest or that I don't really understand. I then go to google or wikipedia or whanot to find out more about it. Hell, I've even gone to the library and checked out books on stuff that has been brought up in threads like this.
Yeah, theres arguing and trolling. What did you expect, people to discuss their opinions in a polite and civil manner? This is the internet. But sometimes you learn something new! Hooray for knowledge!
And Polonius deserves some sort of award for most level-headed poster in this thread, I think.
