religious paradoxes

[moody1]

This thread is here for anyone who wants to post or reply to any paradoxes on religion (or indeed science). For example, if God is all powerful and has the power to do absolutely everything, then that means that he can make a boulder to heavy for even himself to lift. Therefore if he cannot lift it then there is something he can't do, if he can't make a boulder he can't lift then that is something he cannot do.

[Lumpen Prole]

Could God make a women so beautiful that He Himself would have premarital sex with her?

[DRMIZER]

Answer: He could if he wanted to.

[::Major_Baker::]

God can't 'lift' anything, or have sex with anyone, he is a spirit, remember?
those are physical endeavors of which spirits are not traditonally capable of.

How's this:
If god loves us all, why does he allow us to die, or perhaps kill us, in large numbers in some of the most horrible ways imaginable?

If god's servants are those that believe, why have so Southern americans, traditionally Christian, been rendered homeless with the onslaught of 'his' recent storms?

Dude, I could go on and on with this subject. There are too many to count.

[towski]

God can't 'lift' anything, or have sex with anyone, he is a spirit, remember?
those are physical endeavors of which spirits are not traditonally capable of.


That clever clever god covered this, remember?

He managed to make himself into three parts. 1st part, god, is the broader, omniscient, part. 2nd part, Jesus, is flesh. Therefore, boulder lifting OK! 3rd part, holy spirit. So spirit part ok! (that, and I would assume things like walking through walls and scooting through keyholes) ;) :p

[IDK]

How can God be perfect to everyone, when perfection is an opinion and held by the individual mind? How can heaven be perfect, if that kid that really annoys you gets in, too?

[::Major_Baker::]

That clever clever god covered this, remember?

He managed to make himself into three parts. 1st part, god, is the broader, omniscous, part. 2nd part, Jesus, is flesh. Therefore, boulder lifting OK! 3rd part, holy spirit. So spirit part ok! (that, and I would assume things like walking through walls and scooting through keyholes) ;) :p

Ok, but here we run into a conflict.
How can your your son be both himself and you at the same time?

Is Jesus God, or God's son?

[towski]

Ok, but here we run into a conflict.
How can your your son be both himself and you at the same time?

Is Jesus God, or God's son?

****, I don't know. I was just trying to get under your skin.

[::Major_Baker::]

****, I don't know. I was just trying to get under your skin.
keep trying! I am betting that the ultra religious types will avoid this thread. Either that or come in and smother us with doublespeak and semantic BS.

[cpwill]

How's this:
If god loves us all, why does he allow us to die, or perhaps kill us, in large numbers in some of the most horrible ways imaginable?

in order to fix it so that it was not so, he would have to remove free will. would you be willing to make slaves of all men in order to stop murders?

If god's servants are those that believe, why have so Southern americans, traditionally Christian, been rendered homeless with the onslaught of 'his' recent storms?

:shrug: nothing wrong (spiritually) with poverty; quite the opposite, suffering can be an extremely powerful good in our lives.

[USViking]

I am not religious, but I like a remark made I think
by St. Augustine that went something like this:

Question: What was God doing before he created Heaven and Earth?

Answer: He was creating Hell for people who ask the wrong kinds of questions.

[cpwill]

How can God be perfect to everyone, when perfection is an opinion and held by the individual mind? How can heaven be perfect, if that kid that really annoys you gets in, too?

:) clearly, in heaven, you don't find him annoying.

[Dangerrmouse]

I found this topical and thought-provoking...

http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/ChristianParadoxGetsJesusWrong.html

That's what America is: a place saturated in Christian identity.

"But is it Christian? This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion - say, giving aid to the poorest people - as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they'd fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then?

In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it's not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It's also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose - childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool - we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it's that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it's not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were "food insecure with hunger" had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003."

[Churlant]

:shrug: nothing wrong (spiritually) with poverty


This portion I can agree with...



quite the opposite, suffering can be an extremely powerful good in our lives.

This is not only flat wrong in principle, it is also a convenient way to absolve ourselves of any contribution to other peoples' misery. Such as wondering how many people might obtain a $400 Xbox 360 this holiday season while other individuals are still sleeping on cots in the back of a run-down shelter, for instance.

Suffering is not a "good" in our lives. The experiences can lead to positive results, but such consequences are not inherent or exclusive to a state of suffering.

-JC

[Cricket]

This thread is here for anyone who wants to post or reply to any paradoxes on religion (or indeed science). For example, if God is all powerful and has the power to do absolutely everything, then that means that he can make a boulder to heavy for even himself to lift. Therefore if he cannot lift it then there is something he can't do, if he can't make a boulder he can't lift then that is something he cannot do.

But, as I learned a long time ago, in catechism, God is omininscent(sp?) or all knowing, and would know better than to make such a challenge to himself.

[heel31ok]

God can't 'lift' anything, or have sex with anyone, he is a spirit, remember?
those are physical endeavors of which spirits are not traditonally capable of.

How's this:
If god loves us all, why does he allow us to die, or perhaps kill us, in large numbers in some of the most horrible ways imaginable?

If god's servants are those that believe, why have so Southern americans, traditionally Christian, been rendered homeless with the onslaught of 'his' recent storms?

Dude, I could go on and on with this subject. There are too many to count.
rain falls onthe just and the unjust

[heel31ok]

the bible says there are a few things that are impossible for God to do. God cannot sin, God cannot lie, God cannot deny himself(say He is what He is not or say He is not what He is).

[cpwill]

This is not only flat wrong in principle, it is also a convenient way to absolve ourselves of any contribution to other peoples' misery.

well, unfortunately for you then it's often correct in fact. periods of loss, suffering, what have you often provide for us the best lessons and gains in our lives.

[cpwill]

the bible says there are a few things that are impossible for God to do. God cannot sin, God cannot lie, God cannot deny himself(say He is what He is not or say He is not what He is).

precisely; the notion that "omnipotent" means "can do all things" is false.

[Churlant]

well, unfortunately for you then it's often correct in fact. periods of loss, suffering, what have you often provide for us the best lessons and gains in our lives.

Yes, I've already acknowledged this, but such "facts" don't make suffering "good".


precisely; the notion that "omnipotent" means "can do all things" is false.


Heh... we've been through this before ;)

"Omnipotent", by definition, means having unlimited power. A being with unlimited power, again by definition, would be able to do all things.

-JC

[Craig]

I think it would be more accurate not to say that God cannot lie, sin, or deny himself, but rather that He will not lie, sin, or deny himself.

[Churlant]

I think it would be more accurate not to say that God cannot lie, sin, or deny himself, but rather that He will not lie, sin, or deny himself.

I can get behind this... though if murder is a sin, God is a greater sinner than any of us.

-JC

[::Major_Baker::]

rain falls onthe just and the unjust
meh.....ok.
What is the just have a roof over their heads and the unjust don't?

[::Major_Baker::]

precisely; the notion that "omnipotent" means "can do all things" is false.
Main Entry: 1om·nip·o·tent
Pronunciation: -t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY 1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence
3 obsolete : ARRANT
- om·nip·o·tent·ly adverb

Ok, so now we are back to God being 'not quite all powerful'?

[Churlant]

Ok, so now we are back to God being 'not quite all powerful'?

Precisely. In fact, I would submit that the God of the Bible couldn't possibly be omnipotent. Omniscient, perhaps, but the Bible itself shows He is incapable of doing anything and everything.

-JC

[Dangerrmouse]

Omni-potence. Literally "all power"

[::Major_Baker::]

Omni-potence. Literally "all power"
Nope, virtually all power according to Merriam Webster.

[Dangerrmouse]

double post

[Dangerrmouse]

I trust Wikipedia more...and these others..

Definitions of omnipotent on the Web:

almighty: having unlimited power
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

om-ni-po-tent (Adj.) Having unlimited authority or power. God is said to be omnipotent, controlling all forces and phenomena of nature. Man often behaves as though he is omnipotent; however, he is self-deceived.
www.magicdragon.com/PersonalEnglish/VocabDevIIIWordList7.html

All-powerful.
www.global.org/Pub/Holmes_15_Glossary.asp

A characteristic of God, describing Him as all-powerful. He is the Almighty, possessing infinite power. The corresponding noun is omnipotence.
www.fitzwimarc.org.uk/glossary/o.htm

[Churlant]

Wikipedia can't be trusted. :p

The American Heritage Dictionary can... it observes 'omnipotent' as having unlimited power. The end result still stands... you can't refer to an entity as being "all powerful" if they are incapable of doing something. I suppose Webster's definition of "omnipotent" would stand, as long as we understand it does not refer to what is generally known as "absolute power" but qualified as "virtually" limitless power.

-JC

[cpwill]

Yes, I've already acknowledged this, but such "facts" don't make suffering "good".

inherently? no, they simply also keep "suffering" from being "bad".

"Omnipotent", by definition, means having unlimited power. A being with unlimited power, again by definition, would be able to do all things.

says who?

[::Major_Baker::]

A characteristic of God, describing Him as all-powerful. He is the Almighty, possessing infinite power. The corresponding noun is omnipotence.

This definition certainly cannot be trusted!
All the others that refer to a power held by God lose credibility in my eyes as well. He's not part of the definition, but you could use him in a sentence I suppose.

[Churlant]

inherently? no, they simply also keep "suffering" from being "bad".


In which instances? I fail to see how suffering can ever be considered a "good" thing in and of itself.



says who?

:lol:

Says www.dictionary.com

-JC

[cpwill]

In which instances? I fail to see how suffering can ever be considered a "good" thing in and of itself.

:shrug: all that needs be necessary is that it provide you with a greater good.

:lol:

Says www.dictionary.com

;) no, it doesn't.

from your link:

adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.
One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
Omnipotent God. Used with the.


nothing about being able to do all things, including self-contradiction.

[Churlant]

:shrug: all that needs be necessary is that it provide you with a greater good.


Except it doesn't always do that. Regardless of the end result, suffering is not inherently "good". The ends do not justify the means.



;) no, it doesn't.

from your link:

adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

n.
One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
Omnipotent God. Used with the.

nothing about being able to do all things, including self-contradiction.

Dude... what exactly do you not get about the term "unlimited" and "all-powerful" ???? Do I need to post a definition for THAT now???

If someone is incapable of self-contradiction, then they do NOT have LIMITLESS power - BY DEFINITION. :confused:


Unlimited:

1. Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket.
2. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon.
3. Without qualification or exception; absolute: unlimited self-confidence.


It's right there - black and white. Inability to contradict yourself is a restriction. Period. If God is truly incapable of self-contradiction, then He is not possessing of "unlimited" power and he is not, then, "Omnipotent".

-JC

[cpwill]

Except it doesn't always do that.

that's correct, it doesn't always do that.

Regardless of the end result, suffering is not inherently "good"

neither is it inherently "bad"

The ends do not justify the means.

a cute homily that is nontheless incorrect. the ends sometimes do not justify the means.

Dude... what exactly do you not get about the term "unlimited" and "all-powerful"

i get infinite power fine; i think it is you who are not "getting" it, still trapped in your notions of the finite.

If someone is incapable of self-contradiction, then they do NOT have LIMITLESS power

yes, they still very much can be infinitely powerful.

[Churlant]

that's correct, it doesn't always do that.

neither is it inherently "bad"


Well, yet again I welcome you to show me where suffering is "good".


a cute homily that is nontheless incorrect. the ends sometimes do not justify the means.


:shrug: Rarely. Not in this case, certainly.


i get infinite power fine; i think it is you who are not "getting" it, still trapped in your notions of the finite.


You are the one placing limitations on an infite being. How on Earth do you get the silly notiont hat I'm the one "trapped" in the finite?

Look... it's simple... "unlimited" means just what it means. You can re-define words to yourself all you like, but you can't change that definition for the rest of us. According to the definition of the words, an omnipotent God has unlimited, absolute power. A being with unlimited power is capable of doing absolutely anything - hence the definitions involved.

A being who cannot lie, sin, whatever - termed however you like (self-contradiction, etc :rolleyes: ), is NOT demonstrating unlimited power. You are saying God cannot contradict Himself - this is a limit, again, by definition.

And again, by definition, a being limited in ANY way is NOT omnipotent.

-JC

[JoeR]

Why is it that he is uncapable, and not that he simply chooses not to?

[heel31ok]

I think it would be more accurate not to say that God cannot lie, sin, or deny himself, but rather that He will not lie, sin, or deny himself.
That is not accurate at all. The Bible plainly says it is impossible for God to do these things.Which in this argument suggests to some that it is a weakness but to be able to completely be devoid of these things is great strength.

[heel31ok]

That is not accurate at all. The Bible plainly says it is impossible for God to do these things.Which in this argument suggests to some that it is a weakness but to be able to completely be devoid of these things is great strength.
for God to do these things would be for him to be enslaved by them and they would be His Master. God has no master and cannot be masterd,it is impossible.

[timlea]

Despite all the back an forth bickering about beliefs . . . I do have a favorite problem in Genisis . . .

Adam and Eve . . . were the only two humans on the planet . . . . they had two children . . . Cain and Able. Cain slew (killed . . .which is a sin) and moved east of eden to which a girl he knew (knew means had sex with) . . . which must be his mother (no other people other than them) or and animal (beastiality) . . . both sinfull activities . . . . ????

[heel31ok]

I do not belive in God randomly handing out suffering to make us better people. I believe that when sin came into the world it brought great suffering. All the calamities and diseases and such were a result of sin . God warns us about sin, not to deny us a good time, but to shield us from its longterm and immediate effects.I am not a great beliver in things such as AIDS being a judgemennt from God. God knows what was inherent in wickedness and sin and wanterd to keeps us from it and wants to keep us from it now. If I know something will cause harm to come to my children I warn them against it. If it happens it is not my judgement on them. God can help us in the midst of suffering but I do not belive he plays it from both ends. Goodness and growth during suffering show the grace of God but does notmean he caused the suffering to begin with. We all have a choice and a legal right to allow or deny God's access to our lives but God does not cause trouble for us to "learn a lesson."

[cpwill]

Well, yet again I welcome you to show me where suffering is "good".

what, you want, like, specific incidents?

Rarely.

in fact, usually. the vast majority of the time, in fact, i'd wager.

Not in this case, certainly.

in which case?

You are the one placing limitations on an infite being.

i most certainly am not; i'm stating that He is what He is. it's you that are even treating Him as something that is to be found within existance. a rock that's so heavy he can't lift it? gravity is within his creation, it doesn't affect him.

How on Earth do you get the silly notiont hat I'm the one "trapped" in the finite?

"so heavy he can't lift it" what, you think God stands on two legs on the earth, is subject to gravity (instead of the other way around.)? the question's very premise is flawed.

Look... it's simple... "unlimited" means just what it means.

and "infinite" means just what it means.

You can re-define words to yourself all you like

:shrug: i'm not redefining anyone; it is you who are taking a definition and making an assumptive leap, based, apparently solely on your sense of supposition.

but you can't change that definition for the rest of us.

:lol: it appears i cannot convince you of something you do not wish to believe, no. :)

According to the definition of the words, an omnipotent God has unlimited, absolute power.

ominpotent, all powerful, yes.

A being with unlimited power is capable of doing absolutely anything

:shrug: so you claim, and yet, then you try to push it both into what it isn't, and into self-contradiction. you can't have two infinites ;)

A being who cannot lie, sin, whatever - termed however you like (self-contradiction, etc :rolleyes: ), is NOT demonstrating unlimited power.

quite the opposite, it's not God's nature to lie, to self contradict, indeed, it would require two infinites to do so.

You are saying God cannot contradict Himself - this is a limit, again, by definition.

not really, and certainly not to omnipotence.

[Churlant]

what, you want, like, specific incidents?


That may work, yes. :) Keeping in mind I want an example of suffering itself being a good thing, not some end result.



i most certainly am not; i'm stating that He is what He is. it's you that are even treating Him as something that is to be found within existance. a rock that's so heavy he can't lift it? gravity is within his creation, it doesn't affect him.


Okay dude. Apparently "limitless power" has limits, "absolute power" isn't absolute - not when God is concerned. :rolleyes:

Say what you want. I know the definitions of these words - they exist independent of your personal opinions. If you want to say God "won't" do something, fine - but to say he can't, or especially that it's impossible for Him to do something, is absolutely opposed to any concept of unlimited ability.

You can't argue that... it's in the words.

By the way - there is no reason you can't have two "infinites". It is quite easily possible for God to have zero power while maintaining infinite power simultaneously. This is the nature of being without limits. :)

-JC

[Craig]

That is not accurate at all. The Bible plainly says it is impossible for God to do these things.Which in this argument suggests to some that it is a weakness but to be able to completely be devoid of these things is great strength.

Can you give me quotations to support your statement? Clearly God is not omnipotent then, since He is incapable of doing these things. Besides, what ultimately is the difference between it being impossible to do this things and God simply refusing to ever do them, other than the fact that the former implies that God cannot do them and therefore is not omnipotent?

[MikeD4o7]

SUFFERING IS NOT GOOD.

I could crash my car into a brick wall, meet the girl of my dreams in the paramedic that comes to the scene of the accident and end up learning all sorts of lessons and being a better person later yada yada yada... but the fact remains that crashing into brick walls is not good in and of itself.

Suffering is not good in and of itself... suffering, taken by itself without the "what ifs" is bad. bad bad bad bad. There is nothing in the universe that seems more blatantly clear than this to me. It's self-evident.

Here's a simple test for whether or not something is good or bad.

All of humanity would be better off if there was eternal _________. Things that make sense when you put them in that blank are good.

conversely

It sure would suck if humanity had to go through eternal ________. Things that go there... are inherently bad. "suffering" seems to me like the top thing on the list of things that would suck.

[Churlant]

Can you give me quotations to support your statement? Clearly God is not omnipotent then, since He is incapable of doing these things. Besides, what ultimately is the difference between it being impossible to do this things and God simply refusing to ever do them, other than the fact that the former implies that God cannot do them and therefore is not omnipotent?

Well thank God (pun intended) SOMEONE here gets me. :p



Suffering is not good in and of itself... suffering, taken by itself without the "what ifs" is bad. bad bad bad bad. There is nothing in the universe that seems more blatantly clear than this to me. It's self-evident.


What I just said above.... double it. :D

-JC

[Fro]

I had the misfortune to study this subject in my final year of school. I could easily rabbit on and on all day. The solution I arrived at was that Evil is a deprivation not a substance. Just as Shadow is an absence of Light. This problem is only a problem for believers in clasical theism. They believe God is all powerful, all loving and all knowing. So these three taken as granted we arrive at an inconsistent triad. God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent...whence evil? Riddle me that, any classical theist.

[MikeD4o7]

Well... God created heaven and earth. Put man in the garden of eden along with orders not to do one thing (which God knew before he created the universe that they would do anyways). Then used that infraction to kick them out of the garden of Eden (seems like the whole existence of the garden of eden in the first place was sort of a waste of time).

Then, left to do whatever in the harsh non-garden-of-edenish world that God created for them... humans needed guidance. Luckily... a small portion of them would get it when God appeared before Abraham and decided that he and his descendents were a bit more important than the rest of humanity.

So that worked out for a while until humanity got kind of rowdy (which God knew would happen before the universe was created). So he flooded the world and started over from scratch again with just a select few humans (so really, God could have skipped to this in the first place since the rest of human history before this was really meaningless).

Now this particular deal worked out for quite a while until humanity had built up too much sin again (remember God knew all of this before he even created heaven and earth). Feeling that another flood to start humanity over would be redundant... God opted to incarnate himself on Earth as a human then have humans kill him, thus freeing everyone who believed that his human incarnation was really him from sin (this was the only way to do that of course...). If you don't believe Jesus was really God, then you don't get to go to garden of eden 2.0 after you die (garden of eden 2.0 does not contain dangerous tree of knowledge). Unless of course your one of God's original chosen people, the Jews, then you have sort of a free pass on the whole believing in Jesus thing and you'll still be alright in the after-life.

This all played out just as God knew it would before he created the universe which is why the Bible says

"and he had looked at what he had done, and it was good."

[cpwill]

That may work, yes. :) Keeping in mind I want an example of suffering itself being a good thing, not some end result.

:shrug: i had a summer job working at a landscaping position. the job sucked. heat and verbal abuse all day long, and i'm glad i did it because it made me a stronger person. similarly, i'm about to go to boot camp; where there will definitely be much suffering, all of it designed to do me good.

Okay dude. Apparently "limitless power" has limits, "absolute power" isn't absolute - not when God is concerned. :rolleyes:

no, but omnipotence remains omnipotence, and to pretend that you can apply any limits to omnipotents, that you can push the infinite into the finite is setting up a false assumption. think about it, your argument doesn't deny the possibility of God, or prove that He's set up on a false assumption; your argument is simply anti-omnipotence at all, a claim that nothing can exist outside the finite, if you will.

By the way - there is no reason you can't have two "infinites"

yeah, there is. two infinites cannot co-exist. the same flaw with this line of "rock so heavy he can't lift it" questioning is the problem that's inherent to the "unstoppable force meeting unmovable object" line; the existance of both is inherently impossible, and so the question is based on false assumptions to begin with, at which point it is moot.