The theodicy

[Asmodeus]

Not as terrible as you think.

I will explain more... Anon.

 

[Kaykay]

Not as terrible as you think.

I will explain more... Anon.

It really is. It's a strawman fallacy.

Diana has limited resources, time, and power. An omnipotent god would not. The two are so dissimilar that making a comparison is fruitless.

Diana would have to sacrifice something to promote one's roleplay, such as her time or something.

God would just instantly promote it at no cost to anything.

Either you do not understand omnipotence or are purposely trolling.

However, I will read through your explanation if you make one.

 

[Brovo]

I no longer believe in Diana.

Diana physically exists. Whether or not I believe in Diana is irrelevant to that fact. Kaykay nailed the rest of it: It's not like Diana is omnipotent & omniscient.

 

[Holmishire]

Wanting to live is greed.

Gotcha.

This argument is wrong on so many levels. If instincts to survive boil down to sin (because infants don't have the conciousness to make informed decisions, therefore the argument of choosing to sin is irrelevant) then everything does. Almost any mother will feed their child willingly as an act of love. Often this what you see as a minor inconvenience to the mother, is enjoyed as a blissful moment. Maybe not so much when the teeth start to set in, but hell. If wanting to live is a sin even if the means to are provided willingly, then why does the entire world not fucking burn yet? Almost everything you do in order to survive will inconvenience some kind of party in some way or another. While you're typing this (or reading) think of all the productive things to society you could actually do. Are you going to feel like you should make a confession about reading a reply instead of helping the homeless or collecting money for charity later? I don't think so.

I don't really want to get involved with the debate as a whole, because I know I am not nearly patient enough for that, but this had to be addressed as it is absolutely ludicrous. Please tell me I misinterpreted your post. Please. Because as it stands, I cannot see this idea of yours as anything other than harmful and wrong, as it denotes everything we ever do as harmful and wrong.

I do not believe you misinterpreted my post. Yes, it is a very harmful way of looking at humanity. However, this was the explanation that made sense to me as to why humanity is supposedly inherently sinful, and thus why Jesus needed to sacrifice himself.

And while this perspective is largely destructive in nature, I do not agree that it is "wrong". Every action we take negatively impacts someone or something, somehow. By virtue of being alive, the CO[sub2[/sub] I produce increases the pollution in our atmosphere, damning future generations. There is no such thing as a true pareto improvement.

That being said, I am not religious. To me, sins are a human construct, and while we are all perpetrators of them—especially with a sin like sloth thrown in the mix, which does mean I should be helping the homeless right now—I do not believe that means we need to feel guilty about it. What I think and what I do are separate; just because I have a certain ideological perspective, does not mean I have to live my life by it.

 

[Asmodeus]

*crawls out of the thread, bloodied and cum-splattered*

I was just... suggesting ... that God might... be misconceived... AAARGH

*rolls down a cliffside*

 

[Kestrel]

Well, I suppose I'm thankful for hypocrisy then.

 

[Asmodeus]

Asmo/God presents post/universe in off-kilter/mysterious format and is labelled either ignorant/incompetent or troll/evil by strangers making assumptions based on internet/philosophy who are trying to keep control of the thread/reality.

It's a shame me and God have so few options in the eyes of others.

*wipes his stigmata on the wallpaper and runs off*

 

[Kaykay]

Asmo presents post in off-kilter format and is labelled either ignorant or troll by strangers making assumptions based on internet who are trying to keep control of the thread.
God presents universe in mysterious and is labelled either incompetent or evil by strangers making assumptions based on philosophy who are trying to keep control of reality.

I couldn't parse it neatly in my head so I separated it myself.

Anyway, you're comparing a human making a post on the Internet to an omnipotent being controlling the universe. The example is flawed to begin with once again.

Regardless, I think your argument is entirely based on "god works in mysterious ways" given what you said, though I don't know what you mean by the whole "keeping control" part. For the thread, that's not my job. For reality, the laws of reality keep it together, not me.

You were labelled as such based upon what I found reasonable, similarly to how we assume gravity exists. The assumption was based on your post, which was on the Internet I suppose, but the assumption is not based on the Internet.

God is labelled as such due to what we know as good and competent. God claims to love and what not, yet allows suffering despite having the ability to fix it with no negative repercussions by the nature of him being God. Logically, the assumption is sound. The only problem is omnipotence being able to change what means what, rendering any possible argument pointless for either side.

Few things can be proven without a doubt. Assumptions must be made.

It's a shame me and God have so few options in the eyes of others.

No idea what you mean here.

 

[Brovo]

No idea what you mean here.

He's trolling. He keeps comparing himself to a god when it's already been pointed out to him that he is neither omnipotent or omniscient and thus comparing him to a god is completely non-sequitur from the start. It won't stop him, though, this is kind of his thing.

 

[Asmodeus]

You gave me two options in your first response - either that I was a troll or didn't understand omnipotence.

God must feel the same sometimes. Having such binary conclusions drawn about him.

Sometimes someone on the internet may be good and competent but fail to demonstrate it on cue or in the immediate moment of a debate.

Subjectivity is a rampant infection. Even physical laws are not immune - but that's a whole different debate.

In the question of omnipotence it is impossible to factor good or evil (yes, even with that triggery rape scenario - cos hey, when a woman gets raped it sure as hell creates a good lot of anti-rape sentiment).

In the question of omniscience it is impossible to factor free will.

In debate threads like this it is impossible to reach a viable conclusion on God or Asmo.

 

[Kestrel]

No idea what you mean here.

Essentially his argument boils down to "Do we truly understand this party?" Or "Do we have the intelligence to make an educated guess about their ideas and methods?" The comparison of himself to a god isn't so much based on omnipotence or omniscience on his part, but a lack of knowledge on yours. You don't know him. You don't know god. How can you judge?

Well, have fun with that trap. It's the mysterious ways argument all over again.

 

[Brovo]

Essentially his argument boils down to "Do we truly understand this party?" Or "Do we have the intelligence to make an educated guess about their ideas and methods?" The comparison of himself to a god isn't so much based on omnipotence or omniscience on his part, but a lack of knowledge on yours. You don't know him. You don't know god. How can you judge?

Well, have fun with that trap. It's the mysterious ways argument all over again.

Yeah, except I don't buy the mysterious ways argument for the christian god. We have a supposedly complete accounting of his actions in the bible, in which he acts like a deranged serial killer. Murder is one of Yahweh's favourite methods of getting shit done.

If you want to talk about gods in general, or a mysterious omnipotent force, I've never once argued against the existence of one, because I simply can't claim to have that knowledge. If, however, you want to debate the merit of Yahweh's methods, it becomes very quickly and alarmingly clear that even if Yahweh is real, there is utterly no reason on Earth or in Heaven to worship him. Unless you concede that the bible is an imperfect account--IE, you're not a biblical literalist. Then you can fall back on "god works in mysterious ways", build up a fortress of faith argument, and I'll stop there because I can't reason away faith.

I do find it irritating, though. "Why does god feel the need to create rapists and murderers?" "He works in mysterious ways." That doesn't answer the question, it just deflects responsibility to a person we can't even be sure is real. Ah well.

 

[Kestrel]

I do find it irritating, though. "Why does god feel the need to create rapists and murderers?" "He works in mysterious ways." That doesn't answer the question, it just deflects responsibility to a person we can't even be sure is real. Ah well.

Don't kill the messenger brah.

 

[Brovo]

Don't kill the messenger brah.

I ain't, my brother from a different mother.

 

[unanun]

All philosophy problems, and indeed, anything that seems like a philosophical advance can be rendered as a clash between points of view on a specific issue. From one point of view, we get one answer, and from another view, we get a different, usually contradictory, answer. Nagel's theory restricts these points of view to subjective and objective ones, but that restriction can be relaxed.

Philosophy, then, emerges as a riot of relativism. Views that are flatly contradictory are equally plausible. All one has to do is adopt the right point of view to see first one answer to a philosophy problem and then, by adopting another point view, see a conflicting, second answer. There is much more work to do on points of view, work that is required before the weirdness that is philosophy can be explained and understood. But we now know this much: In philosophy, clashing points of view are ineluctable, and their existence is the only truth.

(...)

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I find it interesting that God is on a special pedasteal when it comes to barbaric acts.

I mean if I simply let someone get raped, or drowned a ton of people no one would respect me if my defense was "I am mysterious".
No, I'd be labeled as a mad man.