timmah said:
ultima said:
timmah said:
ultima said:
Well, a creator having the first three characteristics is self-contradicting. Can a creator create something beyond his ability of comprehension? If yes, then he wouldn't be all-knowing, so that characteristic isn't inherent to the creator. If not, then the creator isn't all-powerful.
Also, why would the creator not rid our world of pain and suffering? If he can't, then he's not all-powerful. If he can, but won't then he is not all-loving. If he's ignorant of it, then he's not all-knowing.
Lastly, everyone has probably heard this one a thousand times, but can an all-powerful creator create a rock so big that he can't lift it?
The creator is everywhere? I never understood this either. The only way this makes sense is if the creator is everything. In which case, the creator is just the universe. So why give the universe another name?
"There's only one creator" kind of makes sense. It's a lot closer to reality than saying there are multiple creators: you're only off by one. Needless to say, it's still wrong.
The creator has a plan for humanity? This is another one I never understood. Think about it. A supposed all-powerful being created you. Being all-powerful, he probably needed to put in no effort whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that we'd be so measly in comparison to such a transcendent being. Why the hell would he care about us??? Why would he want to steer us in one direction or another, why would he have an end goal in mind? The existence of an end goal itself is hard to comprehend. Why not just achieve the said goal using the omnipotence?
|
You bring up some commonly used, but still interesting paradoxes on the subject. For the sake of discussion, I hope you find some of my thoughts on these subjects interesting.
1. You're basically arguing that there is no possibility of anything being all powerful, all-knowing, or infinite. This argument is like asking 'can anything be larger than infinity', then using the answer to that question to disprove the concept of infinity. It's a self-defeating argument based solely on the inability for finite beings to fully comprehend the concept of 'infinity', or in this case 'all-powerful'.
2. This would go back to the very complex and deep debate on free will and love. If this creator chose to give humanity free will, and the pain and suffering of humanity is due to misuse of this free will, the creator would be contradicting the very law of the free will he gave us by eliminating that suffering (as he would have to force us to act in a certain way). Without free will, it is impossible for love to exist. A robot that is hard coded to act in exactly the way it is created cannot love somebody and could not inspire reciprocal love. Without the potential for darkness, there is no such thing as light. Without the potential for hate, what is love? Without the potential for cold, what is warmth?
3. Theoretically, is the creator actually everywhere, or is this simply how he is described based on a limited frame of reference (we are constrained to time/space, while the theoretical creator in this discussion is not)?
4. If (the sake of this discussion) you accept the axiom that humanity was created, then consider the idea that we are created 'in the image' of the creator, you would only need to then understand the love a father or mother has for their newly born child. In every aspect, the parent is technically far superior to the newly born child, but loves him/her immensely. No matter what that child does to 'mess up', a good parent will continue to love that child. Every parent would have specific plans or goals for that child, finish high school, go to college, maybe carry on the family business, but since the child has free will, there is no way to guarantee those plans will be met exactly without 'forcing', and thereby defeating free will and not acting in love. Free will and the concept of love are the two concepts that expain this apparent paradox.
|
1. The problem is not our inability to comprehend infinity. The problem arises when one tries to define "the largest infinity", so to say. I don't know how much mathematics you've studied, but there is no "unique" infinity. There is the countable infinity (aleph-zero); this is the cardinality of the integers. If one is to accept the axiom of choice (which most mathematicians do), this is the smallest possible infinity (not that this is really relevant to our discussion). Then there are other infinities. Infinite number of them, in fact. But back to the paradox. The paradox is with trying to define the largest infinity. This cannot be done. By Cantor's Theorem, the power set of any set has a strictly larger cardinality than the original set. Now I understand that this is all really abstract, but this is what it basically boils down to.
2. Here is your inability to comprehend things out of what you consider to be ordinary. In a sense, what you're saying is completely logical. However, you have no problem ditching logic and reality to fill in other holes of your theory. So you can't rely on logic and reality to block people from drilling more holes. You obviously can't comprehend a world with free will and no evil; neither can I. What is to say that an omnipotent creator couldn't create a world with free will and no evil? By saying he can't, you're admitting that he is not all-powerful.
3. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with this one...
4. The analogy is very bad. First of all, you're applying human qualities to your creator. You can't do that, and decide an arbitrary, convenient point to stop at. The "in his image" argument won't save you here. A lot of people are stupid, evil, ugly, etc.; if they were all created in his image, then god must be in parts stupid, evil, ugly, etc. See how ridiculous it is to say things like this? Also, god is nothing like a loving parent. What loving parents give their mentally challenged child a gun, then cast him into a fire pit for pulling the trigger?
Secondly, again, god being all-powerful, he should have a way to guarantee that any plan he has will turn out exactly the way it's planned. Me not being able to do the same with my child is irrelevant, because I'm not all-powerful.
|
1. I agree, if there is an all-powerful God, we would not be able to define or quantify him accurately based on our limits.
2. Since this is a discussion of the metaphysical, we of course cannot rely strictly on logic in such a discussion.
3. I'm suggesting that maybe humanity's descriptions of the creator's attributes could be more perspective-based than based on absolutes.
4. You would have to accept a few axioms for that argument to work (most metaphysical discussions are based on axioms). Those axioms are that Man was originally in God's image and perfect, but no longer is due to our choices as a species, and that God is defined as being wholly good. Mankind reflects many good traits (light), but also has developed evil traits of our own (darkness, absence of light apart from the creator). If you also accept the axiom that God made a personal sacrifice in order to remove the necessity for any of his creation be 'cast into a pit of fire', that would mean he is indeed completely good. From a perspective outside these axioms it clearly makes no sense, and I wouldn't expect it to.
There's a reason it's called faith, and based on my personal experience, I'm in no way ashamed of my faith.
Note that I'm not under any illusion that I could convince you of anything metaphysical or religious in nature in a video game forum, LOL. I really just enjoy stimulating discussion, especially with people who (respectfully) disagree with me.
|
