Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not surprising, one sees a number of prayer requests on facebook. Often they are for serious issues, usual personal ones but in this case one that deals with the atrocities being committed by Isis.
However, don't you think if you're actually praying to the right god, that there would be some listening going on, and if he really is omnipotent, don't you think these atrocities would stop?
Or maybe Isis is praying to their god who is more powerful than the one the prayer request is asking to intervene.
Or on the other hand, like many of us are saying, there are no gods, and these pleas for intervention are futile.
Yeah, we've heard it before, your god works in mysterious ways. And there are some who are actually hoping for these things to happen as they believe the rapture is about to occur. Those are the truly sick ones.
I even began a thread once somewhere in the Religion Forum in which I asked something like this....
"If god really listens and answers the prayers of his followers, then why are not only the particular states in my country, but also the countries of the world who boast the highest percentage of believers, i.e. those who pray, also the ones who endure the very lowest quality of life? This includes health, infant mortality, and sickness, too, as well as financial aspects. So please don't go on about "money is not the only thing."
And conversely, why do the countries, like Sweden and Norway and Iceland and France, which have the most atheists and therefore are comprised of the least amount of prayers, somehow enjoy the highest standards of living? Of health? Hmm...seems these people are being rewarded? And here in the USA, those heathen atheist states like in the Northeast and the Pac NW with the most atheists are prosperous, while the christian ones in the Deep South? Hmm..not so much.
Why? Why does not god reward or even better take care of his followers who are most loyal to him?"
LOL--No one could answer than question then. And color me surprised if they could now.
Oh...there of course IS most certainly an answer to why this dynamic occurs. But rest assured it is not the one the religious apologists want to hear, or will admit to.
Last edited by Der Vogel; 03-05-2015 at 11:14 AM..
Omnipotence means that god is not subject to the natural world. He can structure reality however he chooses to, including structuring it in ways that don't preclude him from certain actions. Or, he can simply make exceptions for himself or others. What else are miracles than exceptions to his own natural laws? Otherwise we couldn't identify them as miraculous.
Well, like I said, it is your definition of omnipotence that is being thrown under the bus.
Quote:
Besides, there is in fact nothing to prevent growth and learning if suffering is removed. I always diagram it like so:
ABJECT MISERY <==== NEUTRAL ===> TOTAL BLISS
Now we lop off the suffering:
NEUTRAL <===> TOTAL BLISS
Still plenty of contrast there. Unless you want to contend that getting another tie for Christmas makes you as happy as winning the Nobel Prize or having mountaintop fabulous sex. Even without suffering there is much to aspire to.
If anything we are removing a lot of impediments to learning and growth by removing things that distract from it. Yes, we can and do make lemonade from lemons, but if we don't have to furiously rationalize and compensate and meditate and so forth, and if we subjectively feel positive, hopeful and comfortable, I can guarantee you that a lot more learning takes place. Learning can be done in spite of distractions, suffering, difficulties, worries, etc., but it can certainly be done better without them.
Some will argue that without some level of stress in the system, one becomes indolent, entitled and/or simply fails to have certain biological triggers exercised. I don't believe the lazy / entitled argument for a second, as I see no reason to think such character defects are magically fixed or prevented by suffering. There is some basis for the biological stress argument; for example, it has been shown, if inconclusively, that normal growth is mediated to some extent by the activity of overcoming obstacles, and even by aging. For instance, in the case of persons with a rare illness where they don't age much or at all, there are profound disturbances in the normal physical and mental development and they usually die of some other profound dysfunction and live with profound mental impairments in the meantime. My guess is that eventually the lack of aging will not be shown to be the inherent problem here, but one of a constellation of symptoms of some other issue.
Regardless, I think that the perception that suffering is ennobling or grows hair on your chest or makes you stronger if it doesn't kill you, is just a failure of imagination. We are so inured to suffering that we can't imagine existing without it. But I'm with Dilbert: "That which does not kill me makes me weak and angry".
I didn't say anything about suffering being necessary to form character, only that it may not be possible for maturity and growth to happen without the possibility of suffering [as a byproduct of the process].
Well, like I said, it is your definition of omnipotence that is being thrown under the bus.
It's the common definition and it's what the word means: all powerful. All means all.
Some can attempt to weaken or qualify the plain definition of the word, hoping that no one will notice the "omni" isn't "omni" anymore, I guess. I get the sense that you aren't trying to construct a valid theodicy by appearing to preserve all three omnis, so that's an honest approach, though it begs the question of whether what you're left with is a deity or just what is in effect a powerful space-alien.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
I didn't say anything about suffering being necessary to form character, only that it may not be possible for maturity and growth to happen without the possibility of suffering [as a byproduct of the process].
No growth without risks you mean? No pain no gain? Nothing ventured nothing gained? That sort of thing?
I think every individual should be free to take on as much risk as they wish to. Or wish not to. If that limits their growth (which I doubt) then that's their choice too.
I'm of the opinion that increased knowledge (the possession of information) and wisdom (the skilled use of information) does not inherently entail risks, at least not physical risks that put life and limb in peril. Sometimes we take risks for lack of time, and act without full knowledge, but a lot of that is even tied to aging and disease and the pressures they put on us. So even that comes back to the effects of suffering.
It's the common definition and it's what the word means: all powerful. All means all.
Some can attempt to weaken or qualify the plain definition of the word, hoping that no one will notice the "omni" isn't "omni" anymore, I guess.
I disagree that all-powerful must mean the ability to do even impossible things mordant. And even the way the word is used in an example sentence in one online dictionary indicates that omnipotence has degrees of meaning.... "The people overthrew the once omnipotent dictator." Apparently, then, the word does not have to mean what you say it must.
Quote:
I get the sense that you aren't trying to construct a valid theodicy by appearing to preserve all three omnis, so that's an honest approach, though it begs the question of whether what you're left with is a deity or just what is in effect a powerful space-alien.
Sorry, what 3 Omni's are we talking about here? I think it is entirely possible that God could be both good and powerful to a degree that is omni enough to be God to me... In other words to be in some way responsible for our existence, absent of any malice towards us, and also powerful enough to bring about a fully beneficial long-term result for us as well.
Quote:
No growth without risks you mean? No pain no gain? Nothing ventured nothing gained? That sort of thing?
I think every individual should be free to take on as much risk as they wish to. Or wish not to. If that limits their growth (which I doubt) then that's their choice too.
I'm of the opinion that increased knowledge (the possession of information) and wisdom (the skilled use of information) does not inherently entail risks, at least not physical risks that put life and limb in peril. Sometimes we take risks for lack of time, and act without full knowledge, but a lot of that is even tied to aging and disease and the pressures they put on us. So even that comes back to the effects of suffering.
No, not risk-taking. Simply a natural outcome of being conscious beings who have not fully matured.
By the way, and to be clear, I am not saying that I know that such a God exists... Only that I can conceive of a God which is both omnipotent (not able to do things which are impossible, but able to accomplish what is possible), and omnibenevolent. I do not find that our suffering must by necessity preclude that such a God is possible.
I disagree that all-powerful must mean the ability to do even impossible things mordant. And even the way the word is used in an example sentence in one online dictionary indicates that omnipotence has degrees of meaning.... "The people overthrew the once omnipotent dictator." Apparently, then, the word does not have to mean what you say it must.
In that example, omnipotence is an instance of hyperbole. He was not literally omnipotent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Sorry, what 3 Omni's are we talking about here?
Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
I think it is entirely possible that God could be both good and powerful to a degree that is omni enough to be God to me... In other words to be in some way responsible for our existence, absent of any malice towards us, and also powerful enough to bring about a fully beneficial long-term result for us as well.
Beyond a certain amount of knowledge and power, a being becomes god-like enough to have its own way, such that mere humans will wish / hope that he is also sufficiently benevolent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
No, not risk-taking. Simply a natural outcome of being conscious beings who have not fully matured.
Immaturity and inexperience will result in suboptimal results, I agree. I don't think that mistakes that one learns from have to constitute suffering though.
By the way, and to be clear, I am not saying that I know that such a God exists... Only that I can conceive of a God which is both omnipotent (not able to do things which are impossible, but able to accomplish what is possible), and omnibenevolent. I do not find that our suffering must by necessity preclude that such a God is possible.
Suffering precludes only a literally tri-omni god, so I'd have to agree with you.
Lol. I was sort of hoping you'd explain what you were implying by that. . Its not really a big deal, though. Always nice discussing with you, but I'm perfectly content to leave it where it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep.
