God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving (punishment, miracle, demon)

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend I never said that mortality is irrelevant; I stated that immortality makes morality irrelevant.

Sorry, I misread it. But that doesn't make sense either... morality is irrelevant?

It is only logical to conclude that there is no such thing as a life threatening situation if you can't die.

The one who allows free choice is more moral.
If you don't have different options to choose from there can't be any morality either.

Giving a person free will to take away an innocent's free will? I disagree that that is more moral.

Originally Posted by AeromanWould God be evil if He gave man the (free) choice between doing good or evil and man chooses to do evil?
Or do you believe that in the end man is not responsible for his own decisions?

Why can't your all-powerful god give people choices, and make evil technically possible, and even give people urges to hurt others, but they never actually follow through and overcome evil before it ever happens? What's wrong with a world like that?

[Aeroman]

Logic,, please make sure your quotes are tagged to the one that said it.

That was Tricky D's post not mine.

I'm a frickin atheist lol


Cheers,
Aeroman

[legoman]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

You still have not shown that experience is the only way to have virtues. Prove it.

haha! "Prove it" he says... why don't you prove your position? Do you want me to prove God exists too? Why don't you prove God doesn't exist? Nevermind it was a rhetorical question...

In this life we learn by experience. Experience becomes a memory in our brain - that is all experience ultimately is - a collection of memories and thought processes. We are essentially talking about knowledge. We gain knowledge in our memory which comes from experience.

Now whether God just puts that knowledge in our brain directly, or gives it to us as experience, is really a moot point because from our perspective it would feel the same way. We are either remembering the experience (ie. suffering) because it actually happened, or we are remembering it because God put it in our brain. The point is God is giving us knowledge - in this case knowledge of suffering.

So how are virtues and character developed? By the experience and knowledge we gain that we have as memories in our brain. To develop a certain virtue, we must gain the knowledge of that virtue. Perhaps there is some other way we could have got knowledge, but you cannot get around the fact that we would still have to gain that knowledge - which would include suffering, as you will see below.

No, that doesn't. The point here is unnecessary suffering. Even if some suffering is required to know virtues (which you haven't proved), that still doesn't excuse the unnecessary excessive suffering.

You keep bringing this up, and really it is a different issue. Once we have established the suffering is necessary to understand certain things, then we might debate the "appropriate level" of suffering.

So which of these do you believe? My speculation is all hypothetical, because I don't believe in any all-powerful god. It does relate to this topic, though, because you keep asserting that virtues require suffering before one can know them. So, please tell me how you think your god learned virtues.

I don't know how he learned virtues, or if He even did need to learn them. You are making a comparison between an eternal God knowing virtues and finite created humans knowing virtues, which is a not exactly apples to apples, or even apples to oranges... more like a grape to a Boeing 747...

Again, you have not proved that suffering is necessary for virtues even for an all-powerful god, so you should do that before you assert it as true. And again, even if you were to show that to be true, you still haven't explained the excessive, unnecessary suffering that generally damaged virtues more than teaches them.

You ask for "proof". The proof is in the definition of the virtues we are talking about. From dictionary.reference.com:

Endurance: the fact or power of enduring or bearing pain, hardships, etc.
Compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering
Patience: the quality of being patient, as the bearing of provocation, annoyance, misfortune, or pain, without complaint, loss of temper, irritation, or the like

So it is plainly obvious for all to see, that if one is to understand these virtues, one must also understand pain, hardship, misfortune, sorrow, annoyance, and suffering.

We cannot understand compassion without suffering because suffering is part of the definition required to understand compassion! Saying an all-powerful God could teach us compassion without suffering is silly because compassion itself contains a knowledge of suffering.

You might counter and say God should not teach us compassion because it would involve suffering, but that is a separate debate. IMHO God is teaching us these virtues so we will be made in His image - which is good. Does not negate His "all-powerfulness" in the least. Thus a temporary evil (suffering) is used for a greater good (so we will learn what compassion is).

Whether you accept this as "proof" or not is up to you, but to me it makes logical sense. For someone with the name "LogicIsYourFriend" I hope you would see it. You really are demanding the illogical.

Cheers...

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by legoman

haha! "Prove it" he says... why don't you prove your position? Do you want me to prove God exists too? Why don't you prove God doesn't exist? Nevermind it was a rhetorical question...

You are asserting that there is no other way to have virtues without first suffering, even for a hypothetical all-powerful god. Your position is actually quite like the question of "can God cook a burrito so hot even he could not eat it." Because you are saying that God could create rules that even he could not break.

In this life we learn by experience. Experience becomes a memory in our brain - that is all experience ultimately is - a collection of memories and thought processes. We are essentially talking about knowledge. We gain knowledge in our memory which comes from experience.

Now whether God just puts that knowledge in our brain directly, or gives it to us as experience, is really a moot point because from our perspective it would feel the same way. We are either remembering the experience (ie. suffering) because it actually happened, or we are remembering it because God put it in our brain. The point is God is giving us knowledge - in this case knowledge of suffering.

So how are virtues and character developed? By the experience and knowledge we gain that we have as memories in our brain. To develop a certain virtue, we must gain the knowledge of that virtue. Perhaps there is some other way we could have got knowledge, but you cannot get around the fact that we would still have to gain that knowledge - which would include suffering, as you will see below.

You keep bringing this up, and really it is a different issue. Once we have established the suffering is necessary to understand certain things, then we might debate the "appropriate level" of suffering.

I know how much you wish it was a different issue, but unnecessary suffering has been the issue the whole time.

I don't know how he learned virtues, or if He even did need to learn them. You are making a comparison between an eternal God knowing virtues and finite created humans knowing virtues, which is a not exactly apples to apples, or even apples to oranges... more like a grape to a Boeing 747...

So you do finally admit that it's possible to know virtues without suffering first...?

You ask for "proof". The proof is in the definition of the virtues we are talking about. From dictionary.reference.com:

Endurance: the fact or power of enduring or bearing pain, hardships, etc.
Compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering
Patience: the quality of being patient, as the bearing of provocation, annoyance, misfortune, or pain, without complaint, loss of temper, irritation, or the like

So it is plainly obvious for all to see, that if one is to understand these virtues, one must also understand pain, hardship, misfortune, sorrow, annoyance, and suffering.

None of these definitions say anything about them requiring suffering to learn. They only require being able to deal with suffering when and if it ever arises.

We cannot understand compassion without suffering because suffering is part of the definition required to understand compassion! Saying an all-powerful God could teach us compassion without suffering is silly because compassion itself contains a knowledge of suffering.

You might counter and say God should not teach us compassion because it would involve suffering, but that is a separate debate.

You are right that I would counter that way. Compassion is vicarious suffering; you feel for someone else who is suffering. So you are saying that your god sacrifices others in order for us to learn compassion? That sounds evil to me, when we could just read fictional stories depicting suffering and feel for the characters.

IMHO God is teaching us these virtues so we will be made in His image - which is good. Does not negate His "all-powerfulness" in the least. Thus a temporary evil (suffering) is used for a greater good (so we will learn what compassion is).

Why is "being made in his image" better than stopping innocent children from being imprisoned, raped and tortured for decades?

I'd surely sacrifice my "godliness" to save those poor children.

Whether you accept this as "proof" or not is up to you, but to me it makes logical sense. For someone with the name "LogicIsYourFriend" I hope you would see it. You really are demanding the illogical.

Cheers...

Ok then, please point out the logical fallacies you accuse me of making.

[legoman]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

You are asserting that there is no other way to have virtues without first suffering, even for a hypothetical all-powerful god. Your position is actually quite like the question of "can God cook a burrito so hot even he could not eat it." Because you are saying that God could create rules that even he could not break.

You are just not getting this LIYF. There are absolutes in this universe. Compassion is defined as feeling sorrow and taking care of those who are suffering. Thus you are even suffering yourself if you have compassion for another, because you are feeling sorrow. If you are suggesting that God being all-powerful could define "compassion" as something else that doesn't include suffering, sure that could be, but then we are not really talking about compassion anymore. Same for endurance or patience.

None of these definitions say anything about them requiring suffering to learn. They only require being able to deal with suffering when and if it ever arises.

Of course suffering is required to learn these things. If you don't know what suffering is, you cannot know what compassion is - because compassion is about suffering.

You are right that I would counter that way. Compassion is vicarious suffering; you feel for someone else who is suffering. So you are saying that your god sacrifices others in order for us to learn compassion? That sounds evil to me, when we could just read fictional stories depicting suffering and feel for the characters.

You realize even in your example here where we can supposedly learn compassion by reading a book, you would still have suffering? Because if there is true compassion, the one being compassionate suffers just as the one who is suffering does - maybe not exactly in the same way, but the one who is compassionate does suffer as well. That is what feeling sorrowful means. My Dad was in the hospital this week. I suffered knowing he was there, I felt bad for him, I worried about him, etc. Thankfully he is out and feeling better now.

There is a world of difference between compassion for a fictional character and compassion for your father.

Why is "being made in his image" better than stopping innocent children from being imprisoned, raped and tortured for decades?

I'd surely sacrifice my "godliness" to save those poor children.

You need to expand your vision. 80 years of suffering is nothing compared to an eternal greater good.

This is part of the trouble you are having. You don't believe how there can be any greater good from a temporary suffering, most likely because you are biased to believe there is no eternal afterlife. Yet even in your statement above, you demonstrate (perhaps unwittingly) that you yourself have indeed learned a greater good due to horrible suffering of children. You volunteer to sacrifice your character to save the suffering of children. You have learned a very noble attribute - self-sacrifice. Whether you would actually do it or not is another question; perhaps more experience would be required, perhaps not.

Ok then, please point out the logical fallacies you accuse me of making.

I already have, repeatedly, so I'm not sure how much longer I will go on with this line of discussion since it is getting repetetive.

By definition, knowledge of compassion, patience, etc includes knowledge of suffering, therefore you cannot gain knowledge of compassion, patience, etc without also gaining knowledge of suffering - they are both contained in the same root - suffering is inherent to the virtue. If God changed (redefined) compassion so it did not include suffering, then it would not really be compassion anymore.

As I explained in my previous post, we gain knowledge of suffering in our memory by the things we experience in life. Now it doesn't really matter if we actually have the experiences that lead to suffering or if God simply implanted the knowledge of suffering directly in our mind, because from our perspective the knowledge would look and feel the same. Either way it would appear as past memories showing our own experiences with suffering. But in this life, from our perspective, it appears to us that we experience suffering, and it is a very good way to gain what the knowledge of suffering is, so that we will also understand why compassion, patience, endurance is necessary and good.


The Debate in a Nutshell

The point from the OP (and your's I guess) seems to be if there is needless suffering, then God is not all-powerful, and an all-powerful God should be able to design a universe without suffering. But the counterpoint is that suffering is necessary if we are to learn any positive attribute that contains a knowledge and experience of suffering.

[Phazelwood]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

. If he were all-powerful

The phrase "all powerful" by itself really doesn't mean a whole lot.


For instance if I assert that a God can do absolutely anything, but then I am shown in writings intended to convey this Gods power that he cannot lie. Then it is possibly demonstrated that this God cannot do absolutely anything.

The question then remains, what significance does that fact hold. Is that fact (that a God cannot lie) a true weakness (therefor suggesting a human could be stronger than said God) or an unbreakable strength?

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by legoman

You are just not getting this LIYF. There are absolutes in this universe. Compassion is defined as feeling sorrow and taking care of those who are suffering. Thus you are even suffering yourself if you have compassion for another, because you are feeling sorrow. If you are suggesting that God being all-powerful could define "compassion" as something else that doesn't include suffering, sure that could be, but then we are not really talking about compassion anymore. Same for endurance or patience.

Of course suffering is required to learn these things. If you don't know what suffering is, you cannot know what compassion is - because compassion is about suffering.

You realize even in your example here where we can supposedly learn compassion by reading a book, you would still have suffering? Because if there is true compassion, the one being compassionate suffers just as the one who is suffering does - maybe not exactly in the same way, but the one who is compassionate does suffer as well. That is what feeling sorrowful means. My Dad was in the hospital this week. I suffered knowing he was there, I felt bad for him, I worried about him, etc. Thankfully he is out and feeling better now.

There is a world of difference between compassion for a fictional character and compassion for your father.
You need to expand your vision. 80 years of suffering is nothing compared to an eternal greater good.

This is part of the trouble you are having. You don't believe how there can be any greater good from a temporary suffering, most likely because you are biased to believe there is no eternal afterlife. Yet even in your statement above, you demonstrate (perhaps unwittingly) that you yourself have indeed learned a greater good due to horrible suffering of children. You volunteer to sacrifice your character to save the suffering of children. You have learned a very noble attribute - self-sacrifice. Whether you would actually do it or not is another question; perhaps more experience would be required, perhaps not.

I don't think it's better for children to get raped and me to feel compassion for it than for it to never have happened at all. That's not a "greater good" to me.

I already have, repeatedly, so I'm not sure how much longer I will go on with this line of discussion since it is getting repetetive.

I haven't seen you point out one logical fallacy.. Show me the exact point where the logic breaks up, according to you.

By definition, knowledge of compassion, patience, etc includes knowledge of suffering, therefore you cannot gain knowledge of compassion, patience, etc without also gaining knowledge of suffering - they are both contained in the same root - suffering is inherent to the virtue. If God changed (redefined) compassion so it did not include suffering, then it would not really be compassion anymore.

As I explained in my previous post, we gain knowledge of suffering in our memory by the things we experience in life. Now it doesn't really matter if we actually have the experiences that lead to suffering or if God simply implanted the knowledge of suffering directly in our mind, because from our perspective the knowledge would look and feel the same. Either way it would appear as past memories showing our own experiences with suffering. But in this life, from our perspective, it appears to us that we experience suffering, and it is a very good way to gain what the knowledge of suffering is, so that we will also understand why compassion, patience, endurance is necessary and good.

The Debate in a Nutshell

The point from the OP (and your's I guess) seems to be if there is needless suffering, then God is not all-powerful, and an all-powerful God should be able to design a universe without suffering. But the counterpoint is that suffering is necessary if we are to learn any positive attribute that contains a knowledge and experience of suffering.

Actually.. from the OP:

"My argument is this: If god were all-loving, he would want to save us from needless suffering. If he were all-powerful, he would be able to save us from needless suffering. If needless suffering exists, either god is not all-loving or not all-powerful or not either. Said another way, if needless suffering exists, then god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful."

You respond by saying that some suffering is necessary so that we can become "in God's image." Which fails to address needless suffering for at least two reasons: (1) it would only require minimal suffering and not the extent of suffering in our world, and (2) why is becoming "in God's image" necessary anyway?

[OhioanKid]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

I don't think it's better for children to get raped and me to feel compassion for it than for it to never have happened at all. That's not a "greater good" to me.

I haven't seen you point out one logical fallacy.. Show me the exact point where the logic breaks up, according to you.

Actually.. from the OP:

"My argument is this: If god were all-loving, he would want to save us from needless suffering. If he were all-powerful, he would be able to save us from needless suffering. If needless suffering exists, either god is not all-loving or not all-powerful or not either. Said another way, if needless suffering exists, then god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful."

You respond by saying that some suffering is necessary so that we can become "in God's image." Which fails to address needless suffering for at least two reasons: (1) it would only require minimal suffering and not the extent of suffering in our world, and (2) why is becoming "in God's image" necessary anyway?

That absolutely proves you are unable to comprehend eternal good. ANY suffering is nothing compared to eternal good, because eternity is infinite and not even the worst pain on Earth can have the remotest possibility of being comparable to infinity. Even if you have been bleeding to death since the beginning of the universe till now that is 100% nothing becaue infinity is INFINITY -- there is no greater evil because evil and pain are finite while good is not.

Besides, you can blame the world itself for the problems there are, not God. If the pain was truly too great for us don't you think he would've done something? It's not, trust me.

[legoman]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

I haven't seen you point out one logical fallacy.. Show me the exact point where the logic breaks up, according to you.

Read my posts. I have said this numerous times.

The logical fallacy is you saying suffering is not needed to learn virtues, when suffering is an integral component of said virtues.

Actually.. from the OP:

"My argument is this: If god were all-loving, he would want to save us from needless suffering. If he were all-powerful, he would be able to save us from needless suffering. If needless suffering exists, either god is not all-loving or not all-powerful or not either. Said another way, if needless suffering exists, then god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful."

You may want to double-check that. I went back and reread the OP to make sure I wasn't missing this... the OP is actually claiming all suffering is needless. Read it yourself: "If god is all-powerful, then all suffering is needless, because he could accomplish whatever purpose suffering serves without our actually having to experience suffering."

But all suffering is not needless because suffering is needed to understand virtues that contain suffering. So the OP fails at this point. I already covered experiencing suffering vs. having knowledge of suffering in a previous post. Effectively from our perspective they are the same.

Actually we can conclude that no suffering is needless:

1. given suffering exists, and
2. given an all-powerful/all-loving God would not create needless suffering
3. then no suffering is needless, all suffering is necessary for whatever virtues God would teach us
4. furthermore this suffering must realize a greater good because an all-loving/all-powerful God will always work things out for the greatest good of all

You respond by saying that some suffering is necessary so that we can become "in God's image." Which fails to address needless suffering for at least two reasons: (1) it would only require minimal suffering and not the extent of suffering in our world, and (2) why is becoming "in God's image" necessary anyway?

(1) is a guess on your part. Given that some suffering is not needless, it is actually reasonable to assume that all suffering is needed, given an all-powerful God, as I showed above.
(2) because it is the ultimate greater good.

The OP has been refuted. You are reduced to arguing against the greater good for all.

[legoman]

Originally Posted by Phazelwood

The phrase "all powerful" by itself really doesn't mean a whole lot.


For instance if I assert that a God can do absolutely anything, but then I am shown in writings intended to convey this Gods power that he cannot lie. Then it is possibly demonstrated that this God cannot do absolutely anything.

The question then remains, what significance does that fact hold. Is that fact (that a God cannot lie) a true weakness (therefor suggesting a human could be stronger than said God) or an unbreakable strength?

This is an excellent point.

Consider these questions:
- can God tell a lie?
- can God cause Himself to cease to exist?
- can God create another God who is greater than Himself?
- can God make 2+2=5?
- can God make a rock so big He cannot lift it?
- And: can God teach us virtues without actually teaching us integral components (ie. suffering) of said virtues?

Now, does an answer of NO to any of these questions mean God is not "all-powerful"?

IMHO these are simply trick questions designed to show a biased conclusion (that God is not all-powerful). However these questions are all dealing with the infinite and the illogical, two concepts which humans cannot make sense of.