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.
I disagree. I dont need to have suffered anything to be able to have a good feeling when I have helped someone... for instance, I helped someone who was moving a few weeks ago. She was so grateful, being a single woman, to have me and a couple of others help... She didnt have to have suffered to feel happy about that and I felt good, because I had been able to do a kindness to someone.
When I spoke about 'well-being', I meant that feeling when you get up one morning and for no particular reason, you feel good, happy and alive. It makesf me feel better than normal....but my normal state is not one of suffering. I understand and really appreciate that good feeling without my having had to suffer.
The good feeling you had in helping the single women move was ......
only possible in your consideration to... potential difficulties or other related suffering that she may of had .....moving.
the thoughtfulness is then appreciated by single girl in light of
"potential difficulties"(suffering)
if there were no potential difficulties and she could wave a wand and move everything....you would not have been able to offer....and have the good feeling that you experienced....
If you feel good waking for no particular reason.....and decide that you feel good....it is only through a relatively less feeling of wellness that you are able to make the distinction....suffering.
It is all relative...there is simply no escape....no suffering...no joy
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.
First, regarding the all-powerful aspect. As I have seen others point out here, "all-powerful" cannot include that which cannot be done, such as create a square circle. The Bible also declares that God cannot lie. God also cannot cease to be God. Then there is the whole "create a rock so big He can't move it" paradox. These are all essentially irrelevant/illogical arguments regarding God's power. God can simply do whatever He chooses to do, and what He choose to do 6000 years ago is create Man and give him free will. God chose to limit Himself when He gave us free will. Creating a being capable of love but not capable of hate is like trying to create a square circle. For a being to truly be able to love, that being has to be free to choose otherwise. God is all-loving, and that is proved by the fact that He gave us the freedom of choice. Who loves a woman more, the guy who wont let her leave, or the guy who allows her the freedom to reject him if she so chooses? God desires the love of every human being on earth, and expressed His love for them by His death on the cross, but He understands that the nature of love is that it cannot be forced. This shows that God is in fact all-loving, and God is all-powerful but chooses to not utilize that power where it strips away our free will. Your argument fails because it lacks the acknowledgement of human free will, and asserts that all-powerful means that all that power must always be used in each situation as you see fit. You want to assert that if God does not act in a way you see fit, than he either doesn't love or lacks the power. That sounds like a pretty arrogant assertion, because it also asserts the notion that either, God is not omniscient, or that you are omniscient. God, by His very nature has more information than we do and He will always have more information than we do, therefore whatever decisions He makes are always made with a more complete picture than the one that we have.
Dude or Dudette,
If god can create the universe and the laws of physics and can't put together a square circle, he or she is in the wrong business.
Dude here, and it has nothing to do with laws of physics and everything to do with the definition of words. Take the concept of a square triangle. A square by definition has 4 right angles, and a triangle by definition has a total of 3 angles. If one is created, the other by definition ceases to exist. The "laws of physics" state things such as "matter cannot be created or destroyed", and those laws are not set in stone, because they were put together by human beings. Matter is not defined as something that cannot be created/destroyed, it is simply defined as a physical substance, or something that occupies space and possess mass. When God created matter, it did not require a change in the definition of what matter is, but it did defy anything that modern science has observed regarding matter.
I quit reading after you said "take the concept of a square triangle"
dont mind the square triangle,how about threadin elephants through a needle,physically immposible ,but god is above material nature and in complete controll of it,so to Him anything is possible.
dont mind the square triangle,how about threadin elephants through a needle,physically immposible ,but god is above material nature and in complete controll of it,so to Him anything is possible.
Square triangles and elephants through the eye of a needle are also possible for those that have no connection to reality.
dont mind the square triangle,how about threadin elephants through a needle,physically immposible ,but god is above material nature and in complete controll of it,so to Him anything is possible.
The key difference between those two tasks once again has to do with how things are defined. An elephant passing through the eye of a needle does not require changing the definition of what a needle is or what an elephant is. All that is required is the ability to either shrink the elephant or enlarge the needle. The needle is no less a needle if it is enlarged, and the elephant is no less an elephant if it is shrunk (didn't anyone see Innerspace or Honey I Shrunk the Kids). As stated before, with regards to the square triangle, it is impossible for it to exist because of how the words square and triangle are defined, along with the word only.
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.
