Thread: Suffering, A Contridiction of an Omnipotent Being?

No, it simply doesn't mean anything. A false statement would be like a lie. Something that could be true, but isn't. Your statement could never be true, because it has no meaning.

Originally Posted by Alric

No, it simply doesn't mean anything. A false statement would be like a lie. Something that could be true, but isn't. Your statement could never be true, because it has no meaning.

A sentence has to have a meaning to be false. A sentence has to have one part of its meaning nullified by another part of its meaning to be a contradiction. A meaningless sentence therefore cannot be a contradiction or false.

Well there you go. Your statement isn't a contradiction, it is simply meaningless. I could come to agreement with that. Its fair to say that your sentence has no meaning, and thus isn't a contradiction. Though since it has no meaning, we are right back to where we started.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well there you go. Your statement isn't a contradiction, it is simply meaningless. I could come to agreement with that. Its fair to say that your sentence has no meaning, and thus isn't a contradiction. Though since it has no meaning, we are right back to where we started.

That doesn't mean anything. You said nothing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I shot down the rationalizations. Alric made stuff up about what the verses are saying, stuff that is not stated. You posted surrounding verses that do not contradict my interpretations. Saying that God can perform a miracle does not mean the following statement that he can do anything only means God can perform a miracle. It says nothing is impossible for God. That was meant to justify the miracle statement, but it does not alter its meaning. What's next?

No I posted the same verse in Luke 1:37 that was worded differently. I then posted the surronding text in Luke 1:38 to support what seemed to be more a more feasible verison opposed to the version you posted.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I just explained that. The surrounding texts do not change the meaning of "Nothing is impossible for God". It is a very direct statement that makes no exceptions. The surrounding verses do not provide exceptions either.

Does it not sound more feasible if Luke 1:37 says For no word from God shall be void of power, when you tie in Luke 1:38?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why do I care? The existence of suffering disproves the existence of an omnipotent being that is totally righteous, which the Bible says God is. This gets to the very heart of the issue of God's existence, the centerpiece of Christianity, human history's most powerful political and social force.

Elaborate on that. What kind of suffering are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I said before the King James version. I know the sugarcoat squad went and changed a bunch of stuff later. I am asking you to post earlier translations of those four verses, not the names of other Bible translations. Let's see what you are talking about.

So if you know the verses in King James has been sugarcoated then way are you so adamant that the wording in Luke 1:37 you're referring to is more correct than the wording Im giving you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

The principle of explosion. The idea that you can come to any conclusion you want, by making a contradiction.

It is bad logic but its what you are trying to do.

Originally Posted by Alric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

The principle of explosion. The idea that you can come to any conclusion you want, by making a contradiction.

It is bad logic but its what you are trying to do.

What contradiction did I assert to be true? You are way off. I am doing the opposite. I am taking a contradiction, stating that it is not true, and using that to prove that something is not true.

Is there such thing as a square circle?

http://www.squarecircleco.com

The Book of Suffering ( According to Divine Logical Reasoning )

God created suffering and he saw that it was good. Out of his unbounded love he created us, and saw fit that we were to suffer immensely...so that we might be with him one day, whilst distraught over his mere disputed existence. It was perfect. He also saw it fit that instead of revealing himself for clarity, he rather have nations die over the ambiguous nature that was himself, and saw that this rational was good. God in his merciful heart saw that it was fit for children to be raped and many a family to be slaughtered over the ever still ambiguous nature that was himself. Many would stray away from him, and they would burn in the raging fires of his mercy and love for doing so. A perfect plan it was, this certainly could not have gone any better. All humans realized how love filled God truly was, and praised him.

Makes perfect sense right?

That is the same thing. You are using a contradiction to try to prove something, which is bad logic. You can't use the contradiction to prove or disprove anything. The only thing you can do is throw out the contradiction, because it is bad logic.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is the same thing. You are using a contradiction to try to prove something, which is bad logic. You can't use the contradiction to prove or disprove anything. The only thing you can do is throw out the contradiction, because it is bad logic.

I know I said I was out and I am but that hurts!

You prove that the square root of two is irrational by showing that it being rational creates a contradiction.

You prove that there are an infinite number of primes by assuming that there aren't and showing that it creates a contradiction.

Proof by contradiction is the single most powerful form of argument that exists. There is no arguing with it. If you assume that something is true, and it leads to contradiction, then it must not be true. period. end of discussion. finis.

Later.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

The Book of Suffering ( According to Divine Logical Reasoning )

God created suffering and he saw that it was good. Out of his unbounded love he created us, and saw fit that we were to suffer immensely...so that we might be with him one day, whilst distraught over his mere disputed existence. It was perfect. He also saw it fit that instead of revealing himself for clarity, he rather have nations die over the ambiguous nature that was himself, and saw that this rational was good. God in his merciful heart saw that it was fit for children to be raped and many a family to be slaughtered over the ever still ambiguous nature that was himself. Many would stray away from him, and they would burn in the raging fires of his mercy and love for doing so. A perfect plan it was, this certainly could not have gone any better. All humans realized how love filled God truly was, and praised him.

Makes perfect sense right?

That might be the best satire of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God I have ever come across. It makes the point so clear. You should make a poster or something with that.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I know I said I was out and I am but that hurts!

You prove that the square root of two is irrational by showing that it being rational creates a contradiction.

You prove that there are an infinite number of primes by assuming that there aren't and showing that it creates a contradiction.

Proof by contradiction is the single most powerful form of argument that exists. There is no arguing with it. If you assume that something is true, and it leads to contradiction, then it must not be true. period. end of discussion. finis.

Later.

Well put.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

You prove that the square root of two is irrational by showing that it being rational creates a contradiction.

You prove that there are an infinite number of primes by assuming that there aren't and showing that it creates a contradiction.

Proof by contradiction is the single most powerful form of argument that exists. There is no arguing with it. If you assume that something is true, and it leads to contradiction, then it must not be true. period. end of discussion. finis.

Except that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about starting with a contradiction then assuming it is false, and using that to prove something. Which simply doesn't work.

For example. 1+1=3. If we assume this contradiction is false, it doesn't prove anything, does it? You can't say, well if 1+1=3 is false, then 1+1 must equal 10. The statement can not prove or disprove anything. It is simply an illogical statement.

I guess I should of been more clear. You can't start with a contradiction, and use that prove or disprove something else.

Originally Posted by Alric

Except that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about starting with a contradiction then assuming it is false, and using that to prove something. Which simply doesn't work.

For example. 1+1=3. If we assume this contradiction is false, it doesn't prove anything, does it? You can't say, well if 1+1=3 is false, then 1+1 must equal 10. The statement can not prove or disprove anything. It is simply an illogical statement.

I guess I should of been more clear. You can't start with a contradiction, and use that prove or disprove something else.

We didn't start with a contradiction. We started with a Bible claim and pointed out its contradictions.

No, you started with the contradiction, then you claimed the bible said something it didn't, and tried to use that to prove god doesn't exist. Which is just silly and illogical.

Originally Posted by Alric

No, you started with the contradiction, then you claimed the bible said something it didn't, and tried to use that to prove god doesn't exist. Which is just silly and illogical.

You are really going beyond the fringe with this.

Point 1: The Bible says nothing is impossible for God.
Point 2: If the Bible is correct, God could therefore make suffering unnecessary.
Point 3: Point 2: The Bible says God is totally righteous.
Point 4: If God could make suffering unnecessary and he is totally righteous, then suffering does not exist.
Point 5. Suffering does exist.
Point 6. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

And later...

Point 1: The Bible says nothing is impossible for God.
Point 2: If the Bible is correct, God could therefore create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, and he would be able to lift it.
Point 3: The Bible therefore claims the existence of a state that of God contradicts itself.
Point 4: The Bible therefore claims the existence of a state of God that does not actually exist.
Point 5: Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

What do you claim my argument is?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are really going beyond the fringe with this.

Point 1: The Bible says nothing is impossible for God.

Correct

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Point 2: If the Bible is correct, God could therefore make suffering unnecessary.

Correct

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Point 3: Point 2: The Bible says God is totally righteous.

Correct

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Point 4: If God could make suffering unnecessary and he is totally righteous, then suffering does not exist.

Incorrect. This is a false assumption, which has been explained. God gave free will to man, and because man has free will they can cause suffering. A righteous god would not remove free will, in order to remove suffering. Because there are other issues such as free will involved, one can not assume that a righteous god would end suffering.

The rest of your points are no longer valid at this point, as they are based on false assumptions.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Point 1: The Bible says nothing is impossible for God.

Correct

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Point 2: If the Bible is correct, God could therefore create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, and he would be able to lift it.

Incorrect.
This point is a contradiction, and instead of considering other options, you just continue on in order to prove the point you wish, instead of looking for the truth. Had you considered other options, you may have considered this as a possibility.
Point 2: God is capable of lifting all objects.
Point 3: An object god can not lift, does not exist.
Point 4: Nothing in the universe can create such a rock, and its an illogical idea.
Point 5: Thus it isn't a real limitation.

I asked you what argument you claim I made. You said I started with a contradiction. Show me how you claim it went. Showing you how it really went was the point of my post.

The conclusion was based on what God is claimed to be able to do, not what I think he can do. I don't think he exists.

Your point about suffering ignores what God could do if he were infinitely powerful.

I pointed out two flawed points you made. My claim is that you started with the two flawed points then you went backwards to fit things in an order that you thought would prove your points. Instead of starting at point one, then working your way down.

You assumed that,

If God could make suffering unnecessary and he is totally righteous, then suffering does not exist.

If the Bible is correct, God could therefore create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, and he would be able to lift it.

Without considering other possibilities. Which is why you claim that no other possibilities could exist, while the thread is full of other possibilities.

As it was explained. Suffering is a side of free will. If the choice to do wrong, or to suffer does not exist then free will does not exist. You can't have free will, without the possibility of someone suffering.

Your entire argument, is based on the fact that an all powerful god can do illogical things. Though, there is no reason to believe that an all powerful god can do things that can't possibility exist.

As it has been said many times, God can do all things. He can do anything or create anything that is within the realm of possibility. However, things that are not within the realm of possibility, things that have no meaning, can not exist and thus can't be created, by any being. You claim that is illogical, but it makes perfect sense and it is not a limitation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, "Unlce go and the duck over is what climb," contradicts itself as much as, "The polygon is a circle that is a square."? The second sentence means something. It just expresses the impossible. A sentence has to involve two opposing principles to contradict itself. The principles cannot be represented if they are not represented and joined with meaning.

Okay Mr. Punny

I'm gonna jump in and help alric here. In the physical realm, it is possible for something to fly over 7 feet in the air. Thus, it is possible for god to allow a human to do so.

"Can God make someone stupid and genius at the same time?"

Intrinsically impossible no matter what case scenario is used, and its just twisting with words.

"Can god make someone fly at superhuman speed?"

Yes, because given the proper tools, flying at superhuman speed is intrinsically possible.

Originally Posted by Alric

I pointed out two flawed points you made. My claim is that you started with the two flawed points then you went backwards to fit things in an order that you thought would prove your points. Instead of starting at point one, then working your way down.

No I didn't, but what difference would that make? What is important is what the premises are and what the conclusion is, not the order that they are stated.

Originally Posted by Alric

You assumed that,

If God could make suffering unnecessary and he is totally righteous, then suffering does not exist.

If the Bible is correct, God could therefore create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it, and he would be able to lift it.

Without considering other possibilities. Which is why you claim that no other possibilities could exist, while the thread is full of other possibilities.

Infinite power is infinite power. It is not something it is not.

Originally Posted by Alric

As it was explained. Suffering is a side of free will. If the choice to do wrong, or to suffer does not exist then free will does not exist. You can't have free will, without the possibility of someone suffering.

You speak of limits on God again. Who makes the rules?

Originally Posted by Alric

Your entire argument, is based on the fact that an all powerful god can do illogical things. Though, there is no reason to believe that an all powerful god can do things that can't possibility exist.

Meditate on that one. Make is your Zen koan. The glaring contradiction might eventually click in your head.

Originally Posted by Alric

As it has been said many times, God can do all things.

You just said otherwise.

Originally Posted by Alric

He can do anything or create anything that is within the realm of possibility.

Who marks the boundaries of possibility?

Originally Posted by Alric

However, things that are not within the realm of possibility, things that have no meaning, can not exist and thus can't be created, by any being.

Then there are no infinitely powerful beings.

Originally Posted by Alric

You claim that is illogical, but it makes perfect sense and it is not a limitation.

Not being able to do something is a limitation.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Okay Mr. Punny

I'm gonna jump in and help alric here. In the physical realm, it is possible for something to fly over 7 feet in the air. Thus, it is possible for god to allow a human to do so.

"Can God make someone stupid and genius at the same time?"

Intrinsically impossible no matter what case scenario is used, and its just twisting with words.

"Can god make someone fly at superhuman speed?"

Yes, because given the proper tools, flying at superhuman speed is intrinsically possible.

Then some things are impossible for God, right? That is the opposite of nothing being impossible for God, which the Bible claims.

Who decides what can and cannot happen?

Very well. I will say it right now:

"Then some things are impossible for God, right?"

My response is, that given your definition of possible, no. He cannot.

"Can god create a fifty mile long centipede that is also two centimeters and has twenty quadrillion legs yet only has two and is evil yet pure at the same time?"

My answer? No, I dont necessarily think he could. But that is not my definition of doing everything.

Everything means every "thing" that can be done. If it can be done in any universe, it can be done by God.

I will not claim that any of this is absolute truth, but it seems like a logical hypothesis.

It all basically comes down to this. Being able to do everything, means being able to do everything that is at all possible. Being able to do everything means being able to do "Every thing." If its not a thing, if its never been a thing, if its something that could never exist, then that doesn't count.

Your entire argument is that illogical contradicting ideas count as things. When they are not. They are not real things. They are illogical nonsensical ideas that can not exist in our world.

I know the idea is beyond your comprehension but try to focus. God can do every thing that is possible within our universe. That is the only thing the bible claims. The bible does NOT claim that god can do illogical things outside of our universe. If something doesn't exist, and can not exist then it doesn't exist. Stop trying to say that things that don't exist and can't exist are possible.

In other words, infinite power is just the ability to do anything within certain rules, even if you made those rules. Wrong.

Who makes the rules?