Why do theists tout the absurd idea that an omnipotent omniscient deity requires humans to communicate its message and create and enforce its laws?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:29 am

First topic message reminder :

This has always struck me as something of an absurdity. Especially when you can't fail to notice that the laws always reflect the ignorance superstition wishes desires and prejudices of those claiming this divine authority, which surely is too much of a coincidence for any halfway intelligent and objective observer to ignore.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:44 pm

To be fair this is not what you've been saying thus far. Now for absolute clarity, humans are animals, the dictionary defines us as such as I have shown. Biology defines us as such. The fact that the animal kingdom contains widely varying species does not alter the fact that they are all animals, including humans who are also animals.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:06 am

Worth noting again, as it got lost in the disputation over the definition of animal, that the human genome has more similarity to the genome of other great apes than the genome of a zebra has to a horse. The reason is that genetic diversity increases over time, and humans share a common ancestor with other great apes in the far more recent past than any shared by the horse and zebra.

by polyglide Fri Aug 07, 2015 2:19 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I agree regarding the relativity of genomes, there has to be a similarity because God created all things, presumably in the same manner, so it is obvious the last animals created would be nearer together.

A question, if all things came about by chance do you not think they would all have the same genomes?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:22 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I agree regarding the relativity of genomes, there has to be a similarity because God created all things, presumably in the same manner, so it is obvious the last animals created would be nearer together.

A question, if all things came about by chance do you not think they would all have the same genomes?

An omnipotent creator would not have to use similar DNA for different species, evolution obviously would. I never said "all things came about by chance", in fact every time you make this claim I point this out, partly because you fall into the common creationist mistake of misunderstanding what part chance has played, and how the odds against life occurring on our planet are irrelevant given the vast time-scales and number of planets involved, and the number of opportunities that would have afforded. Think lottery winner, but instead of losing tickets think losing planets, the one winner hasn't cheated, or defied the odds at all.

How can different species have the same genome? That makes no sense at all. The diversity of species is explained completely and elegantly by the scientific fact of the theory of evolution, the evidence supports it utterly, all the new evidence that is discovered validates it, including entire new fields of science like genetics. The discoverers of the structure of DNA James Watson, and Francis Crick were both outspoken atheists and humanists. Hardly a coincidence

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 11:38 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Nothing in the above can explain my points regarding DNA.

Why should not all plant life and animal life have the same DNA if they were the result of evolution no matter how long a period was involved.

You could have a brick made of clay and give it a thousand billion years and it would never turn into a bowl of fruit.

Time has no reverlance regarding creation only evolution.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:06 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Nothing in the above can explain my points regarding DNA.

Yes it does, though you may not understand it, unfortunately I can do nothing about that.

Polyglide wrote:Why should not all plant life and animal life have the same DNA if they were the result of evolution no matter how long a period was involved.

Obviously because because things with the same DNA are the same species, you're asking why evolution, a process that slowly over vast time-scales changed microbial and single celled life into the vast diversity of life we now see just produce one single species, why would it? The question is rather silly, and indicates a basic lack of understanding about the scientific fact of evolution.

Polyglide wrote:You could have a brick made of clay and give it a thousand billion years and it would never turn into a bowl of fruit.

Bricks are not organic, and that is a truly asinine sentence because of it. Life has evolved, just look out the door, or turn on a wildlife documentary, the scientific fact of evolution explains and evidences this process beyond any reasonable doubt.

Polyglide wrote:Time has no reverlance regarding creation only evolution.

Nothing has any relevance regarding creation as it is entirely unevidenced, whereas the times-scales involved in evolution are evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt. The facts science has evidenced about evolution are also entirely at odds with biblical and Koranic creation myths.

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:30 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
You could have a monkey and give it a thousand million years and it would never turn into a man.

I have said previously, evolution takes place when circumstances change that make the survival of a species in doubt and if they are able to change then they survive based on the dominant genes.

I have bred animals for over 70 years a rough calculation during that time involving around 7,000 animals.

I have seen all kinds of results that can be obtained by selective breeding towards a given end.

I have also allowed some free breeding and kept in as near a natural manner as possible.

The latter have always produced their like, the former through dominant genes can be bred for shape colour and characteristics, to me this shows that when God created all things they were created to breed like for like and can only not do so through unusual circumstances.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:55 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
You could have a monkey and give it a thousand million years and it would never turn into a man.

Who has said otherwise? Though more saliently we have had clay for billions of years and never once has any evidence shown magic turning it into a human.

Polyglide wrote:I have said previously, evolution takes place when circumstances change

The scientific fact of evolution is determined by properly validated evidence, and scrutinised rigorously. Your personal and unqualified musings, as entertaining as they are, are utterly irrelevant.

Polyglide wrote:I have bred animals for over 70 years

Species change doesn't happen within a single human lifetime, that's so absurd it just shows you really haven't the most basic grasp of the science of evolution. Though just why this has to be explained repeatedly I don't know. It now smacks of dishonesty.

Polyglide wrote:I have seen all kinds of results that can be obtained by selective breeding

That's because sexual selection causes change, and this actually evidences evolution, only in evolution this would occur through natural selection, rather than humans using selective breeding, over vast time-scales the changes to an animals genome would produce separate species that could no longer breed with each other but which because of their shared ancestry had a high percentage of the shared DNA, like humans and the other great apes. This is evidenced beyond doubt, with the fossil record and with genetic science.

Polyglide wrote:I have also allowed some free breeding and kept in as near a natural manner as possible. The latter have always produced their like,

Sigh, why wouldn't they?
Significant species change occurs over vast time-scales
Significant species change occurs over vast time-scales
Significant species change occurs over vast time-scales
Significant species change occurs over vast time-scales
Significant species change occurs over vast time-scales
Significant species change occurs over vast time-scales
Significant species change occurs over vast time-scales

Try and take this on board as you keep using this straw man claim that no species change occurs over 70 years as if science says otherwise, when it does not, and never has.

Polyglide wrote:the former through dominant genes can be bred for shape colour and characteristics, to me this shows that when God created all things they were created to breed like for like and can only not do so through unusual circumstances.

There is no scientific evidence for a creator deity, the evidence for evolution is so vast and through that it's unequivocal. What's more after 150 years of scientific scrutiny not one shred of evidence disputes it, and all the vast amount of new evidence supports it, even new science fields like genetics.

Can you get your bird breeding anecdotes properly scientifically validated to falsify species evolution, of course not, I'm sorry but the whole claim is too absurdly silly and it's a little sad you don't see this. It would take very little research for you to know how absurd the claims are as well.

by polyglide Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:35 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
There is no evidence whatsoever of one species tuning into another, nor one actually new species of living animal.

I do not need anyone to validate anything I have actually done it.

Of course there is evidence of evolution just as there is evidence that people grow old, the point is it has no actual bearing on how life along with the universe etc; originated and evolution has no answer to anything other than things change according to circumstances, typical latest example in Darwin territory, the nuts that the particular birds fed on became harder to crack, the birds with soft beaks could not crack them, evolution took over and only those with hard beaks survived and ultimately all the birds will have hard beaks.

That in a nutshell is evolution. no new species just adapting to changed circumstances.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:08 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
There is no evidence whatsoever of one species tuning into another, nor one actually new species of living animal.

Yes there is, LINK HERE, 55 millions years of evolution ending in the horse, each stage of species change evidenced in the fossil record. That's just one tiny piece of what evolution has amassed.

Polyglide wrote:I do not need anyone to validate anything I have actually done it.

You do if you're going to claim it falsifies things are scientifically validated. The fact you don't realise this is irrelevant.

Of course there is evidence of evolution just as there is evidence that people grow old, the point is it has no actual bearing on how life along with the universe etc;

Science has never claimed it does so it's utterly irrelevant to the scientific fact of evolution, and what's more you've been told this enough times now to make your repetition of it very disingenuous.

Polyglide wrote:That in a nutshell is evolution. no new species just adapting to changed circumstances.

That in a nutshell is why it is abundantly obvious you are utterly ignorant of the scientific fact of evolution. Species change is as well evidenced as gravity LINK HERE, again that 55 millions years of evolution and countless species evolving into the modern horse.

by polyglide Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:18 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
The horse theory has been discredited.

link. creation.com/horse-evolution

This is one of several that dispute, on sound ground, the theory and it is only a theory.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:21 pm

That in a nutshell is why it is abundantly obvious you are utterly ignorant of the scientific fact of evolution. Species change is as well evidenced as gravity LINK HERE, again that 55 millions years of evolution and countless species evolving into the modern horse.

by polyglide Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:57 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
So you pick and choose your scientists and their findings, odd.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:50 pm

That in a nutshell is why it is abundantly obvious you are utterly ignorant of the scientific fact of evolution. Species change is as well evidenced as gravity LINK HERE, again that 55 millions years of evolution and countless species evolving into the modern horse.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:20 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
So you pick and choose your scientists and their findings, odd.

by polyglide Today at 3:55 pm
Satan being one of them, misleading the scientists down a long and endless and meaningless path.

by polyglide Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:06 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Just proves what I have said.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:04 pm

What have you just said, and what are you claiming proves it?

I really do wonder why you bother coming here, it's clear from yet another cryptic gnomic one sentence utterance that no one can conceivably decipher that you really have no interest in discussion.

The thread topic questions if a being existed possessing both omniscience and omnipotence, then why would it need humans to communicate or interpret it's message, and even more absurdly IMHO, to enforce such laws, maxims, commandments, dogma, and doctrine?

A dated message from bronze age humans, replete with absurdly erroneous claims, allegory, myths, and questionable morals is not a rational way for such a being to communicate. If it is intent on revealing this message to everyone, then why not do so personally? After all the message does try to claim that their deity has revealed those messages personally to a few humans, why not all the others?

by polyglide Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:24 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
Christianity is based on faith, if everything was clear cut then there would be no need for faith.

You miss the whole point.

Humans have choice and free wiil, if God controlled every movement and enforced and made all the laws etc; mankind would be robots.

You are obviously a heathen so you cannot understand what Christianity is about, or you do and reject it, in either case you are not in a very good positon as you have no alternative to life.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Aug 14, 2015 3:35 pm

The thread topic questions if a being existed possessing both omniscience and omnipotence, then why would it need humans to communicate or interpret it's message, and even more absurdly IMHO, to enforce such laws, maxims, commandments, dogma, and doctrine?

Your religion claims that your deity already revealed it's message to people, so I asked why them and not everyone? You're trying to claim everywhere that you have evidence, now all of a sudden it's all based on faith, that's seems like an odd contradiction to me. Why look for evidence at all then?

I say again:

A dated message from bronze age humans, replete with absurdly erroneous claims, allegory, myths, and questionable morals is not a rational way for such a being to communicate. If it is intent on revealing this message to everyone, then why not do so personally? After all the message does try to claim that their deity has revealed those messages personally to a few humans already, why not all the others?

by polyglide Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:04 am

Dr, Shedlon,
To address the topic.

The whole matter rests on man having free will if you undetstand this there would be no need for the question.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:09 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
To address the topic.

The whole matter rests on man having free will if you undetstand this there would be no need for the question.

No it doesn't, at all, and since I posed the question and started the thread I'll decide what it is I was aksing. The fact you can't or won't understand it is entirely irrelevant. Try again....

The thread topic questions if a being existed possessing both omniscience and omnipotence, then why would it need humans to communicate or interpret it's message, and even more absurdly IMHO, to enforce such laws, maxims, commandments, dogma, and doctrine?

Your religion claims that your deity already revealed it's message to people, so I asked why them and not everyone? You're trying to claim everywhere that you have evidence, now all of a sudden it's all based on faith, that's seems like an odd contradiction to me. Why look for evidence at all then?

I say again:

A dated message from bronze age humans, replete with absurdly erroneous claims, allegory, myths, and questionable morals is not a rational way for such a being to communicate. If it is intent on revealing this message to everyone, then why not do so personally? After all the message does try to claim that their deity has revealed those messages personally to a few humans already, why not all the others?

by polyglide Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:21 am

Dr, Shedlon,
You say you understand Christianity, you do not or you would not be asking the question.

Because you do not agree with what Christians believe does not invalidate it.

The whole matter rests not between God and humans but between God and Satan.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:36 am

polyglide wrote: You say you understand Christianity, you do not or you would not be asking the question.

No I don't, how you do love to make up lies about what I have said. However it's clear why you don't like the question, and it has nothing to do with me, but with your religions obvious inability to give a rational explanation that removes these paradoxes.

Polyglide wrote:Because you do not agree with what Christians believe does not invalidate it.

True, but since I have never claimed this either it's another dishonest straw man argument you've created to avoid answering or even addressing my thread question candidly.

Polyglide wrote:The whole matter rests not between God and humans but between God and Satan.

No it doesn't. it's my question and my thread and it quite clearly is predicated on the idea that humans claim and have always claimed to know what their version of their deity wants, and have used force, coercion, and duplicity to make others believe what they think. My question premises that this would be an irrational or absurd requirement when the deity in question has limitless power and knowledge, both traditional claims for the contemporary monotheistic deities.

This red herring about Satan simply avoids the question, why would such a being reveal itself and its plan to a small few and expect the rest to accept what those few communicated on faith, it is absurdly illogical. Your protestations over free will have been dealt with repeatedly, if as you claim your deity can do anything then why can't it preserve free will and reveal itself to everyone unequivocally in such a way that would leave no doubt? You next tack to another red herring of free will, as if you genuinely can't see the contradiction of claiming a deity can literally do anything, then placing ad hoc barriers in its way, as if it could be other than through choice for such a being.

If it's through choice and that being has omniscience (literally knows everything) then it would know the consequence would cause eternal torture for the vast majority and again we have the contradiction of that and the claim that this deity possesses perfect benevolence.

In short it's an endless circle of rationalisations you go through that simply never solves the contradiction, but just moves away from each contradiction to the next in a never ending circle.

by polyglide Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:59 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Must go for dinner, goodbye and God Bless.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:23 pm

Getting back on topic, the idea of revelation might hold some credence if the message was always consistent. Yet we see people from Moses to Joseph Smith making up their own version of what "God" wants, which coincidentally just happens to reflect their own wishes, desires, and prejudices.

Of course if a deity with omnipotence really existed it could literally make every living human aware of it's desires in an instant, so why waste time telling a few people, generally in an era when most people had no recourse to education, and were almost entirely ignorant of the world around them. If you arbitrarily dismiss even one such "prophet" then you logic dictates you must surely dismiss them all.

by polyglide Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:23 am

Dr, Shedlon,
I agree there are many matters that at first sight seem not in accordance with other matters, this is where the seek and ye shall find comes in.

If the whole intent was to decieve then surely those intent on doing so would put forward a clear picture that could not be anything other than what it stated.

It is no good bringing up the omnipotent disagreement, lets just disagre.

There is an explanation for everything in the Bible if one approaches it in the manner and times it was written and the reason it was written at that time.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:04 pm

You haven't really addressed the points I made about revelation differing so wildly from person to person and even among ostensibly the same religion.

Seek how? It's a fairly meaningless claim without some objective method to test the "revelations" you cherry pick as true and which you regard as false.

The main point Is that subjectively interpreting one set of claims from many that all claim divine revelation is irrational when aligned to the claim that an omnipotent deity wants us to believe in it, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not an omnipotent bring need not consign countless billions to eternal torture of hell with such an absurd message communicated so haphazardly.

There certainly is not an explanation for EVERYTHING in the bible. I'm sorry but that claim is demonstrably false. Where does it explain how to create antibiotics, or cure cancer or malaria or how to tackle global warming?

by polyglide Sat Aug 22, 2015 11:52 am

Dr, Shedlon,
Had mankind taken the advice given by God there would have been no need for anti anything the problems would not have arrisen.

There must be an explanation for everything written or that which has occured.

If you have a problem then you seek the answer, I have said and it cannot be denied that there must be an explanation for everything that exists.

Please think about it.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 22, 2015 12:06 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
Had mankind taken the advice given by God there would have been no need for anti anything the problems would not have arrisen.

Bare claim dismissed as per Hicthen's razor.

Polyglide wrote:There must be an explanation for everything written or that which has occured.

Bare claim 2 dismissed as per Hitchen's razor.

Polyglide wrote:If you have a problem then you seek the answer, I have said and it cannot be denied that there must be an explanation for everything that exists.

Bare claim 3 dismissed as per Hitchen's razor.

Polyglide wrote:Please think about it.

There''s nothing in your post to think about, all you've done yet again is entirely ignore my post and repeated 3 bare claims reaffirming your beliefs. That's not discussion and it doesn't address the thread topic even remotely.

You have repeated your claim that we need to seek "the answer", but ignored my question: "Seek how? It's a fairly meaningless claim without some objective method to test the "revelations" you cherry pick as true and which you regard as false." I think we can all take a fairly good stab at why you've ignored it as well.

You have not properly addressed this either: "The main point Is that subjectively interpreting one set of claims from many that all claim divine revelation is irrational when aligned to the claim that an omnipotent deity wants us to believe in it, and whether you choose to acknowledge it or not an omnipotent bring need not consign countless billions to eternal torture of hell with such an absurd message communicated so haphazardly."

All you did was simply repeat your original claim that if everyone simply believes what you personally think your chosen version of your chosen deity wants everything will be fine, that's preaching not discussion, and again you don't even attempt to evidence this arrogant claim to know what an omniscient omnipotent deity wants, though this does appear to be your raison d'etre.

You completely ignored this: "There certainly is not an explanation for EVERYTHING in the bible. I'm sorry but that claim is demonstrably false. Where does it explain how to create antibiotics, or cure cancer or malaria or how to tackle global warming?"

You didn't even pretend to respond.

by polyglide Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:47 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
On considering the actual question.

I do not know how many times I have to explain that as a Christian I believe that Satan has control of the earth providing he does not contravene the agreement with God and try to use killing as a means of getting rid of those faithfdul to God.

Therefore God has left it to those faithful to him to spread his word on earth.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:53 pm

That doesn't remotely address my question, but as you seem unable to understand the definition of omnipotence or the implications of a being possessing omnipotence, and are determined to use your own subjective misinterpreted definition of it, I'm not sure you ever will answer it.

I have no interest in absurd Satanic fantasies.

You've ignored this yet again:

You have repeated your claim that we need to seek "the answer", but ignored my question: "Seek how? It's a fairly meaningless claim without some objective method to test the "revelations" you cherry pick as true and which you regard as false." I think we can all take a fairly good stab at why you've ignored it as well.

And this:

You completely ignored this: "There certainly is not an explanation for EVERYTHING in the bible. I'm sorry but that claim is demonstrably false. Where does it explain how to create antibiotics, or cure cancer or malaria or how to tackle global warming?"

You didn't even pretend to respond.

by polyglide Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:25 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
An omnipotent can do or not, is not tied in any way unless
by agreement etc;

To seek is to consider all that which is at your disposal and
find other relevant facts for consideration.

With regard to the Bible you would have to be aware of the
conditions of the times that the different parts were written,, many
years apart in many cases and to do so is not possible, so you have to
attempt to make sense of why if something does not seem as you feel
it should be.

The last book in the Bible gives a clue because you cannot
take many instances in a literal sense, so there must be a reason for
hiding the meaning and it is up to those interested to attempt to
solve the meaning and one can do so by considering the past and the
possibilities regarding the future.

Several societies have explained what they feel the meanings
are and it is up to the individual to consider that which is available.

I never said there was an explanation for everything in the
Bible, I said if a thing existed then there must be an explanation of how
so there was no need to respond.

However, I said there must be an explanation for everything
that exists and there must.

God did not create any of the illnesses and means of mass
destruction most can be placed at the hands of humans using
what God gave in a wrong manner not to mention the hands of Satan.

apart in many instances

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:19 pm

Polyglide wrote:by polyglide Today at 5:25 pm
To seek is to consider all that which is at your disposal and
find other relevant facts for consideration.

That's not what I asked though is it. I asked:
"Seek how? It's a fairly meaningless claim without some objective method to test the "revelations" you cherry pick as true and which you regard as false."

You offer no clue as to how your "interpretation" of ancient texts objectively weighs what you accept or reject. There are literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations all disagreeing wildly. If this message is from an omniscient omnipotent being then it's a fairly poor communicator, or it is deliberately misleading us, or allowing us to be mislead, none of which supports the idea that it is omni-benevolent.

Polyglide wrote:With regard to the Bible you would have to be aware of the conditions of the times that the different parts were written

No I don't at all, that's precisely the point this thread is making. The idea that a message from a being capable of literally anything, and with limitless knowledge and benevolence requires my subjective interpretation is absurdly illogical.

Polyglide wrote:I never said there was an explanation for everything in the Bible,

Yes you did..on this very page..

by polyglide on Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:23 pm
There is an explanation for everything in the Bible if one approaches it in the manner and times it was written and the reason it was written at that time.

Polyglide wrote:However, I said there must be an explanation for everything that exists and there must.

Again this is pure assumption on your part, and shows yet again that you don't remotely grasp what is epistemologically valid and what is not, in this thread to be entirely ignorant of what is an epistemologically valid claim, or even why, is going to make it impossible for you to understand the full relevance of what I have actually asked in the thread title.

I'm not really interested in your bare claims about what you think your deity did or did not create as there is no evidence for creation anyway, but this thread is not about that, it is about the claim that a being that possesses both omnipotence and omniscience requires humans to interpret it's message and enforce it's will, and the fact that this is quite demonstrably illogical and irrational as it contradicts the idea that such a being is benevolent and wants us to believe in it's existence.

by polyglide Wed Aug 26, 2015 11:22 am

Dr, Shedlon,
If you want to keep to the topic, I have given a full explanation why God cannot at this time do what you think he should do if you believed in him as an omnipotent.

It is a clear answer.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:34 pm

It's complete hokum mumbo jumbo without even the pretence of evidence. Though more importantly you still can't see how moronic it is to talk about omnipotence that "can't " do something.

Again I have little hope you'll ever grasp this. Nor that you're even remotely interested in grasping anything outside of your blinkered adherence to mumbo jumbo superstition.

I even explained that for an omnipotent not to do something it could ONLY be through choice. It seems even dumbing it down this much and spelling it out doesn't help you grasp the paradox you are missing.

by polyglide Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:16 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I feel anyone would realise you have not grasped the nettle.

An omnipotent can do anything, yes, even decide not to do something, yes, made to do something, no, decided to do something, yes. decided not to do something, yes, etc; etc;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:18 pm

polyglide wrote: An omnipotent can do anything, yes, even decide not to do something, yes, made to do something, no, decided to do something, yes. decided not to do something, yes, etc; etc;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:34 pm
I even explained that for an omnipotent not to do something it could ONLY be through choice. It seems even dumbing it down this much and spelling it out doesn't help you grasp the paradox you are missing.

As I said the fact it doesn't stop suffering can only be through choice, so it's not benevolent then.

by polyglide Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:01 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Just consider if you had a child that was taken by a maniac and you were tied up and unable to take any action irrespective of what the maniac may do to the child, how you would feel.

God is in exactly the same position regarding Satan.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:09 pm

I thought you said god was omnipotent, and so by definition could literally do anything. How does that conflate to a human being tied up and unable to do anything? The two claims are polar opposites.

I shan't waste time asking how you dare to claim to know what an omniscient omnipotent deity desires, thinks or knows.

by polyglide Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:39 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
You contradict yourself, you say an omnipotent can do anything.

God's hands are tied by the agreement with Satan, the parents hands are tied with whatever means the maniac uses, both are unable to do anything about the situation.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:58 pm

I haven't contradicted myself at all, you have. You say god can do anything then say his hands are tied. Which is it?

I pointed out that this satanic fantasy of yours could only be a choice for an omnipotent being. It chooses to be bound by this. That's not benevolent is it? As it results in untold suffering.

by Sponsored content