Is God really real? page 46

1458 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Perhaps a good statement of discussion, discussed before, for the more religious amongst us:

God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Omnipotence doesn’t mean omnipotence, I think. As I see it, the original biblical line was talking in relation to the capabilities of the people of the day. A modern monitoring biometric and visual sensor net can be everywhere, in the same manner. It’s not monitoring everything but from the point of view of the people under its gaze, it knows everything they are doing at all times.

Likewise, a system that can do everything a human can do, much better than a human can do, would seem omnipotent to the people at the time, especially when combined with the sensor capability. But that’s all it is, smoke and mirrors. The illusion of omnipresence and omnipotence.

 
Flag Post

DR
And that’s the major mistake people get into.
Cause we (me included) measure everything by OUR “dis/like” standards, totally disregarding what G-d personally thinks about it.
Whereas there are many “parables” (dunno how to correctly name that type of “commentary stories”), when great people were questioning G-d’s actions – and got either of these two answers:
a. G-d knows better, in the sense of actually knowing the whole picture – so we simply lack data on what should be classified as GOOD and what BAD.
A classical example would be something “bad” leading to obvious salvation from something much “worse”.
E.g. being late for Titanic, hehehe.
Or more extremely, getting into a car crash and then hospital for a few days – and being late for Titanic.
b. G-d knows better, in the sense of having specific plans – e.g. suffering of the obviously righteous people.
It could still be the a. type – cause there is such thing as reincarnation, and “spiritual debts” do carry over.
Yet, in some cases (e.g. Job) it was solely to test that person – and to let him/her achieve a much higher spiritual level through the right reaction on what happened.
E.g. instead of blaming G-d for “being cruel”, rather submit to His authority – and then be rewarded with a revelation of His kindness.
This can seem to be weird or even stupid, but let me tell you one thing:
Logic is ALSO merely a creation, and the Creator has full authority to ignore it.
Yet, we typically tend to insist on binding the Creator with one of His creations, logic, to the extent of using it to “deny” the very Creator.
Just repeating – we’re using a creation to deny its very Creator.
Can there be anything more stupid?

vika
You’re too “paganistic” in your view on the Creator. :D
I mean, you are “making a god in the human image” to the fullest.
I don’t really want to start an in-depth discussion on the errors in such an attitude (cause it’d take me a few pages probably), I’ll just ask you (again?):
What do you think of spirituality and how would you describe it, including whether you believe in it at all?
This is crucial, cause it helps to understand how our world is NOT the entire existence (no, not in the multiverse sense, which you seem to imply to still be physical), but that there are others forms of “existence matter”, vastly different from everything and anything we’re used to.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

vika
You’re too “paganistic” in your view on the Creator. :D

Well, I am an occultist, so that is not reallysurprising.

I mean, you are “making a god in the human image” to the fullest.

Well the reverse is certainly true, so logically it works both ways.

I don’t really want to start an in-depth discussion on the errors in such an attitude (cause it’d take me a few pages probably),

Oh go on, please. I’ll just rip your ‘error-correction’ to shreds (again).

I’ll just ask you (again?):
What do you think of spirituality and how would you describe it, including whether you believe in it at all?

This is slightly different to the last one you asked, and as such has adifferent answer.

To me it’s belief in the other planes of reality and other forms of existence. I’ve mentioned before I’m sensitive. It’s a trait common to women in my family. It’s not very powerful, and rather untrained. All I get are shadows, feelings of presences, and the ability to anchor my own mental projections. Mental light would be another one in the list. Nothing scientific, but then the occult side of my studies was never going to be objectively scientific in nature.

I’ve encountered a few nasty critters that way too, nothing physical about them. They could be projections of my own, but I really rather doubt it. There’s always something indescribably ‘off’ about them, not to mention completely beyond my own control.

So yea, there are incorporeal aspects to our universe, or corporeal planes that are offset somehow. I don’t know which. Spirituality is the belief in such things, and the willingness to play around with them.

There’s also an aspect of free-spiritedness to spirituality by definition, in that you don’t adhere to stricture and dogma, but just try your own thing and see what works. Seyances work. They work a bit too well.

This is crucial, cause it helps to understand how our world is NOT the entire existence (no, not in the multiverse sense, which you seem to imply to still be physical), but that there are others forms of “existence matter”, vastly different from everything and anything we’re used to.

You’re teaching your grandmother to suck eggs here. However, they all follow their own rules, and those rules will interconnect with ours somewhere. Everything is linked, and everything has laws. We’re back in objective science again.

 
Flag Post

Cause we (me included) measure everything by OUR “dis/like” standards, totally disregarding what G-d personally thinks about it.

Omnibenevolence is good for everyone. What he personally thinks is irrelevant. If something isn’t good for me, God can’t be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, because otherwise that something would be good for me.

G-d knows better, in the sense of actually knowing the whole picture – so we simply lack data on what should be classified as GOOD and what BAD.
A classical example would be something “bad” leading to obvious salvation from something much “worse”.
E.g. being late for Titanic, hehehe.
Or more extremely, getting into a car crash and then hospital for a few days – and being late for Titanic.

If God is truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent, nothing would be wrong, and we would know the whole picture.

Yet, in some cases (e.g. Job) it was solely to test that person – and to let him/her achieve a much higher spiritual level through the right reaction on what happened.

Then he isn’t omnibenevolent and/or omnipotent. He can be extremely benevolent and/or extremely potent, but not both with “omni” in front of it, considering our current universe.

Logic is ALSO merely a creation, and the Creator has full authority to ignore it.

That would be downright evil. Plus, it would make God illogical by default?

Just repeating – we’re using a creation to deny its very Creator.
Can there be anything more stupid?

Yeah.

Circular reasoning.

 
Flag Post

vika
I’ll address this later, there are some points I wanna discuss.

DR
You ARE describing omnibenevolence as omni-letting-me-do-whatever-I want-and-yet-be-applauded-for-it.
Not the case.
I doubt your (truly loving and caring) parents jumped with joy when you tried putting your finger into 220V.
They rather smacked you, right?
Now, was it LOVE or HATE?
Or maybe LOVE leading to TEACHING through EXPERIENCE (e.g. if you ignore the smack and the warning, you get shocked – but you can only blame yourself for that)?
Pretty close to what G-d does…

 
Flag Post

I doubt your (truly loving and caring) parents jumped with joy when you tried putting your finger into 220V.
They rather smacked you, right?
Now, was it LOVE or HATE?
Or maybe LOVE leading to TEACHING through EXPERIENCE (e.g. if you ignore the smack and the warning, you get shocked – but you can only blame yourself for that)?
Pretty close to what G-d does…

But! That is only an expression of benevolence, in the context of powerlessness. The parents are incapable of preventing harm in situations. They have no power to effect the very nature of the fundamentals, they must teach how to succeed within the established parameters.

God, has no such excuse. Why is there an electrical socket? God put it there. Why does the electricity hurt? Cause God said so. Why did you want to do it? Cause God made you that way. Why did you get punished? Because God wanted to punish you. Rather then change the situation directly. Why did you do it anyways? Because God made you that way. The whole thing is so absurdly cruel and pointless it is truly Kafkaesque.

God, making the world, making the people, would be responsible directly for every, single, thing. The very idea that one can be harmed. That there are dangers in the world. That would be all his thing.

 
Flag Post

Ung
This leads to the MAJOR question:
Why everything is the way it is?
Well, the only true answer we can get – BECAUSE.
Because the CREATOR chose to do so.
But this is still no excuse to say: “if the Creator’s logic doesn’t fit mine, I’m the right one”.
You CAN say so, but this is pure arrogance and ignorance combined.
Let’s say it this way – until you can replicate the Creation process, you’re stuck as an inferior being.
And as such, it’s much more useful to TRUST the Superior One, than to formulate your own ideas and excuses.
If you so insist on using human logic as a measurement – my last point is very logical, thus you should rather heed it.
By YOU, I mean anyone – just the way it’s being said in English.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

Ung
This leads to the MAJOR question:
Why everything is the way it is?
Well, the only true answer we can get – BECAUSE.
Because the CREATOR chose to do so.

You have got to be kidding me.

 
Flag Post

EPR
But there is no better answer.
And no, “we don’t care” is not an answer.

Anyways, like I’ve said multiple times before:
If believing in the Creator was so simple, it would impair our free will to the extent of forcing us to accept Him as a fact.
Only in a world where almost everything screams of “nobody’s there”, we can truly use our own capability to truly BELIEVE in something “illogical”.
I don’t care if it sounds stupid to YOU (anyone), but this makes perfect sense the moment you accept the fact that we must be given the capability to DENY something – in order so that we can truly CHOOSE it.
You can’t DENY breathing, can you?
Nor can you truly CHOOSE, whether to breathe.
(You can TRY not breathing, but this would lead you to simply stop being a living body. To LIVE and not BREATHE, this no one can’t.)
If we actually SAW, how we are being constantly (RE)CREATED, we wouldn’t be able to DENY it, the very same way we can’t DENY breathing.
But now we don’t SEE, so we CAN DENY, and many DO – so we are FREE to CHOOSE.
Can’t explain it better, sorry.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

EPR
But there is no better answer.

Yes there is, actually, you just choose not to listen to it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

EPR
But there is no better answer.

Yes, there is one.
We don’t know.

 
Flag Post

You ARE describing omnibenevolence as omni-letting-me-do-whatever-I want-and-yet-be-applauded-for-it.

No, omnibenevolence is good for every individual, from every individual’s viewpoint. If that is not the case, then God is not omnibenevolent. Would you like to agree to this and say that God is merely benevolent (maybe debatable, but at least possible)?

I doubt your (truly loving and caring) parents jumped with joy when you tried putting your finger into 220V.

I truly respect my parents, but they are not omnipotent. Are you trying to agree that God is not omnipotent either?

Because the CREATOR chose to do so.

Which means he is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent (or neither). Your choice.

But this is still no excuse to say: “if the Creator’s logic doesn’t fit mine, I’m the right one”.

A concept has a definition. To go ahead and say “but the concept means something different for God!” merely switches the definition of the concept to something else, but it keeps the original definition for a different concept. Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are pretty clear. If you still agree he is both of them, but disagree with the definitions, then we’re just juggling with words. God has to fit into definitions, otherwise you’re just saying “mysterious, mysterious, doesn’t matter what we think, because God just plays with it and does something entirely illogical”.

And as such, it’s much more useful to TRUST the Superior One, than to formulate your own ideas and excuses.

He needs to be properly defined. If he’s omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then he needs to fit their definitions (and especially the combination). If he doesn’t, then he isn’t.

 
Flag Post

DR
Weird example #1:
I’m omniscient and omnipotent, but I want to give you free choice.
I know you have a ticket to Titanic.
I know it will sink, and you’re most likely to drown.
I can’t tell you this, for whatever reason, e.g. I don’t want to tell you the future.
I try talking you out of the travel, without mentioning the real reason, even mentioning that it MAY drown.
You obviously chose to ignore me, even laughed at my (unexplained) warning.
I gave up on talking sense into you, so I simply beat you up, and you get into a hospital for a week.
You obviously miss the ship.
Later on, you hear the terrible news.
What do you think of my actions: benevolent or malevolent?

More examples to come later on.

The key idea:
There’s no such thing as “good for everyone”, other than “good for me, times everyone”.
The latter means that everything what happens to INDIVIDUALS is for their good.
But the key problem is, we look too much into what happens to others, while not thinking enough about what happens to us.
In other words, even regarding ourselves, we definitely lack the full picture, how much more so about others.
So, one should start looking deeper into his/her life (and see, how often BAD turns into GOOD for HIM/HER), rather than try finding BAD in what happens to others (where one has very limited info anyways).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

DR

The flaw with that, though, is you could have just made the Titanic not sink, as you are omipotent, however by not doing so, not only are you resorting to needlessly harming one person, but killing outright killing a shitload more.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

So, one should start looking deeper into his/her life (and see, how often BAD turns into GOOD for HIM/HER), rather than try finding BAD in what happens to others (where one has very limited info anyways).

I’m sure that kid in East Africa that was born with HIV and died of starvation six months later is relieved now.

 
Flag Post

I’m omniscient and omnipotent, but I want to give you free choice.
I know you have a ticket to Titanic.
I know it will sink, and you’re most likely to drown.
I can’t tell you this, for whatever reason, e.g. I don’t want to tell you the future.
I try talking you out of the travel, without mentioning the real reason, even mentioning that it MAY drown.
You obviously chose to ignore me, even laughed at my (unexplained) warning.
I gave up on talking sense into you, so I simply beat you up, and you get into a hospital for a week.
You obviously miss the ship.
Later on, you hear the terrible news.
What do you think of my actions: benevolent or malevolent?

Not omnibenevolent. You are somewhat benevolent in wanting us to have free will, but you are malevolent in allowing the Titanic to sink and beating me up for using my free will.

There’s no such thing as “good for everyone”, other than “good for me, times everyone”.

Good. This means omnibenevolence doesn’t even exist.

So, one should start looking deeper into his/her life (and see, how often BAD turns into GOOD for HIM/HER), rather than try finding BAD in what happens to others (where one has very limited info anyways).

Ignoring all other people, relatively bad things still happen to me. This means that God is either not omnipotent or omnibenevolent. Again, which one is it? It seems you agree that omnibenevolence does not exist.

 
Flag Post

DR
You almost got my point, but not yet.
What I’m trying to say is this:
You can only judge benevolence towards YOU (for a few reasons, starting with being unable to read the true inner reactions of others, as to what is perceived as truly BAD by them; what they say is not enough, people can be unable to express their true feelings or simply don’t want to).
So we should focus on YOU (everyone being that YOU).
Now, the sinking of Titanic is NOT your problem – unless you sink with it.
So from your POV, that sinking is irrelevant.
Now, from your POV, you got into a hospital, true.
But also from your POV, this saved your life.
So, to sum up your POV – you got saved from something big and irrevocably BAD by something small and relatively BAD.
True, nothing BAD could (and should) NOT happen at all.
But this is NOT the topic of (omni)benevolence, but rather the topic of Free Choice.
Those two are pretty different topics indeed.
Back to the smacking your hand aways from 220V:
True, the world could have been created without EVIL – and I wanna surprise you: it kinda WAS!
Well, not 100%, there was an EXTERNAL (in all meanings, both physically AND mentally) source of EVIL (the Snake), yet it didn’t FORCE itself onto humans.
I’m really laughing (sorry, but true) at the Christian version of how the “super-powerful in talk” Mr. Devil persuaded “stupid immature” humans to sin.
FAR FROM IT!
Neither Adam nor Eve were “stupid” – inexperienced, yes, but definitely smart.
Except, they haven’t yet experienced EVIL per se (it WAS external to them, totally beyond their comprehension), so they CHOSE to “experiment” with it.
This was THE truest Free Choice to the max!
The choice between HEED vs IGNORE.
They had no idea, what the result would be – and they didn’t NEED to know it.
(If they DID know the horrors that would ensue from this simple act of disobedience – they would NEVER disobey the Commandment. They weren’t idiots, once again.)
All they NEEDED to know, was “obey this command from the Supreme Wisdom”, that’s all.
And they failed.
The rest of the human history is but a millennia-long attempt to CORRECT that single (failed) EXPERIMENT.
But had they OBEYED the command (for a few hours, until the next day – the day of Eternal Rest and Goodness – would come), there would NOT be any EVIL in the world at all!
It was an alternative plan, even if it failed.
(The topic of how G-d knows our choice and yet enables it, is too long for now, so I won’t start it. But, YES, it’s logically possible. EVEN logically, not to mention that we can’t apply HUMAN logic to its Creator.)

 
Flag Post

If God was both omnipotent and omnibenevolent (and I guess omniscient, but that kind of falls under omnipotence), he would not have allowed Satan to trick Adam and Eve into doing something against his wishes, since he would not want to punish Adam and Eve (omnibenevolence) and would be able to prevent Satan in the first place (omnipotence). As you said, we focus entirely on me, though it is very debatable whether or not I can accurately describe the majority of people’s feelings. So, if “my life gets saved”, but I still have to suffer for it, God is not potent enough to stop both, or not benevolent enough to want me to feel no pain at all. If God was both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would not allow me to be in any danger, not hurt me in any way, and still allow me to know that the good things in life are very enjoyable.

 
Flag Post

DR
Except unless He WANTED us go undergo the transformation from “passive listeners” to “active achievers”, which can’t be achieved other than through actually CHOOSING to become such.
So, He gave a very easy task for the first test, and in case humans succeeded, any further progress would be EASIER.
But we failed (as was possible, cause there was a double possibility to begin with – the fact of Free Choice, like explained above), so now the transformation takes thousands of years already, and isn’t yet finished.
But we ARE going in the right direction (humanity as a whole), regardless of what we think ourselves.
As of your last point, we do suffer the result of the first failure of humanity – why, well, because. :D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:


As of your last point, we do suffer the result of the first failure of humanity – why, well, because. :D

Because what, exactly? There is absolutely no reason to punish those not responsible for a crime, for the crime itself.

 
Flag Post

vika
We are NOT “punished” in the sense of a crime-punishment relationship.
But since the after-effect of that sin still lingers in the world, we must counter-effectively improve the world to a degree that would annul that downgrade.
And since that was a huge (a very mild word in this case) downgrade, our job is immense.
It’s NOT our “fault”, it’s our TASK.
Yes, we didn’t ask for it – but we didn’t ask to be created either.
Furthermore, the soul of the First Man was a collective soul of the whole humanity (how – very hard to explain, but there is logic in it), so in a sense it’s not us that do the job, but the part of us that is “Adam”, that has to correct its own mistake.
Again, this isn’t punishment, but a reparation of our own failure.
Basically, this is very similar to being given another chance, but on different conditions.
I can’t explain it better for now.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

So, He gave a very easy task for the first test, and in case humans succeeded, any further progress would be EASIER.
But we failed (as was possible, cause there was a double possibility to begin with – the fact of Free Choice, like explained above), so now the transformation takes thousands of years already, and isn’t yet finished.

Why didn’t he do what he did with the flood? You know, start from scratch (i.e. mass genocide)?


Originally posted by somebody613:

Again, this isn’t punishment, but a reparation of our own failure.

I am going to write this very slowly, so that you can understand it easily (may or my not require you to read it slowly):

My name is not Adam.
I did not eat an apple 6000 (+- 13 billion years) ago.

That god is a massive dick and definitely not omnibenevolent. Either that or he can’t act an other way, which would make him not omnipotent. Or he is both.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

vika
We are NOT “punished” in the sense of a crime-punishment relationship.
But since the after-effect of that sin still lingers in the world, we must counter-effectively improve the world to a degree that would annul that downgrade.

So if we are to achieve immortality on our own, why do we need a to worship a god at all? We’re undoing the damage the god did on our own, and sticking two fingers up to him in the process. Why not take that to it’s loical conclusion, and give god the finger in all aspects?

Furthermore, the soul of the First Man was a collective soul of the whole humanity (how – very hard to explain, but there is logic in it)

Where? I don’t see any logic in that. Besides, if he has all of humanity’s souls, that directly implies that Eve has no soul, and that’s not a track it would be at all safe for you to go down.

Yes, we didn’t ask for it – but we didn’t ask to be created either.

It would be perfectly fine for me to slit your throat. You didn’t ask for it, but you didn’t ask to be born either. Therefore, by your logic, both acts are equal.

so in a sense it’s not us that do the job, but the part of us that is “Adam”, that has to correct its own mistake.

I’m familiar with my own body. There’s no part of it that is ‘Adam’. I’d notice something like that.

 
Flag Post

EPR
You ARE Adam in the sense of your soul being a part of his.
To make a funny comparison, like a bee in a hive.
Even though each separate bee (soul/person) seems to be a stand-alone unit, but from the POV of the hive (collective soul), it’s not so.
This all boils down to the idea of us having souls and what it means “practically”.
In this case, a continuation of the major task being redirected to all the “sub-souls”.
Like I said, it’s hard to explain on a wink.

vika
Cause, ahem, we kinda were CREATED?
You’re too overpowering “human abilities” – we are FAR from being capable of what you imply at times.
Not just now, at all.
I’ll just repeat once more:
I’d like to see you or anyone creating a REAL “something from nothing” – then we can talk in that direction.

Eve was his “second part” aka true soulmate.
Meaning, she was the first “half-soul” to appear, their children being next.
Souls aren’t physical, so they can be “divided” while staying whole at the same time.
Again – a very difficult subject to explain.
..
SOUL.
Not BODY.
I highly doubt in your familiarity with your soul. :DDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

EPR
You ARE Adam in the sense of your soul being a part of his.
To make a funny comparison, like a bee in a hive.
Even though each separate bee (soul/person) seems to be a stand-alone unit, but from the POV of the hive (collective soul), it’s not so.

I’m kind of getting tired of this, so I’ll just say this: prove it!
What you are doing here is claim claim claim in a thread that is about prove prove prove.

Want an example? Fine.

This all boils down to the idea of us having souls and what it means “practically”.
In this case, a continuation of the major task being redirected to all the “sub-souls”.
Like I said, it’s hard to explain on a wink.

You claim that we have souls.
You claim that our souls are part of a collective source-soul.
You claim that this source-soul was tainted.
You claim that this removed our souls (or soul fragments) from the collective.
You claim that it is our task to return to the source soul.
You claim that returning to the collective is a good thing.

And again, if all that is so important and god really wants this returning of souls, why doesn’t he just do it?
Can’t he do it? → not omnipotent
Can he do it but prefers to make us do all these “tasks”? Well, as said before, in that case I cannot find a reason to call him omnibenevolent. After all, he was responsible for the tainting of the original soul. He made it the way it is and gave it nonsensical orders. If he punished Adam for not obeying nonsensical orders and on top of that made this punishment carry on on all who came after him then this god is a dick, plain and simple. → not omnibenevolent