Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Communicating Annuls Perfection
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Yes - assuming that rocks don't have a sense of "I"
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Hm. He was talking about being flawed. You asked if he preferred being human to being a rock. If he says he prefers being a human does this mean he has somehow admitted humans or God are not flawed?
No.
It was a distracting question. The answer implies little.
... and that is precisely what you are correlating as sufficient
Do I have to help prove God exists for you once again? I get to do all the hard work. You'll always have that glimmer of hope, hang in there.
Rapunzel's story is no different than any religious script. It was intended to mimic the communique from God to the authors of scripture. If its flawed that's good. You're not going to tell me its perfect, are you?
I have no idea what would make you ask that question.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it was ridiculous. If I am using a screwdriver with a broken handle and I point this out to a friend and my friend says "would you rather use a rock?" I still have a screwdriver with a broken handle even though I will reluctantly use it and prefer it over a rock. The idea that God might also be flawed is so taboo smugness immediately arises in relation to it.
They were talking about it like I said things that I didn't say.
lol
I certainly hope not
Ever wondered why religious scholars (even the atheistic variety) never speak like that?
so once again, if I can mimic a claim of physics with a fairy tale, does that mean I have adequately provided a means to circumvent other prescribed activities in physics?
You can do anything you want but bear in mind: It is much easier to circumvent religion than physics. You've taken the challenge and have run the gauntlet, part ways at least. Still a long way to go.
if I want to avoid the prescriptive measures required, it makes no difference
Of course professionals in the field might treat me with compassion, or perhaps anger and ridicule if I become a bit too pedantic ....
Too pedantic? Hell, that's keeping religion alive.
What about a child who is raped and butchered? They obviously have no free will to stop this. A creator that is omnipotent can create a world with free will where such an evil event could not happen - a physic imposibilty no different then you or I flapping out arms and flying. Simply impossible. Given that a creator can create such a world and did not, that says to me the creator/s is/are evil. OR there isn't any.
I don't get the question. You mean as God, when does God just walk away?
I'm not saying a "game" - -that was an example as God as a programmer. The Programmer has control over the reality in the game.
So, we agree that God can create a world where horrendous unbearable suffering can not exist and yet decided to create one where it does anyway. Well, such a God is evil. Remember, God can do anything, It can create a world where you have freewill and you can still come to whatever epiphanies It would like you to come to. Just imagine if you were simply a flower soaking in the sun.
But ooohhh no, God creates animals that must rip the flesh off other animals while still alive (and even gives those other animals pain receptors) and also make this a requirement for the one animal to remain alive. He builds it into their DNA - to kill.
God could have made it so that children can not be raped and doused with gas a burned alive - but meh, he didn't.
Again, such a God must then be evil.
The understanding of such situations depends on one's understanding of these topics:
- What is a person? - Are you your body? Are you a soul and the body is just attached to it? What are the characteristics of the soul, and what are the characteristics of the body?
- How does human action take place?
- How does suffering exist? What does it pertain to?
- Is there only this one life time (those 70 years or so), or is there rebirth where a living being is born many many times, in different bodies?
In short, if you are trying to understand these topics from a common Western or common Christian perspective, the conclusion will most likely be that there is no free will, or that if there is a God, he is evil.
However, these perspectives are not the only ones that exist in this world.
Religious traditions such as Buddhism or Hinduism address these topics much differently.
Here's a summary: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71803
Are you sure that such a world does not exist? Are you sure that Plant Earth is the only case of creation, and that if there are others, they're all like Earth?
I'm not arguing that there exists such a world. It's just that it is impossible to prove a negative, and you are arguing as if you had proven a negative ...
It makes the whole discussion futile.
Michael
If we are eternally bound this world talks of liberation are moot
No I mean we can.
If we are eternally bound this world talks of liberation are moot
therefore I struck the example of a game within a game. Or a game that we can control within certain (very stringent) limits that exists within a larger game.
I guess it depends whether you think creating a jail creates a need within society or whether creating a jail caters for an already existing social phenomena
just because god can create anything doesn't mean that things like round squares or free will with out the opportunity to express evil can be created
actually he did create a world like that - that is where we are originally situated - for some funny reason however we think that this world offers a better alternative
or alternatively, we are just expressing our free will in a totally ridiculous fashion