So, are you saying god can or cannot create a being he cannot control?
If god is love, how can the world have so much hate?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
the moment we are not in control we are put in the material world, much like the moment a person is not in control of social norms they are put in jail (there is free will even in jail, but the scope of options is drastically reduced)
Threads like this provide a means of self-justification for those whose faith in the nonexistence of God is so weak that they just can't stop thinking about it.
By rehashing their dognmas over and over, these individuals hope to strengthen their faith by indoctrinating one another with the finely tuned nuances of their tenuous beliefs.
Let me ask again, and it was a "yes" or "no" question: can your god create a being that he cannot control?
PieMistress
Registered Member
It's a No.
The beings have the right to do whatever they please, and if God wanted to, he could control them. But controlling them would infringe on the free will all beings have, so therefore, he does not control them.
The beings have the right to do whatever they please, and if God wanted to, he could control them. But controlling them would infringe on the free will all beings have, so therefore, he does not control them.
The reason that LG is so reluctant to offer a straight answer (which he does very rarely anyway) is that either answer limits his god's power. If "no," then it imposes a limitation on god's ability. If "yes," then a limitation on god's ability is created.
Pseudo-philosophers like LG will probably dismiss the argument completely without bothering to deal with it because it is uncomfortable. After all, it was LG, who in another thread, asked us all to imagine the greatest being possible and thus suggested that this being must exist since we can imagine it (one that exists is necessarily greater than one that doesn't, therefore god exists, etc.).
Its all fine and good for pseudo-intellectuals like LG to give us parameters and qualities like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence... but see how eager they are to disregard such qualities when it suits them. As in LG's pseudo-intellectual dodge of a post above.
Pseudo-philosophers like LG will probably dismiss the argument completely without bothering to deal with it because it is uncomfortable. After all, it was LG, who in another thread, asked us all to imagine the greatest being possible and thus suggested that this being must exist since we can imagine it (one that exists is necessarily greater than one that doesn't, therefore god exists, etc.).
Its all fine and good for pseudo-intellectuals like LG to give us parameters and qualities like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence... but see how eager they are to disregard such qualities when it suits them. As in LG's pseudo-intellectual dodge of a post above.
let me repeat
the moment we are not in control we are put in the material world, much like the moment a person is not in control of social norms they are put in jail (there is free will even in jail, but the scope of options is drastically reduced)
The question is whether you think placing a person in jail effectively controls them or not (which can be given either a yes or no answer according to your perspective)
An intelligent person could determine that a person in jail is not completely controlled and a person not in jail is not completely free either, and if they were even a little bit more intelligent, in light of the discussion point, they could determine that it is only god who is completely free and independent
So are you saying "yes" or "no?"
that depends whether you work with the understanding that a person in jail is completely controlled or not
(in other words if you want a yes/no answer you have to rephrase your question since according tot he shade of meaning one can attribute to the terms used one could answer either yes or no)
Pray for a brain.
Don't worry LG. I didn't expect you to answer the question.
On the contrary I was hopeful of you being philosophically astute enough to phrase the question properly
Sorry if you don't like the question, but you don't get to just make up the rules as you go along. You can't simply ignore the question because I refused to indulge in pseudo-intellectual/pseudo-philosophical bullshit.
I asked a very straightforward question. The reason you refuse to answer it is because whatever the answer you are made uncomfortable. Face it. You lost.
I asked a very straightforward question. The reason you refuse to answer it is because whatever the answer you are made uncomfortable. Face it. You lost.
Its strange that you insist on asking philosophical questions while deriding the notion of philosophy
I don't deride philosophy. I deride your pseudo-philosophical drivel.
ahh!
A very astute philosophical conclusion!!
Now it just requires a few philosophical premises and you will have a philosophical argument to work with
So you've officially conceded the question, yes?
I concede that it is not possible to give an absolute positive or negative answer until you can give an absolute positive or negative answer to this question.
"Is a person in jail controlled?"
Ahh. The straw man argument. Face it, you've been exposed as what amounts to a philosophical charlatan. You want to have discussions but only by your own rules. You want the last word in discussions so much that you'll probably respond with some banter to this one. What you don't want is real criticism.
It seems that lightgigantic did not bother to respond. And the ORIGINAL question was already answered -no reason to repeat.
Last edited: