Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Mar 2000 00:44:12 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@noveraNOMORESPAM.com
|
Viewed:
|
1128 times
|
| |
|
|
Briefly, my flight boards soon.
Peter Callaway wrote:
> What is the generic definition of a devil (apart from the red tights and
> pitchfork)? I ask this so we can all speak about the same thing. My definition
> follows.
>
> I believe a devil represents evil ("evil" with a "d", for darstardly?). What
> then represents good. Evil cannot exist without good, otherwise we have no
> basis for defining good or evil. So if we have evil (**a** devil) then by
> definition we must have good (**a** god?).
With you so far. A devil is an evil being. You can't know evil without
knowing good. As I've said before, animals are amoral and know neither
good nor evil. (well, except for cats. Cats are evil. :-) )
> Can man represent good? Not really, because there are good and evil men (and
> women), and all of us have our good and bad traits. Apart from Jesus, who was
> 100% good (my belief and not necessarily yours), I don't think any human being
> has been 100% good or bad 100% of the time from birth to death.
Still with you, mostly.
However, let me digress for a sec on the topic of what makes god the
supreme being. God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnibenevolent. These characteristics have some interlocks... omnscient
follows from omnipotent (it's a flavor or kind of "infinite power")
Omnibenevolent means to always intend good in every action and have it
happen. To be omnibenevolent requires omniscience, for one must know the
complete consquences of an action across the entire universe to be
certain that it is a GOOD action... Either that or the christian god is
"good by definition" instead of actually good.
But does omnibenevolence require omnipotentiality? I don't think so. To
always do good does not preclude being powerless to do so, right? not
sure. Stick with me though.
The christian devil, on the other hand, is fated to lose. So can he be
omnipotent? No! He has to lose. He may be omnimalevolent (the opposite
of omnibenevolent) but not all powerful.
Having said that, what are the possible mathematical permutations of
universes around most perfect/most evil?
We could have a universe in which there is no most perfect being and no
most evil being. Just lots of strivers on both sides of the battle line.
We could have a universe in which there is a most perfect being but no
most evil being against him, just a bunch of imperfectly evil limited
power guys... up against mr perfect and his good guy imperfect but heart
in the right place guys.
We could have a universe in which there is a most EVIL being but no most
perfect, just mortals and limited power gods on both sides
We could have a universe in which there is both a most perfect and most
imperfect.
Those are the mathematical possibilities, there are no others.
However... one is a logical contradiction. You cannot have an omnipotent
omnibenevolent being up against an omnipotent omnimalevolent being in
the same universe, you get a deadlock.
Hence the christian "devil's fated to lose" thinking. I think.
> Can this devil we're talking about represent good. Well, if he represents
> evil, he can't also represent good, since we're looking for an absolute
> representation here. The definition of evil in the dictionary doesn't say "...
> and sometimes means "good"".
Sort of. This devil can't by intention do good but since he's not
omnipotent, some days he has a bad day and accidentally does something
good.
Now on to the next part.
> > Only if we posit the existence of the specific christian devil, which
> > carries with it the manner of his creation (implying the existence of
> > the christian god, by definition), is the statement a lie.
>
> True.
>
> > So, sure. Let's posit the christian devil (with a side order of
> > implications). Now show that there is harm caused by denying god's
> > existence! Why? If your god is so great and so just, the righteous will
> > still be OK and who cares about the rest of them, they deserve what they
> > get. :-) In other words, has christianity actually benefitted mankind?
> > How? Prove it.
>
> You've almost answered your own question. You've said "If your god is so great
> and so just, the righteous will still be OK and who cares about the rest of
> them, they deserve what they get". Well the benefit is you *don't* get what
> you deserve.
I hold that this is unjust. It is not fair to not give rotters what they
deserve. Your god is setting a bad example for those of us that are
strivers by letting them off. And that's one of my major beefs with
christian theology, it's unjust and unfair. God doesn't like the hard
workers. So in fact we'd be better off acting like he didn't exist, that
is, acting like we have to make our own way in the world instead of
being fished out.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <38C5A25C.6BA832E3@v...er.net>... (...) One objection I'd like to raise is that not all Christians have an unjust and unfair god. Of course that depends on your definition of Christian, but I think the only useful (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| I've been steadily wading through this thread for several days now (you have a lot of catching up to do when you go to the field for a week), and have promised myself to stay out of the debate, and I will continue to do so (although the temptation (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) What is the generic definition of a devil (apart from the red tights and pitchfork)? I ask this so we can all speak about the same thing. My definition follows. I believe a devil represents evil ("evil" with a "d", for darstardly?). What then (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
