100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: A Question Of God | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
God is omnicient, omnipitent and omnipresent. if you do not believe this this i shall ask you not to reply. If you aren't willing to accept opposing views, you should not have posted in the General Religion forum. That being said, Epicurus sums it up pretty well: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus However - Epicurus makes the fundamental mistake of attempting to quantify Evil. What is evil but falling short of Good? That is like quantifying darkness whch is defined as an absence of light - or cold - which is a varying degree of heat, but not definable without it. Therefore - Epicurus' premise that evil is a quantity is in doubt - and therefore his conclusion dubious at best. While it may be true to reach a true conclusion through a false premise - if the logic flows from an unacceptable premise, and is not flawed - the conclusion is unacceptable. That's why he's called God. I don't see where he is quantifying evil, perhaps your terminology is flawed. If he were to quantify evil he might say something like murder is worse than rape or blasphemy is better than genocide. I think the point he is hinting at is that if god is the creator of everything, then he also created evil. Why would he create evil at all? Are you suggesting that the concepts of goodness and evil are symbiotic? That there can be no goodness without evil? Then can god exist without satan? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God is omnicient, omnipitent and omnipresent. if you do not believe this this i shall ask you not to reply. If you aren't willing to accept opposing views, you should not have posted in the General Religion forum. That being said, Epicurus sums it up pretty well: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus However - Epicurus makes the fundamental mistake of attempting to quantify Evil. What is evil but falling short of Good? That is like quantifying darkness whch is defined as an absence of light - or cold - which is a varying degree of heat, but not definable without it. Therefore - Epicurus' premise that evil is a quantity is in doubt - and therefore his conclusion dubious at best. While it may be true to reach a true conclusion through a false premise - if the logic flows from an unacceptable premise, and is not flawed - the conclusion is unacceptable. That's why he's called God. I don't see where he is quantifying evil, perhaps your terminology is flawed. If he were to quantify evil he might say something like murder is worse than rape or blasphemy is better than genocide. I think the point he is hinting at is that if god is the creator of everything, then he also created evil. Why would he create evil at all? Are you suggesting that the concepts of goodness and evil are symbiotic? That there can be no goodness without evil? Then can god exist without satan? Evil is the absence of Good. Just like cold is the absence of heat. If god created something "evil" - where and what is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God is omnicient, omnipitent and omnipresent. if you do not believe this this i shall ask you not to reply. If you aren't willing to accept opposing views, you should not have posted in the General Religion forum. That being said, Epicurus sums it up pretty well: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus However - Epicurus makes the fundamental mistake of attempting to quantify Evil. What is evil but falling short of Good? That is like quantifying darkness whch is defined as an absence of light - or cold - which is a varying degree of heat, but not definable without it. Therefore - Epicurus' premise that evil is a quantity is in doubt - and therefore his conclusion dubious at best. While it may be true to reach a true conclusion through a false premise - if the logic flows from an unacceptable premise, and is not flawed - the conclusion is unacceptable. That's why he's called God. I don't see where he is quantifying evil, perhaps your terminology is flawed. If he were to quantify evil he might say something like murder is worse than rape or blasphemy is better than genocide. I think the point he is hinting at is that if god is the creator of everything, then he also created evil. Why would he create evil at all? Are you suggesting that the concepts of goodness and evil are symbiotic? That there can be no goodness without evil? Then can god exist without satan? Evil is the absence of Good. Just like cold is the absence of heat. If god created something "evil" - where and what is it? For their to be heat something must cause a reaction, an excitation of molecules. In the natural resting unaffected, unexcited state their is only cold. Therefore cold existed before heat. To apply this to good and evil then all things are evil and it only through some affect or excitation that anything becomes good, but didn't create everything and then "see that it was good"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God is omnicient, omnipitent and omnipresent. if you do not believe this this i shall ask you not to reply. The question is; if god is all of these things could he create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it? Omnicient= all powerful Omnipitent= all knowing Omnipresent= all places, he exists in all places similtaniously got a good answer/theory, post it. not in a dorogotory way though simply state you thoughts. Yes he could. How you might ask. He creates the rock, then he simply decides not to lift it. Why you might ask. Because he forbade himself to do so. Why you might ask. Because he obeys himself. Why you might ask. Because he is God.   
doesnt make to much sense. if he made the rock he couldnt lift then he couldnt lift it thus he is not omnipotent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why even bother to debate religion,all that can be gained is an exchange of opinions with the propensity for becoming argumentative,resulting in nothing being accomplished due to lack of proof...the way i see it.. god created everything ..gave mankind free will and said i'm outta here youre on your own ..then over time several people pieced together some chapters writing about it,omitting some things,over exaggerating others,back it with nothing more than faith due to lack of proof and called it the bible .. but the underlying reason for bibles were probably some way to maintain some kind of order over a large amount of people ...let your conscience be your guide...jmo.. |
|
|
|
|
