"omnipotence" can be easily debunked with the simple question: "Yes or No, can your god destroy itself?"
If yes, then it's not powerful enough to withstand its own attack, therefore not "all-powerful."
If no, then it's not powerful enough to destroy itself, therefore not "all-powerful."
"good & evil" are arbitrary terms that require a subjective perspective. there can be no "objective" good & evil. theists generally attempt to say that their 'god' decides what is good & what is evil, but that's just pushing the arbitrary decision back to one person, 'their god' which is still subjective.
so, "omnipotence" "good" and "evil" are nonsensical attributes theists give to a god they can't demonstrate actually exists.
chulotc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "omnipotence" can be easily debunked with the > simple question: "Yes or No, can your god destroy > itself?" > > If yes, then it's not powerful enough to withstand > its own attack, therefore not "all-powerful." > > If no, then it's not powerful enough to destroy > itself, therefore not "all-powerful."
Yes, the old rock too heavy idea. If I weren't such an atheistic agnostic, I'd like the idea that god already destroyed him/herself as portrayed in simple fashion by Scott Adams in God's Debris.
> "good & evil" are arbitrary terms that require a > subjective perspective. there can be no > "objective" good & evil.
I may need a primer on this. If there is a god who made all the universe, I would think it possible there are absolutes on "good & evil". But without god, I agree, it is subjective. Even with god, it could very well be subjective.
But you made an absolute: There can be no objective good & evil. That seems to break a rule that is being made in the same sentence. Sorry, probably my confusion.
Jesus Smith Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > "good & evil" are arbitrary terms that require > a > > subjective perspective. there can be no > > "objective" good & evil. > > I may need a primer on this. If there is a god > who made all the universe, I would think it > possible there are absolutes on "good & evil". > But without god, I agree, it is subjective. Even > with god, it could very well be subjective.
Even god's ideas of good and evil are subjective. How is killing wrong for us, but it was okay to commit genocide with a flood and kill many innocents, because he was mad at a few?
Why was Pharaoh punished for committing adultery with Sarai? Abraham pretended she was his sister! God punished someone for a crime they didn't know they were committing! Where does that fall in the "good" and "evil" scale?
Nah, TBMs can beat this by saying "yes, he can allow himself to be destroyed (by himself) or not." He can do any number of crazy things, but he would cease to be God, and chooses not to. Omnipotence is a relative and fuzzy term.
the general 'god attributes' claims don't apply to kolobian deities since they are only exalted aliens. kolobians don't use the word 'omnipotent' the same way other theists do. the kolobian version of omnipotence is that god has "all the power that can be had"...
If good and evil are arbitrary and subjective terms, then what's to stop people from doing things that Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators have done? Does what they did even matter, should we even care what they did, or is it all just relative? Were they good, simply because their society called them good?
hitler, stalin, and other dictators don't hold a candle to the atrocities commited by gods such as the god of the bible.
as a species we can make reasonable assessments about how our collective and individual decisions affect our survival, but that's just from the perspective of our species or individuals within the species.
in the grand scheme, we are just one species on one planet in one solar system of one galaxy of one local group of one galactic filament of one universe.
how can we pretend that our actions matter in any kind of "objective" sense? in order for our decisions to matter we have to narrow our field of vision to a tiny scale. that is subjective.
You are saying that good and evil are subjective, yet at the same time you are calling the acts committed by a make-believe god in the bible atrocities. These genocidal acts were committed by people who believed that what they were doing was right. So what makes those acts atrocities? And shouldn't we as a species here on the planet earth try to make sure those acts don't happen again? Or do we just let one dictator after another repeat those same acts? By what set of values do we operate on as a human species if there is no good and evil?
"as a species we can make reasonable assessments about how our collective and individual decisions affect our survival, but that's just from the perspective of our species or individuals within the species." I agree with what you saying here, our decisions are either motivated by our own self-interests, or for the survival and benefit of whatever collective that we belong to. But isn't there anything more to it than just survival? Are there not any values that cut across all human collectives?
Yes, in my subjective opinion, and I think most people would agree with me, the acts commited by the so-called god of the bible are atrocities. Their only purpose is to preserve one tribe at the cost of destroying others.
Of course, if you were to ask a hebrew at that time (assuming for the sake of argument that the story is true) I'm sure they would disagree and appeal to their god for justification.
Ensuring the survival of the species implies a lot of things, such as making said life enjoyable and free of suffering, which in turn allows more freedom to develop technologies that extend life spans and cure & prevent diseases.
Also, developing technologies that allow us to overcome our current biological limitations.
Survival is complex. I don't see the problem with making decisions that ensure the collective survival of our species.
in fact if history has shown us anything it's that 'gods' are generally responsible for most of the behaviors we see in people like hitler and stalin.
hitler was catholic and although what he did to the jews (in my subjective opinion) was "evil", it's nothing that the jews hadn't previously done to the amalekites, midianites, moabites, canaanites, and other non-special un-chosen peoples whose only mistake was living in a land the hebrews believed they were given by their 'god.'
what's "good" for one person may be "evil" for another. as social animals we collectively decide what choices to take away from each other and bribe certain members of the group (cops, military, public officials) to enfore those rules through force & fear. it was only a matter of time until someone, somewhere, made up a god or gods to give their subjective perspective more weight.
*please don't pretend that I was saying catholicism was the reason hitler did what he did. although catholicism is responsible for the crusades and inquisition, i don't believe it was responsible for the holocaust. i just don't like when people pretend hitler didn't believe in jesus, that's all. his faith in the white god was evidenced in his speeches and eugenics campaigns...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2011 03:23PM by chulotc.
Which is that the pantheon's of antiquity (including the ancient jews) weren't as stupid as they might seem in their fondness of petty and cruel gods. Life obviously is unfair and cruel. Mischevious dieties follow from ordinary human experience. It's the later all-benevolent god that is the more stupid idea (less in touch with experience), and it goes to show in what direction theology is taking us - it just becomes more and more retarded for every century - until we reach modern day mopologists who cannot differ between a tapir and a horse.
spaghetti oh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Replace 'God' with Santa or The Flying Spaghetti > Monster or any other imaginary entity... and state > their claim right back at them. > > "Well I claim that Santa is omnipotent and is also > good & evil." > > They are equally (in)valid claims.
Yes, but that isn't very productive in a discussion with someone who actually takes the god delusion seriously. This person I am discussing with actually conceded the idea that god can not be omnipotent and all righteous. She decided to give on the idea that god must also be the source of evil.
Hence my question.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2011 03:00PM by Jesus Smith.
I would just say that if it is true that god is both good and evil, then his evil side likes the fact that I don't believe in him. Of course this would be followed up with a maniacal laugh as I walked away. Too many theists (and atheists for that matter) take themselves too seriously. I don't need to feed their egos by also taking them seriously.