xcapizt:
question:
how can the "honest truth about God" be found?

MuttleyLaff:

God is not one or any of your run off the mill deity(ies)
which is why the Omnipotence paradox necessarily doesnt apply to God

DProDG:
You know that doesn't make any sense, right?

finofaya:


You described justice as "you pay back what you stole", for this case we are considering. That justice cannot be met by having the victim pay to himself the money he lost to theft. Any solution that involves more or less than the justice you've set out is either injustice or mercy, respectively.

If you put it like that (A is NOT...), it means humans do know what the misuse of free will can cause, in A. I would have to disagree then, since in A there will be no such thing as misuse of free will. Of course they can always be told.

There are things that you don't have the opportunity of knowing by experience yourself. You know them by either watching the thing happen to another or having another tell you about it. For example, you know that a strong enough electric shock will kill you, even though you have never experienced it (obviously). You have either been told about it or seen it happen to someone else. I believe you are not inclined to know by experience what a strong electric shock can do, owing to what you've seen or heard. Indirect knowledge suffices sometimes.

At the driving instance, I learnt how to drive by doing as I was told. After a while I didn't have to be told anything. Look at something as simple as operating the car's wipers. If you are told what button to press to use them, do you know how to use them at that point or at the point where you press the button? Indirect knowledge suffices.

MuttleyLaff:

When you find it pisses you off

ihedinobi2:


I think you're splitting hairs unnecessarily here. Justice requires that the man have his money back and you give up whatever benefit you have because of it to him. Mercy requires that you suffer nothing for your wrong. The man gets his money back, you have no benefit whatsoever and you suffer nothing for what you did. If anything at all, you actually make a gain into the bargain. There is no injustice done here at all.


Ok, in the spirit of keeping the conversation simple, who would be telling the humans in this world B - where there is no sin etc but with humans with "free will" in it who learned about the misuse of free will by oral instruction and demonstration - about the misuse of free will and how is it demonstrated to them?

finofaya:


Lol. Is it ever necessary to split hairs? I was working with the requirements of justice you gave, and now you've changed them. What amounts to justice is not the same in every case so we have to agree on what justice is in each case. I thought we had.

We only spoke of world A. I'm assuming there's a God in world A and that he can tell the humans in that world about the misuse of free will. I never mentioned demonstrations.

ihedinobi2:


You think justice has a different meaning in each different situation? That's interesting. And confusing. I think justice means that wrong is repaired regardless what the wrong is, who the perp and victim are and what their peculiar circumstances are. Are you disagreeing with this? I do not decide what the requirements are in any case even if it is in an example I cite.

Fine. I put in World B for simplicity. But we can still ignore it and use World A alone. So did God not tell Adam exactly what the misuse of free will would result in? As for demonstration, yes, you did mention it when you spoke of watching something happen to another. My point remains that humans learn especially by doing. Adam was told what would happen if he misused his free will yet he did.

finofaya:


Not the meaning, but the means of achieving it. For example, while in a case of theft justice almost always involves some form of punishment to serve as a deterrent for the thief, in a case where a person makes a promise (gratuitously) and fails to keep it, you could not do any justice by punishing the promisor. Therefore, punishment does not always amount to justice. Also, different people have different notions of how justice should be achieved, which is why adultery is not an offence in some places and in others it is a capital offence for which you'd be stoned. You just have to define how you want your justice to be achieved.

In our hypothetical world where free will can't be misused, you have no reason to worry about the misuse of free will. Your requirement that the humans know about the concept can be satisfied by telling them about it. If you are not satisfied with telling them and you want them to experienced it, you have to keep in mind that letting Adam and the rest of us experience it has done nothing to prevent us from misusing the free will.

ihedinobi2:


In other words, Justice is a meaningless term. We give it what meaning we prefer in our own subjective circumstance. That is what you're saying, right? If it is, there is little point continuing in this part of the discussion. You wouldn't be able to make sense of anything I say.


Let me refresh our conversation here. You suggested that there is a contradiction between the existence of pain and suffering and the existence of an all-powerful God who cares for man. I asked you to imagine a hypothetical world where humans with free will exist and there is no pain and suffering. Then I asked you to tell me how such a world could come to be. You said that God could tell the humans what the misuse of free will would result to so that they would never misuse it. I told you that humans learn by experience. You disagreed. Then I told you that God did tell man about what happens when free will is misused and yet we have a world that is not like the one in our hypothesis. Your answer to that is that knowing the pain and suffering that the misuse of free will brings has not stopped us from misusing it.

I think that if you're honest you'll concede that telling humans about the bad consequences of misusing free will does not stop them from misusing it. Therefore it is possible for a world such as ours to exist even though an all-powerful God who cares for humans exists too. Unless you insist that an all-powerful God cannot give human beings free wills. Thus our hypothetical world cannot exist on the conditions that you set.

It can only exist if God perseveringly guides humankind through the journey of learning to make the right choices until it becomes normal to it to do so. Like going to school. At the end of that journey with the skills locked into place by habit formed from years of practising making the right choices a world where humans do not cause pain and suffering for themselves through bad choices would be possible.

Do you disagree?

finofaya:


Ha. Are you now trolling?

I said it is not the meaning that changes but the things that have to happen for justice to be done. For example, you cannot do justice to the victim of a hit and run by banning the use of any vehicle whatsoever by any person. Justice here would require apprehending the offender, having her take care of any medical expenses and fining/jailing her. Justice is not one size fits all, is what I mean.

I said that there might be an example in practice of an omnipotent God who created something outside its power, if God cannot now make a world without pain and etc. Also if it can, we suffer arbitrarily.

I said humans don't learn by experience alone, not that they don't learn by experience. There is also the issue of how experience trumps testimony in your scenario, if neither can attain the goal of preventing the misuse of free will.

You haven't said how knowledge of the effects of the misuse of free will is so indispensable. Remember I pointed out that God defines what is dispensable and what isn't, i.e what reality is.

I disagree, @ your last question, of course.

ihedinobi2:


No I am not.

I think we can settle that very easily. What does justice as a concept in itself mean? If we agree on that then we can agree on when it has been achieved in any particular scenario.

And I answered essentially that you were wrong. And proceeded to offer you a way to see how God's omnipotence and the existence of pain and suffering can be concurrent. You have not done a good job of critiquing that perspective yet.

Of course, humans could learn in more ways than one, is what you essentially said. And I told you that experience is how we learn. That was my assertion which you disputed. That is why I said 'you disagreed'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'neither can attain the goal of preventing the misuse of free will'. Did you miss where I showed you how learning experimentally eliminates the misuse of free will?

Indeed. God decides what reality and what is logically consistent is. He could have built any kind of world. But would that not depend on what kind of person he is, to put it simply? God's nature decides what his creation will be like, does it not?

finofaya:


From Merriam-Webster: justice is "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments."

You have missed the point again. My question is whether there is an example in practice of an omnipotent God creating something outside his power. Remember, the thread is about God creating a task he can't perform. I wanted to know whether God cannot now create a world without the pain and suffering.

Your answer that God created this world as it is in order to show humans what the misuse of free will causes and thereby prevent their misuse of it is obviously wrong, given that people are currently misusing free will.

I must have missed it. Haven't you noticed how the misuse of free will has not been eliminated?

This is your only real attempt so far to answer my question. Go ahead and make your point, don't delay by asking me questions.

ihedinobi2:


In other words, justice is about giving to each their due, right? It is not a system of rehabilitation or a measure primarily for deterrence. Now, what is the due of a thief?

Considering what the discussion is in the first place and my stated position, you could not have seriously asked me for an example of a situation I consider impossible. The way I saw it, YOU proposed an example of God creating something outside of his power. And I countered with an attempt to explain the "something outside of his power".

As for people currently misusing free will, I say again, God is guiding humanity toward the world and existence where we don't misuse our power of choice.

That is explained by the concept of eternity. If life does not end here, then "here" is a journey to "somewhere". In Christian tradition, we are looking forward to a world where humans do not misuse their free will. And that world will come through the lessons we are learning today about the terrible results of misusing it.

Are you tired of thinking?

Good. So if he's almighty, doesn't the premise leads to conclusion that he's also capable of creating a mountain that he can't move? Because if he can't create a mountain that he cannot move then he's not almighty, isn't it?

ihedinobi2:
That is explained by the concept of eternity. If life does not end here, then "here" is a journey to "somewhere".
In Christian tradition, we are looking forward to a world where humans do not misuse their free will.
And that world will come through the lessons we are learning today about the terrible results of misusing it

finofaya:


Under our Nigerian criminal code, justice in cases of theft is achieved by imprisonment ranging from life to 2 years with option of fine, depending on the severity. The court might order restitution, or you might have to go to a civil court for that. The judge can't go above or below this range, however much he might want to, because we can't apply our varying individual ideas of what amounts to justice in each case. There has to be some sort of standard, which is what I thought you were setting in your example.

You've gotten part of the question. So far you've left out whether things could not have been/can not be done differently. I find the current state of affairs sub optimal for a certain type of God. Of course you don't think it is.

That's all fine and good. All of this is based on assumptions which we haven't discussed yet. Even at that, if you believe that hell as a place of eternal suffering exists, then you can't have a world where humans or agents don't misuse their free will.

Save time. Make your point. Unless you have to wait for my answers in order to construct your point.

MuttleyLaff:

Kind of the sentiments in "Sin Shall Be A Glory" - As Revealed by Julian of Norwich
- a book I picked up in a flea market last weekend

ihedinobi2:
Sin shall be a glory? That sounds very curious.
Perhaps the idea the title is meant to convey is that the existence of sin will end in glory.
That is the sentiment that I hold.

MuttleyLaff:

I know it is the sentiment you hold, which is why I brought up the book, could feel it all along in your posts
and it soon struck me that your sentiments are the same in the book I picked up in a flea market last week
I am still reading the book at any available window opportunity,
like picking it up to read when going to use the washroom etc
I dont want to quickly read, as I think if I rush it, I am likely to overlook some pearl truths or miss some gems in it.

ihedinobi2:
I'll probably find the book when I find the time and see what it has to say.

ihedinobi2:


Are you disagreeing with the definition you presented for "justice"? Does justice mean to right wrongs or does it mean to rehabilitate wrongdoers, deter wrongdoing or encourage right-doing?

Please repeat that question again.

I'm not sure if you are still looking for a meaningful conversation. I am answering your assertion about the continued misuse of free will. I told you at the beginning that in World A where humans have both free will and a world free of pain and suffering, they must know what the misuse of free will results in. Now you say that I'm making assumptions in answer to why humans still misuse their free will. I offered an argument. It is up to you to counter it successfully.

At some point you should develop that interesting argument you just made about hell. But I suggest we come to some clear understanding about your "paradox" of God's omnipotence and the existence of pain and suffering.

It's a fair question.

finofaya:


No. Yes.

The question is whether an omnipotent God cannot create a world without pain and suffering.

The assumptions in your position are that knowledge of the consequences of the misuse of free will is indispensable, that testimony will not suffice as "knowledge", and that experience will suffice instead but only after a period of time. There are others relating to the Christian tradition but since we're already assuming that God exists I won't dwell much on them.

Allowing all the assumptions, I said hell damages your case. Gimme your undeveloped answer anyhow, before we get to the point where I develop my interesting argument.

Lol. You know it's fairness is not the issue.

Can almighty God create a task that's so huge even he can't do?

ayindejimmy:



Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
God can... But why should He?
You have to prove why He should

You don't go around sleeping with your mother or sister simply bicos you have the power to... Or do you?

DProDG:


The question was "can..." and not "will...".

ihedinobi2:
I get the "No". I don't get the "Yes".

The answer is that he can.

I confess to being a little lost. My undeveloped answer to what? I don't see a question here. Unless you mean the answer that I gave above. In which case, I would ask you to go on and develop your argument.

Ok. Logic itself is merely about consistency of ideas with reality, I think. And God decides what reality is. So if God had been a cold, wicked reality, all he would produce (although the idea that he would produce or create anything is a very unlikelihood) would strain toward coldness, cruelty, wickedness. Laws would approximate toward wickedness. Sentiments would lean toward wickedness as well. Evil would be right and good would be the aberration. Logic here would prefer evil. If we argued (another real absurdity) in such a world, what would be logical would be whatever is consistent with evil.

If God, on the other hand, is good, he would create a good world. And all reality and logic would approximate to goodness as well.

Do you agree so far?

finofaya:


Yes, to everything. I believe that justice encompasses all the above, that no one is to the exclusion of the other.

Would you say that omnipotent God wants such a world? If yes, what stopped it from creating one or is stopping it from creating one right now?

I said free will must be misused for as long as hell exists. You said I should go and develop what I have said. I was asking if you could just go ahead and give a reply, instead of waiting for development. At least, I imagine, what I said is complete enough to be replied.

I don't quite understand. What do good and evil have to do with logic?

Can almighty God create a task that's so huge even he can't do?

UyiIredia:
This question is invalid since by definion there is nothing God cannot do.