Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Clutch :

I agree that "learning something" is incompatible with "being omniscient." And "doing something" is incompatible with "being McNothing." I don't know why you didn't respond to the rest of my post. Would you like to offer a competing definition of "omnipotent," one that does not allow McNothing to be omnipotent?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Wizardry :

Huh? What's the difference? Are these philosophy terms of art with which I'm not familiar?

No he couldn't. If he had more power, he wouldn't possess all the same properties he has now. For example, he wouldn't possess "unable to do anything."

Let me try to make my argument really explicit.

1. "to learn" is a logically possible task.
2. If there is a logically possible task that being S cannot perform, S is not omnipotent.
3. God cannot perform "to learn."
4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

As I see it, you could only dispute (2). So, because (2) is a conditional, you'd have to tell a story in which there is a logically possible task some being S cannot perform, but S is still omnipotent. (That's the only way for a conditional to be false.) And it would help to explain why that's okay, that it can't perform a logically possible task. Maybe because the logically possible task can't be performed by a being with S's properties. But you won't get very far with that, because then McNothing is omnipotent.

Here's another argument. Most philosophers would agree, I think, that omnipotence is maximal power. If there could be a more powerful being than S, then S isn't omnipotent. I trust you'll agree too. Now, imagine a being just like God, except this being isn't omniscient. It follows that this being can perform "to learn" and is therefore more powerful than God. So God can't be omnipotent.

the_cave

I guess I've always assumed this was a reference to Satan. I admit I could be wrong.

Koyaanisqatsi

You are wrong. Pay close attention to the totality of the mythology from which "hell" and the concept of killing both body and soul comes from:

The "Abyss," not "hell." That gets described a little later. I'll point it out in a second, but pay attention to the chronology:

And what is this "second" death? The ability to kill both body and soul in hell? Let's find out:

Aka, "hell?" The lake of burning sulfur with torment day and night for ever and ever certainly describes "hell" to me, but let's see if we can delineate it further?

Remember that judgement.

Ok, so we know the lake of fire is the second death and that Death and Hades (not hell, but a purgatory for souls) gave up the dead that were in them and then those souls were judged:

The lake of fire, eh? That's the second death. So the souls were thrown into the lake of fire for a second death. But is it "hell," where Satan has also been killed a second time and is being tormented for ever and ever, aka, the lake of burning sulfur?

Let's see if there is anything else in this mess that would lead us to equate it all and find out whether Matt 10:28 is referring to Satan (aka, the devil) who can destroy both body and soul in hell or if it's God?

So, the lake of burning sulfur is also the second death where Satan is being tormented for ever and ever, so the whole damn shootin' match is describing our common conception of "hell" which is the "second death"

So, got that cleared up? The second death is the death of the soul and it occurs in the fiery lake of burning sulfur/lake of fire; aka, "hell."

And who condems us or throws us into hell?

But, who is doing the throwing and condemning? Satan? Or God?

Who sends people to hell?

Got it yet?

the_cave

Wow! I've never met an atheist who could quote the Bible like a Baptist...I'm sincerely impressed. Seriously.

Alright, you make a persuasive argument, so I'll grant you it for now...but I will say that I could, & I think in fact do, fear for example a Federal judge who could throw me in a maximum security prison for the rest of my life, while still respecting and honoring him. Now I haven't done anything that would merit this, & don't ever plan to, so this fear is something of a hypothetical fear...but it's certainly not wrong for me to fear him, while at the same time love him in some way. I'm not here to argue whether "all liars" are going to spend an eternity in some sort of an afterlife of flame...I'm just saying I can imagine this kind of fear in an ethical sense at the conceptual level. That's all.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, you know the old saying, "Know thine enemy" .

And may I now return the compliment and seriously thank you! That is such a rare admission to read around here, so, sincerely, thank you.

All right, but to explode this analogy for a moment (with addended caveats), if your lawyer were to tell you, for example, that you shouldn't fear the judge, you should instead fear the Parole Board, since they have the power to throw you back into prison; yes, fear them, then what is your lawyer telling you?

To "respect and honor" them? Sure, on one level, that might certainly be a subset of "fearing" them, but since the emphasis is on fear as a result of their power over your fate, doesn't that constitute more of a threat or at least a warning than it does merely a suggestion that you "respect and honor" them?

Remember, it's your own lawyer who is instructing you--in dire terms, no less--not to just "respect and honor" them, but to fear them, because of their power over your fate. That's the whole reason to use the terms he used and in the manner in which he repeats, "Yes, I tell you, fear them," yes?

After all, he's a lawyer, your lawyer, interested in getting an important message through to you by using the best words and tone available to impart the urgency of what he is telling you, and who, like the apostles and Jesus, know what words are being spoken and what those words would mean to you and anyone else who might have overheard his admonition, yes?

And even if you still simply decided to hear "respect and honor" in place of "fear," wouldn't the manner in which those words were spoken to you carry the same weight of the threat? What if, for further example, he told you that it would be better for you to cut off your own foot than to risk the Parole Board throwing you back in jail? Even if metaphorical, don't you agree that such language is decidedly extreme in a rather threatening manner?

Now, granted, once you're in jail you might have a lot of time to distance yourself from those words spoken after your sentencing and start to employ a certain level of apologetics that marginallizes the threat; he didn't really mean to fear the Parole Board, he meant to respect them and he didn't really mean to cut off my own foot, he meant...well, whatever the hell the apologetics are on those particular series of admonitions, but what would remain after all of your rationalizations and marginallizations and arbitary redefinitions is the fact that your own lawyer threatened you to fear the Parole Board.

Now just imagine that your lawyer comes to you every week and tells you to fear the Parole Board and sends you correspondence that reiterates and strengthens the notion that you should fear the Parole Board and other inmates tell you the exact same thing, day after day after day after day.

Don't you think that the threat would be so ingrained in your subconscious that it wouldn't make any difference how you then (on the surface) sought to reconcile it, it would be planted deep and reinforced constantly?

Now, to put it back into the dogma, it's not just your Parole Board you are to fear, but your God; and the threat isn't just about whether or not they will let you out early on Parole, but whether or not your soul will burn forever in a lake of eternal fire.

Either way (in jail or in life) don't you think that threat (implanted by your own people, mind you) will unduly influence the manner in which you try to live your life?

There are millions of people (billions, actually) that are so threatened on not just a daily basis, but on a constant basis; an omnipresent basis, if you will.

And all because somebody in your own camp told you to do this. Nothing more. For all you know, the Parole Board that you will meet (if any) could be the most helpful and benign group of people you've ever met, seriously intent on making sure that if you're truly reformed, they'll let you out. Unless you, say, show up for your first meeting in a state of panic and fear, worried to death that nothing you say will matter; sweating and confused and afraid, which they could easily misinterpret.

And that's as far as I care to go on that analogy. I think you see my point and I fear it falls apart too readily, since, again, what we're really talking about is an unproved fictional creation of ancient cult dogma and not an easily quantifiable section of our country's legislative body, warning you to behave in a certain manner and believe in a certain manner (that is never certain at all), under the threat of eternal damnation in an unimaginable burning lake of fire.

How would you know what to do? All you have to do is believe, right? Wrong. You have to believe with all your heart and soul and even then, there's no guarantee. You also have to live your life according to the precepts of the cult, but those precepts change from cult faction to cult faction. All you know is, eternal punishment for non-compliance, but non-compliance to precisely whom and precisely what are never made clear. They, too, are left up to your own imagination and your own cult faction's precepts that you may or may not agree with.

For example, homosexuals or abortion or Jews (aka, "Christ killers"), leaving the individual cult member almost completely without any moral compass, yet always living under the threat of non-compliance.

And there are other dangers as you demonstrate next:

Well, not to get too Freudian, but do you reallize what you're saying? You should love the one you fear and vice versa? Sound like control mechanisms to you, by any chance? Such as "cognitive dissonance?"

After all, you fear your father, but still love him, right? What's wrong with that? God's just your father in heaven, right?

Wrong. Your father does not have the power to destroy both body and soul in an eternal lake of burning fire.

See, that's why analogies always fall flat at a certain point, since we're not talking about a fallible being like your father not necessarily knowing how to control his own anger, for example, or not knowing the best way to raise a child according to their own personality, etc., etc., etc.

But that's how you get hooked, of course, so that you actually do start arguing things like, I can fear him, but still love him.

No. You can't. Unlike your father, God is not supposed to be fallible in any way, which should include this kind of human bifurcation that gives rise to the anthropomorphic god concept.

If god is pure love, for example, then he can't also be someone to fear and since these are all his rules and regulations, then they should speak for themselves; i.e., describe a concept that is not compatible with its own precepts.

In other words, "evidence of fraud."

That doesn't mean, unfortunately, that people won't still believe in some fashion what they've been told to believe, it just means that those same people will seek to marginallize the threat in order to make it seem more compatible with what they've been inculcated with; with what is at obvious odds with the whole picture.

Hence, "cognitive dissonance." You're told to believe something that is incompatible with either common sense, logic or other words for "reason" that nonetheless everyone else you know (family, friends, society, etc.) also believes in. I mean, they can't all be wrong, right?

So, instead of seeking to prove everyone you know is wrong, you instead seek to rationalize what they believe and personally augment it all so that you are comfortable believing your version of it. Peer pressure is, as we all know, extremely powerful and when you're talking about such institutions as the christian cult, that pressure can and has been quite lethal at times throughout its ignoble history.

So, instead of seeing all of this as what it is (evidence of fraud), the believer seeking to reconcile this huge mountain, sees it as what it is not (evidence of validity). Thus, millions of people prefer to see the trinity as evidence of god's mysterious ways, and not as evidence that the cult dogma is hopelessly flawed.

Possibly, but why would you if not for the ingrained, subconscious threat? That's, perhaps, a more pertinent question, don't you think?

luvluv

Koy:

What evidene do you have that the belief of most Christians is primarily based in fear? Would you really say of any of the Christians who participate in this forum that they appear to be primarily motivated by fear?

As compelling as your argument may be to an outsider, it really has little force with someone who knows a good deal of actual Christians. In all sincerity and honesty, I've never met a Christian whose faith was primarily motivated by a fear of punishment. I would bet that you haven't either. So how relevant is this critique, given that it generally doesn't apply to the real world?

As I believe I've said to you before, God tells us to "fear not" in the Bible more than he says to "fear". Is it possible that you are blowing a bit of theology that you, individually, find particularly appalling and blowing it's overall theological relevance entirely out of proportion? You would have to admit that the interpretation of the concept of fearing God which you promote is not the only possible one, and it is one that very few Christians actually believe. Further, it is a minor tennet of Christianity and one that is not relevant or pertinent to most practicing Christians.

So, really, what is the point in going on about it? You think your interpretation of the passages is disturbing, and so do most of the Christians for whom you present it. Luckily, neither you nor they believe your interpretation. So why discuss it at such great length?

This caught my eye. Can you explain that?

Bertrand Russell, for example, took the opposite track. He thought that a being of pure love would be something to be greatly feared.

(For what it's worth, Christians do not think God is "pure love". We think He is morally perfect. Which means that He is motivated by love, but not to the exclusion of considerations of justice. IMHO)

BTW, Welcome back to this huge waste of your time.

doodad

I tend to agree with you. Fear of authority, or respect, is a healthy kind of fear because it keeps you from harm. Fear of playing on the expressway serves the same purpose. It's this respectful type of fear that we afford to a figure of authority.

If we screw up and usurp authority then our fear may become phobic or toxic. For example, if I usurp the law and murder someone my fear of being executed is not constructive. This is a different kind of fear from that of respecting or fearing authority. With the latter you have options to obey or not, but with the former you've basically ran out of options.

doodad

I heard once the opinion that the fear of condemnation for sinning is a stronger motivation for practicing religion that the hope of salvation. The fear is in a sense a negative motivation, but fears can have a strong influence. Look at it this way. It's a mind game. People have the option of ignoring the whole propositition so why does fear compel them to play the game?

The fear would come from sinning, and a believer can identify with that, but the hope of having an eternal life through salvation is a nebulous thing for which there is no human experience. I truly think that even though few Christians will admit it, subconsciously their fear of condemnation is a stronger motivation for believing that their hope of salvation. At square one we are put in a negative position tp begin with if we are told we are hopeless sinners and cannot do anything about it but beg for forgiveness.

So the motivation for joining up is to avoid the condemnation, which is something to be feared. Look at it this way. If there was no chance for condemnation there'd be nothing to avoid by attaining salvation. The motivating factor is not hope for salvation but the need to escape condemnation, which is what we fear. What a sick joke to play on people? You rub their noses in dirt and make them feel unworthy, and then you follow up by promising to fix all that if they'll just believe. Man, talk about a solution looking for a problem. Oh well, someone is just trying to justify their existence (at the expense of others).

Koyaanisqatsi

The Bible.

"Motivated" by fear or that their beliefs are fundamentally based on fear? I was arguing the latter.

My entirely family is christian and all of my childhood friends are chrsitian and I was in my own church's choir. I know a good deal of christians and I can unequivocably tell you that the fundamental basis of their beliefs is, indeed, fear. Fear of God as taught to them in church and through the Bible.

They're primarly Presbyterians (as was I) and Catholics if that helps you in your apologetics.

Considering I never made that argument, good for you. I never stated that fear was a primary motivation for belief; I said, if you'll recall from what I actually wrote, that the fear and threat of punishment is on a subconscious level, i.e., that is was a fundamental fear inculcated usually from birth onward and then apologized for (i.e., rationalized) later.

Well, since this is your strawman and I never made any such argument, I'll let you do what you apparently do best and answer the questions you create.

As to whether or not fear is incorporated by not just the authors of the Bible but also subsequent cult factions who follow the Bible, that is not just historically true, but currently true, as well, since all christian cults teach the veracity of the New Testament and the precepts found therein.

Or do you not believe in the New Testament? Let me guess, you don't see "fear" employed anywhere in christian dogma?

Yes, and as I answered you before, the effect is deliberate and consistent with cult indoctrination. Fear God, but Love him and Don't Fear Him, so long as you believe in him.

The condition to "not fear" is predicated on accepting that it is true; the consequence, however, of not accepting it is true is, as Matthew and Luke and Mark and John (in Revelations) put it (in various wasy), "Fear Him, yes I say, fear Him, for He has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell, which is the second death."

Isn't it more possible that you are marginallizing what is actually dictated by your cult elders to make your untenable beliefs more palatable, as, again, I argued previously and you are not addressing?

History is on my side, my friend, as well as current events. Does "axis of evil" ring any theological bells?

For once we both agree, the problem being, of course that this doesn't change the fact that fear is a primary component of the Bible in relation to God. Indeed, all this argues for is what I was arguing prior, which is the marginallization and rationalization that has led otherwise intelligent people as yourself (and the_cave) to augment their beliefs according to their level of cognitive dissonance.

Again, the question is not that you have done this, but why have you done this, when the actual doctrines quite clearly tell you to fear God, and not merely "respect and honor" him.

Again, you're avoiding the point I made. Funny how that always seems to happen with you.

[quuote]MORE: Further, it is a minor tennet of Christianity and one that is not relevant or pertinent to most practicing Christians. [/quote]

You speak for "most practicing christians" do you? Fearing the "wrath of god" is not just endemic in christian beliefs (whether you admit it or not), it is arguably a central tenet to both the christian and jewish cults, as, again, both history and the actual texts prove.

How you personally decide to obfuscate or apologize for this fact only goes once again to the why question I asked of the_cave previously.

Or don't you have to adhere to the teachings of the New Testament? Are you free to pick and choose what it is you want to believe in? If so, then how and why are you necessarily a christian?

As I rather conclusively demonstrated (and even the_cave granted) was the fact that fear of eternal damnation is indeed a central tenet of the New Testament. You coming along and saying, "Well, most modern day christians that I know simply deny this precept" is hardly a salient argument against the precept inherent in the dogma, yes?

All it does is reinforce my other point, re: when faced with fraud, christian cult members, especially, respond to their cognitive dissonance by rationallizing it away, so, thanks for affirming my point.

I made that abundantly clear, so perhaps now you'll go back and address my arguments, yes?

Whether or not they "believe" it, as I pointed out prior, is irrelevant since the damage is done on a regular basis, hence all of my salient observations on denial and the effect of that denial on a subconscious level.

Why ask me questions that I have already answered?

Sure and thanks for actually asking, instead of just rewriting what it is I seem to be saying in a strawman attempt to put arguments in my "mouth" that I never made.

If god is pure love, then he would love you unconditionally, yes? He would love you as a sinner and he would love you as a non-sinner. Nothing you ever did would change his love for you. What then would you have to fear from such a being?

YOU: I hated a person.
GOD: I love you regardless.
YOU: I sinned against this person.
GOD: I love you regardless.
YOU: I killed this person.
GOD: I love you regardless.

Where is there anything to fear from that being? Please take note of the fact that the fear threatened in the Bible is in regard to his punishment for doing all the things that I listed above, so you'd have to make a case (and no doubt you will) that the "I love you regardless" is going to be augmented with, "and because I love you, I will punish you as I love you."

But that is conditional love (the condition being justice for one's crimes), but this can't apply to a being a pure love, since that would mean their love is predicated upon your repentance and therefore not freely given.

And his reasons were?

Well, good on you, then, since you've just dodged the bullet. But, of course, targeted yourself for another, since a God who is "morally perfect" is an impossibility. Morality is a purely subjective quality, as evidenced by the vascilating morality depicted and attributed to God throughout the bible.

For example, "thou shalt not kill" does not apply to him. How can he proscribe a morally perfect world if those allegedly "objective morals" do not also apply to him? If he is "morally perfect," then he can not kill, no matter what the motive or excuse is, yet he does again and again and again, unto the third and forth generation, not to mention the entire globe.

So, either morality is an absolute, in which case it applies to him, or it is subjective, in which case he can't be "morally perfect."

Thanks. It's a morally imperfect world .