What to do about ISIS

[Phoenix Wright]

Here's a better one:

- The earthquake in Nepal happens.

- The earthquake in Nepal doesn't happen, but because of other circumstances (no I'm not an expert in plate tectonics, but since we're pretending to be God, I'm gonna use this), it will cause several volcanoes in very populated parts of the world to erupt, resulting in a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

"Well, change the laws of everything so that none of these happen." Perhaps there's an even bigger ripple that'll result if Earth doesn't let off its internal pressure, one that'll screw up something on the cosmic level. Unfortunately, my powers of foresight fail after that, because I'm not so arrogant that I think I can conceive every single state possible from the consequences of a single action (or lack thereof).

why is it being assumed that if one thing doesn't happen something else bigger and badder happens instead? if you stop an earthquake from happening, that'll probably stop a volcano from erupting in the first place. there is no "ripple" that begins if the earthquake is miraculously subsided by some magic force. if a fault slips deep in the earth (say some km deep), and that energy is released and then taken away by god, then that energy has been taken away. there's no working around that 'fact.'

the only reason god doesn't intervene is because that would take away the faith aspect of religion. which, to me, is very backward. why require faith at all? you could save hundreds of billions of people throughout time the agony of hell by simply revealing yourself as the universe's god...why not do it?

there are no arguments that support why god ought not act. none.

[eclipse]

why is it being assumed that if one thing doesn't happen something else bigger and badder happens instead? if you stop an earthquake from happening, that'll probably stop a volcano from erupting in the first place. there is no "ripple" that begins if the earthquake is miraculously subsided by some magic force. if a fault slips deep in the earth (say some km deep), and that energy is released and then taken away by god, then that energy has been taken away. there's no working around that 'fact.'

the only reason god doesn't intervene is because that would take away the faith aspect of religion. which, to me, is very backward. why require faith at all? you could save hundreds of billions of people throughout time the agony of hell by simply revealing yourself as the universe's god...why not do it?

there are no arguments that support why god ought not act. none.

Because I'm the one making this hypothetical argument, that's why. Can you answer the question as-is?

[dondon151]

Here's a better one:

- The earthquake in Nepal happens.

- The earthquake in Nepal doesn't happen, but because of other circumstances (no I'm not an expert in plate tectonics, but since we're pretending to be God, I'm gonna use this), it will cause several volcanoes in very populated parts of the world to erupt, resulting in a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

"Well, change the laws of everything so that none of these happen." Perhaps there's an even bigger ripple that'll result if Earth doesn't let off its internal pressure, one that'll screw up something on the cosmic level. Unfortunately, my powers of foresight fail after that, because I'm not so arrogant that I think I can conceive every single state possible from the consequences of a single action (or lack thereof).

but god is omnipotent. he created the laws of this universe. he can do whatever the hell he wants with them.

[Phoenix Wright]

the hypothetical is loaded. yes, a person would probably rather kill 100 over 1000, but that's irrelevant. an omnipotent god could save all of them. unless we're supposing that cannot happen? the parenting analogy is even sillier. if i were omniscient and i knew my kid would either turn out to be bad and burn forever or whatever, i would certainly pamper the shit out of them if it meant they wouldn't. i would do everything in my power to make sure they didn't burn. the question shouldn't just be about growing up in this scenario, but also the consequences of death from one's actions, since going to heaven arguably matters more than anything done on earth.

[Eurykins]

Hrrrm.

1) Anyone who lets people die even though they had the power to stop it is evil. (I think everyone can agree on this.)

2) God lets people die needlessly. (You just admitted this)

3) God is evil. (Follows from 1 and 2)

---

4) God is omnibenevolent (by definition).

5) So God is not evil. (follows from 4).

---

6) God doesn't exist because his existence leads to a contradiction (nothing can be evil and not evil at the same time).

There, I proved that God doesn't exist.

1. Just because you have the means to save someone does NOT imply/mean that you MUST do so. And just because people have the means doesn't guarantee the knowledge/will to further do so. Being disinterested/disconnected from a situation, despite having the means to affect it, doesn't make someone evil for not stopping it. (Also, if the people are dying for a reason/cause that they brought onto themselves, then they also deserve it, imo. If you're waving a gun around and fooling around with something knowing that it's fully loaded, accidentally shooting your friend in the face and killing him isn't something GOD should be responsible for, nor should he have any real reason to step in to save the kid. Life lessons OP.)

2. People dying is inevitable. Yes, we can do things to prevent certain causes and/or otherwise lengthen people's ability to live through things (Iike diseases and such), but in the end, people die. Shit happens, and you can't expect a God, more or less any fellow mortal, to bother achieving otherwise. Better to let reality set in that people are mortal and thus will come to an end at some point, rather than leaving them blindly living their lives like nothing bad/fatal can ever happen to them, imo.

Secondly, you spoke of disasters like earthquakes, holocaust, etc. And, if I'm not mistaken, you said that the "horrors of what happened could've still occurred with far fewer deaths". But let's be real- if only 5-10 people died as a result of Hitler's actions, do you really think we'd think/see him as the person as we do today? The scale in which he conducted his actions (and how he did so) is what makes him the monster the vast majority of people see him as today, and that would've been sorely changed, I feel, had the numbers were limited to almost nothing.

> Also, the way I see things, letting something bad happen doesn't mean that the person (who let it happen) is by nature bad/evil. It's like a parental figure warning a child off about doing something they know the kid shouldn't be doing, but in the end, they can have the option to let them do it anyways. And why is that? Does that make the parent evil/sadistic by nature, bent on making the child's life terrible and subjecting them to unnecessary terrors? No. Sometimes people learn best when they run into problems/conflicts on their own, and no amount of "You shouldn't do X or Y, 'cause Z will happen" advice will compare to first-hand experience (and therein the consequences of doing as such) garnered.

Yeah, God could've easily have said, "You are absolutely forbidden to eat from this tree, and I will remove it from play so you cannot even touch it," but at that point, what is there to be gained/learned? You can't expect people to learn without having mistakes here or there, and the experiences gained can be priceless in terms of shaping the people into who they are today. Besides, if God was moreso like our parental/best friend figure as the bible made him out to be, then there is only so much that he himself is responsible for, and it is not up to him to baby every little step/decision we make. Insisting that he is evil because he didn't step in and ultimately try to prevent the downfall of humans into sin only serves to imply that humans lack the capability to own up to their own responsibilities and mistakes that come with every decision we choose to make, which in turn only serves to shelve the blame from Adam/Eve onto God alone.

In this case it is. Take this world. Call it A. Add in 1000 extremely rich billionaires who donate their money to help others, such that poverty no longer exists. Call it B.

B is better than A. It's not up to debate.

I actually object, in the sense that, B is theoretically better in the sense of "more money" being there, and "no poverty happening" having been stated (while poverty still exists/no extra rich billionaires in World A). But on the other hand, if poverty doesn't exist as a result of a massive amount of money being thrown in, what other sort of problems could possibly be occurring as a result of the actions? The massive currency being dumped in could have a backlash in terms of economical effects, and therein could cause world B many more problems as a result, which could counteract the fact that poverty would supposedly not exist. Therefore, there's no way of saying for sure that World B, in fact, would be better than world A indefinitely (and thus is applicable for debate imo).

[dondon151]

1. Just because you have the means to save someone does NOT imply/mean that you MUST do so. And just because people have the means doesn't guarantee the knowledge/will to further do so. Being disinterested/disconnected from a situation, despite having the means to affect it, doesn't make someone evil for not stopping it.

in a court of law, you would be guilty of criminal recklessness or criminal negligence.

i have an epi-pen and the person next to me consumes a peanut and has an anaphylactic reaction. do you mean to suggest that if this person died from the allergic reaction, then i am not at all culpable in his death?

2. People dying is inevitable. Yes, we can do things to prevent certain causes and/or otherwise lengthen people's ability to live through things (Iike diseases and such), but in the end, people die. Shit happens, and you can't expect a God, more or less any fellow mortal, to bother achieving otherwise.

of course you can expect god to make humans circumvent death. for one, humans in the old testament are claimed to have had life spans of hundreds of years whereas actual humans rarely live more than a hundred years. god also has the power to raise humans from the dead, and his son (who is also him) has the power to cast away disease.

according to the bible, god is capable of all of these things, but he clearly never does them in the contemporary world, so in my court of law i find him guilty of criminal negligence.

suppose that people not living longer and dying of disease is a "good" thing because they get to spend more time in an afterlife that we cannot observe. if spending more time in the afterlife is good (and i hear that the afterlife is good, but who knows), then isn't it bad to make humans live at all? so whether death is good or bad, god is culpable either purposely or negligently.

the amateur christian apologists in this thread don't seem to understand the characteristics of their own god.

Edited April 28, 2015 by dondon151

[eclipse]

but god is omnipotent. he created the laws of this universe. he can do whatever the hell he wants with them.

The day I understand everything in the universe will be the day that I decide whether or not changing the rules on the fly is a good idea. Until then, I've concluded that I don't have enough knowledge to know whether or not things as they are are ultimately good, ultimately bad, or ultimately there for giggles.

the hypothetical is loaded. yes, a person would probably rather kill 100 over 1000, but that's irrelevant. an omnipotent god could save all of them. unless we're supposing that cannot happen? the parenting analogy is even sillier. if i were omniscient and i knew my kid would either turn out to be bad and burn forever or whatever, i would certainly pamper the shit out of them if it meant they wouldn't. i would do everything in my power to make sure they didn't burn. the question shouldn't just be about growing up in this scenario, but also the consequences of death from one's actions, since going to heaven arguably matters more than anything done on earth.

Don't you just love hypothetical situations that go against everything you believe?

Also, my church (not bothering to speak for the numerous others out there) thinks that going to heaven as the ultimate goal is ass-backwards. Let the afterlife take care of itself; right now, there's things in the world of the living that we can affect, so being a close-minded and judgmental person doesn't help anyone.

Worse comes to worse, there really is no god, in which case my legacy will be someone who attempted to make life a little better for a small group of people, in the name of something that doesn't exist. I'm fine with that.

[dondon151]

The day I understand everything in the universe will be the day that I decide whether or not changing the rules on the fly is a good idea. Until then, I've concluded that I don't have enough knowledge to know whether or not things as they are are ultimately good, ultimately bad, or ultimately there for giggles.

... do you understand the meanings of the words omnipotence and omniscience?

[eclipse]

... do you understand the meanings of the words omnipotence and omniscience?

It's one thing to have a word defined. It's another to truly understand the meaning. Have you ever been omnipotent/omniscient? Because if you have, then you can tell me why my leg cramped up early Sunday morning.

[blah the Prussian]

I'd rather know who the heck is funding these guys. Building an air force is no small feat.

Apparently Qatar is funding them covertly. At this point though, they are starting to actually form a governmental cabinet, and have the resources of a nation state. In all honesty, it doesn't surprise me at this point that they have an air force, although it is actually beneficial; I highly doubt they'll beat the Jordanian air force, so its just a waste of resources.

[Moishe Oofnik]

I see you I misread what you said about the extremely rich billionares which still wont rid of poverty ultimately because currency doesnt work that way at all and it will actually creates problems in many fields because if you just endlessly get money why do you have a job or contribute to society

@Everyone

The topic is what to do about ISIS and most the pages dont even touch on ISIS what is this the youtube comment section

Only Blah Eclipse and Snowy are actually takeing part in the ISIS conversation because some of your so stuck in your own asses and beliefs that you stray so much into an out of context religoes arguement that have started to just go in circles and honestly makes you look douchey

Edited April 28, 2015 by Moishe Oofnik

[Raven]

It would be nice if ISIS and other terrorist organisations were to be destroyed, wouldn't it?

As for how? Well, that's up for debate (or is it?). Killing them seems to be the only definitive way of eradicating this outbrek of fleas, and carpet bombing only seems to temporarily rid them until more appear to take their place.

I reckon a nice fat nuke where most of the top ISIS reside would be a pretty good start. But that's just me. I'm not a military strategist, or whatever.

[blah the Prussian]

It would be nice if ISIS and other terrorist organisations were to be destroyed, wouldn't it?

As for how? Well, that's up for debate (or is it?). Killing them seems to be the only definitive way of eradicating this outbrek of fleas, and carpet bombing only seems to temporarily rid them until more appear to take their place.

I reckon a nice fat nuke where most of the top ISIS reside would be a pretty good start. But that's just me. I'm not a military strategist, or whatever.

Well, Iraq and Syria would probably have something to say about nuclear weapons being deployed on their soil. I would recommend deploying nukes if Iraq and/or Syria fall entirely. Until then, a combination of ground troops and air strikes would work.

[Phoenix Wright]

Don't you just love hypothetical situations that go against everything you believe?

Also, my church (not bothering to speak for the numerous others out there) thinks that going to heaven as the ultimate goal is ass-backwards. Let the afterlife take care of itself; right now, there's things in the world of the living that we can affect, so being a close-minded and judgmental person doesn't help anyone.

Worse comes to worse, there really is no god, in which case my legacy will be someone who attempted to make life a little better for a small group of people, in the name of something that doesn't exist. I'm fine with that.

i don't follow what you're trying to say.

that's irrelevant. the parent isn't being close-minded or judgmental, the parent is saving their child from (eternal) damnation. i'm not even sure why you mentioned this. in your hypothetical, wherein it is supposed you are god, you would have the power to save your child for eternity. what happens in 80 yrs. on earth matters not at all on this scale.

sure, but again, this wasn't the hypothetical. my point is that there are no arguments for why god might ignore us. i was tired of reading (and now i'm a part of the discssion :( ) all those posts attempting to defend god's inaction. the only reason god doesn't interfere is because of faith. why? who knows.

my actual points have yet to be responded to.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[Irysa]

I see what you're saying. The problem is I can't see the leaders of ISIS ever being reasonable, or reasonable ones coming to power. I suppose that's a matter of perspective, though.

Well, we both recognise that what they currently want to achieve is actually impossible. Like, physically impossible. It may well be that the people in ISIS continue to believe in the impossible ideal of a new caliphate until they die, but considering that open hostilities are going to continue for the forseeable future, it won't take a full generation's length for potentially new perspectives to be introduced. It may occur in under five years.

I'm assuming (perhaps irrationally) that there is some modicum of rationality to what ISIS wants. Like, just in the most basic idea "We want a new Islamic caliphate". The demands of the methods to achieve that goal and size of said caliphate are currently impossible, but if they actually want it to happen, they're going to have to make some kind of compromise. If they geninuely just want to just commit atrocities until they die, then nothing can be done about it besides annihilating them.

It's one thing to have a word defined. It's another to truly understand the meaning. Have you ever been omnipotent/omniscient? Because if you have, then you can tell me why my leg cramped up early Sunday morning.

The meaning is what the definition of the word is. If you're trying to pull the usual "God transcends human understanding", then fine, that's impossible to argue with, but "omnipotence", in our language means can do anything. The earthquake can be negated without affecting anything else, because omnipotence means God has the power to do so. If God does not have the ability to actually do literally anything, then he is not omnipotent. If he can do it, but opts not to do it, then he's not omnibenevolent. This doesn't disprove that a being like god can't exist, but it does make omnibenevolance and omnipotence (according to human definitions) mutually exclusive when we look at our current world.

If God has morals and doesn't operate on the same framework of what is Just or what is Merciful as us, and the defence is "God moves in mysterious ways" then that still doesn't mean he's actually omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He's something else entirely.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Irysa

[Magical CC]

I see what you're saying. The problem is I can't see the leaders of ISIS ever being reasonable, or reasonable ones coming to power. I suppose that's a matter of perspective, though.

No, they are smarter than you think. Their actions, while seem to be insane, brought together a large force who are ready to fight. Their tactics and strategies are totally sane. Their real goal is not to create the caliphate but to drag America to a brawl. To do that, they have to create enough chaos for the America to interfere. However, with the dead of many of the first generation of ISIS leaders, it's hard to say what is the goal of the current leaders want.

Also, no one will raise a hand unless they are directly affected by the action of ISI and said action must be more devastating than killing some Frenches, think about the 9-11. Nobody cared when Hitler was having fun with the Jews, they only took part in the war when Hitler show his real ambition. Vietnam didnt care when Pol-pot was slaughter his own people and only fight when Pol-pot started raiding their border.

Btw, what does God do in this topic? Why dragging religion into every topic? God is going to turn all of ISIS into salt or something like that?

Edited April 28, 2015 by Magical Amber

[Chiki]

Here's a better one:

- The earthquake in Nepal happens.

- The earthquake in Nepal doesn't happen, but because of other circumstances (no I'm not an expert in plate tectonics, but since we're pretending to be God, I'm gonna use this), it will cause several volcanoes in very populated parts of the world to erupt, resulting in a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

"Well, change the laws of everything so that none of these happen." Perhaps there's an even bigger ripple that'll result if Earth doesn't let off its internal pressure, one that'll screw up something on the cosmic level.

You don't understand what omnipotence means. There are two kinds of laws in the universe:

1. Laws of logic: Laws like "nothing can be a square and not a square at the same time. 1+1=2" and so on are considered to be laws of logic. You can't imagine a possible world in which there are squares which are also round. That is impossible.

2. Laws of nature: Laws like "nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The entropy of a system approaches constant value as temperature approaches absolute zero." These are not laws of logic: we can easily imagine a possible world in which objects can go faster than the speed of light, etc.

Theists think that God can't touch the laws of logic. He can't make round squares. But he can do whatever the hell he wants with the laws of nature. So omnipotence is defined as: maximally powerful within the laws of logic. Meaning he can make objects teleport, make them go in and out of existence, etc. because doing these things to not violate the laws of logic.

How does this go with the Nepal earthquake example? He can just do whatever he wants within the laws of logic, so he can easily prevent the consequences from happening. If the consequences of stopping a tectonic plate involve volcanoes all around the word exploding, then he can just make the lava disappear from existence so it doesn't hurt anyone. It's very easy for an omnipotent being to stop natural disasters.

The problem is bigger than that. Why didn't God just create a planet with tectonic movements in the first place? Why are there volcanoes? Why are there earthquakes? We can easily imagine things having been otherwise, and indeed, it follows from omnipotence that God can make a planet like that. Why is our planet so potentially hostile to us? A perfect creator would have created a planet that's much less risky for us to live on.

You don't really need a complicated earthquake example to illustrate the same point. A simple example involving a banana peel is enough. Suppose someone is just down a street and there's a banana peel that got on the sidewalk. The banana peel was not dropped by someone else, but the wind carried it there. So no one is responsible for the banana peel being there. Some random person, call him John, slips on the banana peel and he dies. We can stipulate that there would have been no other consequences: John was a guy who was never going to have any children, he spent all his days at home playing video games, so his life had no ill effect on anyone else at all. Why didn't God just make the banana peel disappear out of existence?

1. Just because you have the means to save someone does NOT imply/mean that you MUST do so

Actually, it does. In just about any ethical view, utilitarianism or deontic ethics, you have an obligation to go save someone's life if you have the means to do so. For example, if you see a person getting raped on the street, and you can stop them from getting raped, then you have the obligation to go and save them or at least call the police.

In utilitarianism, you have the obligation to maximize utility in the world. Let's call this happiness. If you can maximize happiness and you don't, that's wrong. So if you don't save someone's life, that's wrong. And in deontic ethics you have a duty to do actions because they're right. So you have a duty to save someone's life if you can.

(Also, if the people are dying for a reason/cause that they brought onto themselves, then they also deserve it, imo. If you're waving a gun around and fooling around with something knowing that it's fully loaded, accidentally shooting your friend in the face and killing him isn't something GOD should be responsible for, nor should he have any real reason to step in to save the kid. Life lessons OP.

Even if I grant you that example, there's nothing you can say about natural disasters. Why doesn't God stop them? Please tell us.

2. People dying is inevitable. Yes, we can do things to prevent certain causes and/or otherwise lengthen people's ability to live through things (Iike diseases and such), but in the end, people die. Shit happens, and you can't expect a God, more or less any fellow mortal, to bother achieving otherwis

This might come as a surprise to you, but people don't want to die young or abruptly. If dying is inevitable why doesn't everyone just kill themselves right now? That's not how people think.

But let's be real- if only 5-10 people died as a result of Hitler's actions, do you really think we'd think/see him as the person as we do today? The scale in which he conducted his actions (and how he did so) is what makes him the monster the vast majority of people see him as today, and that would've been sorely changed, I feel, had the numbers were limited to almost nothing

How we see him is completely irrelevant. Why does that matter? Why do we have to have a certain opinion on Hitler? He's burning in Hell according to Christians anyway. Killing 10 people won't change that.

> Also, the way I see things, letting something bad happen doesn't mean that the person (who let it happen) is by nature bad/evil. It's like a parental figure warning a child off about doing something they know the kid shouldn't be doing, but in the end, they can have the option to let them do it anyways. And why is that? Does that make the parent evil/sadistic by nature, bent on making the child's life terrible and subjecting them to unnecessary terrors?

Depends on what the bad thing is. If it's getting burnt by something hot to teach them a lesson, then ok. But if it involves death, then yes, you are evil.

Yeah, God could've easily have said, "You are absolutely forbidden to eat from this tree, and I will remove it from play so you cannot even touch it," but at that point, what is there to be gained/learned?

What is there to be gained? If Adam and Eve hadn't done what they did, there'd be no sin in the world. Meaning, no one, including everyone on this forum, wouldn't have had to suffer from sin. The world would have been an immeasurably better place!

I'll even grant you this point. Let Adam and Eve suffer. That doesn't mean that their children, i.e. us, deserve to suffer because of their stupidity! God should've removed sin from the world after Adam and Eve died.

I actually object, in the sense that, B is theoretically better in the sense of "more money" being there, and "no poverty happening" having been stated (while poverty still exists/no extra rich billionaires in World A). But on the other hand, if poverty doesn't exist as a result of a massive amount of money being thrown in, what other sort of problems could possibly be occurring as a result of the actions? The massive currency being dumped in could have a backlash in terms of economical effects, and therein could cause world B many more problems as a result, which could counteract the fact that poverty would supposedly not exist. Therefore, there's no way of saying for sure that World B, in fact, would be better than world A indefinitely (and thus is applicable for debate imo)

I can just stipulate that there's no backlash. See what I said in a previous post.

It's one thing to have a word defined. It's another to truly understand the meaning.

The definition of a word IS its meaning. Understanding its definition = understanding what it means.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Chiki

[eclipse]

Apparently Qatar is funding them covertly. At this point though, they are starting to actually form a governmental cabinet, and have the resources of a nation state. In all honesty, it doesn't surprise me at this point that they have an air force, although it is actually beneficial; I highly doubt they'll beat the Jordanian air force, so its just a waste of resources.

. . .the hell? Don't they have a World Cup to prepare for?!

I think building an air force is there to send a statement. How many other terror organizations had enough spare cash to blow on planes? The 2022 World Cup should be hosted elsewhere, if sanctions are ever placed against Qatar for this stunt.

I see you I misread what you said about the extremely rich billionares which still wont rid of poverty ultimately because currency doesnt work that way at all and it will actually creates problems in many fields because if you just endlessly get money why do you have a job or contribute to society

@Everyone

The topic is what to do about ISIS and most the pages dont even touch on ISIS what is this the youtube comment section

Only Blah Eclipse and Snowy are actually takeing part in the ISIS conversation because some of your so stuck in your own asses and beliefs that you stray so much into an out of context religoes arguement that have started to just go in circles and honestly makes you look douchey

There's a lot of people here who really hate religion and will state it the minute something remotely related it to it appears. Any attempts at a topic stagnate until someone else starts a topic that's somewhat related to religion, and the cycle repeats. I'd be in my rights to lock this topic because it keeps straying, but I think the actual discussion of ISIS is interesting.

It would be nice if ISIS and other terrorist organisations were to be destroyed, wouldn't it?

As for how? Well, that's up for debate (or is it?). Killing them seems to be the only definitive way of eradicating this outbrek of fleas, and carpet bombing only seems to temporarily rid them until more appear to take their place.

I reckon a nice fat nuke where most of the top ISIS reside would be a pretty good start. But that's just me. I'm not a military strategist, or whatever.

IMO ISIS is what happens when desperation strikes. I'd rather make everyone physically comfortable - everyone has a roof over their heads, and isn't worried about where their next meal comes from, and unlimited 'net access. It'll probably make the Internet a bit more negative overall, but in return, I think there will far fewer people who would want to risk their comfort and security for some ideal.

i don't follow what you're trying to say.

that's irrelevant. the parent isn't being close-minded or judgmental, the parent is saving their child from (eternal) damnation. i'm not even sure why you mentioned this. in your hypothetical, wherein it is supposed you are god, you would have the power to save your child for eternity. what happens in 80 yrs. on earth matters not at all on this scale.

sure, but again, this wasn't the hypothetical. my point is that there are no arguments for why god might ignore us. i was tired of reading (and now i'm a part of the discssion :( ) all those posts attempting to defend god's inaction. the only reason god doesn't interfere is because of faith. why? who knows.

my actual points have yet to be responded to.

The answers you gave didn't matter. All that mattered was how you felt about answering it, and "extremely uncomfortable" was what I was looking for.

You seem to be doing fine without God. He's not going to make you listen to Him because He'll almost always respect your wishes in that matter (some dude named Saul is an exception). He's not going to force you to His side when you die, either - IMO that would be hell to a non-believer. So in the end, you won't be with a God you don't care about in the first place. I don't see the issue with this.

Now, if your problem is pushy people who shove these beliefs down other people's throats. . .we're in agreement.

Well, we both recognise that what they currently want to achieve is actually impossible. Like, physically impossible. It may well be that the people in ISIS continue to believe in the impossible ideal of a new caliphate until they die, but considering that open hostilities are going to continue for the forseeable future, it won't take a full generation's length for potentially new perspectives to be introduced. It may occur in under five years.

I'm assuming (perhaps irrationally) that there is some modicum of rationality to what ISIS wants. Like, just in the most basic idea "We want a new Islamic caliphate". The demands of the methods to achieve that goal and size of said caliphate are currently impossible, but if they actually want it to happen, they're going to have to make some kind of compromise. If they geninuely just want to just commit atrocities until they die, then nothing can be done about it besides annihilating them.

Not irrational at all~!

We have the tech to carpet-bomb them into oblivion. . .but what's to stop them from being martyred, and having another organization take their place? Even if they got their stated wish, I doubt they'll be good rulers, and another group of people will rise to oppose them, and the cycle continues.

The meaning is what the definition of the word is. If you're trying to pull the usual "God transcends human understanding", then fine, that's impossible to argue with, but "omnipotence", in our language means can do anything. The earthquake can be negated without affecting anything else, because omnipotence means God has the power to do so. If God does not have the ability to actually do literally anything, then he is not omnipotent. If he can do it, but opts not to do it, then he's not omnibenevolent. This doesn't disprove that a being like god can't exist, but it does make omnibenevolance and omnipotence (according to human definitions) mutually exclusive when we look at our current world.

If God has morals and doesn't operate on the same framework of what is Just or what is Merciful as us, and the defence is "God moves in mysterious ways" then that still doesn't mean he's actually omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He's something else entirely.

"Trying to pull"? You're making quite a few assumptions with your wording.

What we're trying to do is define God using only our limited terms of understanding. My understanding of "cold" is vastly different from someone who's lived their entire lives in Alaska. Likewise, stuff like "omniscience" can only be understood based on what we think it means to be all-knowing - but for all we know, it's the equivalent of someone like me complaining that 65F weather is cold. Since we're not God, and I have no idea what it means to actually be those things that are described, I can't definitely say what God is or isn't. Instead, I choose to believe that God is those things, even if I can't fully wrap my head around it. Furthermore, I don't expect anyone else to agree with me - if they come to the same conclusion as me, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine, too. In the end, it boils down to an opinion, since we're stuck at second-hand accounts regarding what happens after death/most miracles. I'd rather use the time I have to make lives a bit better, which just so happens to align with what my church believes.

[Chiki]

My understanding of "cold" is vastly different from someone who's lived their entire lives in Alaska. Likewise, stuff like "omniscience" can only be understood based on what we think it means to be all-knowing

The difference is that omnipotence/science is a mathematical term but cold is not. Cold is subjective term because it's a sensation and it cannot be defined accurately. Omniscience can be defined as: maximal possible knowledge within the laws of logic. So God literally knows everything that is true.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Chiki

[Irysa]

eclipse, I repeat, the definition of omnipotence/science is binary. Your example about cold is not binary. It might be cold, but it may be not so cold, or it might be very cold. A glass can contain water, but to what degree? etc. That is why there is vagueness to the understanding of it.

There are no degrees of omnipotence/science because they are definitively binary. I accepted already that its possible (if not likely) that the limits of human cognitive functions prevent us from being able to understand what such things entail, but they do not prevent us from setting a binary definition and discussing it. Either God can do everything or he cannot. Either God knows everything, or he does not. There's no inbetween or space for degrees here, it's either a One or a Zero. I actually don't believe omnipotence has to prescribe to laws of logic neccessarily though, since I'm willing to accept the propositon that we're simply not capable of understanding how exactly a square could be round. But that's a different matter.

Again, if we lack the ability to describe what God actually is or what he can do, then so be it, I can't argue against that. But we do have the ability to demonstrate that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, as according to the binary definitions that we have within our language and understanding, is impossible. If an omnipotent God exists, he clearly has some kind of different moral framework than humans have. However, I tend to find this one vexing since Genesis outlines God creating man in his own image, so to speak.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Irysa

[Chiki]

I actually don't believe omnipotence has to prescribe to laws of logic neccessarily though, since I'm willing to accept the propositon that we're simply not capable of understanding how exactly a square could be round

No, the concept is just ill-formed. A round object by definition does not have four sides. A square object by definition is not round. How can any object be round and not round at the same time? That's just a logical contradiction. No matter how intelligent someone is, they will never understand how something can be round and not round at the same time.

[Rehab]

No, they are smarter than you think. Their actions, while seem to be insane, brought together a large force who are ready to fight. Their tactics and strategies are totally sane. Their real goal is not to create the caliphate but to drag America to a brawl. To do that, they have to create enough chaos for the America to interfere. However, with the dead of many of the first generation of ISIS leaders, it's hard to say what is the goal of the current leaders want.

Yeah, if I can take anything from these

arguments and counterarguments on the authenticity/Islamicness? of ISIS, and implications to draw from it

it's that while ISIS (perhaps their leadership in particular) may be murderous and extremist, their intelligence, strategies and attempts to sow division among their enemies are not to be underestimated.

On a related note, after reading those, using nukes on them sounds like an awful plan A, B, C or D to me, for fear of really giving their apocalyptic narrative the spark it wants. Picking at the weaknesses in their territorial control itself, which is essential to any claim they make at "statehood" and fitting any definition of a caliphate (which they already claim on pretty shaky grounds), with an added dash of continuing to report the god-awful living conditions, atrocities and bad governance (by the standards of, y'know, most states) there, seem to me the more obvious options, if laborious ones.

They need to be seen as the enemies of the invading troops of Rome (christendom) and all that bs, but they spend a hell of a lot more time killing Muslims native to the areas (and of many stripes) than anyone else. That needs to remain in focus. (Although I also worry about them spinning euro-american support for their enemies being perceived as us using their foes as proxies, regardless of its truth.)

Edited April 28, 2015 by Rehab

[eclipse]

eclipse, I repeat, the definition of omnipotence/science is binary. Your example about cold is not binary. It might be cold, but it may be not so cold, or it might be very cold. A glass can contain water, but to what degree? etc. That is why there is vagueness to the understanding of it.

There are no degrees of omnipotence/science because they are definitively binary. I accepted already that its possible (if not likely) that the limits of human cognitive functions prevent us from being able to understand what such things entail, but they do not prevent us from setting a binary definition and discussing it. Either God can do everything or he cannot. Either God knows everything, or he does not. There's no inbetween or space for degrees here, it's either a One or a Zero. I actually don't believe omnipotence has to prescribe to laws of logic neccessarily though, since I'm willing to accept the propositon that we're simply not capable of understanding how exactly a square could be round. But that's a different matter.

Again, if we lack the ability to describe what God actually is or what he can do, then so be it, I can't argue against that. But we do have the ability to demonstrate that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, as according to the binary definitions that we have within our language and understanding, is impossible. If an omnipotent God exists, he clearly has some kind of different moral framework than humans have. However, I tend to find this one vexing since Genesis outlines God creating man in his own image, so to speak.

We define "everything" based off of what we think "everything" is. The best we can do is guess as to what it means to know everything - yes, there's a word for it, but the actual concept itself is something well out of my reach. So you can claim that God knows everything, but it's based on what you think knowing everything entails. However, I'm perfectly content with "our limited human understanding can't comprehend God," which is more-or-less what I've been saying (just in a roundabout way).

We humans look really different to each other - if I took Genesis literally, God has big tits, small tits, red hair, black hair, fair skin, olive-toned skin, etc. There's other meanings attached to that assertion, none of which I have time for. Sorry~!

They need to be seen as the enemies of the invading troops of Rome (christendom) and all that bs, but they spend a hell of a lot more time killing Muslims native to the areas than anyone else. That needs to remain in focus. (Although I also worry about them spinning euro-american support for their enemies being perceived as us using their foes as proxies, regardless of its truth.)

This is why I don't consider ISIS to be a legitimate Muslim sect - I have faith in Vestige's words regarding Islam, and what they're doing is killing believers, which is exactly what they're not supposed to be doing!

[Chiki]

The best we can do is guess as to what it means to know everything - yes, there's a word for it, but the actual concept itself is something well out of my reach.

If I recall correctly, Phoenix Wright defended something similar in a previous thread. He was arguing on what dying is (he argued: I know the definition of "dying," but I can't understand what it's like; therefore I don't know what dying is.) Your argument is this: I can't imagine it. Therefore I don't understand it.

Both arguments, in your quote and Phoenix Wright's, are wrong. It's easy to see how. Just because I can't imagine something doesn't mean I don't understand it. I don't know exactly what it feels like for dondon to be happy when he completes a new 0% playthrough, because I am not him and I cannot look into his mind, and I don't know exactly what it feels like for Snowy to get a girlfriend. When I imagine Snowy getting a new girlfriend, all I can imagine is my representation of what it's like for him to be happy; I can't actually imagine his psychological state of his happiness. The absurd conclusion your arguments lead to is that I don't understand what it means for someone to be happy!!

Similarly I know what an infinity is since I can just define it as neverending. But I don't really know what neverending feels like. So what if I don't know what it's like to be omniscient or neverending? I can describe it perfectly, so I can understand it.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Chiki

[dondon151]

I don't know exactly what it feels like for dondon to be happy when he completes a new 0% playthrough,

oh it feels like an orgasm in my brain.

However, I'm perfectly content with "our limited human understanding can't comprehend God," which is more-or-less what I've been saying (just in a roundabout way).

if you admit that humans "can't comprehend god," then maybe we shouldn't bother with the stone age holy texts that claim to be divinely inspired (or to be the direct word of) god. if we cannot possibly understand that nonsense, then it is futile to try to do so, and we would be better off pretending that it didn't exist altogether.

if in fact we cannot comprehend god, then the conclusion is that we don't understand anything about him. we can cast in doubt his injunctions, his commandments, and his characteristics because they are fundamentally unknowable.

Edited April 28, 2015 by dondon151