Genocide, and God

[Crystal Shards]

Care to name them?

He doesn't need to. You already did (even though you weren't quite accurate in your assumption, as pointed out).

PS you don't need God to live for something more than yourself. And just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean my life is worthless. Speak for your own life.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Esau of Isaac]

The universe exists. This is a given. Any conclusion reached that refutes this is incorrect. Either the logic is wrong, or the original premise is.

There are 2 possibilities that explain the current state of existance of the universe.

(1.) The universe always existed. The univierse is infinite.

(2.) The universe had a beginning.

If not (1.), then (2.). Not both. One. Otherwise it contradicts the original given statement.

Untrue. Both are entirely compatible. Let's look at the first. Has the universe always existed? Is there a point in time in which the universe did not exist? I would expect not, since the universe came into existence with the singularity of space and time. Thus, there is not a time when the universe did not exist. It has always existed. Is the universe infinite? It depends on how you define this. There are certainly no three-dimensional boundaries to it. You can move in one direction for eternity and never reach an edge. It may have a finite amount of matter, but the concept you are asking for is vague to begin with.

Thusly, both are compatible.

It could be said that this outside force is a natural force, however, what caused that? The chain of forces supporting forces cannot be infinite, lest we fall into another paradox, so there must have been a beginning at some point. The universe cannot cause something that supports the creation of itself, for it didn't exist before the creation of the universe.

Irrelevant; one could easily argue that just as in the case of a divine being, the universe simply was. You're instantly removing the possibility of there being an outside infinite causal chain of preceding deities allowing the universe to exist, in addition. Why would this be an impossibility, seeing as how you've no evidence of logic that could stand outside of the confines of the universe, whose own rules of causality cannot (I would assume in your case here) be applied outwardly?

For that matter, who is to say that the beginning of causality itself is predicated on the rules that hold current-day? Being that you're already contradictory by speaking of an event preceding the singularity of space and time, who is to say that the universe could not have come into being of its own accord?

The event must be supported. Something cannot come from nothing.

I think all of us can now freely accept your statement of defeat.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Prince of Ravens]

Untrue. Both are entirely compatible. Let's look at the first. Has the universe always existed? Is there a point in time in which the universe did not exist? I would expect not, since the universe came into existence with the singularity of space and time. Thus, there is not a time when the universe did not exist. It has always existed. Is the universe infinite? It depends on how you define this. There are certainly no three-dimensional boundaries to it. You can move in one direction for eternity and never reach an edge. It may have a finite amount of matter, but the concept you are asking for is vague to begin with.

Incorrect. The universe is expanding/contracting. It cannot be infinitly large. Space started expanding at some point. Just as with a number line, where you can't count to infinity, you can't add size to the universe to make it infinite.

The only way they're compatable is if something caused an infinite universe, which brings us to here

Irrelevant; one could easily argue that just as in the case of a divine being, the universe simply was. You're instantly removing the possibility of there being an outside infinite causal chain of preceding deities allowing the universe to exist. Why would this be an impossibility, seeing as how you've no evidence of logic that could stand outside of the confines of the universe, whose own rules of causality cannot (I would assume in your case here) be applied outwardly?

Except the universe is natural, therefore must be caused. God is supernatural, therefore does not need to be caused nor supported.

For that matter, who is to say that the beginning of causality itself is predicated on the rules that hold current-day?

Nothing says it shouldn't, unless we've witnessed the Laws of Nature changing. Which they haven't, otherwise, they wouldn't be Laws.

I think all of us can now freely accept your statement of defeat.

And yours. Your beliefs are founded on that something natural always existed/created itself, thus breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics (I think it's those).

My beliefs are that something unnatural always existed and isn't bound by Laws of Nature, being not natural itself.

He doesn't need to. You already did (even though you weren't quite accurate in your assumption, as pointed out).

Again, care to name them?

PS you don't need God to live for something more than yourself. And just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean my life is worthless. Speak for your own life.

Ouch.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if that's the scenario.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Prince of Ravens

[Csquared08]

He also could have made it where people didn't need to prove their affection for God.

He may not want us to prove our love/affection/belief/worship/etc. to him, but he most definitely wants us to choose whether we love him or hate him. Say Jill loves Joe and Joe loves Jill. Would it be love if Jill was forcing Joe to 'love' her? Or if Jill was kept at home and never saw anyone but Joe? In either question, the other has no real choice but to 'love' the other.

Now, if there were no 'bad' people in the world, would we really be loving/worshipping God? Or if he was forcing us by not giving us free will?

Thus, it is not proper worship if the alternative is not given. Therefore, 'bad' and 'good' people exist, giving us both sides. If one chooses to worship God, it is then 'proper' worship as said 'worship' is chosen despite seeing the alternatives present in the world.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Csquared08

[Crystal Shards]

He may not want us to prove our love/affection/belief/worship/etc. to him, but he most definitely wants us to choose whether we love him or hate him. Say Jill loves Joe and Joe loves Jill. Would it be love if Jill was forcing Joe to 'love' her? Or if Jill was kept at home and never saw anyone but Joe? In either question, the other has no real choice but to 'love' the other.

Now, if there were no 'bad' people in the world, would we really be loving/worshipping God? Or if he was forcing us by not giving us free will?

Thus, it is not proper worship if the alternative is not given. Therefore, 'bad' and 'good' people exist, giving us both sides. If one chooses to worship God, it is then 'proper' worship as said 'worship' is chosen despite seeing the alternatives present in the world.

I don't think you understand:

IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL, GOD CAN MAKE THE WORLD HOWEVER HE FUCKING WANTS TO. IF HE WANTS TO GIVE US FREE WILL AND ALSO HAVE ONLY GOOD, HE CAN DO THAT, BECAUSE HE'S FUCKING GOD.

[Csquared08]

I don't think you understand:

IF GOD IS ALL POWERFUL, GOD CAN MAKE THE WORLD HOWEVER HE FUCKING WANTS TO. IF HE WANTS TO GIVE US FREE WILL AND ALSO HAVE ONLY GOOD, HE CAN DO THAT, BECAUSE HE'S FUCKING GOD.

Yes, he is all-powerful and can do whatever the Hell he wants, but aren't we also arguing whether he is omni-benevolent?

If God is omni-benevolent, he is all-loving, yes? Is it love if one party is forced into the situation? In short, no. In long, see above. Therefore, to be all-loving/omni-benevolent, it must be a world where a choice exists between good and evil.

If this is not what we are arguing about (God and omni-benevolence, be it the main subject or a sub-argument), then yes, you are quite right. I do not understand.

[Esau of Isaac]

Incorrect. The universe is expanding/contracting. It cannot be infinitly large. Space started expanding at some point. Just as with a number line, where you can't count to infinity, you can't add size to the universe to make it infinite.

The only way they're compatable is if something caused an infinite universe, which brings us to here

I don't see how your point disagrees with my argument. It is expanding, but there are certainly no three-dimensional borders that can be met.

I am sure that satisfies some portion of the vague notion of infinity.

Except the universe is natural, therefore must be caused. God is supernatural, therefore does not need to be caused nor supported.

A weak handwave; there has been no evidence to support there being any existence of the second, nor any reason why its supernatural nature is immune to causality. Who is to say that causality is a natural thing? It could be supernatural, yet ubiquitous.

This is all too many words to be using, though, as even a child should be able to see how biased your silly little point here is. At least in the others you attempted an air of complexity.

Nothing says it shouldn't, unless we've witnessed the Laws of Nature changing. Which they haven't, otherwise, they wouldn't be Laws.

If laws hold even before the existence of that which they operate on, then your God must have to adhere to them, as even the concept of existence in occupying space and time are ignored in its face. In fact, the notion that the universe would have to obey this law before causality even occurred more or less proves if we follow your example that your particular interpretation of creation is above the universe itself.

In other words, if the universe has to obey by rules before there are rules in place, it goes to show that there are rules of supernatural nature. If they were natural, they would not have existed before nature.

And yours. Your beliefs are founded on that something natural always existed/created itself, thus breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics (I think it's those).

My beliefs are that something unnatural always existed and isn't bound by Laws of Nature, being not natural itself.

The laws of the universe were relatively tenuous following the singularity of space and time. Everything became more uniform as it is now after this event. I don't pretend to know about the moments prior to its existence and why it is thus contradictory, because I can't say what could happen before the existence of time. Well, I can (nothing can occur), but for the sake of this topic my position has been one of at least attempting neutrality.

If the Law were really a Law, your God would have to obey it. Your supernatural fallback is only that, and a flimsy one. You can't even define why it would be safe from laws that the universe had to obey even in its creation, yet your god did not.

If God is omni-benevolent, he is all-loving, yes? Is it love if one party is forced into the situation? In short, no. In long, see above. Therefore, to be all-loving/omni-benevolent, it must be a world where a choice exists between good and evil.

Are you blind, or something? Or do you simply not understand the concept of omnipotence? Stop applying limits to the ability, because it is plainly stated that in the face of God there is no such thing, so long as you are a proponent of the Bible's idea of the concept.

If God were omnipotent, he could make it so that the two situations are compatible.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Csquared08]

Are you blind, or something? Or do you simply not understand the concept of omnipotence?

If God were omnipotent, he could make it so that the two situations are compatible.

In that case, the 'human' definition of omni-benevolence is inaccurate and all of your arguments about 'God being evil,' 'God can't possibly be omni-benevolent,' etc. are all incorrect due to using an incorrect definition of omni-benevolence.

Stop applying limits to the ability, because it is plainly stated that in the face of God there is no such thing, so long as you are a proponent of the Bible's idea of the concept.

I'm not putting a limit on anything; I'm merely stating what something is and isn't. If you're saying that is limiting God's power, then is saying God can do evil limiting his omnipotence?

[Prince of Ravens]

I don't see how your point disagrees with my argument. It is expanding, but there are certainly no three-dimensional borders that can be met.

'

If it's growing larger, it's not infinite. I win.

A weak handwave; there has been no evidence to support there being any existence of the second, nor any reason why its supernatural nature is immune to causality. Who is to say that causality is a natural thing? It could be supernatural, yet ubiquitous.

Something must've ultimitly caused the universe. It has to stand alone, otherwise, you haven't gone back far enough with the ultimatly. That something is God, or something very God-like to the point of not mattering.

In other words, if the universe has to obey by rules before there are rules in place, it goes to show that there are rules of supernatural nature. If they were natural, they would not have existed before nature.

I'll answer this one because it's more summarized.

Nothing says that the Laws of Supernature are the same as the Laws of Nature. The natural universe and its Laws have to have happened at the same time. The uiverse to house the Laws, the Laws to define the universe. This is only observed in the natural universe.

If the Law were really a Law, your God would have to obey it. Your supernatural fallback is only that, and a flimsy one. You can't even define why it would be safe from laws that the universe had to obey even in its creation, yet your god did not.

Supernatural isn't a fallback. God isn't natural, therefore He doesn't need to follow the natural Laws. Unless you say God is natural, then something must've caused Him. Something unnatural, so it doesn't need to be caused/supported. That would be either God, or something so God-like to the point of the difference not mattering.

[Esau of Isaac]

In that case, the 'human' definition of omni-benevolence is inaccurate and all of your arguments about 'God being evil,' 'God can't possibly be omni-benevolent,' etc. are all incorrect due to using an incorrect definition of omni-benevolence.

What is the correct definition of omni-benevolence, in your eyes?

I'm not putting a limit on anything; I'm merely stating what something is and isn't. If you're saying that is limiting God's power, then is saying God can do evil limiting his omnipotence?

Saying God could not do evil would be limiting his omnipotence. Although clever Christians avoid this by stating that God can do evil, but chooses not to.

If it's growing larger, it's not infinite. I win.

Are there three-dimensional borders? If not, it can be construed as infinite.

Something must've ultimitly caused the universe. It has to stand alone, otherwise, you haven't gone back far enough with the ultimatly. That something is God, or something very God-like to the point of not mattering.

What do you mean "haven't gone far back enough yet"? Time didn't exist prior to the singularity of space and time, thus there was no timeline to trace.

I'll answer this one because it's more summarized.

Nothing says that the Laws of Supernature are the same as the Laws of Nature. The natural universe and its Laws have to have happened at the same time. The uiverse to house the Laws, the Laws to define the universe. This is only observed in the natural universe.

You are making a distinct word to define laws of supernatural beings. Why is this? Why is there not one set of laws that define how both nature and supernature operate? Can nature not be subject to the laws of supernature? What are the laws of supernature, since you have seen fit to invent the term? How and why did the laws of nature happen at the same time as nature? Why did they not happen afterwards, or before? Does this mean that there was a time wherein there were no laws of supernature? Or did they come into being with the first supernatural entity? Who or what can a supernatural entity be defined as? What qualities do they possess that differentiate them from objects of natural origin?

More finally, do you have any evidence to substantiate the belief that there is such a thing as supernatural?

Supernatural isn't a fallback. God isn't natural, therefore He doesn't need to follow the natural Laws. Unless you say God is natural, then something must've caused Him. Something unnatural, so it doesn't need to be caused/supported. That would be either God, or something so God-like to the point of the difference not mattering.

Who is to say that God is not natural? Why can't it be a process? For that matter, who is to say that the universe itself is not a god? Can gods not be of natural make and origin? Is it impossible for something of supernatural nature to come from a natural origin? Why do the laws of causality, which are not shown to be solely applicable to only the universe, not apply to your God? What evidence do you possess that directly suggests an origin impossible to parallel to that of the universe?

Edited July 6, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Csquared08]

What is the correct definition of omni-benevolence, in your eyes?

As stated before, the 'human' definition of omni-benevolence is incorrect. As a human, I am not qualified to give the correct definition.

Saying God could not do evil would be limiting his omnipotence. Although clever Christians avoid this by stating that God can do evil, but chooses not to.

I wasn't trying to avoid it; I wanted a straight answer.

By being omnipotent he is all-powerful and can do whatever he wishes. By being omni-benevolent, he can do no evil, whatever evil happens to be.

Being both omnipotent and omni-benevolent, a conflict occurs: Can he do 'evil,' as stated that he should be able to by definition of omnipotence? Or can he not, as stated by definition of omni-benevolence.

The question, though, is which side wins, if one does indeed 'win'? Do we have a God capable of doing 'evil,' but choosing not to? Or a God incapable of 'evil,' and capable of everything else?

EDIT: By definition of omni-benevolence being wrong, I was referring to what evil was and, therefore, what God was incapable of doing. My apologies for not being clear.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Csquared08

[Prince of Ravens]

Are there three-dimensional borders? If not, it can be construed as infinite.

It can't grow and be infinite. There's no number you could add to 1 to make it infinite. The shape has nothing to do with it.

What do you mean "haven't gone far back enough yet"? Time didn't exist prior to the singularity of space and time, thus there was no timeline to trace.

Allow me to clarify. By 'back', I don't mean along a timeline. Rather, I mean along the list of causes/supporters.

You are making a distinct word to define laws of supernatural beings. Why is this? Why is there not one set of laws that define how both nature and supernature operate? Can nature not be subject to the laws of supernature? What are the laws of supernature, since you have seen fit to invent the term? How and why did the laws of nature happen at the same time as nature? Why did they not happen afterwards, or before? Does this mean that there was a time wherein there were no laws of supernature? Or did they come into being with the first supernatural entity? Who or what can a supernatural entity be defined as? What qualities do they possess that differentiate them from objects of natural origin?

More finally, do you have any evidence to substantiate the belief that there is such a thing as supernatural?

It wouldn't be supernatural if it followed the same rules as natural. The 'Laws of Supernature', as I call them, can't apply to natural things, because natural things aren't supernatural, and vice-versa. I can't define the actual laws, because the only supernatural Being observable doesn't seem to have to follow any precieved Laws, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, considering there would be no reason for me to be able to observe Supernatural Laws, being a natural being.

The Laws of Nature must have existed at the beginning of existance. Otherwise, nothing would be holding it together.

The Laws of Nature could not have existed before the existence of the things that they applied to.

As for the Laws of Supernature, since they apply to something(s) that have always existed, they don't seem to have a beginning.

A supernatural being would be something that doesn't need to be supported or caused, and can support itself/doesn't need to be supported. An example of a supernatural being would be God. Supernatural beings aren't bound by Natural Laws, just as we, as Natural beings, aren't bound by supernatural laws.

Who is to say that God is not natural? Why can't it be a process? For that matter, who is to say that the universe itself is not a god? Can gods not be of natural make and origin? Is it impossible for something of supernatural nature to come from a natural origin? Why do the laws of causality, which are not shown to be solely applicable to only the universe, not apply to your God? What evidence do you possess that directly suggests an origin impossible to parallel to that of the universe?

The laws of causality are natural laws. They don't apply to God, being supernatural.

With the current definition of 'god', I doubt they/He could be natural. They would have to break the Natural Laws to fufill their definiton. Same holds as to why the universe isn't God, because He'd be bound by laws He doesn't follow that can't be broken.

Supernatural beings don't need a causing, because that limitaion is only for natural beings. I doubt supernatural could be created by natural, because since they don't need to be caused, they might not be able to be caused.

And I don't think I understand that last one. Is it your suggestion that God was caused at the same time as the universe?

[Esau of Isaac]

As stated before, the 'human' definition of omni-benevolence is incorrect. As a human, I am not qualified to give the correct definition.

As a human, you are not qualified to define a word. Created by a human. In a language. Created by humans.

Are you being serious right now.

I wasn't trying to avoid it; I wanted a straight answer.

By being omnipotent he is all-powerful. By being omni-benevolent, he can do no evil, whatever evil happens to be.

Being both omnipotent and omni-benevolent, a conflict occurs: Can he do 'evil,' as stated that he should be able to by definition of omnipotence? Or can he not, as stated by definition of omni-benevolence.

The question, though, is which side wins, if one does indeed 'win'? Do we have a God capable of doing 'evil,' but choosing not to? Or a God incapable of 'evil,' and capable of everything else?

If we are to accept as given that God is omnipotent, then the second cannot be true. Thus, the first is the only possibility.

Though, this too can be rendered incorrect if we want to get more technical and define what "can do" means. If it is defined as falling within the purview of all possible applications of his capabilities, then we can accept that he can do evil. If, however, we accept it as things he will ever have a possibility of doing, then God cannot do evil. So long as we accept God is omnibenevolent, in this case, God cannot also be omnipotent.

Either way, I find it odd that you would continue the argument on this front, rather than saying that you are not qualified to define one of the terms and bow out of the debate.

It can't grow and be infinite. There's no number you could add to 1 to make it infinite. The shape has nothing to do with it.

It can grow and still satisfy the concept of infinity, which was my point. There is not a boundary to the universe that one can cross, and thus the universe can be considered infinite, at least under one concept of the word.

Allow me to clarify. By 'back', I don't mean along a timeline. Rather, I mean along the list of causes/supporters.

How could you list these causes and supporters without the concept of causality that they do not obey --based on their nature, and without its existence, which was brought into being during the singularity of space and time?

It wouldn't be supernatural if it followed the same rules as natural.

Why? For example, why can nature not be governed by the laws of supernature? What of the two different laws are incompatible?

The 'Laws of Supernature', as I call them, can't apply to natural things, because natural things aren't supernatural, and vice-versa. I can't define the actual laws, because the only supernatural Being observable doesn't seem to have to follow any precieved Laws, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, considering there would be no reason for me to be able to observe Supernatural Laws, being a natural being.

So you have invented a term, and you cannot define what it entails. You're off to a good start.

The Laws of Nature must have existed at the beginning of existance. Otherwise, nothing would be holding it together.

Of course.

The Laws of Nature could not have existed before the existence of the things that they applied to.

In other words, you believe that the laws we follow are direct representations of the existence of nature. Thus, the laws of nature are direct results of the singularity of space and time, during the very creation of the universe.

You agree with this?

A supernatural being would be something that doesn't need to be supported or caused, and can support itself/doesn't need to be supported. An example of a supernatural being would be God. Supernatural beings aren't bound by Natural Laws, just as we, as Natural beings, aren't bound by supernatural laws.

So would you accept that it is possible for the universe to be supernatural in nature, for it to have supported itself without a cause? Do you deny that the universe could have started as supernatural in origin, and then directly following the singularity of space and time, settled into a natural form? If so, why?

The laws of causality are natural laws. They don't apply to God, being supernatural.

How do you know that the laws of causality are natural laws? Why can't they be supernatural laws that govern both natural and supernatural objects?

With the current definition of 'god', I doubt they/He could be natural. They would have to break the Natural Laws to fufill their definiton. Same holds as to why the universe isn't God, because He'd be bound by laws He doesn't follow that can't be broken.

How do you know that God does not work within the bounds of nature, utilizing it to a greater extent than you can comprehend?

Supernatural beings don't need a causing, because that limitaion is only for natural beings. I doubt supernatural could be created by natural, because since they don't need to be caused, they might not be able to be caused.

You say this as might; are you acceptive of the possibility that a supernatural entity, while in your beliefs not needing to be caused naturally, can be caused naturally?

And I don't think I understand that last one. Is it your suggestion that God was caused at the same time as the universe?

I am asking whether you find this to be possible, yes.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Csquared08]

As a human, you are not qualified to define a word. Created by a human. In a language. Created by humans.

Are you being serious right now.

Yes, actually I am being serious right now. Quite serious.

I can say what a word means, but in the true of sense of the term 'evil,' would not the God who made good and evil, the God who is supposedly all-powerful and all-loving, be the only one capable of clearly stating what is good and what is evil? They may be human terms, but it is God who determines whether our definitions of such terms are accurate.

Note: You may want to read my edit, if you haven't done so already.

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes, actually I am being serious right now. Quite serious.

I can say what a word means, but in the true of sense of the term 'evil,' would not the God who made good and evil, the God who is supposedly all-powerful and all-loving, be the only one capable of clearly stating what is good and what is evil? They may be human terms, but it is God who determines whether our definitions of such terms are accurate.

But you're not saying that you can't define what good and evil are, you're saying you can't even define what omnibenevolence means.

[Prince of Ravens]

It can grow and still satisfy the concept of infinity, which was my point. There is not a boundary to the universe that one can cross, and thus the universe can be considered infinite, at least under one concept of the word.

So you're not talking about actual infinity? I guess that you're wasting your time then, as your counter-arguments aren't relevant.

How could you list these causes and supporters without the concept of causality that they do not obey --based on their nature, and without its existence, which was brought into being during the singularity of space and time?

The last (farthest back) member of the list is the supernatural.

Why? For example, why can nature not be governed by the laws of supernature? What of the two different laws are incompatible?

Because the Laws of Supernature only apply to the Supernatural.

So you have invented a term, and you cannot define what it entails. You're off to a good start.

I can define it. It's rather simple, really. The Laws of Supernature are the Laws that bind the Supernatural, just as the Laws of Nature bind the natural.

In other words, you believe that the laws we follow are direct representations of the existence of nature. Thus, the laws of nature are direct results of the singularity of space and time, during the very creation of the universe.

You agree with this?

If what you're saying is that the Laws of Nature were created at the same exact moment as Nature itself, then yes. They weren't created by Nature, but rather by Whoever created Nature.

So would you accept that it is possible for the universe to be supernatural in nature, for it to have supported itself without a cause? Do you deny that the universe could have started as supernatural in origin, and then directly following the singularity of space and time, settled into a natural form? If so, why?

What caused the universe to become natural then? Another Supernatural? God maybe?

How do you know that the laws of causality are natural laws? Why can't they be supernatural laws that govern both natural and supernatural objects?

Because there must be something that doesn't need to be caused, so it could ultimitly cause everything else. This something cannot be bound by the Laws of causality.

How do you know that God does not work within the bounds of nature, utilizing it to a greater extent than you can comprehend?

He might. I don't doubt that He could, but what would a miracle be if it was possible by nature? Just a rare happpenstance, right?

You say this as might; are you acceptive of the possibility that a supernatural entity, while in your beliefs not needing to be caused naturally, can be caused naturally?

If something supernatural was caused by natural, then what caused the natural? No, I highly doubt that the natural can cause unnatural. In retrospect, I don't think it's possible. Even if it was, the natural couldn't have caused God, because the natural couldn't have come into being on its own.

I am asking whether you find this to be possible, yes.

No. If the universe was caused by God, then it and God couldn't have been caused simultaneously.

[Janissary]

I think the essence of this argument is a creationist argument. If God created the laws, He would (in some opinion) not be subject to them, because He would know how to supercede them. This is mostly in reference to Scientific Laws (i.e. Gravity).

Personally, I tend to think that God operates under the laws he set into place. After all, why would he make a bunch of laws and then not adhere to them himself?* I think that most of the miraculous healings that the Bible records have biological explanation that were caused by divine action. For example, say you have growth hormone deficiency. You pray, and your noext check up, you no longer seem to have the disorder. Did God miraculously heal you? Technically, sure, but he did it by pushing your glands to make growth hormone, not by given you sky fairy growth hormone shots via an invisible angel.

*Before someone calls this hypocrital and says that he doesn't follow the tend commandments, he does. So just don't go there. If you do, be prepared for a sidetrack.

[Esau of Isaac]

So you're not talking about actual infinity? I guess that you're wasting your time then, as your counter-arguments aren't relevant.

You are agreeing that it meets the definition of an interpretation of infinity?

The last (farthest back) member of the list is the supernatural.

Wouldn't they all be supernaturals, since the concept of causality doesn't exist?

Because the Laws of Supernature only apply to the Supernatural.

How do you know? You just made the concept up.

I can define it. It's rather simple, really. The Laws of Supernature are the Laws that bind the Supernatural, just as the Laws of Nature bind the natural.

Why are you saying the supernatural are bound to laws? You have yet to show any evidence of the supernatural in the first place.

If what you're saying is that the Laws of Nature were created at the same exact moment as Nature itself, then yes. They weren't created by Nature, but rather by Whoever created Nature.

Why would they have been created by whatever created nature, rather than by nature itself? You can't agree that the laws are direct results of the innate interactions between the universe's constituents?

What caused the universe to become natural then? Another Supernatural? God maybe?

The universe itself. Perhaps being natural is the most normal state, and something of a supernatural nature only exists for an exceedingly short period.

I'm more asking whether you can discount the idea of something supernatural becoming natural than the exact events that occurred.

Because there must be something that doesn't need to be caused, so it could ultimitly cause everything else. This something cannot be bound by the Laws of causality.

If there has to be something from nothing, then the universe can be this something. It was not bound by the laws of causality, then fell into them following the singularity of space and time.

Do you agree this is fair?

He might. I don't doubt that He could, but what would a miracle be if it was possible by nature? Just a rare happpenstance, right?

It depends on how rarely he performs actions of an incredible nature. I doubt you would feel very amused if God were able to make an ice cube melt at twice the rate it normally does, but if he were to boil oceans you would feel amazed. If working through natural means, the two could be compared.

We don't find it a miracle when we manipulate metals into blades, why would it be such a miracle if there were some unknown mechanism by which this divine being you agree on could utilize their environments in an efficient way while still being natural?

If something supernatural was caused by natural, then what caused the natural? No, I highly doubt that the natural can cause unnatural. In retrospect, I don't think it's possible. Even if it was, the natural couldn't have caused God, because the natural couldn't have come into being on its own.

This line of discussion specifically is not based around the universe's creation, but whether something supernatural can come from natural origin.

No. If the universe was caused by God, then it and God couldn't have been caused simultaneously.

If the universe was not caused by God?

[Defeatist Elitist]

For all intents and purposes supernatural means not real. What we define as real, as reality, you have classified as "natural", so the things that aren't natural are not real. Not being bound by the laws of reality means you aren't actually real, by definition.

The other reason of course is the most basic and damning of all of them, and that is the whole lack of evidence thing.

[Balcerzak]

So you're not talking about actual infinity? I guess that you're wasting your time then, as your counter-arguments aren't relevant.

You... are aware there are different classes of infinity, right? I mean, at the most basic level, there's the countably infinite and the uncountably infinite. Then there's also many subdivisions of uncountably infinite, some of which are more infinite than others.

Because there must be something that doesn't need to be caused, so it could ultimitly cause everything else. This something cannot be bound by the Laws of causality.

You still haven't proven this, you keep dodging. If within the bounds of the universe there exist clear and present examples of self-caused, or non-caused events, then we already have proof that it is not a logical necessity for an existence to have a cause. Your only out is special pleading and saying that "well... that doesn't count for the universe as a whole because I say so," which is a logical fallacy.

Oh wait, I take that back, you also tried to say: "Something cannot come from nothing. This is a scientific Law (and if you understand QVFs, you should know which one)," which is just yet again you demonstrating utter ignorance of modern science. Something can come from nothing, and in fact does so on a regular basis.

As long as the net sum of total energy in the universe is 0, or phrasing it alternately, the curvature of the universe is flat, then it is entirely possible for universe ex nihilo.

. The whole thing is interesting, but you can probably zoom to about 30 minutes in.

[Rewjeo]

What's the point of a novel without conflict? I'd be a really lame story. What would be the point of life? Just to sit around playing harps?

I know this is from pages ago, but...

By simply saying that, you're saying that God is doing what he 'does' "because it's fun" not because that's just how things work. According to that statement, the point of life is to entertain God because he's bored, and he wants life to entertain him. If God was all-good, that wouldn't be the reason.

And there are different "levels" of infinite. There are an infinite number of rational numbers. There is a greater infinity of irrational numbers. Indeed, there is an infinity of irrational numbers for every rational number. It might hurt your brain, but that's how the universe works. That's how, if he exists, God made it.

[Crystal Shards]

Yes, he is all-powerful and can do whatever the Hell he wants, but aren't we also arguing whether he is omni-benevolent?

If God is omni-benevolent, he is all-loving, yes? Is it love if one party is forced into the situation? In short, no. In long, see above. Therefore, to be all-loving/omni-benevolent, it must be a world where a choice exists between good and evil.

If this is not what we are arguing about (God and omni-benevolence, be it the main subject or a sub-argument), then yes, you are quite right. I do not understand.

No, you really don't understand. God is all-powerful. He can create a world in which we aren't forced to love him and that we can only do good. He can create a world where those are compatible. Just like he could create a world filled with orange blobs or one where there is no gravity or one where we're all black and white. He could have created anything he wanted to, but he chose a world with evil in it and a world where we're tested, one where earthquakes happen and children die from diarrhea. One where screw flies exist. That's either not benevolence, or it's not omnipotence. And don't feed me that "we can't define omnibenevolence" shit because it's a human-made word--we can define it any which way we want to. And for most educated people on the planet benevolence means "good" and omni means "all", so omnibenevolence means "all good." There's no way you can give excuses for how God made the world because if he is indeed all powerful he could have done better. So either he's NOT all-powerful or he's not all good.

Again, assuming he exists (which I don't, for the record), since this debate is pointless if we assume the opposite.

[Csquared08]

But you're not saying that you can't define what good and evil are, you're saying you can't even define what omnibenevolence means.

If you had read the edit, you would have saw that I was referring to evil, not omni-benevolence. As said in the edit, my apologies for the mistake.

Regardless, the definition of omni-benevolence remains the same: A being that is omni-benevolent/all-loving can do no evil.

That begs the question: What is evil? As humans, many have defined evil as many different things, thus creating conflict. Either each and every human is incorrect about the true essence of evil or a particular human (or group) has got what evil actually is right.

For example: If you were to ask someone on the street what freedom was, you'd get some sort of answer. You ask someone else, you're likely to get a different answer. Which person correctly knows the essence of freedom? In all likelihood, neither of them do.

I'd continue this, but I had to get up really early for cross country and I can't think right now...

[Crystal Shards]

If you had read the edit, you would have saw that I was referring to evil, not omni-benevolence. As said in the edit, my apologies for the mistake.

Regardless, the definition of omni-benevolence remains the same: A being that is omni-benevolent/all-loving can do no evil.

That begs the question: What is evil? As humans, many have defined evil as many different things, thus creating conflict. Either each and every human is incorrect about the true essence of evil or a particular human (or group) has got what evil actually is right.

For example: If you were to ask someone on the street what freedom was, you'd get some sort of answer. You ask someone else, you're likely to get a different answer. Which person correctly knows the essence of freedom? In all likelihood, neither of them do.

I'd continue this, but I had to get up really early for cross country and I can't think right now...

evil

–adjective

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.

3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.

5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Not difficult. Generally speaking, it boils down to things that cause injury, particularly without reason or justice.

EDIT: Had to reformat the definitions.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Csquared08]

evil

–adjective  

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.  

2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.  

3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.  

5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Not difficult. Generally speaking, it boils down to things that cause injury, particularly without reason or justice.

EDIT: Had to reformat the definitions.

1. What is morally wrong, then?

2. Does that make amputations evil? They are harmful and injurious...

3. If I had a chance to win a game/race and I instead loss, it'd seem pretty unfortunate to me. Apparently that is evil...

4. What is bad conduct?

5. So being angry with someone for stealing my car is evil?