Heaven and Hell role reversal

KingMerv00 said:
You are missing the point. What makes you think that God cares about humanity at all? Why is goodness assumed?
Click to expand...

"Goodness" tends to be defined by humans in a very subjective way. What I think is good may not be what you think is good. What is good for me may not be good for you. What is good for OBL is probably bad news for GWB. So ascribing "perfect goodness" to God may be illogical too, unless you define "absolute goodness" and I doubt anyone can do so.

I temporarily cede the point for the sake of argument. Why did God create a word where Earthquakes are possible? Why have meteors?
Click to expand...

The Earthquake question has come up before.

Maybe it is impossible to have a life-supporting planet with no Earthquakes. There is in fact a very good reason why there are Earthquakes on Earth and none on Mars or Venus. Our planet has a very odd history. Unlike Mars or Venus, the Earth-Moon system is the result of a collision between two planets. The heavy cores of both planets ended up becoming the Earth, and the moon is composed of the lightest material ejected from the collision. This event has been absolutely critical to the existence of life on Earth because it resulted in the earth having an very very dense core. We have an overabundance of iron and heavy metals, precisely because our planet consists of the heaviest parts of two planets. There are a number of effects of this. One of them is absolutely critical for the existence of living things on this planet. The Earth has a massive Iron-nickel core which provide it with a magnetic field strong enough to deflect most of the harmful solar radiation. If this magnetic field fails (as it does from time to time when the poles reverse) then life on Earth suffers mass-extinctions. If it were to disappear completely, then the Earth could not support life as we know it. So it can be argued that one of the main reasons why Earth supports life and other planets apparently do not is because we have this magnetic field and that the magnetic field only occurs because we have a super-dense core. But the super-dense core is also the root cause of earthquakes. The core of the Earth is kept hot by the nuclear decay of heavy metals like Plutonium and Uranium. The reason the Earth is still geologically active, rather than dead like the moon, mars and venus, is because it has a heavy core laced with radioactive metals. Without the core, we die from solar radiation. With it, Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions cannot be avoided.

Regardless of God, it is impossible to be protected from the solar wind on a planet that is geologically inactive.
 
JustGeoff said:
I'm stupid.
Click to expand...

No you're not. You seem quite intelligent to me.

The point I'm making is that you can know nothing about God. You can try to make excuses for an invisible, undetectable being but you will always end up grasping at straws. It is the same as asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Sorry if I sound like I am trying to be difficult, I'm not. I am just saying that there is no way to speak authoritatively about God or what his is thinking.

Anyway, the simplier explanation for suffering is an evil or deist god.
 
JustGeoff said:
"Goodness" tends to be defined by humans in a very subjective way. What I think is good may not be what you think is good. What is good for me may not be good for you. What is good for OBL is probably bad news for GWB. So ascribing "perfect goodness" to God may be illogical too, unless you define "absolute goodness" and I doubt anyone can do so.



The Earthquake question has come up before.

Maybe it is impossible to have a life-supporting planet with no Earthquakes. There is in fact a very good reason why there are Earthquakes on Earth and none on Mars or Venus. Our planet has a very odd history. Unlike Mars or Venus, the Earth-Moon system is the result of a collision between two planets. The heavy cores of both planets ended up becoming the Earth, and the moon is composed of the lightest material ejected from the collision. This event has been absolutely critical to the existence of life on Earth because it resulted in the earth having an very very dense core. We have an overabundance of iron and heavy metals, precisely because our planet consists of the heaviest parts of two planets. There are a number of effects of this. One of them is absolutely critical for the existence of living things on this planet. The Earth has a massive Iron-nickel core which provide it with a magnetic field strong enough to deflect most of the harmful solar radiation. If this magnetic field fails (as it does from time to time when the poles reverse) then life on Earth suffers mass-extinctions. If it were to disappear completely, then the Earth could not support life as we know it. So it can be argued that one of the main reasons why Earth supports life and other planets apparently do not is because we have this magnetic field and that the magnetic field only occurs because we have a super-dense core. But the super-dense core is also the root cause of earthquakes. The core of the Earth is kept hot by the nuclear decay of heavy metals like Plutonium and Uranium. The reason the Earth is still geologically active, rather than dead like the moon, mars and venus, is because it has a heavy core laced with radioactive metals. Without the core, we die from solar radiation. With it, Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions cannot be avoided.

Regardless of God, it is impossible to be protected from the solar wind on a planet that is geologically inactive.
Click to expand...

You are too narrow in your thinking. Couldn't God create a universe where the scientific laws were utterly different?
 
JustGeoff said:
The Earthquake question has come up before.

Maybe it is impossible to have a life-supporting planet with no Earthquakes.[...] With it, Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions cannot be avoided.

Regardless of God, it is impossible to be protected from the solar wind on a planet that is geologically inactive.
Click to expand...

That's simply (and obviously) untrue and hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "avoided." As was pointed out earlier, humans manage to do a remarkably good job of "avoiding" dangerous situations that cant' be prevented. That's one of the central jobs that weather services provide -- warning people when things are about to get dangerous.

So perhaps the existence of earthquakes is somehow "necessary" (in some logical sense which mere divinity cannot overcome, heh heh). But neither their irregular appearance without warning nor their destructiveness are inherent in the geology. If we could predict earthquakes the way that we can predict hurricanes, the death and devastation -- the "pain" they cause -- could and would be greatly reduced.
 
KingMerv00 said:
No you're not. You seem quite intelligent to me.

The point I'm making is that you can know nothing about God. You can try to make excuses for an invisible, undetectable being but you will always end up grasping at straws. It is the same as asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Click to expand...

Just for the record, no mediaevil scholars ever debated the angels dancing on a pin question, it is a modern invention designed to make the ancients look stupid. The intelligent ones also knew the Earth was not flat.

I am not making excuses for God. I am trying to argue against self-inconsistent conceptions of God and trying to suggest self-consistent ones instead. Conceptions of God which allow God himself to defy logic are therefore anathema to me.

p.s. I just looked up the word "anathema" to make sure I spelled it right and discovered it meant something I never knew it meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema

Sorry if I sound like I am trying to be difficult, I'm not. I am just saying that there is no way to speak authoritatively about God or what his is thinking.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I don't want to speak authoritatively about God. All I am trying to do is eliminate conceptions of God which are like square circles. Square circles can't exist because they are logically impossible. Definitions/conceptions of God which are also inherently illogical also can't exist. I don't think you have to be an authority on God to make claims like that, though. I think you just have to believe in logic, and I do.

Anyway, the simplier explanation for suffering is an evil or deist god.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with the "evil" part of this sentence, but sympathise with the "deist" bit. Yes, in the end, Franko's logical Goddess could do little to help Franko, or anybody else.
 
KingMerv00 said:
You are too narrow in your thinking. Couldn't God create a universe where the scientific laws were utterly different?
Click to expand...

Yes, the sole limitation is self-consistency. Maybe there are no logically-consistent possible Universes where there is a planet which can support life and also be geologically dead. Maybe this is true even if you are given a free hand regarding the laws of physics.
 
Kitten:

But neither their irregular appearance without warning nor their destructiveness are inherent in the geology. If we could predict earthquakes the way that we can predict hurricanes, the death and devastation -- the "pain" they cause -- could and would be greatly reduced.
Click to expand...

Look at the situation in Istanbul. This is the one case on the planet where the geologists know what is going on. There is a fault which is "unzipping". There have been a series of devastating earthquakes along the north anatolian fault. The last one was correctly predicted by geologists and nothing was done about it. They are now quite certain that a major Earthquake is going to hit Istanbul some time in the next 3-5 years. Nothing is being done about it. Thousands of buildings in Istanbul do not meet Turkish building regulations. The Earthquake WILL hit. Geoff predicts the death toll will exceed 50,000 and the quake will occur before 2011. Can I apply for the JREF prize?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anatolian_Fault_Zone

I don't see the difference between the inevitable Istanbul quake and the flooding of New Orleans. Both were predicted. One has happened, the other will happen soon. Lots of people dead in both cases, regardless of the best efforts of scientists and engineers. It's really about politics and human nature.
 
Last edited:
JustGeoff said:
Just for the record, no mediaevil scholars ever debated the angels dancing on a pin question, it is a modern invention designed to make the ancients look stupid. The intelligent ones also knew the Earth was not flat.
Click to expand...

Not that it is important, but the issue of angels and needles was addressed a little: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html

I'm fairly sure you are right about the flat earth though.

I am not making excuses for God. I am trying to argue against self-inconsistent conceptions of God and trying to suggest self-consistent ones instead. Conceptions of God which allow God himself to defy logic are therefore anathema to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can be sure God can't defy logic. You are not familiar with the limits of his powers. "Logic" to you is different than it would be to Him/Her/It. If God invented logic, he might be able to circumvent it. There is just no way to know. Saying that God must follow logic is an assumption made by your mortal mind.

I understand that. I don't want to speak authoritatively about God. All I am trying to do is eliminate conceptions of God which are like square circles. Square circles can't exist because they are logically impossible. Definitions/conceptions of God which are also inherently illogical also can't exist. I don't think you have to be an authority on God to make claims like that, though. I think you just have to believe in logic, and I do.
Click to expand...

God is either bound by logic or he is not (or he doesn't exist). Why is a bound God more probable than an unbound God?

I would disagree with the "evil" part of this sentence, but sympathise with the "deist" bit. Yes, in the end, Franko's logical Goddess could do little to help Franko, or anybody else.
Click to expand...

Why is a kind God more probable than an evil or deist God?
 
JustGeoff said:
Yes, the sole limitation is self-consistency. Maybe there are no logically-consistent possible Universes where there is a planet which can support life and also be geologically dead. Maybe this is true even if you are given a free hand regarding the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

This is all just "maybes". The are probably thousands of ways to limit human suffering, (perfect immune systems for instance). God just has no imagination.

I'll bet you that if you gave enough engineers enough money and enough time, they could come up with a earthquake/flood/hurricane proof building. I'm sure God in his infinite wisdom could create a planet the same way.
 
KingMerv00 said:
God just has no imagination.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but humans do. And if God can know everything known then he knows everything humans know. So anything we could imagine, He could also be aware of.

Can you imagine a logically-conistent better world than this?

If yes, exactly how?

If you were God, and you could do anything possible to make the world better which was logically consistent with itself, what would you do?


I'll bet you that if you gave enough engineers enough money and enough time, they could come up with a earthquake/flood/hurricane proof building. .
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. All we need is a perpetual motion machine and we are sorted. :)
 
JustGeoff said:
I don't agree. Even God is bound by logic.
Click to expand...
Proof that God is bound by logic:
(apologies to those who saw me post this before)


Say God is not bound by logic.
Then God both exists and does not exist.
("How can that be?" you say. "That's illogical!"
"Exactly my point," I say.)

A logical God that exists, exists.
An illogical God that exists, also does not exist.

So God either does not exist, or is bound by logic.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
He's supposed to be omnipotent. That means ABLE TO DO ANYTHING.
Click to expand...
"Omnipotent" is usually defined among philosophers of religion as "able to do any logically possible thing." I disagree with most of what Geoff says, but he's absolutely right that a theist needn't, and shouldn't, believe that God is capable of making a square circle or of making 2+2=5.
 
JustGeoff said:
Because I am incapable of believing in square circles or logically-inconsistent anythings, and that includes God.
Click to expand...

I am incapable of understanding quantum physics. That does not make it improbable or even unlikely.

The Deist God is probably the most probable.
Click to expand...

Well, that's really the end of the "argument" isn't it? A deist universe looks just like an atheistic one.
 
Beleth said:
Proof that God is bound by logic:
(apologies to those who saw me post this before)


Say God is not bound by logic.
Then God both exists and does not exist.
("How can that be?" you say. "That's illogical!"
"Exactly my point," I say.)

A logical God that exists, exists.
An illogical God that exists, also does not exist.

So God either does not exist, or is bound by logic.
Click to expand...

God invented existance. Perhaps you just have a poor understanding of the concept.
 
JamesDillon said:
"Omnipotent" is usually defined among philosophers of religion as "able to do any logically possible thing." I disagree with most of what Geoff says, but he's absolutely right that a theist needn't, and shouldn't, believe that God is capable of making a square circle or of making 2+2=5.
Click to expand...

I don't think he SHOULD believe that God can do the illogical. I am simple saying that there is no way to know His limitations. So there isn't really any point in saying "God can't do x" because it is equally likely that he can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom