How could you tell?

[discipulus]

That's funny, since what I said is only based on what you said about God. So, I guess that would make sense

You said both you and God wanted what I wanted... I wanted you to answer the question.

Based on what you said, do please try and be accountable for what you just said, you will be going against what God wants if you don't.

So, will you answer?

If you are not willing to hear the truth, then no one can tell you. And you really do not want me to answer the question because the answer given will not be to your liking. That is why you act as if I have not answered you already when I have.

 

[JGG]

Examine the claims of Christ and of the Dalai Lama. Come to your own conclusions.

I can't. I still have no spiritual method of determining truth from falsehood.I have no way of knowing. How do you know?

 

[discipulus]

I can't. I still have no spiritual method of determining truth from falsehood.I have no way of knowing. How do you know?

The Gift from God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I never said it was hard, in fact, I anticipated you saying exactly what you have.

Your inability to answer the question says otherwise.

In response, I will simply tell you that if you do not believe you can know if you are delusional or not, you need to be concerned about yourself and the very real possibility that you are delusional and not concerned with questioning other people's beliefs.

Utter nonsense and avoidism. Explain how you know you're not deluded, or concede defeat.

You can conjure up as many fanciful terms you like - The Truth™, the Spirit of Discernment™, the Gift of God™ - but the fact ultimately remains that you have consistently refused to explain how you know you're not just deluded about having spiritual discernment. This is expected, of course, as the question was posed to highlight the logical paradox in your stance, in the full knowledge that the paradox existed (and, thus, could never actually be reconciled).

The point of all this is that your stance is illogical (read: paradoxical, internally inconsistent, demonstrably false), and the question highlights this. Your inability to answer a quite simple question simply demonstrates what we already knew: your stance is based on fallacious, circular reasoning.

 

[Non sequitur]

If you are not willing to hear the truth, then no one can tell you. And you really do not want me to answer the question because the answer given will not be to your liking. That is why you act as if I have not answered you already when I have.

Your response to my question was "how can you know?"

This does not answer my question about *you*.

If, for sure me strange reason, I missed a hidden message, can you please link me to the post where you *directly* answer it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Concede defeat?

Yes. If you refuse to answer the question, the only conclusion is that you cannot answer the question, thus proving what we already know.

See how stupid and silly this conversation is? Why not just understand that I am not going to answer your question to your liking and leave me alone?

Because this is a public forum and I will post as often as I like until the mods say otherwise. If you want to be left alone, then stop posting.

You've already proven our point, of course. To repeat my post:

"You can conjure up as many fanciful terms you like - The Truth™, the Spirit of Discernment™, the Gift of God™ - but the fact ultimately remains that you have consistently refused to explain how you know you're not just deluded about having spiritual discernment. This is expected, of course, as the question was posed to highlight the logical paradox in your stance, in the full knowledge that the paradox existed (and, thus, could never actually be reconciled).

The point of all this is that your stance is illogical (read: paradoxical, internally inconsistent, demonstrably false), and the question highlights this. Your inability to answer a quite simple question simply demonstrates what we already knew: your stance is based on fallacious, circular reasoning."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

38 pages and nothing but special pleading and circular reasoning.

Is that really all anyone has?

Ok I'll bite. Conclusion: There is no such thing as an evil genius. (i.e. one cannot be all knowing, all powerful and all bad).

The concept is not logically permissible, because...

• Genius requires undersatnding, perhaps exceptional nay ultimate understanding, and if so anyone who understands morality would not be evil, just as anyone who understands calculation would not make mistakes.

• Emotion is valued. This is a bit Platonist sounding, but I am actually stemming from Husserl (who saw emotion as valuational, namely "evaluative apperception"). Therefore IMO there can be a mathematical stlye framework for deliberating between choices, as values are involved.

• According to the maths of emotion, the better ones are more positive, and the worse ones less positive. Therefore an actual genius cannot create a negative world, as that would involve an "affective-deontologico-axiological miscalculation". ie choosing a negative.

• Why? because "ought" entalis the better choice, which entails the better option being chosen.

• Any genius would be familiar with the rules of deontic logic and axiological logic, (which deal with permission, obligation, duty and concepts like better and worse)...

• So either he cannot understand the situation and these logics, in which case he is not a genius. Or he understands, in which case he would not choose to do evil.

• My argument presupposes that ethical internalism is true for the "evil genius", i.e. that moral knowledge is sufficient to motivate moral action. But if he is all powerful that cannot be an issue.

QED

Note this seems like an a priori argument, but I believe it must needs be as we are dealing with the non-empirical domain. So the concept of "evil genius" has to be logically falsified if at all.

Let E equal evil genius.
not-E is true (according to my axioms) necessarily.

 

[Tnmusicman]

So there is something God cannot do (i.e., lie)? Then how is he omnipotent?

God can only do that which is consistent with His nature. He can't stop being God but He can do anything He sets out to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.
It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else. God cannot do the logically impossible (Ie...make a square circle, ect...).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God can only do that which is consistent with His nature. He can't stop being God but He can do anything He sets out to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.
It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else. God cannot do the logically impossible (Ie...make a square circle, ect...).

As The Messianic Manic pointed out, if omnipotence means that a being can only do that which is consistent with his or her nature and cannot do things which are not consistent with his or her nature, then you and I are also omnipotent.

 

[discipulus]

As The Messianic Manic pointed out, if omnipotence means that a being can only do that which is consistent with his or her nature and cannot do things which are not consistent with his or her nature, then you and I are also omnipotent.

And then the question can be asked (with my atheist / relativist hat on)....

Who cares?

You lack belief in God, another person believes in God.

If there actually is no God and we as by-products of a blind evolutionary process are left to determine for ourselves what is meaningful, what is moral, what is ethical, what is desirable....

Then who cares?

You like roast beef, I like London Broil....

You like Pancakes, I like waffles..... at the end of the day all we are doing is trading and exchanging our opinions and preferences about certain subjects.....

You like Beethoven, I like Bach. At the end of the day we both die and become food for the worms.

What difference does it really all make?

 

[HitchSlap]

And then the question can be asked (with my atheist / relativist hat on)....

Who cares?

You lack belief in God, another person believes in God.

If there actually is no God and we as by-products of a blind evolutionary process are left to determine for ourselves what is meaningful, what is moral, what is ethical, what is desirable....

Then who cares?

You like roast beef, I like London Broil....

You like Pancakes, I like waffles..... at the end of the day all we are doing is trading and exchanging our opinions and preferences about certain subjects.....

You like Beethoven, I like Bach. At the end of the day we both die and become food for the worms.

What difference does it really all make?

I like easing human pain and suffering, education, meaningful experiences with loved ones, good food, art, music, and self reflection. You don't. at the end of the day, you're right. We all become worm food. You're born, then you die. What you do in between those two points in time is what matters. Life is beautiful and it's great to be alive. I pity those of you who hold such a despairing view of life.

 

[discipulus]

I like easing human pain and suffering, education, meaningful experiences with loved ones, good food, art, music, and self reflection.

Excellent!

You don't. at the end of the day, you're right. We all become worm food. You're born, then you die. What you do in between those two points in time is what matters. Life is beautiful and it's great to be alive. I pity those of you who hold such a despairing view of life.

Excellent. And many agree with you. Many do not.

Many pity those who hold views they believe are nothing more than illusions and wishful thinking.

You pity the nihilist, the nihilist has pity for you.

My point is (with my atheist/relativist hat on) is that you having or not having pity for someone else is based entirely upon your opinion of reality which may be entirely different than someone else's.

Some people like inflicting harm on others and making people suffer. Some people like raising their children by making them toil under hard labor and minimal to no education. Each culture does what it does based on what they value and if I am to speak as a consistent atheist and a consistent relativist I have to affirm that at the end of the day, their way of living is objectively and ultimately no better or worse than the culture that values easing human suffering and pain and good education.

 

[HitchSlap]

Some people like inflicting harm on others and making people suffer. Some people like raising their children by making them toil under hard labor and minimal to no education. Each culture does what it does based on what they value and if I am to speak as a consistent atheist and a consistent relativist I have to affirm that at the end of the day, their way of living is objectively and ultimately no better or worse than the culture that values easing human suffering and pain and good education.

Yes, it's called religious oppression, and it's why I'm a humanist, and you are a nihilist. I pity your position.

 

[discipulus]

Yes, it's called religious oppression, and it's why I'm a humanist, and you are a nihilist. I pity your position.

That is wonderful.

You like steak, I like chicken.

I pity you for liking steak. You pity me for liking chicken.

But either way, its just preference. You prefer (A) I prefer (B).

All we can do as consistent atheists and relativists is exchange opinions.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is wonderful.

You like steak, I like chicken.

I pity you for liking steak. You pity me for liking chicken.

But either way, its just preference. You prefer (A) I prefer (B).

All we can do as consistent atheists and relativists is exchange opinions.

Which is better for humanity? Battery acid or chicken?

 

[discipulus]

Which is better for humanity? Battery acid or chicken?

depends on who you ask.

If you ask the darwinian evolutionist person who believes that the consumption of doses of battery acid as a part of a balanced diet will eventually lead to the genetic alteration of the human dna structure to give them superhuman strength and survival advantages more pronounced than the consumption of chicken would , then they would say battery acid is better for humanity.

If you ask someone who thinks consumption of battery acid would eventually lead to illness while chicken would not, they would probably see chicken as being the better choice.

 

[HitchSlap]

depends on who you ask.

I'm asking you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And then the question can be asked (with my atheist / relativist hat on)....

Who cares?

You lack belief in God, another person believes in God.

If there actually is no God and we as by-products of a blind evolutionary process are left to determine for ourselves what is meaningful, what is moral, what is ethical, what is desirable....

Then who cares?

You like roast beef, I like London Broil....

You like Pancakes, I like waffles..... at the end of the day all we are doing is trading and exchanging our opinions and preferences about certain subjects.....

You like Beethoven, I like Bach. At the end of the day we both die and become food for the worms.

What difference does it really all make?

Have you heard of the parable of the starfish?

 

[HitchSlap]

Have you heard of the parable of the starfish?

Spot on!

 

[Tnmusicman]

As The Messianic Manic pointed out, if omnipotence means that a being can only do that which is consistent with his or her nature and cannot do things which are not consistent with his or her nature, then you and I are also omnipotent.

Geez, I even underlined it and you still missed it . True meaning of omnipotent is the ability to do whatever one sets out to do. This is the biblical understanding of omnipotent.