Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.
And to add on to that, why worship a malevolent God?
You must define evil. Evil is an abstract concept and too vague and varying between people, so only God would be able to define what evil is, if he is omnipresent then he could see the "big picture" and give a definition to absolutes and abstract concepts.
In the context of that quote you say that a malevolent god will allow evil, but what is evil? Is there such a thing as evil, or is it a human construct we made to give ourselves an understanding of the world? I don't want to sound like some relativist saying good and evil don't exist, but giving a definition of it would be a better start than letting people make their own assumptions on what evil and willingness is. You will then have to define on why what you say evil is evil based on your own subjective experiences (and better yet the experiences of everyone else plus yours) until you can get a better definition of what evil fundamentally is.
Of course, who are we, with 2 pairs of eyes and barring people with extrasensory ability, a very heavily filtered view of the world through our senses, to try and define what is absolute, when we can't even see a measurable part of the world.
Last edited by Spaztick; 01-15-2010 at 04:06 PM.
The Hunter- an original ganker/initiator.
i really hope i dont have to live this terrible life again
i am dissapointed, noone has explored the possiblility that the universe does not, in fact, exist
However, ex nihilo nihil fit may not hold true... but given the condition of its validity, his logic makes sense.
Well, our physics isn't advanced enough yet to understand the moment of the big bang yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. Using that as proof that there is a god is way worse than the current theories of how things came about after the start of the universe. There was so much energy that nothing really formed atoms, then atoms were able to form, then some molecules, etc. Having that as a start is way better than saying a god created it because you cannot show how god (a much more complex thing) was created out of nothing. Saying that time could be (0, infinity) is very similar to saying that "from nothing, nothing is created" isn't true. It might not be, but having a hole at time=0 doesn't mean that it's false, either. It just means that if true, there was no beginning of time, but you can look very very (infinitely) close to it.
S2 Games: Dedicated employees serving dedicated gamers. Continuous development. Never-ending improvement.
Or you could have read the thread, or you could have applied your own thought.
To the "what is evil" guy, i agree theres a lot of grey areas, but there are also a lot of quite obvious areas.
The argument that epicurus put forth 33 BC loses nothing from just considering the extremes, which is universally agreed upon.
But sure, God might define it as combining milk and cookies instead of what Fritzl did, IF HE EXISTED.
a priori and a posteriori.
Religion is clearly a priori and seems to love it, whereas science tries its best to reach a posteriori conclusions.
In case you dont wanna look it up, priori = bad and stupid; posteriori = good.
EDIT: And if this really sparks your interest, then you might also enjoy Karl Poppers falsification theory.
I never suggested I know the origin of the universe, or if anything is certain. The only thing I stated was that IF ex nihilo nihil fit holds true, then it's inevitable that some infinite force must exist, for something cannot be created from nothing. Infinity is the only concept that trumps ex nihilo nihil fit. There's no reason to resort to hostility, I never claimed that is the absolute truth or that anyone is incorrect in their beliefs.
Last edited by Pettypete; 01-15-2010 at 05:21 PM.
And you dont have to continually type out the entire latin phrase, although it does make you look pretty damn smart.
And if im mistaken in you assuming that the big bang originated from nothing, then i -really- read your "Don't bother mentioning the big bang as being the absolute beginning of the universe, it's impossible if ex nihilo nihil fit holds true." wrong.
Or maybe you just have a sorta skewed definiton of what the word "universe" means, i dont know. Something is wrong at least.
In general, i prefer the term "multiverse" to "universe" at any rate.
I mentioned the big bounce, which would be in tune with your idea of the multiuniverse; there are infinite amounts of universes, and the one we reside in happens to be one of infinitely many universes. I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to by multiuniverse though.
Last edited by Pettypete; 01-15-2010 at 05:18 PM.
The multiverse theory, actually, is a better answer for the problem of evil than pretty much anything else in our current understanding.
Big bounce = boom, x billion years to max entropy -> eek, y billion years to max syntropy -> repeat forever = infinite recursion
that would be answer choice B on the quiz