User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: GOD

  1. #21
    Senior Member Array Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008


    No, it's not necessary to define him as any one thing really. We each can have one definition. But then there would be one god for each of us. Which is kind of stupid :P

  2. #22
    lackluster primate Array Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    It is not necessary to define God as both omnipotent and benevolent. I have a friend who defines god as benevolent but not omnipotent -- for the purposes of this exercise I defined him as omnipotent, and came to the conclusion He is not benevolent.

    It's not an important question ofr me either. I don't believe in God. It was just a fun theoretical exercise.
    Those that define God as omniversal - that is to say, having all the constituent parts of all available realities - are probably best defined as ascribing to the Ontological assessment of God.

    The concept of an idealized superbeing paternalistically caring for his creations is an interesting thought:

    I always thought the notion of applying humanistic qualities to, by definition, a non-human superbeing amusing. An "alien" intelligence superior to our own would necessarily adhere to a system of morals and ethics likewise xenic to what we understand as "moral" or "ethical".

    So, it's therefore likely that the definition of human benevolence would probably not apply to the "benevolent" behavior of a superhuman intellect. In fact, "God" may very well do things that appear highly evil or amoral to lesser minds, while remaining faithful to the inherent code of ethics that a superentity of his caliber would otherwise employ.

    So follows the problem of evil.

    Not a solution. A suggestion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts