Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Yes some have minor differences, but saying they're not the same is ridiculous. I do see the tiny and insignificant differences, but they're academic. In practice they're basically identical. That's the bottom line.
|
Do we really need to compare and contrast the definitions of "similar" and "same"? I said they were similar, but not the same. You seem to be claiming that the words "similar" and "same" are synonyms. The fact that they have minor differences, or any differences at all, means that they are by definition not the same. But this is a semantic digression, and therefore dumb.
Quote:
|
"All powerful" doesn't speak to use, but rather speaks to ability. Omnipotent speaks to ability, malevolent speaks to use. Like omniscient speaks to ability, and voyeurism speaks to use.
|
What's your point?
Quote:
|
I'm using "evil" based on religious axioms. Where do you suppose god falls in the parable of the good Samaritan?
|
I don't care where god falls in the parable of the good Samaritan. As far as I can tell, jesus was only concerned with the behavior of humans.
Which religion's axioms are you using?
I'm still waiting for the bible verses where god claims that the not allowing evil to happen is part of its plan.
Quote:
He's doing the same thing I did above: he's utilizing axioms presented in religion to frame a logical statement. I'll translate by removing the axiom:
Is God willing to prevent that which is destructive and hurtful to people (including his followers), but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent or apathetic.
|
A hypothetical god might subscribe to the idea that life can't exist in any meaningful way without pain and suffering. I don't know. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of other possibilities for a hypothetical god's inaction in light of the existence of things you find distasteful. In any case, one might expect that any hypothetical being who held absolute control over the afterlife might not be too concerned with and destruction.
Really, though, this is stupid. Belief in god isn't a mathematical proof, attempting to treat it as such isn't necessarily all that revelatory. For some folks it's no more deep than the realization that rebellion is just, like, conforming to anti-conformity, dude.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Interestingly I came to pretty much the exact same wording as Epicurus when I was in my teens.
|
No doubt with all the requisite imagination of an orthodontist in the making.