Jump to content

Philosophophophy...

LiAM

By LiAM
in General

Recommended Posts

Guest Chaos Pudding

Guest Chaos Pudding

Posted
Posted

Lmao' date=' I know the Earth isn't perfect, but the way it works is unique to all other nearby planets.

[/quote']

 

You can say the same for every other planet in the solar system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehindTheMask Newbie

BehindTheMask

Posted
Posted

Pro-Tip: God doesn't exist.

 

Prove it.

 

In “Evil and Omnipotence”' date=' J.L. Mackie discusses the nature of Omnipotence and how evil plays a role in the discussion of God. Mackie brings up “fallacious points” that theologians use as arguments for God. The first “fallacious point” discussed by Mackie is the “Good cannot exist without evil” argument. The next main point he brings up is “The Universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil.” Thirdly, Mackie discusses the use of free will, and how omnipotence is a paradox.

 

The first fallacious point Mackie rebuttals, involves the argument that “Good cannot exist without evil.” This is a fallacious point, because it “sets a limit to what God can do.” This is a blow against those who believe in God, because they must give up one part of what defines their god (the other two being that he is wholly good, and a banisher of evil). In the next part of the rebuttal, Mackie states “[i']t may be replied that these limits are always presupposed, that omnipotence has never meant the power to do what is logically impossible, and on the present view of the existence of good without evil is a logical impossibility.” This again limits the power of an omnipotent God. This fallacious point has whittled away one main attributes of God. So, if one were use this as an argument, they would have to agree to redefine the power of God, saying that he is very power, but not omnipotent. The second fallacious point Mackie rebuttals, is the “Evil is necessary as a means to do good” argument. This argument suffers from the same problems as the “Good cannot exist without evil.”

 

Another argument used by those who believe in God is “The Universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil.” This however is a foolish point to make, according to Mackie. This is due to the fact this argument is an ad infinitum argument. If there is a basic level of evil, and a basic level of good, there must be other levels, in order to strengthen the previous level. This will create an “infinite regress, where the solution of a problem of evil stated in terms of evil (n), indicated the existence of an evil(n+1), and a further problem will be solved.” This makes it a foolish argument, because it is never ending.

 

The last argument Mackie refutes is the argument “Evil is due to human free will.” Those who use this argument state that God does not extinguish evil, because of human free will. If God were to remove the evil, then humans would not be free, and God would not be wholly good. This argument, according to Mackie is flawed. One question Mackie states is that “if God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?” If one uses this argument, this question would impose a limit of the omnipotence of God. The next part of the argument one might use, is that God may not want to interfere with the will of men. However, Mackie explains why this is wrong, when he writes “why should he [God] not leave men free to will wrongly, but intervene when he sees them beginning to will wrongly.” Mackie also explains the “Paradox of Omnipotence.”

 

The Paradox of Omnipotence, according to Mackie, is a huge problem to those who believe in God. Mackie poses the question “can an omnipotent being makes rules which bind themselves?” If a person who believes in God answers “yes”, then “it follows that God actually makes things which he cannot control, or makes rules which bind himself, he is not omnipotent.” If they answer no, then they contest that God is not omnipotent himself.

 

Game. Set. Match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LiAM Newbie

LiAM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Pro-Tip: God doesn't exist.

 

Prove it.

 

If God existed' date=' I should die right n

[/quote']

 

Lmfao, that's cleverly, but it kinda failed cos your post got sent.

 

And with the proof of God, tl;dr D=

 

But I know just as much as anyone else that the idea of an all mighty being is ridiculous.

 

But I just asked for you to prove to get you thinking about what other people such as christians think xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Womi Newbie

Womi

Posted
Posted

mmmh.....sorry. Didn't even read the first post. =/

 

So you say that a god must've created the earth due to its originality?

On the Mars, there are lakes of Methan. The ground kinda consists of corroded metal. If it rains there, one raindrop contains 100 ml of liquid methan and falls with a velocity of half a mile per hour. I think that's more interesting. Although life isn't possible there.

 

But I'm terribly sure that there are lots of planets with life on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scatty Newbie

Scatty

Posted
Posted

Even if Earth was perfect and exact for existence (hint: it's not)' date=' that only applies to the existence that exists at this time. If the Earth was a different place, then life itself would be different, yet it would be as "perfectly" adapted to it, so it would appear that [b']that[/b] Earth was the perfect and exact one.

 

Finisher. And actually the very first post.

 

Just like Mr. Crab said above, if the Earth would have had other life conditions, but still supported life (ex: 5% more oxygen or 10% more gravity) then things would still be perfectly balancing each other. By the way, your demonstration (Liam, not Pudding, has some issues):

 

- It is true that trees consume CO2 via photosynthesis, but they also PRODUCE CO2 via breathing. Yes, plants breath.

- The Tilt of the Earth doesn't have to be as perfect as it is (47 degrees btw). We could survive at anything between 10 and 70, just not on the entire planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scatty Newbie

Scatty

Posted
Posted

Yes' date=' but we cannot be sure of other life in the universe, guessing is like saying god exists/ doesn't exist, there's no proof, only theories.

[/quote']

 

It is not the same thing.

 

What seems more likely:

 

1. 17 certain proteins appeared on a planet constantly hit by meteorites and comets for millions of years, and bonded into the first virus.

 

2. an infinitely old divine being that can think almost human-like created the world using the power of the Word.

 

 

 

Saying there is another planet with life on it in this galaxy is like saying you get at least 10 Heads when tossing a coin 100 times. Possible, likely, but might not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scatty Newbie

Scatty

Posted
Posted

Look I don't believe in God' date=' I'm only giving a christian viewpoint to carry the debate XD

 

It feels like your having a go at me D=

[/quote']

 

For a reason, that sounds gay.

 

But carry on...you know how biologists in 1700 thought that all swans are white? Well, they found black swans in Australia.

 

Same could be with alien worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...