Imwashingmypirate wrote:Erm, since he was a bastard and cast out of the counsil of the real heaven. LOL.
Without man there is no God. Without life there is no God, without matter there is no God without matter there is no man, without matter there is very little energy, without energy there is no man.
Another way:
With man there can be God, with God there can be man, without God there can be man, without man there is no God.
There needs to be people capable of thought and rationalisation to know of God in order for God to exist otherwise God is void. Nothing.
Pirate, don't pursue a Philosophy major whatever you do.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
While that is the standard LDS interpretation, it isn't the only available one. Conversely, the author could've just been saying that God is by definition good, so it is not logically possible for God to not act benevolently. If God acted bad, then God wouldn't be acting like God acts, in otherwords. This is a standard strain of theological reasoning popular in J. Smith's time and place, so...
Imwashingmypirate wrote:Erm, since he was a bastard and cast out of the counsil of the real heaven. LOL.
Without man there is no God. Without life there is no God, without matter there is no God without matter there is no man, without matter there is very little energy, without energy there is no man.
Another way:
With man there can be God, with God there can be man, without God there can be man, without man there is no God.
There needs to be people capable of thought and rationalisation to know of God in order for God to exist otherwise God is void. Nothing.
Pirate, don't pursue a Philosophy major whatever you do.
Actually I almost did. I was the type of person that argued all the sides and was showing that whatever is said can be disputed and whatever is being disputed can be proven right. Hehe... I caused a lot of discussion. Hmm I do that alot back home. Basically everything depends on how you view it.
The reason I said the first line is because some philosophers have came up with; There were many gods, a counsil of gods and one goddess had a child without permission (she was the brightest), there was a meeting and it was decided that this child would be cast out and not accepted. So this God, (our God) decided to create a world and try to get people to do good things. Somehow this caused God to gain power and he is aiming for greater brightness than his mother. I can't remember the full story, but it was made out that God was not a nice god and was using us to overthrough greater powers. I don't quite think I am getting the right idea across but it was something along those lines.
The Nehor wrote:My argument is that there are a large, perhaps infinite, number of 'most good' choices to an omnipotent, omniscient being... if I were a lot smarter, knew everything, and could take any action, I would have a lot more of them.
How do you square that against canon, as outlined in Alma, chapter 42? It's pretty clear leading up to this statement:
But there is a law 1) given, and a punishment 2) affixed, and a repentance 3) granted... if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
If God deviates from the routine he ceases to be a god. There is only one choice, if God wishes to remain God, which is to stick to the routine. Welcome to your apostasy, brother...
The Nehor wrote:My argument is that there are a large, perhaps infinite, number of 'most good' choices to an omnipotent, omniscient being... if I were a lot smarter, knew everything, and could take any action, I would have a lot more of them.
How do you square that against canon, as outlined in Alma, chapter 42? It's pretty clear leading up to this statement:
But there is a law 1) given, and a punishment 2) affixed, and a repentance 3) granted... if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
If God deviates from the routine he ceases to be a god. There is only one choice, if God wishes to remain God, which is to stick to the routine. Welcome to your apostasy, brother...
This assumes that the Law allows only one option in every situation. Without knowing divine law in total, very hard to do.
If that's apostasy, I left the Church ages ago. They still let me teach though.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:Your thesis assumes that there is only one 'most good' choice.
Your rebuttal assumes that God exists.
Since the thesis we were discussing began with the assumption that God exists, I see no problem with maintaining that assumption. My rebuttal also did not even mention God providing evidence for my theory that you're an idiot.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:Your thesis assumes that there is only one 'most good' choice.
You are right. I would be interested to hear your argument against that presumption.
My argument is that there are a large, perhaps infinite, number of 'most good' choices to an omnipotent, omniscient being. Having never been such a being myself, I am only speculating. However even now I have choices that have no moral difference to choose between them and select one. I would imagine if I were a lot smarter, knew everything, and could take any action, I would have a lot more of them.
So, let's see,
On one hand, kill every man, woman, and child on earth because some of them adults are being disobedient.
On the other hand, respect their free will and allow them to live, even though they might make choices I (God) doesn't like.
Well, there's no moral difference between then, so then might as well kill them all.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."