Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,511,367 members, 5,725,558 topics. Date: Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 04:58 AM

Dog Breeds, Banned? - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Dog Breeds, Banned? (1959 Views)

Emphasis on Sex in religions breeds offenders / To Avoid Being Banned, Please Ensure That Your Post Is Not Offensive To Islam. / TB Joshua Officially Banned From Cameroun (2) (3) (4)

(1) (Reply) (Go Down)

Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 7:51pm On Mar 18, 2013
Now, now, bear with this till the end, there's a point there. Truly. Besides, I understand not too much happening these days.

I was thinking about rabid chiwawas, etc, then I remembered something. Some dog breeds are really unhealthy, take medical problems associated with chihuahuas for instance

wiki:
This breed requires expert veterinary attention in areas such as birthing and dental care. Chihuahuas are also prone to some genetic anomalies, often neurological ones, such as epilepsy and seizure disorders.

Chihuahuas, and other toy breeds, are prone to the sometimes painful disease hydrocephalus. It is often diagnosed by the puppy having an abnormally large head, or hydrocephalus, during the first several months of life, but other symptoms are more noticeable since "a large head" is such a broad description. Chihuahua puppies exhibiting hydrocephalus usually have patchy skull plates rather than a solid bone and typically are lethargic and do not grow at the same pace as their siblings. A true case of hydrocephalus can be diagnosed by a veterinarian, though the prognosis is grim.

Chihuahuas have moleras, or a soft spot in their skulls, and they are the only breed of dog to be born with an incomplete skull. The molera fills in with age, but great care needs to be taken during the first six months until the skull is fully formed. Some moleras do not close completely and will require extra care to prevent injury. Many veterinarians are not familiar with Chihuahuas as a breed and mistakenly confuse a molera with hydrocephalus.[16]

Chihuahuas can also be at risk for hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar, which is especially dangerous for puppies. Left unattended, hypoglycemia can lead to coma and death but can be avoided with frequent feedings, such as every three hours for very small or young puppies. Chihuahua owners should have a simple sugar supplement on hand to use in emergencies, such as, Nutri-Cal, Karo syrup or honey. These supplements can be rubbed on the gums and roof of the mouth to rapidly raise the blood sugar level. Signs of hypoglycemia include lethargy, sleepiness, low energy, uncoordinated walking, unfocused eyes and spasms of the neck muscles or head pulling back or to the side.

Chihuahuas are prone to eye infections or eye injury due to their large, round, protruding eyes and their relatively low ground clearance. Care should be taken to prevent visitors or children from poking the eyes. The eyes also water frequently to remove dust or allergens that may get into the eye. Daily wiping will keep the eyes clean and prevent tear staining.

Collapsed trachea is a health concern that is characteristic of the chihuahua breed.[17]

Chihuahuas have a tendency to tremble but it is not a health issue. Instead, it occurs mainly when the dog is stressed, excited or cold. Cold can also present a problem for these small animals. They often enjoy wearing coats or sweaters when outside and enjoy digging and snuggling in blankets when sleeping.

Although figures often vary, as with any breed, the average lifespan range for a healthy Chihuahua is between 10 and 18 years.

Chihuahuas are sometimes picky eaters and care must be taken to provide them with adequate nutrition. Sometimes wet or fresh food can have the most appealing smell to these constant eaters. Chihuahuas are prone to hypoglycemia and could be at a critical state if allowed to go too long without a meal. At the same time, care must be exercised not to overfeed them.

Chihuahuas have a notorious problem with dental issues. Dental care is a must for these little creatures. Human food should be avoided. Due to their small size, even tiny high fat or sugary treats can result in an overweight Chihuahua. Overweight Chihuahuas are susceptible to increased rates of joint injuries, tracheal collapse, chronic bronchitis, and shortened life span.

Chihuahuas are also known for a genetic condition called 'luxating Patella,' a genetic condition that can occur in all dogs. In some dogs, the ridges forming the patellar groove are not shaped correctly and a shallow groove is created. In a dog with shallow grooves, the patella will luxate or slip out of place, sideways. It causes the leg to 'lock up' and will force the chihuahua to hold its foot off the ground. When the patella luxates from the groove of the femur, it usually cannot return to its normal position until the quadriceps muscle relaxes and increases in length, explaining why the affected dog may be forced to hold his leg up for a few minutes or so after the initial displacement. While the muscles are contracted and the patella is luxated from its correct position, the joint is held in the flexed or bent position. The knee cap sliding across the femur can cause some pain due to the bony ridges of the femur. Once out of position, the animal feels no discomfort and continues with activity.

Chihuahuas are also prone to some heart-related disorders, such as heart murmurs and pulmonic stenosis, a condition in which the blood outflow from the heart's right ventricle is obstructed at the pulmonic valve.[18]

Chihuahuas, along with other miniature dogs such as Chinese Cresteds, are prone to physical deformities, especially in old age; several chihuahuas and cross-bred chihuahua/Chinese crested mixes have rated highly in the World's Ugliest Dog Contest, including a purebred chihuahua named Princess Abby (winner of the 2010 contest) and a crossbreed named Yoda (the 2011 winner).

That's a lot. To compound on this they're apparently usually in a foul mood. Understandable considering the medical issues they have to deal with. So, my question is, should they be banned? Aren't breeders who breed dogs like these being incredibly selfish? There are other breeds one could have that come with a lot less issues than these yet they knowingly choose to breed one which would live in constant pain, etc, just to satisfy whatever selfish motive.

Bonus; Not really related but consider this woman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman

wiki:
Public reaction turned negative when it was discovered that Suleman already had six other young children and was unemployed and on public assistance programs. Suleman conceived the octuplets and her six older children via in vitro fertilization (IVF).[5] Although she initially denied ever having used public assistance,[6] she confirmed in April 2012 on NBC's Today show that she was indeed on public assistance.



PS: if you cannot see how this relates to religion then perhaps you need not reply.

I might not be able to reply immediately

And, look at this ugly b***ard below, not sure why anyone wants to breed that. Fittingly looks like a zombie. When you think of a rabid zombie religionist....

Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by MacDaddy01: 8:15pm On Mar 18, 2013
Wiegraff my man,


There are many issues here in this your op. There are so many angles that you can fit this into religion;

1) Chihuahuas- their half formed skulls are an example of a failed intelligent designer

2) Religious people are more likely to breed and multiply
a)Some religions tell them to breed- be fruitful and multiply
b)Many religions have a negative stance towards birth control

Just like the dog breeders and Suleiman, religious people twist human rights to breed and take actions that are harmful to the society for their selfish reasons

3) Religions and suffering; Many religions have a sadistic and psychopathic stance towards suffering. Take the Abrahamic religions (torrture of christ, suffering of Job, justified jihad wars etc), they see some dignity in suffering as long as it is for God.

Now, look at those dogs. The breeders believe that they are justified in breeding those dogs that will suffer because rich people pay a lot of money for spceical chihuahuas. Justified in their profit. In terms of religion, religious people justify the suffering of humans with their religion. Some will say that a woman should not abort a child unless she is in danger of health problems. The same christians do not care if she can afford financially to take care of the child. They prefer the mother and child to suffer on the street and die of hunger rather than be aborted in the womb.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 8:39pm On Mar 18, 2013
^^

And even more. Eg, god makes myriad faulty beings when there probably are MUCH better options around. Assuming he's omniscient the situation becomes even more deplorable. Etc etc

Of course, one awaits 'mysterious' reasons, etc etc....

There are healthier dog breeds, ones that won't suffer as much, why breed these?
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by MacDaddy01: 8:46pm On Mar 18, 2013
wiegraf: ^^

And even more. Eg, god makes myriad faulty beings when there probably are MUCH better options around. Assuming he's omniscient the situation becomes even more deplorable. Etc etc

Of course, one awaits 'mysterious' reasons, etc etc....

There are healthier dog breeds, ones that won't suffer as much, why breed these?



lol.....a failed intelligent designer.


But we know the drill- "God works in mysterious ways"

===========================================


When I think of it, some religious people are really sad- they go for the religious bullsh!t because they are too scared to libe a life without religion. They are comfortable in their indoctrinatd ignorance
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by Alfamann: 9:13pm On Mar 18, 2013
You two self.

You are eager to blame a god you claim do not exist, for evolutionary inadequacies.

This is what evolution is my people. It is not a design. It is not perfect. It just is.

2 Likes

Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by CarCam: 9:24pm On Mar 18, 2013
Alfamann: You two self.

You are eager to blame a god you claim do not exist, for evolutionary inadequacies.

This is what evolution is my people. It is not a design. It is not perfect. It just is.

[img]http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/isapi/designall.dll?rlvnet=1&realview=113390926697750663&design=1cf3f3de-3a60-4bab-ab55-5c912d546866&style=basic_tshirt&size=a_l&color=white&pending=false&pdt=zazzle_shirt&max_dim=512[/img]

Alfamann, get him a tshirt like this, he deserves one.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by Omexonomy: 9:50pm On Mar 18, 2013
Why are you people quick to attack God? Are you sure the almighty God is not calling you to serve him? Why are You quick to blame God for the stupidity of ur fellow man? Finnally, since you claim God do not exist why dont you hold ur peace?
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 10:28pm On Mar 18, 2013
Alfamann: You two self.

You are eager to blame a god you claim do not exist, for evolutionary inadequacies.

This is what evolution is my people. It is not a design. It is not perfect. It just is.

LM666Mann, do you think I don't know what evolution is or has troll season arrived?

wiegraf: ^^

And even more. Eg, god makes myriad faulty beings when there probably are MUCH better options around. Assuming he's omniscient the situation becomes even more deplorable.

I didn't even mention god or evolution in the op. In my reply to @lb note the bolded word. One would think I was making assumptions about a possible god(s) and its attributes, no? Like when people discuss hypothetical situations. For instance,

LM666Mann; santa (or is it satan) exists, he gives all good kids presents on xtmas
rationalMann; that's ridiculous. How would he even know which kids have been 'good'?

Not the implied 'if', 'assuming', etc. RationalMann never said satan existed, just like I never stated that god existed. If one can't pick that up then, again, s/he probably shouldn't be responding.

So, if said god existed, why should I not ask why evolution (and much of creation) is such a faulty and haphazard system? Do give a reason, especially for an omnixx.xx being. It is after all his design, no? Just as chihuahuas are the breeders design, the one they chose despite the availability of clearly healthier breeds. And, again, this would apply to many things eg 'evil' stuff.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 10:29pm On Mar 18, 2013
Omexonomy: Why are you people quick to attack God? Are you sure the almighty God is not calling you to serve him? Why are You quick to blame God for the stupidity of ur fellow man? Finnally, since you claim God do not exist why dont you hold ur peace?

Do you have an answer to the question in the op or not? It is not by force to reply.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 10:39pm On Mar 18, 2013
CarCam:

[img]http://rlv.zcache.co.uk/isapi/designall.dll?rlvnet=1&realview=113390926697750663&design=1cf3f3de-3a60-4bab-ab55-5c912d546866&style=basic_tshirt&size=a_l&color=white&pending=false&pdt=zazzle_shirt&max_dim=512[/img]

Alfamann, get him a tshirt like this, he deserves one.

Einstein could have said that and meant it, but it would not have meant what you think it means.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by Alfamann: 5:00pm On Mar 19, 2013
wiegraf:

LM666Mann, do you think I don't know what evolution is or has troll season arrived?



I didn't even mention god or evolution in the op. In my reply to @lb note the bolded word. One would think I was making assumptions about a possible god(s) and its attributes, no? Like when people discuss hypothetical situations. For instance,

LM666Mann; santa (or is it satan) exists, he gives all good kids presents on xtmas
rationalMann; that's ridiculous. How would he even know which kids have been 'good'?

Not the implied 'if', 'assuming', etc. RationalMann never said satan existed, just like I never stated that god existed. If one can't pick that up then, again, s/he probably shouldn't be responding.

So, if said god existed, why should I not ask why evolution (and much of creation) is such a faulty and haphazard system? Do give a reason, especially for an omnixx.xx being. It is after all his design, no? Just as chihuahuas are the breeders design, the one they chose despite the availability of clearly healthier breeds. And, again, this would apply to many things eg 'evil' stuff.

I've read this a few times and couldn't quite understand what you are driving at.

First of all, I do not beieve in your god, gods, Jizz-Us, Pedo-Mo, Ashawo Mary or whatever sick dead middle eastern some people want to worship. And I understand, neither do you nor Logicboy. So my post was a surprise that you would suggest that chihuahas' faults are god's intelligence desing failure when you know fully well that such suggestion is nonsense.
And they are no breeders' design neither as these dogs have been existing and surviving for centuries. Man didn't bring chihuahas into existence. Nature/evolution did.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 5:48pm On Mar 19, 2013
Alfamann:

I've read this a few times and couldn't quite understand what you are driving at.

First of all, I do not beieve in your god, gods, Jizz-Us, Pedo-Mo, Ashawo Mary or whatever sick dead middle eastern some people want to worship. And I understand, neither do you nor Logicboy. So my post was a surprise that you would suggest that chihuahas' faults are god's intelligence desing failure when you know fully well that such suggestion is nonsense.
And they are no breeders' design neither as these dogs have been existing and surviving for centuries. Man didn't bring chihuahas into existence. Nature/evolution did.

My main point (again, which wasn't even mentioned in the op but implied to in the other posts) is that breeders choose to breed chihuahuas despite the fact that there are better options, usually for silly selfish reasons (imo). Same way god chooses to have such a flawed world, evolution only being a part of it, natural evil as well being a very major part of it, and all the other good c.ock ups included, why? Shouldn't god(s) (omnipotent in particular) be able to produce a universe with less suffering? Just as breeders should be able to produce dogs with less problems. Or is he/it/whatever simply being selfish as well? What's the excuse? (Kay17 has a somewhat similar active thread elsewhere, btw, https://www.nairaland.com/1086592/ultimate-purpose-gods-nature)

As for stating god existed, where? Read the post you replied to, I'm clearly referring to a hypothetical situation. Even in this post I mention god, but where do I state there's an actual god? Being my views are fairly well known I need to state the implied 'if' whenever I make a statement? Especially if I use the word 'assuming', indicating speculation, when discussing?

Are you saying men did not domesticate wolves? What do you think dogs are? Are you saying breeders don't .....breed? Dogs are a result of artificial selection, not natural. And main point anyways is the breeders have the power to do something about it but they choose not to for frivolous reasons
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 7:58pm On Mar 29, 2013
Bump

Suffice to say some of the genius responses above are not delicious enough.

So, theists claiming a loving, omnipotent dog, what say you?

Breeders of dogs like chihuahas deserve a $hit load of vitriol heaped upon them (imo), as do the people who actually buy these dogs.

People like Nadiya Suleman probably should be locked up for adding 8 more kids to her brood, test tube babies no less, despite the fact she already had 6... on welfare.

In these cases the selfishness is amazing, life being brought into this universe irresponsibly, just to indulge egos more or else. Despite there being clearly better options which would involve less suffering these people still chose to breed for rather petty reasons. They deserve the full scorn of the public (well, imo).

So, what's with god? He willingly, knowingly creates this universe and brings life into the picture. He knows full well the suffering they will face yet still chose to go through with it. To compound on the decision to create irresponsibly, he doesn't do anything at all to alleviate their problems despite the fact he's allegedly omnipotent. In other words, he can clearly do something about it but chooses not to. Consider, thousands of kids will die tonight from raw hunger, a situation inflicted on them through no fault of theirs, and a kindly omnipotent being well aware of their situation won't raise a finger to help, why? By some accounts, he'll even send them to hell after they die, but he loves them all the same...

Before anyone goes around trying to blame this on free will, consider how weak of an argument that is. How is free will a good enough excuse to hide in skies or wherever and claim mysteriousness? For what again? If you created dogs, programming the potential of savagery into them, then observed them tear each other up without doing anything at all to aid them when you clearly could, then you're a sadistic sociopath, simple.

If you, good theist, still think you can look past that, then also consider the problems of natural evils like earthquakes etc, which are not brought about by any conscious agents. Why create these then do nothing when they cause untold suffering? It's akin to the breeder shooting the dogs or setting up mines for no good reason (other than maybe giggles), then again doing.... nothing. Just watches them suffer. Why, for mysteriousneseseses whargabl?

He's at the very least as culpable as toy dog breeders and Suleman. Actually much more so if you ask me considering omnipotence. If you agree breeders and Suleman are morally reprehensible, then why do you think our imaginary overlord god is somehow any better? Simply because the bible/koran/whatever story book you prefer, despite all the evidence to the contrary, says so?
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by DeepSight(m): 10:35pm On Mar 29, 2013
wiegraf: ^^

And even more. Eg, god makes myriad faulty beings when there probably are MUCH better options around.

Is there anything in the essential idea of the existence of God, to suggest that God created human beings, or even that God created anything on this earth, or even anything in this universe?

If this question seems confusing, let me put it another way. - What do you think is the future of biological engineering. Does it not occur to you that as Chihuahuas are a faulty breed of dog contrived by man, the creatures in this world could similarly be. . . . .?
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 12:48am On Mar 30, 2013
Deep Sight:


Is there anything in the essential idea of the existence of God, to suggest that God created human beings, or even that God created anything on this earth, or even anything in this universe?

If this question seems confusing, let me put it another way. - What do you think is the future of biological engineering. Does it not occur to you that as Chihuahuas are a faulty breed of dog contrived by man, the creatures in this world could similarly be. . . . .?

Not sure what you're driving at, but we could only be faulty if the 'god' involved wasn't omnipotent. My gripe is mostly with the omnipotent, 'loving' versions of god.

For the others, even if inadvertently, they bear some responsibility. Even if suffering was not part of its plans, fact is it exists yet it does nothing about it. Why? I might not be the one breeding chihuahuas but I'm here all morally superior because I think this is a silly, immoral practice. If I could do something about it I would, but I can't. So, why are the gods silent?
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by DeepSight(m): 1:39am On Mar 30, 2013
wiegraf:

Not sure what you're driving at, but we could only be faulty if the 'god' involved wasn't omnipotent.

Are humans omnipotent?

Could humans conceivably create worlds? Could humans engage in planetary engineering? In fact, i'll answer that one for you, research is already underway in that respect. Massive research. Could humans make worlds? With creatures therein?

And once again, are humans omnipotent?

Please answering these will go a long way towards addressing your issue in your OP.

My gripe is mostly with the omnipotent, 'loving' versions of god.

Several issues here. I would first have to understand what you understand by the term "omnipotent".

Does that term, in your view, extend to having the capacity to do illogical things? Such as creating square circles, etc?

Secondly I would need to understand what you regard as suffering.

Does work - even excruciating work, qualify as "suffering" of a nature that a creator should seek to obviate?

Now, after this, I would need to understand if you believe that all suffering should in fact be obviated.

Are there forms of suffering that are either -

1. - Necessary

2. - Unavoidable

or

3. - Beneficial

These questions are very important, so if possible, I would appreciate your answers to them.

But most importantly, also address this further question - If Evolution is in fact the reality as to the development of species, would it be normal or not, to expect that the very fact of evolutionary impetus is necessarily derived from suffering and various forms of a creature's inadequacy in its environment which occassions suffering.

For the others, even if inadvertently, they bear some responsibility. Even if suffering was not part of its plans, fact is it exists yet it does nothing about it. Why? I might not be the one breeding chihuahuas but I'm here all morally superior because I think this is a silly, immoral practice. If I could do something about it I would, but I can't. So, why are the gods silent?

I hope my foregoing questions inspire some further thinking on this.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 3:41am On Mar 30, 2013
Deep Sight:

Are humans omnipotent?

Could humans conceivably create worlds? Could humans engage in planetary engineering? In fact, i'll answer that one for you, research is already underway in that respect. Massive research. Could humans make worlds? With creatures therein?

And once again, are humans omnipotent?

Please answering these will go a long way towards addressing your issue in your OP.


Several issues here. I would first have to understand what you understand by the term "omnipotent".

Does that term, in your view, extend to having the capacity to do illogical things? Such as creating square circles, etc?

Omnipotent implies being able to do anything conceivably possible, this would exclude logical absurdities. I can live with this definition, I think. I choose it for various reasons

Humans are not omnipotent, even collectively. We haven't even mastered the energy on this planet, let alone that of the sun or a galaxy.

Humans, even if we were able to harness the energy of galaxies, would still not be omnipotent imo as I cannot see us manipulating physical laws in this universe. Eg, altering the value of the speed of light. Should changing such basic constants be possible then the case for our omnipotency becomes much stronger.

As for building another universe and possessing the ability to tune it as we see fit, that is possible. In fact, that's more or else what virtual universes in computers are. It might be possible to create physical universes as well, but that remains to be seen. Even if we were to create these universes there's no guarantee that we would be omnipotent to said universes, even if we exclude logical absurdities from our definition of omnipotent. We might simply have no say in establishing certain physical limits for instance.

Deep Sight:

Secondly I would need to understand what you regard as suffering.

Does work - even excruciating work, qualify as "suffering" of a nature that a creator should seek to obviate?

Now, after this, I would need to understand if you believe that all suffering should in fact be obviated.

Are there forms of suffering that are either -

1. - Necessary

2. - Unavoidable

or

3. - Beneficial

These questions are very important, so if possible, I would appreciate your answers to them.

But most importantly, also address this further question - If Evolution is in fact the reality as to the development of species, would it be normal or not, to expect that the very fact of evolutionary impetus is necessarily derived from suffering and various forms of a creature's inadequacy in its environment which occassions suffering.

Suffering being necessary depends on the goal. Assuming the goal is creating conscious beings, do I think consciousness must exist with suffering? That is unavoidable so long as consciousness involves emotions, which include emotional pain. Do I think all suffering is necessary? Not at all.

Deep Sight:
I hope my foregoing questions inspire some further thinking on this.

Well, not really, as I basically don't think the scale of suffering we encounter is necessary.

Elaborating, the indifferent, dog eat dog machinations of nature do not look planned to me. Assuming an omnibenovelent or 'good' being, if evolution was planned by it, evolution would be the best it could offer but still a desperate, last ditch attempt. It wouldn't be the effort of an omnipotent/omnibenovelent. For instance, why not create the lifeform(s) perfect from the word go? So long as it cared, an omnipotent should be able to step in and reduce the suffering. Even we try to do so (but usually fail) as the apex predators on this planet.

I also end up with questions like; supposing the goal were to create self-sustainable life, why does an omnipotent need to achieve anything? Is its goal vital? If so, that alone questions its omnipotency strongly. If it isn't, then there was no need for the amount of suffering lots of beings have endured through no fault of theirs for whatever goal wasn't that important in the first place. Non at all. Just so a few beings could enjoy at the expense of all those others?

This is all ignoring the omniscience claims, that's another convoluted mess as well.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by DeepSight(m): 11:43am On Mar 30, 2013
wiegraf:

Omnipotent implies being able to do anything conceivably possible, this would exclude logical absurdities. I can live with this definition, I think. I choose it for various reasons

An excellent choice of understanding, which is exactly what i hoped for.

Now tell me, do you not think it would be a logical absurdity to be able to create free willed beings and at the same time ensure that they do not suffer?

Reflect closely on this: genuinely free willed beings would be able to make choices. Including choices to suffer, or choices that cause suffering.

As such, you will agree that this being a logical absurdity, is clearly out of the purview of omnipotence, as you have already said, no?

Humans are not omnipotent, even collectively. We haven't even mastered the energy on this planet, let alone that of the sun or a galaxy.

Humans, even if we were able to harness the energy of galaxies, would still not be omnipotent imo as I cannot see us manipulating physical laws in this universe. Eg, altering the value of the speed of light. Should changing such basic constants be possible then the case for our omnipotency becomes much stronger.

As for building another universe and possessing the ability to tune it as we see fit, that is possible. In fact, that's more or else what virtual universes in computers are. It might be possible to create physical universes as well, but that remains to be seen. Even if we were to create these universes there's no guarantee that we would be omnipotent to said universes, even if we exclude logical absurdities from our definition of omnipotent. We might simply have no say in establishing certain physical limits for instance.

Good again. You accede that humans may conseivably create worlds. In the stretch of eternity, given enough time, I dare say we would in fact do such.

What makes you build your argument against God's existence in this instance, from the premise, as adduced by religions, that this earth and all its flora and fauna are the creation of an omnipotent God? Why could they not also be the creation of other beings in existence as well?

Just as surely as we had the freedom to tinker with genetics and contrive the chihuahua. Why is it not possible that we are just like the chihuahua - namely - that we are the result of similar tinkering by other beings - which tinkering cannot be avoided, since we agree that freewill and the absence of suffering would be a logical absurdity, no?

Now please reflect on that for a moment and then more importantly on this: assuming but not conceding that you succeed in your argument: that would only qualify omnipotence, and not circumscribe the existence of an originating factor - God - no?

In addressing this last, recall, at all events, that the qualification of omnipotence thereby, would not be at variance with that which you acceded to - namely that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities: and certainly freewill without suffering will be just one such logical absurdity.

I hope you see the issues here?

Suffering being necessary depends on the goal. Assuming the goal is creating conscious beings, do I think consciousness must exist with suffering? That is unavoidable so long as consciousness involves emotions, which include emotional pain. Do I think all suffering is necessary? Not at all.

O, I simply mean by "necessary" - - - that in the event of freewill, suffering cannot be written out of the equation even by an omnipotent God, since that would be a logical absurdity, no?

And indeed, we must go further to state that the free-willed beings, if truly free, must also be free to choose any extremity of suffering, or cause any extremity of suffering through their actions, no?

Well, not really, as I basically don't think the scale of suffering we encounter is necessary.

As I just said above: free-willed beings must be free to choose, encounter, perpetuate and cause any degree of suffering from their free actions, no?

And this would be excluded from the realm of control of an omnipotent God, as such would then be a logical absurdity, no?

Elaborating, the indifferent, dog eat dog machinations of nature do not look planned to me. Assuming an omnibenovelent or 'good' being, if evolution was planned by it, evolution would be the best it could offer but still a desperate, last ditch attempt. It wouldn't be the effort of an omnipotent/omnibenovelent. For instance, why not create the lifeform(s) perfect from the word go?

Has it occurred to you that this may also be a logical absurdity? For if an omnipotent is defined as God, and such is necessarily immaterial and transcendental: then how exactly may it directly create the physical in the direct manner you contemplate. Would it not rather be obvious that for such to occur, there would have to be logical effects proceeding one from another in a necessary and unavoidable manner, such as to take away such "personal" and "arbitrary" interventions from the omnipotent - on account that they would of course constitute logical absurdities?

So long as it cared, an omnipotent should be able to step in and reduce the suffering. Even we try to do so (but usually fail) as the apex predators on this planet.

Such an action would be a logical absurdity. Where is the free will if indeed the omnipotent steps in to do such. Where is my freewill to inflict suffering for example? Or my free will to even be masochistic?

I also end up with questions like; supposing the goal were to create self-sustainable life, why does an omnipotent need to achieve anything? Is its goal vital? If so, that alone questions its omnipotency strongly. If it isn't, then there was no need for the amount of suffering lots of beings have endured through no fault of theirs for whatever goal wasn't that important in the first place. Non at all. Just so a few beings could enjoy at the expense of all those others?

As I said before, what you qualify by this argument is the attribute of omnipotence, and not the existence of God. And I assert to you that you have answered your own question on the issue when you say that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities.

Secondly, on the suffering question above, you will also agree that this is within the scope of our free will. I am free to stop my car suddenly on the third mainland bridge. This will lead to lots of traffic or even accidents that will cause huge suffering to many people. You will agree that it would be a logical absurdity for an omnipotent to stop me from doing that and at the same time endow me with free will, no?

This is all ignoring the omniscience claims, that's another convoluted mess as well.

Yes, and I will have to ask for your understanding of omniscience as well, before addressing that!

Good morning.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 4:51pm On Mar 30, 2013
Just a note, this moves away from fantastical claims like judeo-xtian ones.

Deep Sight:

An excellent choice of understanding, which is exactly what i hoped for.

Now tell me, do you not think it would be a logical absurdity to be able to create free willed beings and at the same time ensure that they do not suffer?

Limiting the suffering is a very attainable objective. We attempt it ourselves, and without violating free will.

Deep Sight:
Reflect closely on this: genuinely free willed beings would be able to make choices. Including choices to suffer, or choices that cause suffering.

As such, you will agree that this being a logical absurdity, is clearly out of the purview of omnipotence, as you have already said, no?

Nobody is hindering free will, just putting in place measures to limit the amount of suffering involved. Suffering like say that caused by those infringing on the rights of others with impunity.

And also, again, this ignores natural evil. Lots of beings suffer through absolutely no fault of theirs, just natures capricious whims. Free will need not be involved with suffering.

Even as the result of others' actions you have to acknowledge that a lot of suffering comes about as a result of absolutely no agent, non at all, purposely doing something 'evil'. Consider the road to hell is filled with good intentions, henlon's razor, etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Simple miscommunication tends to be the source of most of the grief we inflict on ourselves, imo.

Anyways, I fail to see how at the very least the god providing a guiding/helping hand is an issue here.

Deep Sight:
Good again. You accede that humans may conseivably create worlds. In the stretch of eternity, given enough time, I dare say we would in fact do such.

What makes you build your argument against God's existence in this instance, from the premise, as adduced by religions, that this earth and all its flora and fauna are the creation of an omnipotent God? Why could they not also be the creation of other beings in existence as well?

Just as surely as we had the freedom to tinker with genetics and contrive the chihuahua. Why is it not possible that we are just like the chihuahua - namely - that we are the result of similar tinkering by other beings - which tinkering cannot be avoided, since we agree that freewill and the absence of suffering would be a logical absurdity, no?


And the omnipotent still bears some responsibility, why not? He provided the platform which is now being abused yet does nothing about it, why?

The browser you're using right now is a platform, provided by mozilla/google/microsoft whoever, which executes on your personal space; your computer. It's simply a program which simply acquires bytes from an online resource then executes them on your computer. What I'm trying to highlight here is that this process isn't like say watching a real time movie online or something similar, like your browser just showing ready made images/formats etc from the server online. The code (or usually most of it), the action is executed by your computer, on your computer by it's processor, etc. The browser does a lot of the work, it collects instructions from elsewhere then executes them in your space.

Now, in the old days especially, the browser could do quite a lot on your computer without you knowing, using your space/resources as it sees fit. With that sort of freedom to do whatever it wishes to on your property came; viruses. Lots of them, as well as even accidents and other forms of unintended harm. So it was/is basically people elsewhere using your computer, your 'space', to do as they please regardless of your wishes.

Well, browser builders provided the platform, they didn't write viruses themselves of course, but they did provide the platform and they could indeed do something about. What was the solution? Simply, they imposed certain limits, not random ones mind you, these were decided democratically, but importantly they give you, the user or owner of the 'space', the option of allowing the potentially harmful code to run should you want to. Even on normal windows, without the use of a browser, you get that box that asks "allow program Bleep to run?", part of a system called UAC (user access control), before you run a potentially harmful program. This is put in place to prevent people from infringing on your rights.

Now, how was anyone's free will is being violated in these situations? You want to create a virus, well do so, no ones stopping you. Do note though that as you're essentially infringing on the rights of others the law will come after you if it can. As for you the user, do you want to run the virus? Well, go ahead, no one's forcing you not to, no one is damaging/limiting your free will, you've simply been warned. Do feel free to practice your free will and proceed should you wish to.

Now the above is scenario is responsible, at least much more so than building something potentially harmful then washing your hands off it, especially when you can clearly do something about it. And even more so if you built the platform with the intention of it being used by other people.

Then, to compound on the above example, also imagine a platform that is inherently faulty, a la natural evil like tsunamis, famines, etc. Some windows versions get a lot of criticism for being unreliable, and why not? They clearly could have been better built but microsoft was.... incompetent and irresponsible.

God(s) is exempt from such criticism because? Or are you saying this is the best possible universe it could have built? If so, can you or the god show us why? Like I've been trying to demonstrate, free will is not a good enough excuse.

Deep Sight:
Now please reflect on that for a moment and then more importantly on this: assuming but not conceding that you succeed in your argument: that would only qualify omnipotence, and not circumscribe the existence of an originating factor - God - no?

In addressing this last, recall, at all events, that the qualification of omnipotence thereby, would not be at variance with that which you acceded to - namely that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities: and certainly freewill without suffering will be just one such logical absurdity.

I hope you see the issues here?


This was never about whether a god exists or not, it was about relationships between and reconciling evil, some questionable behavior/decisions, and purpose assuming a god existed.

I hope you see that free will alone does not justify all suffering? Checks, balances could always have been placed.

Deep Sight:
O, I simply mean by "necessary" - - - that in the event of freewill, suffering cannot be written out of the equation even by an omnipotent God, since that would be a logical absurdity, no?

And indeed, we must go further to state that the free-willed beings, if truly free, must also be free to choose any extremity of suffering, or cause any extremity of suffering through their actions, no?

As I just said above: free-willed beings must be free to choose, encounter, perpetuate and cause any degree of suffering from their free actions, no?

And this would be excluded from the realm of control of an omnipotent God, as such would then be a logical absurdity, no?
.......

Such an action would be a logical absurdity. Where is the free will if indeed the omnipotent steps in to do such. Where is my freewill to inflict suffering for example? Or my free will to even be masochistic?


As above, I already stated not all suffering is necessary. Some is, not all.

They are free to suffer, but they shouldn't be free to infringe on the rights of others with impunity just because they can. This is simple morality. So long as you're sentient particularly, I shouldn't have the right to make you say, my slave. I could go ahead and try to enslave you, but in this day and age society will (rightly) persecute me if I get caught. My free will isn't being hindered, I did make the choice of trying to enslave you knowing full the consequences, no?

And this still ignores natural evil, suffering inflicted without any conscious agent at all, eg earthquakes. It must exist, ok, say a necessary byproduct of physical laws. That doesn't mean absolutely nothing should be done about it, does it? We're building tsunami warning systems, no? When these disasters occur we do our best to alleviate the suffering, etc etc. We do not do nothing at all then claim some sort of moral superiority. This is only considering conscious, sentient life mind you, similar concepts could be applied to all life.


Deep Sight:
Has it occurred to you that this may also be a logical absurdity? For if an omnipotent is defined as God, and such is necessarily immaterial and transcendental: then how exactly may it directly create the physical in the direct manner you contemplate. Would it not rather be obvious that for such to occur, there would have to be logical effects proceeding one from another in a necessary and unavoidable manner, such as to take away such "personal" and "arbitrary" interventions from the omnipotent - on account that they would of course constitute logical absurdities?

Yet others (and not necessarily judeo-xtians, even some deists do this) would claim this same god can hear their thoughts, or judge them, or somehow help them, manipulate certain events, etc etc. Are we now arbitrarily deciding what this god can or cannot do? Why is it necessarily "immaterial and transcendental"? It has no means of interfering because? If it cannot even do that then it is a rather limited omnipotent imo, I do not think the term 'omnipotent' need apply to it.


Deep Sight:
As I said before, what you qualify by this argument is the attribute of omnipotence, and not the existence of God. And I assert to you that you have answered your own question on the issue when you say that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities.

Secondly, on the suffering question above, you will also agree that this is within the scope of our free will. I am free to stop my car suddenly on the third mainland bridge. This will lead to lots of traffic or even accidents that will cause huge suffering to many people. You will agree that it would be a logical absurdity for an omnipotent to stop me from doing that and at the same time endow me with free will, no?


You're free to do so, your free will's still intact, no? Doesn't mean the omnipotent shouldn't use its own free will to somehow punish the offender, get the car off the road, or take many other possible actions which could lessen suffering, no?

Deep Sight:
Yes, and I will have to ask for your understanding of omniscience as well, before addressing that!

Good morning.

That would take far too much time to get into.

Good afternoon to you ser as well
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by Alfamann: 6:55pm On Mar 30, 2013
I think both of you (wiegraf and deep sight) are wrong to put a limit on omnipotency. Omnipotent means being able to do anything. Yes, anything, including doing that which is logically impossible. An omnipotent being should be able to make a square circle. If it can't, then it isn't onmipotent.
Now, chosing not to do certain things wouldn't make that being not be omnipotent. Infact, if there is an omnipotent god, he could well have chosen to fold his hands and let things including suffering, happen as they are happening, and still be omnipotent.

@ Deep Sight, yes you are right. Nothing excludes that we might be a creation of another civilisation in another universe.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by DeepSight(m): 11:03pm On Apr 02, 2013
@ Wiegraf. Many apologies for my delay in reverting to this. I read yours almost as soon as you posted it days ago, but was very tired and knew it would take a long post to address it, and so I put it off.

wiegraf: Just a note, this moves away from fantastical claims like judeo-xtian ones.

Very well: and if indeed it does move away from "fantastical claims like judeo-xtian ones" then surely you should not bring up omnipotence and omniscience at all, as these are precepts you will find in such religions.

What we should do is simply address the concept and idea that a transcendent entity is responsible for this existence - period.

Nevertheless maybe I misunderstand you here: I note that you have stated somewhere down the line that you are addressing yourself to the notion of omnipotence and saying that that notion is internally inconsistent. If this is what you are saying, I say to you in response that it is not internally inconsistent because, as you have acceded, omnipotence could not include the capacity to perform logical absurdities, or any property that would be logically absurd.

This alone, my friend, resolves your conundrum on omnipotence vis-a-vis the existence of suffering and other such challenges in reality.

In fact, at an ontological or existential level, I will go so far as to say that to the extent that there can be no concept of up without a concept of down, no concept of right without a concept of left, therefore in existence there must be positive and negative, light and dark, good and bad, etcetera. This is therefore a necessary hard wired element encoded in reality: which logically could not be otherwise: and as such will fall outside the purview of omnipotence: in other words, it would not be logically possible for the omnipotent entity to create a universe which has up and no down, right, and no left, light, and no dark, positivity and no negativity.

This alone actually resolves your conundrum.

Limiting the suffering is a very attainable objective. We attempt it ourselves, and without violating free will.

Limiting suffering is not attainable in a universe with free-willed beings: think on this: to the extent that beings remain free, they may take any series of actions and our experience in this world is that it is actually mankind's own free decisions that lead to the vast majority of human suffering, no?

I see that you have argued below, and I expected it - that natural disasters do cause suffering. This is certain. I shall address it below: but nonetheless before I do so, you perforce must concede that the vast majority of human suffering is occassioned by the free actions of human beings, and it would be logically absurd for an omnipotent entity to interfere with such, otherwise, there shall be no free will to speak of.

Nobody is hindering free will, just putting in place measures to limit the amount of suffering involved. Suffering like say that caused by those infringing on the rights of others with impunity.

What should God do, if when I see you, I immediately start slapping you? What should God do, if I tempt away your wife from you and therefore cause you emotional suffering? What should God do, if I steal your pension savings and thereby render your old age into wretched poverty? What should God do if as a political leader, I misappropriate the treasury and cause untold suffering to millions of people thereby? What should God do if, as happened in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda, greedy and power hungry militias plunder, r.ape, maim women and children for filthy lucre? What should God do if unhealthy practices cause diseases to spread amongst people and cause plagues that kill millions and unleash untold suffering? What should God do to stop the free actions of despots throughout history who have caused barbaric wars which have led to untold human suffering and despondency?

The point here is that these are the actions of free-willed beings and it will be logically absurd for an omnipotent entity to grant free will to beings and stop same beings from exercising that very free will.

Do you expect an omnipotent entity to descend onto the earth to stop these acts of free will by sentient beings?

Now, like a government, the best that God can logically do is to ensure that there is embedded in reality a system of consequences: really no more that speaking the basic law of cause and effect: which as a cycle of happening ensures the self-correction of the super-structure of happenings over time. This is called Karma in Oriental Religions, nemesis, what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, etc. Nevertheless I will not dwell on this right here but will revert to it later in the thread as the discussion evolves. I should however note very briefly that the consequences of this law of reality often produce more and greater suffering and it could not logically be otherwise, and an omnipotent could not make it different, as that would fall foul of our rule of logical absurdities.

And also, again, this ignores natural evil. Lots of beings suffer through absolutely no fault of theirs, just natures capricious whims. Free will need not be involved with suffering.

By natural evil, I take it that you refer to the cycle of nature and natural disasters?

I will ask two questions here -

1. Is it "natural evil" when a lion hunts down an eats a zebra? Is that suffering of the zebra something that an omnipotent entity should do something about to avoid?

2. Is it "natural evil" when the earth goes through its very natural cycles of storms, hurricanes, tectonic shifts, earth quakes, solar storms, and such other perfectly natural phenomena? Are such natural phenomena something that an omnipotent entity should stop, in the scheme of things?

Even as the result of others' actions you have to acknowledge that a lot of suffering comes about as a result of absolutely no agent, non at all, purposely doing something 'evil'. Consider the road to hell is filled with good intentions, henlon's razor, etc etc

See above 2 questions please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Hanlon's razor is an eponymous adage that allows the elimination of unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. It reads:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


And with respect to this, I might similarly ask you why you would attribute to an omnipotent problems that can be easily and rationally explained by our very own actions and in-actions?

Simple miscommunication tends to be the source of most of the grief we inflict on ourselves, imo.

And that is a logical and unavoidable consequence of free will, no? Why then address the notion of omnipotence at all if you admit this?

Anyways, I fail to see how at the very least the god providing a guiding/helping hand is an issue here.

In reality, if you reflect closely here, you will see that you are contradicting yourself. If a being is omnipotent and omniscient, such a being would have already set in motion all the laws of reality in a way that addresses all permutations. Such a being will therefore not intervene further to help anything or anybody, that would be self-contradictory. As such you are really asking for a perfect God who is so imperfect that it has to constantly return to its work to intervene and help things.

And the omnipotent still bears some responsibility, why not? He provided the platform which is now being abused yet does nothing about it, why?

The responsibility of the omnipotent will be to establish laws that guide the established reality. Such laws are in reality self-existent, I may say. Going a little deeper, this is why I have often described God as simply the compound of self-existent laws. Such laws could not logically be otherwise. I would even go so far as to say that the omnipotent did not choose the laws: the laws are a self-existent component of reality - which is in fact exactly what the omnipotent itself is.

If you jumpt up, you will fall down, where there is gravity. If you don't wish to fall down, there are many laws of physics you can deploy to that end as well. At all events, only the natural laws will apply in every instance. What more can you ask of a transcendental omnipotent creator? Do you wish it to be santa claus and tuck you into bed every night, after fighting all your battles and handling all your problems personally, even the self inflicted ones? Would you regard or respect such an entity as transcendental God and creator?

Now, how was anyone's free will is being violated in these situations? You want to create a virus, well do so, no ones stopping you.

Free will indeed will be tampered with in such a scenario. I might enjoy slapping you, and the omnipotent cannot restrain me without obviating free will. However, I should be well aware that you might retaliate, or that I may cause myself harm in so doing. I should also be well aware that the laws of cause an effect which are self-existent and part of reality and part of the omnipotent, will kick in. End of.

If you examine carefully what you are saying you will realize that you are in fact seeking to shirk responsibility. You are denying the personal responsibility for actions which we as free willed being must bear. That will not do.

Why should the omnipotent come to clean up your mess?

Do note though that as you're essentially infringing on the rights of others the law will come after you if it can.

Just as surely as in the laws of reality, Karma will always come after you, and consequences will follow for every action.

Now the above is scenario is responsible, at least much more so than building something potentially harmful then washing your hands off it, especially when you can clearly do something about it.

This is most illogical sir. What is teh "potentially harmful" thing you are referring to? If you examine yourself, you will see that it is the simple law of cause and effect which you are calling "potentially harmful". And it could not be otherwise. Every effect has its cause and vice versa. How else would you have it?

It is also free will that you are effectively calling "potentially harmful" and ofcourse it could not be otherwise, unless you would rather have been created a robot.

And the last part is the worst. You say that the omnipotent could do something about it? Such as what? Take away free will?

Then, to compound on the above example, also imagine a platform that is inherently faulty, a la natural evil like tsunamis, famines, etc.

What is faulty about tsunamis?

Who causes famines?

God(s) is exempt from such criticism because? Or are you saying this is the best possible universe it could have built?

Well we do not know for a fact that the omnipotent built this universe.

. . . . .Just as the omnipotent did not create chihuahuas?

Who did?

Aha.

They are free to suffer, but they shouldn't be free to infringe on the rights of others with impunity just because they can. This is simple morality. So long as you're sentient particularly, I shouldn't have the right to make you say, my slave.

But this is not something that the omnipotent does, is it?

It is something that free beings like us do, no?

Could the omnipotent stop it without depriving us of free will?

Would that not be a logical absurdity?

I could go ahead and try to enslave you, but in this day and age society will (rightly) persecute me if I get caught.

O, just as surely as the laws of Karma and Cause and Effect will round on you as well.

And this still ignores natural evil, suffering inflicted without any conscious agent at all, eg earthquakes. It must exist, OK, say a necessary byproduct of physical laws.

I am pleased that you concede that such must exist: a natural by product of physical laws as you say.

And what gives you the impression that nothing has been done about such by the omnipotent. We as beings have been endowed with the ability to sense and live in sync with our environment, but we have used our free will to corrupt such sync and now lament the catastrophes that naturally follow. We are endowed with a massive brain which today has even led us to understand the workings of these things, yet some people still choose to live within zones that fall on the earth's tectonic fault lines and are earth quake prone, no? There are animals that sense earthquakes will in advance and migrate: we should, as intelligent beings study the laws relating to these phenomena and adjust ourselves accordingly.

Now, this is not to say that in spite of such there will not be tragedies: but such remain in consonance with natural law and fit into the larger picture. Expecting anything else would amount o subscribing to the same fantastical claims that you condemn, no?

Yet others (and not necessarily judeo-xtians, even some deists do this) would claim this same god can hear their thoughts, or judge them, or somehow help them, manipulate certain events, etc etc.

As I am not omniscient, I do not know what the omnipotent can not do or will do. However I can logically infer that it is inconsistent with the notion of a perfect God to expect special interventions by the omnipotent in the reality issuing therefrom.

Are we now arbitrarily deciding what this god can or cannot do? Why is it necessarily "immaterial and transcendental"?

Immaterial: Because that which creates matter cannot itself be matter as nothing finite is its own cause.

Transcendental: Because that which creates a universe cannot be itself the same universe as well, following on the same law. It must stand outside of it. Thus, transcend it.

It has no means of interfering because? If it cannot even do that then it is a rather limited omnipotent imo, I do not think the term 'omnipotent' need apply to it.

All things rest in it, and of it, as self existent. That is the correct understanding of the omnipotent.

Good afternoon to you ser as well

Good evening, noble, kind and gentle sir.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by seyibrown(f): 2:30am On Apr 03, 2013
...subscribing ...
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 11:58pm On Apr 03, 2013
@deep sight

No vex oga, a response to your post deserves a little more substance than the average post, but I'll be back soon.
Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf: 3:41pm On Apr 06, 2013
Note; I'm trying to cut out excess fat and just leave the beef, (pun? intended,) regardless of how juicy the fat may be. If I were to reply to all your points we'd end up with a book considering the way I write. There are so many ways it can go. I will fail to keep it short though.

I do not believe (atm) free-will exists, I believe in determinism tempered by uncertainty, but just for this discussion I'm assuming it exists. Of course no belief in gods, but seems I have to explicitly state that as some people apparently need to be told.


Deep Sight:
If you examine carefully what you are saying you will realize that you are in fact seeking to shirk responsibility. You are denying the personal responsibility for actions which we as free willed being must bear. That will not do.

For one, free will != does not require help or guidance.

Regardless, no, I'm pretty sure you've got it backwards. More or else;

Deep Sight:
The responsibility of the omnipotent will be to establish laws that guide the established reality.

And judging by the state of this universe, it has been grossly irresponsible. It would have a lot of explaining to do, free will isn't a good enough excuse.

You are suggesting that despite omnipotence, it may not be able to do anything about it, as logic would not permit it. In other words, it had no choice but to 'breed the chihuahua'. I'm asking; why do you assume that? Did it even have to create?

It would also seem you are of the opinion this being's ultimate purpose is the creation of other 'wills'. I am asserting the suffering these 'wills' endure does not justify the act of creation. It comes across as self indulgent, like breeding chihuahuas just to satisfy ego or something similar. If chihuahuas were the only breed of dog, then I would suggest we do not breed dogs at all, simple.

Above is, I suppose, for the most part the main beef. tldr

You; With free will and omnipotence, this is the 'best' possible universe
Me; No reason to believe that. And why the need to create in the first place?

Agreed?


Moving on, on the nature of omnipotence, silly as it may seem, let's take one of my favorite candidates for an omnixxx character from sci-fi. I give you the creator of the matrix; the architect. Supposedly it had free will even if it had a poor grasp of the concept (early versions of the matrix failed in part because of his poor understanding of the subject). While in there, seems he could determine every possible action anyone in his radar could take, but he did not know for sure which choice would be taken. You can appreciate that the writers made him that way to circumvent the problem of determinism and free will, I hope. No need to elaborate too much on that.

My point with this is, as far as that universe is concerned, ie the actual matrix program, the architect is indeed omniscient. Someone just watching without paying any attention may miss it, but in order to satisfy logic, the architects version of omniscience is likely the most powerful, viable option of omniscience. Ie, so long as you were remaining logical (no absurdities) and insisted on preserving free will. And note how he would not, to most, look that powerful. Tell an xtian to imagine an omniscient for instance, and he'd likely conjure up something a little more fantastical.

I've not thought on omnipotency much, but he likely reached the acme there as well; he could redesign the program as he saw fit. Problem? He could log off, make changes, rewind time, etc, (perhaps even while still logged on he could effect some of these changes). He basically could do anything he wanted so long as it was logically consistent, 'ergo'(in his own speak,) he was omnipotent.

As for your criteria.

ds:
Immaterial: Because that which creates matter cannot itself be matter as nothing finite is its own cause.

quibble; What if matter always existed? Couldn't god be then made of matter as well?
Regardless, you can see how the architect qualifies as immaterial as far as that virtual universe is concerned, I hope.

ds:
Transcendental: Because that which creates a universe cannot be itself the same universe as well, following on the same law. It must stand outside of it. Thus, transcend it.

quibble; What if that which created the universe evolved, starting out simple, eventually attaining sentience, then affecting drastic changes? It would still be part of the universe.
Regardless, again, you can see how the architect qualifies as transcendental

Basically, as far as that universe is concerned, he's both omnipotent and omniscient. He's, in a sense, god. Not necessarily first cause, but all these features should apply to first cause as well unless you can show me why not. So, I'll use it as an example of a conscious first cause.

We now come to purpose. His purpose is clear; keep humanity alive. He benefits from their survival. He wasn't running a charity, which is more logical than than what most proponents of gods would have us believe. Anyways, this is where their universe goes wrong for me; the claim is he did indeed build a utopia for his subjects, but they rejected it. Reasons given were whargarbl as far I'm concerned. He first tried heaven (utopia), then he tried hell (dystopia), both failed.

He had to bring in the oracle, supposedly more emotionally mature, to effect some changes. The result being less than ideal. Now, I suppose the writers needed to create this complication (utopia failing) else they wouldn't have the same sort of plot to work with, at all. Just as they had to use 'humans are needed as batteries' as the purpose of keeping humanity alive, even though that's a particularly silly reason (they should have gone with using our brains for processing imo, but meh). But, ultimately, all this doesn't harm my case as the architect is actively involved with the matrix. Very much so.

It harms his case to let humans know he's involved, so he doesn't let them know. If he gives them an utopia, it backfires (for whargarbl), so he doesn't. That universe is, to the very best of his ability, the best he could do. He even needed to bring in a second opinion just to make it stick (I'm not sure if he created the oracle though, does she qualify as satan?).

Despite his less than generous views of humanity, he actually does his very best to keep them happy (he might even qualify as omnibenovelent). Also note how despite his involvement, human free will isn't being hampered in any way. And, most importantly, note how if he didn't need humanity, he wouldn't even bother at all. Too much pain, suffering and what not, perhaps even on both sides, the price would be far too high. He isn't doing them any favors (except of course the ones who profit from living in the matrix, at the expense of others). Far too much trouble, so why? He profits from their existence, they are an undesired necessity to him.

What are this universe's god's excuses? What are its limits, why are the limits in place? What is its purpose? Why the need of a purpose, even? I hope it didn't go through all this just so it could watch 'Big Brother; Earth' using us as the contestants? Surely, unlike the architect, god does not need to use us as batteries?


Do note as well, no one asked to be born. I don't owe any god or otherwise any favors. Likewise, my children won't owe me anything as well. I'd be responsible as I brought them into this universe, simple. I brought them into this world to satisfy my own selfish desires, to propagate life (or whatever), they didn't ask me to birth them. In the case of our conscious first cause, the father that went out of the way to create seems distinctly absent, unconcerned. Why? And why assume this is the best possible universe? The architect had his reasons, what are gods? In theory free will can exist along side governance, and assuming it exists, it already does in so in practice.



Deep Sight:
a perfect God who is so imperfect that it has to constantly return to its work to intervene and help things.

There is no such thing as a universally accepted 'perfect' universe, just as there's no universally flawed universe. A consequence of 'free will', if you will. To satisfy logic even a god that fancies itself perfect may be required to constantly correct itself, it wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Just as it would not be able to do anything about 'down' existing if 'up' exists.

Tldr; it may have no choice.



Deep Sight:
Now, like a government, the best that God can logically do is to ensure that there is embedded in reality a system of consequences: really no more that speaking the basic law of cause and effect: which as a cycle of happening ensures the self-correction of the super-structure of happenings over time. This is called Karma in Oriental Religions, nemesis, what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, etc. Nevertheless I will not dwell on this right here but will revert to it later in the thread as the discussion evolves. I should however note very briefly that the consequences of this law of reality often produce more and greater suffering and it could not logically be otherwise, and an omnipotent could not make it different, as that would fall foul of our rule of logical absurdities.

But there's absolutely no good reason I can think of to assume Karma, nemesis, whatever, exists. For instance, for someone who caused so much pain, Himmler surely had it easy, no? Myriads more like him. I don't see karmic justice anywhere. Very 'bad' people do very 'bad' things all the time, and get away with it. One could assume karma existed only on; faith. Just I'd have to accept a claim god is benevolent and is indeed doing the best he can despite evidence to contrary, other possibilities, etc. And purpose comes into play here as well.


Deep Sight:
I have often described God as simply the compound of self-existent laws. Such laws could not logically be otherwise. I would even go so far as to say that the omnipotent did not choose the laws: the laws are a self-existent component of reality - which is in fact exactly what the omnipotent itself is.

This almost sounds like you're describing a being without free will. It might also contradict a lot of what you've said. Though it mights seem similar to some of the stuff I've said, it might need some clarification

Deep Sight:
1. Is it "natural evil" when a lion hunts down an eats a zebra? Is that suffering of the zebra something that an omnipotent entity should do something about to avoid?

Depends on the objective, obviously. But for any objective I would consider responsible, yes.

It's a terribly inefficient, wasteful, haphazard way to go about attaining energy, with a lot of unnecessary pain to the prey.

Random; We'll probably even engineer painless meat, to the horror of many. Apparently, we already have ducks parenting chickens. Human engineering is conscious, purposeful and intelligent. It achieves what takes nature millenia to haphazardly assemble. Then again, natural engineering is neither of conscious, purposeful or intelligent.

Deep Sight:
2. Is it "natural evil" when the earth goes through its very natural cycles of storms, hurricanes, tectonic shifts, earth quakes, solar storms, and such other perfectly natural phenomena? Are such natural phenomena something that an omnipotent entity should stop, in the scheme of things?

Yes. Simply put, it causes suffering, it registers on the evil meter. Sometimes some evil is necessary and unavoidable, other times, no.


Deep Sight:
Good evening, noble, kind and gentle sir.

Confusion or sarcasm?


edits; not much

(1) (Reply)

9 Aspects Of Christianity With Pagan Origins / Reasons Why Christians Are Going To Hell / Theunusualmoon And The Christian God

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 564
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.