Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado una publicación como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
A meaningless question, given the stipulations.
If God exists, your proposed classifications are inadequate.
The outcome is always a mass psychosis which is called domestic growth progress.
The boogeyman scares people that they don't wish to face it. While the victor is given an awakening of divine acension to godhood.
ancient Greeks imagined their gods as eccentric, selfish, petty, vengeful and lustful.
ancient Norse seem to have imagined their gods as defenders of the world.
ancient Slavic gods are mostly personifications of forces and phenomena of nature who are pretty impartial.
middle-American gods are incredibly varied and mostly competing with each other who'll be ruling the world.
the christian god strikes me as an uninvolved and negligent parental figure who is uninterested in his followers until they die. Then he judges them.
Allah seems to be a stricter and more war-oriented version of the christian god.
Xenophanes:
“The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”
Could you maybe back this up with an argument instead of going "nah ah"?
OP literally admitted the question was meaningless. And he admitted the topic is just to see what people think, even though he thinks it's meaningless.
^ This is what I said "nah ah" to (as you put it). Could you explain why this series of questions should be taken seriously in the first place? Does anyone know where this supposed paradox came from?
It's meaningless in a sense that it has no real consequences. Doesn't make the question invalid.
Yes, I can. Because the way the Christian God is depicted, he is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. And these three properties are incompatible. Therefore this is a serious question.
And yes, I know where this paradox originated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox
I doubt people here can hold a conversation about advanced science, so I keep it simple. It's just for talking. Also, talking isn't meaningless. Whats meaningless is trying to find perfect logic behind every question or topic.
Well, no: The question's lack of "real consequences" is not the only way it's "meaningless" in its current iteration.
And neither you nor anyone in the thread have established that "these three properties are incompatible." You just haven't. And I don't want you to. I am not committed to this argument that has already been running for 2000 years.
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox
Oh, hey: Lactantius! I wonder if he appears anywhere else in this thread.
we are in no position to judge his moral spectrum accordingly.
however, the fruit allows us to question his force. either out of stupidity or maliciousness. in so doing we create good and evil outside of god's ken; our moral realities are comprised of things he would rather not deal with. stuff he arbitrated out of by fiat in the past.
as such we are free to determine what is good or evil in our own lives, but we cannot apply that reasoning to god. he's opted out of the constraints we're working under.