Alright, since I'm always right, I shall endeavor to enlighten you all.
WW, you presume that to a Christian God, there is such a thing as
right and wrong. If our God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, it
follows that nothing that happens is not good, or it would not happen.
(If something happens that is bad and God does not prevent it, he is
not omnibenevolent. If he CANNOT prevent it, he is not omnipotent.)
Good or bad, in a cosmic sense, is thus incompatible with the typical
Christian God setup.
Thus, butter-side down is no better or worse than butter-side up, it
just IS. God's "system" is not restricted by petty human notions such
as "right-and-wrong" or "correctness" and is inherently unfathomable.
Toast lands butter-side down because it is God's ineffable will that it
do so. Also, it is God's unfathomable, ineffable will that I be right in
all circumstances and situations. Arguing will just make you worn and
tired.
--Rein, who is right once again.
Your analysis should be titled "The zen of toast", as it seems to have much more in common with
Buddhism that with Christianity. But no amount of Eastern breakfast table mysticism can disguise
the fact that toast, butter side down on the floor, is the very essence of evil. This we can know a
priori, i.e. we do not have to have eaten the aforementioned piece of toast to know that it will be a
rather unsettling experience. Thus with the establishment of the upended piece of toast as being
evil, God loses any claim to omnibenevolence as he did nothing to prevent untold pieces of toast
from being marginalized in the eyes of diners worldwide. As for omnipotence, he either (A) loses it
through his inability to stop the roational descent of toast, or (B) is unworthy of it because he
willfully constructed a world in which toast unfailingly falls butter side down. In either case the very
concept of "God" implodes in upon itself at this point and we are left with nothing. Nothing but a
buttery mess on the floor, that is.
The reason toast lands butter side down is to discourage you from
dropping it in the first place. Butter side up is not as bad, but one
could hardly say that the proper place for toast, in any orientation, is
on the floor. If toast landed butter side up there would be less
incentive to keep your toast under control.
Rich
ps - god doesn't drop toast, but if s/he did, s/he would catch it before
it hit the floor.
I'm not sure how upturned toast can be considered the essence of
evil, a priori, and have it dismissed so easily.
Where is your proof that butter-side-down toast is evil? Because we
know that we shouldn't eat it? This is tenuous at best! Perhaps god
does not mean for us to eat the buttered toast in the first place. Why
are your selfish human desires more important than the toast's right
to not be eaten? This sort if humanist behavior is not to be tolerated.
--Rein, who told you so.
The human race seems to abuse any number of inanimate object's
rights. Oh well. Since God is omnibenevolent, this abuse is obviously
not "wrong" in any way. So it's all a moot point, really. Honestly, I'm
not all that sure that God HAS a thought process. It would seem that
an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God would only have
one choice any given situation. All the other choices would be more
wrong and would not be an option. So really, God has no free will, or
else he must not fit the above criterion.
--Rein
PS, You may all wish to stand outside arc-lightning range of me for a
while, lest you become divine collateral damage.
omnibenevolent: wishes everyone/thing well
omnipotent: can do anything/everything
omniscient: knows everything
1. Does God wish Evil well?
2. Can God forfeit his omnipotence?
3. Can God wish ill of someone?
4. Is God capable of forgetting things?
5. Does God have a fundamental understanding of hatred, powerlessness and ignorance?
There are more, but I can't think of them at the moment. Often such absolutes are
nonsensical, in the same way as the immovable object and the unstoppable force are.
I can't find an online definition for omnibenevolent, but I'm pretty
sure the definition is closer to the literal translation: "All good."
Specifically, there is a difference between "wishing everything well" and
actually being incapable of an evil or malicious thought or act.
1: Love thine enemy. It's a rule.
2: Does God have the power (being omnipotent) to limit his powers? It
seems like a paradox, but perhaps limiting his powers would not be
a "benificial" act and he is thus unable to do so. Of course, if he is
UNABLE to do something, he must not omnipotent. Then we are just
back to the basic inconsistency between an all-powerful and all-good
Creator.
3: No.
4: No.
5: Yes, but the understanding of a thing is not the thing itself,
therefor God's understanding of hatred, powerlessness and ignorance
(to name a few) is not mutually exclusive with his omnibenevolence.
Of course, it is within the realm of possibility that we humans cannot
possibly have an accurate, logical perception of God anyway.
Either way, I'm right. Don't hurt yourself trying to figure it out.
--Rein
omni = all
bene = well
volent = wishing
I think that's a fairly literal translation. You're thinking of omnibeneficient, which means that
all God's actions are good.
At least we agree that omnipotence contradicts the other two properties (see 3. and 4.).
I'm not religious, so this argument isn't causing me any emotional/intellectual trauma. I just
find these kinds of arguments quite amusing.
"Rein, who is always right."
Then why are you talking about Yourself in the third person? (I am not referring to the
grammar of the preceding quotation.)
Did someone put up a rule saying I can't talk about myself in the third
person? If they did they are obviously wrong. I just enjoy adding a
little personal narrative to my posts.
And yes, I was indeed thinking of omnibeneficient. Thanks for helping
to discover the underlying truth there. Slip of the proverbial tongue.
Won't happen again, I promise.
In fact, it is possible that all three properties are mutually exlusive of
each other. I would like to refer back to the sagacious advice of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy, translated from the original German: "I am a jelly
donut." I think that you will all come to understand his wisdom in time.
Also, would omnicognisant mean the same thing as omniscient? It
certainly makes more sense to me.
--Rein, who isn't going to talk about himself in the third person this
time.
I think the idea is that some say it should have been "Ich bin
Berliner" ("I am a citizen of Berlin"😉 rather than "Ich bin ein Berliner"
("I am a type of jelly doughnut traditionally made in Berlin"😉, since the
indefinite article ("ein"😉 is not usually used with occupations or
nationalities. However, "Ich bin Berliner" would only be appropriate for
an actual citizen of Berlin. About.com has a good explaination of the
whole thing:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa021700b.htm
However, I think that it's a whole lot funnier to just keep thinking he
said "I am a type of jelly doughnut traditionally made in Berlin" --
despite all the evidence to the contrary.
--Rein