Why would an omnipotent being ever get angry?

[Timsup2nothin]

Why didn't the omnipotent being just arrange the laws of chemistry to ensure that the milk doesn't spoil in the first place?

Or make the milk self refrigerating! That could be applied to beer as well!!!

 

[Rashiminos]

What would prevent an omnipotent god from being angry or expressing anger? (I don't think notions of 'someone can fix/prevent a situation, so someone should not be angry about it' remain applicable for 'omnipotent beings.')

 

[Akka]

Why?

I can tell from here that evidence of non existence is an absurdity. I would have assumed that you can too.

*shrug*
Be contrarian for the sake of it if you want. It's pretty pointless but if it amuses you...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

*shrug*
Be contrarian for the sake of it if you want. It's pretty pointless but if it amuses you...

I'm not being contrarian. I'm asking what form of "proof of non existence" you consider to be definitive. Given that the US bases their right to invade other countries on "you can't prove that you don't have..." this is a subject of some importance to me, so no, what's at stake here is far from just my amusement.

 

[Akka]

I'm not being contrarian. I'm asking what form of "proof of non existence" you consider to be definitive. Given that the US bases their right to invade other countries on "you can't prove that you don't have..." this is a subject of some importance to me, so no, what's at stake here is far from just my amusement.

I don't see WTH the US political pretexts have to do with this, and even less how it makes it important for you to get my arguments on the subject.
And yes, you are a contrarian.

If you wanted to know my point, you could have done what I already told you (look for previous threads on the subject). As I'm a nice fellow deep inside (okay, very deep), I made a quick & dirty search for you.
Here is a thread on the subject, which most probably include my arguments.

 

[Gucumatz]

thats a common feature in mythology, the Zulu have myths about their ancient ancestors fighting with the apemen - the Mayans also claim one of these earlier peoples were apelike. Mesopotamian myth describes the first peoples as "lulu" or primitive workers eventually replaced by more perfected peoples (Adapa). Even the Bible echoes this by describing Adam in animalistic terms only to become "enlightened".

True enough. Many religions across the world had to come to terms with the fact of our limitations and imperfect nature, which ostensibly is why sets of ethics/morals guide us. Many religions of course have their own interpretation/concept of an ultimate failing of humanity, where humanity ends up being mostly destroyed in some theological future. The theoretical next species to take our place, this concept of "God being angry" is an opportunity for us to try and become better as a whole.

We are afraid of our own destruction, which is a logical fear and therefore we seek to blame anything we can: God, nature, society, etc... anything but ourselves. We are different than other species on this planet however because we have the potential to find a solution to any problem - from anything - like Global Warming, to societal corruption, or any other natural/man-made threat. I think this is one of those hidden values of religion in the historical context, something that drove people to not be complacent with how things were.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you wanted to know my point, you could have done what I already told you (look for previous threads on the subject). As I'm a nice fellow deep inside (okay, very deep), I made a quick & dirty search for you.
Here is a thread on the subject, which most probably include my arguments.

You're right. I'm not the least bit interested in your "point," because as I already said your argument is an absurdity.

There is no "evidence and reasoning" to support "gods do not exist". The absolute limit of what you can demonstrate is that if there are they are undetected by current means of detection.

Which is why I challenged your assertion that it is "obvious that god is a myth," since it is not only not obvious, it is beyond logical proof.

 

[Narz]

Having to be freaking perfect all the goddamn time.

Best answer so far.

Thing is though, if you're God you can make whatever you do perfect. Perfection can be fun (in theory).

 

[Berzerker]

reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode with a gangster thinking he died and went to Heaven until he wins at everything, its "perfect". A fat jolly Sebastian Cabot informs him he aint in Heaven.

 

[Akka]

You're right. I'm not the least bit interested in your "point," because as I already said your argument is an absurdity.

There is no "evidence and reasoning" to support "gods do not exist". The absolute limit of what you can demonstrate is that if there are they are undetected by current means of detection.

Which is why I challenged your assertion that it is "obvious that god is a myth," since it is not only not obvious, it is beyond logical proof.

*shrug*
I didn't expect more from you.

 

[warpus]

Why?

I can tell from here that evidence of non existence is an absurdity. I would have assumed that you can too.

Not that I fully agree with either of you (I don't think), but just because it's not possible to prove the lack of existence of something vague like the idea of God, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to trace the evolution of religions and the Gods that people worship - a lot of that stuff has historical context that explains how people molded the Gods they worship on Gods from other cultures and religions.

Maybe I'm wrong, because I'm not a historical or theological scholar, but if you were.. you'd probably conclude that the majority of the Gods people worship are fabrications - due to the fact that they are in part based on Gods from other religions. The Christian God is a bit more complicated, I think (?), but I think I do remember Plotinus explaining in some post or other how some of the history of what the Hebrews worshipped and how they ended up going from polytheism to monotheism, and that they borrowed a lot of ideas about their religion from surrounding ones. It's possible it wasn't Plotinus - maybe I'm thinking of something else, but there seems to be enough historical circumstance to make one realize that "A lot of people believe in Gods, so they must exist" is a bit of a bunk of an argument, since a lot of those Gods are in fact based on Gods and ideas from other cultures.

Now, I don't think that it's obvious that God is a fabrication in general, because I'm open to the idea of one existing. It's possible, I have to admit. But I also have to admit that it seems very logical to conclude that most of the Gods people worship are in fact cultural creations - pandering to cultural circumstance and/or historical accident.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

*shrug*
I didn't expect more from you.

Meanwhile you gave me exactly what I expected...an illustration for a point I was making about hard core atheists in another thread. Thanks!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not that I fully agree with either of you (I don't think), but just because it's not possible to prove the lack of existence of something vague like the idea of God, doesn't mean that it isn't possible to trace the evolution of religions and the Gods that people worship - a lot of that stuff has historical context that explains how people molded the Gods they worship on Gods from other cultures and religions.

Maybe I'm wrong, because I'm not a historical or theological scholar, but if you were.. you'd probably conclude that the majority of the Gods people worship are fabrications - due to the fact that they are in part based on Gods from other religions. The Christian God is a bit more complicated, I think (?), but I think I do remember Plotinus explaining in some post or other how some of the history of what the Hebrews worshipped and how they ended up going from polytheism to monotheism, and that they borrowed a lot of ideas about their religion from surrounding ones. It's possible it wasn't Plotinus - maybe I'm thinking of something else, but there seems to be enough historical circumstance to make one realize that "A lot of people believe in Gods, so they must exist" is a bit of a bunk of an argument, since a lot of those Gods are in fact based on Gods and ideas from other cultures.

Now, I don't think that it's obvious that God is a fabrication in general, because I'm open to the idea of one existing. It's possible, I have to admit. But I also have to admit that it seems very logical to conclude that most of the Gods people worship are in fact cultural creations - pandering to cultural circumstance and/or historical accident.

This makes perfect sense. Humanity's interpretation of god(s) and creation adapts to the local and current knowledge level and societal needs, without question. At every time/space point of human existence there is some adaptation of the concept that fills the religion shaped hole in human understanding. The interpretation that is currently filling that hole in most "educated" people is science.

 

[warpus]

I don't agree, mainly because science has not answered the big questions, such as how did life arise on this planet, where did the universe come from, is there a grand creator, etc.

It's answered some questions religions used to answer in the past (such as the diversity of life on the planet), but you can't really say that it's filled the same hole. The hole is still there - and the big questions are still unanswered.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't agree, mainly because science has not answered the big questions, such as how did life arise on this planet, where did the universe come from, is there a grand creator, etc.

It's answered some questions religions used to answer in the past (such as the diversity of life on the planet), but you can't really say that it's filled the same hole. The hole is still there - and the big questions are still unanswered.

While it hasn't specifically answered "the big questions" it allows people to not think about them as unanswerable. That's the religion shaped hole I was referring to. People don't really care where the universe came from, they just want someone to tell them "don't worry, we'll figure it out."

 

[warpus]

That's the thing though, science makes no such promises. In contrast to (most) religions, science short of shrugs its shoulders and says: "I dunno man, we'll see. Some of this stuff I might not ever have an answer for. There's no way to know. For now all I can tell you is 'I don't know'"

I also disagree that people don't care about the answers to those big questions. I, for one, would love to find out where the universe came from.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's the thing though, science makes no such promises. In contrast to (most) religions, science short of shrugs its shoulders and says: "I dunno man, we'll see. Some of this stuff I might not ever have an answer for. There's no way to know. For now all I can tell you is 'I don't know'"

I also disagree that people don't care about the answers to those big questions. I, for one, would love to find out where the universe came from.

It doesn't really matter what science promises, it is still what people expect, so they are satisfied. To most people 'science' is just as much a big nebulous thing in the sky as god was. They go to work. They take care of their little corner of the world. They count on the big man in the sky to take care of the rest. They just don't want people like Akka to call them stupid so they call the big man in the sky science instead of god, but the purpose doesn't change with the name.

 

[Borachio]

I think it's a sign of a mature religion that it can also shrug its shoulders and say "I dunno".

Some religions, I have found, concentrate on the questions rather than the answers.

 

[Triewd]

"I love you, so I'll rain fire and brimstone on you, to punish you for having used the gift I made to you."

God is just an abusive father with serious mental issues, it seems.

I must confess that when I played this game, I slapped beyond what was needed my poor, poor creature while it had this poor helpless air "what's happening to me ?" on its face.
Worst of it, it was still pretty funny. And at the same time, I felt bad toward the poor bunch of animated pixels.

I must be a very bad boy inside

Nar I used to get really Mad at my Creature too I slapped it silly when it decided to use my villagers as fireball target practice Oh and don't get me started on Monkeys - they learn quicker sure but they are really annoying for doing so much more bad stuff.

I learned that if you slap the legs they fall over. To the point where they fall on things

Punishing it so too much is bad though.

 

[warpus]

It doesn't really matter what science promises, it is still what people expect, so they are satisfied. To most people 'science' is just as much a big nebulous thing in the sky as god was. They go to work. They take care of their little corner of the world. They count on the big man in the sky to take care of the rest. They just don't want people like Akka to call them stupid so they call the big man in the sky science instead of god, but the purpose doesn't change with the name.

Maybe those who don't understand what science is. Those who have at least a basic level of understanding of the methodology do not equate it to anything resembling religion.. not really.