I'm a Theist

[bahman]

Right.

I think you're probably wrong about that. But even if you weren't, you couldn't communicate your "nothing" vision to me or to anyone else, because there's nothing to communicate there.

Think of an apple on a table. I take and eat it. I eat the table too. What is left is space. I sallow that too. Therefore, there is no thing.

You're still imagining a "you" to do that. Moreover, you're imagining a set of objects of which the removal is necessary. In other words, you're having to imagine a bunch of "things" and manipulate their relations to each other, in order to speak of "nothing."

All of that means you're employing "things" in an effort to get to "nothing." And you can't find a way to speak of it without doing some such operation, obviously. Which, no doubt, you will find frustrating. But really, that's the whole problem: there's no pure vision of "nothing," no way to visualize or communicate the idea of something that has no qualities.

That is one way of knowing nothing. The other way is what the beginning about. Nothing then something.

[uwot]

Na, it's ridiculous at the outset.

He is trying to compare actual knowledge - of good AND evil... to the pathetic 'evils' that some 'men' commit.

Well yeah. My view is that the punishment for challenging god being an eternity of hideous torture is far more evil than any man could deliver. Yet this is what Mr Can's "Supreme Being" condemns most of his beloved children to.
The irony is that Mr Can appeals to some version of the ontological argument and at the same time disparages gnostics for invoking Plato's demiurge. The joke is that his "Supreme Being" was incapable of creating a world in which everyone gets through the pearly gates, whereas I can conceive of a greater god that could create such a world. Therefore, his supreme being is not as supreme as mine and disappears in a cloud of logic. Go figure.

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie: Would knowledge of how to torture children be "good'?

It's not, of course. It's evil.

But atto thinks that NO knowledge can be evil, apparently.

Ask J. Mengle.

That's a great example. Thanks, Henry.

Yes, Mengele performed scientific and medical experiments on human subjects. Thus he increased his knowledge of anatomy, of survival rates, of psychology, and so forth...while acquiring also the twisted knowledge of how to perform more experiments, and the evil knowledge of new ways to produce pain.

How can atto possibly say that's not evil? Would we not all be better if nobody had the knowledge of how to induce misery?

[Immanuel Can]

That is one way of knowing nothing. The other way is what the beginning about. Nothing then something.

Something's missing from the above sentence. Can you clarify?

[bahman]

That is one way of knowing nothing. The other way is what the beginning about. Nothing then something.

Something's missing from the above sentence. Can you clarify?

That is one way of having nothing. The other way is what the beginning about. Nothing then something.

[henry quirk]

As I see him: sure.

He's the first free will: he can choose.

Thing is: his choices are never poor, unlike mine or yours, and his choices are never muddled, unlike mine or yours., and he keeps his word always, unlike you and me.

Can God do evil? Yep.

Does God do evil? Nope.

[Immanuel Can]

The other way is what the beginning about. Nothing then something.

This is the part I'm still not understanding. Did you mean to put "is" in there, perhaps between "beginning" and "about"? I don't want to read into your claim something you didn't intend.

And what's the intended referent of the final phrase?

[henry quirk]

"When I was talking of 'space' I was meaning the entire space of the universe and its contents. Does that change your mind in any way?"

No. I see Reality/the universe/space as a big, mostly empty, box with a finite number of discrete entities inside of it.

Not seein' the need for space to be binary\digital.

Fuck Henry - I just typed a really detailed message to you - but i pressed the wrong FUCKING KEY!!! and BOOM!! it ALL went off by way of kansas..

..will post in the morning ...woops sorry mate.

No worries, atto...respond when you can.

[Immanuel Can]

Can God do evil? Yep.

Biblically, there are actually several things that God "cannot do," interestingly enough.

It says that He "cannot lie," that He "cannot look upon evil with favour," that He "cannot deny Himself," and so on. (I'm quoting literally there: I have the references, if anybody wants them, but I don't suspect you will). The import of the whole seems to be this: that to do something that is not consonant with one's own nature is a form of failure. We all feel it when we, say, "let ourselves down" in some way, or "fail to live up to" what we hope ourselves to be.

But this is an experience God never has. Being all-powerful, He is never in a situation in which He has to break consistency with who He is, or "let Himself down," so to speak. He never has to fall short of being fully Himself. So, since He is the God of truth, He has no need to lie. Since He is the God of justice, He has no need to negotiate with evil. Since He is the God of faithfulness, He never needs to deny Himself.

So the Biblical God not only does not do evil, but will not and , in perfect integrity with His own identity, cannot.

[bahman]

The other way is what the beginning about. Nothing then something.

This is the part I'm still not understanding. Did you mean to put "is" in there, perhaps between "beginning" and "about"? I don't want to read into your claim something you didn't intend.

And what's the intended referent of the final phrase?

I mean the beginning of the universe is about "nothing then something". There was nothing then there was something. That is the beginning.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean the beginning of the universe is about "nothing then something". There was nothing then there was something. That is the beginning.

Right. Got it. Thanks. I just wanted to be sure.

[henry quirk]

Can God do evil? Yep.

Biblically, there are actually several things that God "cannot do," interestingly enough.

It says that He "cannot lie," that He "cannot look upon evil with favour," that He "cannot deny Himself," and so on. (I'm quoting literally there: I have the references, if anybody wants them, but I don't suspect you will). The import of the whole seems to be this: that to do something that is not consonant with one's own nature is a form of failure. We all feel it when we, say, "let ourselves down" in some way, or "fail to live up to" what we hope ourselves to be.

But this is an experience God never has. Being all-powerful, He is never in a situation in which He has to break consistency with who He is, or "let Himself down," so to speak. He never has to fall short of being fully Himself. So, since He is the God of truth, He has no need to lie. Since He is the God of justice, He has no need to negotiate with evil. Since He is the God of faithfulness, He never needs to deny Himself.

So the Biblical God not only does not do evil, but will not and , in perfect integrity with His own identity, cannot.

I know all this, I just see it (him) different.

[attofishpi]

Mannie: Would knowledge of how to torture children be "good'?

It's not, of course. It's evil.

But atto thinks that NO knowledge can be evil, apparently.

The knowledge of EVIL is KNOWING GOD's EVIL when U eat from the tree - NOT torturing anyone you simpleton.

You really have NO IDEA what the Tree of Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL is do you

Just to clarify - Immanuel Can thinks that there this implies some sort of "KNOWLEDGE" of "EVIL" to be gleamed from torturing children.

Would knowledge of how to torture children be "good'?

In what way is that knowledge YOU SICK FUCK?

Knowledge, unspecified further, is not just of good things. It includes very bad ones.

It was your question: I merely answered it for you in a way you clearly understand to reflect an evil kind of knowledge.

AGAIN - and since you kept me up:- In WHAT way is torturing children KNOWLEDGE?

[Immanuel Can]

I know all this, I just see it (him) different.

I figured you did. But I thought I'd go over it, because the conversation's gone at least four ways at this point.

[Immanuel Can]

AGAIN - and since you kept me up:- In WHAT way is torturing children KNOWLEDGE?

Read my comments above to Henry re: Mengele, and you'll get it.