Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

SpaceTime

To be fair, Uncle Gaybo knows that he has to provide balance in the piece too under BAI rules. He can't just wholeheartedly agree with a guest.

He has been broadcasting since the dawn of television, so he has a fairly good idea of how to do it!

I don't think he's ever come across as a conservative and he has been quite instrumental in opening up debate in Ireland during some of the most inward-looking, cold conservative days of the state.

The Late Late Show (with Gay Byrne not, the later versions) really did provide a platform for discussing things that had never been discussed before here and because he was such a pleasant character and had so much national respect, he was able to do something that public service television is supposed to be all about - opening minds!

Considering the atmosphere in the 60s, 70s and 80s and the power weilded by very conservative forces, I think Gay Byrne deserves a lot of credit. He did huge things for opening up all sorts of topics on both radio and TV.

Also, I think we sometimes forget that Gerry Ryan in the 1980s and 90s on 2FM continued in that tradition and took it to another level. I know that show was well past its prime in its later years, but in its heyday, it was a very important window into another world in cars and kitchens all over Ireland where people could hear people discussing previously unmentionable topics.

Both of those broadcasters helped to bring Irish people out of their shells and to start thinking critically about what was going on around them for a change.

Hotblack Desiato

Deranged96 wrote: »

Personally too I think that humans are the centre of the universe...

That is incredibly conceited.

as far as we know there are not even germs to be found on other planets.

So what. We're still insignificant.

delthedriver wrote: »

Having watched the clip , Stephen Fry answered the questions put to him in a very open manner, which is one of his strengths. Perhaps Gay was slightly taken aback by Stephen's direct approach and frankness.

Hardly, I'm sure Gay read Stephen's script as Stephen did Gay's script... there is no spontaniety there, but we have become used to spontaniety as a substitute for thought and consideration. Nobody would publish a first draft of an article, can an interview not also go through a series of drafts to arrive at the finished version?

SpaceTime wrote: »

I don't think he's ever come across as a conservative

Annie Murphy

and he has been quite instrumental in opening up debate in Ireland during some of the most inward-looking, cold conservative days of the state.

This is also true however.

Eeden

The point about God needing (or wanting or expecting) us to kneel and worship and thank him for our existence is the thing that really clinches it for me. If you are the omnipotent creator of the universe, why would you need/want/expect that?

robindch

Eeden wrote: »

The point about God needing (or wanting or expecting) us to kneel and worship and thank him for our existence is the thing that really clinches it for me. If you are the omnipotent creator of the universe, why would you need/want/expect that?

It's not so much that a god might want it, but many priests quite like it. And most of the kings too.

colossus-x

Absolutely sick and tired of seeing Stephen Fry stuck in absolutely everything. I don't find him in the slightest bit funny and I'm agape when I see people falling all over him. The noxious QI think was on today when I was channel hoping and I can't bear that kind of show either. I really wish he would just disappear and never show up at anything ever again. What does he do ? Well frankly he's just a peculiarity and not good for much. I also find it rather embarrassing that anyone in Ireland should acknowledge that we even know who the hell he is - because really he's just a nobody. I was also embarrassed at Panti falling all over him at the TV awards show. I bet if he didn't' have a crocked face he'd never have become famous at all. And that thing about him being celibate - as if he had a choice in the matter. Jezus. I mush preferred the other guy, whats his name, Woster ?

Pherekydes

colossus-x wrote: »

And that thing about him being celibate - as if he had a choice in the matter.

Well, he's getting married!

Hotblack Desiato

If he really was a nobody, you wouldn't be ranting about him.
Don't watch the show if you don't want to.

branie2

I bet Gay was raging after the interview

SpaceTime

No he wasn't he was probably thinking " yes indeed! Roll it there Collette we have the promo clip for the YouTube... Don't ya know! Still got it after 80 years in broadcasting!'

silverharp

700K hits in a day , I thinks it went viral

Deranged96

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That is incredibly conceited.

Is it though?

We were all born, are living and will die here among the throngs of humanity. From were the human race is standing we are the centre of the universe. Babies die in cribs from treatable disease, rainforests get smashed by consumerism and conflicts rage all over the world. To say we're not the centre of the universe belittles the world we live in.
We're like a bird in a cage, it doesn't matter what's outside the cage to the bird because it'll never affect him. The bird can look through the bars of its cage but everything it sees is on the outside and untouchable.

You can say "we're insignificant" but I think that we are the most significant... lives matter individually and as a whole I can't see anything more important than us and the world we inhabit.

Hotblack Desiato

'Centre of the universe' is simply mediaeval thinking, which is why Copernicus's and Galileo's teachings were regarded as heresy by the catholic church which, having given up on geocentricism, still insists a creator made the vast universe just for us, has counted all the hairs on our heads etc. etc., watches teenagers masturbate, and listens to prayers from one species of creatures on one tiny little planet among uncountable billions

Of course we are significant - to us - just as a family on the other side of the globe isn't significant to you, but your own is.

Even within our own solar system, our planet is a mere speck.

Carl Sagan says it much better than I ever could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

Acedia.

The late Maeve Binchy gave a less outrageous answer which is also worth a watch.

(I can't post links yet) youtu.be/GV0BxiT1TM0

So, does Stephen's statement, shown on the national broadcaster, meet the criteria for invoking our blasphemy law? If a large number of people feel the way Gay Byrne looked then surely there would be grounds to take a case. I'd really love to see that law tested, shown to be all kinds of stupid, and removed.

10000maniacs

While I agree about his sentiment, Fry should also speak out against Mohammed. Go on Fry. Do it.
He values his head being still attached to his body too much I think.

lazybones32

silverharp wrote: »

700K hits in a day , I thinks it went viral

It's clever marketing by RTE. People will probably tune in tomorrow night to watch a programme they usually wouldn't consider watching.

colossus-x

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, he's getting married!

Just a ploy to keep him in the public sphere if you ask me.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If he really was a nobody, you wouldn't be ranting about him.
Don't watch the show if you don't want to.

I don't get that logic, do I only rant about famous important people? Isn't there a term z-list celebrity or something like that. Their nobodies aren't they ? And of course I'm not going to watch the show , Christ sure I jump for the remote whenever he appears - sure you wouldn't know what TV program he'd suddenly appear on without warning.

Seanf999

Christianity has been engineered (for want of a better word) so that no matter what argument is brough up against it there is still some idiotic reasoning to the ideology that if a toddler gets bone cancer it's 'a test of faith'.
In my opinion it's a new view on the glass half full mentality. It's to completely ignore the question and simply say that that is how it's meant to be, no matter how wrong it is, no matter how morally unjust, we should worship something/someone out of what is essentially fear masked as love.
It's only love in the sense that if we praise him/her/it we may escape this torture.

antiskeptic

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I can understand an average Joe who hasn't given much time to the subject shooting from the hip like that but for a man who supposedly is in a position to think for himself this is a ludicrously simplistic view. I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

Rather..

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all. With a chief aim being to make it all sweet and rosy and comfortable - to Stephens liking

And a string of thanks from you lot. I mean, why trip over yourselves to tip your hat to someone who didn't say anything more than can the lesser lights contribution on the average atheist discussion forum. You star struck or something?


Tragic.

COYVB

10000maniacs wrote: »

While I agree about his sentiment, Fry should also speak out against Mohammed. Go on Fry. Do it.
He values his head being still attached to his body too much I think.

He was asked about god, Mohammed isn't god.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

I'm sure he knows the arguments well, and knows that they're all irrelevant. There are no arguments for the world being the way it is that don't boil down to "God is a prick". Unless, as he astutely points out, you're discussing a God for whom being a prick is part and parcel of their personality.

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand an average Joe who hasn't given much time to the subject shooting from the hip like that but for a man who supposedly is in a position to think for himself this is a ludicrously simplistic view. I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

Rather..

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all. With a chief aim being to make it all sweet and rosy and comfortable - to Stephens liking

And a string of thanks from you lot. I mean, why trip over yourselves to tip your hat to someone who didn't say anything more than can the lesser lights contribution on the average atheist discussion forum. You star struck or something?


Tragic.

The praise seems mostly for Fry's delivery rather than the original nature of the argument. The argument is thousands of years old, as I'm sure Fry is aware, and no religious follower or theologian has so far come up with a rebuttal that stands up to even the most basic examination or scrutiny, though certainly since Fry's video went viral many more foolish people have tried.

I think that is more tragic TBH

stevejazzx

delthedriver wrote: »

I have met Gay Byrne both professionally and socially and can only describe him as a perfect Gentleman. We could do with a few more in our country.

Stephen Fry is an academic, actor, highly intelligent and very modest too.

Having watched the clip , Stephen Fry answered the questions put to him in a very open manner, which is one of his strengths. Perhaps Gay was slightly taken aback by Stephen's direct approach and frankness.

Personally I have great time for both guys.:)

I also have met Gay (did a bit of AV work for him) - funnily enough he was revisiting some of his old interviews (Peter Ustinov was playing when I arrived).
Extremely intelligent man is all I say. I think the earlier quote about him being out of his depth here are a little exaggerated. He appears to me to be somewhat of dramatic individual and in a quite theatrical manner at that; so his expression here after Fry's answer can be read more accurately as theatrics - a communication to Fry of his frankness, played up for the cameras. Seen clearly I think Gay was reveling in the drama - his failure to engage on the issue of ancient Greek hedonism may be have been well placed. Fry's over zealousness and self-professed alignment for such has always struck as a little bit too much. But there you go - perhaps I'm just a little conservative!
Love Fry s outburst tough - we definitely need more of that.

Bristolscale7

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand an average Joe who hasn't given much time to the subject shooting from the hip like that but for a man who supposedly is in a position to think for himself this is a ludicrously simplistic view. I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

Rather..

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all. With a chief aim being to make it all sweet and rosy and comfortable - to Stephens liking

And a string of thanks from you lot. I mean, why trip over yourselves to tip your hat to someone who didn't say anything more than can the lesser lights contribution on the average atheist discussion forum. You star struck or something?


Tragic.

There's never been a cogent argument put forward to deal with the problem of theodicy. The free will argument can be dismissed by a six year old. The basic position in judaism (I simplify) is, "Yeah the world if ****ed up beyond belief given that god is all knowing, all powerful, and caring, but there's an explanation for it that we'll get when we die." The Jesuit argument is even worse. It goes something like, "the suffering of the toddler is infinitely small compared to the infinite happiness and love she will experience after she dies." (edit: there's a version of this argument in the Brother's Karamazov that is kind of funny about a guy taking a thousand thousand thousand steps to get into heaven) . I'm not familiar with the Islamic arguments to deal with theodicy, but since it plagiarizes everything from Christianity and Judaism it probably follows similar lines.

magicbastarder

colossus-x wrote: »

Just a ploy to keep him in the public sphere if you ask me.

ah, so the man engineers his own happiness for publicity reasons?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

Despite what is clearly extreme discomfort from Gay Byrne in listening to Fry's response, it's a demonstration of the class of interviewer that he is, that he is at least capable of regulating his response. And at the end, rather than get into a debate where Byrne knows that;

a) He is dealing with a much more intelligent opponent, and
b) He himself is too emotionally invested in it to risk getting into a debate about it

Instead, he commends Fry for the quality of his response rather than discuss the actual content of it.

I'm not a huge fan of Gay Byrne as a person, he is egotistical up there with the worst of them. But it would be fair to say that he does have a true dedication to honest journalism and has never really shied away from discussing difficult issues in the public forum, regardless of his own belief.

I think the reason the late late show seemed to dip in quality so badly after he left has less to do with the quality of the interviewers who have come after him and more to do with editorial control. In Gaybo's day, he was untouchable. He could say whatever he liked, bring on whomever he liked, and stir up controversy. Once he left, the management at RTE seized majority control over the show, and this has only gotten worse over time. Now what's discussed on TLLS is what the solicitors and Iona and the advertisers will allow you to discuss, rather than what should be discussed.

Have you ever met Gay Byrne? I have, and he's a gentleman. A really nice, down to earth man.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...] but for a man who supposedly is in a position to think for himself this is a ludicrously simplistic view. I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

As Fry points out, there's a thing called "theodicy", the attempted squaring of the existence of an undeniably cruel world, with the circle of an infinitely beneficent deity. The two can't be reconciled, but that's no hindrance to the world's religious industries which have spilled lakes of ink attempting to do so.

Anyhow, would you like to explain how the two can be reconciled? Perhaps you will succeed where generations of the world's most profound religious thinkers have failed!

RikuoAmero

robindch wrote: »

As Fry points out, there's a thing called "theodicy", the attempted squaring of the existence of an undeniably cruel world, with the circle of an infinitely beneficent deity. The two can't be reconciled, but that's no hindrance to the world's religious industries which have spilled lakes of ink attempting to do so.

Anyhow, would you like to explain how the two can be reconciled? Perhaps you will succeed where generations of the world's most profound religious thinkers have failed!

Oooh ooh! I know, I know!
"God has a plan, but we cannot discern it for he moves in mysterious ways".

Hotblack Desiato

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's clever marketing by RTE. People will probably tune in tomorrow night to watch a programme they usually wouldn't consider watching.

Well if it was the usual 'spiritual but not religious' or 'there is definitely something out there' (certainty and vagueness rolled into one feelgood whole) or something on the devout catholic <-> cultural catholic spectrum, what would be the point in watching?

If they do have something worth watching for once, they may as well crow about it

colossus-x wrote: »

Just a ploy to keep him in the public sphere if you ask me.

That's an entirely ignorant thing to say about someone else's relationship, of which you know nothing.

I don't get that logic, do I only rant about famous important people? Isn't there a term z-list celebrity or something like that. Their nobodies aren't they ? And of course I'm not going to watch the show , Christ sure I jump for the remote whenever he appears - sure you wouldn't know what TV program he'd suddenly appear on without warning.

Like him or not he's certainly not a nobody.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand an average Joe who hasn't given much time to the subject shooting from the hip like that but for a man who supposedly is in a position to think for himself this is a ludicrously simplistic view. I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

Rather..

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all. With a chief aim being to make it all sweet and rosy and comfortable - to Stephens liking

And a string of thanks from you lot. I mean, why trip over yourselves to tip your hat to someone who didn't say anything more than can the lesser lights contribution on the average atheist discussion forum. You star struck or something?


Tragic.

Hit close to home?

Shrap

colossus-x wrote: »

Absolutely sick and tired of seeing Stephen Fry stuck in absolutely everything. I don't find him in the slightest bit funny and I'm agape when I see people falling all over him. The noxious QI think was on today when I was channel hoping and I can't bear that kind of show either. I really wish he would just disappear and never show up at anything ever again. What does he do ? Well frankly he's just a peculiarity and not good for much. I also find it rather embarrassing that anyone in Ireland should acknowledge that we even know who the hell he is - because really he's just a nobody. I was also embarrassed at Panti falling all over him at the TV awards show. I bet if he didn't' have a crocked face he'd never have become famous at all. And that thing about him being celibate - as if he had a choice in the matter. Jezus. I mush preferred the other guy, whats his name, Woster ?

Gosh, that's charming :pac: Stephen Fry is awesome. That is all.

And I'm Irish, in Ireland and watch QI religiously. *cough* Atheistically, even. Still though, I'm sure there are much less "peculiar" people in great abundance on the telly box to suit your needs, but us lovers of "peculiar" people pay our TV license too, so balls to your rant that weirdly makes a thing out of his celibacy.

I'd love to meet the man. And Alan Davies - jaysus, I'd pick him up, bring him home and feed him so many ham sangwiches and cake, he'd be unable to leave

Shrap

antiskeptic wrote: »

You star struck or something?

Yes, totally am. He is a god.

Tragic.

Ha, yes, but at least he's real.

SpaceTime

Well, just shows you at almost 80 years old Gay Byrne can get 1.4m+ hits on YouTube in a day!

They're both class acts.

stevejazzx

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand an average Joe who hasn't given much time to the subject shooting from the hip like that but for a man who supposedly is in a position to think for himself this is a ludicrously simplistic view. I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

No - you've completely missed a whole era.
There was a time for contemplation of such foolishness, our attempt to grasp the logic or meaning of so much pain and suffering in the world by applying religious principles.
Theologians spouted nonsense; God is testing us, he works in mysterious ways and we have free will.
For a long time these explanations just about got religious thinking over the line with the general masses but time was ticking.
Inevitably science made further discoveries into the intricate and hidden meanings of our planet and before long it became apparent that many things, like insects that burrow outwards from behind a child's eyeball were not the absurdly complex workings of a divine creator but rather the result of planetary free for all gradually ordered by the ability of organisms to survive and reproduce. Similarly complex and random processes would bolster this impression until such a point that we either consider that a psychopathic creator rules all or that we live on a wild planet at the mercy of its own set rules.
Perhaps the origins of the universe are still up for some debate but the debate regarding benevolent deities which look on and watch our every action was lost generations ago - hence Fry's immediate recourse to dry logic.
No doubt Fry was influenced by Hitchens in this regard also. If you listen this BBC debate you encounter a slightly more reserved Fry. Hitchens however is his usual self and it appears to have somewhat spurred Fry on.
It was never in doubt from any of Hitchens opponents that he was unfamiliar with the more intricate arguments of Christian theology - to claim it of Fry, as you have done in the above quote, is equally absurd. Modern atheists simply have no time for that kind of antiquated BS.

shruikan2553

10000maniacs wrote: »

While I agree about his sentiment, Fry should also speak out against Mohammed. Go on Fry. Do it.
He values his head being still attached to his body too much I think.

The Muslim, Jewish and Christian god is the same guy...

Hotblack Desiato

Shrap wrote: »

I'd love to meet the man. And Alan Davies - jaysus, I'd pick him up, bring him home and feed him so many ham sangwiches and cake, he'd be unable to leave

Just don't let things get out of hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=85114404&feature=player_detailpage&x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=E55ni_xc4ww#t=91

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Just don't let things get out of hand.

Oh they could get worse than that. Perhaps the OH will restrain me, although he is a big fan as well. Alan Davies better not step inside the parish

Amirani

antiskeptic wrote: »

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all. With a chief aim being to make it all sweet and rosy and comfortable - to Stephens liking.

If he's omnipotent, and he created the universe, then yes, he could "do just anything at all". He knowingly created suffering.

porsche959

Saying that you prefer the Greek gods to the Christian one is akin to screaming “I did classics at school!” and is really just showing off. It’s also morally corrupt, because the Greek gods rather liked raping and murdering – and were often immune to human pleas for compassion. Moreover, Fry’s central point, that a God who is all-powerful yet does nothing about suffering must be cruel, is – sigh – rather passé.

Not only has theology dedicated itself for thousands of years to unpicking that problem but the answer to it is there in the very Bible itself. Since Adam and Eve ate the apple, we’ve been living in a fallen world full of pain. God granted us free will not only to do bad things but also good things – like finding a cure for cancer or caring for those dying from it.
Terrible things happen because of a) random acts of nature, b) the intervention of the Devil or c) the corruption of man. I’m not saying anyone has to believe what I write, but please don’t act like it’s never been said before or that the answer to Fry’s facile question doesn’t exist. Dear Stephen imagines that he’s the first person in history to wonder why folks suffer. He’s not. He is, however, strangely upset about something that he doesn't even believe in. Who gets angry about an imaginary conversation?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html

porsche959

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can understand an average Joe who hasn't given much time to the subject shooting from the hip like that but for a man who supposedly is in a position to think for himself this is a ludicrously simplistic view. I mean, it looks as if he hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with even the most basic of arguments for why the world is the way it is. And so, he doesn't actually respond to them.

Rather..

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all. With a chief aim being to make it all sweet and rosy and comfortable - to Stephens liking

And a string of thanks from you lot. I mean, why trip over yourselves to tip your hat to someone who didn't say anything more than can the lesser lights contribution on the average atheist discussion forum. You star struck or something?


Tragic.

I am an atheist and I'm guessing from your post above you are not but I must agree the sycophancy with which every utterance of people like Fry and, to a lesser extent Dawkins is greeted by the 'freethinking' community is indeed really quite embarassing.

shruikan2553

porsche959 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11381529/Richard-Dawkins-wants-to-fight-Islamism-with-erotica.-Celebrity-atheism-has-lost-it.html

Who cares anymore? Tim seems to care quite a bit with his moaning about it. Im hoping he isnt actually a professional journalist and it was just bring your child to work day.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

As Fry points out, there's a thing called "theodicy", the attempted squaring of the existence of an undeniably cruel world, with the circle of an infinitely beneficent deity.

The undeniably cruel world is the product of judgement. That much appears in the Bible. I'm not sure the concept "infinitely beneficent" (in the sense: "no matter what happens, I'll be beneficent") makes an appearance.

Is this not just a variation on the notion that 'omnipotent' means that God need be capable of doing anything, even squaring circles?

Fry might have a problem with judgement

Anyhow, would you like to explain how the two can be reconciled? Perhaps you will succeed where generations of the world's most profound religious thinkers have failed!

Beneficent within the bounds set by other aspects of his character. Not sentimentally beneficent, for example.

shruikan2553

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is this not just a variation on the notion that 'omnipotent' means that God need be capable of doing anything, even squaring circles?

He cant be that powerful if he cant.

The being can create an entire universe and create the rules and make changes but thats his limit?

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

He cant be that powerful if he cant.

Can't what? Act contrary to his own character. I'm not sure how that impinges on his power

shruikan2553

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can't what? Act contrary to his own character. I'm not sure how that impinges on his power

He is God, he should be able to do anything. He can create a universe, manipulate it.

If he cant what is the limit of his power?

challengemaster

antiskeptic wrote: »

He really think God is some kind of magic wand kind of God, where omnipotence means you can do just anything at all.

Just so we're clear on this, "God":

• Is capable of being not 1 but 3 omnipotent beings all at the same time
• Made the earth (in 6 days) and populated it, and apparently heaven
• Is capable of curing: blindness, leprosy, death, etc.
• Can raise people from the dead at will
• Can turn water to wine
• Can walk on water
• Can make infinite amounts of food at will
• Can make talking animals
• Can part a sea
• Can flood the entire earth at will
• Can turn inanimate objects into a snake
• Can punish sin at will (see plagues of egypt, etc)

But no, you must be right. There must be sensible limits to these magic wand capabilities.

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

He is God, he should be able to do anything. He can create a universe, manipulate it.

He is as he is (and is powerful enough to create and manipulate a universe). There is no higher authority to say what should be the case (that isn't already).

Which is not to say you can't create a god in your own image.

Anyway, the point isn't what you reckon should or shouldn't be the case. The point is God not acting contrary to his own character permits him to be benevolent and Judge.

If he cant what is the limit of his power?

I'm not sure not being able to act contrary to character is lacking in power. Is it more powerful to be able to make square circles than not be able to?

shruikan2553

challengemaster wrote: »

Just so we're clear on this, "God":

• Is capable of being not 1 but 3 omnipotent beings all at the same time
• Made the earth (in 6 days) and populated it, and apparently heaven
• Is capable of curing: blindness, leprosy, death, etc.
• Can raise people from the dead at will
• Can turn water to wine
• Can walk on water
• Can make infinite amounts of food at will
• Can make talking animals
• Can part a sea
• Can flood the entire earth at will
• Can turn inanimate objects into a snake
• Can punish sin at will (see plagues of egypt, etc)

But no, you must be right. There must be sensible limits to these magic wand capabilities.

I knew he was a bit weak from letting Lucy walk all over him but I'm not seeing much reason to worship him.

Worship our god! He can do stuff like disapprove of your sexual activities.

antiskeptic

challengemaster wrote: »

Just so we're clear on this, "God":

• Is capable of being not 1 but 3 omnipotent beings all at the same time
• Made the earth (in 6 days) and populated it, and apparently heaven
• Is capable of curing: blindness, leprosy, death, etc.
• Can raise people from the dead at will
• Can turn water to wine
• Can walk on water
• Can make infinite amounts of food at will
• Can make talking animals
• Can part a sea
• Can flood the entire earth at will
• Can turn inanimate objects into a snake
• Can punish sin at will (see plagues of egypt, etc)

But no, you must be right. There must be sensible limits to these magic wand capabilities.

Control over the physical world could be a mere trifle in the scheme of things. Acting contrary to own character might just be impossible.

shruikan2553

antiskeptic wrote: »

He is as he is (and is powerful enough to create and manipulate a universe). There is no higher authority to say what should be the case (that isn't already).

Which is not to say you can't create a god in your own image.

Anyway, the point isn't what you reckon should or shouldn't be the case. The point is God not acting contrary to his own character permits him to be benevolent and Judge.





I'm not sure not being able to act contrary to character is lacking in power. Is it more powerful to be able to make square circles than not be able to?

What is his own character? He's a bit bipolar at times. One minute everything is fine, you eat an apple and he throws you out, after awhile he doesnt like things so factory resets and tries again but then decides to let us off with the whole fruit thing if we worship his son who is also him.

antiskeptic

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Worship our god! He can do stuff like disapprove of your sexual activities.

Which was my original point: this is the kind of grade school level viewpoint that Stephen Fry would appear to be shielding himself with.

Sorry, but the likes of this proliferates..