EPTU respond from a human viewpoint
apples and oranges ok?
Belief in an omnipotent pointless? - Page 14
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
U respond from a human viewpoint apples and oranges ok? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
I'll respond when I wake up tommorrow. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
| ||
|
LaptopLegacy
Netherlands602 Posts
I am familiar with the 'god is atemporal' line of reasoning. I think it doesn't hold water though, because it removes the ability for god to act. Actions are temporal because they require change. You need a state of affairs before the action and a soa after it and they cannot be the same. So positing that god is 'above' our time makes him unable to create our universe. And makes him unable to interact with his creation or communicate with us or basically do anything except 'being omniscient'. Another pointless philosophical god i'm not going to believe in. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
And I don't understand why a lack of time would remove the ability of god to act(thought the argument really will go nowhere) However my main point was still that who the hell are you guys to say that predisposed knowledge destroys free will? Despite the "logic" of it, it really is an assumption. No one here can explain the "why" of it, only what their assumption is based upon. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Some people still believe the earth is flat no matter what why you give them. | ||
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
But the whole problem of this debate is that we try to describe god from a human perspective, wich is a very limited one. We want god to have human traits like benevolence and a capacity for judgment, but we have no evidence to make a single statement about what god looks like. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
We aren't putting a human perspective to god, but to omnipotence | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
| ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
On November 06 2004 12:17 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Um, I'm arguing the second half, I agree with the first half o.O I'm telling you that every human attempt to define the concept of god, will be something contrived and illogical. So if you're going to argue about the possibility of gods attributes being true or not, you're going to end up debunking it. It's only usefulness is in the fact that it directly contradicts Christian dogmas. | ||
|
[vital]Myth
United States588 Posts
On November 06 2004 09:09 LaptopLegacy wrote: travis, I am familiar with the 'god is atemporal' line of reasoning. I think it doesn't hold water though, because it removes the ability for god to act. Actions are temporal because they require change. You need a state of affairs before the action and a soa after it and they cannot be the same. So positing that god is 'above' our time makes him unable to create our universe. And makes him unable to interact with his creation or communicate with us or basically do anything except 'being omniscient'. Another pointless philosophical god i'm not going to believe in. To travis: time is a dimension. Imagine a two-dimensional being trying to act in the third Cartesian dimension. It can't happen, because it doesn't posess that dimension. Thus, if God does not have time, he cannot act in time. However, while this concept is alright and your reasoning can be correct, a God that does not act in time is a blatant contradiction to the Christian God, so, by your reasoning, the Christian concept of God is invalid. | ||
|
baal
10541 Posts
 , you can transform everyone in sophists with just a simple statement lol.The only explanation is that God is a fucking son of a bitch : ) | ||
|
ahk-gosu
Korea (South)2099 Posts
if you must question your faith with "facts" and "logic" you have no faith therefore you dont believe in god. its like saying do i love my wife? if you have to think about it you probably dont. and as for knowing everything, it is impossible. anyone can say anything at any given time. what is one omnipotent meets another omnipotent? will he know what the other one is going to say? but the other one will know what the other one knows so he wont say it. therefore it is impossible to know what someone is going to say. except god :D. dam people didnt you watch the matrix. lol | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Myth, time is NOT a dimension. That is some bullshit they teach in middle school. They for whatever reason teach that the "4th dimension" is time. Have you not heard of a hypercube? A 3 dimension cube with a line perpendicular to all its sides. Ya, its a 4 Dimensional cube. TIME IS NOT A DIMENSION | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 06 2004 12:33 badteeth wrote: I'm telling you that every human attempt to define the concept of god, will be something contrived and illogical. So if you're going to argue about the possibility of gods attributes being true or not, you're going to end up debunking it. It's only usefulness is in the fact that it directly contradicts Christian dogmas. But we're not trying to define the concept of god. We are having a philosiphical discussion on the impossibility to have both an omnipotent being and free will. Its a logical arguement, not a factual one =[ | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 06 2004 13:15 ahk-gosu wrote: belief in god is all faith if you must question your faith with "facts" and "logic" you have no faith therefore you dont believe in god. its like saying do i love my wife? if you have to think about it you probably dont. and as for knowing everything, it is impossible. anyone can say anything at any given time. what is one omnipotent meets another omnipotent? will he know what the other one is going to say? but the other one will know what the other one knows so he wont say it. therefore it is impossible to know what someone is going to say. except god :D. dam people didnt you watch the matrix. lol An omnipotent object cannot have another, you cannot have 1 infinite object, what makes you think you can have 2? And to have true foresight would be to know exactly what will happen, regardless of what choice the person considers, you know the outcome. It is not a matter of anybody doing anything at a given time, it is knowing that they are going to do that and nothing else. I don't see why foresight is so hard for some people to grasp =[ | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On November 06 2004 11:43 badteeth wrote: Free will is the ability to choose without outside influences affecting the decision. Knowledge about the outcome of a decision is an outside influence, hence omniscience doesn't mingle well with free will. But the whole problem of this debate is that we try to describe god from a human perspective, wich is a very limited one. We want god to have human traits like benevolence and a capacity for judgment, but we have no evidence to make a single statement about what god looks like. this is exactly what i am saying.. people are trying to oversimplify something they obviously don't understand enough to make it that simple and how the hell can you say awareness is an outside influence when has your knowledge ever affected the outside world without you actually acting? | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
You seem to think this to be wrong. Why say you that? | ||
|
badteeth
Netherlands1416 Posts
What i'm saying is that it's inherently illogical to discuss these things. | ||
| ||
