| Forum Index > Closed |
|
baal
10708 Posts
we could be interpreting the holy book 180 degrees backwards. They are! LOL, not because its out of their comprehension, but because OMFG they are stupid as fuck. Bible says love everyone like you love yourself, still they hunt fags down like a plague. | ||
|
LaptopLegacy
Netherlands602 Posts
 | ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
On November 05 2004 01:51 baal wrote: This is discussion is getting stupid, why saying obvious things in fancy words. Even the most stupid thing as the rock one proves omnipotence is impossible. The roots of this discussion are not stupid, they are quite fascinating. While the rock argument is quite amuzing one, it doesn't really prove anything. It's a very simple trick - creating a self-referring statement that contradicts itself. The simplest would be "This statement is not true". It is impossible to decide, whether this statement true or not true - it doesn't really lead to anything. While you might find it meaningless, the question of "decidability" is quite fundamental. There used to be a sort of a movement in mathematics, that aimed to create a universal formal system, that would have the ability to provide formal logical proof whether ANY given statement is true or false (therefore prove everything that you are able to formulate). What Godel did was to show that for any such system you can construct a statement, which will be undecidable (in other words, you will never be able to determine, whether it's true or false within this system). It is quite fundamental law of nature and logic. No wonder that termin like "omnipotence" is just another illustration of it. | ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
On November 05 2004 02:04 LaptopLegacy wrote: Haha, if god is incomprehensible then there's no reason to believe in him. You fail to recognize fundamental thing here, which is way broader than any particular religion. You are right, there is no REASON TO BELIEVE in something incomprehensible. However, there is no REASON NOT TO BELIEVE in something incomprehensible. You just can't apply reasons to incomprehensible thing. Also, you HAVE to acknowledge that there are things in the universe that are incomprehensible to you. The fact you can't comprehend it doesn't mean they don't exist. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Because of original sin, Adam and Eve cursed man to sin (the transmission of original sin to offspring is a complicated theological argument of its own tho). When God grants mercy, it creates Good in the world. The Good are rescued by their faith, but are not themselves the cause of their faith. The cause of their faith is God, whose mercy was freely bestowed on man. I'll post some exerpts to make this more clear. the religious explaination of "Freedom" by St. Paul Letter of Paul to the Romans: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselfves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as intruments ot righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom your obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were comitted, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater inquiry, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification." "When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in the Christ Jesus our Lord" The resounding issue of whether grace is affected by earthly actions was one of the fundamental religious disputes of the reformation. St. Paul on predestination: "We know that everything works for god works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order t hat he might be the first vorn among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." However: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not on man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy." "You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? for who can resist his will?" But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder "Why have you made me thus?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? What is God, desiring to show is wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the bessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory..." "As Issah predicted, "If the Lord of hosts had not left us children, we would have fared like Sodom and have been made like Gomorrah. What shall we say then? The gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued righteousness based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works" Therefore there does seem to exist a repudiation of Catholicism in Paul's words. St Augustine sums this up in fewer words: In Enchiridion: "Predestination to eternal life is wholly of God's free grace. And moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when he does this, He does it of mercy; when he does it not, it is of justice that He does it not..." | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 02:18 SurG wrote: You fail to recognize fundamental thing here, which is way broader than any particular religion. You are right, there is no REASON TO BELIEVE in something incomprehensible. However, there is no REASON NOT TO BELIEVE in something incomprehensible. You just can't apply reasons to incomprehensible thing. Also, you HAVE to acknowledge that there are things in the universe that are incomprehensible to you. The fact you can't comprehend it doesn't mean they don't exist. just because you say it is incomprehensible does not make it so. | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
On November 05 2004 01:46 baal wrote: Can god make a waffle so sweet that he cannot resist it? Sweetness of waffles as well as heavyness of rocks are human concepts not meaningful to a omnipotent being. For HIM, rocks possess no such quality as "heavyness", HE doesn't have to strain to lift a rock. Actually HE doesn't lift the rock at all, because it is exactly where HE wants it to be. All your funky paradoxa prove is that somebody with a human mind cannot be omnipotent. Which was not in question. And when god knows that he is gonna do something it is because he knows he will want to do it. That's because he is a god and omnipotent. Things happen as HE designs them. So no paradoxon in that combination either. A paradoxon would be, if somebody claimed that there was more than one omnipotent being. But all religions that claim omnipotence for there god are monotheisms. So no paradoxon here either. On to Epicurus judging of god as malevolent for permitting evil things. HE has chosen in his infinite wisdom to give a free will to us humans. So we are free to fuck up from time to time. Epicurus now judges that a free will is not worth the hassle and all the evil deeds done. I personally disagree and think that after all it is worth it. We are not automata following a strict program. God decided that LIVING a life is more valuable than being a little wheel in a machine and outdoes the harm of "evil". In any case, if we think it is worth it or not doesn't matter. We can judge and criticise George.W.Bush in his decisions, because his mind is as limited or maybe even more limited than ours. But we are neither omnipotent nor omniscient so second guessing a omnipotent and omniscient being is pointless. I have yet to the the "Gottesbeweis" that really proves anything. You can try your logical "skillz" as much as you want on that matter without any results. In the end it boils down to faith. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Simply stating that an omnipotent being does not possess the mind, qualities or virtues of a physical being does not make it true. After all, in order to create you must have these qualities, mind and virtues, else they would never exist to you. Your denying all things required for creation with your intrepretation. So by your logic god exists, but could not create us. Congrats. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4640 Posts
Not saying you are wrong and the other are right :D | ||
|
Famouzze
971 Posts
On November 05 2004 02:12 SurG wrote: The roots of this discussion are not stupid, they are quite fascinating. While the rock argument is quite amuzing one, it doesn't really prove anything. It's a very simple trick - creating a self-referring statement that contradicts itself. The simplest would be "This statement is not true". It is impossible to decide, whether this statement true or not true - it doesn't really lead to anything. While you might find it meaningless, the question of "decidability" is quite fundamental. There used to be a sort of a movement in mathematics, that aimed to create a universal formal system, that would have the ability to provide formal logical proof whether ANY given statement is true or false (therefore prove everything that you are able to formulate). What Godel did was to show that for any such system you can construct a statement, which will be undecidable (in other words, you will never be able to determine, whether it's true or false within this system). It is quite fundamental law of nature and logic. No wonder that termin like "omnipotence" is just another illustration of it. "Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Either way he's not omnipotent" <--this is not a self referential statement that contradicts itself. The contradiction only lies in the idea of omnipotence - it's a simple example that proves 100% for certain the idea of an omnipotent being is impossible. If you were omnipotent you would be able to do things that exclude you doing other things, while still being able to do the things necessarily excluded by the intial things  . Thus omnipotence is a ridiculous idea. Same with omniscience as the original post explains. | ||
|
Famouzze
971 Posts
On November 05 2004 02:33 koehli wrote: Sweetness of waffles as well as heavyness of rocks are human concepts not meaningful to a omnipotent being. For HIM, rocks possess no such quality as "heavyness", HE doesn't have to strain to lift a rock. Actually HE doesn't lift the rock at all, because it is exactly where HE wants it to be. All your funky paradoxa prove is that somebody with a human mind cannot be omnipotent. Which was not in question. If he doesn't strain to lift the rock, nor even lift the rock at all, then that's something he can't do, thus he's not omnipotent  . Omnipotent means you can do EVERYTHING. | ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
On November 05 2004 02:28 Element)FrEaK wrote: just because you say it is incomprehensible does not make it so. I'll try to say the same shit 3rd time now. To make object comprehensible, you should firrst define a system in which it can be be described, derived etc. Once you did that you will immediately discover, that there are objects that cannot be described/derived within that system, making them incomprehensible. If you build a system to include that, there will be another object that won't fit into that system and so forth indefinitely. Both people _reasoning_ for existence or non-existence of god, omnipotence or whatsoever simply don't realize that logic is prohibiting them from doing so in the first place. If you fail to understand it, I can't help you. Maybe some books will. | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
i just laugh you kids are so funny | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 02:46 0x64 wrote: Freak you can be very scary sometimes. Not saying you are wrong and the other are right :D Its 3 am, my most imaginitive hour. Even if my imagination is that of a non-sensicle lunatic. | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 02:48 SurG wrote: I'll try to say the same shit 3rd time now. To make object comprehensible, you should firrst define a system in which it can be be described, derived etc. Once you did that you will immediately discover, that there are objects that cannot be described/derived within that system, making them incomprehensible. If you build a system to include that, there will be another object that won't fit into that system and so forth indefinitely. Both people _reasoning_ for existence or non-existence of god, omnipotence or whatsoever simply don't realize that logic is prohibiting them from doing so in the first place. If you fail to understand it, I can't help you. Maybe some books will. Most mathematical systems have something that leaves them out, that doesn't make those objects incomprehensible. That is why we have things like infintecimal calculus and fractal mathematics. We make systems to describe things other systems cannot. It is by combining all these systems that we create an understanding of the existing and non-existing world. To claim something is incomprehensible because any system used to describe it will leave something out is pure idiocy. Why not just claim fractals don't exist and be done with it? How about state movement is impossible? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
St. Aquinas and Descartes, among others, while asserting that faith is divined from God, will also claim that it is defendable by the instrument of reason "against non-believers, etc" However, the basic problem in applying the instrument of reason to religion is a pursuit of dogmatic enlightenment principles: that human knowledge essentially proceeds from rationalism. As I have already suggested in the previous post, the christian doctrine is that faith is not caused by self, but by God. This makes sense on a certain epistomological level, since it is asserting universal truth over multiple "truths" ordained by the reasoning of individuals. I myself have serious doubts about the ability of reason to prove the existance of God. St. Aquinasnot withstanding, people who insist on proof of reason only use reason as their method, their inclinations and purposes have nothing to do with reason. Trying to prove with reason the existance of God is like trying to prove to the blind that the sky is blue. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 03:00 Keanu_Reaver wrote: hey what the hell are you doing up so late, get some sleep damnit I did 7 bowls earlier then took a 4 hour nap | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
On November 05 2004 03:02 Element)FrEaK wrote: I did 7 bowls earlier then took a 4 hour nap well shit | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 03:01 MoltkeWarding wrote: The subject of whether faith can be "proven" by facilities of reason is another one of those unresolved issues :/ St. Aquinas and Descartes, among others, while asserting that faith is divined from God, will also claim that it is defendable by the instrument of reason "against non-believers, etc" However, the basic problem in applying the instrument of reason to religion is a pursuit of dogmatic enlightenment principles: that human knowledge essentially proceeds from rationalism. As I have already suggested in the previous post, the christian doctrine is that faith is not caused by self, but by God. This makes sense on a certain epistomological level, since it is asserting universal truth over multiple "truths" ordained by the reasoning of individuals. I myself have serious doubts about the ability of reason to prove the existance of God. St. Aquinasnot withstanding, people who insist on proof of reason only use reason as their method, their inclinations and purposes have nothing to do with reason. Trying to prove with reason the existance of God is like trying to prove to the blind that the sky is blue. It is the eternal argument between those with reason and those without reason. You can argue god with logic and reasoning. Mathematics would define it as infinite and put it into an equation, though it may not always work. It is the fact that it works so rarely that makes it so hard to argue with reason. It is very difficult to define an object as an infinite with any sort of reason or belief. Faith and non reason is the only way to come to the conclusion that an object is infinite. Why believe is something that is mathematically impossible? Mathematics is the science that defines our world. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
