• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 20:20
CEST 02:20
KST 09:20
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team TLMC #5 - Finalists & Open Tournaments0[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt2: Turbulence10Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon9[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12
Community News
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes53BSL 2025 Warsaw LAN + Legends Showmatch0Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups4WardiTV TL Team Map Contest #5 Tournaments1SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia8
StarCraft 2
General
StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Weekly Cups (Sept 8-14): herO & MaxPax split cups Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy SpeCial on The Tasteless Podcast
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 491 Night Drive Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around
Brood War
General
ASL20 General Discussion Soulkey on ASL S20 BW General Discussion ASL TICKET LIVE help! :D NaDa's Body
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group C [ASL20] Ro16 Group D Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Borderlands 3 Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread UK Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
i'm really bored guys
Peanutsc
I <=> 9
KrillinFromwales
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1990 users

Belief in an omnipotent pointless? - Page 2

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 15 16 17 Next All
baal
Profile Joined March 2003
10541 Posts
Last Edited: 2004-11-04 17:09:43
November 04 2004 17:06 GMT
#21
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.
Im back, in pog form!
LaptopLegacy
Profile Joined October 2002
Netherlands602 Posts
November 04 2004 17:09 GMT
#22
I agree
Luctor et Emergo
SurG
Profile Joined June 2003
Russian Federation798 Posts
November 04 2004 17:12 GMT
#23
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
Profile Joined June 2003
Russian Federation798 Posts
Last Edited: 2004-11-04 17:19:49
November 04 2004 17:18 GMT
#24
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
Profile Joined November 2003
5195 Posts
Last Edited: 2004-11-04 17:23:47
November 04 2004 17:21 GMT
#25
The doctrine of predestination is only a presbytarian notion. The Catholic church believes in the sacraments, and many other churches are in the middle. The theory of predestination is actually different from your reasoning however.

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]
Profile Joined October 2002
2373 Posts
November 04 2004 17:28 GMT
#26
On November 05 2004 02:18 SurG wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


just because you say it is incomprehensible does not make it so.
koehli
Profile Joined January 2004
Germany350 Posts
November 04 2004 17:33 GMT
#27
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.
You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
FrEaK[S.sIR]
Profile Joined October 2002
2373 Posts
November 04 2004 17:42 GMT
#28
Koehli, you just support most of what we say.

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
Profile Blog Joined September 2002
Finland4567 Posts
November 04 2004 17:46 GMT
#29
Freak you can be very scary sometimes.
Not saying you are wrong and the other are right :D
Dump of assembler code from 0xffffffec to 0x64: End of assembler dump.
Famouzze
Profile Joined June 2004
971 Posts
November 04 2004 17:46 GMT
#30
On November 05 2004 02:12 SurG wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


"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
Profile Joined June 2004
971 Posts
November 04 2004 17:47 GMT
#31
On November 05 2004 02:33 koehli wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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
Profile Joined June 2003
Russian Federation798 Posts
November 04 2004 17:48 GMT
#32
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
Profile Joined March 2003
Djibouti1432 Posts
November 04 2004 17:53 GMT
#33
science weeps reading this thread
i just laugh
you kids are so funny
why did the baby cross the road? because it was stapled to the chicken!
FrEaK[S.sIR]
Profile Joined October 2002
2373 Posts
November 04 2004 17:57 GMT
#34
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
Profile Joined March 2003
Djibouti1432 Posts
November 04 2004 18:00 GMT
#35
hey what the hell are you doing up so late, get some sleep damnit
why did the baby cross the road? because it was stapled to the chicken!
FrEaK[S.sIR]
Profile Joined October 2002
2373 Posts
November 04 2004 18:01 GMT
#36
On November 05 2004 02:48 SurG wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.


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
Profile Joined November 2003
5195 Posts
Last Edited: 2004-11-04 18:03:04
November 04 2004 18:01 GMT
#37
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.
FrEaK[S.sIR]
Profile Joined October 2002
2373 Posts
November 04 2004 18:02 GMT
#38
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
Profile Joined March 2003
Djibouti1432 Posts
November 04 2004 18:04 GMT
#39
On November 05 2004 03:02 Element)FrEaK wrote:
Show nested quote +
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


well shit
why did the baby cross the road? because it was stapled to the chicken!
FrEaK[S.sIR]
Profile Joined October 2002
2373 Posts
November 04 2004 18:05 GMT
#40
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.
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 15 16 17 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 9h 41m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
SteadfastSC 137
SpeCial 128
RuFF_SC2 59
WinterStarcraft54
CosmosSc2 54
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 12163
Artosis 722
Shuttle 425
Aegong 87
Sexy 49
Vindicta 7
Dota 2
monkeys_forever925
NeuroSwarm210
League of Legends
JimRising 1005
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K498
PGG 1
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King55
Other Games
summit1g7361
shahzam941
C9.Mang0223
Trikslyr51
ViBE43
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta33
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 11
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4945
Other Games
• Scarra1376
• imaqtpie1254
• Shiphtur231
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
9h 41m
Zoun vs Classic
Map Test Tournament
10h 41m
Korean StarCraft League
1d 2h
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
1d 7h
RSL Revival
1d 9h
Reynor vs Cure
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Online Event
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
Monday Night Weeklies
3 days
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
LiuLi Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-09-10
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL World Championship of Poland 2025
IPSL Winter 2025-26
BSL Season 21
SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL 21 Team A
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
EC S1
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.