EPTBelief in an omnipotent pointless? - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Schnake
Germany2819 Posts
| ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
On November 05 2004 03:05 Element)FrEaK wrote: 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. What kind of education you have? | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
But I also have drugs in my system and its 3:20 am, so I could be mixing up thoughts and not expressing myself properly :D | ||
|
SurG
Russian Federation798 Posts
On November 05 2004 03:19 Element)FrEaK wrote: An extremely good one. But I also have drugs in my system and its 3:20 am, so I could be mixing up thoughts and not expressing myself properly :D That's not an answer. | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
I'm also past highschool, but I'm still allowed to attend courses there for more eligibility to universities when I choose to go. I'm still young yet. | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
There are a fair number of people, who deny that reason, mathematics and science are the fundament of truth. In fact, the popular belief in reason has only existed since the ~18th century, and seem to today dominate the modern way of thinking. I don't have time to go over all the counterarguments (for one thing, the eternal argument between rationalism and empiricism will never be resolved). All I will say that from a historical and non-modern perspective, faith in the omnipotence of the number is in itself a sort of faith. Numbers are every bit as abstract a concept as morality. They for example, do not manifest themselves in the material world. They only manifest as ideas uniting broader realities. There is an amusing Socratic dialogue by Augustine on this subject that I will post for your amusement  A: Come! Listen and tell me whether we may find anything that all reasoning men see with their reason and mind in common with all others; while what is seen is present in all and, unlike food or drink, is not transformed into some use by those to whom it is present, instead remaining uncorrupted and complete whether or not men discern it. Perhaps you think that nothing like this exists? E: On the contrary, I see many such things exist. One of which is quite enough to mention: the order and the truth of the number are present to all who think. Everyone who calculates tries to understand the truth of the number with his own reason and understanding. Some can do this rather easily; others have more difficulty. Yet the truth of number offers itself to all alike who are able to grasp it. When a man understands it, it is not changed into a kind of nourishment for him, when he fails to grasp it, the truth of number does not disappear; rather, it remains true and permanent, while man's failure to grasp it is commensurate with the extent of his error. A: Correct! I see that you are not inexperienced in this, and have quickly found your answer. If someone were to say to you that numbers were impressed upon our spirit not as a result of their own nature, but as a result of those objects we experience with the bodily senses, what answer would you make? Or do you agree with this? E: No, I do not. Even if I did perceive numbers with the bodily sense, I would not be able to perceive with the bodily senses the meaning of division and addition. It is with the light of the mind that I would prove wrong the man who makes an error in addition or subtraction. Whatever I may experience with my bodily senses, such as this air and earth and whatever coporeal matter they contain, I cannot know how long it will endure. But seven and three are ten, not only now, but forever. THere has never been a time when seven and three were not ten, nor will there ever be a time when they are not ten. Therefore, I have said that the truth of number is incorruptable and common to all who think. A: I do not disagree with your answer, for you have spoken truly and clearly. But you will easily see that numbers themselves are not drawn from the bodily senses, if you realize how any number you please multiplied by one is that number. Anyone who really thinks about the number one realizes that he cannot perceive it through the bodily senses, for whatever we experience through a sense is proven to be many, not one. This follows because it is a body and is therefore infinitely divisible. But I need not concentrate upon each small and indistinct part; however small such a bodily part may be, it has a right, left, upper and lower side, or a farther and nearer side, or ends and a middle. These, we admit, must be in a body, I do not doubt that I will not find it. I know what I am seeking there and what I shall not find there. I know that I cannot find one, or rather that it does not exist in a body at all. How do I know that a body is not one? If I did not know what one is, I could not count the many parts of the body. Moreover, however I may know one, I do not know it through the bodily senses, because through the bodily senses I know nothing except a body which, we have proven, is not really and simply one. Furthermore, if we have not perceived one through a sense of the body, we have not perceived by a sense any number of those numbers which we discern only through the understanding. There exists no number which does not get its name from the number of times it contains one. The perception of one does not occur through any bodily sense...." St. Augustine, being a Platonist, vouches for the number. However, its sufficient to demonstrate that number itself is an personal creation, they are not caused by man's relationship with the external world, but rather are used by man to explain it. The problem then exists in whether numbers can produce a true depiction of the world. Of the material world, the evolution of the scientific method has produced the predominance of the number until the 20's. Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle stipulated that numbers only describe general situations, they are incapable of defining individual actions on subatomic levels. The extension of mathematics to phyiscal realities also assumes a cause-effect relationship, certain philosophers also debate whether cause and effect exist at all. The theory of numbers when extended beyond physical reality causes even more problems, in most endeavours of truth, it cannot apply. Pascal said that "blind faith isn't really blind" (in addition to his famous addage "The heart has reasons which reason does not know") Why believe in beauty, morality, etc when they are unresolved by numerical systems? I think that this speaks for a truth beyond rational abstractions that people experience throughout their lives. | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28727 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Basically what you say is, god can't create what's not part of himself. But guess what. I can bake a nice and sweet cake with a beautiful sugar crust. That doesn't mean I myself have a sugar crust. In the same way, HE can comprehend the concept of heavyness and limitations, but it is a limitation that does not apply to HIM. That doesn't resemble what I said at all. There difference is that when you bake a cake, you are not MAKING it. It follows the generaly rulesthat we have discovered to be true. You are putting ingredients together and then have them have a chemical reaction to make the cake. That is not the same as creation. God cannot creature that which he does not understand. You cannot understand that which you cannot experience. If god is not bound by the rules he created, how does he understand the rules he created if he does not know them? You cannot simply create through simple design. It is ludicrous to claim that one could simply snap his fingers and make laws of a universe without ever knowing them. To be not of your creation is to not create but to observe. By that, god created nothing, he would be a grand observer and ruler of life and afterlife, perhaps creater of soul and spirit, but not creater of the laws of the universe. One cannot create that which he is not bound by. Also, another thing I am curious on. Why do christians believe there must be a beginning and an end to the universe, but not to god? Could the universe itself not be infinite? Why is that so undeniably impossible? | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
| ||
|
Mark
United States77 Posts
Since Surg, Koehli, and MoltkeWarding have already busted you guys in every conceivable level (don't think so? re-read what they said), I won't restate their points, just add a little something. First of all, Element, you are wrong. You say: On November 05 2004 03:58 Element)FrEaK wrote: God cannot creature that which he does not understand. You cannot understand that which you cannot experience. If god is not bound by the rules he created, how does he understand the rules he created if he does not know them? You cannot simply create through simple design. It is ludicrous to claim that one could simply snap his fingers and make laws of a universe without ever knowing them. To be not of your creation is to not create but to observe. By that, god created nothing, he would be a grand observer and ruler of life and afterlife, perhaps creater of soul and spirit, but not creater of the laws of the universe. One cannot create that which he is not bound by. Where did you get this from? Did you work it out in your own mind? Good job. You say, "To be not of your creation is to not create but to observe." Have you ever created anything? NO. You've formulated things with pre-existing material, but you've never actually created anything. Not even your thoughts are creations, just formulations. No experiment you can do (or conceive) will ever reveal to you the creation process and all its traits. That is because this universe (that God created) is a fixed one. Matter and energy are never lost, they just change forms. New matter and energy are never created, just gained from somewhere else. Therefore, you cannot claim to make assumptions on the creation process. You know nothing about it. Omniscience and omnipotence are not the only attributes of God. One in particular that pertains to this argument (and that everyone else has been pointing out) is His Transcendence. That means that He is above His creation. Yes, He understands everything in it, but in no way is He limited by it. If He is God, then He created the very concept of 'reason.' If He is God, then He created the very concept of an 'idea.' These things He made as a system for us to function in and in no way is He limited by them. That is why the "rock he can't lift" idea is ludicrous. For all we know, we are just 'thoughts' swirling around in God's head. Are you subject to the physics of your thoughts? No. Being omnipotent means having no limitations. In closing, I present to you an argument to reason God's existence. Trust me, if you think it through deeply enough, it makes sense. Anselm's Definition of God: "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived." ('Prosolgian' by Anselm) How does this sentence prove God's existence? Easily. If God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," then He must be the greatest possible being. And what must the greatest possible being be like? For starters, He must possess all of the best possible attributes -- He must be the most powerful, most loving, most just, most kind, and most beautiful being we could ever imagine. And all desireable qualities must be found in the greatest possible being -- and to the fullest measure. What about existence? Must our greatest possible being necessarily exist? Anselm thought this was obviously true, for a most powerful and most loving being who was only the product of our imagination would not yet be the greatest possible being, but would come in second to a being who was most powerful and most loving and who also DOES exist. By definition, God must exist. If God is the being of which "nothing greater can be conceived", then He must exist. If you deny that God exists, all that means is that you ae not yet talking about God, for you are not speaking about the greatest possible being. With this in mind, Anselm wondered what kind of person would utter the statement, "God does not exist." Unpacked, this statement negates itself, for it declares that God, which as the greatest possible being must exist, does not exist. What type of person contradicts himself in a single sentence? Someone who is not yet thinking clearly. Ansel observed that this must be what Psalm 14:1 means when it states that "the person who says in his heart, 'there is no God,'" is a fool. This person must be a fool because he can't deny God's existence without contradicting itself. [all excerpted from Wittmer's "Heaven is a place on earth."] Weird? Yes. But it makes sense, and it is a staying argument that philosophers and theologians have battled over for centuries. Many of them agree that this argument works. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
It is still potentially infinite. | ||
| ||
