EPTGod is not defined by what He can or cannot do; He is not defined by omnipotence or a lack thereof.
He is defined by faith -- if you believe in Him, then He is; if you do not, than He ceases to be.
It is that simple.
Belief in an omnipotent pointless? - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Rayzorblade
United States1172 Posts
God is not defined by what He can or cannot do; He is not defined by omnipotence or a lack thereof. He is defined by faith -- if you believe in Him, then He is; if you do not, than He ceases to be. It is that simple. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Which has NOTHING to do with your religion =[ Since when did Christianity having anything to do with Buddhism? o.O | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3992 Posts
For example, would being omnipotent mean you would also be able to terminate yourself? I don't know if God can. And Freak, I am not saying the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time. Tho the earth is still relatively young from the Christian perspective, it is created in Genesis. But the universe may well be infinite. God may even be part of the universe. Free will of course depends on the point of view. Tho God knows everything about us, and can see our future reasoning and development, he does not affect it (much like programming a robot AI and then knowing the robot will turn left at the next corner. You don't affect it, but you know all about the robot so you can predict its action). Humans are a lot more complicated than robot, but since God has infinite calculation power or speed it boils down to the same thing. Freak: "You cannot understand what you cannot experience". What kind of logic step is that? God made the laws of the universe. Who says he doesn't know them? Would the whole concept of God not include an infinite imagination? I cannot experience zero gravity, but i can understand it enough to design hardware for it, for others to use...(just an example). I don't think one can prove if God exists or not. That may actually be good. If ppl were to prove the existance of God (as he is pictured in the bible), would all to read the proof become Christians? I'm afraid the answer is no. (the first part of the bible, dunno the english word for testament, has plenty of examples in it of God showing himself, and still ppl don't believe in him). By now you're probably saying: That's one of them altar boys again. NO, i'm actually not a Christian, however, it is something that very much interests me. Evolution imo is severely flawed (why would there be male and female species for nearly everything, they have much more trouble reproducing, since there are some two-gendered animals as well. Also, where does conciousness come from. Where does the will to survive come from (since even the simplest animals show it)?), and i don't see the point of living my life if it were true, since it would be as pointless as an MMRPG^^. | ||
|
Rayzorblade
United States1172 Posts
Why? It all boils down to what I believe. | ||
|
maleorderbride
United States2916 Posts
It was written about 500 years ago, but answers your question. If you really want an answer, and not just a discussion, then you could try reading it. Its only about 120 pages. It talks about predestination, just reward of the good, and what exactly evil is. | ||
|
rplant
United States1178 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. One good reason NOT TO BELIEVE in something incomprehensible is that it doesn't make any sense! I personally refuse to be a slave to the great reformers of centuries past. Moses and Jesus and Siddartha and Mohammed and Confucius and many other religious leaders that I can't think of off the top of my head were very likely wonderful people, but their moral and philosophical systems are at least somewhat obsolete. They did their part to help socieities around the world, but now some of their teachings in our modern context are doing societies harm. Why must our lives be dictated by the preachings of slave owning men who lived hundreds and hundreds of years ago and were dealing with societies and cultures we cannot even begin to comprehend? How legitimate have mass conversions to any given faith ever been? | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 04:41 aseq wrote: I agree mostly with Surg and koehli. People are being way too scientific with this omnipotent thing. For example, would being omnipotent mean you would also be able to terminate yourself? I don't know if God can. And Freak, I am not saying the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time. Tho the earth is still relatively young from the Christian perspective, it is created in Genesis. But the universe may well be infinite. God may even be part of the universe. Free will of course depends on the point of view. Tho God knows everything about us, and can see our future reasoning and development, he does not affect it (much like programming a robot AI and then knowing the robot will turn left at the next corner. You don't affect it, but you know all about the robot so you can predict its action). Humans are a lot more complicated than robot, but since God has infinite calculation power or speed it boils down to the same thing. Freak: "You cannot understand what you cannot experience". What kind of logic step is that? God made the laws of the universe. Who says he doesn't know them? Would the whole concept of God not include an infinite imagination? I cannot experience zero gravity, but i can understand it enough to design hardware for it, for others to use...(just an example). I don't think one can prove if God exists or not. That may actually be good. If ppl were to prove the existance of God (as he is pictured in the bible), would all to read the proof become Christians? I'm afraid the answer is no. (the first part of the bible, dunno the english word for testament, has plenty of examples in it of God showing himself, and still ppl don't believe in him). By now you're probably saying: That's one of them altar boys again. NO, i'm actually not a Christian, however, it is something that very much interests me. Evolution imo is severely flawed (why would there be male and female species for nearly everything, they have much more trouble reproducing, since there are some two-gendered animals as well. Also, where does conciousness come from. Where does the will to survive come from (since even the simplest animals show it)?), and i don't see the point of living my life if it were true, since it would be as pointless as an MMRPG^^. Most of your questions in the last paragraph are psychology based and will be answered over the next century most likely. And the fact taht you think male and female species of nearly anything flaws evolution shows you know little about evolution. It is because there is a male and a female that evolution can take place. If everything were to reproduce assexual, reproduction would be easier, but you could not adapt. Each offspring would be a clone of its parent. You need 2 partners for adaptation and evolution to occur. That doesn't flaw evolution, that creates evolution. You cannot experience zero gravity because it does not exist. Space simply neutralisizes gravitation forces, it does not null them. If people explain god as a concept and not an object, I'd accept it. But they explain him as an infinite object which is not possible. Objects cannot be infinite. | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
Those who really think god exists, you should watch the episode on God from the program "Bullshit". The episode on creationism is also shitload of fun. Creationists try to make it a science and start their arguments with something like "okay, first we take a supernatural entity...". Needless to say, GG. And Freak, you're right about that free will thing. If god exists, there's no free will. If he doesn't exist, there is a free will. As simple as that. If god doesn't "intervene" but still knows everything that is happening, has happened and is going to happen - how is that free will? If god decides to "know" something else will happen, it will happen - aight? ps. I still believe there's a homonculus inside all peoples heads controlling their actions. There's one inside computer too. I can't fully understand the logistics of those, thus there must be a supernatural entity in control!!!! | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 04:55 rplant wrote: One good reason NOT TO BELIEVE in something incomprehensible is that it doesn't make any sense! I personally refuse to be a slave to the great reformers of centuries past. Moses and Jesus and Siddartha and Mohammed and Confucius and many other religious leaders that I can't think of off the top of my head were very likely wonderful people, but their moral and philosophical systems are at least somewhat obsolete. They did their part to help socieities around the world, but now some of their teachings in our modern context are doing societies harm. Why must our lives be dictated by the preachings of slave owning men who lived hundreds and hundreds of years ago and were dealing with societies and cultures we cannot even begin to comprehend? How legitimate have mass conversions to any given faith ever been? Name Mohhamed, Moses and Jesus makes sense there. Maybe even Confucius to an extent. But Siddharta Gautama's religion is far from obsolete. Siddharta Buddha had no desire to help society, that would be a direct contradiction to a fundamental rule of buddhism. He just taught people his beliefs and let them take it for what they were. Buddhism would never be able to cause a society harm, it is a pacifistic religion. Siddharta Buddha did not own slaves once he rid himself of his royalty, and his religion had nothing to do with society but with a self. Nor has his religion resulted in any bloodshed nor does it practice conversion. Most of those could be applied to Confucius and Lao Tzu, but I believe both of them have had blood spilled in their name in china. Buddhism is the only religion with no blood on its hands, besides a few sects of Paganism and other little known religions. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3992 Posts
How can something outside of your mind cease to exist when you change you mind? This whole individualistic concept is really something of the last 50 years, i bet if you told anyone from the year 1900 about it they would simply call you mad and throw you into jail. I think this whole way of thinking was introduced to avoid personal conflict, and not to have to disagree with people you are around. I am trying to find out which belief is just, and correct, and if i (would) find it, i would not be saying: this is my belief, yours may be different from mine, but still true. I'd go and try to persuade ppl that the truth is true. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 05:00 Keanu_Reaver wrote: the first organisms in the evolutionary process reproduced asexually mr. freak Read deeper into it, you'll find amazing things. Specifically Tom Ray's Tierra project. It explains how that occurs, and why these things build up into what they do. It also explains how things could have began from a single cell given certain circumstances ect. Single celled organisms are also different from multi celled living things, which is what we are discussing. I don't see why you felt the need to bring up single celled organisms =[ | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Cellular reproduction and reproduction of living things are completely different in both science and structure. Why are you even arguing that? And the first organisms WERE SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS. | ||
|
rplant
United States1178 Posts
On November 05 2004 05:00 Element)FrEaK wrote: Name Mohhamed, Moses and Jesus makes sense there. Maybe even Confucius to an extent. But Siddharta Gautama's religion is far from obsolete. Siddharta Buddha had no desire to help society, that would be a direct contradiction to a fundamental rule of buddhism. He just taught people his beliefs and let them take it for what they were. Buddhism would never be able to cause a society harm, it is a pacifistic religion. Siddharta Buddha did not own slaves once he rid himself of his royalty, and his religion had nothing to do with society but with a self. Nor has his religion resulted in any bloodshed nor does it practice conversion. I qualified obsolete with "somewhat" for a reason. I think there are probably some positive ideas to be drawn from all of the thinkers I named. My point is that these people lived a long ass time ago and didn't have access to the resources we do today--the Buddha included. I think it's folly to look to them for advice on living our lives when it is mostly irrelevant--they'd be saying different things today, and we'd either be dismissing them as quacks or reading their books. We wouldn't be worshipping them on a large scale. (Well, conservatives do name Ann Coulter a blonde 'goddess,' but still...) I do think the whole dhuka/life is suffering thing and the Eightfold Path could potentially cause some "harm" to a society, depending on how you choose to define harm in this context. In America, a religion that causes you to reflect on life to the point that it you to give up your place in the economy and stop consuming and producing goods and services might be deemed detrimental to the society at large. -Edited out excessive quotes in an already difficult to read thread- | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
That would be the only difference is to seclude somebody to that extent short of solitary imprisonment. But his ideas are unable to change due to their nature. | ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
so cellular reproduction can lead to evolution, such is the case with single celled organisms reproducing asexually on the other hand, living things (which, of course, single celled organisms aren't living) that reproduce asexually can't evolve because its against the rules. but creatures that reproduce with two partners can evolve . of course, in the evolutionary process, single celled organisms eventually lead to simplistic multicellular organisms which reproduced asexually (which is what i meant by first organisms)...but i assume they are equally as non-living as their predecessor, and infact just fall into the same "cellular reproduction" as well. i must have missed that part in biology class! | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
By first organisms you could not have meant anything other than bacteria, virus, algae and protozoa. Those are the basis of all life. It is by their interactions with each other that life of higher forms is to be produced, not by their reproduction of themselves. Cellular reproduction is still quite different than reproduction of living things(I'm lacking a better word at the moment, I am well aware that single celled organisms are living things). The interaction on the cellular level among those 4 basic life forms is what allowed the multi celled organisms to exist in the first place. You build from that over a very long period of time and you get living creatures. Fuck, I'm way too tired to get any deeper into these subjects. If I'm to continue, I'll have to do it another time | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
What a great way to discuss something. Do it again and I am ignoring you for the rest of the discussion. | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
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. I challenge that point. I can't experience great numbers like 12349723478234272342 is one. Yet I still can understand them and know that 12349723478234272342 + 1 = 12349723478234272343. Again you try to impose your restrictions on god that are not really valid and are only supported by your BELIEVE that god could not understand what he does not experience. It is your FAITH in the necessity of experiencing for understanding that makes you argue the way you do. In your words, you think it to be "ludicrous to claim that one could simply snap his fingers and make laws of a universe without ever knowing them", where you've already used the logical shortcircuit "god doesn't experience -> so he doesn't know". 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. Again an example. I can make up (create) a game, let's call it "Tschess", that is played on 64 fields, white and black, .... blahh. Allthough I make the rules by which the pawns have to move, I don't have to live by them. 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? This seems to be an illegal generalisation with flaws due to the sample of christians you know ;-) Over here in Europe I'd guess that 95% of the christians would have no problem with either hypothesis, universe being finite or infinite. I don't know how christians in the US would handle that but all US-christians I know wouldn't really care, either ;-) . | ||
| ||
