EPTSemantics however is a fascinating subject in itself
Belief in an omnipotent pointless? - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Semantics however is a fascinating subject in itself | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
an infinite universe would disprove any need to a creator. [Quote] An infinite universe wouldn't make it impossible for him to at some point of His liking have created all that "matters" and maybe have had different worlds before that. Perhaps the universe was empty before, perhaps he just created something that has always existed ? Remember, he's omnipotent and not bound by the rules. An infinite universe just relieves us from the _necessity_ not the _possibility_ to have a creator. [Quote] You oversimplify all the examples in analogies which have no relevance to discussion. You experience all numbers in which you calculate, your first analogy was completely wrong. What do you think I mean by experience? To know is to experience. You do not know things without experiencing them. Tell me one thing you KNOW which you have never once in any way, shape or form experience. To claim that a being can form knowledge without experience is to defy all form of logic. There is no illogical jump in saying To know is to experience. [/Quote] Wow, now you want me be an omniscient being to prove that there can be an omniscient being ? Your stark denial that god can know any- and everything without having to face our limitations, to experience everything himself, is rooted in your premise that there is no omniscient being, no god. From this premise you come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist. Logic, gogogo. When I create a game, I know the rules of that game without being a pawn in my own game myself. Just like a creator knows the rules of his creation. [Quote] Rules to a game are different than the laws of a universe. The fact that you cannot tell the difference saddens me greatly. [/Quote] Heck I don't even know with certainty the laws of this universe I have to try to understand them from the shadows on the wall. How should I know the difference if they where rules of the game of some higher being or whether natural laws? Do you REALLY know we're not some kind of a supercomputer version of the SIMS and somebody is laughing his ass of watching us write stupid comments in a forum? | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
| ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
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. one is bound by what he created only as long as he is within his creation's limits so the chess creators are bound by the movement rules for their units when they are playing chess, but not when they're picking up the pieces and throwing them at one another when they have a fight(the horse flies! and it lands outside the playing field!) and im baffled by ur reply to koehli's example Rules to a game are different than the laws of a universe. The fact that you cannot tell the difference saddens me greatly. the universe can be but a game from god's perspective as our universe's rules encompass that game's rules, so can even greater rules encompass our universe in them that said, i fully agree with surg and koehli and the points they made and i think of myself as agnostic, and attribute anything my logic cannot account for to a big ? (infinity and creation are different aspects of the same coin for me, both cant be explained with logic) | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Omnipotence is impossible by nature. Thus no matter what argument you come up with, you cannot argue a creator in the way you are describing it. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 06:50 Taguchi wrote: one is bound by what he created only as long as he is within his creation's limits so the chess creators are bound by the movement rules for their units when they are playing chess, but not when they're picking up the pieces and throwing them at one another when they have a fight(the horse flies! and it lands outside the playing field!) and im baffled by ur reply to koehli's example the universe can be but a game from god's perspective as our universe's rules encompass that game's rules, so can even greater rules encompass our universe in them that said, i fully agree with surg and koehli and the points they made and i think of myself as agnostic, and attribute anything my logic cannot account for to a big ? (infinity and creation are different aspects of the same coin for me, both cant be explained with logic) I don't even know why I argued that anyways. Was probably fatigue, we've moved on though. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28731 Posts
I'm perfectly content with knowing that I don't know and there's no way I can possibly know at the time being, and I'm hoping that someday humanity will become advanced enough to actually know.  wee, my day at work is over. I spent like 5 hours browsing. haha. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 06:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: I don't see how I'm arguing semantics. I am not debating matters of language, or if I am, its only because of the inevitable condition that argument cannot exist apart from the frameworks and limitations of language. Semantics however is a fascinating subject in itself The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form That is one the definitions of semantics. You were arguing interpretation of "Laws of gravity" ect. It was quite obvious I was referring to the energies that we are explaining, not the law that we have explained ourselves. Since we are not fully understanding of the laws of gravity, I cannot even refer to it besides by the energies that it consists of. That is what I meant by you're arguing semantics. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 06:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: personally I'm perfectly content with knowing that I don't know and there's no way I can possibly know at the time being, and I'm hoping that someday humanity will become advanced enough to actually know. wee, my day at work is over. I spent like 5 hours browsing. haha. Drone is so cute when he's apathetic | ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
Rayzorblade
United States1172 Posts
You may think pluralism is flawed, but it is not --- it is, in fact, practically infallible. No single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life simply because we do not all hold the same values, ethics, or moral beliefs. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On November 05 2004 07:01 Rayzorblade wrote: Aseq: You may think pluralism is flawed, but it is not --- it is, in fact, infallible. No single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life simply because we do not all hold the same values, ethics, or moral beliefs. Yes, although it's easy to lean too easily on the postmodern side. Im impressed by the conventional wisdom that truth is for God alone, the task of man is the pursuit of truth. Whatever our divergences are on truth, with only very few exceptions (i.e. Nietzsche) does man stop his common pursuit. | ||
|
koehli
Germany350 Posts
On November 05 2004 06:50 Element)FrEaK wrote: *ponders if koehli is aware that omnipotence is impossible, thus our argument on the process of knowledge is useless.* Omnipotence is impossible by nature. Thus no matter what argument you come up with, you cannot argue a creator in the way you are describing it. I'll take that as a concede ;-) Anyway I have to go, thanks for the discussion and good night. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
To assume a concession is to admit ignorance. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
Cya. | ||
|
pinbaLL
Sweden1711 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
On November 05 2004 01:11 Element)FrEaK wrote: If a being is omnipotent he must know all that was, is and will be. If he knows all that was, is and will be, he knows all we will do, say ect. ect. He also knows if we will go to heaven or hell. Know what we will do, say ect. ect. also means no true free will isn't possible. He already knows that we're going to do that. Thus, if he already knows all this, our belief in him is pointless. However, he already knows that I was going to come up with this(or those before me, whomever they may be) and thus already knows my fate. And if he doesn't know this, then he is not omnipotent, and thus not god. Boggle your mind? I just took a closer look at this. There is a subtle flaw. He knows your fate, but who is to say that your fate doesnt reside upon his interaction? If you believe in determinism, then you believe that all the initial conditions of a situation influence the outcome in a predictable way. What if god werent a factor? Would you be having this discussion right now? He knows exactly what you are going to do, but that isnt to say it isnt dependent on his intervention. This is not to say I believe in omnipotence, i dont, however, this is taking a bit of a jump | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
Now suppose one new factor arose. Lets say a child called my name from the side of the street from which I was crossing. If i turned and looked, that would change the event, change the course of everything that was going to happen from that point on. Sure an omnipotent being would know everything that would happen based upon him interacting AND him not interacting. .........tangent........I just had an interesting thought. Suppose there were an omnipotent being, would it have free will???? I guess it wouldnt. It's actions are totally predictable based upon all other initial conditions as well. So the omnipotent being KNOWS exactly what it is going to do in reaction to everything else. Ok, so I guess what is to come of all this is, our belief or disbelief in him is not pointless, but rather predetermined. | ||
|
Rayzorblade
United States1172 Posts
On November 05 2004 07:31 pinbaLL wrote: God doesnt exist, dumbasses Do you always contribute such profound maxims?  | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On November 05 2004 06:50 Element)FrEaK wrote: *ponders if koehli is aware that omnipotence is impossible, thus our argument on the process of knowledge is useless.* Omnipotence is impossible by nature. Thus no matter what argument you come up with, you cannot argue a creator in the way you are describing it. Hence the term "supernatural" -_- God was at work in this election I think. First Fidel Castro falls over before the election, then Arafat gets stricken with an unknown disease (something enough to get him braindead), then Bush wins the election. Cosmic factors in action I say! | ||
| ||
