EPT
Belief in an omnipotent pointless? - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
| ||
|
Vietnam_Oi
Vietnam120 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
| ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28743 Posts
On November 05 2004 06:56 Element)FrEaK wrote: Drone is so cute when he's apathetic  im always cute  | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
On November 05 2004 09:39 BigBalls wrote: I fail to see how your line of reasoning shows a contradiction with there being an omnipotent being. So what if he knows everyone's fate? Let me explain further then. It is not the simple fact that he knows everybodys fate. It is the fact that he knows if from the beginning of time. Before we are born, when we live and when we die, he knows everythingis going to happen. Thus he knows whether or not we are going to believe in him and whether or not we are going to hell. He already knows that we are going to hell or heaven, and thus there is really no point in believing in him. His omnipotence takes any real point out of believing in him besides a personal satisfaction or religious reasoning, because afterall, he has planned from the start of time when and why we are going to heaven and hell. Now that would make it pointless to believe in an omnipotent being. The only part that is a contradiction is the claim to free will. If we truly have free will, then he can't possibly be omnipotent as he already knows what was, is and will be. Thus all of our actions are controlled in a complicated matter of foresite. If that is not the case, then he is not omnipotent and thus not the all knowing creator the abrahamic religions so wonderfully describe for us. Get it now? It was not meant to be a contradiction | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
True dat | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
On November 05 2004 09:46 Element)FrEaK wrote: Let me explain further then. It is not the simple fact that he knows everybodys fate. It is the fact that he knows if from the beginning of time. Before we are born, when we live and when we die, he knows everythingis going to happen. Thus he knows whether or not we are going to believe in him and whether or not we are going to hell. He already knows that we are going to hell or heaven, and thus there is really no point in believing in him. His omnipotence takes any real point out of believing in him besides a personal satisfaction or religious reasoning, because afterall, he has planned from the start of time when and why we are going to heaven and hell. Now that would make it pointless to believe in an omnipotent being. The only part that is a contradiction is the claim to free will. If we truly have free will, then he can't possibly be omnipotent as he already knows what was, is and will be. Thus all of our actions are controlled in a complicated matter of foresite. If that is not the case, then he is not omnipotent and thus not the all knowing creator the abrahamic religions so wonderfully describe for us. Get it now? It was not meant to be a contradiction Ok, I see, so you are only claiming there is no free will. However, you are not showing there cannot be an omnipotent being -- we are claiming MATH is the omnipotent being here. The heaven and hell point is extraneous -- not all people who believe in omnipotent beings believe in an afterlife. He instead has planned from the beginning of time whether or not we will believe in him. So really our belief in him is just a formality that was decided at the beginning (which as we discussed before, could exist in an infinite setting). | ||
|
SCFraser
Canada1534 Posts
On November 05 2004 01:45 Famouzze wrote: I wasn't disapproving or anything, just trying to add to the discussion. here's my personal favorite logical flaw in the idea: can god make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it? either way he's not omnipotent ^_^ Actually i dont think this is a logic flaw. He could do this by eliminating his own omnipotence, obivously thats the only way to limit himself. | ||
|
SCFraser
Canada1534 Posts
On November 05 2004 01:16 LaptopLegacy wrote: There are a lot more problems with the concept of omnipotence, especially in combination with omniscience. If a being is omnisciencient and knows all that will happen, he is automatically bound to that course for the future. This means his omnipotence is compromised. Also, i'd like to remind you of Epicurus' riddle: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Not really. He knows what will happen, because he knows what he himself will choose to allow. That would be a pretty boring life, knowing everything, having the power to do whatever you want with the universe, but already knowing exactly what you will do. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
But now we are claiming he MATH is the omnipotent being, it is the only constant and infinite to describe all physical and metaphysical elements of existance. It is that which embodies everything and that which creates everything(chaos theory or infitum theories). Truly, math is the only for sure thing we have for explaining the universe and the beginnings. Beyond that no "god" will show us the way we began, and it can easily be disproven to be omnipotent. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28743 Posts
I think he's saying that either there's no free will or god is not omnipotent | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
On November 05 2004 09:55 SCFraser wrote: Actually i dont think this is a logic flaw. He could do this by eliminating his own omnipotence, obivously thats the only way to limit himself. I've never seen the rock argument. The one I saw was: If god is omnipotent, he can create anything, even a being that is more powerful than him. But if he can do that, then he is not all powerful. However, this too is false. To explain this, let me give you an example. Lets take two sets: {0,1,2,3,4,....}. The set of positive integers and 0. {0,2,4,6,8,....}. The set of even positive integers and 0. The first set is clearly twice as large as the second set. However, it is easy to come up with a 1-1 and onto map from the second map to the first. Take each element of the second set and divide by 2, and we have the first set. How is it possible to have a 1-1 AND onto map from a set to a set that is twice its size? This is because we are dealing with an infinite case. Since god's powerfulness is infinite, a larger degree of infinity is the same. | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
*hugs eri* | ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
| ||
|
BigBalls
United States5354 Posts
The sets are not exclusive or, so there can be no free will AND a lack of an omnipotent being. =] | ||
|
FrEaK[S.sIR]
2373 Posts
| ||
|
SCFraser
Canada1534 Posts
gotta read more of this thread when i get the chance but it kinda looks like bigballs is saying most of the things i'd say anyway. | ||
|
SCFraser
Canada1534 Posts
apparently the only random thing in the universe which goes against determinist philosophy, but maybe we just dont understand it yet? | ||
| ||
