|
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?
|
|
|
um, no, he knows what's going to happen and doesn't intervene so it doesn' matter if we believe in him or not, he's already seen both sides and taht doesn't change anything
perhaps he will be biased and torture the nonbelievers but tehre is no impact on whteher or not you believe him other htan mentally so not rly
|
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?
|
You dont get it guys... its like when you see a Family Guy episode that you've already seen, and you know what will happen, still you laugh...
So god knows this girl will be fried by napalm to death, but still he laughs when it happens 
|
On November 05 2004 01:15 exalted wrote:
um, no, he knows what's going to happen and doesn't intervene so it doesn' matter if we believe in him or not, he's already seen both sides and taht doesn't change anything
perhaps he will be biased and torture the nonbelievers but tehre is no impact on whteher or not you believe him other htan mentally so not rly
You don't get it. By him being omnipotent that means there is no alternate. He doesn't know the infinitely great possibilities, he knows the one route all will take throughout all time.
If he doesn't, he's not omnipotent
|
Imagine your life as a book. God already knows what is going to happen in the end, but it is your job to fill in the rest of the story.
|
SoMuchBetter, you too are not getting it.
If he is omnipotent he knows what the entirety of that story is, was and will be. If he doesn't he is not omnipotent and thus not god.
|
On November 05 2004 01:25 SoMuchBetter wrote:
Imagine your life as a book. God already knows what is going to happen in the end, but it is your job to fill in the rest of the story.
Wrong, god would know EVERYTHING that will be written in the middle, not only the end.
He knows what you will do any second of your life, so why would he punish or not punish you if he already knew what was going to happen before you were even born.
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
You are so confused. All so called logical paradoxes of omnipotence are nothing examples of consequences of Godel's Theorem, that's all. As for omniscience, yet again, Godel's Theorem is showing there is no such thing.
Not to mention that if you try to describe a phenomena way outside your scope of comprehension (as in ability to describe or understand) and apply this kind of shady logic, you will achieve nothing, but confuse yourself. No formal system can describe something outside it's scope.
|
You found one of the logical holes in monotheism. There are very many others.
|
Oh this is no fun, where are the Chirstians?... come on guys, defend jesus!
|
Simple philosophical thinking. Philosophy is not outside of one's scope and could very well explain it. To claim that I cannot explain something because it is outside of my comprehension while you cannot prove that it is unexplainable is ludicrous.
Otherwise both of you make good points.
And Famouzze, I just found this mindset interesting, so I wanted to discuss it. That's all 
|
You didnt want a discussion, you knew this is a one sided ass raping against the religious lol
|
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 ^_^
|
Can god make a waffle so sweet that he cannot resist it?
|
Theoretically, omnipotence is impossible. But of course, God surpasses all theoretical and logical bounds.
It is basically their only argument, that we cannot comprehend it. But if they deem it uncomprehendable then how is it they know we haven't just explained it.
Afterall, they are confessing to not being able to comprehend it and just saying I can't either.
Maybe I CAN comprehend it
|
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.
|
Haha, if god is incomprehensible then there's no reason to believe in him. Or a better way to put it, there would be no reason to believe in the bible / qur`an / etc.
For all we know, we could be interpreting the holy book 180 degrees backwards.
|
True dat!
|
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.
|
I agree
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
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.
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
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.
|
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..."
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Freak you can be very scary sometimes.
Not saying you are wrong and the other are right :D
|
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.
|
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.
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
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.
|
science weeps reading this thread
i just laugh
you kids are so funny
|
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.
|
hey what the hell are you doing up so late, get some sleep damnit
|
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?
|
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.
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
Is omnipotence implying being bound to fate or is it still possible tom exert power to design one's own life?
|
Russian Federation798 Posts
On November 05 2004 03:05 Element)FrEaK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
What kind of education you have?
|
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
|
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.
|
high school education doesn't count as a good one!
|
oh and radiohead is a really cool band to listen to up late at night
|
as is iced earth it seems
|
though between the two, i have to give the nod to radiohead
|
fucking homework and work
|
dang i shouldn't play poker late at night cause i make some really stupid decisions
|
Keanu: I have beyond high school education through tutors and other courses ect.
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.
|
|
|
You're treading the same basic line as Pythagoras and Descartes.
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.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
Norway28576 Posts
|
im sorry eri, i tried to tell them, they wouldn't listen
|
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?
|
I'm starting to make less sense to myself, I need some fuckin sleep
|
So far the people arguing for God and omnipotence have been owning. Their arguments are much better thought out and coherent and obviously come from a more educated stance. All everyone else has done so far is pointed out one little niche that makes sense in their own minds and declared it as proof that God can not exist.
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.
|
oh btw, you can't apply infinite to objects, universe isn't an object as of yet though.
It is still potentially infinite.
|
Ah, here is a so-called Christian now.
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.
|
All you are saying is that god is a state of mind.
Which has NOTHING to do with your religion =[
Since when did Christianity having anything to do with Buddhism? o.O
|
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^^.
|
I'm saying that you can have a discussion about religion and spirituality and everything else under the sun, but when it all comes down to it, I'll look at you and say: "Bullshit."
Why?
It all boils down to what I believe.
|
I did not read this thread. However, this argument is old and I am sure nothing new has been thought up. There is a short book called "The Consolation of Philosphy" (by some italian whos name begins iwth B)
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.
|
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.
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?
|
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.
|
Yea he obviously doesn't care since he doesn't intervene, just throws us into heaven or hell whether we have done something bad in our life! Rofl.
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!!!!
|
the first organisms in the evolutionary process reproduced asexually mr. freak
|
On November 05 2004 04:55 rplant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 02:18 SurG wrote: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. 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.
|
Rayzorblade, one thing i have less faith in than evolution is pluralism (e.g. God may be true for me, he may also not be true for you, everyone has their own thruths). I find it so ridiculously easy to see that pluralism is flawed (not prove that is flawed, however) that i cannot imagine it to be true.
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.
|
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 =[
|
hey i said nothing about single celled organisms, only that the first organisms reproduced asexually. you said that asexual reproduction cant lead to evolution, thats a direct contradiction to the theory of evolution
|
Not true, I'm not talking cellular reproduction.
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.
|
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-
|
I'm talking about harming the self. And because of the nature of buddhist religion, there is no way that it would change through time. No founding of a science or product would effect a religion that expells all worldly needs. It is about the self, as long as the self is still the self, buddhist religion still applies. The only reason Buddha would have said something different is due to him being unable to lead his first part of his life as sheltered as he did. Sheltered from all forms of death, disease ect. ect. His world had no problems at all.
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.
|
oh i see
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!
|
*is having an extremely difficult time wording things in a sensable way in his current state*
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
|
Also, you are going to have to explain your arguments ALOT better if you wish to have any sort of discussion. You are giving incomplete information then picking at the incompleteness of my reply.
What a great way to discuss something. Do it again and I am ignoring you for the rest of the discussion.
|
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 ;-) .
|
we discussed this before on aim, freak. i dont "discuss" religion here, i do as i please when i see a religious thread...whether its goading atheists or religious people into making asses of themselves or pointlessly spamming and picking apart random "facts"
why? because no one here is smart enough, learned enough, and most importantly; reasonable and open minded enough to warrant a fruitful discussion
|
an infinite universe would disprove any need to a creator.
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.
Rules to a game are different than the laws of a universe. The fact that you cannot tell the difference saddens me greatly.
And again, to not contest that the universe is infinite(has no beginning and no end) is to concede that nothing created it, and thus there is no creator as described by the abrahamic religions.
|
On November 05 2004 05:39 Keanu_Reaver wrote:
we discussed this before on aim, freak. i dont "discuss" religion here, i do as i please when i see a religious thread...whether its goading atheists or religious people into making asses of themselves or pointlessly spamming and picking apart random "facts"
why? because no one here is smart enough, learned enough, and most importantly; reasonable and open minded enough to warrant a fruitful discussion
Your complete judgement and intolerance, not to mention insulting behavior, will leave you ignored for the rest of the topic. You have nothing to say nor anything to contribute. Please leave, we are trying to actually have a discussion.
Trolling is also a bannable offense.
|
a discussion? sounds like a bunch of children pretending to be philosophers to me!
|
Do you realize that the notion of god being omniscient and omnipotent isn't even a biblical fact?
|
Yes, I know
It comes from the notion that he is an all knowing creater and created the universe but is not bound by it.
Theoretically that would make him omnipotent.
|
oh, and one of these days when you actually take a class on philosophy, you'll realize that 98% of philosophers and books on philosophy are full of shit, that its necessary for them to be full of shit because of the nature of philosophy in itself. and thats when you'll realize that all this nonsense that they've spewed onto you that you recount in verbatim is just that, nonsense. and that coming up with your own philosophies is even worse.
until then, i'll let you guys toss around your deformed bastard children of philosophy until your arms get tired, and let you stomp all over and insult science all you want...take care!
|
To clear up some of the misunderstandings, I thought I'd post the basis for the most prominent "argument" for the case of God, famously St. Aquinas' five proofs. They probably provide a more solid ground for debate
Edit: I copied the actual article from St .Aquinas. Its a bit longer, but the "5 proofs" are pretty easy to digest.
Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:
Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.
But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.
In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.
To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.
To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.
To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.
Article III. Whether God exists.
Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.
I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.
The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.
The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.
The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.
The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.
My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.
|
To those who don't like to read i'll summarize.
1. The unmoved mover. When objects move, they are translated from potentiality to actuality. Nothing potential can achieve actuality by itself. They must be carried into force by existing actualities. Therefore at the beginning there must be an actuality which was not himself moved by another object.
2. When anything occurs, it is caused by another thing. If there were no cause there would be no effect. Therefore the first causer must have been uncaused.
3. Nothing exists eternally. Everything existing must take it from something else that exists. If there was nothing eternal, nothing could have ever existed.
4. The standards of beauty, truth, etc. must all aspire toward a form of perfection. This form of perfection must therefore exist.
5. The laws of the universe evidently do not exist by accident, because their execution creates order, which suggests purpose behind those laws. Therefore those laws must have been of intelligent design.
|
There are a lot of little riddles like that.
This one "proves" that if there were a god he is not omnipotent. Others "prove" that if there were a god he is not all powerful.
To be honest, for how silly they are, ive never heard a solid counter argument to them. I dont believe in a god; however, i do pretty much believe our lives are entirely deterministic, that is, we dotn really have free will, everything can be predicted knowing all the initial conditions.
|
Well the 5th one is irrelevant, you don't need an intelligent designer for natural occurances. Common sense doesn't dictate that either, the more we learn about science the more we realize just how naturalize these things are.
Things move by heat, the only way to stop things from moving is to have everything be at absolute 0. The only way to do that is to obliterate all sources of heat in existance. Otherwise movement is forever possible.
For the fourth one, all things are judged by human conciousness, not by a degree. One may find something beautiful what another finds repulsive. There is no ultimate scale or degree that one can set as there will always be another who believes that it is the exact opposite.
The rest can be counter argued with the argument that the universe is infinite, thus has no start or finish. This would make for no need for any form of a creator. If the universe is infinite that would also mean that the energies within are infinite, thus the laws of gravity, magnetism and thermodynamics have always applied and will forever apply and thus movement by forces are there as well.
Most arguments get destroyed if Universe = Infinite.
|
On November 05 2004 06:15 BigBalls wrote:
There are a lot of little riddles like that.
This one "proves" that if there were a god he is not omnipotent. Others "prove" that if there were a god he is not all powerful.
To be honest, for how silly they are, ive never heard a solid counter argument to them. I dont believe in a god; however, i do pretty much believe our lives are entirely deterministic, that is, we dotn really have free will, everything can be predicted knowing all the initial conditions.
Do you believe that the universe is infinite then?
What is your opinion on the idea that since we live in a very mathematical universe, and any mathematics that works out, as it does in nature, creates order. Thus our god is mathematics and not an omnipotent being?
|
godel's incompleteness theorem basically brought a crashing halt to Hilbert's conjecture that math is axiomatic. It goes as follows.
Suppose that math were entirely axiomatic. That is, suppose based on a finite set of axioms, you could prove everything possible in a certain field. For example, in geometry, Euclid stated 5 axioms. However, everything can not be proved from these alone, we need more than that.
Godel's proof: Suppose there were a logical computer that could figure out the answer to any logical problem. Let G be the statement that this machine will never show that G is true.
Suppose G is true. Then G will never show that G is true, and there is something that cannot be proven by the computer. Now suppose G is false. Then G will be shown to be true, however, G isnt true, so this is a contradiction. Tricky huh?
Little problems like these CAN TOTALLY BRING EVERYTHING CRASHING DOWN.
|
Norway28576 Posts
keanu_reaver while I don't necessarily disagree with you, if you have no intention to participate in a thread apart from to WREAK HAVOC because you're one badass motherfucker, please refrain from participating.
|
On November 05 2004 06:20 Element)FrEaK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 06:15 BigBalls wrote:
There are a lot of little riddles like that.
This one "proves" that if there were a god he is not omnipotent. Others "prove" that if there were a god he is not all powerful.
To be honest, for how silly they are, ive never heard a solid counter argument to them. I dont believe in a god; however, i do pretty much believe our lives are entirely deterministic, that is, we dotn really have free will, everything can be predicted knowing all the initial conditions. Do you believe that the universe is infinite then? What is your opinion on the idea that since we live in a very mathematical universe, and any mathematics that works out, as it does in nature, creates order. Thus our god is mathematics and not an omnipotent being?
Wasn't it shown a few years back that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, thus it will continue on towards an infinite size?
As for math being our god...it's an interesting way to put things. A god is defined as an all powerful, omniscient being that basically created the universe. Although math couldnt really create the universe to say, it is certainally omniscient, and in a weird little way is all powerful. However, the creator aspect is missing.
|
Why is it pointless? By acknowledging there is an omnipotent power that is not yourself, you are humbling yourself to this power. Being humble is a virtue if I'm not mistaken. It'll lead you closer to the path of enlightenment/heaven/nirvana.
|
On November 05 2004 06:24 BigBalls wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 06:20 Element)FrEaK wrote:On November 05 2004 06:15 BigBalls wrote:
There are a lot of little riddles like that.
This one "proves" that if there were a god he is not omnipotent. Others "prove" that if there were a god he is not all powerful.
To be honest, for how silly they are, ive never heard a solid counter argument to them. I dont believe in a god; however, i do pretty much believe our lives are entirely deterministic, that is, we dotn really have free will, everything can be predicted knowing all the initial conditions. Do you believe that the universe is infinite then? What is your opinion on the idea that since we live in a very mathematical universe, and any mathematics that works out, as it does in nature, creates order. Thus our god is mathematics and not an omnipotent being? Wasn't it shown a few years back that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, thus it will continue on towards an infinite size? As for math being our god...it's an interesting way to put things. A god is defined as an all powerful, omniscient being that basically created the universe. Although math couldnt really create the universe to say, it is certainally omniscient, and in a weird little way is all powerful. However, the creator aspect is missing.
In response to the expanding at an increasing rate:
Not necessarily. We are examining if the universe is flat or in fact, curved spherically. If it turns out to be flat, then it expands endless and is thus infinite(as something that is flat may not have an end, as you know). However, if it is spherical, then mathematics dictates that it must come back on itself and thus is finite. But if it does indeed curve into a sphere, it does not immediately prove a creater, it could mean that we are just a smaller universe in a much larger megaverse, perhaps the number of verses is infinite.
Mathematics can explain how and why things are logically created. Nothing short of the mathematical side of Chaos Theory(Infinite:1 odds) can explain something being created from nothing. But that is why infinite is such an interesting figure
|
On November 05 2004 06:24 worst.player wrote:
Why is it pointless? By acknowledging there is an omnipotent power that is not yourself, you are humbling yourself to this power. Being humble is a virtue if I'm not mistaken. It'll lead you closer to the path of enlightenment/heaven/nirvana.
I'm not saying religion is pointless, or that believing in a god, gods or idols is pointless. I am saying that the belief in the god is pointless as if it is truly omnipotent it has decided your fate and your course and thus there is no point to believing in it. Pointless as in if you were to reach englightenment/heaven/nirvana, it was already planned as the omnipotent being would know.
Most of the humble religions don't believe in omnipotent gods. Oddly enough, it is the ones with them that shine with arrogance.
|
I would warn against adopting a too hasty approbation of science. There are far too many cracks in its system to ever imagine adopting a unified theory of the universe. I don't have time to highlight all of its various flaws. One significant example :
"If the universe is infinite that would also mean that the energies within are infinite, thus the laws of gravity, magnetism and thermodynamics have always applied and will forever apply and thus movement by forces are there as well."
THe laws of gravity are not infinite. They were discovered by humans in the 17th century, and from there proclaimed as a universal laws until the 20th century, when it has been discovered that traditional newtonian laws of motion do not apply subatomically. I would go as far as to say that there are no scientific "laws". Every such law is a human invention, if we repudiate religion on the basis that it is a human invention not necessarily reflective of truth, we must take science under similar considerations.
|
You are arguing semantics, that is useless.
|
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
|
[QUOTE]On November 05 2004 05:42 Element)FrEaK wrote:
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?
|
and yes semantics and it's influence on reality would be a cool subject for a discussion some other day ;-)
|
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)
|
*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.
|
On November 05 2004 06:50 Taguchi wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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)
I don't even know why I argued that anyways. Was probably fatigue, we've moved on though.
|
Norway28576 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
Aseq:
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
As a concede? I'm quite willing to argue further on why omnipotence is mathematically impossible, not to mention logically and naturally. I can also explain the large number of theories that prove the non existance of an omnipotent being(thought not the non existance of a god(s)).
To assume a concession is to admit ignorance.
|
Anyways, I have school soon so I gotta get ready.
Cya.
|
God doesnt exist, dumbasses
|
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
|
Basically, lets say im crossing the road. Suppose under all ordinary conditions I would be hit by a car and die.
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.
|
On November 05 2004 07:31 pinbaLL wrote:God doesnt exist, dumbasses
Do you always contribute such profound maxims? 
|
United States12231 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!
|
ahh good ol' excalibur, always there to provide comic relief
|
|
|
*rawrs from the computer lab*
|
bastards can keep me up all night but the one time I want you to entertain me when I'm at school and none of you talking T_T
|
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?
|
Norway28576 Posts
On November 05 2004 06:56 Element)FrEaK wrote:Show nested quote +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
im always cute
|
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
|
On November 05 2004 09:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 06:56 Element)FrEaK wrote: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 im always cute
True dat
|
On November 05 2004 09:46 Element)FrEaK wrote:Show nested quote +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
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).
|
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.
|
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.
|
Actually, we kind of diverged into several other topics because people didn't get the idea of what I was saying. I was merely saying either believing in an omnipotent really has no point or he cannot exist.
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.
|
Norway28576 Posts
I don't think freak is claiming there's no free will
I think he's saying that either there's no free will
or god is not omnipotent
|
On November 05 2004 09:55 SCFraser wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
DRONE GOT IT! :O:O
*hugs eri*
|
Yes, eri is right. Ok, i follow you now.
|
And what's great is....
The sets are not exclusive or, so there can be no free will AND a lack of an omnipotent being. =]
|
Indeed
|
ahahah this is awesome. I dont know anyone else who thinks about this kinda stuff
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.
|
hey guys what determines the movement of electrons?
apparently the only random thing in the universe which goes against determinist philosophy, but maybe we just dont understand it yet?
|
|
|
On November 05 2004 10:03 BigBalls wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 09:55 SCFraser wrote: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. 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.
right on.
|
|
|
Short answer; the motion is completely deterministic, but not predictable
in the everyday, macroscopic sense. The more accurately you try to measure
momentum of the electron in transit, the less you will know about its position.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
On November 05 2004 10:23 BigBalls wrote:This statement is false
whats false about it?
the only thing i saw was that maybe their definition of omnipotence was different from that which im used to hearing. But i think theirs is more accurate. Omnipotence is still bound by logic.
|
Hah, you missed my little joke.
This statement is false is not a proposition.
Suppose it is true. Then it's false. =><=
Suppose its false. Then the statement is true. =><=
Logically impossible. I was just giving my favorite example of a logical impossibility
|
So, I wonder how many high school students' lives we've ruined by bringing about the harsh reality that math is indeed everything
|
hahaha most mind boggling joke ever?
but why add "is not a proposition"
|
Creating a rock so large god cannot lift it is illogical.
But creating the universe in 7 days is completely logical!
6000 years ago no daut.
|
Proposition
A statement that affirms or denies something.
He said it wasn't a proposition because it wasn't a proposition.
You asked why it was false when he never claimed it to be false.
|
On November 05 2004 05:39 Keanu_Reaver wrote:
we discussed this before on aim, freak. i dont "discuss" religion here, i do as i please when i see a religious thread...whether its goading atheists or religious people into making asses of themselves or pointlessly spamming and picking apart random "facts"
why? because no one here is smart enough, learned enough, and most importantly; reasonable and open minded enough to warrant a fruitful discussion
You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself buddy, considering there are some brilliant minds on this forum.
|
On November 05 2004 10:43 SCFraser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 05:39 Keanu_Reaver wrote:
we discussed this before on aim, freak. i dont "discuss" religion here, i do as i please when i see a religious thread...whether its goading atheists or religious people into making asses of themselves or pointlessly spamming and picking apart random "facts"
why? because no one here is smart enough, learned enough, and most importantly; reasonable and open minded enough to warrant a fruitful discussion You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself buddy, considering there are some brilliant minds on this forum.
Indeed, he is rather elitist.
|
Sorry im retarded.
next time put " "!!
|
Now, what do you guys think of the concept of God being an observer and not a creator. Perhaps he is not the omnipotent being and the universe is infinite however he forever watches over his peoples. More of a ruler than a holy father
It completely turns modern religious theory on its head.
|
Just as plausible, but when u say the universe is infinite are you saying that this god-observer exists within that universe?
|
God by abrahamic definition lives in a holy afterlife of some sort.
Most other gods live within the universe already
|
Norway28576 Posts
as for that whole 6000 years thing (I do believe a couple of forummembers believe this is the case), I didn't think about this before, but um, don't fucking STARS disprove this? there has been some ridiculous explanation to everything else, so I'm interested in this one.
or do christians not believe we're capable of seeing any stars further away than 6000 lightyears?
|
On November 05 2004 05:57 Keanu_Reaver wrote:
oh, and one of these days when you actually take a class on philosophy, you'll realize that 98% of philosophers and books on philosophy are full of shit, that its necessary for them to be full of shit because of the nature of philosophy in itself. and thats when you'll realize that all this nonsense that they've spewed onto you that you recount in verbatim is just that, nonsense. and that coming up with your own philosophies is even worse.
until then, i'll let you guys toss around your deformed bastard children of philosophy until your arms get tired, and let you stomp all over and insult science all you want...take care!
I've taken three philosophy classes (finished top 5% every time), nobody here is recounting anything verbatim, you dont support your claims and coming up with your own philosophies is the only thing that qualifies someone as a philosopher.
|
On November 05 2004 10:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
as for that whole 6000 years thing (I do believe a couple of forummembers believe this is the case), I didn't think about this before, but um, don't fucking STARS disprove this? there has been some ridiculous explanation to everything else, so I'm interested in this one.
or do christians not believe we're capable of seeing any stars further away than 6000 lightyears?
Sorry havent read the whole thread but im guessing you're saying that ppl claim the universe was created 6000 years ago.
I guess God while creating the earth could create the light that we see as if it it had come from the stars that are over 6000 light years away.
Not that i believe in god, although i did here an interesting argument once for god as a creator but not necessarily all powerful.
|
On November 05 2004 10:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
as for that whole 6000 years thing (I do believe a couple of forummembers believe this is the case), I didn't think about this before, but um, don't fucking STARS disprove this? there has been some ridiculous explanation to everything else, so I'm interested in this one.
or do christians not believe we're capable of seeing any stars further away than 6000 lightyears?
Hell if I know, it is completely illogical.
But so is an omnipotent being so who knows what else these crazies will come up with
|
God is a concept brought forth by the human mind, and like every concept thought up, it is not sufficient to describe reality.
Ofcourse there is no god, because a part can not know the whole.
|
On November 05 2004 11:00 badteeth wrote:
God is a concept brought forth by the human mind, and like every concept thought up, it is not sufficient to describe reality.
Ofcourse there is no god, because a part can not know the whole.
Are you claiming there is no god or there are no dieties?
Specifics man! :O
|
On November 05 2004 11:01 Element)FrEaK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 11:00 badteeth wrote:
God is a concept brought forth by the human mind, and like every concept thought up, it is not sufficient to describe reality.
Ofcourse there is no god, because a part can not know the whole. Are you claiming there is no god or there are no dieties? Specifics man! :O
No god, no deities.
|
On November 05 2004 11:00 Element)FrEaK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 10:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
as for that whole 6000 years thing (I do believe a couple of forummembers believe this is the case), I didn't think about this before, but um, don't fucking STARS disprove this? there has been some ridiculous explanation to everything else, so I'm interested in this one.
or do christians not believe we're capable of seeing any stars further away than 6000 lightyears?
Hell if I know, it is completely illogical. But so is an omnipotent being so who knows what else these crazies will come up with
A Christians explanation would be, that God sped up the light so humans would be able to see the stars even if they are over 6000 years away.
|
because god can do anything
Because its logical
|
Norway28576 Posts
On November 05 2004 11:08 BC.WeaPonX wrote:
A Christians explanation would be, that God sped up the light so humans would be able to see the stars even if they are over 6000 years away.
I certainly hope not.
|
i'm a deity.. so ur proven wrong
|
Don't know if this was stated regarding the "heavy rock" argument: if the rock is too heavy for even god to lift it, then it would have to be infinitely heavy because god has infinite power, and thus the rock would have infinite mass and it would be impossible to lift it in the first place because it would be impossible to grab it given that is has no limits of mass. This is why the argument is contradictory in itself.
Trying to measure God's power according to the rules that he himself created is just silly.
|
That would be like asking wether a real tank can beat a brood war siege tank. Does not make sense.
|
On November 05 2004 11:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 11:08 BC.WeaPonX wrote:
A Christians explanation would be, that God sped up the light so humans would be able to see the stars even if they are over 6000 years away. I certainly hope not.
Einstein would sure shudder at that one.
|
On November 05 2004 11:37 SoL.Origin wrote:
That would be like asking wether a real tank can beat a brood war siege tank. Does not make sense.
Depends if the tank is in seige mode, and the other tank micros up really close.
|
Where does it say in the bible that god created the universe in 6000 years? Grow up people, most of you have never even read the bible and intend to have an objective oppinion on this subject.
|
On November 05 2004 11:35 SoL.Origin wrote:
Don't know if this was stated regarding the "heavy rock" argument: if the rock is too heavy for even god to lift it, then it would have to be infinitely heavy because god has infinite power, and thus the rock would have infinite mass and it would be impossible to lift it in the first place because it would be impossible to grab it given that is has no limits of mass. This is why the argument is contradictory in itself.
Trying to measure God's power according to the rules that he himself created is just silly.
God could also just alter the gravitational field of one mass infinitely, if he is all-powerful, and in doing so would make the weight of a rock-of-finite-mass in that gravitational field infinite in magnitude. Then, with his infinite strength, he could at best keep the rock at rest without cheating and creating a finite gravitational field.
Of course, in "the rules God himself created," it is absurd to imagine an infinitely strong gravitational field, because it would contradict the "rules" of gravitation. It is equally as absurd to imagine a rock of infinite mass, because infinite mass does not exist. Thus you are basing your argument, about the necessity of infinite mass, on the premise that your scenario is within the "rules that God created," which it is not. The scenario of infinitely strong gravitation is not within "the rules that God created" either. Hence the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" rests on the premise that even God must follow the rules that God created, and thus there cannot be infinite mass nor infinitely strong gravity. Considering cases that lie outside the rules of the situation does not invalidate the situation. For instance, you can't state that a two-dimensional function is invalid simply because it is bounded along the horizontal axis and does not exist at either positive or negative infinity. Hence the question stands, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" and it is valid.
|
On November 05 2004 11:45 SoL.Origin wrote:
Where does it say in the bible that god created the universe in 6000 years? Grow up people, most of you have never even read the bible and intend to have an objective oppinion on this subject.
Read the Bible and start counting the years since the beginning.
|
On November 05 2004 11:55 [vital]Myth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 11:45 SoL.Origin wrote:
Where does it say in the bible that god created the universe in 6000 years? Grow up people, most of you have never even read the bible and intend to have an objective oppinion on this subject. Read the Bible and start counting the years since the beginning.
The bible does not mention the word "years" in the whole Genesis chapter I believe. It does speak of "periods" which is too wide a subject to consider it to be specifically 6000 years. It would as well be 6000 million years. Or 7000. Who knows?
|
Norway28576 Posts
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
|
On November 05 2004 11:54 [vital]Myth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 11:35 SoL.Origin wrote:
Don't know if this was stated regarding the "heavy rock" argument: if the rock is too heavy for even god to lift it, then it would have to be infinitely heavy because god has infinite power, and thus the rock would have infinite mass and it would be impossible to lift it in the first place because it would be impossible to grab it given that is has no limits of mass. This is why the argument is contradictory in itself.
Trying to measure God's power according to the rules that he himself created is just silly. God could also just alter the gravitational field of one mass infinitely, if he is all-powerful, and in doing so would make the weight of a rock-of-finite-mass in that gravitational field infinite in magnitude. Then, with his infinite strength, he could at best keep the rock at rest without cheating and creating a finite gravitational field. Of course, in "the rules God himself created," it is absurd to imagine an infinitely strong gravitational field, because it would contradict the "rules" of gravitation. It is equally as absurd to imagine a rock of infinite mass, because infinite mass does not exist. Thus you are basing your argument, about the necessity of infinite mass, on the premise that your scenario is within the "rules that God created," which it is not. The scenario of infinitely strong gravitation is not within "the rules that God created" either. Hence the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" rests on the premise that even God must follow the rules that God created, and thus there cannot be infinite mass nor infinitely strong gravity. Considering cases that lie outside the rules of the situation does not invalidate the situation. For instance, you can't state that a two-dimensional function is invalid simply because it is bounded along the horizontal axis and does not exist at either positive or negative infinity. Hence the question stands, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" and it is valid.
Your post makes no sense whatsoever. God is obviously not limited to this universe, and if he wants to create a rock in this universe the rock must necessarily apply the rules created by him or it wouldnt be in this universe. What you are asking is like saying "god cannot do something that is impossible to be done" but that is obviously a contradiction in itself.
|
No origin.
It starts with god creating the earth and space in 7 days. Then adam comes in, who lives for 950 years iirc.
The word years is definitely used in describing the ages of people. Just add up all the years (i think it also says how old people are when they have children, so there isnt much guessing needed) till you get to the new testament and i think it would be around 6000
|
On November 05 2004 12:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
If you really want to know you should read the bible, it is the only source available that you can trust regarding this subject. Other people base their assumptions on reading the bible too but they are not necessarily right. I starting reading the bible a couple of years ago and have yet to find a contradiction in it, and I've studied physics and chemistry enough for that purpose.
|
On November 05 2004 12:03 BigBalls wrote:
No origin.
It starts with god creating the earth and space in 7 days. Then adam comes in, who lives for 950 years iirc.
The word years is definitely used in describing the ages of people. Just add up all the years (i think it also says how old people are when they have children, so there isnt much guessing needed) till you get to the new testament and i think it would be around 6000
Please quote the bible saying that god created earth and space in exactly 7 days. I have the bible right here and it doesnt say that, although my bible is not in english.
|
I'd also like to throw in a point, and I am unsure whether it has already been pointed out, because I haven't read this entire thread. Sorry if it has.
The concept of the omniscience of God, in the form of a living consciousness, is a logical error in and of itself. Let us consider the two ways of analyzing omniscience: consciously and without conscience.
God, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, by definition knows and has always known all things at all times. Thus God cannot have a plan, goal, hope, or ideal, nor is He in any place to judge anything but the fruits of his own labor, though he knew everything of those fruits before they were borne. From his own will and his own consciousness has existence existed, and in this perfect determinism, all events are predestined. God's awareness of the future binds the future to a particular path, and hence there can be no random or perfectly unpredictable occurrences. Hence, in the classical sense of God, he cannot be a judge, nor can he have emotion. For God having known all at all times, he cannot look down on his one begotten Son and say, "with him I am well pleased." God's emotion contradicts God's essence in being all-everything. From this we can conclude only two possibilities: there is no conscious God, or any conscious God can be only very powerful, and very knowledgeable, but not completely one or both.
The concept of omniscience without consciousness is exemplified in a statement like, "existence knows everything," or "time knows everything." These are personifications of abstract concepts, which are not thinking and acting -- not conscious. Thus they are not illogical in nature, because they do not entail utter predestination, but merely the fact of the totality of existence itself.
It is logical and acceptable to consider the potential for omniscience, but it is illogical and unacceptable to consider that this limit is attainable in conscience. Thus, unless believers take the easy, unintelligent way out of the entire argument by ridiculously stating that God cannot be bound to the rules of logic that he created, there is no possibility of the existence of God in his classical form.
|
On November 05 2004 12:02 SoL.Origin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 11:54 [vital]Myth wrote:On November 05 2004 11:35 SoL.Origin wrote:
Don't know if this was stated regarding the "heavy rock" argument: if the rock is too heavy for even god to lift it, then it would have to be infinitely heavy because god has infinite power, and thus the rock would have infinite mass and it would be impossible to lift it in the first place because it would be impossible to grab it given that is has no limits of mass. This is why the argument is contradictory in itself.
Trying to measure God's power according to the rules that he himself created is just silly. God could also just alter the gravitational field of one mass infinitely, if he is all-powerful, and in doing so would make the weight of a rock-of-finite-mass in that gravitational field infinite in magnitude. Then, with his infinite strength, he could at best keep the rock at rest without cheating and creating a finite gravitational field. Of course, in "the rules God himself created," it is absurd to imagine an infinitely strong gravitational field, because it would contradict the "rules" of gravitation. It is equally as absurd to imagine a rock of infinite mass, because infinite mass does not exist. Thus you are basing your argument, about the necessity of infinite mass, on the premise that your scenario is within the "rules that God created," which it is not. The scenario of infinitely strong gravitation is not within "the rules that God created" either. Hence the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" rests on the premise that even God must follow the rules that God created, and thus there cannot be infinite mass nor infinitely strong gravity. Considering cases that lie outside the rules of the situation does not invalidate the situation. For instance, you can't state that a two-dimensional function is invalid simply because it is bounded along the horizontal axis and does not exist at either positive or negative infinity. Hence the question stands, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" and it is valid. Your post makes no sense whatsoever. God is obviously not limited to this universe, and if he wants to create a rock in this universe the rock must necessarily apply the rules created by him or it wouldnt be in this universe. What you are asking is like saying "god cannot do something that is impossible to be done" but that is obviously a contradiction in itself.
You basically put out your own fire there. The concept of God being able to do something that is impossible is the entire point of the question, "can God make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?" Because any answer to this question is a contradiction, some premise within the question must be wrong. The wrong premise is the concept of God, in the form that we are told to understand him.
|
On November 05 2004 12:05 SoL.Origin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 12:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
If you really want to know you should read the bible, it is the only source available that you can trust regarding this subject. Other people base their assumptions on reading the bible too but they are not necessarily right. I starting reading the bible a couple of years ago and have yet to find a contradiction in it, and I've studied physics and chemistry enough for that purpose.
Doesn't the bible say that God is good *and* omniscient/omnipotent? That's a pretty big contradiction right there. Don't forget that George Bush was just re-elected.
Like laptoplegacy said in the first response to this thread, it's not omnipotence or omniscience that are hard to buy--the universe could concievably be run by indifferent or evil agents that had full knowledge and control over all events. But the major monotheistic faiths at least seem to make the claim that god is not only omnipotent but also good. This "goodness" is praised in human terms and I've never seen anything in the original sources that says anything about how humans shouldn't think about it too much because it's beyond their comprehensive capacity. The idea is that an omnipotent and good--that's good by human standards--lord of the universe would not allow any evil in the world, but there's no doubt that there's evil everywhere in our world.
So in direct reponse to the topic title: even though there may be an omniscient being, there's no point in believing in him because he doesn't give a shit about us.
|
well, does the bible say something like 'god created the day and the night', question is - what was there when there were no day and night?
or does it say 'there was darkness, god created the light', question is - where did darkness came from, if not from god? if it did came from god, you still have 1st question.
am i wrong about these lines?
|
Little excerpts of genesis:
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Sentences like that are listed throughout the first 6 days, the creation period. In those 6 days, god created light, heaven, water and the land, the stars and the sun, animals, more living creatures and man. then on the 7th day he rested. So, in 7 days, god created adam, the heavens and the earth.
005:005 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty
years: and he died.
So adam lived 930 years.
Clearly the language of days and years is being used.
edit: I really dont doubt that you know the bible better than I do, and im curious what you are looking at because it is clear to me that years and days have the same meaning.
|
|
|
On November 05 2004 12:15 rplant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 12:05 SoL.Origin wrote:On November 05 2004 12:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
If you really want to know you should read the bible, it is the only source available that you can trust regarding this subject. Other people base their assumptions on reading the bible too but they are not necessarily right. I starting reading the bible a couple of years ago and have yet to find a contradiction in it, and I've studied physics and chemistry enough for that purpose. Doesn't the bible say that God is good *and* omniscient/omnipotent? That's a pretty big contradiction right there. Don't forget that George Bush was just re-elected. Like laptoplegacy said in the first response to this thread, it's not omnipotence or omniscience that are hard to buy--the universe could concievably be run by indifferent or evil agents that had full knowledge and control over all events. But the major monotheistic faiths at least seem to make the claim that god is not only omnipotent but also good. This "goodness" is praised in human terms and I've never seen anything in the original sources that says anything about how humans shouldn't think about it too much because it's beyond their comprehensive capacity. The idea is that an omnipotent and good--that's good by human standards--lord of the universe would not allow any evil in the world, but there's no doubt that there's evil everywhere in our world. So in direct reponse to the thread: even though there may be an omniscient being, there's no point in believing in him because he doesn't give a shit about us.
When thinkers begin to realize the contradictory nature of the God as he is written, catch-phrases like "God works in mysterious ways" and "God can't be understood by man" are the only replies they get. The weakness of these rebuttles, being claims without reasoning, points to an unequivocal winner of the argument. Pat yourself on the back for winning  .
P.S. That's all I'm gonna say in this thread.
|
On November 05 2004 12:15 rplant wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 12:05 SoL.Origin wrote:On November 05 2004 12:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the "most christian" people I've talked to are all of the opinion that the world is at least younger than 10000 years.
If you really want to know you should read the bible, it is the only source available that you can trust regarding this subject. Other people base their assumptions on reading the bible too but they are not necessarily right. I starting reading the bible a couple of years ago and have yet to find a contradiction in it, and I've studied physics and chemistry enough for that purpose. Doesn't the bible say that God is good *and* omniscient/omnipotent? That's a pretty big contradiction right there. Don't forget that George Bush was just re-elected. Like laptoplegacy said in the first response to this thread, it's not omnipotence or omniscience that are hard to buy--the universe could concievably be run by indifferent or evil agents that had full knowledge and control over all events. But the major monotheistic faiths at least seem to make the claim that god is not only omnipotent but also good. This "goodness" is praised in human terms and I've never seen anything in the original sources that says anything about how humans shouldn't think about it too much because it's beyond their comprehensive capacity. The idea is that an omnipotent and good--that's good by human standards--lord of the universe would not allow any evil in the world, but there's no doubt that there's evil everywhere in our world. So in direct reponse to the thread: even though there may be an omniscient being, there's no point in believing in him because he doesn't give a shit about us.
I dont believe the words omnipotent and omnipresent were even invented when the bible was written... and i havent read anything equivalent in the bible so i cant say much about it.
And regarding your last sentence, i think maybe you should think of the possibility that your faith is at trial and god will give you those things you want if you have faith in Him and follow his commandments.
Obviously most people who say god is unfair also commit themselves to breaking his commandments every minute... try spending a day without breaking any of the 10 commandments, and not even thinking about doing it, and try to notice how your life was different that day. Were you more "lucky" maybe?
|
Bah, none of you are even getting the point of the whole post.
Look for drone's post on page 7 or 8, then you'll get it.
I can't believe how long it takes some of you, it's pretty simple too. But you have to overcomplicate shit before you're even done reading it.
|
To sum it all up, if there is an omnipotent being THEN there is no free will.
However, if there is free will, then no such omnipotent being exists.
|
Precisely, all you guys are going into theories and shit that were side discussions, and I don't even think any of you got the main point. NONE of you are discussing it at all.
|
Let's suppose there is an omnipotent being.
By our logic, this implies that there is no free will, so the omnipotent being can predict everything that will happen from the beginning onwards. So, although the omnipotent being is all powerful, he cannot change the course of events that are going to happen, so the being is basically a quiet observer.
(Note that although the omnipotent being CAN change the course of history by changing it's own actions, it already knows how it will react to everything because it is omnipotent, so in reality, it is merely observing itself and everything else).
What circumstances must exist for these assumptions to hold?
Well, the universe MUST be of finite size. This is not to say that a finitely sized universe IMPLIES there is an omnipotent being, it merely means that an INfinitely sized universe implies that there is NO omnipotent being.
We have been arguing that math is the omnipotent being in the universe. So, if math were an omnipotent being, then the universe MUST be of finite size and not infinite.
What happens if the universe if of infinite size? This implies that a) there is no omnipotent being
b) there can be free will, although, everything may still be deterministic, yet there is no requirement for an omnipotent being that can actually predict everything.
|
You forgot one part though.
If the universe is indeed finite, that leaves the possibility for expansion further than the universe itself. A megaverse if you will.
Anything finite can have expansion, the only physical entity without expansion is infinite.
We'll assume there is no megaverse at the moment since we have explored far too far with telescopes with no sign of a curve in the universe for it to be assumed that it is spherical.
Also, if it turns out there is no omnipotent being, then the next step down is some sort of observer, controller if you will. Mathematics perfectly fits this place.
My conclusion is an infinitely large, flat, universe(there is more evidence that suggests an infinite universe and than a finite one) with a governing body of mathematics. No dieties needed.
EDIT: Do you agree with that conclusion bigballs?
|
Oh shit, been away for too long, too many things to respond to now. 
Just some things though:
Keanu made me fucking LOL. If that "I'm smarter then thou" attitude is all he has to offer in defense of his believe that's fucking pathetic.
Aseq is out of his mind. Having philosofical discussions about the possibility of (a) god existing is one thing, doubting the validity of evolutionary theory is quite another. There may be some truth in the statement made by various people that the concept of a god might just be 'way over our heads', evolutionary theorie sure isn't.
People opposing it are usually doing so out of ignorance. Sometimes it's just stupidity though, especially in the case of fundamentalist christians.
Bigballs is a clear thinker and I was also pleasantly suprised at the level of clearness Freak exposed while being in a drug-induced state of conciousness.
Moltke, c/p-ing large pieces of tracts from medieval philosophers that have long been debunked isn't adding much to the discussion imo.
Sol.Origin, don't suppose non-believers automatically know less about the bible than you do. I'm pretty confident I know more about it then you, yet I'm not a christian (anymore).
|
I feel so loved
Now I'm just tired and not drugged o.O
|
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. Specialization. Also, sexually reproducing organisms have a much lower chance of being whiped out by parasites, virii etc since the genes get reshuffled with each new generation.
Also, where does conciousness come from. Complexity of the brain.
Where does the will to survive come from (since even the simplest animals show it)?) This is so simple that I'm astounded anyone would be troubled by this question. Obviously, organisms with no will to survive produce less offspring than organisms that do have this will, thus 'will to survive' is selected for.
and i don't see the point of living my life if it were true, since it would be as pointless as an MMRPG^^. Science would not be providing you with a reason to live. That's not what it's supposed to do, and you'd be stupid to expect that.
You have to give meaning to your life yourself and BTW, I don't think religion does a good job providing it. Just ask yourself the question what is the meaning of god's life??
|
Oh and a big LMAO to all people that believe the earth is not approximately 4.56 billion years old.
Sorry for instigating, but that belief has to be one of the most ridiculous things that fundi christians cling to.
|
you guys, its really not that complicated. the best way to describe goes something like this:
How did things get created (outside of evolution, im not talking about that creation)? Time? When did it all start? Its impossible, in our ability to understand, to have an answer. No matter how you slice it, you cannot offer a reasonable solution (the big bang: a big ball from nowhere explodes and thus time begins... what began it? what created it?). And, so, with God, we have the same.... There is no answer, no we can't understand.
Think of it like a 2D object trying to understand a 3D object. Exactly how is a 2D object going to explain a 3D object to his friends? It defies everything they know to be real and logical, and the depth is incomprehinsible to them.
That's not all that complicated, and I'm not really going into the nature of God, but that's just to explain... You people try to be clever and disprove God or something.... Well, don't be so proud of yourself. You're not the only one who's thought it all through.
|
you guys, its really not that complicated. It never is, for religious people. 
You're not the only one who's thought it all through. I know. Lots of other people before me came to the conclusion that the disproval of some ancient myths scrabbled down on clay tablets by Hebrew goatherders was actually not that difficult at all.
|
On November 05 2004 14:22 LaptopLegacy wrote:It never is, for religious people. I know. Lots of other people before me came to the conclusion that the disproval of some ancient myths scrabbled down on clay tablets by Hebrew goatherders was actually not that difficult at all.
i dont think you read what i said, respond to my points, not a couple of lines that have nothing to do with what i said.
|
Kaotu: you clearly didn't read the thread. If something is infinite(ie: the universe) it is unbounded. That means it lacks a beginning and an end. Thus if the universe is infinite it needs no creater. That has nothing to do with big bang or anything like that, we never even brought up big bang theory. That isn't impossible to understand. Maybe for you it is
A 2D object described a 3D object like Prof Frink did in the Simpsons. Or if you have a really smart 2D object, he will most definitely draw a diagram to demonstrate how the 3D object has width, and a very very very smart 2D object will explain that the 3D object adds a line prependicular to each of its sides. The same reason us as 3Ds can define a Hypercube, or an 8th dimensional hyber cube. That argument was WEAK.
We aren't trying to disprove god, we are arguing the possibility that god is not an omnipotent creater but perhaps was spawned at the same time as the universe(being infinite, that is they were both the 1st things in existance, though there is no start) and instead a maker, a molder, a scuptor of the worlds. Perhaps it means he doesn't exist? Perhaps it means he exists in a different form than we currently believe him to? We never tried to disprove him, just gave out interpretation based on the discussion at hand.
You clearly didn't read the thread or lacked the intelligence to comprehend the discussion. Sorry if that offends you, but it seems to be truth if you in fact did read the thread.
|
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?
the idea of morality wasn't created by god...
|
I agree travis. But yours is not the christian pov.
|
On November 05 2004 13:14 Element)FrEaK wrote:
You forgot one part though.
If the universe is indeed finite, that leaves the possibility for expansion further than the universe itself. A megaverse if you will.
Anything finite can have expansion, the only physical entity without expansion is infinite.
We'll assume there is no megaverse at the moment since we have explored far too far with telescopes with no sign of a curve in the universe for it to be assumed that it is spherical.
Also, if it turns out there is no omnipotent being, then the next step down is some sort of observer, controller if you will. Mathematics perfectly fits this place.
My conclusion is an infinitely large, flat, universe(there is more evidence that suggests an infinite universe and than a finite one) with a governing body of mathematics. No dieties needed.
EDIT: Do you agree with that conclusion bigballs?
Well, I really dont know much about the universe expanding at an increasing rate/slowing down area to make an educated decision on the universe size.
However, i am a believer in chaos theory/determinism, and I agree that the governing body is math. As for deities, there really isnt much need for them. I dont really know what to make of the big bang though, mathematics and science cant explain creating matter out of energy. I guess if i knew more about the whole anti matter field I could say more about the existence of deities.
|
no, my response wasn't really to the thread
I suppose more against the few posts that I immediately saw which slammed God quite a bit.
I really dont care how you view my intelligence, nor if you choose to believe in w/e you believe in
When all is said and done, and you're dead, who really remembers you? People that no one will remember. as Paul says, "if there is no God, let us eat, drink, and be merry!", meaning, what the heck does life matter if there is no God? Honestly, nothing at all. And no argument you have can convince me otherwise.
"For God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise"
As to the topic of this thread... I know I'm just going with everything you've said about me, but I really don't think you have an argument. If you are actually trying to understand God, you would have to read the Bible (and I'm not trying to convert you, or heck maybe you already believe, but thats just the only answer). This talk really doesn't have much to do with the God of the bible, but more of a theoretical God that we assume doesn't exist.
I am sure there are several members here more intelligent than me, but I'm intelligent enough to understand what you're saying, and have no real reponse besides that this is kind of a waste of time, in my personal opinion.
But enjoy the discussion, consider it as I had never said anything.
|
On November 05 2004 14:55 Kaotu wrote:
no, my response wasn't really to the thread
I suppose more against the few posts that I immediately saw which slammed God quite a bit.
I really dont care how you view my intelligence, nor if you choose to believe in w/e you believe in
When all is said and done, and you're dead, who really remembers you? People that no one will remember. as Paul says, "if there is no God, let us eat, drink, and be merry!", meaning, what the heck does life matter if there is no God? Honestly, nothing at all. And no argument you have can convince me otherwise.
"For God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise"
As to the topic of this thread... I know I'm just going with everything you've said about me, but I really don't think you have an argument. If you are actually trying to understand God, you would have to read the Bible (and I'm not trying to convert you, or heck maybe you already believe, but thats just the only answer). This talk really doesn't have much to do with the God of the bible, but more of a theoretical God that we assume doesn't exist.
I am sure there are several members here more intelligent than me, but I'm intelligent enough to understand what you're saying, and have no real reponse besides that this is kind of a waste of time, in my personal opinion.
But enjoy the discussion, consider it as I had never said anything.
Well, this can bring in some really deep philosophical debates. You mentioned "what the heck does life matter if there is no God?"
First off, what is life? Can you define it? Cause I sure as hell cant.
If you want to, I guess you could describe it as organisms that reproduce, grow, adapt to their environments, and respond to stimuli, but what are the defining characteristics of these things? surely there must be SOMETHING that can sum up a simple term such as "life" better than 4 properties. These properties dont really imply anything about purpose aside from our inter-relationship with other organisms, so I guess a better definition of life is required.
Secondly, if you meant human life (which you probably did), why does there have to be a god to have a meaning? And, just because there is an afterlife and a creater all of a sudden meaning comes into play? So if we die and there is no heaven our lives mean absolutely nothing? I dont really agree with this sort of line of thinking.
why cant we look at something like meaning in terms of the betterment of society, the betterment of technology, our human progress, etc. We can come up with answers to questions like "why are we here?", and "what is our purpose?", just not in relation to a god.
Why are we here? Because we evolved.
What is our purpose? This one might be a little bit harder. If there WERE a god, what would our purpose be then?
Just some rambling, incoherent thoughts I had when I saw the word life in your post.
|
On November 05 2004 15:05 BigBalls wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 14:55 Kaotu wrote:
no, my response wasn't really to the thread
I suppose more against the few posts that I immediately saw which slammed God quite a bit.
I really dont care how you view my intelligence, nor if you choose to believe in w/e you believe in
When all is said and done, and you're dead, who really remembers you? People that no one will remember. as Paul says, "if there is no God, let us eat, drink, and be merry!", meaning, what the heck does life matter if there is no God? Honestly, nothing at all. And no argument you have can convince me otherwise.
"For God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise"
As to the topic of this thread... I know I'm just going with everything you've said about me, but I really don't think you have an argument. If you are actually trying to understand God, you would have to read the Bible (and I'm not trying to convert you, or heck maybe you already believe, but thats just the only answer). This talk really doesn't have much to do with the God of the bible, but more of a theoretical God that we assume doesn't exist.
I am sure there are several members here more intelligent than me, but I'm intelligent enough to understand what you're saying, and have no real reponse besides that this is kind of a waste of time, in my personal opinion.
But enjoy the discussion, consider it as I had never said anything. Well, this can bring in some really deep philosophical debates. You mentioned "what the heck does life matter if there is no God?" First off, what is life? Can you define it? Cause I sure as hell cant. If you want to, I guess you could describe it as organisms that reproduce, grow, adapt to their environments, and respond to stimuli, but what are the defining characteristics of these things? surely there must be SOMETHING that can sum up a simple term such as "life" better than 4 properties. These properties dont really imply anything about purpose aside from our inter-relationship with other organisms, so I guess a better definition of life is required. Secondly, if you meant human life (which you probably did), why does there have to be a god to have a meaning? And, just because there is an afterlife and a creater all of a sudden meaning comes into play? So if we die and there is no heaven our lives mean absolutely nothing? I dont really agree with this sort of line of thinking. why cant we look at something like meaning in terms of the betterment of society, the betterment of technology, our human progress, etc. We can come up with answers to questions like "why are we here?", and "what is our purpose?", just not in relation to a god. Why are we here? Because we evolved. What is our purpose? This one might be a little bit harder. If there WERE a god, what would our purpose be then? Just some rambling, incoherent thoughts I had when I saw the word life in your post.
Why can't this be our purpose? Because, inevitably, everything around us dies, and life itself will cease to exist sooner or later. All things we can do even to 'better society' really serve no point without God, because in the end all things mean nothing (when there is no life left, what memory is left of our existence?)
edit: Forgot to answer the part about with God. Well, the purpose is love, as lame as that might sound. If we assume the Bible is the truth, then God created us to love us, not because he actually needed us to do something. We sinned etc etc, but the point is to be united with God in love (the one thing God needs?) so, heaven is where we enter infinite, where our purpose becomes clear, and until then our purpose is to get there.
|
So what youre saying is, if there is a god, then our purpose is to live, then exist in heaven so we can remember what happens on earth. What's the point of that? What kind of meaning does THAT have?
Why does there even have to be meaning? When there is no end to life, how can we even appreciate living?
|
Remembering what happens on earth has nothing to do with heaven. And read my edit...
There doesn't have to be meaning, I suppose. Isn't that the whole idea behind being agnostic or atheist? There is no 'greater purpose'... well, if thats what you believe, then why are we even talking about it?
|
Cause id like to hear your side of it. And being agnostic, id like to think I keep a slightly open mind about religion
edit: i cant stand the : ] smiley. It looks like a fucking clown nose. Im done with smileys.
|
I once talked to a priest about values. We had the same values. He believed god created us to have those values. I said that the values we have, have evolved according to darwins theory. We parted friends but in disagreement. I wish I was the priest.
Time to drown my feelings in alcohol and pussy.
|
|
|
Well, I'm glad. I like to keep an open mind, and listen to what people say to disprove God. I don't think there's a lot of 'faith' involved with religious people who just believe what they want to believe, and then cover their ears for the rest...
Anyway, the point of heaven? I guess we find out when we get there O_O. I really don't know the right answer, so I won't try to give it. Its described as being uncomprehinsible in the bible, which yes I can understand the frustration when people basically say 'you can't comprehend it, so its clearly real'. But, I guess that the ultimate point is to be with God, to have that unity like there is between the father and the son (in the trinity, although I assume you know what I'm talking about anyway).
Biblically, the only pain of the cross that Jesus found unbearable was separation from God... he still endured it, but it was the only pain among the physical abuse and being betrayed by even his disciples that he cried out against on the cross. Why do I say this? Well, I suppose that such unity is what we will have in heaven, to really know God like this and feel no seperation etc. To be able to see his face. For infinite heh....
Heaven is 'paradise', it is the 'crown that lasts forever', etc. I think the crown is the best example... where Paul compares us to runners. Runners run to win the race, and thus win a crown that will not last. In life, all the things we pursue that as I said will not last. But we run (the spiritual battle, getting to heaven, etc) to earn a crown that lasts forever, heaven. So... Like I said, I don't have 'the answer', but this is the best that I can do.
|
.... its free will do whatever you want its your life live it he sets you on earth and lets you live out your life yea i repeated here it goes again.....he set you on this earth and gave you free will he knew adam and eve would eat that apple but he didnt stop them why? free will after that...he let humans destroy each other which he saved them from later why did they hurt each other and not obey god? free will
|
Well, I wouldnt try to disprove god, or prove god for that matter, cause I cant, and neither can anyone else at this point.
However, that's not really the aim of this discussion. The aim of this discussion was to show that EITHER there is no free will or there is no omnipotent being. Well, I suppose omnipotent is the wrong word there, there is no OMNISCIENT being. There could be an all powerful being that is not omniscient.
Regardless, supposing no free will, our lives are predetermined and they dont really have any meaning at all.
|
I don't understand why there is no omniscient being. The fact that an omniscient being could know everything before it happens doesn't mean that we wouldn't have free will, does it? I mean honestly, how does that interfere? And I understand how it could be thought to, or how it makes more sense that it does, but its not as if its proven theoretically that an omniscient being = no free will.
|
Well, suppose there is an omniscient being.
If you believe in chaos theory, then everything can be predicted knowing all the initial conditions. It makes sense doesnt it? If one knew your hormone levels, everything you've been taught over the years, the climate, and any other influencing factors and how they influenced you, they could basically write your post for you word by word.
So now, if everything can be predicted, then there really isnt any free will. How can there be free will when everything is basically predetermined? If im destined to do something and I have no control over that, then I dont really have any choice in the matter do I? If my life can be written down before it happens by an omniscient source, do i really have any choice in my life?
|
Hmm I should rework what I just said, I didn't really think through what you said, sorry.
I suppose you have to consider motive, rather than ability, because that is the thing that in free will + omniscience doesn't seem to make sense. If God knew that people were going to hell and yet did not stop it, this makes him not pure good, right? If God knows the evil that will happen and yet lets it happen (free will), then he can't really be omniscient?
God can indeed (biblically) prevent evil, knows it will happen and could fully stop it. Why not? Why let people burn in hell when he could turn them into instant God-lovers? Well, he doesn't want it to be forced. He created us to love us and for us to love him, but created free will so that it will be real, authentic. Do you want your kids to love you for absolutely no reason, to have no say in it at all, or do you want to show them your love for them and for them to respond with real, authentic love?
I don't want to go deep into Bible, because I realize that using the Bible to explain the Bible can be troublesome (although not always, but basically, I know you've heard this all before).
But why would God let things happen? I mean, couldn't he have stopped Satan from turning evil, couldn't he have stopped him from entering the world, couldn't he have made us perfectly loving?
That wouldn't be any fun, would it? But seriously, perhaps there was reason even behind allowing the fall of Satan, perhaps to prove our value? I don't know, I wish I had better, more thought out arguments, but basically, I don't understand the idea that omniscience + free will = impossible.
|
On November 05 2004 15:55 BigBalls wrote:
Well, suppose there is an omniscient being.
If you believe in chaos theory, then everything can be predicted knowing all the initial conditions. It makes sense doesnt it? If one knew your hormone levels, everything you've been taught over the years, the climate, and any other influencing factors and how they influenced you, they could basically write your post for you word by word.
So now, if everything can be predicted, then there really isnt any free will. How can there be free will when everything is basically predetermined? If im destined to do something and I have no control over that, then I dont really have any choice in the matter do I? If my life can be written down before it happens by an omniscient source, do i really have any choice in my life?
Yes, I think so... Don't you? Just because they know it will happen doesn't mean you didn't choose to do it, does it? I'm sorry if I sound too basic, but honestly I don't fully understand why you think that this negates free will. You still are deciding what to do, even if someone else knows about it, no?
|
Feels like I'm reading the Tao Te Ching (or Dao De Jing)
|
So are you basically saying that although an omniscient being can predict exactly what we can do we still have free will?
That really isnt a valid argument. The only counter to this argument would be to argue against the assumption that chaos theory is correct
|
do you think somebody so almighty as god cares if you believe in him, he would be lacking some serious confidence.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
Kaotu, you're not getting it.
If you know i am going to do something, with absolute truth, how can i possibly choose or not choose to do it. If i am *going to do it no matter what*, where does choice come in. If there is a banana and an apple on a table, and u say 'he's gonna take the banana', and i *have* to choose that banana because your god, and you all ready know its going to happen, how can i possibly eat that apple? If you all ready know what im going to do *before i choose to do it*, i cease to have that choice.
|
And i wholly agree with you freak. My friend Spencer and i have been through this many a time. We also came to the conclusion that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.
Moltke, i am really without words to describe how good it is that you are on this forum. You are smart, educated, intelligent, articulate, and an awesome part of this website. Never disappear please. I don't want to lose again a TL.net idol.
|
I was going to attempt to respond to individual posts, but thats alot of reading considering i just spent the past 2 hours going through this thread.
I'm torn between being Agnostic and Atheist. I am on the pursuit of truth and will always prusue truth, and will never ultimately know with certainty what i should believe. However, the more that i experience, the more that feel, the more that i think and consider, the more i lean towards Atheism. I believe that we are a random occurence. I believe that against all odds and chance, that we have fluked into existing. The gift of life and more specifically, conciousness, and our ability to percieve beauty in goodness is nothing short of a miracle. (oh the irony!~). I am in awe of existing. I am in awe of everything it means to be alive. My perspective on how frail and amazing life is makes me humble and gives me an appreciation of life. And for this reason i find religion to be most insulting.
They do not believe these things. They believe that we are planned. They believe we have a purpose. They believe that there is more than the truly beautiful thing that we should most cherish. They fancy themselves with things more than life. It trivializes everything. I am thankful to the universe for creating me. I know that it is by no right or privaledge that i am here, i simply am. My life is so much more precious and meaningful because of its finity. They promise more.
I mean utlimately i won't take their beliefs personally. They aren't trying to demean my beliefs anymore than i try to demean theirs. I think it would be a waste of time to think how much i hate their beliefs, and to more focus on loving and cherishing life as much as i can/do.
However, i dont think that a higher power is an impossibility. I just think it's improbable. If He does exist, He is not omniscient. I have no idea nor care if He is omnipotent. I would like to think that a being more powerful and intelligent and us would also be more wise. He would love us unconditionally. That's all there is to that.
btw, Memnoch the Devil by Anne Rice is a brilliant book about god/creation/the universe/devil/hell. I would suggest reading it whether ur into fantasy/vampires/have read her previous books or not.
|
On November 05 2004 15:44 BigBalls wrote:
Well, I wouldnt try to disprove god, or prove god for that matter, cause I cant, and neither can anyone else at this point.
However, that's not really the aim of this discussion. The aim of this discussion was to show that EITHER there is no free will or there is no omnipotent being. Well, I suppose omnipotent is the wrong word there, there is no OMNISCIENT being. There could be an all powerful being that is not omniscient.
Regardless, supposing no free will, our lives are predetermined and they dont really have any meaning at all.
There is no free will AND there is no god.
|
On November 05 2004 17:05 Teroru wrote:
Kaotu, you're not getting it.
If you know i am going to do something, with absolute truth, how can i possibly choose or not choose to do it. If i am *going to do it no matter what*, where does choice come in. If there is a banana and an apple on a table, and u say 'he's gonna take the banana', and i *have* to choose that banana because your god, and you all ready know its going to happen, how can i possibly eat that apple? If you all ready know what im going to do *before i choose to do it*, i cease to have that choice. except that you don't know you have to choose the banana, you arbitrarily choose that banana, and wow! it's right!
|
On November 05 2004 18:14 badteeth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 15:44 BigBalls wrote:
Well, I wouldnt try to disprove god, or prove god for that matter, cause I cant, and neither can anyone else at this point.
However, that's not really the aim of this discussion. The aim of this discussion was to show that EITHER there is no free will or there is no omnipotent being. Well, I suppose omnipotent is the wrong word there, there is no OMNISCIENT being. There could be an all powerful being that is not omniscient.
Regardless, supposing no free will, our lives are predetermined and they dont really have any meaning at all. There is no free will AND there is no god. penis envy can be a harsh thing
|
On November 05 2004 19:14 RuGbUg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2004 18:14 badteeth wrote:On November 05 2004 15:44 BigBalls wrote:
Well, I wouldnt try to disprove god, or prove god for that matter, cause I cant, and neither can anyone else at this point.
However, that's not really the aim of this discussion. The aim of this discussion was to show that EITHER there is no free will or there is no omnipotent being. Well, I suppose omnipotent is the wrong word there, there is no OMNISCIENT being. There could be an all powerful being that is not omniscient.
Regardless, supposing no free will, our lives are predetermined and they dont really have any meaning at all. There is no free will AND there is no god. penis envy can be a harsh thing
What did God put up you ass, you retarded piece of dung.
|
irony so thick i could cut it with your needle dick
|
wow im finally done reading
as to someone said complexity of the brain causes a consiousness, if this could be explained to me.. it would solve a lot for me personally
|
I'm torn between being Agnostic and Atheist. I am on the pursuit of truth and will always prusue truth, and will never ultimately know with certainty what i should believe. However, the more that i experience, the more that feel, the more that i think and consider, the more i lean towards Atheism.
I think atheism is the more sensible position to hold.
First, nothing in nature can be ultimately proven with 100% degree of certainty (except in mathematics and logic if you accept the axioms as true).
Secondly, there are many, many things that are highly improbable but that cannot be disproven with 100% certainty. How, for example, do you know there's no lion in your toilet that disappears the moment you open the door? You can't prove it doesn't exsist and yet every time you go take a crap you believe it's not there and hasn't grown hungry enough to stay materialized and swallow you.
Or how do we know for sure that the next time we sit down will not cause the force of gravity to go from being an attractive force to being a repelling one? According to Popper, it doesn't matter how many observations verify your theory, there can always be a discovery that would disprove it. But still, we accept these kind of theories as thruth and act like they're 100% proven.
I think the existence of a supernatural being (especially the traditional christian god) is equally improbable as my examples above. By definition we can never find any evidence (evidence, as opposed to proof) for such a being. That makes its existence superfluous and victim to Occam's razor.
Another reason for atheism over agnosticism is practical. What i've seen from people i know is that agnostics usually live their lifes as if there is no god, just as atheists.
Finally, another problem for agnosticism is that you'd have to consider the possibility of every imaginable god to exist. Not only the judeo-christian one, but also allah, Zeus, Marduk, Quetzalqoatl, Vishna, Thor etc etc. And not only the gods of the world religions, but all possible gods. Even malevolent ones that have us trapped in a Matrix-style (yeah i used the argument ad Matrix, kill me now :p). This leads to weird philosofical ideas like solipsism that really are not productive at all.
|
Kaotu seems to be spouting the same arguments that he has repeated dozens of times. I don't even think he knows what he is arguing. I don't even think he understands the topic at all. He seems to think he's engaged in telling us why there is a god and why there must be a god ect. ect. when it has nothing to do with the discussion.
I'm sorry Kaotu, but you've had nothing relevant to say this whole time, and there have been very few god bashing posts to justify taking up and entire page =[
If you don't understand the concept that we are discussing at this point, then you aren't going to. It doesn't seem to make sense to you.
And to claim that after we die we no longer have purpose without god is just silly. Isaac Newtown created calculus. CREATED CALCULUS. That is plenty of purpose right there. Anybody with capability and desire can and will have purpose beyond death.
Anyways, thats all I have to say to Kaotu, don't join conversations when you have no idea what the hell they are about, nor do you comprehend them =[
May we have a different discussion someday, but today is not that day Kaotu.
FrEaK
|
BTW, if people are looking for intelligent discussion on things like this I'd recommend the forum of infidels.com.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php
Especially the "Existence of God(s)" forums has many interesting discussions like this one. I also liked the formal debate on the existence of the christian god between Ted Drange and Chris McHugh here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=63152
Hope these site-plugs are not considered spamming??
|
laptop, they are not.
|
mmm the post i read of kaotu's made perfect sense to me, yet everyone is saying otherwise.
an omniscient entity existing does not necessarily mean there is no free will.
predermination does not necessarily mean there is no free will.
it is a very tricky subject and is largely up to just 'how you look at it'
oh fuck i need to get more sleep before i try to explain this i just spent 15 minutes confusing myself
|
No.
The only way to argue against my line of reasoning is to argue against chos thoery
|
here is the problem:
consciousness is not a physical thing
do you understand what I just tried to get at by that?
|
i think god exists. but the god that i assume is Spinoza(?)'s Pantheism... so every individuals is involved in the whole god. In there, divisionig 'myself, non-myself' is meaningless thing.
therefore i am united in god, 'believing, knowing....' are also ridiculous.
dunno Evangerion that is very famous Japan animation ? the end of evangerion shows the god entity that i mentioned above.
|
On November 06 2004 00:18 travis wrote:
here is the problem:
consciousness is not a physical thing
do you understand what I just tried to get at by that?
Thought is neurons moving back and forth in our mind. We are chemicals and our thoughts are chemical reactions in our body. I would define consciousness which is basically self awareness and thought as a physical reaction.
That might just be the alcohol talking
|
Have you ever thought that maybe you approach at percieving reality maybe should be the opposite? (if i sound condescending or sarcastic I don't mean to be, the questions are genuine )
That maybe instead of reality being based upon the physical/material, and the physical/material being the cause of the mental/spiritual, it could be the exact opposite:
Perhaps reality is based upon the mental/spiritual, and this is the direct cause of the physical/material.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
So you know, about 1 year ago I made a post on these forums about why free will doesn't exist and everything is pre-determined. It seems logical, it really does. But I don't think it's right.
and one last thing. since you [kind of] gave consciousness a definition that would make it a physical thing, now you would have to define 'awareness' as a physical thing
|
Since leading scientists have been able to define self awareness, I don't think you should ask bigballs to do the same =[
We aren't that far into how our brain works T_T
|
you mean "haven't"
and anyone can define it, they just can't explain it
i get what you were saying though
but that was my point
|
travis, when the possibility of something happening is 100%, where do u find room for choice.
i do not understand.
if u are going to do something with no chance of doing anything else, how can u choose to do it. :O
|
ok im gonna give trying to explain what i mean a try
but as i said its all a matter of perception
gimme 5 min or so
|
ok first things first
need to define a couple things
omniscient:
"having total knowledge and awareness'
good?
now free will:
"the ability to make choices unconstrained by external agencies"
those good?
|
fuck this is gonna come out stupid and incredibly basic but maybe you'll understand what i understand
or maybe my thinking really *is* wrong
|
|
|
You do? What do you got travis?
|
ok
the problem with what you guys are saying is that you are thinking in terms of time
since the christian god(and really any other omniscient entity I could imagine existing) is omnipresent and omnitemporal(meaning everywhere at "everywhen") this view is flawed.
im pretty sure you guys are looking at free will in life as
guy can make choice:
A or B
which leads to:
A or B or C
which leads to:
A or B
etc(one choice leading to another)
since god is intemporal this viewpoint is wrong. god didn't have any effect on what happened, it just did, and he knows this because.. he does.
do you see what im saying? claiming that his knowledge of an event somehow makes that event predetermined is wrong because thats incorporates time. it acts like god is a good buddy of yours and you could ask him what is going to happen. it is the same as claiming that anything that has happened in our past was predetermined because of the fact that we know it happened(it may not seem the same, but it is. really)
even still this doesn't prove or disprove the argument either way, it just turns it back into a question, which was my point all along.
understand what im saying?
edit - is becomes was
|
But that isn't the same, because knowing what has happened in the past is FAR from knowing EXACTLY what will happen in the future.
To be truly of free will we must be able to make choices without an omnipotent being knowing that that was the choice we were going to make. If he knows that is the choice we were going to make, then there was really no decision to it at all, just time consumed.
The past is something that has happened, you can't predetermine the past because to pre determine means to determine beforehand. You can't determine what will happen in the past, that doesn't even make any sense. Past has happened, there is no determining about it.
To not see the difference in those 2 seems silly to me.
We might also be using freewill incorrectly, let me summarize my main idea.
It is POINTLESS to believe in an omnipotent being because he already knows whether your going to heaven or hell, because he is omnipotent. If he does not possess that forsight he is not omnipotent and thus not the abrahamic god.
We just got into a side argument about free will being impossible if everything you will or won't do is already known.
|
WOW DID YOU EVEN READ MY POST?
:-(
|
yes, yes I did. Your claiming the fact that he knows what is going to happen doesn't void the choice.
But it makes the choice already known and thus wasn't a choice at all.
|
:-(
ill wait until someone else reads it
|
"ok"
rather than a real response, lets belittle somebody.
Dick.
|
im sorry but when you conveniently ignore my main point im going to conveniently ignore your posts.
|
Sweden1225 Posts
|
Yes, I ignored it, of course, that is why I bothered to respond at all in a discussion I'm interested in.
That is the entire reason I'm even in this discussion is to ignore points made when I'm trying to discuss something, not 'win'. Yup, you got me.
Explain your main point more, unless your main point is that him knowing something is going to happen doesn't negate freewill. We have already discussed that to death and all your doing is complicated things that have already been stating with needless dribble.
None of us even incorporated time, you did =[
So rather than being a dick, discuss and don't think that I'm ignoring shit, I'm actually trying to discuss.
Unless you want to admit to being a completely asshole.
|
Freak he says god exists outside time, thus past and future are the same to him
U respond from a human viewpoint
apples and oranges ok?
|
Im sorry I offended you so much, I was just taken aback when you completely didn't get what my post was about at all.
I'll respond when I wake up tommorrow.
|
Sometimes I just miss things, I can't understand everything everytime T_T
|
travis,
I am familiar with the 'god is atemporal' line of reasoning. I think it doesn't hold water though, because it removes the ability for god to act. Actions are temporal because they require change. You need a state of affairs before the action and a soa after it and they cannot be the same. So positing that god is 'above' our time makes him unable to create our universe. And makes him unable to interact with his creation or communicate with us or basically do anything except 'being omniscient'.
Another pointless philosophical god i'm not going to believe in.
|
I'm not saying that I believe it, the idea of a "god" seems ridiculous to me. I'm just saying that is what the Christian doctrine says and is therefore correct as far as christianity is concerned.
And I don't understand why a lack of time would remove the ability of god to act(thought the argument really will go nowhere)
However my main point was still that who the hell are you guys to say that predisposed knowledge destroys free will? Despite the "logic" of it, it really is an assumption. No one here can explain the "why" of it, only what their assumption is based upon.
|
We have explained the why of it, the fact that you don't accept it as an answer is no fault of ours.
Some people still believe the earth is flat no matter what why you give them.
|
Free will is the ability to choose without outside influences affecting the decision. Knowledge about the outcome of a decision is an outside influence, hence omniscience doesn't mingle well with free will.
But the whole problem of this debate is that we try to describe god from a human perspective, wich is a very limited one. We want god to have human traits like benevolence and a capacity for judgment, but we have no evidence to make a single statement about what god looks like.
|
This has nothing to do with god, it has something to do with an omnipotent being and its foresight interacting with "free will".
We aren't putting a human perspective to god, but to omnipotence
|
i made a mistake in my post, does it make sense now?
|
Um, I'm arguing the second half, I agree with the first half o.O
|
On November 06 2004 12:17 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
Um, I'm arguing the second half, I agree with the first half o.O
I'm telling you that every human attempt to define the concept of god, will be something contrived and illogical. So if you're going to argue about the possibility of gods attributes being true or not, you're going to end up debunking it.
It's only usefulness is in the fact that it directly contradicts Christian dogmas.
|
On November 06 2004 09:09 LaptopLegacy wrote:
travis,
I am familiar with the 'god is atemporal' line of reasoning. I think it doesn't hold water though, because it removes the ability for god to act. Actions are temporal because they require change. You need a state of affairs before the action and a soa after it and they cannot be the same. So positing that god is 'above' our time makes him unable to create our universe. And makes him unable to interact with his creation or communicate with us or basically do anything except 'being omniscient'.
Another pointless philosophical god i'm not going to believe in.
To travis: time is a dimension. Imagine a two-dimensional being trying to act in the third Cartesian dimension. It can't happen, because it doesn't posess that dimension. Thus, if God does not have time, he cannot act in time. However, while this concept is alright and your reasoning can be correct, a God that does not act in time is a blatant contradiction to the Christian God, so, by your reasoning, the Christian concept of God is invalid.
|
Oh god Steve look what you've done , you can transform everyone in sophists with just a simple statement lol.
The only explanation is that God is a fucking son of a bitch : )
|
belief in god is all faith
if you must question your faith with "facts" and "logic" you have no faith therefore you dont believe in god.
its like saying do i love my wife?
if you have to think about it you probably dont.
and as for knowing everything, it is impossible. anyone can say anything at any given time.
what is one omnipotent meets another omnipotent?
will he know what the other one is going to say?
but the other one will know what the other one knows so he wont say it.
therefore it is impossible to know what someone is going to say.
except god :D.
dam people didnt you watch the matrix. lol
|
Nah, you can logically come to a conclusion to what somebody will say and how they will respond. I do it all the time, most of us do.
Myth, time is NOT a dimension. That is some bullshit they teach in middle school. They for whatever reason teach that the "4th dimension" is time.
Have you not heard of a hypercube? A 3 dimension cube with a line perpendicular to all its sides. Ya, its a 4 Dimensional cube.
TIME IS NOT A DIMENSION
|
On November 06 2004 12:33 badteeth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2004 12:17 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote:
Um, I'm arguing the second half, I agree with the first half o.O I'm telling you that every human attempt to define the concept of god, will be something contrived and illogical. So if you're going to argue about the possibility of gods attributes being true or not, you're going to end up debunking it. It's only usefulness is in the fact that it directly contradicts Christian dogmas.
But we're not trying to define the concept of god. We are having a philosiphical discussion on the impossibility to have both an omnipotent being and free will. Its a logical arguement, not a factual one =[
|
On November 06 2004 13:15 ahk-gosu wrote:
belief in god is all faith
if you must question your faith with "facts" and "logic" you have no faith therefore you dont believe in god.
its like saying do i love my wife?
if you have to think about it you probably dont.
and as for knowing everything, it is impossible. anyone can say anything at any given time.
what is one omnipotent meets another omnipotent?
will he know what the other one is going to say?
but the other one will know what the other one knows so he wont say it.
therefore it is impossible to know what someone is going to say.
except god :D.
dam people didnt you watch the matrix. lol
An omnipotent object cannot have another, you cannot have 1 infinite object, what makes you think you can have 2?
And to have true foresight would be to know exactly what will happen, regardless of what choice the person considers, you know the outcome. It is not a matter of anybody doing anything at a given time, it is knowing that they are going to do that and nothing else.
I don't see why foresight is so hard for some people to grasp =[
|
On November 06 2004 11:43 badteeth wrote:
Free will is the ability to choose without outside influences affecting the decision. Knowledge about the outcome of a decision is an outside influence, hence omniscience doesn't mingle well with free will.
But the whole problem of this debate is that we try to describe god from a human perspective, wich is a very limited one. We want god to have human traits like benevolence and a capacity for judgment, but we have no evidence to make a single statement about what god looks like.
this is exactly what i am saying..
people are trying to oversimplify something they obviously don't understand enough to make it that simple
and how the hell can you say awareness is an outside influence
when has your knowledge ever affected the outside world without you actually acting?
|
We're discuss with the information we have available.
You seem to think this to be wrong. Why say you that?
|
I'm not passing a judgment here. Wheter you want to have the discussion is up to you. I have participated in that discussion myself.
What i'm saying is that it's inherently illogical to discuss these things.
|
Its illogical because well its so obvious its irritating talking about it, people that dont get it, wont get it, that kind of knowledge is only archieved by thinking not reading posts.
|
i dont think there is anything illogical about discussing it
and since no one else seems to get it, badteeth do you not understand what I am saying when I claim that omniscience does nothing to disprove free will? that you have to make an assumption to come to that conclusion?
|
ofcourse omniscience does not disprove free will...
You are absolutely free to do anything, still god would know what you are going to do, prediction does not bound action.
|
|
|
On November 06 2004 13:43 baal wrote:
ofcourse omniscience does not disprove free will...
You are absolutely free to do anything, still god would know what you are going to do, prediction does not bound action.
so then why is it that no one else seems to be able to grasp this fact?
|
I think it can be simplified by this way:
Imagine god predicts you, you are going to eat a dozen of apples today and tells you about it, so you will do anything to avoid apples that day.
If you dont eat any, then god is not omniscient, if you eat them, you have no free will
|
.. and thats exactly what im talking about :-(
|
On November 06 2004 13:49 travis wrote:
.. and thats exactly what im talking about :-(
yeah but i said it in 3 lines not a huge ass writting , and why that mopey face?, im not going to read 10 pages while 99% of it its trash , sorry if i said something you already did.
|
no but my point is that line of thinking doesn't actually simplify anything, nor does it actually answer the question, it just leaps to a conclusion and points people in the wrong direction of thinking
|
travis,
Would you agree that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive for a temporal being like ourselves??
And what part of my explanation why god can't act if he's atemporal do you not understand?
|
|
|
and how the hell can you say awareness is an outside influence
when has your knowledge ever affected the outside world without you actually acting?
others can act because u have that knowledge.. christians do all kinds of stuff because they think god watches them(has knowledge of their actions, but isnt really acting upon it now is he)
|
Sweden1225 Posts
Religion makes me sick ..
Man just can't admit to himself that he's totally meaningless in the universe.
My thoughts!
|
Hmmmm who says time is not a dimension? I think the whole idea of a hypercube is flawed... Its trying to make another 3rd dimension, not a higher dimension. What I'm saying goes back to what I was saying before, which got really bashed
I understand what is being discussed, its not all that complicated, I just lack the ability to properly express myself. Travis said a good deal of what I've been trying to say.
But basically, to try to disprove an omnipotent existence because we think free will and time contradict it is silly. Why? The whole idea of God is he is ABOVE us, honestly, use a bit of 3rd grade reasoning here... If he created every freaking thing, don't you think he knows a little more than us, and exists in a plane/dimension/whatever of existence far beyond us? The bible says 'to God a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years, a day".. No, this DOESN'T make any sense to us, at all.
But our grasp of time is sad, as we live without any control over it at all, and it is above our ability to grasp (this is why I believe time to be a 4th dimension... We cannot explain anything about how it began, we cannot understand anything about things living outside of it, it is basically above our ability to comprehend no matter how you slice it). So, to try to limit God to human terms DOES make God nonexistent, but thats only because we only understand our own worlds.
|
On November 06 2004 16:01 Kaotu wrote:
Hmmmm who says time is not a dimension? I think the whole idea of a hypercube is flawed... Its trying to make another 3rd dimension, not a higher dimension. What I'm saying goes back to what I was saying before, which got really bashed
I understand what is being discussed, its not all that complicated, I just lack the ability to properly express myself. Travis said a good deal of what I've been trying to say.
But basically, to try to disprove an omnipotent existence because we think free will and time contradict it is silly. Why? The whole idea of God is he is ABOVE us, honestly, use a bit of 3rd grade reasoning here... If he created every freaking thing, don't you think he knows a little more than us, and exists in a plane/dimension/whatever of existence far beyond us? The bible says 'to God a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years, a day".. No, this DOESN'T make any sense to us, at all.
But our grasp of time is sad, as we live without any control over it at all, and it is above our ability to grasp (this is why I believe time to be a 4th dimension... We cannot explain anything about how it began, we cannot understand anything about things living outside of it, it is basically above our ability to comprehend no matter how you slice it). So, to try to limit God to human terms DOES make God nonexistent, but thats only because we only understand our own worlds.
Since when cant we grasp time.
|
christ cant u guys get through this simple thing
assuming
-there is an omniscient omnipotent being (would omnipotence imply omniscience anyways? in some ways yes in some ways no)
and
-evil exists
-omnipotence could destroy evil
-omniscience the being knows about the evil
-choosing to let evil exist is evil
-the being must then be evil
that was the whole point. wtf are u wildboars prancing about
|
That wasn't the point at all...
|
On November 06 2004 16:01 Kaotu wrote:
Hmmmm who says time is not a dimension? I think the whole idea of a hypercube is flawed... Its trying to make another 3rd dimension, not a higher dimension. What I'm saying goes back to what I was saying before, which got really bashed
I understand what is being discussed, its not all that complicated, I just lack the ability to properly express myself. Travis said a good deal of what I've been trying to say.
But basically, to try to disprove an omnipotent existence because we think free will and time contradict it is silly. Why? The whole idea of God is he is ABOVE us, honestly, use a bit of 3rd grade reasoning here... If he created every freaking thing, don't you think he knows a little more than us, and exists in a plane/dimension/whatever of existence far beyond us? The bible says 'to God a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years, a day".. No, this DOESN'T make any sense to us, at all.
But our grasp of time is sad, as we live without any control over it at all, and it is above our ability to grasp (this is why I believe time to be a 4th dimension... We cannot explain anything about how it began, we cannot understand anything about things living outside of it, it is basically above our ability to comprehend no matter how you slice it). So, to try to limit God to human terms DOES make God nonexistent, but thats only because we only understand our own worlds.
You clearly failed highschool mathematics if you think a hypercube is flawed, a hypercube is a 4th dimensional cube. BigBalls will back me up on this, being that he is a mathematics major.
Time is NOT a dimension.
Who says time isn't a dimension? How about all the world's leading mathematicians and scientists? They good enough for you? They are actually debating whether or not there is an 11th dimension.
Don't bring your mathematical ignorance into that subject until you go and read up on it please =[
And if you want to use the arguement that because god is omnipotent, we can't define him like we are, maybe I should stoop to childish because you cannot prove god, you cannot prove he is omnipotent.
Circular arguments are dumb, stick to the philosophical and not the standard christian rebuttal.
I prefer travis' approach, philosophical with a touch of the standard christian rebuttal, but with some thought behind it.
FrEaK
|
basically the argument boils down to this: can we use axioms true in a given system to describe something working outside that system?
i'd answer with "maybe"
"maybe" doesnt cut it if ure trying to prove an argument
in our case, the universe is the given system and god or w/e u call it thats outside our system
since we cant use any means at our disposal to safely say if god exists or not(because a maybe isnt worth a damn when trying to prove something), we can only declare god to exist or not
works like the axioms in mathematics, stuff u accept without being able to prove, and instead declare they are so
edit: this is meant to be an argument for why the argument we're having is circular
so hopefully u dont find circular arguments dumb, freak, especially if u like philosophy
|
On November 06 2004 16:48 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
christ cant u guys get through this simple thing
assuming
-there is an omniscient omnipotent being (would omnipotence imply omniscience anyways? in some ways yes in some ways no)
and
-evil exists
-omnipotence could destroy evil
-omniscience the being knows about the evil
-choosing to let evil exist is evil
-the being must then be evil
that was the whole point. wtf are u wildboars prancing about
you think something omniscient would have the same moral set as you?
hell I can't even imagine something omniscient HAVING a moral set.
Everything happens for a reason, including "good" and "evil" acts. An omniscient entity would understand the reason/purpose for them.
|
On November 06 2004 14:31 LaptopLegacy wrote:
travis,
Would you agree that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive for a temporal being like ourselves??
And what part of my explanation why god can't act if he's atemporal do you not understand?
First part: I agree that free will is exclusive for us.. but I don't even get what you mean when you ask if omniscience is.
Second part: because I don't understand why a "god" would be acting in the same terms as a human being. To move a rock I wouldn't imagine it bending down, grabbing it, taking 2 steps, and then setting it down again.
|
On November 06 2004 15:17 Taguchi wrote:Show nested quote +and how the hell can you say awareness is an outside influence
when has your knowledge ever affected the outside world without you actually acting? others can act because u have that knowledge.. christians do all kinds of stuff because they think god watches them(has knowledge of their actions, but isnt really acting upon it now is he)
This once again revolves around free will. Just because I know about something does not mean I will act. It's just another jump, an assumption.
When things "sometimes" happen, you can't act like its a fact.
|
ye circular arguments aren't dumb because while you probably aren't going to come to a valid conclusion, you will be the wiser still.
|
They are dumb when they've gotten to what this one has become...
It is just repetition of arguments at this point =[
|
yeah freak your point was to "boggle the mind" with some "pharr out shieet" so go have some waffles
travis. i was just replicating a logical argument. and rather than pick out one of the premeses or arguments, u made this.. really weird remark instead. are you saying that if something is responsible for evil, it is not evil? if you could press a button and stop all evil, but u dont, doesnt that make u evil?
|
stimey, no, no it wasn't.
you 'brilliance' is far outshone by your lunacy, not to mention idiocy =[
|
On November 06 2004 17:14 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2004 15:17 Taguchi wrote:and how the hell can you say awareness is an outside influence
when has your knowledge ever affected the outside world without you actually acting? others can act because u have that knowledge.. christians do all kinds of stuff because they think god watches them(has knowledge of their actions, but isnt really acting upon it now is he) This once again revolves around free will. Just because I know about something does not mean I will act. It's just another jump, an assumption. When things "sometimes" happen, you can't act like its a fact.
knowledge has the potential to influence a decision, and thus in our case disrupt free will
the argument ure making requires that knowledge cant possibly influence a decision, unless ure willing to accept that free will can exist in some cases but not in others, which i dont find particularly intriguing
|
freak... that was a sweet post. i totally see your pont now. thats 2 useless posts uve made instead of actually explaining yourself. who are u to judge meh? i contribute and u post nonsense. so fuck you ??? maybe.
|
Omniscience is conceptually impossible to begin with. There is simply far, far too much information and too many variables to be aware of. The calculations required would be infinite. The calculations could never be finished, because they have no finish.
|
freak did you always post under that ID or did you change it? Not many people with almost 1300 posts who I've never seen before, I think.
|
From the athiestic perspective I believe omnipotence is just an illusion. This illusion is called coincidence. I have argued with many religious people and consistently they use coincidence to prove their point claiming that it was a divine prediction.
|
sorry one more thing, also this calls into question fate vs free will, and that could be debated forever
|
On November 06 2004 17:33 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
freak... that was a sweet post. i totally see your pont now. thats 2 useless posts uve made instead of actually explaining yourself. who are u to judge meh? i contribute and u post nonsense. so fuck you ??? maybe.
watch it
seriously.
|
On November 06 2004 17:40 lyrictenororbust wrote:
sorry one more thing, also this calls into question fate vs free will, and that could be debated forever
thats what this debate is about..
|
On November 06 2004 17:35 Servolisk wrote:
Omniscience is conceptually impossible to begin with. There is simply far, far too much information and too many variables to be aware of. The calculations required would be infinite. The calculations could never be finished, because they have no finish.
if something has a definition it is not conceptually impossible.
|
On November 06 2004 17:31 Taguchi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2004 17:14 travis wrote:On November 06 2004 15:17 Taguchi wrote:and how the hell can you say awareness is an outside influence
when has your knowledge ever affected the outside world without you actually acting? others can act because u have that knowledge.. christians do all kinds of stuff because they think god watches them(has knowledge of their actions, but isnt really acting upon it now is he) This once again revolves around free will. Just because I know about something does not mean I will act. It's just another jump, an assumption. When things "sometimes" happen, you can't act like its a fact. knowledge has the potential to influence a decision, and thus in our case disrupt free will the argument ure making requires that knowledge cant possibly influence a decision, unless ure willing to accept that free will can exist in some cases but not in others, which i dont find particularly intriguing
I get what he meant now and agree completely, sorry
|
wtf travis. he can call me an idiot. but i cant be mad at him and say generic fuck you? so idiot is okay but fuck you isnt?
|
edit: this post was pointless and even I don't understand what I said
|
On November 06 2004 17:54 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
wtf travis. he can call me an idiot. but i cant be mad at him and say generic fuck you? so idiot is okay but fuck you isnt?
you started it, not him
many, many of your posts are extremely condescending when it's entirely unnecessary
|
"As ridiculously 'typical' as this sounds, the best way to find your beliefs is to live a certain way..."
I'm not sure what this means, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it
|
half of you are using omniscience and omnipotence interchangably, for one thing
"the best way to find your believes is to live a certain way" why dont we have a philosophical conversation about what this statement could possibly say.. "find your beliefs"? as opposed to like.. choose ? test? evaluate? i hope u meant one of those. but how does "living a certain way" serve as a method of "finding" your beliefs..?? seriously living a certain way.. um. doesnt necessarily do anything. it depends on the way? it doesnt necessarily change any beliefs at all. its like saying "the best way to find out which car is best to buy is to buy cars a certain way", as far as i can tell ?? im sure u didnt mean that, but i dont see what u do mean. except that theres relativism and historical context that could provide support to arguments to trump the void.
"some things go a little deeper than theory"? in other words you dont like the answers any possible theories give you? you try to theorize but just reject?? ?
|
On November 06 2004 17:50 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2004 17:35 Servolisk wrote:
Omniscience is conceptually impossible to begin with. There is simply far, far too much information and too many variables to be aware of. The calculations required would be infinite. The calculations could never be finished, because they have no finish.
if something has a definition it is not conceptually impossible.
I have only seen it's effects defined. The effects are easy to imagine ... Effects alone are not a definition, and I've never seen a definition of how it could work.
|
he started it by making such a pointless response "that wasnt the point at all......"
|
you know, forget my post
I posted it, played a game, came back and read it, and it doesn't really make sense
I'd say I'm done pointless to try to explain something when you have a fever, I really sound like an idiot
|
just for laughs-
when playing an omniscient player, what should you do?
macro or micro, fast expand, mass drops, what?
do you think there is no way winning this match, or there is a chance for a draw?
another thing. since he knows every move i make, maybe i can choose zerg, go mass overlords, place them all over the map, and thus seing every move HE makes. this is, in a way, artificial omniscience, but i dont know what is he going to do next, cause im not omniscient. BUT, i can expect, guess, sixthsence, his moves, and there is a chance that i guess all the time !!
oh man, it is gonna be some crazy micro night
|
if you're considerably faster than him and are an extremely good player you'd still win
|
On November 06 2004 18:35 travis wrote:
if you're considerably faster than him and are an extremely good player you'd still win
boxer > god at bw? !
|
yes, you are right. 200 >> 20 apm, no matter what. im not even considering option that he never played sc, which would my win.. divine
just imagine, conquest of knowledge, the free will
but what if he is good - >100apm?
something on topic ->
omniscience doesnt affect free will. when you know what you are going to do, AND cant prevent that - thats not having free will.
hm... having said that, this scenarion comes into my mind. you kill somebody, admit it, you get prison. and you know that you are going to do to this, the first 2 things, and you cant prevent prison! there is no free will??
im not sure where im going with this...
|
On November 06 2004 18:52 miniStar wrote:yes, you are right. 200 >> 20 apm, no matter what. im not even considering option that he never played sc, which would my win.. divine just imagine, conquest of knowledge, the free will but what if he is good - >100apm? something on topic -> omniscience doesnt affect free will. when you know what you are going to do, AND cant prevent that - thats not having free will. hm... having said that, this scenarion comes into my mind. you kill somebody, admit it, you get prison. and you know that you are going to do to this, the first 2 things, and you cant prevent prison! there is no free will?? im not sure where im going with this...
you sound like me, you're just going to get flamed because you aren't coming to the plate with any advanced mathematical theories here. but i see your point! but what you just said has been said 50 times in 48 different ways on this thread :o
|
On November 06 2004 18:56 Kaotu wrote:you sound like me, you're just going to get flamed because you aren't coming to the plate with any advanced mathematical theories here. but i see your point! but what you just said has been said 50 times in 48 different ways on this thread :o
well, its hard to read through all 17 pages, but its interesting topic.
ok, here is the deal.
if YOU DECIDE to do it, its free will.
if someone tells you to do it, and you cant prevent it, but you try in every possible way to try to stop it from happening, there is no free will.
|
On November 06 2004 13:41 travis wrote:
i dont think there is anything illogical about discussing it
and since no one else seems to get it, badteeth do you not understand what I am saying when I claim that omniscience does nothing to disprove free will? that you have to make an assumption to come to that conclusion?
I said:
Free will is the ability to choose without outside influences affecting the decision. Knowledge about the outcome of a decision is an outside influence, hence omniscience doesn't mingle well with free will.
|
On November 06 2004 17:35 Servolisk wrote:
Omniscience is conceptually impossible to begin with. There is simply far, far too much information and too many variables to be aware of. The calculations required would be infinite. The calculations could never be finished, because they have no finish.
Yup. A part can not know the whole. That is why god either doesn't exist, or he is simply everything. Neither would be a very christian situation though.
|
transcendentalism?? is that the thing about the oversoul??
on topic, i have a question about when people say "Can God make a stone so large the even He cannot carry it?" ... just kind of troubles me, i read some of the pages but skipped some, arn't you defining something like based on an unknown, since you do not know how much God can or cannot carry, it seems wrong to ask if such a rock can be created.. just my thoughts
|
Osaka27128 Posts
Closed at request of the topic starter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
