|
On July 14 2008 09:06 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
Uh... that doesn't make any sense. :p And no it's not naive. It's blunt, but it proves that there can't ever be omnipotence. Of course, there might be incredible power which we can't measure, which might be enough power to be called a god, but it still means that there can't ever be a being who can do *everything*. Because it's impossible to fulfill both tasks. And if you can fulfill only one of the two, you're not almighty. Simple as that.
This is nothing more than a semantic argument. You're saying that "omnipotent" and "almighty" and "can do anything" necessarily include the power to commit logical inconsistencies, and that's arbitrary.
Why not say, "If God is omnipotent, then can he xpxdofisu furious purple indeterminacy? If he can't do that, then he can't do everything and therefore he's not omnipotent!"
There's no reason for the term "omnipotent" to include the ability to commit logical inconsistencies or perform the actions described by nonsense utterances. Both nonsense and self-contradictory action descriptions are meaningless.
It is a basic semantic principle that we should define words to have useful meanings. If your interpretation of the word "omnipotent" leads you to the conclusion that the concept is senseless, then that should be a hint to you that your interpretation goes against convention. And language is nothing but convention.
Anyway, there's a better answer to the question: Yes, an omnipotent God could create a stone he couldn't lift, but after he did, he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, since there would exist a stone which he couldn't lift.
Step 1: create stone (can do anything, check)
Step 2: impose limitation on his own power (can do anything, check)
Step 3: attempt to lift stone and fail (is no longer omnipotent, check)
|
A more interesting point would be could anything or anyone convince all believers in 'god' that he were their god? Is god just an ultimate manifestation of the intangible perfection all humans strive to seek?
See the interpretation of 'Adoration of the Magi' that hangs in the chapel in Trinity college, Cambridge, for my opinion.
|
BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine:
If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before...
another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now...
So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell 
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 09:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine: If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before... another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now... So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell
some medicines your body gets used to over repeated use. a lot of scientists are against ahibitual use of specific drugs such as penicillin. although i think in general medicine and religion don't bash unless it's something like Scientology.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
"The Enemies of Reason" focuses on superstitious belief and it's negative ramifications on society. Dawkins attacks astrology, spiritual consulting and other such methods which conflict with science.
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall
at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion?
you need to watch the video.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
so far i think the discussions have been pretty civil. gw guys. i'll post some more info when i get back from the gym.
|
On July 14 2008 09:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine: If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before... another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now... So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell
Medicine has been around for maybe 100 years and our immune systems haven't changed much at all for many thousands of years. Modern developments are so vastly insignificant in evolutionary time that it isn't really relevant. Sure in maybe 10,000 years the average immune system (whatever that means) may have changed by a tiny little bit due to medicine, but by then who knows where we'll be. Unless you're talking about the kind of change that happens when you get immunized, for instance, in which case it isn't really "evolution being tricked".
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
|
On July 14 2008 08:05 Bozali wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall
at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion? You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is. To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world.
i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc..
because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages.
Where science was seen as something foolish.
to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
|
On July 14 2008 09:58 Wonders wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 09:45 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:BTW: the whole medicine topic brings back a thought of mine: If mankind gets more and more used to medicine wouldn't it weaken our own immune system in the long run? Like our body expects some drugs to help him but once there are no drugs anymore, for whatever reason, we may be weaker than before... another thought is, that the survival-of-the-fittest gets kinda tricked with medicine...but this sound too much like eugenics now... So basically my question is if anything of this might be true, because I have no idea if immune system information is in the genes of if drugs might weaken it. So if someone who studies medicine or stuff has a clue, plz tell Medicine has been around for maybe 100 years and our immune systems haven't changed much at all for many thousands of years. Modern developments are so vastly insignificant in evolutionary time that it isn't really relevant. Sure in maybe 10,000 years the average immune system (whatever that means) may have changed by a tiny little bit due to medicine, but by then who knows where we'll be. Unless you're talking about the kind of change that happens when you get immunized, for instance, in which case it isn't really "evolution being tricked".
Evolution does not follow any particular clock. It happens due to events.
If a disease kills everyone who does not carry a particular immunity-causing gene over the course of a year, then the evolution of immunity to that disease takes a year. Nobody who didn't have it survives to become an ancestor to future humans.
If 50% of the population died or otherwise failed to breed under normal conditions due to serious genetic defects generated by mutationss, and a new system of healthcare comes along that allows them to all survive and breed as successfully as the other 50% of the population lacking these defects, then after 4 generations (let's say 100 years), about 94% of new children now carry these genetic defects which would otherwise have been elminated by natural selection.
You don't need millions of years for evolution to happen, it's just that dramatic, species-changing events are rare.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On July 14 2008 10:16 LuckyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 08:05 Bozali wrote:On July 14 2008 07:59 LuckyOne wrote:
i dont get it whats wrong with exploring other ways than science. Maybe science will hit a wall
at some point and seem useless. I guess they do get in conflicts but atm would science progress faster without astrology or spiritual consulting or religion? You say "science" as if it's something to be grouped up the same way religion is. To me religion is a naive approach to science. Basically there is a problem with no solution is in sight to which religion pulls an answer out of thing air. I.e earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth etc. Whereas science looks at the world and draws real conclusions based on what is actually going on. Yes there is still loads of problems with no solution in sight (Where did everything come from?). And of course religion works as a road block to science where people (especially in the US) are trying to ban evolution from the curriculum and where children are brought up to be religious and (well imo) wastes their time praying and such instead of reaching out and touching the real world. i mean we shouldnt try to kill the other ways of thinking like astrology etc.. because we would be doing the same thing religion was doing in Middle Ages. Where science was seen as something foolish. to solve the school problem the best way would be to teach neither evolution or religion.
ok are you actually watching these videos? because i feel like video 1 "the enemies of reason" and video 3 "dawkins answering questions at VA institute" are answering both of these. if you haven't please watch them 1st and then respond because otherwise i think the discussion is going to start going backwards.
|
And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic.
I just love this sentence.
God is not bound by logic. If this is true then your logic of reasoning doesn't apply to god. Therefor you cannot claim what you just said, for that would be a logical conclusion of God's abilities.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 14 2008 00:27 PJA wrote:
As for the former, do you all realize how many people hold the exact same views as Dawkins, yet refuse to say anything that could actually offend religious people? If this method of persuasion has been consistently failing to convince most people, even when the evidence against creationism is so overwhelming, why complain about Dawkins approach?
There's actually fairly few. Attacking a belief is the easy route to take, especially with something like ID, but it takes a lot more work to actually draw someone away from their convictions to side with your view. The Socratic method is excellent for non-emotional issues when people are willing to learn, but it is not a teaching tool when it comes to religious discussion, it's an argument-winning tool. I see it practiced every day on these forums, often very poorly by myself, and the end result is that someone leaves really pissed off and everyone else laughs at them, but the "loser" generally doesn't concede or learn anything.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
And really, you can't use logic to argue against God, since he's not bound by logic.
oh i missed this one while reading earlier. you need to watch the 3rd video w/ him answering questions in the audience.
do not debate this topic unless your watching the video. please do not derail the discussion on the thread.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote:
It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
ok i mgoing off topic ill stop
Uh... neuroscience and psychology?
|
On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote:
It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Super string theory. Theory of Evolution. Theory of the universe. Big Bang Theory. Quantum theory.
|
On July 14 2008 10:46 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote:
It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
ok i mgoing off topic ill stop Uh... neuroscience and psychology?
no ?
|
On July 14 2008 10:56 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +
On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote:
It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is.
Super string theory. Theory of Evolution. Theory of the universe. Big Bang Theory. Quantum theory.
these all answer how, none of them answer why
|
Travis, if neuroscience and psychology is not the science of self then what is it? 
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 14 2008 10:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2008 10:46 Jibba wrote:On July 14 2008 01:53 travis wrote:
It doesn't matter if you call the antagonist religion or science. The problem is people thinking for theirselves. They don't.
Also dawkings comes off as way cockier and not nearly as enlightened as I'd hope.
Science has done nothing to contribute to understanding the reason or meaning of all that is. Science doesn't even acknowledge investigation of the self, which is absolutely ridiculous imo. Yeah, alot of use our technology is when we can't even control ourselves.
ok i mgoing off topic ill stop Uh... neuroscience and psychology? no ?
They're beginning to.
If you want to know why you exist, I'm afraid the further you delve the closer you'll come to the non-answer. It's disheartening at first, but deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
