|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 01, 2009 07:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This clearly limit Gods power, because it means God can create a being more powerfull than God, which would, no matter what God did, destroy God for all eternity, just as well. This being is thereby more powerfull than God, and God is not all-powerfull anymore.
Ohforfsake, while I agree with a lot of things you say, this one is a POTENTIAL contradiction only. If god is all-powerful it should mean that he can end his all-powerfulness, because if he couldn't he wasn't.
However, this is simple set theory, and we know that set theory isn't free of contradictions. What you do here is, you define god as the set of every action imaginable, and the question is, are the possible actions with regard to that set part or not part of the set (in other words: can god change his status or not).
Now, with set theory this creates a contradiction - but this is NOT set theory. This is just potentiality. God may be defined as having the ultimate power to do so, but that of course doesn't mean that he's bound to use it, because that would be against the definition as well.
So the fact that all-powerful does include the ability to self-destruction or self-reduction is no contradiction as long as it isn't used
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted December 01, 2009 09:26 AM |
|
|
Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof.
____________
The empty set
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 09:47 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 09:59, 01 Dec 2009.
|
There can be only one answer to that one.
Sunglasses won't get you laid.
Except if you're as cool as me. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 10:30 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 10:35, 01 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Of course my statement that you quoted was in response to:
Quote:
I define religion as ideas that cannot be justified through a logical proces, neither made likely to be true. I.e. it depends entirely on an irrational belief, however it is still considered true.
No proof was offered that religion is irrational or can't be justified through logic.
You know all your statements could be turned around aswell, don't you? Is there any proof offered christianity is rational?
Quote:
Some anti-religion people love to throw around words like delusional, irrational, ect in application to religious people yet the facts show otherwise. As I quoted the studies that showed religious people have far less mental disorders, commit suicide less, and help people more than atheists do, in general.
You know, all these studies and statistics aren't worth a dime. As i already pointed out, I think you draw wrong conclusions, because most likely politicial business isn't that obvious related to religion as you try to point out here. There is a saying: "Never trust a statistic you haven't faked yourself" 
Just from the humorous side: I am pretty sure radical political leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.. have drunk a lot of water in their life. This is statistically proven! Do you think drinking too much water turns people into tyrants?  (Hope you get what I want to say...)
Quote:
Sorry, religious experiences don't mostly exist in the minds of religious people.
Any examples?
Quote:
I did not say everyone who believes differntly from me is irratinoal. I said atheism is irratinal. The concept that matter and energy is eternal (has been disproven) and the concept that the universe produced itself (violation of the laws of thermodynamics) are irrational concepts. Materialistic atheists have to believe either the universe is eternal or the universe produced itself. Like I said, irrational.
This is a good point where I can tell how wrong you are. In opposit to christians, many other people do not WANT or NEED an explanation of the universe. Like me for example. It may be interesting to see and read things about the universe, but no matter if there was a BigBang or a God or whatever, it won't change my current life. It also won't change the life of any animal or plant...there will still be dead children all over the planet, there will still be greedy millionaires who rather play poker for hundreds of thousand dollars than rather spending money for the poor.
So I stick to my view of the world. I am here, I don't know why. I am mostly consisting of chemical processes. I will die (sooner or later), the earth will turn around until it comes too close to the sun (I have heard...). Earthquakes and tsunamis will happen on earth every year in any corner of this world. Drunken truck drivers will regularely kill people on the streets of south america. This all won't change for the rest of my life (here on earth).
If there is something like an afterlife, so be it. I will see when I am there. Why spend my whole life here on earth with thinking about "the next life"? If it really happens in eternity, I will have enough time when I am there 
And I really can't get used to things like "hell", "eternal pain", etc...
But if it is like that, then it is made for those who are BAD, not for those who do not believe. I am pretty sure, an "uber creature", name it like you want, will make a difference between people like Hitler and me (at least i hope so..)
Quote:
And certainly if an atheist says "There is no God," that is a completely irrational statment because he has no proof that God does not exist. The best he could say is "I don't believe God exists." Then he has made a statement of faith.
100% agree.
That's why an agnostic says "I don't care". because he will never be able to prove any of these 2 statements.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 10:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In the end, religion is just a way to explain the things you can't explain.
I agree, and that's what makes religion truely meaningless. If you cannot explain it, no explanation can be regarded true, otherwise you could explain it to begin with.
And that's were we disagree. We can create new explanations and "making" them true.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 10:50 AM |
|
|
OFFS, while I don't discuss religion or God anymore, seeing it a personal matter, I have to address something which I have addressed in IGUOBIG topic once.
The omniscience and omnipotence.
I simply hate when people give "proofs" of no God with simple wordgames like: can he create a stone too heavy to lift.
It proves nothing because it's a faulty use of logic, for once (I'm not going to go deep in it but mathematically... it just sucks). Besides, we can use similar sentences like "a man said everyone in his town (including him ofc) lies, did he lie or tell the truth" and notice there is no "logical" answer. Does that mean... wait, what does it mean anyway? Well, nothing but the weakness of our logic (or maths  ). We can create such a sentence related to almost anything but no sane person will ever use this as argument.
I personally see omniscience as the knowledge of every possible outcome. Come to think of it, why not? THere are no omniscient beings in our physical world and the word is purely abstract. TA said once I can't redefine what has been defined already, but I disagree: much as with "love", such abstract concepts are up to interpretation. Knowing EVERYTHING would imply there is an exact FATE for every one of us, which contradicts free will. In other words, it can't be known. It's not included in the equation and doesn't mean a theoretically omniscient being can't be omniscient because of not knowing what action you will take.
Similar to omnipotence. I see it as the ability to freely pick whatever option is possible. You can do _all_, yeah... Like, you can do everything from a set of possibilities ranging from x1 to xn. That means you're omnipotent. But if you conjure up a theoretical xn+1, which doesn't exist, does that mean you're not omnipotent anymore? Nope. xn+1 isn't a possible action, it does not exist, thus it does not "break" omnipotence.
That's how I see it. My definitions actually mean God can be omnipotent and omniscient without any logical loopholes. What can't be known simply... can't be known, doesn't exist.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 01:02 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath
Quote:
This is the God paradox, but maybe it's only a paradox from our viewpoint.
That's completely true, I cannot know if it's simply because my lack of, well let's say, imagination, that means I cannot see how it can logically apply, not being a paradox at all.
That's also something I really enjoy about our brain, that we can learn, what once was thought to be impossible, we now know is possible, etc.
So, in the future I might have learned that this is not a paradox actually.
Quote:
As for the rest, I argued with you in another thread (about afterlife). It's the thought that matters. Not the action.
Yes you did, though it's a part where we still disagree, at least from the viewpoint of others of your equal (other living beings not including those that can and will read thoughts). It's not something I'm very interested in following though, as I think we both made our opinion and arguments clear and our differences on the plane of logic is rooted somewhere deep, unknown to me, but probably too time consuming to start figuring out exactly.
@JollyJoker
Quote:
However, this is simple set theory, and we know that set theory isn't free of contradictions. What you do here is, you define god as the set of every action imaginable, and the question is, are the possible actions with regard to that set part or not part of the set (in other words: can god change his status or not).
It's very interesting you brought this part up, I was recently presented with exactly this I believe you're refering to. I can't find a link to wiki right now to specify and make certain we're talking about the same thing, so if what I wrote here makes no sense, please correct me.
Because my answer to when I was presented with that paradox was exactly what you write now:
Quote:
This is just potentiality.
So I believe you're completely right when writing:
Quote:
So the fact that all-powerful does include the ability to self-destruction or self-reduction is no contradiction as long as it isn't used
And in some way, I think my confusion rose from how to interpret an infinity.
Because if the maximum power, i.e. all-powerfullnes, is ultimate, or let's say infinite, then it's clear that you can create another infinite power which have the power to remove your power, etc. but that's all a part of being all-powerfull, and it's like you write only a potentiel you can do.
What I tried to come to, with my reply to Elodin (it's pretty late at night) was that if you did not let God be able to go against what we percieve as logic, then I could find someone more powerfull than him, making him not all-powerfull, but I did that very faulty, just using Gods own powers to do that and claim he had no backup in that he could not revert logic, as like you write it's a potential, not a must.
@Shares
Quote:
We can create new explanations and "making" them true.
If it's not too off topic, I think we could have a very interesting debate of how we define truth, are you interested in this?
@Doomforge
Quote:
when people give "proofs" of no God with simple wordgames like: can he create a stone too heavy to lift.
That was never my intention to prove Doomforge, I believe it's unproveable whether God exists or not, as all the information we can ever get from an unmeasureable quantity is through those who've claimed they've measured, and if these are proven wrong, i.e. let's just as an example use the bible, then it's not that we know God does not exist, but what we know is the bible is illogical.
An example of this could be the age of the world I believe? Forgive me if it's a bad example.
Quote:
no "logical" answer [...] wait, what does it mean anyway?
Yes those logic breaking lie messages, or what they're called, are pretty funny. What it really means, I believe, is the statement makes no sense, I think another way of saying it, is that such a statement shares no information, but that probably depends on how information is defined.
Quote:
Knowing EVERYTHING would imply there is an exact FATE for every one of us, which contradicts free will.
This is another very interesting debate actually, is the world deterministic? According to the most recent science no, but before the 19th century, I believe yes would be the answer according to science. It's one of the strong sides of science that as more information is present it's changing according to it, never tells it's the one that know all, but it's the one that deals with what we actually can know.
Sorry for making science seem as something alive, that's purely due to a lack of a way to express myself properly.
I did once wanting the world to be completely deterministic, because for me that meant completely safe, just find out, hopefully everything will be good, and then relax, it's a very "naive" view, and later on when making deeper considerations, what I once thought make no sense, and what started to scare me was exactly what you wrote, about free will. What if free will did not exist?
It's going off topic now, so I'll save it for later though.
Also, what I think you meant, because I'm not completely certain when reading it, is that it's a contradicting term in the bible that God is both All-knowing of all times, and on the same time let free will exist, but refute that this is in fact not a contradiction because the all-knowingness is limited to not knowing what God decides to not know, and because God does not know, what happens haven't been decided, correct?
Quote:
My definitions actually mean God can be omnipotent and omniscient without any logical loopholes.
Whether your definition completely guarantees against logical loopholes, I cannot say, and not something I'm very interested in trying to find out at the moment, but from what you've told then yes, I didn't see any loopholes in it, with the last thing you added:
Quote:
What can't be known simply... can't be known, doesn't exist.
That is of course, if I don't misunderstand you and you mean something completely else, as I'd then have related to something different.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 01:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, what I think you meant, because I'm not completely certain when reading it, is that it's a contradicting term in the bible that God is both All-knowing of all times, and on the same time let free will exist, but refute that this is in fact not a contradiction because the all-knowingness is limited to not knowing what God decides to not know, and because God does not know, what happens haven't been decided, correct?
It's pretty simple, actually.
If you say "I know all models of cars", it means you have knowledge of all existing car models. Car models belong to a set {x,...,xn}; If there are no other existing car models, you are free to say you know all. If someone says "but you don't know car model xn+1" while such a model doesn't exist, it doesn't change the fact that you know all existing car models.
Now if you say "I know everything", "everything" must also be a set of {x1,...,xn}. Because, well, everything doesn't mean infinity; everything is merely a complete set. Meaning, if you don't know xn+1, you are still omniscient, because xn+1 doesn't exist.
And now when you say that God doesn't know xn+1 and thus is not omniscient, you are wrong as long as you consider "everything" a finite and defined set. And I do.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 01:39 PM |
|
|
Just to be certain I understand you correct.
We're talking about knowing to all times, correct?
I to begin with understood you as saying, because God choose not to know, then free will can exist, because then man gets the choice.
However now, it seems to me like you write that God knows everything (to all time?), and what God does not know, does not exist.
However, if that's what you're saying, then aren't you implying free will does not exist?
Is free will a part of the set of everything {x0,...,xn} or is it xn+1 which does not exist?
If it's part of everything, does God know it? If it's xn+1, it does not exist? I'm sorry, but your last post confused me.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 01:43 PM |
|
|
Well, I think God exists outside time, thus time-related issues are another matter.
But in general, not to include further confusion: yes: if something is impossible to be known (such as the outcome of a 100% random roll), this means it's the xn+1 element: such a knowledge doesn't exist and can't be known. THis doesn't break the omniscience because omniscience is imho knowing all that can be known. How can we include something that can't be included into equation and determine whether it's wrong or not based on it?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 01:48 PM |
|
|
I completely agree. 
However you didn't answer one important aspect that I still didn't get your opinion on, how does free will and omniscient relate to eachother?
As I believe you wrote yourself, omniscient (all-knowing right?) would mean knowing the future, whereby free will cannot exist, however I understood that you believe free will does exist, and therefore it's something God cannot know, correct?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 01:58 PM |
|
|
Well, explaining that is a bit tricky As I said, I believe God exists outside time, thus there is no "future" or "past" for him.
However, leaving that aside and assuming God exists in time to make things simpler, if we could write down EVERY possible outcome of EVERY possible event (the infamous "what ifs" of history) of ALL times, and assume God knows it all, then yes, he knows. What he doesn't know is which variant we choose, because it's something like I mentioned above, a 100% random roll, can't be known, doesn't change the fact that he's omniscient.
A being existing outside of time is something pretty hard to visualize. I came up with various concepts of supreme intelligence like, being able to comprehend multi-dimensional worlds (we live in a 3D environment, but can we even IMAGINE a 4D evnironment? 5D? 9D? ) and existing outside time (as if the whole time compressed into an infinitely small period in which they exist. So it's like, they exist outside of time) when working on my book, which contains beings with superhuman intelligence, and I wanted to make it a bit more "interesting" than just "they know more" or "they have a better perception", the usual way of portraying superhuman beings in fantasy books. While I was doing it, I thought some of those concepts may as well be attributes of a Christian God.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 02:37 PM |
|
|
Hmm, so you could say that God knows all possible outcomes, but not which one will be choosen?
In that case it's a bit along the line of how I imagine time travel backwards will work.
First and foremost, it's important to realise time is simply reactions happening. So when travelling forward (from your perspective), which you can by travelling near light speed (or actually at any speed), then all that happens is that you go through a set of reactions faster than anyone else (however you age at normal rate). The outcomes out of all possible outcomes that comes to be, are that future you ends up in.
However, for travelling backwards, people find paradoxes, which I believe does not happen in my view using my imagination, and it's very similar to what you wrote in a sense.
In stead of seeing time as a single, deterministic line, you see it as the reactions happening out of all possible reactions.
For a single line, a single world so to say, travelling backwards would require enormeous energy, cause you'd have to revert all actions happened, and if it'd truely be a time travel, then paradoxes might occour in you removing what made you travel in time in the first place.
All this is however solveable, if one interprets the idea of all possible outcomes into many worlds, many different "universes" (bad term as univers means everything) each with their own big bang, seperated by a distance so far that light (and thereby gravity forces, etc.) have not yet met our part of the universe, known as the visible universe.
Now assume there's infinite amount of matter and energy, this means that there's infinite many world, which means all possible outcomes will happen, infinite many times in all the different worlds.
Using the idea of entropy, which is a statistical observation showing the gradient of reactions, there's a likelyness of everything will be at one spot at one point of time (globally rise, but locally anything goes). If time is infinite, this likelyness different from zero must happen, however it's much more likely that many big bangs, i.e. once again high matter spreading over the universe, so the known universe gets limited, and redevelops, likewise does the likelyness function of entropy change.
This is just to explain how my idea could possible be true, not that I know it, I can't measure it, and it's not really much worth guessing about, because what's outside the known universe (i.e. how far light have travelled since big bang) is unmeasureable for what I know.
So my idea is that since every possible actions happens, then time travel is "simply" moving between these worlds, into a world that's at a state where our world were in previous.
In that sense, you could say God knows about all of these worlds, and decides the maximum amount of possible outcomes, but lets it be random what outcomes happens where.
Anyway, in that sense, I think you're right and free will can be maintained together with an all-knowing being. A being that maybe exists out of time, but also knows exactly the possible outcomes of the future, but chooses to not know in which world the outcome will be.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No proof was offered that religion is irrational or can't be justified through logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that it'd be hard to prove, read the bible, and you'll find that, but it's not a debate I'm interested in, and that's why I did not reply to your reply to my reply to Shares.
Sorry, I have read and studied the Bible for many years and do not find it irrational at all.
Quote:
Also, I see that you refuse to accept my points about that you cannot truely know for sure, eventhough you do not explain why.That's your decision, I regard that part as the debate meaningless, as it's a "No you can't, yes you can because of this, no you can't".
Because your claim that I can't know the truth is false. I already explained why I know. Go back and read my response as to why I don't follow Odin or Allah.
And I regard your arguments about God's attributes as just rhetoric with no basis in logic. You try to play illogical word games to dispute the concept of omnipotence and goodness. I am well acquainted with such games since I have encountered them many times before.
Quote:
If you see it otherwise, and wishes to continue said part of the debate, then please attack the arguments and explain why they're wrong, in stead of keep on making unclaimed, already in my opinion disproved arguments again and again (i.e. you're repeating yourself with something I already answered).
And what claims of mine do you claim have been disproved? And I have certainly been addressing your arguments and proving them illogical.
Quote:
So I'll continue in the assumption that you've defined God to have all for human possible power, i.e. not able to break logic.
God has all-power. Again, silly things like making a rock both all blue and all-green at the same time are a common irrational fallacy some people love to try to put forward.
Quote:
Notice the if part, it's like saying that given what you just wrote had not been the case, but what I wrote had been the case, then what would you do in regard to what I wrote?
Sorry, but your "if" part is illogical. There can only be one Supreme Being so the "case" you put forward can't happen. God and Allah can't both exist.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the fact that there are consequences for your actions does not mean you are not free to commit the actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're confusing terms again, here're the terms I use, if you don't like them, redefine to fit the two categories and we can continue, otherwise accept my defintions of the terms please.
Free Will -> The ability to choose what you want.
Freedom -> The ability to get what you want.
I reject your definition of freedom. You definition of freedom is irrational. I am a free person. No matter how much I want to fly, I still can't fly. No matter how much I want to breath underwater, I still can't.
I have the freedom to do all things that are humanly possible for me. The fact that I can't create universes or travel back in time and outside of time and space and become the one true God does not mean that I am not free. I am a human being, not the one true God.
You are free to rape others if you chose to and are willing to suffer the dangers and consequences of doing do. That fact that there are consequences in no way means you don't have the freedom to do so.
Sorry, freedom of action does not mean freedom from consequences.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God being all powerful in no way obligates him to make the life of for example Hitler to be wonderful in eternity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does, otherwise he's not "good", as he did not use all of his ability to make a wonderful life in all eternity.
Had it merely been due to a lack of power that he's not able to, then he's of course not to blame. Had he not been truely "good", then of course it wouldn't matter. But both been "good", and having the power to do so, it's the right thing to do.
No, God being all powerful does not obligate him to make eternity pleasant for everyone. And your claim that God should make it possible for someone to rape someone else for all eternity is just evil.
Explain why God not making it possible for you to rape someone for all eternity means he is not all-powerful and good. In fact God being good and making it possible for you to rape someone for all eternity would not be at all logical. God would be complicit with evil.
Quote:
God did also create logic, meaning and purpose follows from causality and consciousness, however God can choose what we remember, as being all-powerful, making causality nothing more than an illusion. This on the other hand mean that any type of consequence, is only so, because God would not be truely "good".
Sorry, it does not follow that because there are consequences to your actions that God is not good. You are under the impression that a good God should make you able to rape others without consequences. That is just bizarre.
God is all powerful and good. And he is the Judge of the universe. You will sooner or later reap what you sow. In this life and in the next.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you don't accept it, but what you do, is you forgive none the less, that's a very important part of love, if you truely love someone, you can always forgive them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you would allow the son I described to continue living in your house, beating up your wife, smoking dope in your living room and raping your daughter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The underlines should make it easy to understand that what you believe I wrote, was not what I wrote. No you would not accept it, i.e. stop it, but it does not mean you'll kick your son out of your house, or stop loving him for that matter.
Wow! So you would really let your son live in your house, smoke dope in your living room and rape your daughter every day?
Quote:
If you'd grown up in a paradise, would you still say man needed said guidance? Would God at all be necessary? For what?
Also, guidance is not obeying, it's reflecting upon, either you're confusing these two terms, or you'll have to tell me how obey becomes equal guidance.
God intended for man to grow up in a paradise. But man used his free will to sin and that brought consequences on the rest of humanity.
Sorry, but mankind does need boundaries, just as children do. Children have experienced very little life has to offer and so parents set boundaries for their own good. Man's knowledge certainly doe snot approach that of God and God's boundaries are for our own good. Setting boundaries is a part of guidance, just as giving counsil is.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not limited the power of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote God was all-powerfull, afterwards you limited the all-powerfullness into being limited by the laws of logic, i.e. not being able to lift a stone which is created as too heavy.
Sorry, words describe a state of being. A rock can't be both "too heavy" and "not too heavy." You can't be both being raped by someone and not be being raped by the same person. An object can't be both exactly 1 inch tall and exactly 1 mile tall.
I also defined all-power as the ability of God to do whatever he wants to do if you'll go back and read my definition.
Being all powerful is being able to do anything that power can do. Being all powerful means God has no limitations outside himself that are intrinsicly possible.
Quote:
This clearly limit Gods power, because it means God can create a being more powerfull than God, which would, no matter what God did, destroy God for all eternity, just as well. This being is thereby more powerfull than God, and God is not all-powerfull anymore.
Nah, just more irrational word games that I've seen before. It is like saying oh, there can't be a square circle so God is not all-powerful. God is the Supreme Being by definition. There can't be two Supreme Beings.
God has also stated that there will never be another god. So God placed the limitation on himself that he would not create another god. Like I said, being all-powerful means God has no outside limitations to do things that are intrinsically possible.
No amount of power can make a square to be a circle at the same time. That is not intrinsically possible. That is a fallacy of contradiction.
Sorry, it appears that the vast majority of your "arguments" are just fallacies of contradiction.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do have absolute free will. Only you chose what you do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no one has, we're affected by our emotions, i.e. we're affected by the contribution from our environment, being other living beings and effects from nature phenomena, such as radiation, or fresh air. Likewise we're affected by the way our genes are coded to produce certain substances in certain situation, it's again a combination of environment and genes, and it does mean that ultimately, you may be an observer in a machine, but having complete control of the machine, you do not have.
Your intellect, emotions, and actions are all interconnected. Yes, there is environmental stimulus, but you determine the decisions you will make in response to the environment. I'm not talking about "involuntary reflexes, before you bring that up. Although you can also overcome certain involuntary reflexes, at least for a time. Genes and the environment are not deterministic of your actions. You chose what you do.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think God should make it possible for you to "secretly rape" someone? That is a terrible, immoral idea, not a good idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was an explanation to how come your example of logic (And again, I've seen you've come with another example. I told you once, I even told you twice that I'm not interested in counting every example you come up with. Because even if I convince you each and every time (and you don't just say no, not countering the arguments), then as you can come with infinite amount of examples, it'd take me infinite time to actually convince you.) was not logical at all, as it depends on your imagination.
So what I think, or do not think, on the matter of rape, have nothing to do with this example, and doesn't really matter for this debate.
You did not answer the question. Why should God make it possible for you to secretly rape someone? How does the fact that you can't secretly rape someone prove God is not all-powerful?
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 05:18 PM |
|
|
@Ohforfsake
Quote:
If it's not too off topic, I think we could have a very interesting debate of how we define truth, are you interested in this?
That could be interesting, but for me, truth is what you make of it, especially in religious matters and so I've said alla I have to say... for now.
What would be a far more interesting discussion. Is god evil?
DON'T READ THAT! It will only lead to trouble!
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 06:54 PM |
|
|
oh noes, not trouble we don't want that!!!!!  
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 06:56 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Your reply is long, I don't want an effect of each post getting longer than the next, so I'll be short on the point here.
Quote:
Because your claim that I can't know the truth is false. I already explained why I know. Go back and read my response as to why I don't follow Odin or Allah.
Misunderstanding, I was refering to you for no reason disputing my claim that what we find logic, depends on our imagination.
Quote:
You try to [...] to dispute the concept of omnipotence and goodness.
Define goodness.
Reflect and comment on my definition as well, please:
Being "good" is to trying to generate maximum amount of freedom, i.e. getting what one wants, and do so equally for everyone.
Quote:
And what claims of mine do you claim have been disproved? And I have certainly been addressing your arguments and proving them illogical.
I could show you, but that'd be three tripple quotes which would cloud up the thread, and for what reason, to show something I find completely obvious during out recent debate? I can PM it to you, if you want, but with the current thread structure, I'm not going on a "you said... he said... you said" roll here.
Quote:
God has all-power. Again, silly things like making a rock both all blue and all-green at the same time are a common irrational fallacy some people love to try to put forward.
Do you believe it's impossible for more colours than the current ones to exist?
If not, who're you to limit these colours in how we'd describe them?
Quote:
Quote:
Notice the if part, it's like saying that given what you just wrote had not been the case, but what I wrote had been the case, then what would you do in regard to what I wrote?
Sorry, but your "if" part is illogical.
Why? Cause it says so in a book you don't believe in?
Quote:
There can only be one Supreme Being
Here I believe my recent idea works a lot better.
So you say God cannot create another supreme being?
Quote:
God and Allah can't both exist.
God can't create Allah?
Quote:
Quote:
Free Will -> The ability to choose what you want.
Freedom -> The ability to get what you want.
I reject your definition of freedom. [...]. I am a free person. No matter how much I want to fly, I still can't fly.
I don't mind you making the definitions, but if you want to talk the same language, then make said definition of what I call free will, freedom, etc., otherwise I'd not have any idea of what you're talking about and that way we can't communicate properly.
Quote:
I have the freedom to do all things that are humanly possible for me.
You seriously believe that?
Quote:
You are free to rape others if you chose to
I don't believe you can rape an elephant to be honest.
You might say you'd use toxics to make it go to sleep.
Then I'd go back to your own example of you not being free to fly, I can fly with the right technology, so you see, untill you defind what it's you exactly mean with the words you use in this part of the debate, don't expect me to understand your points.
Quote:
No, God being all powerful does not obligate him to make eternity pleasant for everyone.
Of course not, but him being good does however.
Quote:
Explain why God not making it possible for you to rape someone for all eternity means he is not all-powerful and good.
It was your own example of illogic Elodin, you're mixing it with the example of combined all-powerfullness and being good. That's a big no no, but if you really want an answer then here goes: [And since you've not defined the words yet, I'll use my own definition, you'll have to look at the previous post if you want to find out what they mean again]
I don't mind if someone has the impression of raping someone else, as long as that someone else still have complete freedom, i.e. does not have this impression, unless wanting to have this impression.
By impression I include all the ways we can experience the world.
Quote:
God would be complicit with evil.
Only if God forces the raped one to actually be the raped one.
So here's an easy explanation if you still find it confusing, imagine you make a perfect copy of someones body, but it's an empty shell, no mind inside it, no consciousness. Raping that, would be like having sex with a rock, no one is getting limited, no problem in that.
However you never know whether or not in reality that some evil sorcerer decided in the moment you raped that empty shell, or just in the moment you step some random place, that a person you love have not had his/hers consciousness teleported to said spot and gets the experience.
And the sorcerer is possible due to the all-powerfullness part.
So with such powers in game, you could not ever do anything, heck you don't even know if the entire experience of rape is falsely put into ones mind, memory altered to believe something like that once happened, you can never know for sure.
And that's what it's all about, impression, experience, the world we experience might just be an illusion, it might not, but we can describe it through laws of nature, due to causality, but causality can only exists as long as we choose to believe our memory to be true.
With unlimited power, you can change it as you please. You can change every component, making everyone get their will come true.
Okay, that's the last time I'm going to explain it to you, so in short, you experience you getting raped [as it lies in the word it's something you don't want] is a big no-no, someone else experience they're raping you [without you getting actually raped] is something I see as a crime in any way, like sacrificing monsters in a computer game.
Quote:
Sorry, it does not follow that because there are consequences to your actions that God is not good.
That was not my point, it was more to show you that what we percieve as the world, might as well not be so, we might as well just be a brain in a jar. However now you mention it, I believe actually that since God decided how the world should be, then not making it into a paradise for everyone from the start, for no reason, eventhough no reason culd justify it, already means that God can't be truely good.
I mean how can you top infinite freedom in the period that've already gone? A world in this way would clearly be superior to the current world, and eventhough you've tried to limit God in power and Doomforge in knowledge, the fact is, at the dawn of time, when the entire universe were created, all-powerfullness and all-knowing could not be limited by logic, nor an amount of possible outcomes, simply because these where not choosen at that time (otherwise it'd not have been the dawn of time).
Quote:
You are under the impression that a good God should make you able to rape others without consequences. That is just bizarre.
No, misunderstanding.
Quote:
Wow! So you would really let your son live in your house, smoke dope in your living room and rape your daughter every day?
Define the word accept, because I don't think we've a common understanding of said word. Just to make certain that you don't forget it during looking it up, or definiting it, I write:
Not accept, but forgive. You write continue [every day]. For me "not accept" and "continue" do not belong together.
Quote:
God intended for man to grow up in a paradise. But man used his free will to sin and that brought consequences on the rest of humanity.
Didn't God then do a lousy job in simply not just creating logic in a way that sin was impossible? Still keeping free will of course. You can't claim that's impossible due to logic, cause logic did not exist at this time (dawn of time, when God created the universe).
Quote:
Sorry, but mankind does need boundaries
Why?
Quote:
just as children do.
To protect them from the consequences, if there was no consequences, do you really think it'd be so? [And don't start with the rape stuff again, no negative consequences would make you being raped impossible, because that in itself would be a negative consequence, however it does not mean others can't have the impression of raping you, just like we can via light create an illusion of everything, does not mean that the person that's created an illusion of experience it]
Quote:
God's boundaries are for our own good. Setting boundaries is a part of guidance, just as giving counsil is.
Only when well argumented for, otherwise it's tyranating.
You see, I could as well start to force others to do different stuff for their own good, without explaining, do you really think they'd see me as their saviour, or as some tyrant?
Quote:
Sorry, words describe a state of being.
Doesn't change that you limited the power of God, because you made claims of things God could not, which I believe God can, because I can imagine how it's not a paradox, eventhough I'd not be so arrogant to believe the logic we know would be a limiting factor at all.
Quote:
I also defined all-power as the ability of God to do whatever he wants to do if you'll go back and read my definition.
Being all powerful is being able to do anything that power can do. Being all powerful means God has no limitations outside himself that are intrinsicly possible.
I suppose you made it bold because it's important to you that I reply, or notice this part.
I remember this part very well, so what if God wants to do something that's beyond the limitation outside God self that are intrinsicly possible?
Quote:
It is like saying oh, there can't be a square circle so God is not all-powerful.
You don't think God can make you the impression of you seeing a square cirlce?
Quote:
God is the Supreme Being by definition.
No-no, definitions are made by humans, what God decide we can only measure, so no such definition can exist, unless you can measure it.
Tell me your source, and tell me how did your source measure this?
How did the source of the source measure it?
How did it become absolute truth, no matter what and completely impossible for anything else to be different, so that this is the only way it could ever be?
Quote:
There can't be two Supreme Beings.
So God can't haven't got said power? You're limiting God even more.
But I understand why, because that's the only way you can safe God as being good, which after all, I think both of us, fortunately, see as the most important part of the equation, cause who'd bow down to someone just because of power? Who'd follow someones advice simply because they've the power to be right, but no guarantee that they wanted what's best for us? No one hopefully, but if we've guarantee of God being good, then people would be listening.
So I'm not surprised.
Quote:
God has also stated that there will never be another god.
The bible states that.
Quote:
So God placed the limitation on himself that he would not create another god.
Removing more power.
Quote:
Like I said, being all-powerful means God has no outside limitations to do things that are intrinsically possible.
Limiting one self to not be able to safe the mistakes one did in order to make anything better in a vast attempt to still be percieved as good, stupid, but good.
Quote:
No amount of power can make a square to be a circle at the same time. That is not intrinsically possible. That is a fallacy of contradiction.
Your experience of the world is dependent on the ways you use to measure, i.e. your senses. Do you honestly think that via the proper technology and the ressources required, that you could not get the illusion of seeing what you believed was impossible? Do you really believe that we can imagine all that's possible to exist, eventhough we've yet not percieved everything there's and eventhough everything we know of consist of smaller parts of something we also already knew?
Also, I've noticed you started with 2 things you believe to be logical fallacies, and for each reply you've made another one, may I ask for what reason? I already replied why I wouldn't show you why your exact examples can be true with the imagination required.
Quote:
Your intellect, emotions, and actions are all interconnected. Yes, there is environmental stimulus, but you determine the decisions you will make in response to the environment.
Tell that to the people with psychical diseases.
Quote:
Genes and the environment are not deterministic of your actions. You chose what you do.
Not deterministic (i.e. completely controls) correct, but influences, and the degree of influence varies, don't expect anyone to really have free will all the time.
Quote:
You did not answer the question.
Cause your question is irrelevant, oh well I answered it above anyway.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Ohforfsake
[...]
so I've said alla I have to say... for now.
Does this mean that you do not wish to debate the definition of truth? That's what I assume at least anyway.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 07:10 PM |
|
|
Just that I have nothing to actually conrtibute with, except what I already have stated.
Truth is what you make of it. If you believe something to be true, it will be true. At least as for you, but I also, in a religious view, it will affect other. Believing in a god will create a god. It will affect you a lot, if you let it, but also the ones who don't believe, with a lesser or indirect impact.
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 07:14 PM |
|
|
|
Are you interested in my definition?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
