|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2005 : 08:43:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
An omnipotent being would have little reason to change it's nature to shield itself from us.
:-?
quote:
In any circumstance where we are not god, you have a logical paradox in that an omnipotent being couldn't grant free will to a creation and remain omnipotent.
I don't buy that. I think choosing not to interfere is different from being unable to. |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 10:06:59 [Permalink]
|
| Just because free will is granted does not mean it cannot be temporarily revoked in certain instances and individuals. Man I hate when I have to argue pro-OSB(Omnipotent Super Being) |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 10:37:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any circumstance where we are not god, you have a logical paradox in that an omnipotent being couldn't grant free will to a creation and remain omnipotent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't buy that. I think choosing not to interfere is different from being unable to.
quote:
Just because free will is granted does not mean it cannot be temporarily revoked in certain instances and individuals. Man I hate when I have to argue pro-OSB(Omnipotent Super Being)
An omnipotent creator cannot, by the very definition of the word, remain omnipotent if it grants free will to a creation.
If there is an omnipotent creator, then free will is impossible, because it is impossible for such a creator to not know everything you will ever do in the moment of it's creation of you. If that is the case, then everything you or anyone else has ever done was done by the intent of this omnipotent creator.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 10:45:03 [Permalink]
|
Your making the assumption that omnipotance covers knowledge of all possible futures, which it doesnt nessisarily do. Omnipotence can cover only specific areas, if knowledge of the future of free willed beings is impossible than God could not know it, that would not make him logically fallable as he still can do anything "god possible"
edit:
quote:
An omnipotent creator cannot, by the very definition of the word, remain omnipotent if it grants free will to a creation.
You may want to recheck the definitions of omnipotent. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 04/28/2005 10:46:56 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 10:58:52 [Permalink]
|
continued...
If its/their goal was to create a universe where it/they would not know the outcome by instilling infinite possibility and free will, then it has succeeded. Really the logical fallicy is creating a universe where the outcome is already exactly known, as it would be totally pointless. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2005 : 16:38:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You may want to recheck the definitions of omnipotent.
Omnipotent means "all powerfull".
If you fail to grasp that, then there is little point in trying to have a conversation about it.
And, any being that is less than "all powerfull", is nothing more than we are, really. Just a being with some degree of power less than "all powerfull". What would make any being of this type worth worshiping?
quote:
If its/their goal was to create a universe where it/they would not know the outcome by instilling infinite possibility and free will, then it has succeeded.
And this type of being would not be omnipotent. It iw started out omnipotent, then is lost it's omnipotence when it gave up knowledge of the future. A truly omnipotent being woldn't have any problems knowing "infinite possibility".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2005 : 06:42:05 [Permalink]
|
I never said any being was worth worship.
We need to address all possible forms of omnipotence, not just the popular monotheist versions. Why assume that the Creator is infinitly powerful, when it could be explained by a limited power being? It makes more sense really, God could be a computer geek running a simulation with little more ability than you or I, just a better interface.
Edit: 'All Powerful' does not nessisarily mean "able to do anything humans can think of", but could mean all powerful within set X, whos to say the creator doesnt follow unknown rules?
We could explain everything we know with a far less powerful being. I love how something could have infinte power, what a crap definition, as that would make the creature infinitly more powerful than it needs to be.
Some other dictonary definitions other than infinite power.
NOUN: 1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. With very great power or influence.
2. Having unlimited power of a particular kind; as, omnipotent love. --Shak. [1913 Webster]
From http://www.onelang.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Omnipotence
Between people of different faiths, or indeed even between people of the same faith, the term "omnipotent" has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include:
1.God can not only supersede the laws of physics and probability, but God can also rewrite logic itself (for example, God could create a square circle, or could make one equal two).
2.God can intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics and probability (i.e., God can create miracles), but it is impossible--in fact, it is meaningless--to suggest that God can rewrite the laws of logic.
3.God originally could intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics (i.e., create miracles); in fact God did do so by creating the universe. However, God then self-obligated himself not to do so anymore in order to give humankind free will. Miracles are rare, at best, and always hidden, to prevent humans from being overwhelmed by absolute knowledge of God's existence, which could remove free will.
4.Omnipotence is sharply limited by neo-Aristotelian philosophers, who independently arose in Judaism, Christianity and Islam during the medieval era, and whose views still are considered normative among the intellectual elite of these faith communities even today. In this view, God never interrupts the set laws of nature; once set, they are never repealed, for God never changes his mind. These philosophers envisioned a connection between the realm of the physical and the intellectual. All physical events are held to be the results of "intellects", some of which are human, some of which are "angels". These intellects can interact in such a way as to seemingly violate the laws of nature. Since God himself created the universe and the laws therein, this is how God works in the world. However, God does not actively intervene in a temporal sense. It has been noted that this view veers away from traditional theism, and moves towards deism.
My favorites, which help my point...
5.God's omnipotence does not transcend the laws of physics or logic; rather his omnipotence is measured by his mastery of these laws to which he himself is also subject. God is omnipotent in that he has reached the full potential of his species (mankind) and is as powerful as his species can be. What may appear as a miracle to a mere mortal is simply an example of God's perfect knowledge of the laws of nature and his consequent ability to make use of that omniscience. This position is implied by Mormonism and avoids paradoxes created by a strong literal meaning imputed to the trait of omnipotence by most monotheistic religions.
6.God is able to do everything that is in accord with his own nature. He has no external power exerted on him, and is the source and origin of all power. The nature of God includes logic, and thus God cannot do anything which is logically absurd. God is able to alter the laws of physics since they are not part of his nature (strictly speaking, though they may be reflective of it), they are only a means to an end. Tertullian summarized this view as follows: "In one sense there will be something difficult even for God--namely, that which He has not done--not because He could not [in terms of raw power], but because He would not [in terms of self-consistency], do it. For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability."
Edit2: So I do not doubt Omnipotence as 'all powerful', I do however have issues with the exact meaning of 'all' in this case. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 04/29/2005 10:38:49 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2005 : 13:34:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
"If only god would give me a sign... like making a large deposit in my name to a swiss bank account."
-Woody Allen
That would work for me too. A few hundred billion dollars, and I promise I'll spend practically all of it for benefit of mankind. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2005 : 14:53:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We need to address all possible forms of omnipotence, not just the popular monotheist versions. Why assume that the Creator is infinitly powerful, when it could be explained by a limited power being?
To paraphrase some philosopher... if you can't agree on definitions, then any debate is pointless.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2005 : 05:11:32 [Permalink]
|
| Well that settles it, God does not exist. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2005 : 21:42:49 [Permalink]
|
| If god did exist, what would be his screen name? |
trish |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2005 : 03:06:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
If god did exist, what would be his screen name?
Infidel Eviscarator
Jew-on-a-Stick
Ark Enabler
Falwell's Folly
Burn-the-Bush
Antichrist666
Infinant End
Great Googa Mooga
Heavenly Bash
Legion
Fifth Horseman
And so forth. 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 02:09:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
Let me preface by saying that, while I hate labels, I am what you would call a "soft atheist", i.e. it's not that I don't believe that there is NO God, but the inverse, his/her existance has not been proven; that the burden of proof falls on the faithful/believers and they haven't succeeded.
I believe that falls into the agnostic definition rather than atheist.quote:
Thus, in a debate, the opponent would ask "what constitutes proof?" to which I would answer, "show me evidence of His existence" (sorry for the genderization).
Trouble with this for me is there is overwhelming evidence against the validity of any gods in the usual religious lines. The Bible is full of nonsense, as are all the other religious texts and descriptions.quote:
Herein lies the dilemma: simply because we humans can't explain many of the workings of the universe (for instance, have we figured out the odd, radial ripples in Saturn's rings?), we can't automatically ascribe them to a deity. That falls into the "god of the gaps" or Argument from Ignorance fallacy that our beloved ID'ers love so. But the rejection of the supernatural causes behind otherwise unexplainable phenomenon pretty much becomes an ideology that, at no point, can I (or We) be provided with satisfactory proof. Or, in fact, our belief that there is no proof of God becomes and "unfalsifiable" hypothesis.
This is the old God of the Gaps stuff. It is nothing new. And it's been covered here by the others. If you can't explain something, why make up an explanation? Just as you need to look at the evidence for what we have discovered, you need evidence for the next discovery as well.
The god in the Bible can be ruled out as easily as we have ruled out the Greek mythological characters or the stories such as coyote stole fire from heaven and the volcano Pele fights her sister the ocean. So just which god is it you wish to have evidence of? |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2005 : 02:22:22 [Permalink]
|
| Well, we've been through this definitions debate before, but from what I've seen, atheist means lack of belief in gods. A-theism. There are different kinds of atheism. I am just about all kinds, as I don't believe in gods, and am pretty sure that the gods I've ever heard of don't exist. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
