http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pDt9eIF49Y&NR=1


I've got two words for this: :eek: and :bugeye:


I don't even think the hardcore theists on this board would echo this one. But I have been known to be optimistic.

Speaking as a theist, even I can say that this video is a horrible argument against atheists. The narrator has a very sarcastic, annoying voice, adding more to my suffering of wasting about two minutes of my life. She implies an atheistic rule would promote violence, yet ignores the fact I WON'T deny, in that religion has caused LOTS of violence.

Makes me sad that such stupid arguments could be used for theism. This is so horrible that it could possibly be atheists in disguise trying to insult our intelligence.

Speaking as a theist, even I can say that this video is a horrible argument against atheists. The narrator has a very sarcastic, annoying voice, adding more to my suffering of wasting about two minutes of my life. She implies an atheistic rule would promote violence, yet ignores the fact I WON'T deny, in that religion has caused LOTS of violence.

Makes me sad that such stupid arguments could be used for theism. This is so horrible that it could possibly be atheists in disguise trying to insult our intelligence.

It also asserts that if you use the words "reason", "rational", and/or "real", you will eventually lead a bloody reign of terror.

But I presented this for a reason; it's a horrible argument dressed up in more juvenile clothing than what it usually is seen in...the fear-ridden suggestion that "without God everything is permitted" sadly is used quite frequently around here, albeit less emaciated. The reasoning behind this suggestion however is equally as inadequate as it is in the "argument" presented here, no matter what it is dressed in.

This is so horrible that it could possibly be atheists in disguise trying to insult our intelligence.

Great way to conclude a post - showing the exact same ignorance and intolerance as the narrator of the video. :bugeye:

What's truly sad is that people accept this as sound reasoning.

Great way to conclude a post - showing the exact same ignorance and intolerance as the narrator of the video. :bugeye:

It was sarcasm, as I was trying to even further criticize the ludicrous video. Please, read between the lines.

Ooh, a christian joke, no wonder I missed it.

Admittedly I did consider the possibility but thought nobody could be that unfunny.

jesus lol and thiese cristians dont rember the burning of the proterstants the holy crusades, and that had nothinkg to do with people beliving in god did it?

jesus lol and thiese cristians dont rember the burning of the proterstants the holy crusades, and that had nothinkg to do with people beliving in god did it?

I don't think it had as much to do with believing in God as people seem to think.
I think it was simple mob mentality, fear, control, politics, money...
All the ingredients of any mass hysteria and large atrocity.
Most of the people involved with such things never actually read the Bible - it was all orders coming from those in power who wanted it to stay that way.

It was corrupt humans taking advantage of people's fears.

Us vs. Them - politics at its most base.

At one point it was against the law to read anything but The Bible.
The hitch was that The Bible was only printed in Latin, and only clergy and the highly educated rich could read Latin (which were few and far between).

As one who is willing to say that the Bible is a scourge on humanity, I will also go so far as to say that video seems more the produce of a misguided atheist provocateur trying to discredit religion.

Oh, wait. I guess I have to join Celpha Fiael in pleading optimism.

As one who is willing to say that the Bible is a scourge on humanity, I will also go so far as to say that video seems more the produce of a misguided atheist provocateur trying to discredit religion.

Oh, wait. I guess I have to join Celpha Fiael in pleading optimism.

Unfortunately, I can't join you.
I have known people who would agree completely with the "reasoning" in the video.

Ooh, a christian joke, no wonder I missed it.

Admittedly I did consider the possibility but thought nobody could be that unfunny.

1) I'm not Christian.

2) It wasn't a joke, as much as it was sarcasm/exaggeration.

...I have known people who would agree completely with the "reasoning" in the video.

Yep. :(
Its like after Jesus Camp, this is where ya go.

Makes me sad that such stupid arguments could be used for theism. This is so horrible that it could possibly be atheists in disguise trying to insult our intelligence.

I think I'd much rather it be an atheist who is being mocking, this would make me feel a lot better about it.

That was amazingly awesomely hilarious. Thanks for posting that.

It's good that theists can see that the argument in the video is logically flawed. BUT, what about all the other logical arguments that are not so straightforward? We can laugh at this idiot because it's so obvious BUT.. we have gone through thread after thread demonstrating that an omniscient God cancels out freewill. Yet, we all know many theists think God is omniscient AND we have free will. Or the omnipotent God that makes round squares. The classic God, an omnipotent omniscient being who logically can not learn anything new ...

I wouldn't point too many fingers as a few are pointing right back at chya

;)
MII

It's good that theists can see that the argument in the video is logically flawed. BUT, what about all the other logical arguments that are not so straightforward? We can laugh at this idiot because it's so obvious BUT.. we have gone through thread after thread demonstrating that an omniscient God cancels out freewill. Yet, we all know many theists think God is omniscient AND we have free will. Or the omnipotent God that makes round squares. The classic God, an omnipotent omniscient being who logically can not learn anything new ...

I wouldn't point too many fingers as a few are pointing right back at chya

;)
MII

Your protestations are about as lame and transparently bogus to many of us as the ones in the video are to you.
And I'm not even a theist.

It's good that theists can see that the argument in the video is logically flawed. BUT, what about all the other logical arguments that are not so straightforward? We can laugh at this idiot because it's so obvious BUT.. we have gone through thread after thread demonstrating that an omniscient God cancels out freewill. Yet, we all know many theists think God is omniscient AND we have free will. Or the omnipotent God that makes round squares. The classic God, an omnipotent omniscient being who logically can not learn anything new ...


Yes yes I agree. Baby steps.

This bad ! lol
The ones that made that should be arrested ;)
This is proganda in the worst sense of the word.

Unfortunately, I can't join you.
I have known people who would agree completely with the "reasoning" in the video.

Are you serious ? Thats just sick... how can anybody in their right mind believe this stuff ?

Oh it's so bad it's hilarious!
Slippery slopes and straw men!

Oh and didn't all those things happen way back in history when 'God' was still alive. Don't waste your time people.

Seriously, people – take a trip to the rural southern United States some time if you don’t think that the person in that video might be genuine. There are plenty of believers who are non-rational and borderline insane.

Seriously, people – take a trip to the rural southern United States some time if you don’t think that the person in that video might be genuine. There are plenty of believers who are non-rational and borderline insane.

Being from the rural southern United States (Alabama), I can vouch for that. I've encountered my fair share of people that would believe this rubbish without any question.

Being from the rural southern United States (Alabama), I can vouch for that. I've encountered my fair share of people that would believe this rubbish without any question.

Oh how great it is to live here in the Bible Belt...that Dawkins debate in Bham is going to be interesting to say the least, I'm a little concerned the place may be bombed!

Oh how great it is to live here in the Bible Belt...that Dawkins debate in Bham is going to be interesting to say the least, I'm a little concerned the place may be bombed!

I can't wait to go. Should be fun.

I dont bother looking at videos like this because i will not be part of this 'child in the school yard' game. There are just as many flat out lunatic atheists, that is for sure.

nanananana na....why dont you all put that at the end of your posts?

I dont bother looking at videos like this because i will not be part of this 'child in the school yard' game. There are just as many flat out lunatic atheists, that is for sure.

nanananana na....why dont you all put that at the end of your posts?

I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. *boing fwep*

nanananana na

*blows raspberry*

^ SEE. another great mind, ripe for molding.:D

^ SEE. another great mind, ripe for molding.:D

Explain yourself.

It was a joke. The point is that pointing out crazy people based on their beliefs is meaningless.

It was a joke. The point is that pointing out crazy people based on their beliefs is meaningless.

Only if you think rationality is meaningless. Oops there's that word again, guess I should get started on my reign of terror.

It was a joke. The point is that pointing out crazy people based on their beliefs is meaningless.

Meaningless, yet highly entertaining.

Only if you think rationality is meaningless. Oops there's that word again, guess I should get started on my reign of terror.

Who are you going to start with?

What is rational? What IS irrational is forcing people to accept someones interpretation of rational on things that are not fully proven. Many people dont like to hear this but it is a fact. So what is irrational?

One thing that is obvious is how important your beliefs are to you. Not being able to see the similarities is what confounds me.

What IS irrational is forcing people to accept someones interpretation of rational on things that are not fully proven.

It's funny you word this so similarly as I would...this is what I see as a major problem of religions and their holy books. Those who study the Bible will invariably interpret the same passage vastly differently, who is to say one is right and the other is wrong? When it comes down to it, there is no reasoning behind why one's interpretation is truer than another's because they are just that; interpretations. Opinions with no proof, nothing more.

This is where the similarities stop. Opinions are fine, I have many myself, but they are not a reliable foundation for the search for what is true, and those of us who care passionately about what is true should disregard them as candidates. This, for me, means the defenestration a holy book declaring itself to be the truth and all the subjective and ungrounded interpretations of it that have nothing supporting them except the authenticness they award themselves.

Your protestations are about as lame and transparently bogus to many of us as the ones in the video are to you.
And I'm not even a theist.Well well, those protestations were 20+ page threads and have been repeated ad nauseum.

Well well, those protestations were 20+ page threads and have been repeated ad nauseum.

I don't know what your point is.
Please elabirate.

The point I was trying to make is that the old hats...
Can God do something that is a paradox?
and
If God is omniscient, free will is impossible, because everything is pre-determined.
and
If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why is there suffering?

Are all just as lame, contrived, dishonest and intellectually wortless as the arguments made in the video clip.
The fact that someone accepts either is nothing more than a testament to the person's own ingrained beliefs and willingness to trumpet whatever supports them, regardless of valid reasoning, or a testament to the person's lacking sense of reason and logic and being a sucker.

What was your point?

Maybe I am really tired but the argument in the video, I though, was an ad hominem fallacy? Perhaps with a touch of ad populum sprinkled on top?

I can't really remember now.

My point was that because such logic is so weak and the reasoning so faulty that it is easy for most people regardless of beleif to come to the conclusion that the argument is invalid.

That's not the case for the omniscient omnipotent God because most people still think God can be both omniscient omnipotent while clearly that is logically impossible. I am 100% positive that every theist on this thread agrees that the video's logic is faulty while they still maintain that their God is omniscient omnipotent.

Did I mention I am so tired today? But it was a pretty good day.
Michael

Possibly the funniest thing I'v watched on YouTube (not that I have seen anything very funny on it, but a record is a record.)

Maybe I am really tired but the argument in the video, I though, was an ad hominem fallacy? Perhaps with a touch of ad populum sprinkled on top? Yep, the narrator had Ad Hominem up her ***. Plus, some ad populum, appeal to fear, ad consequentiam, falty generalization, association fallacy, and there was even a few WW2 Nazi pictures in there so reductio ad hitlerum too (though just another version of association.) Wow! Thats allot of fallacys in 2 minuts. :D

Not to mention the funniest part is the narrator equates reason itself to violence, and thus the if the argument was correct we would have to discard logic all together. :m:

-Andrew

I just puzzled as to why the narrator, is comparing to very reasonable men with a Catholic and a Lutheran Christian regime, surely that’s counter productive.

That's not the case for the omniscient omnipotent God because most people still think God can be both omniscient omnipotent while clearly that is logically impossible.

That's exactly what I am talking about.
First of all, show me where in The Bible that it says God is Omniscient and Omnipotent.
After you do that, consider this...

The idea that God can be both Omniscient and Omnipotent is most certainly not illogical or unreasonable.

Omniscient means all-knowing.
Omnipotent means all-powerful.

A being that has the power to do anything that is possible and knows the answer to every question that it is possible to answer to can be considered omnipotent and omniscient.
This being does not necessarily have to have the ability to see into the future.

Perhaps the future is unknown because it is unknowable... Unknowable by anyone.

If God designed the universe, he would have designed the natural laws the surround us - the laws of physics.
Paradoxes, by very design, are impossible.
Undermine cause and effect, and the system becomes unstable.

If there is a "God" that designed this system, he very well could have designed it so the future can not be known nor entirely predictable - he could have built free-will into the design.

Plus, even if he DID have the ability to see into the future, he could simply choose not to.

Even if God does exist, what makes humans so arrogant to think that he would give a shit about the absurdly petty troubles and wishes of ANY of us, nevermind ALL of us.
If he cared even in the least about us, what would compel him to intervene in any way, nevermind orchestrate every least detail of everone's lives?
Even if he cared enough to intervene on some level, what makes us say that he would want life to be easy and happy for all?

If there is such thing as heaven, shangri-la, paradise, nibbana, etc, existence there, by account of all the major religions, is without trouble, difficulty, pain, strife - for eternity.
Your silly little problems encountered here (most of them self-created) in the mere 70 years or so on earth would be less than a hangnail compared to eternity in paradise.
Besides, haven't you ever heard that difficulty builds character?

Perhaps pain is a fair price to pay for free-will.
I think it is.
If I didn't, I would simply kill myself and be done with it.

If he IS omnipotent, he has the power to turn his back if he wishes.

The ability to control all does not imply the necessity or obligation to do so.
Abstention from interference does not necessarily imply malevolence.

Your prseumptions that support your view are no different than the presumptions of theists that support their view - or conservatives - or liberals - or satanists...
They are conveinent explanations that allow them to continue believing as they do.

The idea that God can be both Omniscient and Omnipotent is most certainly not illogical or unreasonable.

Omniscient means all-knowing.
Omnipotent means all-powerful.

A being that has the power to do anything that is possible and knows the answer to every question that it is possible to answer to can be considered omnipotent and omniscient.
This being does not necessarily have to have the ability to see into the future.

Perhaps the future is unknown because it is unknowable... Unknowable by anyone.


I don't have a problem with your explanation until right here. That's a nice way to kind of jump out of the paradox, but basically what your saying is that God cannot say anything of the future. By definition, this makes him not omniscient anymore. I mean, in this picture you've painted, human meteorologists are more omniscient than God is!

A being that has the power to do anything that is possible and knows the answer to every question that it is possible to answer to can be considered omnipotent and omniscient.
This being does not necessarily have to have the ability to see into the future.

Perhaps the future is unknown because it is unknowable... Unknowable by anyone.

Maybe, it depends on how you define "omniscient" I suppose. But I'm pretty sure that the bible rather explicitly says that the Christian god does know the future. For example, I believe in the bible god tells John the Baptist that he knew everything about him before he was even conceived. I think there are some other things like that, although I can’t recall them off the top of my head.

but basically what your saying is that God cannot say anything of the future.


No, that's not exactly what I am saying.
I'm saying that with enough knowledge you can predict probabilities.
If you know a person's nature well enough, you can predict their actions, and you will most often be correct.
The existance of free-will, however, makes it impossible to predict every aspect of the future - as soon as one person varies the least bit from their nature (thanks to free-will) that has the potential to change everything - The Butterfly Effect.
Yes, God can predict the weather.
But he can't know everything in store for the future, because he designed the system that way - be built free-will into it.

[QUOTE=Celpha Fiael;1492274]By definition, this makes him not omniscient anymore. I mean, in this picture you've painted, human meteorologists are more omniscient than God is!
By whose definition?
He still knows everything there is to know.
You are placing false restrictions on omniscient.
It is like placing false restrictions on omnipotent, by saying God is not omnipotent because he can't make a square circle (or some other absurd paradox).
An omnipotent being would be powerful enough to do anything that can be done.

But we've already agreed on something that he does not know. This makes him not omniscient, just as your example makes him not omnipotent; the fact that we can put conceptual restrictions on these concepts attests to their inconsistencies to begin with and doesn't excuse it from contradictions.

one_raven,

Omniscient means all-knowing.
Omnipotent means all-powerful.

Your definition of "all-knowing" seems more akin to a large hard-drive. That's said, the only thing that contains all information about the present Universe is the Universe.

An all-powerful God should be able to do anything we can do ... right?

Can God forget something? Can God be confused by something? Can God be surprised? Can God learn a new dance style?

Can God make a mistake? Use the wrong word? Think a new thought?

Is God rational?

Can God make a round square?

Michael

PS: the all knowing God that most people believe in knows the future - hence Revelations. Most people do not split hairs over this - they simply say God knows all period fullstop.

RE round square,

I think it's a good question to ponder. The answer is of course no. But, again, I personally have heard many theists answer YES. So, it's a good starting point.

Michael

But we've already agreed on something that he does not know. This makes him not omniscient, just as your example makes him not omnipotent; the fact that we can put conceptual restrictions on these concepts attests to their inconsistencies to begin with and doesn't excuse it from contradictions.

Wrong.

Something can not "exist" and "not exist" at the same time.
Allowing paradox would make the system impossible - it would collapse.
God would not have designed a system that allows paradox, as it would be unstable.
If the system were to allow paradox to exist, the system itself could not exist.

As we agreed, omniscient is all knowing - omnipotent is all-powerful.

All powerful could not include doing the impossible - because that would be a paradox.

If the system was designed with free-will as part and parcel to the system, it could not include absolute knowledge of the future as part of "All" because absolute knowledge of the future simply does not exist - it would be a paradox.

It's really quite simple.

Round square is simply meaningless.

one_raven

I'm still curious:
Can God forget something, be confused, be surprised, learn a new dance style, make a mistake, use the wrong word, think a new thought?

Is God a rational being?

Does God have the "power" to do these things or exist in these states (state of surprise) and yet contain all knowledge?

Michael

Wrong.

Something can not "exist" and "not exist" at the same time.
Allowing paradox would make the system impossible - it would collapse.
God would not have designed a system that allows paradox, as it would be unstable.
If the system were to allow paradox to exist, the system itself could not exist.

As we agreed, omniscient is all knowing - omnipotent is all-powerful.

All powerful could not include doing the impossible - because that would be a paradox.

If the system was designed with free-will as part and parcel to the system, it could not include absolute knowledge of the future as part of "All" because absolute knowledge of the future simply does not exist - it would be a paradox.

It's really quite simple.

Round square is simply meaningless.

I fully understand what you are saying and agree concerning the paradoxes. The unfortunate aspect about omniscience and omnipotence is that they have built-in paradoxes; respectively and when placed along side one another. We have noted several paradoxes above and all I've really gathered as a response from you aside from the implications of it is "wrong." It really isn't quite simple; can God create something in which he cannot do?

Apparently you've shown that not only can he, but he has already done so; God has created the idea of future knowledge (indeed it is available to some in certain respects like my earlier example of meteorologists who may be relying on predicted probabilities, but it is still information concerning what hasn't happened yet; i.e. "the hurricane will hit the shores of Florida at 10:30 pm tomorrow night"), yet cannot use or know it himself. In this paradox alone, we see omnipotence and omniscience crumbling under the weight of their over-ambitious definitions and I fail to see how it is quite simple at all, or easily resolved for that matter.

An earlier point was made that I find amusingly accurate though. If God can not see into the future, then this cannot be the Judeo-Christian God, as there are several verses proclaiming how he knows the details of our days before we are born, knew our names before we were born, etc.

Apparently you've shown that not only can he, but he has already done so; God has created the idea of future knowledge (indeed it is available to some in certain respects like my earlier example of meteorologists who may be relying on predicted probabilities, but it is still information concerning what hasn't happened yet; i.e. "the hurricane will hit the shores of Florida at 10:30 pm tomorrow night"), yet cannot use or know it himself. In this paradox alone, we see omnipotence and omniscience crumbling under the weight of their over-ambitious definitions and I fail to see how it is quite simple at all, or easily resolved for that matter.

An earlier point was made that I find amusingly accurate though. If God can not see into the future, then this cannot be the Judeo-Christian God, as there are several verses proclaiming how he knows the details of our days before we are born, knew our names before we were born, etc.

What you seem to misunderstand about my position (please correct me if I am wrong) is that I am not saying that God can not predict the future.
As I pointed out, with enough information, anyone can predict the future - to a certain extent.
The precice border of what that extent is, is the line of free will.
God can most certainly tell if it will rain tomorrow.
He will also be able to tell if it will be raining in Boise Idaho, on June 22, 3124 - with the caveat that someone's free will will not change that outcome.

Leave God out of this for a second - let's consider a computer...
A computer that has has been fed all the equations, and all the available variables will be able to predict, with extraordinarily high probability, not only if it will rain tomorrow, but many other aspects of life - even what the stock market will do.

That computer, knowing what socks I am most comfortable in, knowing my past behavirs, knowing my personality and what drives me, knowing how much laundry I have done, knowing what the weather will be and knowing what clean sock are sitting at the top of the basket I keep clean socks in, will most likely be able to predict what pair of socks I will wear tomorrow.
I may, however, have a dream that reminds me of my wedding, and wake up wanting to wear the socks I wore that day - even though it goes against my nature and all the variables - if we concede that free will exists, for the sake of this argument, then that is entirely within the realm of possibility.

This omniscient being will be able to predict much of what I do - as humans are creatures of habit and easy to predict. Hell, I can predict most of what people I know will do, and I'm not even close to omniscient.

However, the existence of free will undermines the concept of absolute knowledge of the future.

The socks I wore on my wedding day were silly, brightly colored, striped socks.
Let's say someone in an elevator notices my socks tomorrow and makes a comment.
The two of us have a conversation (when we otherwise would have essentially ignored each other).
The conversation leads to lunch.
We get to know each other.
We become friends.
My entire future has just changed because I made a new friend because I exercised my power of free will and wore silly socks, against my nature, and that change in my future has widespread effects like a ripple in a pond that effects every other ripple in the pond.
My wearing silly socks that day - which could not have been predicted - could concievably spell life or death for people I have never met.

Absolute pre-destination or absolute foreknowledge is impossible in a system with free-will.
Omnipotent does not imply the power to do what is impossible - regardless of what some people claim or believe.

Thank you for clarifying to me, I see what I was missing now and agree with a lot of what you said. My interest is that this definition of a God excludes the Judeo-Christian God as a qualified candidate, as he, according to his holy book, does know the future, even our acts of free will. Your thoughts?

My interest is that this definition of a God excludes the Judeo-Christian God as a qualified candidate, as he, according to his holy book, does know the future, even our acts of free will. Your thoughts?

I concede that it may.
I haven't read anything in the Bible that directly contradicts what I say, however.
I have certainly met some Christians that contradict it with their words.

I would be very interested in reading some scripture that you think contradicts this, and claims that Abraham's Gods knows all that will come to pass.

I have read things like, "He knows all the hairs on your head" and other things that imply his omniscience - but I have not seen where it states that the future is pre-destined and he knows it all.

If you (or anyone) could offer up some verses, I would appreciate it.

http://www.avln.org/faith/images/Repentance.jpg

Thank you for clarifying to me, I see what I was missing now and agree with a lot of what you said.

Of course you do...you always did...now rise, Image of God!

Of course you do...you always did...now rise, Image of God!

For goodness sake, what is Jesus doing to that boy?! :eek:


...hmm...it appears Photizo never is confused or ever misunderstands anyone. It also appears that his ego is so large, that no matter who you are actually addressing in a thread, your post inevitably flies into his atmosphere, which elicits a necessary and relevant response from him. Let's keep an eye out for this, everyone.

And how ironic it is that my humility has been used (poorly) to bite me in the ass by a person who would most likely claim that his religion has a monopoly on humility, as it is strictly a Christian virtue. I grow weary of your meaningless and noncontributory remarks; do you honestly have nothing better to do than to get on a message board and not engage in the edifying dialogue within, but instead continue your smear campaign against one person you don't agree with? Sounds very Christian of you, I'm sure Jesus is so proud.

:eek:
I was thinking shit is the big J getting a big BJ!

Anyway, RE knowing all


Can God forget something, be confused, be surprised, learn a new dance style, make a mistake, use the wrong word, think a new thought?

If not then God can not do "anything" even things we humans can do and is not all powerful in the sense "can do anything humans can do. If God can exist in such states then God does not always exist in a state of all knowing.

If God is always in a state of all knowing then God is not a rational being because rationality requires thinking, which God can not do. God is limited to only knowing all.

If God can not do the illogical then God is not all powerful in the sense that God`s "power" is bound within the limits of human logic.

So God is limited both by logic (not all but shall we say "very" powerful) and by its state of knowing all present information and like humans is bound by time in this regards.

This God becomes less and less the image of person with all power and all knowledge that most theists think of and is in my mind more the image of a large storage harddrive. Most theists think of a "personality" that they pray to God, not an unchanging harddrive recording all info. Its as if God is a PC running the human-universe program and recording all events). Why would such a thing demand supplication? Seems an odd thing for a harddrive to demand.

MII


As to knowing future events God gave Revelations.

I know I didn't think stuff like that was allowed on this board.

One_Raven,

I delved into some of my past and located a couple verses for your consideration:

Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. 14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. (Gen 15:13,14)

this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations (Matt 24:14)

[God] declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)

...for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:8)

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (Jeremiah 29:11)

^-- A Christian favorite for sure

This is saying nothing of all the prophecies that saturate the scriptures, which would require a knowledge of the future by definition.

Hope these have helped.

there are no best or worst arguments.

Can God forget something, be confused, be surprised, learn a new dance style, make a mistake, use the wrong word, think a new thought?

I don't have time right now to properly addess this whole post, but I wanted to address this one part.
This argument is a silly semantical that is worthless and completely lacking reason - it's a trick of language.
It's no different than...
If God is perfect, then he can't make a mistake.
If God can't make a mistake then there is something he can't do.
Therefore: God is not omnipotent.

The argument has no meaning - no different than "God is not omnipotent if he can't make a square circle". The words are simply meaningless.
"God is not omnipotent if he can't do what's impossible" means no more than God can't do what can't be done.
God can do everything that can be done does not contradict God can't do what can't be done.
God can do anything that is possible to do (still with me, right?)
"that it is possible to do", in this case is redundant, as it can be assumed that, in a system in which paradoxes can not exist (which I believe I have established well enough earlier they can not) one can certainly not do what it is impossible to do, as that would be a paradox.
That leaves us with God can do anything.
God is all powerful.
As I said earlier - absolute knopwledge of the future would not be a member of the set "all", as it is a paradox, therefore it is nothing - non-existant - not part of all.

I think if I go further than this, I am simply repeating myself and that is both annoying and pointless in most cases.

If you take issue with anything I said above, however, please point it out and explain why.

there are no best or worst arguments.

Then discussion at all is worthless, and since this is a discussion forum, you should stop wasting your time.

Take care, then.

Then discussion at all is worthless, and since this is a discussion forum, you should stop wasting your time.

Take care, then.

I am saying there are no best or worst arguments/discussions.
You are saying that because I believe so all discussions/arguments are worthless.

It is like saying:
Me: There are no tallest or shortest trees.
You: Then there are no trees

huh?...

now, neither I am or you are right. Since there are of course some awesome and some really crappy arguments/discussions.

But ultimately what I was trying to say is that I really don't think anyone should look/care for best and worst arguments...as I see all arguments being equally beneficial nevertheless.

As for taking care, I will stick around...so I am not taking care. Now...I am taking care but I am taking care of other things.

It is like saying:
Me: There are no tallest or shortest trees.
You: Then there are no trees

huh?...

No, it's actually nothing like saying that at all.
It is more like...

I am having an arguiment with someone about whether Elm or Chestnut trees grow larger, and you step in and say "all trees are the same - there is no difference - none is taller or shorter than another".
Which, effectively means, "This discussion is pointless, because there is no answer".

If that's true in your mind, stay the hell out of the discussion and stop wasting your time and mine.

What does your incessant "all things are equal and nothing is distinct" bullshit add to any discussion at all? Ever?

Me - I like Blue.
Joe - I like Green.
You - All colors are the same, nonr is better than any other - so you are both right and both wrong.

If you refuse to ever take a position and state an opinion, then discussion itself IS worthless and pointless.

The worst part about all this, draqon, is that you are full of shit and a bald faced hypocrite.

You come into a discussion that you do not take a position on, and post some meaningless bullshit like what you posted above...
Yet on another point, you take a staunch, firm position, and insult those who does not agree with you.

You come into one post and preach forgiveness, love, compassion and understanding...
Then in another you advocate nuclear war, mass poisonings and genocide, because you did not like someone's joke.

You're full of shit, draqon, and you know it.

The worst part about all this, draqon, is that you are full of shit and a bald faced hypocrite.

You come into a discussion that you do not take a position on, and post some meaningless bullshit like what you posted above...
Yet on another point, you take a staunch, firm position, and insult those who does not agree with you.

You come into one post and preach forgiveness, love, compassion and understanding...
Then in another you advocate nuclear war, mass poisonings and genocide, because you did not like someone's joke.

You're full of shit, draqon, and you know it.

dude I am being sarcastic. That's all. I am never really truthful anywhere on here.
And when did I insult someone? I mean the way some people insult here...is way beyond what I say.
And, yes I do take a stance.

As for questions whats worth or best...I can't stand those questions. I really don't see the meaning of finding the best or the worst. My mom is like, "what is the best class you are taking in university?"....well truly I like/hate them all equally. There are so many good and bad things about those classes...it all equals out in the end. And I see this concept of equal good/bad in everything really.

draqon,

I just realized that you were referring directly to the thread subject, as opposed to the discussion between Michael, Celpha Fiael and myself over the past few days.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I still think you're full of shit, though. :)

one_raven,

It seems to me then it's the word omnipotent that needs redefined. God can do only what is logically possible.

However, even this said, as I pointed out, there are things that we human CAN do that God can not do.

For example, think or forget.

This isn't playing with words it's an observation about the nature of a being that knows-all that has occurred.

Is a being all-power if it does not have the ability to do something I can do - that is think or forget?

You may say this is a word game but it isn't. It's showing that the idea of an all-powerfull and all-knowing being is paradoxical and therefor can not exist.



I'll just ask this simple question:

Can you forget? Can you think?
Can God forget? Can God think?

If this brings up a paradox then we must redefine what it means to be all-powerful. You said all powerful is the ability the do anything that is possible. Well, I can forget. That is a possibility for me. As a matter of fact if I look over hundreds of thousands of millions of numbers scrolling on a screen I will not be able to remember them all. I will probably forget almost all of them. This is something that God can not by definition do. You say this is a play on words. No it is not. It's demonstrating that the idea of all-powerful and all-knowing is logically absurd as each is presently defined.

I pretty certain that me having the ability to do something that God can not do means God is not "all-powerful".

Wouldn't you agree? (notice we didn't bring up round squares this time) This is something I can do and God can not do.

Anyway, (I'll bold this because it's a serious question) how else other than showing absurdity or paradox or logical inconsistency, does one demonstrate that an all-knowing and all-powerful being can not logically exist?

Michael

God can do only what is logically possible.
OK.
We have a starting point.
We agree that this omniscient and omnipotent God we are postulating can only do what is logically possible.

Your example (God can not forget) is wordplay because you take it out of context.

The ability to forget is not paradoxical in and of itself - that much is obvious.
On the other hand...

You are saying that an omnipotent God is a logical impossibility if he can't forget, something we mere mortals CAN do (as if it's an "ability").

"NOT forgetting" is the ability he has.
Omniscient implies he knows all there is to know - this he will know everything of the past - never forgetting is part and partial with this.

Of course he can't forget - he knows all.

You are building a paradox.

By asking, "Can God forget?", what you are really asking is, "Is there anything that God can't know?" and, of course, the answer is NO, because all-knowing is the definition.
"No, God can not forget" confirms his omniscience - not denies his omipotence.

As for "Can God think"...
Of course - why not?
Keep in mind before you answer this question, God does not have absolute knowledge of the future - therefore there IS unknown to him and he CAN be surprised.

Michael,
You are complaining about the lame arguments theists use to bolster thier position.
I think you should take a good, long, honest look at the following and seriously consider the answer...

Do you honestly use reason to find the answers to your questions, or do you already have the answers and look for arguments to bolster that position?

Hi one_raven,

I still have some questions.

1) Not having the ability to forget is not an inability? (or should I say, being able to forget, the possibility of forgetting, is not an ability?)
If there is an ability to know-all why can't there be an ability not to know all? If all beings knew all things then it seems if one of them suddenly didn't that this could be considered a new ability.

I seem to remember a Russian who couldn't forget and used to recall millions and millions or unnecessary facts and numbers and eventually went in sane. It seems to me if he had the "ability" to forget his life would have been much better. No?

2) RE: Thinking
Well, thinking is a process . Agreed? A question is posed, known information is contemplated and new information created in what (I think we can agree) is an answer. I'd have thought that an all-knowing God can not think because new information would never be created. But your God is not all-knowing in so much as it is all-recording. If God does not know the future then God, as I, will gain information as the future unfolds. This of course implies God is constrained by time just as we humans are. Perhaps a constrained God that is recording all information as it happens is logically consistent with omnipotent if not having information is not an ability. If this sort of thing is not an inability and God does not know the future then perhaps there are no inconsistencies. I'll have to think about it.

For this hypothetical God there are many situations where both God and I have equal "ability". Something I just don't think Theists usually agree to. In a game of chance. Both God and I will have an equal chance of winning in a true came of chance. Lets say the game of heads-or-tails. We both have a 50:50 chance to "guess" the future outcome as the coin is flipped. We are equal in this ability.

But what about this sort of question:
What is the Japanese word for Hello? I wonder if it's similar to Chinese? Is it the same all over Japan? Are there other forms of Hello? What's the most common? Hmmmm......let me look this up....
konichiwa!

You state this sort of thinking is not an ability because it involves not knowing something which is not an inability. Is this correct?
My ability to contemplate or think is not an ability after all?
I suppose I will have to know how you stand on that question: Is the process of thinking and contemplating an ability? If it is not then perhaps I will have to think of another situation where a recording device (aka God) lacks an ability that a human would have just for lack of having all information.

So, when I hear a joke and suddenly "get it" and start to laugh at the surprising ending - this is not an ability in your opinion? I'd had thought it was one ability that separates us from most other animals on this rock. I'd have thought this ability was what made homosapians unique. But if it's not an ability - what the hell is it?

Michael

You state this sort of thinking is not an ability because it involves not knowing something which is not an inability. Is this correct?

No, that's not correct.
I said nothing of teh sort and am at a complete loss where you get that notion.
I feel like we are having two different conversations.
Is everything I am saying just flying right past you?

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

No, that's not correct.
I said nothing of teh sort and am at a complete loss where you get that notion.
I feel like we are having two different conversations.
Is everything I am saying just flying right past you?

Please explain how you came to that conclusion.This is the sentence that led me to this conclusion:

"No, God can not forget" confirms his omniscience - not denies his omipotence."

This is exactly where we disagree.
What does it mean to have omnipotence? You said, to do anything logically possible. Not make round squares or lift unliftable rocks. Just do something that can be done.

By definition if a being can not do something that is logically possible to do then it is not "omnipotent". Ergo, if God can not forget, and the act of forgetting is a possibility, then God can not do anything that is logically possible and is not by your definition omnipotent. Unless by omnipotent you mean do some things that are logically possible - - - but not all things. If that is the definition then maybe we are all omnipotent? There are things I can do that God can not do and things God can do that I can not do.

Michael

Frankly im equally as worried by this new brand of evangelical atheism as i am by evangelic theism. Its all very absolutist and largely based on large dollups of faith.

Frankly im equally as worried by this new brand of evangelical atheism as i am by evangelic theism. Its all very absolutist and largely based on large dollups of faith.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm also not convinced that a being that knows all can think.

You said that God, as defined, could not know future events - with certainty. In a real sense God is bound by time.

Can God travel backwards in time? Say, go back to the year 1000CE or is God only existing in the present - together with us?

Frankly im equally as worried by this new brand of evangelical atheism as i am by evangelic theism. Its all very absolutist and largely based on large dollups of faith.Oh come on :) It's just a logical debate.

Anyway, I'd hate to think any of my Theist friends would become Atheist. I like them as they are and it would seem weird if all of a sudden they didn't have a beleif.

Michael

Can God travel backwards in time? Say, go back to the year 1000CE or is God only existing in the present - together with us?

You forget, I am not a theist, so to ask me what God can and can not do is just silly.
I am simply pointing out that an omniscient and omnipotent God is not a logical impossibility - as you seem so sure of - and I think I have done that successfully.

I say again...
You should seriously look at yourself and ask this question honestly...

Do you honestly use reason to find the answers to your questions, or do you already have the answers and look for arguments to bolster that position?

I am not convinced that a God can logically be both without doing some serious redefining of what each mean.

You should seriously look at yourself and ask this question honestly...

Do you honestly use reason to find the answers to your questions, or do you already have the answers and look for arguments to bolster that position?In some instances I have an idea of what the answer is I am looking for and want to bolster that argument. In other cases I have no idea what will be the answer. Such as someone's opinion on a topic. Sometimes there is no reason. I like the color orange.

In this sort of debate I suppose I take the position that God can not be both and then set about defending that position. I could try to take the other position but I think it would be difficult because I truely think God can not be both.

That said, on the other side.

If God is omniscient and knows everything in the sense of a recording device and omnipotent is not all powerful but very powerful, can do anything that does not violate omniscience, then such a being could exist. Maybe one day we will be such beings? This isn't the sort of God that most people think of when they think all-powerful and all-knowing. They usually think knows the future and can damn well make a round square! That is the God that I meant could not exist. On that I am sure we both agree?

Michael

I agree that anyone who claims that God can do the impossible is deluding themselves.
That does not mean that an omniscient, omnipotent being could not exist.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could exist... if each state were properly defined so as to exclude paradox, which is almost no fun at all!

An omniscient, omnipotent being could exist... if each state were properly defined so as to exclude paradox, which is almost no fun at all!

Perhaps, but necessary if we are discussing reality - in which paradoxes can not exist.
I feel that, since we are discussing whther or not it could be a reality the paradox preclusion should be understood as a pre-requisite and not have to be stated explicitly.

Well, I suppose by finding paradox, we at least know what attributes an omniscient omnipotent God can not have. It is worthwhile.

I suppose.

An omniscient, omnipotent being could exist... if each state were properly defined so as to exclude paradox, which is almost no fun at all!Only be defining them such that they are no longer "omniscient" and "omnipotent" - in which case you are no longer talking about a being that is both "omniscient" and "omnipotent".

So either you argue that they can exist within the same entity (by demonstrating how it is logically possible) or you argue that they can't - and provide alternative characteristics that can co-exist.

There is no point in redefining words such that they no longer mean what they should mean.


"I like this cat."
"But it's a dog."
"Yes - but I've redefined what I mean by 'cat' so that now it's what I once called 'dog'."

Gets a bit silly - and pointless - and confusing. Which will only lead to arguments that detract from the actual matter in hand.

So - either accept the definitions as they are understood - or don't use the terms if you mean something different.

I did not redefine the words at all.
Did you read this whole thread?

Sarkus,

I see your point. I suppose it depends on the definition one chooses to accept. For example, according to Wiki there is a distinction between inherent omniscience the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known and total omniscience actually knowing everything that can be known. The paragraph goes on to say that many modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures. Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, chose to rebuke created beings' ability to choose freely, and so embraced the doctrine of predestination.

So it really depends on which form of omniscience one chooses to defend, inherent or total. I was initially referring to the paradox of freewill and total omniscience. One_Raven took the stance inherent. I then tried to say inherent could not exist with omnipotent. But omnipotent can mean: to do what is logically possible. I believe that the combination of logically-constrained omnipotence and inherent omniscience is possible.

Michael

I suppose.I came across this in wiki:

Belief that God can do absolutely anything can be thought to yield certain logical paradoxes. A simple example goes as follows: Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent. This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature. See liar paradox and Godel's incompleteness theorem. This problem led in the High Middle Ages to developing the concept of mathematical infinity, and laid the basis for infinitesimal calculus.



That's interesting,
Michael

One_Raven took the stance inherent.
No I didn't.
You said yourself...
total omniscience actually knowing everything that can be known.
I was arguing that God could very well know EVERYTHING that can be known, and still not have absolute knowledge of the future.

With everything that went back and forth, how could have possibly missed that? It was my WHOLE POINT.

If you think I was arguing that God has inherent omniscience, I feel like this discussion was a complete waste of my time.

No I didn't.
You said yourself...

I was arguing that God could very well know EVERYTHING that can be known, and still not have absolute knowledge of the future.

With everything that went back and forth, how could have possibly missed that? It was my WHOLE POINT.

If you think I was arguing that God has inherent omniscience, I feel like this discussion was a complete waste of my time.inherent omniscience includes exactly what you just now wrote: the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known

(AND can be known).

As for prefacing this with allowing God to choose. Well, I saw nothing in your argument that restricted God having a choice in the matter? As a matter of fact, as you asserted God has the ability to think, then God can chose not to know-all. If not there'd be nothing to think about.


one_raven, perhaps you should review your own argument or at least restate it.


Michael