02-16-06, 03:48 PM #761Originally Posted by SnakeLord
*cole grey hrjukls a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.*
We are all omnipotent in this sense. Please prove that I have NOT hrjukls'd that nonsensical object past the moon.
The definition that omnipotence includes all nonsensical actions is no good, it is meaningless.
02-16-06, 03:53 PM #762
RSS news feed today:
(PRWEB) February 16, 2006 -- Attracting considerable attention over the past year in discussion forums and momentum from a growing number of web sites is a new manuscript by an unknown author entitled: The Final Freedoms. But this continuing and growing interest is inevitably leading to a confrontation of David and Goliath proportions, as religious institutions rarely appreciate anyone subverting their foundations. And at stake are two thousand years of history.
What at first appears an utterly preposterous challenge to the religious status quo, on closer examination carries within its pages an idea so subtle and sublime, the combined intellectual histories of religion and science have dismissed it as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave tradition staring into the abyss and humble the heights of scientific speculation. For if this material is confirmed, and there appears to be both the means and a concerted effort to authenticate it, the greatest unresolved questions of human existence may finally have been untangled.
Being distributed freely as a pdf download, made up of twenty nine chapters and three hundred and seventy pages is the first wholly new and complete interpretation for two thousand years of the teachings of Jesus the Christ and the Perfect Law. And this new teaching, more appropriately called a revelation to the modern world, has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect.
Using a synthesis of several thousand scriptural elements from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds greatest poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering consciousness, human ethical perception, and providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.
Also called the Gospel of the Resurrection, this new interpretation defines the moral foundation of all human conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality and offers possibilities for peace, health and cultural development political process has yet to dream of.
This new teaching is pure ethics. It requires no institutional framework, no churches, no priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, costs nothing and requires only conviction and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new moral imperative.
As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim to knowledge that meets both the ideal and criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching represents a reality entirely new to human history.
The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web. And as this expression of insight called The Final Freedoms comes to bear, it will undoubtedly impact on the very future of our planet.
Download links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net
02-16-06, 03:56 PM #763Originally Posted by cris
Originally Posted by cris
Originally Posted by cris
And another less related point - the definition of paradox seems somewhat incomplete. As it stands, it seems synonymous with "contradiction", which is erroneous; most accurately, a paradox is a true statement that is seemingly self-contradictory (like the statement "There is a set of all possible sets").
02-16-06, 04:03 PM #764
02-16-06, 04:33 PM #765I am saying that your definition of omnipotence includes performing a nonsense action and that nonsense is undefinable and therefore cannot be regarded as real.
I can perform any nonsensical action as omnipotently as God can. Watch me hrjukl a giant trafgejsxik past the moon.
We are all omnipotent in this sense.
Please prove that I have NOT hrjukls'd that nonsensical object past the moon.
The definition that omnipotence includes all nonsensical actions is no good, it is meaningless.
02-16-06, 07:17 PM #766
Hi Cris (& everyone else on sciforums),
I stumbled across your post whilst trawling the net and after reading through all 39 pages (38 when I started - I have a job where nobody is sure what I do so I get a lot of time to read) I thought I'd throw in my own two pence.
Apologies for returning to the original topic of this thread - I know ~95% of the posts have moved way off it but no-one else has laid out the following argument - dan1123 and jay_7 nearly touched on it but nobody replied to their points. I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.
I should point out that I am totally and actively opposed to organised religion so it pains me to post in Christianity's defense.
Your argument reasons that the Christian God's omniscience forms a paradox with human free will. What causes the paradox is not the omniscient God but the existence of facts about the future, even if there were no God there would still be a paradox if the facts exist, even if nobody had knowledge of the facts. This can be shown using your own logical structure.
Facts about the future vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Facts about the future: Facts about all future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Nobody can claim that there are facts about the future and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
If there are facts about the future then even before we are born there will be facts on every decision we are going to make.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of anything is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that there are facts about the future. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined, then there cannot be facts about the future, since the facts would state in advance our decisions.
As this argument has premises that are equatable to Cris' original premises and it has exactly the same logical strucure one of the following statements must follow:
(1) We must reject both my own and Cris' arguments as being unsound. Rejection of one of the arguments is inconsitent with accepting the other.
(2) We must accept both arguments and concede that humans do not have free will (where's the absolute determinism debate?).
(3) We must accept both arguments and concede that there are no future facts. If we accept this then the argument against an omniscient God vanishes because omniscience (knowledge of all facts) will not imply knowledge of future facts (as no future facts exist).
So in the end, whatever position you take Cris' original argument cannot be used to prove the paradox of an omniscient God and human free will. Unless you can prove that humans do not have free will - in which case there would be no need for Chris' proof in the first place.
A more eloquent diplay of these arguments can be found (along with many other arguments for theism, atheism and agnosticism) at:
I'd recommend anyone interested in religious debate take a look there if they haven't already.
There - that's my first post over, I think I'll have a look around the sciforums now. (I hope someone improves Cris' arguement and proves the arguement from Future Facts wrong btw)
02-16-06, 09:52 PM #767
02-17-06, 01:58 AM #768Originally Posted by SnakeLord
Perhaps in one dimension God cannot lift the rock God made and in another God can lift it. Please tell me whether or not God can lift the rock. Perhaps in two dimensions the rock is liftable, via cartesian (XY) movement in the positive "upward" direction, yet the rock cannot be lifted in three dimensions. God doesn't have to be able to lift the unliftable rock in three dimensions because God CAN lift the unliftable rock.
The whole "unliftable rock" problem shot to pieces. Let's move on. Hahaha.
Originally Posted by SL
Originally Posted by Sl
02-17-06, 03:19 AM #769
It does seem to state the argument rigorously (in my amateur opinion). The reason I set out the reply in the same format as Cris was to avoid people thinking the arguments were logically different. In the layout you have given (which is better for justifying each step) then you would simply replace proposition k with 'future facts exist' which leads to the same rejection of the original argument as a proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
"Semper in mira, solum profundum variat"
02-17-06, 06:57 AM #770Although I believe any God worth God's salt could, through working on an alternate level, solve anything paradoxical to us
Perhaps in two dimensions the rock is liftable, via cartesian (XY) movement in the positive "upward" direction, yet the rock cannot be lifted in three dimensions. God doesn't have to be able to lift the unliftable rock in three dimensions because God CAN lift the unliftable rock.
The whole "unliftable rock" problem shot to pieces. Let's move on. Hahaha.
God is not required to make all nonsense sensible, that is ridiculous.
02-18-06, 04:37 PM #771
yes , omnipotece does imply that it is possible for the omnipotent to do whatever seems impossible for us to do, like create matter (the world) ex nihilo, etc..., but the existence of paradoxes proves that omnipotence cannot exist, because paradoxes can be reduced to statements like
"(A) implies (non A)" and this cannot be possible without changing the structure of the argument A. If A by definition implies non A , the fact that it does so is actually a particular proprety of the argument A. Changing this changes the argument itself. A becomes B.
Ok. Now... you all percieve God to be a beeing. That might not be so.
But that is irrelevant here. The christian God cannot exist, in the christian form at least, because of the following argument:
The evolution of any system can be predicted if one knows all the data of that system, meaning all the characteristics of all the bodies in that system, and all the laws that govern the system, presuming the system to be totaly isolated, or not influenced by anything from the exterior. The Universe is such a system, without God`s intervention (miracles, etc...)
So if one knew everything about the Universe, one could predict every event in the Universes future evolution, but that would also mean that the Universe has a specific evolution, every event beeing caused by one or more events in the past. This means that no event is spontaneous. And that if an event does not take place it was impossible for it to take place. And that if an event takes place it was impossible for it not to take place. And that man cannot do things without beeing obligated to do them. For example:
if some guy next to you in the bus starts to sing "E lucevan le stelle" by Puccini, you might be amused, irritated, or you might just like the music and listen captivated. But if you do any, you will do so because of the way you were brought up, because of the mood you were in, because of etc...,
And you were brought up in a particular way baceuse your parents were brought up in a particular way and you were in a good mood that day because you recieved a raise for example, and you recieved a raise because..., etc etc etc......
And if you agree at this point, you will be shocked to realise that these facts also imply that there can be no free will for man. Because every action is controlled by it`s predeccesors. So , (and you were wrong Chris), God cannot be as the christians think, not because he would be meen, but because he himself, as priciple of all things, would be the cause of all sins and of all the evil in the world.
So the christian God is himself a paradox.
This is something to talk about..
Last edited by kziglu_bey; 02-19-06 at 09:55 AM.
02-18-06, 05:27 PM #772Originally Posted by kziglu_bey
What you said about omnipotence being impossible is snakelord's point in our discussion, you dumbass. So, since you are trying to make the same point, you also must not know what you are talking about. Chew on that.
I was taking the position that since omnipotence as described in this way is basically nonsense, unless (as snakelord and I have postulated), God can work around our ideas that seem to be paradoxical, as I have shown one simple possibility for doing so above, the idea of omnipotence described this way has no bearing on shit, because it is meaningless, and can be applied at will.
You are a pompous ass, and you are as much a paradox as your idea of the christian god, because a person like you cannot type and think at the same time obviously, yet somehow you manage to do those things (and not do them) all at once.
Sorry to be so blunt with you, but when you walk into a room re-stating things that have already been said a hundred times, acting as if you came in off of a cloud, and thinking you made the ideas up, you need to just stop.
02-18-06, 06:38 PM #773
Sorry kziglu, but cole's right.
I mean seriously.. before you start talking about someone's parents, and making accusations concerning what they do or don't understand, it would help if you knew what the discussion was about. K?
02-18-06, 07:13 PM #774
And withall that said, welcome to sci-anyaways! . We are a roudy bunch, we get a bit tic-off when someone comes and claims we don't know what the hell we talking about, when basically your a new comer, coming in page 39 of a thread, have you read all the pages? I doubt that you have, or else you might have avoided making an ass of yourself, next time do take the time and read throught the whole thread if you have too, before making a post, one that we wouldn't scruitinise so harshly. And don't let this scare you outofhere, you could have lots of meaningless discussions to pass the time. Cya!
02-18-06, 08:29 PM #775
Originally Posted by Cris
The bible plainly shows that external coercion does exist. The planet earth is populated by a large number of devils that have telepathic contact to the minds of men, and they are tempting men to do evil and disobey God. God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil, to see who is worthy to go to heaven and who is not worthy.
God is also trying to compel men to do what is right.
The bible speaks of definite coercion, on the minds of men.
Yet, men do have the right to choose which way they will go and what coercion they will follow, either good (obeying God) or bad (disobeying God).
Your definition of free will is in error, if you think there is no coercion.
02-19-06, 09:19 AM #776
... "sciforums.com intelligent community"...
you did not see what was, you saw what you wanted to see.
and you don`t get the point:
i didn`t insult you. you think i did.
you insulted me. one insults, when one has no arguments left.
you agreed to what i said, but you didn`t like the way i said it.
you think you`re smart. i think i`m smart.
so , as an old romanian proverb says, i`ll say "sorry".
now , could you please exclude the first paragraph of my first post here and comment in these conditions. you`ll notice that you will agree to my ideas.
"don`t criticise the man, but his ideeas." (Kogalniceanu)
oh, and i did make up these ideas .
i still didn`t read the whole tread yet... but, just in case this was not mentioned earlyer, you should study the dispute between Erasmus and Luther. it aplies here. to the talk on fatalism i meen.
and , come on guys, we are all "intelligent" people here , no ?
02-19-06, 05:22 PM #777
well, ghost7584, you`re wrong.
you said "...God is allowing them to have this power to test men to see if they will do good or evil..."
this cannot be so because this would mean that god doesn`t know what those men are going to do. so god isn`t allknowing...
and the bibel tels us he is.
now , "God is also trying to compel men to do what is right". if god is omnipotent he doesn`t have to try to do something... he can just do it...
furthermore, free will does not exist. becouse every action one takes is dictated by the past. you cannot do anything spontaneously and you don`t even have a will.
everything you do , you do because something makes you do it. if you eat, you eat because you are hungry. etc.
you might say: yeh, but i can jump up from this chair i`m sitting in and start dansing Kazachiok and that would be spontaneous.
no it would not. you would only do so because you wanted to do something spontaneous ( that you thought is spontaneous) and you would choose to danse because this is the most accessible irational thing to do right now, for example.
and every cause has a cause of its own, et coetera.
plus the whole christian idea is stupid... the thing with god ,it`s like i would
create a very simple computer program, that i would perfectly understand ofcourse, and then i would run the program to see what it does., as if the program was completly unknown to me. If god knows everything he doesn`t have to find out or test anything...
02-19-06, 08:01 PM #778Originally Posted by ghost7584
So, is he just having a bucket o' sadistic fun, or what?
03-28-06, 08:12 AM #779
I don't know if I have free will or not. All I can say is it FEELS like I have, and I therefore cannot escape taking responsibility for the consequences of my decisions.
I therefore don't think Cris's argument disproves the existence of God at all, and is oversimplistic. Using the analogie of a book: If my life will be contained in a biography, someone in the future (or God) will know what I as the central character decide now. Even if my biography is mysteriously transmitted to someone in the past, it will not effect my apparent freedom to make decisions, provided we do not communicate. So, because I do not know, I still appear to have the freedom to make a choice now.
That's before you get into the "Many Worlds Interpretation" etc.
All this proves/disproves at best is a very anthropomorphic "Old Man in the Sky" type of God anyway. Such a God who claims to be loving and sends half his creation to Hell is clearly confused. You can disprove that sort of God fairly simply without having to invoke "free will".
Last edited by Diogenes' Dog; 03-29-06 at 05:04 AM.
03-28-06, 08:55 AM #780
1) "Free will" is the ability to choose in the present, between any of several possibilities.
2) The existence of an omniscient entity who knows the past and the future, including what I will have decided, does not preclude my ability to choose any possibility now, provided they do not influence my decision.
3) An omnipotent entity can choose not to have an influence on my freedom to choose. Therefore the existence of an omnipotent entity would not in itself preclude my ability to choose any possibility now, provided they do not influence my decision.
Therefore the existence of an entity (i.e. God) who is omniscient and/or omnipotent does not preclude my ability to choose (free will). Equally, my apparent freedom to choose does not preclude the existence of an omniscient or omnipotent entity (God).
N.B. Free will only exists provided the decisions I take are not wholly determined by physical causality. However, this is not really relevant to the above argument.
Last edited by Diogenes' Dog; 03-29-06 at 05:14 AM.