Why God can't exist
Offline God cannot exist becuase he would contridict himself. If he is omnipotent and omniscient I see no motive behind creating anything or doing anything. I also have have I list of 27 fallacies against God:
I. Omnipotence v.s. Omniscience.
1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?
Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.
II. Omnipotence v.s. Limits.
Can God become more powerful?
Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.
III. Omnipotence & Omniscience v.s. Omnibenevolence & Free Will.
1. God is Omnipotent, Omnisciencent, and Omnibenevolence.
2. God knows if your going to hell or not before your born.
#2 is false.- God is not Omnisciencent
#2 is true.- God is not Omnibenevolent
IV. Occam's Razor.
1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.
V. Transcendence v.s. Creation.
1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.
VI. Wants.
1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.
VII. The Quick Fix.
1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.
VIII. The Disproportionate Hell.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.
IX. Perfection.
1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.
X. Hume's Dictum.
1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.
XI. God, the Dictator.
1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.
XII. Excepting of Christ.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.
XIII. The Unremarkable Planet.
1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?
XIV. The Sadomasochistic God.
1. Jesus (God) died on the cross for our sins.
2. See VII.
3. God is Sadomasochistic
XV. Picking and Chosing.
Some people accept parts of the bible as true and other parts needing for a modern day addaption. Why though can't they adapt the Virgin Birth or the death of Jesus? How do they choose what to adapt?
XVI. Telephone.
The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?
XVII. Tech v.s. Religion.
The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.
XVII. The Myth Cycle.
Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?
XIX. The Burden of Proof.
1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.
XX. Can God Guess?
1. To guess you have to have little or no knowledge of a subject.
Can God Guess?
Yes- Then he is not Omniscience.
No- Then he is not Omnipotent.
XXI. Can God violate his Omnibenevolence?
Yes- He is not Omnibenevolent.
No- He is not Omnipotent.
XXII. Pain in Heaven.
Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.
XXIII. Skyhook.
Where did God come from?
1. He was always here.
2. He made himself.
If he made himself then who made the one that made himself make himself.
2. Results in an infinite chain devoid of any sense. An infinite God making God.
Besides God is a scientific asumption and should be treated as such. The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable.
XIV. The Soul?
A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).
B. Occam's Razor
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?
C. The Pyramid
Choices and behavior is controlled by psychology. But what is that controlled by?
Choices and behavior
Psychology
Biology
Biochemistry
Chemistry
Physics
Math
Math, is an exact science. It cannot be changed(2+2 will never equal 5) If our choices are mere branches of math, then they cannot change, we are mechanical animals, advanced computers.
D. Dissection
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?
If its transparent shouldn't it float away, or is it anchored to the body. Yet, if it is anchored to the body, what releases it at death?
E. Transcendence v.s. Control
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?
F. The Universes Eternal Memory
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?
XV. The Grand Unified Theory.
The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.
XVI. A Cyclic Universe
The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.
XVII. The Demolition.
Pascal's Wager- Is absurd as there are infinite possible Gods.
All the Gold in China- Is absurd. Have you searched the universe to determine there is no unicorns, or no Thor?
Because the Bible Says So- If that was true I could write a book saying I'm God. And I would be God.
After these ideas have been eliminated there leaves only one theistic argument left. "You've Just Gotta Have Faith."
Point one.- While I could just have faith in God. Atheism is an equally appealing thing to have faith in. What makes yours more worthy to have faith in?
Point two- Your going to trust possibly the most important thing ever, where we came from and will go, not to science and reason, but to faith?!
Point three- Gods existence is equal to the existence of a rhino in a shoe box. You do not know for sure if there's a rhino in your unopened shoe box or not, but you'd have to be insane to believe that there is. With all the small space and scarcity of rhinos in a shoe box, its hard to believe in it. What makes God any different? His twenty six other fallacies are even greater than the ones of a rhino in a shoe box. The chance that a rhino is in fact in a shoe box is higher than the chance that God exists. So believing in him is like believing there is in fact a rhino in your shoe box.
The less validity an idea has is equal to its number of fallacys. With 27 fallacys against God and two (size and scaricity of a rhino) against the idea of a shino in a shoebox we can determine it is more plausible to find a rhino in your next shoe box than god existing. As all fallacys are imposibilitys and one idea cannot be more impossible than another, though you cannot disprove God per se, you can reduce his probability of existance to almost nothing.
- Login to post comments
Offline zntneo wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:I say he copyed and pasted it. According to his profile he's in 8th grade. He talked about GUT and brane cosmology.
I thought i saw this once on free-thinking teens. I could be wrong or it could just resemble it. He also could be the orginator and the other guy copied. Just because he's in 8th does not mean he doesn't know gut and brane cosmology. I believe there is a guy on youtube who's 15 and he knows a shit ton about evolution. I think 15 is around 8th grade so it's possible, i think.
The problem is anybody can read stuff. I can read about evolution and read the info, doesn't mean I understand it, I'm not a biologist.
I'm not saying he's stupid, I'm saying that he may not fully understand it. I read Deluded's post about protien shaping and I don't understand it. It doesn't mean I'm stupid, it just means I am not a biologist and don't have the neccesary education in biology to understand what he's saying.
Oh ok then it was my misunderstanding, i thought you where saying since he is an 8th grade therefore he can't understand it. The guy i am referring to does understand evolution. He is able to argue points on evolution and it make since and some of it is above my understanding(doesn't nesscarily mean anything just saying). I don't think age has anything to do with whether or not he understands it. Myabe just ask him a few questions to see i fhe understands it? I just am kinda tired of hearing adults assume that because you are x age you can't understand something(obviously a baby can't understand things but at middle school age i think that you have the capcity to understand alot of things, could be wrong). I didn't mean to come off as saying you where insulting him, and if i still do i don't mean to. I just don't think y ou should assume he doesn't understand it just because of his age.
Sorry for the small rant, i do that alot.
- Login to post comments
Offline my point is that complete knowledge of any one thing, however small includes knowledge of that thing's future. If god had complete knowledge of that one thing then it's future is set in stone and he cannot change it.
If god knew exactly how one molecule was going to move through a glass of water on my desk and then changed it he would have been wrong originally, making him not omiscient. So he cannot change it and be omniscient but if he cannot change it he is not omnipotent.
If you are trying to say that god is not subject to that rule because every possiblity is acted out in an infinite number of parallel universes then his power is still limited. God could not change the water molecule in this universe, only create an alternate universe where the molecule's movement was different.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline my point is that complete knowledge of any one thing, however small includes knowledge of that thing's future. If god had complete knowledge of that one thing then it's future is set in stone and he cannot change it.
If god knew exactly how one molecule was going to move through a glass of water on my desk and then changed it he would have been wrong originally, making him not omiscient. So he cannot change it and be omniscient but if he cannot change it he is not omnipotent.
If you are trying to say that god is not subject to that rule because every possiblity is acted out in an infinite number of parallel universes then his power is still limited. God could not change the water molecule in this universe, only create an alternate universe where the molecule's movement was different.
If the alternate universe was already created (thus set in stone) then the probability for the molecule to go one path or the other is free and tractable. Such mediation is determinable under law, thus a creator God of multiple universes would comprise an omnipotent law giver. This is wholly consistent with theology.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh ok then it was my misunderstanding, i thought you where saying since he is an 8th grade therefore he can't understand it. The guy i am referring to does understand evolution. He is able to argue points on evolution and it make since and some of it is above my understanding(doesn't nesscarily mean anything just saying). I don't think age has anything to do with whether or not he understands it. Myabe just ask him a few questions to see i fhe understands it? I just am kinda tired of hearing adults assume that because you are x age you can't understand something(obviously a baby can't understand things but at middle school age i think that you have the capcity to understand alot of things, could be wrong). I didn't mean to come off as saying you where insulting him, and if i still do i don't mean to. I just don't think you should assume he doesn't understand it just because of his age.
Sorry for the small rant, i do that alot.
Okay, I do not think people are stupid if they are a certain age. My point was he could have read something off the internet and assumed it was true. There are plenty of good resources on the internet, but they're also not-so good sources on the internet. Me, I can distinguish between them (to a certain extent) because I have the educational backround to make those judgements. I can go on the internet and find names several protiens but I won't know what they do, so I don't form a theory around them, since I could very well be wrong due to my lack of biology knowledge.
See what I'm saying?
However the original arguement was that I think he copied and pasted it.
- Login to post comments
Offline ParanoidAgnostic wrote:my point is that complete knowledge of any one thing, however small includes knowledge of that thing's future. If god had complete knowledge of that one thing then it's future is set in stone and he cannot change it.
If god knew exactly how one molecule was going to move through a glass of water on my desk and then changed it he would have been wrong originally, making him not omiscient. So he cannot change it and be omniscient but if he cannot change it he is not omnipotent.
If you are trying to say that god is not subject to that rule because every possiblity is acted out in an infinite number of parallel universes then his power is still limited. God could not change the water molecule in this universe, only create an alternate universe where the molecule's movement was different.
If the alternate universe was already created (thus set in stone) then the probability for the molecule to go one path or the other is free and tractable. Such mediation is determinable under law, thus a creator God of multiple universes would comprise an omnipotent law giver. This is wholly consistent with theology.
Eloise, do you take the Everett interputation?
- Login to post comments
Offline ok yea i see what you mean, i also kinda agree with you about the copy and paste. i swear i saw something just like this on a thread on freethinking teens. Of course this could be the same guy too.
Sorry for the misunderstanding
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise wrote:ParanoidAgnostic wrote:my point is that complete knowledge of any one thing, however small includes knowledge of that thing's future. If god had complete knowledge of that one thing then it's future is set in stone and he cannot change it.
If god knew exactly how one molecule was going to move through a glass of water on my desk and then changed it he would have been wrong originally, making him not omiscient. So he cannot change it and be omniscient but if he cannot change it he is not omnipotent.
If you are trying to say that god is not subject to that rule because every possiblity is acted out in an infinite number of parallel universes then his power is still limited. God could not change the water molecule in this universe, only create an alternate universe where the molecule's movement was different.
If the alternate universe was already created (thus set in stone) then the probability for the molecule to go one path or the other is free and tractable. Such mediation is determinable under law, thus a creator God of multiple universes would comprise an omnipotent law giver. This is wholly consistent with theology.
Eloise, do you take the Everett interputation?
Not strictly or literally, but yes I think that in any general interpretation a consistent histories approach is unavoidable.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline If the alternate universe was already created (thus set in stone) then the probability for the molecule to go one path or the other is free and tractable. Such mediation is determinable under law, thus a creator God of multiple universes would comprise an omnipotent law giver. This is wholly consistent with theology.
But if the universes were already set in stone god can no longer influence them, thus he is not omnipotent.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:If the alternate universe was already created (thus set in stone) then the probability for the molecule to go one path or the other is free and tractable. Such mediation is determinable under law, thus a creator God of multiple universes would comprise an omnipotent law giver. This is wholly consistent with theology.But if the universes were already set in stone god can no longer influence them, thus he is not omnipotent.
Incorrect, I already answered this, he can influence them, by law.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise, you're not making sense, you're saying that god can influence something that cannot be influenced.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise, you're not making sense, you're saying that god can influence something that cannot be influenced.
A simple thought experiment. Say you have a cup with a hole in the bottom. It's state is determined, set in stone, (or pottery LOL). Now say you have a quantity of water, and you separate the quantity of water into two quantities. One half you boil, the other half you chill.
Now you pour the hot water into the cup. By law of thermodynamics inevitably a proportion of this water will rise out of the cup and into the atmosphere, by law of gravity most of the rest will pour out of the hole in the bottom of the cup. The state of the cup does not determine the path of the molecules, the physical laws do. If you pour the chilled water into the cup barely if any of it will rise out of the cup again, likewise if there was no gravity no water would fall through the hole in the bottom, it is the same cup in the same state, but the state of the cup does not determine the fnal state of the system. The laws determine it and only the laws. Likewise every universe can be in a perfectly set state while no thing will occur within any of them without a law determining how that shall happen. Laws are dynamic and interactive. In the thought experiment hot water is more subject to the law of heat rising, and cold water is more subject to the law of gravity. Likewise a molecule's state will confer which law it is subject to and under which universe that law operates. A molecule may equally not be subject in any way to the laws of one universe as it's state dictates, just as the hot water molecule avoids the law of gravity within the cup sending it to the thought universe above the cup, not the thought universe below. Only the laws need be manipulated. The state of the cup can exist independently of the water molecules state and thus continue to be subject to laws the molecule avoids.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline That's wonderful, but how does that allow god to alter the future of something if he already knows what that future will be?
You seem to think that making simple concepts complicated will somehow make god magically exempt from logic.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline That's wonderful, but how does that allow god to alter the future of something if he already knows what that future will be?
He has two choices influence the state of the molecule, or change the law.
You seem to think that making simple concepts complicated will somehow make god magically exempt from logic.
Not at all, magically perfect for logic.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Either
1) Eloise has latched onto one idea she thinks magically saves her god from being self-contradictory and thus non-existent and stubbornly defends is from all logic.
or
2) The briliance of her argument is so great that I cannot understand it.
I'm leaning toward the first but either way I can't continue this. One of us is shouting at a brick wall, can someone else please take ove my part, I need to rest my voice.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline O. M. G. I think theists actually think they are posting an arguement when they blabber bullshit.
- Login to post comments
Offline O. M. G. I think theists actually think they are posting an arguement when they blabber bullshit.
Acutally, I can follow Eloise's argument and do not think she is 'blabbering bullshit'
- Login to post comments
Offline Paranoia21 wrote:O. M. G. I think theists actually think they are posting an arguement when they blabber bullshit.
Acutally, I can follow Eloise's argument and do not think she is 'blabbering bullshit'
Maybe you can rephrase it for those of us who aren't as adept at deciphering bullshit?
- Login to post comments
Offline Cpt_pineapple wrote:Paranoia21 wrote:O. M. G. I think theists actually think they are posting an arguement when they blabber bullshit.
Acutally, I can follow Eloise's argument and do not think she is 'blabbering bullshit'
Maybe you can rephrase it for those of us who aren't as adept at deciphering bullshit?
Something about water and a cup?
Seriously I think she is saying God controls the universe with the laws of physics.
- Login to post comments
Offline People should just pick easier gods that we can't dispute.
Here are some fun options:
1. Sun worship. (it clearly exists and sustains our life)
2. Water worship. (same story)
3. Nature worship. (obviously exists, also... very nice)
4. Random idol worship (celebrities, popes, world leaders... not as nice as the top 3... but easier to prove)
5. Universe worship
6. Physics worship
7. Paper worship (this is something you can clearly prove is in the bible)
- Login to post comments
Offline People should just pick easier gods that we can't dispute.
Here are some fun options:
1. Sun worship. (it clearly exists and sustains our life)
2. Water worship. (same story)
3. Nature worship. (obviously exists, also... very nice)
4. Random idol worship (celebrities, popes, world leaders... not as nice as the top 3... but easier to prove)
5. Universe worship
6. Physics worship
7. Paper worship (this is something you can clearly prove is in the bible)
Actually I think God and science can co-exist.
- Login to post comments
Offline stuntgibbon wrote:Cpt_pineapple wrote:Paranoia21 wrote:O. M. G. I think theists actually think they are posting an arguement when they blabber bullshit.
Acutally, I can follow Eloise's argument and do not think she is 'blabbering bullshit'
Maybe you can rephrase it for those of us who aren't as adept at deciphering bullshit?
Something about water and a cup?
Seriously I think she is saying God controls the universe with the laws of physics.
Well essentially all I am saying is that Omnipotence is an easy result of physics. An omnipotent God does not have to be extraordinarily complex or vague, omnipotence is as easy as having the right powers over the right things. Physics makes these things easy to define.
Edit: I should note, I was also pointing out that this definition of omnipotence does not contradict omniscience but is, rather, the equal condition for both omniscience and omnipotence.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Well essentially all I am saying is that Omnipotence is an easy result of physics. An omnipotent God does not have to be extraordinarily complex or vague, omnipotence is as easy as having the right powers over the right things. Physics makes these things easy to define.Edit: I should note, I was also pointing out that this definition of omnipotence does not contradict omniscience but is, rather, the equal condition for both omniscience and omnipotence.
Oh, I see now omniscience and omnipotence are not contradictory if you just change the definition of one of them.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Well essentially all I am saying is that Omnipotence is an easy result of physics. An omnipotent God does not have to be extraordinarily complex or vague, omnipotence is as easy as having the right powers over the right things. Physics makes these things easy to define.Edit: I should note, I was also pointing out that this definition of omnipotence does not contradict omniscience but is, rather, the equal condition for both omniscience and omnipotence.
Oh, I see now omniscience and omnipotence are not contradictory if you just change the definition of one of them.
It's not changing the definition at all, except for eliminating vagaries which, in fact, have no definition and are merely waffle, there's no difference.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Omniscience: Knowing of absoutely everything.
Anything less is not omniscience. There are no degrees of omniscience. If a being lacks any piece of information about anything at all it is not omniscient.
Omnipotence: Being able to do absolutely anything.
Anything less is not omnipotence. There are no degrees of omnipotence. If there is anything at all that a being is incapable of then it is not omnipotent.
There, simple defnintions no waffle.
So back to the original problem.
Does god know what will happen in the future? You have 2 options?
1) No he does not. Meaning he is not omniscient
2) Yes he does. Meaning he cannot change what will happen as his knowledge of the future is perfect. it's set in stone, nothing can be changed (otherwise he would have been wrong and thereofore). So he is not omnipotent. Infact he's completely powerless as he has no free will.
Having multiple universes with multiple outcomes does not change this contradiction. Infact we can simplify it and apply it to god himself. If he knows everything about himself then he knows what he will do in the future meaning his actions are already set in stone and he has no free will. Without free will he is in no way omipotent.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline stuntgibbon wrote:People should just pick easier gods that we can't dispute.
Here are some fun options:
1. Sun worship. (it clearly exists and sustains our life)
2. Water worship. (same story)
3. Nature worship. (obviously exists, also... very nice)
4. Random idol worship (celebrities, popes, world leaders... not as nice as the top 3... but easier to prove)
5. Universe worship
6. Physics worship
7. Paper worship (this is something you can clearly prove is in the bible)
Actually I think God and science can co-exist.
Well of course, if the sun is your god then they both can be perfectly aligned.
However, I think that science continues to shrink the gaps in which a traditional god can hide. Pretty much to the point where you get something WAY lower on the totem pole than "all powerful." (like once you've cut him out of weather control, the natural order, the formation of celestial bodies, dictation of morality, and the other things that we now have natural explainations for that no longer need the god crutch)
- Login to post comments
Offline Omniscience: Knowing of absoutely everything.
Anything less is not omniscience. There are no degrees of omniscience. If a being lacks any piece of information about anything at all it is not omniscient.
Omnipotence: Being able to do absolutely anything.
Anything less is not omnipotence. There are no degrees of omnipotence. If there is anything at all that a being is incapable of then it is not omnipotent.
There, simple defnintions no waffle.
So back to the original problem.
Does god know what will happen in the future? You have 2 options?
1) No he does not. Meaning he is not omniscient
2) Yes he does. Meaning he cannot change what will happen as his knowledge of the future is perfect. it's set in stone, nothing can be changed (otherwise he would have been wrong and thereofore). So he is not omnipotent. Infact he's completely powerless as he has no free will.
You are confusing omniscience with lack of choice. it's an ordinary assumption over limited degrees of freedom which is basically the state of one universe, so it's not wrong it's just unecessarily limited. Consider how many degrees of freedom over time do you have in one universe, now consider five universes. With five universes you have space-like time, and that means you can have time-like space. Omniscience means you know the laws availing them both and understanding those laws is probably the only way you can interplay time-like space and space-like time at your will. What this means is that you can know everything and be wrong but be right anyway, it's allowed. Space-like time gives you a universe of possibilities to know, time-like space gives you streams of reality that never have to be real, that is, they never have to be but they are even when they are not, the simplest ontology of that is laws; laws are real even when their results are not, fundamentally laws and results are equal, so as long as the law is real the result is as real as the law even if it never is, it is anyway. So wrong can be right and right can be wrong, all you have to do is flip between the two channels. In space-like time it's all true, in time-like space it's basically all not true but it is pointing in a general direction for true over a field which encapsulates all the trues that exist in space-like time (in Both directions past and future), so essentially there's nothing true not pointed to by true so it's all true even when it's not. Frankly anything sentient enough to understand how flipping between space-like and time-like dimensions is done has already too much choice and is necessarily omnipotent by our standards in just that one result.
Having multiple universes with multiple outcomes does not change this contradiction. Infact we can simplify it and apply it to god himself. If he knows everything about himself then he knows what he will do in the future meaning his actions are already set in stone and he has no free will. Without free will he is in no way omipotent.
Here you have Russells Paradox. The class is in itself only if it is not. That is to say, Omnipotent God is only omnipotent if he is not omnipotent. Russells paradox is generally the result of a badly defined set rather than an actual mathematical obstruction to something happening, so we can't say this stops God being omnipotent, there is an axiomatic flaw in the logic and that needs to be addressed.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline You are confusing omniscience with lack of choice.
No, I am explaining how omniscience negates choice. The lack of choice is not the same thing as omniscience, just a direct consiquence.
If I interpret your post correctly -(hint, if you aim is to be understood and not simply try to sound intelligent so people will assume you're right then try to be more concise)- then you are saying that god can still do anything because he can just follow different paths of causation (leaping from one universe to another) if that's the case he's not changing anything except his own location. He cannot change anything, just move to another universe where it is already changed.
Here you have Russells Paradox. The class is in itself only if it is not. That is to say, Omnipotent God is only omnipotent if he is not omnipotent.
Nope, I'm saying that "God is only omnipotent if he is not omniscient and God is only omniscient if he is not omnipotent" I'm saying the two sets are mutually exclusive not that the definition of one set is self-contradictory (there are other arguments for that but that is not what we are arguing).
Russells paradox is generally the result of a badly defined set rather than an actual mathematical obstruction to something happening, so we can't say this stops God being omnipotent, there is an axiomatic flaw in the logic and that needs to be addressed.
As I explained above, Russell's paradox is not what is being argued here (unless we argue that omniscience is a neccesasry part of omnipotence) but I'd like to point out that it's christianity that defined the set. That's the point. We are showing that there is a flaw in your definition of god. Your god set is self-contradictory.
You have a badly defined set (god). Your god is a self-contradiction, a god with different qualities is still viable in this argument though.Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Rev 19:6 is the only place in scripture where the word Omnipotent is used and this only true depeding on what version of the bible you use. Omnipotent means Almighty (In Rev 19:6) and not the definitin given by those belonging to this site. Almighty means ruler of all. So scriptually Omnipotent simply means ruler of all.
As for Omniscent, and Omnibenovelent, the Bible itself doesn't use these terms for God, humans do. Therefore proving these terms are wrong, does not prove or disprove God, it simply means we are using the wrong terms for God.
- Login to post comments
Offline simple theist
If your god is either not omnipotent or not omniscient then you're right this argument cannot touch him. The arguemnt is against the omnipotent and omniscient god that Eloise beleieves in (I assume this is the one she believes in as this is the one she is defending).
This is only an argument against one god-concept not all possible gods.
Words like omnipotent immediately have logical problems. That is all I'm demonstrating here. That you cannot define god in such terms. However many people do.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline simple theist
If your god is either not omnipotent or not omniscient then you're right this argument cannot touch him. The arguemnt is against the omnipotent and omniscient god that Eloise beleieves in (I assume this is the one she believes in as this is the one she is defending).
I'm glad you added that bit about assuming cause I have said nothing of the sort. I am answering logical arguments and thats basically it. Theism is not an automatic logic red card, just as atheism does not indupitably imbue perfect logic. An atheist argument against god can genuinely be under-developed without there being any necessity whatsoever to make any further assumptions as to why I would point that out, especially on the mere grounds of my avvie tag.
Words like omnipotent immediately have logical problems. That is all I'm demonstrating here.
Can you simply assume I am doing the same, or is my "theist" handle getting in the way? I could ask for it to be removed if it is a problem.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline Eloise
I made a point of stating that it was an assumption about your beliefs and if it is not correct then I respect your preparedness to defend a position that is not your own.
I have not assumed you were incapable of logic based on your theist tag. I have argued with your logic, not your identity.
If you are also arguing that words like "omnipotence" have inherent logical problems then why did you not just say "I agree, an omnipotent god makes no sense" and then, if you feel it is useful present your view of god and how his/her/it's/their power differs from omnipotence.
Instead you said "nah - a god can be omnipotent an omniscient" and proceded on a rambling argument that sounded like you had a couple of half-understood astrophysics and philosophy text books.
I'm my experience, good logical arguments can be made with a few short sentences.
When someone wears out their thesaurus looking for words the reader won't know I start to think they are hiding something. At the very least it shows they value form over substance at worst they are trying to convince us that they are intelligent, as if that itself would make their argument cary more weight.
Also when you need so much waffle it suggests you don't even understand fully what you're saying, if you did you'd be able communicate it much more efficiently.
That, much more than your theist tag, made me question your aptitude for logic.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Are you really sure about God cannot exist?
I have a theory most rational
If you really don't believe in somtehing you don't try to prove it.
When something doesn't exist you don't think about it, we just ignore because, it doesn't exist.
But if you don't have a really sure about your beliefes you spend many time, trying to prove something that even you are certain.
If there is a possibility to believe, in something, if you don't have sure that you are right you spend years and years trying to prove something just for yourself.
Can you understand that?
- Login to post comments
Offline If you really don't believe in somtehing you don't try to prove it.
When something doesn't exist you don't think about it, we just ignore because, it doesn't exist.
But if you don't have a really sure about your beliefes you spend many time, trying to prove something that even you are certain.
...unless there are people trying to convince you that you should believe in it. Then it makes sense to go out of your way to disprove their beliefs.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
- Login to post comments
Did you just copy and paste this?
I was gonna say....
Doesn't this just illustrate how you can't prove God? Not that God can't exist? Hypothetically, anything can exist if you want to defy enough physical laws
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
LOL. Very cool Dave.
Omniscience only means set in stone in single universe, as our understanding of metaphysical reality has long since wandered across this threshold, Omniscient Omnipotent God is no longer mutually contradictory. Amusingly, the multiverse arrived just in time to save God from this fallacy. LOL
Can't say I agree with this. Omnipotence would suggest that the ommnipotent possesses all powers there are to possess, assuming one of those powers is the power to establish more power where there was 'previously' no power, both could be true.
I agree with this, hence my objections to the common doctrines of hell are strong. I see no way out of this contradiction for the advocates of eternal hell fire.
I believe this is non sequitur, Dave. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution et al only fill certain percieved gaps, and besides God of the gaps does not follow omnipotent, what follows omnipotent is god of the big bang and god of the evolution. It does not follow that there is no reason for god. And it it definitely does not follow 'no reason' that God should not be believed in; reason is not all not even in Cosmology or evolution, sense is closer to all than reason and sense is fine with a continued belief in god.
Disappointing, physical matter cannot create physical matter it can only transform it. Therefore transendence is necessary to creation, not in contradiction with it.
Again disappointing. A perfect being may not need to want for itself, but it can want if it chooses to, it can also want for others.
This one is also slighted by the mutiverse. There quite well could be many worlds without problems. The only true question to be put here is if creation actually has free will to enter into alternate universal reality, if so then evil is stopped without any interference to free will by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.
Again, agreed and hence my strong opposition to, particularly the Christian, doctrine of hell. This hell and God are mutually contradictory. Thus one, or both, are false.
I just had this debate on another thread. this is false dichotomy resting on contingent definition of perfect that may not be assumed. There are too numerous arguments to this.
Iff 1 is true which it is not. Non physical things are proven, superposition states are non physical, and they are proven.
see my objections to Christian Hell propoaganda.
This is another ignorant Christian propaganda. There is no basis for it in the book and the book contradicts it with the doctrine of union. God remains omnibenevolent.
This is another contingent which cannot be assumed, it is based on an objectivity proved to be flawed. Entanglement holds otherwise.
more unassumable contingency we are not the death experts asserted by this reasoning.
This is some people. Literary examination is an art and a science. Sophisticated treatments of the literature exist and many are not this way flawed.
See above comment on sophistication of literary treatment, it is an art and a science.
This does not dispossess God, only religion. And I can only agree that is a pretty good thing.
Modern day religions are not different to historical religions. However, mythical culture is not the same thing as religion, and it is a strong as ever, psuedoscience, metaphysics and philosophy are useful tools of humanity and are at no obligation to fall down with religious culture.
indeed, doubt is not unfounded. Counter assertion has the burden of proof.
For god to guess he must essentially be both. Omniscience does not preclude choice that is a false assumption. Science (knowledge) fundamentally supports choice, omniscience must by extension do the same.
If he can, he is omnipotent, if he won't by choice he most certainly is omnibenevolent.
contingent assumptions about heaven. There is nothing to answer here.
If this is true we can never hope to understand the universe, an ultimately complex beingness which came into existence or always existed. Unthinkable is merely an equivocation, the same as saying "God did it" at the end rather than the beginning. We can always ask more of our thinking.
the soul is the psyche, and electrodynamics is far from the final authoritative law on the emergence of the psyche.
They can not be explained this way, at some point there is a need to equivocate unconscious and subconcious in all the above cases.
Theoretically this should work, practically we have had too little success and are forced to equivocate.
Good question. Cutting bodies open clearly is not the answer. Where is the subconcious? We can only equivocate that as a wholistic sum of brain activity. If that is physical where is the evidence when you cut up a body.
Transcendence is the same equivocation as subconcious unconcious. Find the physical evidence to refute this, I am listening.
Where is the evidence for this?
Incorrect. If gauge symmetries are so it would be proven that the universe has a many chosen paths it can continue or discontinue to attend at any moment, equally it would be proven that the non local human is endowed the same on greater scale than classical physics theory holds.
Creation mythology always exists in multiples with repeated, rfelective and associative aspects. One first moment of creation is not supported by the mythology. See my above objections to Christian propaganda.
Good call. Forget Pascals wager
Indeed searching the universe only confirms the possibility that Unicorns are as real as God.
Agreed.
No, you have to be Schrodinger. The probablility is remote but real.
edit: I can't see what is wrong with my quoting. It looks right.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Dave, if this is a copy and paste you need reference where it came from and give credit to the author.
I got it out my blog on myspace:
If you wrote it that is fine. I was only commenting because another poster asked here if it was a copy and paste.
I say he copyed and pasted it. According to his profile he's in 8th grade. He talked about GUT and brane cosmology.
I thought i saw this once on free-thinking teens. I could be wrong or it could just resemble it. He also could be the orginator and the other guy copied. Just because he's in 8th does not mean he doesn't know gut and brane cosmology. I believe there is a guy on youtube who's 15 and he knows a shit ton about evolution. I think 15 is around 8th grade so it's possible, i think.
The problem is anybody can read stuff. I can read about evolution and read the info, doesn't mean I understand it, I'm not a biologist.
I'm not saying he's stupid, I'm saying that he may not fully understand it. I read Deluded's post about protien shaping and I don't understand it. It doesn't mean I'm stupid, it just means I am not a biologist and don't have the neccesary education in biology to understand what he's saying.
Eloise
So god is only all knowing about this universe? That would place limitations on his knowledge and therefore make him less than omniscient. Also even complete knowledge of only this universe contradicts omnipotence. If god knows everything about our universe then he knows everything that will happen in it. Making him powerless to change it.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
What does cosmology have to do with my grade?
Do you understand it though?
This is why I do not use evolution in my arguments. I do not understand it well enough, see what I'm saying?
Speaking of Evolution I recommend watching this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMd5KXYr29c
OH and do you know what verse talks about God telling Joshua to kill people for not being an israelite?
Evolution doesn't disprove God, it disproves the literal Christian God. I'm not Christian.
So you wrote it yourself? I'm still skeptica. Where did you learn about GUT?
NoI don't mean that. I mean that a multiverse is set in many stones, omnipotence is only precluded if there is just one stone with all set in it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com