First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Can God Create...? More Fun with Paradoxes or BLOW YOUR MIND Part 2
7060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/23/12
This could all be a figure of speech thing. We often say things like "it's not my opinion, it's the truth." That's certainly a lot easier than saying 'what I believe is not unsubstantiated, but it is adequately substantiated and thus can be called knowledge." It gets confusing when we're being this technical to use the simplified form, though.
39726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Utah
Offline
Posted 7/22/12
Oh ho ho. I found an interesting thread.

Well, I graduated from a religious university with a degree in Literature. My older brother is also a minister. I believe I'm the most qualified person here to answer it. I appologize for saying that if anyone comes along with a degree in religion or who's a practicing minister.

This is an old debate.

It's also very silly.

This is not a question of whether God exists. This is not proof of his non existence or his power or lack thereof.

This is a question of semantics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

What is your definition of "Omnipotent"? Does Omnipotent mean, 'can do anything whether or not it's logical?' then God CAN create a rock he can't lift. He can THEN lift it. Why? Because SCREW LOGIC I'M GOD. He can also turn a rock into Thursday. Or have 1 +1 = Purple. Or create a man who is both married and a bachelor at once. Or whatever other nonesense you want.

Does Omnipotent mean, 'can do anything logically possible?' then God CANNOT create a rock he can't lift because that's illogical. Then God is only bound by reason. Only things logically possible are included and God does whatever he wants within reason.

Does Omnipotent mean 'All powerful?' then there may be restrictions on God's power such as, inability to destroy evil (this also falls under the above 'logically possible' because evil, as an opposite of good, would be like trying to destroy UP but preserve DOWN, it depends on your views on the subject of Theodicy). That means God can do whatever he sets out to do and he is all powerful within the context of the rules of the universe. Rules he probably created himself.

Remember, most importantly. God is who he is already. We're trying to discover what his attributes are, try not to assign him attributes then claim his existence or lack thereof based on them.

There have been several books written on the subject. I have read 2 as part of assigments. If you're curious I can look up titles but not right now, I'm at work.
46441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 7/22/12

Tekrelious wrote:Does Omnipotent mean 'All powerful?' then there may be restrictions on God's power such as, inability to destroy evil (this also falls under the above 'logically possible' because evil, as an opposite of good, would be like trying to destroy UP but preserve DOWN, it depends on your views on the subject of Theodicy). That means God can do whatever he sets out to do and he is all powerful within the context of the rules of the universe. Rules he probably created himself.
I think that's the kicker "Rules he probably created himself." No further discussion would be sensible unless this was precisely articulated. Were those rules in fact created by God? Can the rules be changed or bent? And if there are rules he didn't create, who created them? I think regardless of the existence of a god or not, fundamental physical properties ~ actually most of them ~ are unchangeable, immutable, absolutely static and calculable. Any property or observation we have yet to provide an explanation for is simply due to the technology or the method to observe them is not yet available to us. We've solved pretty much 99.9% of the universe's unknowns that were once thought to be magic, supernatural events or the mysterious workings of an unseen deity. So if we get to the point where everything is explained by science and can thus be observed in a predictable, calculable way, where then does God fit in in the universe? His purpose to humans, that being the gap that allowed for the unexplainable, would be revealed that his very existence is merely a frail and forgettable forethought.

39726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Utah
Offline
Posted 7/24/12 , edited 7/24/12
Incorrect. You are assuming that God's purpose is only to answer the unknown.

It depends on your sense of religion but there are many varying answers to that question so I will only talk in broad generalities to avoid being religion specific. The most obvious answer to that is that God created heaven for us, a place we will go when we die. Regardless of whether or not science learns everything about the workings of the universe or not God's contribution to mankind is not in where we came from so much as where we're going.

Make sense?
17223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 7/27/12 , edited 7/27/12

Tekrelious wrote:

Incorrect. You are assuming that God's purpose is only to answer the unknown.

It depends on your sense of religion but there are many varying answers to that question so I will only talk in broad generalities to avoid being religion specific. The most obvious answer to that is that God created heaven for us, a place we will go when we die. Regardless of whether or not science learns everything about the workings of the universe or not God's contribution to mankind is not in where we came from so much as where we're going.

Make sense?


Why do you start your post with "Incorrect" then follow it up with "It depends on your sense of religion"?

What if her "sense of religion" is that God is just the representation of the yet unknown?

Wouldn't it be better to have began your post with "I disagree" instead of "Incorrect"?

Also, I basically said everything in your initial post, on the previous page.
4067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
not sharing my asl
Offline
Posted 7/27/12

JustineKo2 wrote:

We've solved pretty much 99.9% of the universe's unknowns that were once thought to be magic, supernatural events or the mysterious workings of an unseen deity. So if we get to the point where everything is explained by science and can thus be observed in a predictable, calculable way, where then does God fit in in the universe? His purpose to humans, that being the gap that allowed for the unexplainable, would be revealed that his very existence is merely a frail and forgettable forethought.



are you atheist?
46441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 7/27/12

TheRealEscargotpudding wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

We've solved pretty much 99.9% of the universe's unknowns that were once thought to be magic, supernatural events or the mysterious workings of an unseen deity. So if we get to the point where everything is explained by science and can thus be observed in a predictable, calculable way, where then does God fit in in the universe? His purpose to humans, that being the gap that allowed for the unexplainable, would be revealed that his very existence is merely a frail and forgettable forethought.



are you atheist?
Proudly *an* atheist.

39726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Utah
Offline
Posted 7/27/12

excalion wrote:


Tekrelious wrote:

Incorrect. You are assuming that God's purpose is only to answer the unknown.

It depends on your sense of religion but there are many varying answers to that question so I will only talk in broad generalities to avoid being religion specific. The most obvious answer to that is that God created heaven for us, a place we will go when we die. Regardless of whether or not science learns everything about the workings of the universe or not God's contribution to mankind is not in where we came from so much as where we're going.

Make sense?


Why do you start your post with "Incorrect" then follow it up with "It depends on your sense of religion"?

What if her "sense of religion" is that God is just the representation of the yet unknown?

Wouldn't it be better to have began your post with "I disagree" instead of "Incorrect"?

Also, I basically said everything in your initial post, on the previous page.


As I said before (me quoting myself)

"Remember, most importantly. God is who he is already. We're trying to discover what his attributes are, try not to assign him attributes then claim his existence or lack thereof based on them."

Your argument is irrelevant. You and the previous poster have assigned God an attribute (His purpose is just to explain the unknown) then you declare he won't exist once the unknown is discovered. This is merely to justify your atheism.

My above statement was simply to be non denominational. There is no religion in the world that teaches what you just stated. Every religion teaches that God has prepared a place for you to go when you die. The exceptions would be so few (such as the Church of Satan) as to be safely ignored.
4067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
not sharing my asl
Offline
Posted 7/27/12

JustineKo2 wrote:


TheRealEscargotpudding wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

We've solved pretty much 99.9% of the universe's unknowns that were once thought to be magic, supernatural events or the mysterious workings of an unseen deity. So if we get to the point where everything is explained by science and can thus be observed in a predictable, calculable way, where then does God fit in in the universe? His purpose to humans, that being the gap that allowed for the unexplainable, would be revealed that his very existence is merely a frail and forgettable forethought.



are you atheist?
Proudly *an* atheist.



why do you think religion is so prevalent in a world that continues to make progress in science?
46441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 7/27/12

TheRealEscargotpudding wrote:why do you think religion is so prevalent in a world that continues to make progress in science?
Religions, in the sense of structured authoritative groups with a following to support them such as the Catholic church, have a history of suppressing science. I think it's valid to blame a lot of the discoveries that could have been made sooner leading to humanity being much more technologically advanced today on the suppression of science in the name of religion.

Religion, in the sense of what humans believe, and a personal choice to follow whatever deity one is most comfortable with, will probably always exist but that has nothing to do with science and is the reason why many scientists are also Christians, Catholics, Muslim, whatever.

17223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 7/27/12

Tekrelious wrote:


excalion wrote:


Tekrelious wrote:

Incorrect. You are assuming that God's purpose is only to answer the unknown.

It depends on your sense of religion but there are many varying answers to that question so I will only talk in broad generalities to avoid being religion specific. The most obvious answer to that is that God created heaven for us, a place we will go when we die. Regardless of whether or not science learns everything about the workings of the universe or not God's contribution to mankind is not in where we came from so much as where we're going.

Make sense?


Why do you start your post with "Incorrect" then follow it up with "It depends on your sense of religion"?

What if her "sense of religion" is that God is just the representation of the yet unknown?

Wouldn't it be better to have began your post with "I disagree" instead of "Incorrect"?

Also, I basically said everything in your initial post, on the previous page.


As I said before (me quoting myself)

"Remember, most importantly. God is who he is already. We're trying to discover what his attributes are, try not to assign him attributes then claim his existence or lack thereof based on them."

Your argument is irrelevant. You and the previous poster have assigned God an attribute (His purpose is just to explain the unknown) then you declare he won't exist once the unknown is discovered. This is merely to justify your atheism.

My above statement was simply to be non denominational. There is no religion in the world that teaches what you just stated. Every religion teaches that God has prepared a place for you to go when you die. The exceptions would be so few (such as the Church of Satan) as to be safely ignored.


Could you kindly point me to where I assigned God an attribute?

Also, my understanding of "sense of religion" is equivalent to "understanding of religion" and understanding of religion can also mean skepticism towards religion. I never revealed to you my personal stance on the issue of what attributes God has. I'm only pointing out that if her understanding of religion is skepticism towards religion, then her conclusion that God is just a substitute of the unknown is correct. However you're claiming in your post that is incorrect, which would suggest you believe your interpretation(theism) is the only and absolute truth. I'm just here to remind you that is not conclusively proven and to be accepting of others' interpretations as well. Lest you become a narrowminded bigot who believes only his own interpretation of reality to be truth and all others false. Hence, "I disagree" instead of "incorrect" should be used to express your dissent, not their mistake.
46441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 7/27/12 , edited 7/27/12

Tekrelious wrote:Your argument is irrelevant. You and the previous poster have assigned God an attribute (His purpose is just to explain the unknown) then you declare he won't exist once the unknown is discovered. This is merely to justify your atheism.
You are twisting my words, I did not say his sole purpose is to explain the unknown. You have basically asserted that it is not possible that God doesn't exist so are assuming my point is that once humans have explained all of life's mysteries with science then God stops existing. Reality is that either God exists or he doesn't. We don't know for sure *if* he doesn't, then for the segment of humanity that didn't *already* depend on God to explain those mysteries, all it does is confirm our suspicions. People will still believe in a God, people will still distrust science and choose to continue believing in him, and from their perspective God still exists. God still exists *from the POV of those who believe he does* regardless of the reality of his existence or non-existence. Does that make it clearer?

Btw when I corrected TheRealEscargotpudding that I was *an* atheist instead of confirming that I'm atheist, it's to point out that being an atheist describes me alone. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in deities. To say I am atheist without the modifier suggests a grouping or belief of atheism in general, which is an inaccurate description of atheism itself.
1083 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/27/12
Here's a favorite of mine...not really a paradox, but messing with semantics...

WHY PEOPLE WOULD WILLINGLY TRADE GOD IN EXCHANGE FOR HALF A LOAF OF BREAD:

1. "Half a loaf of bread is better than nothing at all."
2. "Nothing is greater than God."
3. Therefore: [Half a loaf of bread] > [Nothing] > [God]

GG
46441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 7/28/12 , edited 7/28/12

Chickenmen wrote:

Here's a favorite of mine...not really a paradox, but messing with semantics...

WHY PEOPLE WOULD WILLINGLY TRADE GOD IN EXCHANGE FOR HALF A LOAF OF BREAD:

1. "Half a loaf of bread is better than nothing at all."
2. "Nothing is greater than God."
3. Therefore: [Half a loaf of bread] > [Nothing] > [God]

GG
Nice, I love it!

Also messing with semantics there's a funny bumper sticker I found that says "Is God unbelievable or what?"

39726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Utah
Offline
Posted 7/29/12

JustineKo2 wrote:


Tekrelious wrote:Your argument is irrelevant. You and the previous poster have assigned God an attribute (His purpose is just to explain the unknown) then you declare he won't exist once the unknown is discovered. This is merely to justify your atheism.
You are twisting my words, I did not say his sole purpose is to explain the unknown. You have basically asserted that it is not possible that God doesn't exist so are assuming my point is that once humans have explained all of life's mysteries with science then God stops existing. Reality is that either God exists or he doesn't. We don't know for sure *if* he doesn't, then for the segment of humanity that didn't *already* depend on God to explain those mysteries, all it does is confirm our suspicions. People will still believe in a God, people will still distrust science and choose to continue believing in him, and from their perspective God still exists. God still exists *from the POV of those who believe he does* regardless of the reality of his existence or non-existence. Does that make it clearer?

Btw when I corrected TheRealEscargotpudding that I was *an* atheist instead of confirming that I'm atheist, it's to point out that being an atheist describes me alone. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in deities. To say I am atheist without the modifier suggests a grouping or belief of atheism in general, which is an inaccurate description of atheism itself.



I don't understand at all how I'm twising your words. You explicitly stated that once man understands the universe then God doesn't fit in it in some attempt at asserting your atheism.

Also you've brought up one of my biggest gripes against atheism "Reality is that either God exists or he doesn't. We don't know for sure *if* he doesn't, ..."

Of course we can know God exists. People have been seeing him personally or his angels for thousands of years. Now certainly every Tom, Dick, and Harry that claims to have seen God isn't telling the truth but you can't discount them ALL. Just because YOU haven't seen miracles is no reason you can claim that nobody has. How do you know I haven't seen miracles myself? It's utter hubris to believe that you know better than anyone else.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.