My last post was primarily for my own amusement, but ostensibly, also, for enjoyment by others. (I may be a part-time exhibitionist posterbater.)You see, group posterbation can be amusing as well as informative. Perhaps, in addition to being a posterbater myself, I also enjoy watching the posterbaters. Does that make me a voyeur as well? Will I go to posterbater hell? I imagine posterbater hell to be condemnation to an eternity of continually watching C-SPAN with no ability to look away or otherwise respond in any way.
My last post was primarily for my own amusement, but ostensibly, also, for enjoyment by others. (I may be a part-time exhibitionist posterbater.)You see, group posterbation can be amusing as well as informative. Perhaps, in addition to being a posterbater myself, I also enjoy watching the posterbaters. Does that make me a voyeur as well? Will I go to posterbater hell? I imagine posterbater hell to be condemnation to an eternity of continually watching C-SPAN with no ability to look away or otherwise respond in any way. Precious......
C-SPAN huh? Well I can think of about a dozen things worse than C-SPAN so it could be worse.
Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?My answer is... yes, He can. There is no logical contradiction. There is only a contradiction with the limitation of God to human dogma. I believe in a God which CAN take risks, makes sacrifices, grant privacy, have faith, and even become a helpless human infant in a particular sector of space-time.
Why does God need to create such stone?Because He chooses to value love and freedom more than power and control. (p.s. the metaphorical stone is life aka free will)
Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?My answer is... yes, He can. There is no logical contradiction. Yes, there is a logical contradiction.
There is only a contradiction with the limitation of God to human dogma. It should be limited to I believe in a God which CAN take risks, makes sacrifices, grant privacy, have faith, and even become a helpless human infant in a particular sector of space-time.OK, lets repose the question this way, *Can God add 1 + 1 and arrive at a number different than 2? Can God take risks like making a fool of himself by asserting that a pure contradiction in terms is not a contradiction?
Why does God need to create such stone?
Because He chooses to value love and freedom more than power and control.No, those are Human values (dogma)
(p.s. the metaphorical stone is life aka free will)No, even God has no Free Will. IT always moves in the direction of *Greatest Satisfaction*. There is only Potential, a metaphorical term of; "That which may become Reality", a hierarchy of fundamental metaphysical truths creating conditions which allow for probabilities to become reality. In the exercise of becoming *real*, contradictions have zero value and zero potential to exist in Reality simultaneously. THERE ARE NO MIRACLES, ONLY PROBABILITIES. p.s. he probability of life existing elsewhere in the universe is actually very high. We are not the only lifeforms blessed by a God. What we obserce was inevitable, due to the Mathematical nature of *becoming reality* under the conditions present on Earthlike planets..
There is no logical contradiction.Yes, there is a logical contradiction. Why? Because you say so? The burden of proof is on you. You attempt to show the contradiction and I'll show you which premises you base this on I reject.
No. Contradictory statements are meaningless referring to nothing therefore they are no counterexample to omnipotence.There is only a contradiction with the limitation of God to human dogma. I believe in a God which CAN take risks, makes sacrifices, grant privacy, have faith, and even become a helpless human infant in a particular sector of space-time.OK, lets repose the question this way, *Can God add 1 + 1 and arrive at a number different than 2?
Can God take risks like making a fool of himself by asserting that a pure contradiction in terms is not a contradiction?Yes, he can, but it does not mean that He will.
No, even God has no Free Will. IT always moves in the direction of *Greatest Satisfaction*.Free will is not the ability to act counter to one's own will. That is nonsensical.
the probability of life existing elsewhere in the universe is actually very high.1. High probability is not certainty. 2. The universe is comparatively young considering all which is required for life as we know it. 3. The Minkowsky structure of space-time means any talk of simultaneity is largely without meaning. So, we can only really speak meaningfully of the past light cone in which the universe is even younger.
We are not the only lifeforms blessed by a God.What does "blessed by God" mean?
What we obserce was inevitable, due to the Mathematical nature of *becoming reality* under the conditions present on Earthlike planets..I don't believe that and I certainly do not believe you can demonstrate this as fact.
There is no logical contradiction.Yes, there is a logical contradiction. Why? Because you say so? The burden of proof is on you. You attempt to show the contradiction and I'll show you which premises you base this on I reject.
No. Contradictory statements are meaningless referring to nothing therefore they are no counterexample to omnipotence.There is only a contradiction with the limitation of God to human dogma. I believe in a God which CAN take risks, makes sacrifices, grant privacy, have faith, and even become a helpless human infant in a particular sector of space-time.OK, lets repose the question this way, *Can God add 1 + 1 and arrive at a number different than 2?
Can God take risks like making a fool of himself by asserting that a pure contradiction in terms is not a contradiction?Yes, he can, but it does not mean that He will.
No, even God has no Free Will. IT always moves in the direction of *Greatest Satisfaction*.Free will is not the ability to act counter to one's own will. That is nonsensical.
the probability of life existing elsewhere in the universe is actually very high.1. High probability is not certainty. 2. The universe is comparatively young considering all which is required for life as we know it. 3. The Minkowsky structure of space-time means any talk of simultaneity is largely without meaning. So, we can only really speak meaningfully of the past light cone in which the universe is even younger.
We are not the only lifeforms blessed by a God.What does "blessed by God" mean?
What we obserce was inevitable, due to the Mathematical nature of *becoming reality* under the conditions present on Earthlike planets..I don't believe that and I certainly do not believe you can demonstrate this as fact. You have a false understanding of the word *omnipotence*. You better read the following link in its entirety. OK
The Christians in that newsgroup answered the objection very well. To speak of an almighty God creating an object that He cannot lift is to posit a logically contradictory state of affairs. It is a variation on the old question, "What happens when an immovable object (the stone) meets an irresistible force (God)?" The answer is that both an irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist together in the same universe without creating a logical contradiction. If reason is valid then to speak of the two in the same sentence is to speak nonsense. Similarly, it is nonsense to speak of God creating a stone that he cannot lift.http://www.answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html Please note the link where this quote came from..
You have a false understanding of the word *omnipotence*. You better read the following link in its entirety.I do not recognize you as an authority, either on the meaning of words or on the nature of God. I am not interested in following anybody anywhere.
OKThat presumes God is incapable of sacrifice or self-limitation and I consider THAT inconsistent with a coherent meaningful understanding of omnipotence. An omnipotent God is not limited by human dogma, even the one which says God is omnipotent. An omnipotent God can therefore choose to sacrifice power and control for things He values more, such as love and freedom. It is not a case of the irresistible force which meets an immovable object (which is indeed logically impossible). For the immovable object to exist any irresistible force must cease to exist. A truly omnipotent God (rather than the slave of human dogma) can choose to submit Himself to any limitations He chooses, and thus sacrifice His irresistible force in order to create an immovable object. Does God then cease to be omnipotent when He does this? No. These limitations are an expression of His omnipotence and product of His own will. While you would chain the will and ability of your god to human dogma, my conception of God makes His will and ability supreme. While you have this list of things your god cannot do, I have no such list.The Christians in that newsgroup answered the objection very well. To speak of an almighty God creating an object that He cannot lift is to posit a logically contradictory state of affairs. It is a variation on the old question, "What happens when an immovable object (the stone) meets an irresistible force (God)?" The answer is that both an irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist together in the same universe without creating a logical contradiction. If reason is valid then to speak of the two in the same sentence is to speak nonsense. Similarly, it is nonsense to speak of God creating a stone that he cannot lift.
Words have meaning. There is no authority that decides what “omnipotence” means, its definition arises out of its usage.
I’ve been where you are, taking little bits of my understanding of the world and putting them in my God box. Adjusting what is God by taking away traditional powers and illogical combinations like all-powerful and all-loving. Eventually that box is full, and it matches the world, and it is useless. You can speed up the process by taking on the big issues, like slavery, or natural disasters that wipe out whole towns, or homosexuality. Religion has done a horrible job of providing context and understanding for these things.
Words have meaning. There is no authority that decides what "omnipotence" means, its definition arises out of its usage. I've been where you are, taking little bits of my understanding of the world and putting them in my God box. Adjusting what is God by taking away traditional powers and illogical combinations like all-powerful and all-loving. Eventually that box is full, and it matches the world, and it is useless. You can speed up the process by taking on the big issues, like slavery, or natural disasters that wipe out whole towns, or homosexuality. Religion has done a horrible job of providing context and understanding for these things.Very very very doubtful. Impossible even. People have different backgrounds and different interests and their position on one little issue is no measure at all of any similarity because it isn't just the position which matters but the reasons. A person can go back and forth and back and forth on an issue as these reasons shift. For example... do you have a masters degree in physics? If not then considering the enormous time spent on this in my life, any claim that you have been where I am now is preposterous. What about your upbringing? Were you raised in some religious tradition? If so then considering I was not and how much criticism of the Christian establishment saturated my childhood, any claim that you have been where I am is absurd. Frankly your claim is a conceit which I cannot even imagine ever indulging in. That by itself tells me you most certainly never have been where I am now.
Words have meaning. There is no authority that decides what "omnipotence" means, its definition arises out of its usage. I've been where you are, taking little bits of my understanding of the world and putting them in my God box. Adjusting what is God by taking away traditional powers and illogical combinations like all-powerful and all-loving. Eventually that box is full, and it matches the world, and it is useless. You can speed up the process by taking on the big issues, like slavery, or natural disasters that wipe out whole towns, or homosexuality. Religion has done a horrible job of providing context and understanding for these things.Very very very doubtful. Impossible even. People have different backgrounds and different interests and their position on one little issue is no measure at all of any similarity because it isn't just the position which matters but the reasons. A person can go back and forth and back and forth on an issue as these reasons shift. For example... do you have a masters degree in physics? If not then considering the enormous time spent on this in my life, any claim that you have been where I am now is preposterous. What about your upbringing? Were you raised in some religious tradition? If so then considering I was not and how much criticism of the Christian establishment saturated my childhood, any claim that you have been where I am is absurd. Frankly your claim is a conceit which I cannot even imagine ever indulging in. That by itself tells me you most certainly never have been where I am now. Why did you go there? I am responding to the words you have typed into this forum. I have no other experience of you. You have talked of your religious life (or whatever you want to call it). You have described how you have taken the Christianity that was handed down to you and modified it in an attempt to make it fit the rest of your education and experience. That's the "there" that I'm talking about. Maybe the conceit is to believe that you are special that I can't relate to you. If you must know, I'm an experienced computer programmer. I've studied many religions. I found an extremely liberal Christian church and was a member between 1993 and 2010. One side of my family is devout, the other is not. I was raised to think for myself.
Words have meaning. There is no authority that decides what "omnipotence" means, its definition arises out of its usage. I've been where you are, taking little bits of my understanding of the world and putting them in my God box. Adjusting what is God by taking away traditional powers and illogical combinations like all-powerful and all-loving. Eventually that box is full, and it matches the world, and it is useless. You can speed up the process by taking on the big issues, like slavery, or natural disasters that wipe out whole towns, or homosexuality. Religion has done a horrible job of providing context and understanding for these things.Very very very doubtful. Impossible even. People have different backgrounds and different interests and their position on one little issue is no measure at all of any similarity because it isn't just the position which matters but the reasons. A person can go back and forth and back and forth on an issue as these reasons shift. For example... do you have a masters degree in physics? If not then considering the enormous time spent on this in my life, any claim that you have been where I am now is preposterous. What about your upbringing? Were you raised in some religious tradition? If so then considering I was not and how much criticism of the Christian establishment saturated my childhood, any claim that you have been where I am is absurd. Frankly your claim is a conceit which I cannot even imagine ever indulging in. That by itself tells me you most certainly never have been where I am now. Different roads can intersect with the same place.
I replied on the previous page.
You have a false understanding of the word *omnipotence*. You better read the following link in its entirety.I do not recognize you as an authority, either on the meaning of words or on the nature of God. I am not interested in following anybody anywhere. And you are an authority on God? Talking about hubris and conceit!
OK
The Christians in that newsgroup answered the objection very well. To speak of an almighty God creating an object that He cannot lift is to posit a logically contradictory state of affairs. It is a variation on the old question, "What happens when an immovable object (the stone) meets an irresistible force (God)?" The answer is that both an irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist together in the same universe without creating a logical contradiction. If reason is valid then to speak of the two in the same sentence is to speak nonsense. Similarly, it is nonsense to speak of God creating a stone that he cannot lift.
That presumes God is incapable of sacrifice or self-limitation and I consider THAT inconsistent with a coherent meaningful understanding of omnipotence. An omnipotent God is not limited by human dogma, even the one which says God is omnipotent. An omnipotent God can therefore choose to sacrifice power and control for things He values more, such as love and freedom. It is not a case of the irresistible force which meets an immovable object (which is indeed logically impossible). For the immovable object to exist any irresistible force must cease to exist. A truly omnipotent God (rather than the slave of human dogma) can choose to submit Himself to any limitations He chooses, and thus sacrifice His irresistible force in order to create an immovable object. Does God then cease to be omnipotent when He does this? No. These limitations are an expression of His omnipotence and product of His own will. While you would chain the will and ability of your god to human dogma, my conception of God makes His will and ability supreme. While you have this list of things your god cannot do, I have no such list.The highlighted sentence IS a contradiction! You are missing the point altogether. NO one has a list of what God cannot do. There is only one thing God cannot do, and that is logically *contradict* himself at the same time! That's it. End of the list. Whatever wordsalad you can come up with, the fact remains that logical contradictions cannot exist at the same time, unless you want to commit the *blasphemy* of declaring that God can be illogical and contradict his own laws. Gods laws are immutable, God made them and God is perfect. Not that I give a hoot. I am an atheist and am merely indulging YOUR illogical HUMAN religious dogma. Get it?
Why did you go there? I am responding to the words you have typed into this forum. I have no other experience of you. You have talked of your religious life (or whatever you want to call it). You have described how you have taken the Christianity that was handed down to you and modified it in an attempt to make it fit the rest of your education and experience. That's the "there" that I'm talking about. Maybe the conceit is to believe that you are special that I can't relate to you.I made no claim to be special or that you cannot relate to me. What I find preposterous and arrogant is a claim by ANYONE that they have been where a person they hardly know is now. It is attitude we see often among the religious towards atheists, and I would say the same thing to them.
If you must know, I'm an experienced computer programmer. I've studied many religions. I found an extremely liberal Christian church and was a member between 1993 and 2010. One side of my family is devout, the other is not. I was raised to think for myself.No, I do not see sufficient qualifications for your claim in this.
Different roads can intersect with the same place.And as I explained comparing only positions is rather superficial. Different velocities and directions can mean the two trajectories will never meet again.
And you are an authority on God?I am the one and only authority on the God I find worth believing in.
These limitations are an expression of His omnipotence and product of His own will. The highlighted sentence IS a contradiction!No it is not.
NO one has a list of what God cannot do.Incorrect. You say that God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. I say He can. You say God cannot impose limitations upon himself. I say He can. There is nothing logically contradictory about imposing limitations on yourself. I can do it. But apparently your god (whether you believe in it or not) cannot.
There is only one thing God cannot do, and that is *contradict* himself at the same time! That's it. End of the list.And there is another one. I say God CAN contradict Himself if he so chooses. This is not the same as saying that omnipotence does not includes the ability to do things which are a logical contradictions. Logical contradictions are meaningless and therefore nothing at all -- thus this adds nothing to any list of things God cannot do. But I repeat. There is nothing logically contradictory about imposing limitations on yourself. I can do it -- proving it is not logically contradictory. Example? I can chop off my right leg thereby taking away my ability to walk. I can poke out my own eyes thereby limiting myself to sightless darkness. This proves that limiting oneself is NOT a logical contradiction. Therefore, there is NOTHING logically contradictory to the claim that God can impose limitations on himself and thus create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.
Not that I give a hoot. I am an atheist and am merely indulging YOUR illogical HUMAN religious dogma. Get it?You are not the first atheist I have encountered with a dogmatic theology. Yes I think it is pretty strange. Habits are hard to get rid of, and habits of thought may be the hardest of all to change.
I am the one and only authority on the God I find worth believing in.You have made up your own theology and appointed yourself sole authority on that theology. I'm with Lausten. There is no sense debating you on this topic.
Like I said in my introduction, I have three criterion on which I judge beliefs and authority is not one of them. Once I was assured that the beliefs are logically coherent, consistent with the objective evidence, and compatible with the ideas of a free society, then I wouldn't see any point in debating them either. BUT... that would be concession with regards to these three aspects of rationality. LOL And then there are things to discuss other than debating whether their beliefs are true. I couldn't care less if someone makes up their own theology and appoints themselves the sole authority on what that theology is. Why do you find it such a shocker that someone is the sole authority on what he finds worth believing in. Isn't that true of everyone?I am the one and only authority on the God I find worth believing in.You have made up your own theology and appointed yourself sole authority on that theology. I'm with Lausten. There is no sense debating you on this topic.
I am the one and only authority on the God I find worth believing in.You have made up your own theology and appointed yourself sole authority on that theology. I'm with Lausten. There is no sense debating you on this topic. Moreover, his entire argument logically falsifies itself.
For aome reason, when I read Mitchellmckain’s posts, the word “posterbator” comes into my mind. Arrogant posterbator, actually,
LL