philosophy about god - Page 2

Ned · January 25, 2004, 06:52

The only "thing" that meets most if not all the criteria of God is the Universe itself.

Urban Ranger · January 25, 2004, 07:05

The universe is certainly not omniscient, for starters...

Sava · January 25, 2004, 11:51

the posibility of a single conscious, omnipotent, omniscient being is so absurd...

also, the posibility that some dopey humans thousands of years ago knows the will of this "god" is even more absurd than the posibility of said god actually existing...

the only fact regarding god, the afterlife, creation, etc... is that we dopey humans don't know **** about it.

and anybody who says otherwise is wrong. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, it doesn't matter... they are all wrong.

The Andy-Man · January 25, 2004, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The universe is certainly not omniscient, for starters...

but if the universe encompases everything, then it knows everything that is going on, but in a radically different way to how we know we are eating dinner

Sava · January 25, 2004, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
but if the universe encompases everything, then it knows everything that is going on, but in a radically different way to how we know we are eating dinner

you are assigning a sense of person-hood or identity to something inanimate... the "universe" cannot "know" or do anything we visualize sentient life forms doing.

curtsibling · January 25, 2004, 13:10

The fictional concept of 'God' is just a human desire to remove responsiblity for human actions.

I expect our species will outgrow these immature notions in time.

Sava · January 25, 2004, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
The fictional concept of 'God' is just a human desire to remove responsiblity for human actions.

I agree...

Quote:

I expect our species will outgrow these immature notions in time.

I doubt it. If our species evolves into a creature with more intelligence, then perhaps...

DaShi · January 25, 2004, 14:29

Do you believe that intelligence has a direct correlation with whether someone believes in a god or not?

Zero · January 25, 2004, 14:53

Omnipotence, impotence... they all sound alike.

Sounds like yall are debating over whether god cant get it up.

DaShi · January 25, 2004, 14:59

That would explain a lot of his frustration and anger in the Old Testament.

Sava · January 25, 2004, 15:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DaShi
Do you believe that intelligence has a direct correlation with whether someone believes in a god or not?

not necessarily... I feel it has more to do with social conditioning... most children get religion crammed down there throats before they are old enough to think critically. And not to say religious people are necessarily stupid. In fact, the institution of religion was responsible for education for much of the past few hundred (even thousand) years.

DaShi · January 25, 2004, 15:10

I think some people do believe that though. Therefore, they feel in order to be or appear intelligent they must renounce the existance of a god and treat it as a superstition. In short, they often give real atheists a bad name.

As for myself, I was raised Catholic, but I really don't practice that much. My relationship with God is personal, and I admit that logic and reason have little to do with or are even necessary for it. It is my way.

Kuciwalker · January 25, 2004, 15:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Omnipotence is self-contradictory.

Simplest argument: can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy that even it can't lift?

Yup, and in doing so removes his omnipotence. So if a being is omnipotent at one time, it doesn't not mean that the being is omnipotent at a future time. There is no contradiction.

Kuciwalker · January 25, 2004, 15:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
the posibility of a single conscious, omnipotent, omniscient being is so absurd...

also, the posibility that some dopey humans thousands of years ago knows the will of this "god" is even more absurd than the posibility of said god actually existing...

the only fact regarding god, the afterlife, creation, etc... is that we dopey humans don't know **** about it.

and anybody who says otherwise is wrong. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, it doesn't matter... they are all wrong.

Sava, you're being a moron. I'm not talking about the possibilites or anything, I'm merely discussing the implications (specifically, the moral implications) of omnipotence.

Kuciwalker · January 25, 2004, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The universe is certainly not omniscient, for starters...

The universe is by definition omniscient - it possesses, in itself, all of the information about itself.

Kuciwalker · January 25, 2004, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
you are assigning a sense of person-hood or identity to something inanimate... the "universe" cannot "know" or do anything we visualize sentient life forms doing.

Of course it can, in the same way a "computer" can "know" something - it can possess certain information.

Snowflake · January 25, 2004, 16:03

All I'm trying to say is, we can not really argue anything outside of our conciousness. Of course we can guess and debate all we like, but we have no way to verify who and what is correct, at least not until we "evolve" to something that are at similar level of the god himself.

As for whether we ourselves really exist, well, we may very well be creations of some higher intelligence units and all the "feelings" and "thinkings" may be illusions that are fed into us. Well at least to us we exist, in other words we exist in our own world. So I'd say live it and experience it, whether someone or something exist outside of us and is in control of us really doesn't matter. Enjoy life when you are still not picked up by that two year old higher intelligent unit. For this is your only chance of "existing".

Sava · January 25, 2004, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Of course it can, in the same way a "computer" can "know" something - it can possess certain information.

so computers are sentient beings now?

sorry... inanimate objects cannot possess traits of consciousness.

try again

btw, that first post... the one where you replied I was a moron... wasn't in reference to anything you said. but thanks for the insult jackass

Enigma_Nova · January 25, 2004, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by curtsibling
I expect our species will outgrow these immature notions in time.

Wanna bet?
I reckon that in INF years time (presuming we're still around) we'll still have a relic of the Ten Commandments in some law somewhere.

Kuciwalker · January 25, 2004, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
so computers are sentient beings now?

sorry... inanimate objects cannot possess traits of consciousness.

try again

"Knowing" isn't a property of consciousness. The computer "knows" in the sense that the information is contained in it. No sentience required.

Quote:

btw, that first post... the one where you replied I was a moron... wasn't in reference to anything you said. but thanks for the insult jackass

Then you are threadjacking, and trolling in what I had intended to be a philisophical thread.

Kuciwalker · January 25, 2004, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by HongHu
All I'm trying to say is, we can not really argue anything outside of our conciousness. Of course we can guess and debate all we like, but we have no way to verify who and what is correct, at least not until we "evolve" to something that are at similar level of the god himself.

As for whether we ourselves really exist, well, we may very well be creations of some higher intelligence units and all the "feelings" and "thinkings" may be illusions that are fed into us. Well at least to us we exist, in other words we exist in our own world. So I'd say live it and experience it, whether someone or something exist outside of us and is in control of us really doesn't matter. Enjoy life when you are still not picked up by that two year old higher intelligent unit. For this is your only chance of "existing".

Huh? I'm not arguing the properties of anything I say is real. Let me repeat: I merely am examining how morality would apply to an omnipotent being, and what this means for traditional morality. I came to the conclusion that while our goal is to eliminate "evil", to achieve that would make life ultimately worthless.

monkspider · January 25, 2004, 17:41

The answers to these questions are not far, Sky.

BustaMike · January 25, 2004, 18:22

This basically sums up my view (and it's from a kickass album too

)

needle · January 25, 2004, 19:17

They should make a movie of the Bible, split into two parts:

"WAR-GOD OF THE ISRAELITES" and "THE THING WITH THREE SOULS"

Oncle Boris · January 25, 2004, 21:43

UR and Sky, I think the question about the rock should be put this way: can an infinitely powerful being lift a rock with an infinite weight?

Then again, I guess an omnipotent being could just change the laws of gravity to lift anything he likes.

Even then, I suspect we might get to a Kant-like argument: if reason is in itself its own goal, we could argue that omnipotence similarly is: omnipotence is not stronger than itself. It is in this paradox that we find the idea that true understanding of omnipotence would be unaccesible to the human mind. Just like the result of 28/0 could be (well, I'm not so good in math, so I might be wrong here).

Oncle Boris · January 25, 2004, 21:46

Again, about God- if God is perfect, then he must be omnipotent. So yes, if the Bible says that God is perfect, or you believe him to be, then logically he is omnipotent.

Snowflake · January 26, 2004, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Huh? I'm not arguing the properties of anything I say is real. Let me repeat: I merely am examining how morality would apply to an omnipotent being, and what this means for traditional morality. I came to the conclusion that while our goal is to eliminate "evil", to achieve that would make life ultimately worthless.

I was replying to some of the posts in this thread instead of directly answering your question skywalker.

But to answer your question it would be the same logic, that "morality" is a term that we can apply in the world we live in, and that we cannot apply it to anything that is outside of our conciousness, omnipotent or not.

Though I think I'd agree with you, if all "evil" is eliminated, then we all would be in heaven, and the earth form would indeed be really worthless and would not even exist at all.

Aqualung71 · January 26, 2004, 04:42

oops

Aqualung71 · January 26, 2004, 05:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
All we can say is that an essential quality of God must be omnipotence.

Ah, now why would that necessarily be the case? Exactly why MUST god be omnipotent?

Aqualung71 · January 26, 2004, 05:31

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Well, given the definition of universe (the set of all that exists), if God isn't within the universe, then God doesn't exist

and wrt the "laws" of said universe, one of those "laws" would be that God was omnipotent.

Plus, I'm not assuming outside our universe. I'm really talking about the philosophical implications of omnipotence.

So if the universe is all that exists, what is a "parallel universe"?

And what about anti-matter? In what type of universe does this exist (or should I say, not-exist?)?