FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


A question for all you monotheists.





The Conspirator
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?
missdixy
Well, most monotheists that I know have often had a personal experience with the god they believe in that has helped convince them she/he is the only god. I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with that.
palavra
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


i have a lots of proof.
http://www.kemalyavuz.frih.net/books/belief.htm

check this book.





Quote:

Understanding and Belief - The Essentials of Islamic Faith

SOME OF THE DOORS TO GOD'S EXISTENCE
The overwhelming of majority of humankind have believed in the existence of God
from the very beginning
Some of the ‘doors’ to God’s existence
Contingent nature of the creation
Finite nature of things
Life
Orderliness in creation
Artistry in creation
Finality in creation
Mercy and providence
Mutual helping in the universe
Cleanliness in the universe
Countenances
Divine teaching and directing
The spirit and the conscience
Man’s innate dispositions and history of mankind
Human intuition
Consensus
The Holy Qur’an and other Scriptures
The prophets

The Conspirator
You both did not answer the question. If you god exists, how can you say other gods don't? If you god exists than other gods can exists.
SonLight
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


I believe that the very nature of God precludes the possibility of there being more than one. The attributes of God include omnipitence, which means He is in total control of everything. There could not be more than one who is all-powerful, obviously.

Of course there are more than one supernatural being. To us, with our limitations, any being who could demonstrate the ability to do things that contradict the normal laws of science could appear to be God. My belief is that the one-and-only God existed before any other being, and that He created angelic beings, some of which later tried to be independent of God.

Based on logic alone, I would say that the possibilities for God or gods existing are:

1. There is no God, and all reality ultimately is explainable by natural laws.

The human soul seems to dislike that idea, seeking some power or purpose beyond itself. To strongly believe that there is no God requires an incredible amount of faith.

2. There are more than one God.

In this case, none of the gods have the full power most people think of when they use the term "God". In effect, this solution implies that there is a supernatural realm that is beyond the natural realm, but that realm must be governed by laws which the gods only partially understand and do not control. I see this solution as little different than the first.

3. There is one God who is in control of and is responsible for everything.

This choice gives us an explanation of everything other than God, and immediately tells us that we can never fully understand God himself. Belief in this God seems to agree with our highest human nature, but from a logical perspective, we could just be kidding ourselves because of a "need to believe". No amount of evidence will be sufficient to "prove" God's existance, but a belief in God is "reasonable" if there is significant evidence. Ultimately, it is necessary to make a leap of faith in order to believe in God. If you do not, then all of the three possibilities remain open.
ocalhoun
Because our God tells us that the other Gods either don't exist or are not really Gods.

So, if you start out with the premise of a perfect God that communicates with you and tells you that all other gods are false or fake, the logical conclusion would be to accept this. (Yes, I know you won't accept the original premise, but that's not the point.)
The Conspirator
SonLight wrote:
2. There are more than one God.

In this case, none of the gods have the full power most people think of when they use the term "God". In effect, this solution implies that there is a supernatural realm that is beyond the natural realm, but that realm must be governed by laws which the gods only partially understand and do not control. I see this solution as little different than the first.

Thats assuming that a god would be omniscient, pagan religions didn't really believe this, nor dose Shintoism and Hinduism.

ocalhoun wrote:
Because our God tells us that the other Gods either don't exist or are not really Gods.

So, if you start out with the premise of a perfect God that communicates with you and tells you that all other gods are false or fake, the logical conclusion would be to accept this. (Yes, I know you won't accept the original premise, but that's not the point.)

That assumes God is perfect (which being a human idea can not be) and dose not lie. In the bible God says hes a jealous god. Wouldn't a jealous god lie about the other gods?
ocalhoun
The Conspirator wrote:

That assumes God is perfect (which being a human idea can not be)

Rolling Eyes
There are those of us who think God created humans, not the other way around.
The Conspirator
ocalhoun wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

That assumes God is perfect (which being a human idea can not be)

Rolling Eyes
There are those of us who think God created humans, not the other way around.

I didn't say he didn't, I said that assumes God is perfect (which being a human idea can not be, we made up the concept of perfect).
ocalhoun
We also came up with the concept of noodles, and they exist...
Really, why cannot God be perfect? Because we determined what perfect means? Is that it? If so, suppose the meaning of perfect changed drastically; in that case, it would no longer apply to God, but God would not have changed.
The Conspirator
Ok think about it this way, if one god exists than logically other gods can. You assume God told the truth, but he could have lied. The bible says God is a jealous god, that motive to lie about the existence of other gods.

The question is, if one god exits how can you say with certainty that other gods are just myths.
ocalhoun
^How can you know with certainty that they do?
In the absence of other trustworthy evidence, I'll believe God.
Mannix
By accepting the God of Abraham, that is the god of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, you acknowledge him as the creator of everything. So unless he created other gods, there are none, and judging from him being a jealous god, he probably wouldn't make any. By believing in him, you accept his word as infallible and absolute. Essentially then, in the mind of a true believer, there isn't even a possibility that other "gods" even exist, only false idols.

As far as proof, well "proof" is a subjective thing. My grandmother had cancer, had her tyroid gland taken out, and never went back to the doctor. She never even took hormone pills, yet she feels perfectly fine. For her, that was proof.
SonLight
The Conspirator wrote:
Ok think about it this way, if one god exists than logically other gods can. You assume God told the truth, but he could have lied. The bible says God is a jealous god, that motive to lie about the existence of other gods.

The question is, if one god exits how can you say with certainty that other gods are just myths.


I certainly do not claim that it is unreasonable to assume the existance of more than one god, which was the second case I listed in my previous post. But only _one_ God can be all-powerful. If there are more than one god, then there is a spiritual world, perhaps in a dimension or plane of existance superior to ours, where the laws of their "supernatural" world are different but perhaps comparable to the laws of our "natural" world.

If there is a God of the kind I believe in and can understand a little bit about, even though His idea of perfection is vastly superior to my imperfect idea, then there is only one. The only God I find worthy of the name is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, as He claims to be in our Bible. If lesser "gods" exist, they would be subordinate to Him and only have what power He allows them.
The Conspirator
An omnipotent creature would not be bound by rules. If there is one than logically there can be another.
It doesn't make sense that God would omnipotent and omniscient, the story's in the bible make him seem not to be omnipotent and omniscient.
palavra
The Conspirator wrote:
An omnipotent creature would not be bound by rules. If there is one than logically there can be another.
It doesn't make sense that God would omnipotent and omniscient, the story's in the bible make him seem not to be omnipotent and omniscient.


but there in no a law that bounds God.
i think how a puppet cannot understand the man who created it.we also cannot understand God.
dimension is different.
Montressor
The Conspirator wrote:
Ok think about it this way, if one god exists than logically other gods can. You assume God told the truth, but he could have lied. The bible says God is a jealous god, that motive to lie about the existence of other gods.

The question is, if one god exits how can you say with certainty that other gods are just myths.


I believe in one God and know that many gods are in existence. The reason that my God is jealous is because I create other "gods" by placing other things (computer, myself, car, money, anything) before him. I make other gods, even though I believe in one God.
Yes, you could say that I make my God, but I prefer to have a perfect God (one that cannot lie, nor needs to) to serve rather than live my life for this detestable imperfect humanity.

One a side note, I think your logic is a little too specific. Perhaps better stated that if one being/object for humanity to worship exists, then others can (and do) exist...

palavera wrote:
but there in no a law that bounds God.
i think how a puppet cannot understand the man who created it.we also cannot understand God.
dimension is different.

Reminds me of a quote from An Essay On Man:
Alexander Pope wrote:
Presumptuous Man! the reason wouldst thou find
Why formed so weak, so little, and so blind?
First, if thou canst, the harder reason guess,
Why formed no weaker, blinder and no less!
Ask of thy mother earth, why oaks are made
Taller or stronger than the weeds they shade?
Or ask of yonder argent fields above,
Why Jove's satellites are less than Jove?
a_dubDesign
Great question Conspirator.

100% honesty, I don't, at least not all the time. Since I'm being honest, I'll admit there times where I wonder if God really exists. But one thing I've not doubted, at least not in a long long time, is that Jesus existed, and I've found that living life the way he talks about (and lived) is the best way to live.

A possibly interesting sidenote to add some depth to this whole thing. Back in the bible times it was widely believed that each nation/land had its own god, which is why the bible sometimes refers to the God of Israel or God of Abraham (the father of Israel) or God of Jacob (descendant of Abraham). When you entered into a new land, you would then worship/pray to that god, since he was "in charge" of what happened in that land. Then there was also smaller household gods per family. Judaism was the first to claim there was one God (if I remember correctly).

Theres a really cool story (imho) in the Old Testament about a foreign leader who seeks out a follower of the God of Israel, is amazed by the power of that God, and asks to take as much dirt as his donkey could carry so when he returned home and would kneel next to the king in the temple for the God of his land, he could kneel in worship to the God of Israel.
ocalhoun
The Conspirator wrote:
An omnipotent creature would not be bound by rules. If there is one than logically there can be another.

No, it would not be logically possible for two (or more) omnipotent beings to co-exist unless they agreed on absolutely everything. What if the two should disagree, and it came to the point where they were both trying to change something in different ways? Either it would be a tie, and nothing changes (in which case they are both not omnipotent), or one would win (in which case one of them is not omnipotent).
Montressor
ocalhoun wrote:
No, it would not be logically possible for two (or more) omnipotent beings to co-exist unless they agreed on absolutely everything. What if the two should disagree, and it came to the point where they were both trying to change something in different ways? Either it would be a tie, and nothing changes (in which case they are both not omnipotent), or one would win (in which case one of them is not omnipotent).

Actually it is possible for two omnipotent beings to coexist, as long as one submits to the other. Being human, we cannot imagine being all-powerful and serving as the meekest, but that is exactly what the Jesus I believe in did. So yes, it is not logically possible (by human logic) for two or more omnipotent beings to coexist, but if you take into account that those omnipotent beings aren't/wouldn't be human, I don't see it as an impossibility.
ocalhoun
ocalhoun wrote:
co-exist unless they agreed on absolutely everything.
Montressor
ocalhoun wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
co-exist unless they agreed on absolutely everything.

They wouldn't have to actually agree on absolutely everything (the fact that they may, notwithstanding), one has to be willing to submit to the other. Having power doesn't necessarily mean that you have to use that power to obtain your desires and wants.
ocalhoun
Montressor wrote:
one has to be willing to submit to the other.

Which would be a form of agreement.
loyal
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


peace be upon you.

It is no difficulty for any monotheist to say their god exists. No problem at all.

Lots of monotheist religions worship the SAME God. Judasim worships Elohim/Yahweh. Christianity worships Yahweh. Islam worships Elohim (Allah in arabic), Sikhs believe all paths lead to the same one God, Bahais believe in Allah, and so on.

may God bless you all.
The Conspirator
ocalhoun: It is possible for two omnipotent creators to exist, if one exists than logically two can. If two omnipotent creatures exists they would have to get along cause, just imagine if two people with equal strength and endurance fighting, it would get no where.
But that assuming God in omnipotent.
Logically if there is one god than there can be others. And there are ancient story's of miracles that come from pagan gods and story's are pretty much the source for every religion. So logically there is more than one if one exists.
peaceninja
there's an argument out there that if an all-powerful hammer tries to break an unbreakable rock, this is obviously impossible and therefore either one exists or neither exists.

this is my i'm sure somewhat fallible argument for philosophically tearing down polytheism (or at least the idea that there can only be one or none omnipotent being).
Indi
peaceninja wrote:
there's an argument out there that if an all-powerful hammer tries to break an unbreakable rock, this is obviously impossible and therefore either one exists or neither exists.

this is my i'm sure somewhat fallible argument for philosophically tearing down polytheism (or at least the idea that there can only be one or none omnipotent being).

Using that argument, a single all-powerful being is as illogical as two. The classic "rock he can't lift" argument is what you'd use for a single omnipotent being.

If you allow one illogical entity - one god - there's no good reason for not allowing two.
peaceninja
Indi, i dont see how you are saying that one omnipotent entity is illogical.

In the "rock he cannot" lift argument, there are still two equal, supreme entities. There cannot be two supremes, only one or none.
ocalhoun
^No, that refers to a paradox I've seen in another form, but similar. I'll try to translate the one I do know to the one that is being referred to here (which I've never heard).

If God can do anything, can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift up?


Personally, I don't think this makes any sense at all. Anything remotely close to being too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift would be the largest thing in the universe, and would also need something even bigger to be gravitationally attracted towards. Supposing the one huge object was in contact with the other huge object, being both so immensely heavy, their weight would crush each other until they were smashed into one big object.
The Conspirator
ocalhoun your not getting the paradox.
An omnipotent creature can do even the logically imposable. Make 1+1=5, make a circle that is also a square.
If God can make a rock too heavy fro him too lift that Gods power has limits thus God is not omnipotent.
If God can't make a rock too heavy from him to lift than his power has limits and there are limits to what he can create or there is something God logically can't do thus God is not omnipotent.
ocalhoun
Omnipotence should still be logical.
Make 1+1=5? No, not without changing the meaning of one of the symbols or numbers.
Make a circle that is also a square? Sure, just add a few more spatial dimensions.

The rock paradox, being a paradox, is beyond our ability to logically work out, but I would blame this inadequacy on ourselves, not logic itself.
The Conspirator
Quote:
Make 1+1=5? No, not without changing the meaning of one of the symbols or numbers.
Make a circle that is also a square? Sure, just add a few more spatial dimensions.

An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent.
palavra
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
Make 1+1=5? No, not without changing the meaning of one of the symbols or numbers.
Make a circle that is also a square? Sure, just add a few more spatial dimensions.

An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent.


if god does these things , we can not understand. Cool

real questions here "what is God"

Quote:
This point may be clarified through the following analogy: Imagine a large palace with 1,000 entrances, 999 of which are open and one of which appears to be closed. How can you claim that the palace cannot be entered? This is what unbelievers do by confining their (and others') attention only to the door which appears to be closed. The doors to God's existence are open to everybody, provided that they sincerely intend to enter through them.



http://en.fgulen.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1114
The Conspirator
And you missed the point, the point is omnipotents is logically imposable. And the over question of the topic is, if one god exists how can you say other gods don't?
peaceninja
from a christian standpoint, i suppose we don't 'know' whether other gods do exist. God instructs us that he's a jealous god, so maybe other gods do exist. i think even somewhere in the bible, satan is referred to as a 'god' of this world. i personally don't think its possible for more than one omnipotent entity to exist in a single universe, should you define a God as omnipotent.
Bikerman
peaceninja wrote:
from a christian standpoint, i suppose we don't 'know' whether other gods do exist. God instructs us that he's a jealous god, so maybe other gods do exist. i think even somewhere in the bible, satan is referred to as a 'god' of this world. i personally don't think its possible for more than one omnipotent entity to exist in a single universe, should you define a God as omnipotent.


By what logic do you arrive at that statement ? Why should it be impossible for two or more omnipotent beings to exist ? I'm prompting here, not criticising, because it should be possible to come up with a logical answer to this question....see if you can.

Regards
Chris
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
And you missed the point, the point is omnipotents is logically imposable. And the over question of the topic is, if one god exists how can you say other gods don't?


How do you figure? An omnipotent being of some sort isn't that hard to imagine; after all, we know that any given species just get more and more powerful. After all, a modern bear is far nastier than his ancestors were, especially if you allow for the square-cube law. It merely follows that there is going to eventually be something that is more powerful than all others.

As for just one, that makes a certain degree of sense as well. After all, if there were two, then neither is omnipotent; after all, "omnipotent" means being all-powerful. How omnipotent are you if you need to agree not to do something in order to do another? Would you truly be omnipotent if you had to ask someone else if you could do something?

Ergo, one omnipotent god isn't that hard to imagine. Especially when you realize that the pantheonic gods were hardly omnipotent; they had spheres of influence where they were powerful, sure, but were rather weak outside of that sphere...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
And you missed the point, the point is omnipotents is logically imposable. And the over question of the topic is, if one god exists how can you say other gods don't?


How do you figure? An omnipotent being of some sort isn't that hard to imagine; after all, we know that any given species just get more and more powerful. After all, a modern bear is far nastier than his ancestors were, especially if you allow for the square-cube law. It merely follows that there is going to eventually be something that is more powerful than all others.

what I said before wrote:
An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent.


HereticMonkey wrote:
As for just one, that makes a certain degree of sense as well. After all, if there were two, then neither is omnipotent; after all, "omnipotent" means being all-powerful. How omnipotent are you if you need to agree not to do something in order to do another? Would you truly be omnipotent if you had to ask someone else if you could do something?

Ergo, one omnipotent god isn't that hard to imagine. Especially when you realize that the pantheonic gods were hardly omnipotent; they had spheres of influence where they were powerful, sure, but were rather weak outside of that sphere...

HM

If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.
Bikerman
The Conspirator wrote:
If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.

No...it is possible to construct a perfectly logical argument to show that it is not possible...that was my challenge....

C
HereticMonkey
Quote:
[quote="The Conspirator"]
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
And you missed the point, the point is omnipotents is logically imposable. And the over question of the topic is, if one god exists how can you say other gods don't?


How do you figure? An omnipotent being of some sort isn't that hard to imagine; after all, we know that any given species just get more and more powerful. After all, a modern bear is far nastier than his ancestors were, especially if you allow for the square-cube law. It merely follows that there is going to eventually be something that is more powerful than all others.

what I said before wrote:
An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent.


That's a misinterpretation, actually. Being able to be omnipotent means able to do anything, literally. Even setting a limit; all an omnipotent being would need to do is set a specific strength, and then create something greater than it could lift. It could then remove the limitation.

HereticMonkey wrote:

If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.


How? Just saying something is illogical doesn't make it illogical; the chain of logic needs to be shown. It's easy to show that you can't have more than one omnipotent being; any more than would need limitations set by some sort of agreement, making them less than omnipotent...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
That's a misinterpretation, actually. Being able to be omnipotent means able to do anything, literally. Even setting a limit; all an omnipotent being would need to do is set a specific strength, and then create something greater than it could lift. It could then remove the limitation.

You don't understand the paradox. An omnipotent bing can do anything, it has no limits, its power is infinite. But having infinite power limits it. it can not create anything grater than itself (the rock it can not lift) thus it is not omnipotent cause there is something it can not do. It has limits and omnipotence would mean having no limits.

Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:

If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.


How? Just saying something is illogical doesn't make it illogical; the chain of logic needs to be shown. It's easy to show that you can't have more than one omnipotent being; any more than would need limitations set by some sort of agreement, making them less than omnipotent...

HM

You messed up your quote tags, I said that.
If one can exist than another can exists, having two omnipotent beings would not diminish the omnipotents of ether of them, they would be equal in all thing.
And that assuming God is omnipotent, thats an assumption. Omnipotence is not needed for a god to be a god. There are many who believe in God but dose not believe God to be omnipotent.
Bikerman
OK...a suggestion...
An omnipotent being could clearly choose to hide his existence from anyone/thing at will
An omnipotent being, however, could not be hidden from.
Therefore two omnipotent beings cannot exist.
Thats a very simple and slightly tacky type of the sort of logic I was trying to prompt. There are , I am sure, more elegant examples

Chris
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
You don't understand the paradox. An omnipotent bing can do anything, it has no limits, its power is infinite. But having infinite power limits it. it can not create anything grater than itself (the rock it can not lift) thus it is not omnipotent cause there is something it can not do. It has limits and omnipotence would mean having no limits.

Note: At no point have I disagreed with this. You, on the other hand, have limited an omnipotent being by not allowing it to be able to set limits. Now, if it can truly do something, why could it not temporarily set up a limit? I acknowledge that it has an infinite amount of power; but must it constantly tap that power?

Quote:

You messed up your quote tags, I said that.
If one can exist than another can exists, having two omnipotent beings would not diminish the omnipotents of ether of them, they would be equal in all thing.

That's sort of the problem, actually. Being omnipotent implies that you can do whatever you want whenever you want to; if there are two of you running around, then you need limit what you can do. Thus, making you less than omnipotent...

Quote:
And that assuming God is omnipotent, thats an assumption. Omnipotence is not needed for a god to be a god. There are many who believe in God but dose not believe God to be omnipotent.

Admittedly; but if He isn't, then a lot of the argument dissipates, does it not?

HM
palavra
The Conspirator wrote:
[You don't understand the paradox. An omnipotent bing can do anything, it has no limits, its power is infinite. But having infinite power limits it. it can not create anything grater than itself (the rock it can not lift) thus it is not omnipotent cause there is something it can not do. It has limits and omnipotence would mean having no limits.



"The capacity of the intellect is limited, therefore something limited cannot judge the infinite"
mike1reynolds
Indi wrote:
If you allow one illogical entity - one god - there's no good reason for not allowing two.

God is nothing more than simply the consciounsess of infinity. There are not multiple infinites.

Those familiar with Poincare may object that there are, but when getting so specfic the precise wording is, God is nothing more the than the ultimate infinity, and there is only one Poincarian ultimate infinity.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
God is nothing more than simply the consciounsess of infinity. There are not multiple infinites.

Those familiar with Poincare may object that there are, but when getting so specfic the precise wording is, God is nothing more the than the ultimate infinity, and there is only one Poincarian ultimate infinity.


Hmm....as far as I can see there are three separate spheres which would need to be considered in this context.
1) Topological infinity
2) Numerical infinity
3) Set theory infinities

I agree that topologically speaking infinity can be defined as solitary and all inclusive - it is fairly trivial to prove it - simply assign a number set to a topological space and it is apparent

if we call the two ends +infinity and -infinity then the set a1..a2..a3..a4 converges to infinity where the numbers drawn converge to the right-hand endpoint.

2) Numerical infinity
Not possible as we know.
œ-1=œ (infinity-1=infinity - extended ascii codes are wrong on this machine...sorry) and this obviously screws up our rules of arithmetic.

3) Set theory infinity.
A single infinity is not possible, but multiple infinities are.
Basically there are an infinity of infinite cardinal number sets : thus one infinity would be the set {1..2..3..4) but we can also describe the transfinite cardinal and ordinal sets (Aleph-null and omega) which are infinite in themselves...
(really difficult to explain without the correct symbols..)

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
It was Cantor who first introduced the idea of an Absolute Infinity. In your vague and rambling reply it looks like you are attempting to refute the existence of a Cantorian Absolute Infinity. You didn’t even address the subject of lesser transfinite infinities vs. the Absolute Infinity.

Cantor's Concept of Infinity: Implications of Infinity for Contingence wrote:
Transfinite Numbers in Contrast to Absolute Infinity

Note that Cantor built up transfinite numbers from below, by constructing a larger ordinal out of a smaller. From the beginning of his work he realized that infinity cannot be approached from above. Cantor was keenly aware of the paradoxes inherent in such constructions as the set of everything, the set of all sets, and even Taw. Such totality Cantor called Absolute Infinity; it is beyond all mathematical determination, and can be comprehended only in the mind of God. Cantor's distinction between transfinite numbers and Absolute Infinity had a profound impact on our modern contingent world view, which I will examine under Ontology below.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Hedman.html
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
It was Cantor who first introduced the idea of an Absolute Infinity. You’re vague, rambling and totally fatuous attempt to refute the existence of a Cantorian Absolute Infinity only makes yourself look foolish. You didn’t even address the subject of lesser transfinite infinities vs. the Absolute Infinity.


That is a bit harsh I feel - I wasn't trying to refute Cartesian infinity - in fact I started by saying that topological infinity was agreed which I think means pretty much the same thing doesn't it ?

Vague I might have been - I'm no mathematician, as I freely admit, but I don't understand why you took offence since I was simply trying to broaden the subject of infinity out to further discussion, not refute your posting.

The problems I had with the end of the posting are down to the fact that I was frantically typing alt-236 and so on, but getting no infinity sign, and then I couldn't get omega or the other extended ascii characters to work either, which was frustrating me, and, as you point out, made me ramble a bit more than usual.

I didn't address Cantor because his concept of an absolute infinity was (I think) an attempt to reconcile his faith with his work and is only a small part of his contribution to math - his real contribution was in set theory and correspondence. His 'absolute infinity is still aq bone of contention with many mathematicians as you probably know but his famous theorem says what I tried to say - that there are an infinite number of infinite sets. His assertion that there is an infinite set which has a yet greater number of elements that the other infinite sets is not mathematically rigorous and, as Weyl put it :
Quote:
.classical logic was abstracted from the mathematics of finite sets and their subsets...Forgetful of this limited origin, one afterwards mistook that logic for something above and prior to all mathematics, and finally applied it, without justification, to the mathematics of infinite sets. This is the Fall and original sin of [Cantor's] set theory ..." (Weyl, 1946)


Regardless, my point, I think, was valid - there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity, since we then end up back at the same arithmetic problem as exists in classical number theory - infinity plus or minus 1..

Anyway - perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what parts of my post were fatuous, (I agree with the rambling criticism, for the reasons already explained) but I would hate to think that I posted something which is misleading or delusional since I try to avoid doing so.
Regards
Chris
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
You don't understand the paradox. An omnipotent bing can do anything, it has no limits, its power is infinite. But having infinite power limits it. it can not create anything grater than itself (the rock it can not lift) thus it is not omnipotent cause there is something it can not do. It has limits and omnipotence would mean having no limits.

Note: At no point have I disagreed with this. You, on the other hand, have limited an omnipotent being by not allowing it to be able to set limits. Now, if it can truly do something, why could it not temporarily set up a limit? I acknowledge that it has an infinite amount of power; but must it constantly tap that power?

A omnipotant bing who chooses not to use its power is still omnipotant.

Quote:
Quote:

You messed up your quote tags, I said that.
If one can exist than another can exists, having two omnipotent beings would not diminish the omnipotents of ether of them, they would be equal in all thing.

That's sort of the problem, actually. Being omnipotent implies that you can do whatever you want whenever you want to; if there are two of you running around, then you need limit what you can do. Thus, making you less than omnipotent...

But it doesn't take away from its omnipotences. Omnipotents is basically, having infinite power and not being bound by the rules of physics and logic. If there is two or more they are still beings of infinite power who are not bound by the rules of physics and logic. They still have omnipotents.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
Regardless, my point, I think, was valid - there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity, since we then end up back at the same arithmetic problem as exists in classical number theory - infinity plus or minus 1..

Anyway - perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what parts of my post were fatuous, (I agree with the rambling criticism, for the reasons already explained) but I would hate to think that I posted something which is misleading or delusional since I try to avoid doing so.
Regards
Chris

Obviously you are not familiar with the work of Ernst Zemelo, who was the first person to axiomatize set theory:

More generally, as noted by A.W. Moore, there can be no end to the process of set formation, and thus no such thing as the totality of all sets, or the set hierarchy. Any such totality would itself have to be a set, thus lying somewhere within the hierarchy and thus failing to contain every set.

A standard solution to this problem is found in Zermelo's set theory, which does not allow the unrestricted formation of sets from arbitrary properties. Rather, we may form the set of all objects that have a given property and lie in some given set (Zermelo's Axiom of Separation). This allows for the formation of sets based on properties, in a limited sense, while (hopefully) preserving the consistency of the theory.

However, while this neatly solves the logical problem, the philosophical problem remains. It seems natural that a set of individuals ought to exist, so long as the individuals exist. Indeed in a naïve sense, set theory might be said to be based on this notion. Zermelo's fix would seem to commit us to the rather mysterious notion of a proper class: a class of objects that does not have any formal existence, as an object (set), within our theory. For example, the class of all sets would be such a proper class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinity
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
That is a bit harsh I feel - I wasn't trying to refute Cartesian infinity - in fact I started by saying that topological infinity was agreed which I think means pretty much the same thing doesn't it ?
You are quick on the draw, within ten minutes of posting that I edited it to soften the tone. Anyway, the fact that your argument was so equivocal is even worse than a straight contradiction. You sow seeds of doubt while trying to take both sides. It is one or the other, it either is or it is not, there is no in between where Mary is sort of pregnant and sort of not pregnant.

Bikerman wrote:
Vague I might have been - I'm no mathematician, as I freely admit, but I don't understand why you took offence since I was simply trying to broaden the subject of infinity out to further discussion, not refute your posting.
The same could be asked of Einstein, why did he so angrily retort to Bohr that, “God does not role dice with the universe!” A lot of authors imply that Einstein kind of lost it at that moment, even though the Guage Theory later proved him correct. The reason he was so passionate about that statement was that Bohr’s scientific argument was inextricably underpinned by a philosophical argument for atheism.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:

Obviously you are not familiar with the work of Ernst Zemelo, who was the first person to axiomatize set theory:
.......etc etc snip

Hmm...so I look foolish for, what I still maintain, was a perfectly reasonable post which you misinterpreted as trying to refute Cartesian symmetry ?
And then your answer to my follishness is this...3 paragraphs copied wholesale from Wikki ?

Chris.
mike1reynolds
Three paragraphs which leave nothing left of your false assertion that set theory will not allow for an Absolute Infinity.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...so I look foolish for, what I still maintain, was a perfectly reasonable post which you misinterpreted as trying to refute Cartesian symmetry ?
What on Earth does Cartesian coordinates have to do with Cantor and Absolute Infinity?
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Three paragraphs which leave nothing left of your false assertion that set theory will not allow for an Absolute Infinity.

I made no such assertion. My words were
there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity.
Chris
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...so I look foolish for, what I still maintain, was a perfectly reasonable post which you misinterpreted as trying to refute Cartesian symmetry ?
What on Earth does Cartesian coordinates have to do with Cantor and Absolute Infinity?


Cartesian cords refer to a topographical space/reality as opposed to a mathematical construct which is the distinction I started with.

Chris.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
I made no such assertion. My words were
there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity.
Chris


Absolute Infinity is, by definition, a singular infinity.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...so I look foolish for, what I still maintain, was a perfectly reasonable post which you misinterpreted as trying to refute Cartesian symmetry ?
What on Earth does Cartesian coordinates have to do with Cantor and Absolute Infinity?
Cartesian cords refer to a topographical space/reality as opposed to a mathematical construct which is the distinction I started with.
You claimed I had falsely cast your argument into a refutation of Cartesian symmetry. A very strange synopsis of my argument.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...so I look foolish for, what I still maintain, was a perfectly reasonable post which you misinterpreted as trying to refute Cartesian symmetry ?
What on Earth does Cartesian coordinates have to do with Cantor and Absolute Infinity?
Cartesian cords refer to a topographical space/reality as opposed to a mathematical construct which is the distinction I started with.
You claimed I had falsely cast your argument into a refutation of Cartesian symmetry. A very strange synopsis of my argument.


No...simply a temporary misreading on my part due probably to the lateness of the hour.
Your miscasting of my argument was nothing to do with that - it was your statement that I denied that a greater infinity exists in set theory which not only did I not do, I was actually clear to mention the possibility that it might.
I also fail to see any substantive rebuttal of my basic starting position that plural infinities exist in two realms at least - set theory and simple number theory (or, in the latter case no infinitty exists - the distinction is actually very fine).
The Cantor debate is largely a side issue since Cantor and Poincare very publicly disagreed about the Cantor's work - Poincare took a much 'harder' stance on the issue of infinity than Cantor and actually blamed him for a lot of the problems with that issue.
In his 'The Future of Mathematics' he writes :
Quote:
IX. CANTORISM.
I have already spoken of the need we have of continually going back to the first principles of our science and the profit we may thus obtain in the study of the human mind. It is this need which has inspired two attempts which hold an important place in the more recent part of mathematical history. The first is Cantorism, whose services to science we will know. One of the characteristic traits of Cantorism is that in place of generalizing and building theorems more and more complicated on top of each other
and defining by means of these constructions themselves, it starts out from the genus supremum and defines, as the scholastics would have said, per genus proximum et differential specific am. What horror would have been
brought to certain minds-that of hermit, for instance, whose favourite idea was comparing the mathematical to the natural sciences! With the most of us these prejudices have passed away, but it still happens that we come across certain paradoxes, certain apparent contradictions which would have overwhelmed Zenon d'Elee and the school of Megore with joy. I think, and I am not the only one who does, that it is important never to introduce any conception which may not be completely defined by a finite number of words. Whatever may be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the physician called in to follow a beautiful pathological case.

Therefore though I was neither attacking nor defending Cantor, it would not be strictly relevant to the central point, which you define as 'Poincare ultimate infinity'.

Poincare on infinity is actually quite ambivalent. My limited knowledge of Poincare leads me to believe he was a mathematician in the tradition of modern physicists much more than in that of modern mathematicians. He wanted p[practical application and purpose. Modern mathematicians (certainly when I was at Uni) were deeply suspicious of such 'grubby' motives and were in a constant battle with the physics department since they insisted that Math was not for solving real problems but for making beautiful structures and formulae. Sitting down to solve problems mathematically was grubby and demeaning and missed the whole point.

Therefore it would follow that he supported the idea of a single infinity in the real world, and indeed he did. He was also a mathematician however and boih recognised and accepted the use of infinity(ies) in his formal work without dissent or even much comment.
That, in long terms, is the point I started by sketching - math has multiple or no infinities whereas euclidean and Cartesian geometrical space would appear to support the concept of a single infinity.
I thought I was making a reasonable and fairly obvious point but it seems not.

Chris
mike1reynolds
The 19th century reservations about proper sets are extremely passé in modern mathematics where Chaos Theory and dynamical systems theory make use of parameter spaces that are proper sets all the time. There is no lack of real world examples of proper sets in mathematics today.

To give others an example of what a parameter space is, take the set of all possible time streams, the entire universe. Not all of these possibilities actually exist, but quantum physics guarantees that many more than just one exists. In the Schrodinger’s Cat example, for a period of time two time streams must co-exist, one in which the cat is alive and one in which it is dead, for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to really be true. This physical universe is actually a bundle of infinite timestreams, with vast numbers being stripped away every moment. The physical substance of the future is a morphing shifting probability flux that has a blurry but tangible existence in the now.

What is more, time is not just one dimensional, it is multidimensional. If time travel is possible, even if only by the pattern of reincarnation of spirits and not physically, then time wars are real and in fact you can travel from one pocket of timestreams to other entirely different pockets of timestreams. In other words, timestreams can invade each other.

So God is a vast parameter space of all of these timestreams in the infinite future, throughout an infinite number of dimensions of time. That is not just the infinite future, but also the infinite progression of all timestreams through all timewars, the concluding sequel of Back to the Future.
Moonspider
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


Since it is impossible to prove that any one god exists using empirical evidence or logic, it is impossible to say that multiple gods exist using empirical evidence or logic.

The question is merely one of faith.

Respectfully,
M
Moonspider
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
Make 1+1=5? No, not without changing the meaning of one of the symbols or numbers.
Make a circle that is also a square? Sure, just add a few more spatial dimensions.

An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent.


No passage in the Bible that I know of claims God to be omnipotent by your definition. In fact, I doubt many theists (certainly no rational one) would define any god’s “omnipotence” as the ability to perform even irrational and illogical tasks.

Your argument is an absurdity. The purpose is to trap a theist because any answer will be held as proof against omnipotence. The answers are paradoxical. However it is flawed in that it only works if the theist defines omnipotence as the ability to do that which is not only logically possible, but that which is logically impossible.

This argument is not unlike the argument of “What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?” An irresistible force precludes the existence of an immovable object and vice versa. Thus the argument is absurd.

Likewise, the notion that an omnipotent being can move any object, no matter how large, precludes the existence of an object this being cannot move. To argue that He can create something that His abilities preclude from existing is also absurd. You are asking God to create that which cannot be created. God does not lack the ability. The ability itself does not exist.

I do not consider tasks which are impossible (whether making an immovable stone, a square circle, or 1+1=5) to be real tasks. They are not real tasks for any entity to perform because the tasks themselves do not and cannot exist.

You’re judging God to not be omnipotent because He can’t work contradictory nonsense?

Respectfully,
M
The Conspirator
Its not my definition, the omnipotence paradox has been around for a long time.
An omnipotent bing world not be bound by the rules of logic so if its illogical or self contradictory its with in its power.

If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.
mike1reynolds
Great posts Moonspider!

If God is simply all of us, as a single being, in the infinite future, then there is nothing in the least bit paradoxical about God knowing absolutely everything about us and everything around us. It would all be in His recollection of the past.
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:

If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.


and how would this force meet itself? and what would happen afterwards? I bet God could make it happen, he is omnipotent, he can do anything.
Moonspider
The Conspirator wrote:
Its not my definition, the omnipotence paradox has been around for a long time.
An omnipotent bing world not be bound by the rules of logic so if its illogical or self contradictory its with in its power.

If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.


Yes it has been around for a long time and is basically a modus tollens. However, it fails if "omnipotence" is defined as it is by Thomas Aquinas in the article you referenced from the Wikipedia.

I believe along the lines of C. S. Lewis' quote in your second reference to the Wikipedia, the article on omnipotence. This is also in line with Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject.

C.S. Lewis wrote:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.


Respectfully,
M
HereticMonkey
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.


and how would this force meet itself? and what would happen afterwards? I bet God could make it happen, he is omnipotent, he can do anything.


Dude, it's an "irritable" force; I'm thinking if it met itself, it berate itself...

(Oh....oops, up meant "irresistible"...Heh...)

HM
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.


and how would this force meet itself? and what would happen afterwards? I bet God could make it happen, he is omnipotent, he can do anything.

Not a single force, two objects of infinite mass. Given infinite mass would mean infinite gravity they would merge into one object.
Your assuming God is omnipotent.

Moonspider wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Its not my definition, the omnipotence paradox has been around for a long time.
An omnipotent bing world not be bound by the rules of logic so if its illogical or self contradictory its with in its power.

If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.


Yes it has been around for a long time and is basically a modus tollens. However, it fails if "omnipotence" is defined as it is by Thomas Aquinas in the article you referenced from the Wikipedia.

I believe along the lines of C. S. Lewis' quote in your second reference to the Wikipedia, the article on omnipotence. This is also in line with Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject.

C.S. Lewis wrote:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.


Respectfully,
M

But if an omnipotent bing has limitations, is it still omnipotent? No. An omnipotent bing would not be bound by any limitations.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
But if an omnipotent bing has limitations...

And would an omnipotent Bing still want to sing White Christmas?
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:

But if an omnipotent bing has limitations, is it still omnipotent? No. An omnipotent bing would not be bound by any limitations.


And yet, haven't expressed the opinion that there wouldn't be a problem with two omnipotent beings? How could you have two omnipotent beings without either or both having limitations on their actions?

HM
The Conspirator
Its power would have no limitations, that dose not limit to one omnipotent bing. Omnipotents is having infinite power and not being limited by the laws of physics and logic. That dose not negate the possibility of another one.
HereticMonkey
Except that two omnipotent beings would have their powers limited by logic; one or both would need to curtail the complete use of power. After all, they couldn't do everything that they wanted to; they would eventually conflict over something.

Look at this way: Sooner or later one would want to try something that would interfere with what the other was doing. After all, we know that sometime experiments even on the opposite sides of the earth can interfere with each other (a nuclear test and a seismic test, for example), and can do even without meaning to. Now, if those experiments were on a universal scale, which the level of power would facilitate, the odds of two experiments conflicting would be likely.

In order to limit the interference, one or both would need to limit their power. In order to avoid conflict, fair use of the universe would need to be established, like lab time at a university. Without accepting the limits of power, conflict would be likelier, and could you imagine the effects of that conflict?

Note: I am allowing that you could have one omnipotent being per universe; that would make logical sense as well. But...that logic wouldn't apply here...

HM
The Conspirator
But two omnipotent beings (even in the same universe) could have both have there way, there omnipotent. What makes you think an omnipotent bing would be limited to one universe? Or even bound by the rules of causality (if there are)? They wouldn't. By being omnipotent they can both have there way even if what they won't contradicts what the other one wants.
Indi
Moonspider wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Its not my definition, the omnipotence paradox has been around for a long time.
An omnipotent bing world not be bound by the rules of logic so if its illogical or self contradictory its with in its power.

If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.


Yes it has been around for a long time and is basically a modus tollens. However, it fails if "omnipotence" is defined as it is by Thomas Aquinas in the article you referenced from the Wikipedia.

I believe along the lines of C. S. Lewis' quote in your second reference to the Wikipedia, the article on omnipotence. This is also in line with Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject.

C.S. Lewis wrote:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Defining omnipotence in this way is all fine and good... but for one not-so-small problem.

That definition means that God would be subject to a higher power. Think for a second on what makes something impossible. Something can only be impossible if there exists a higher law - a force or thing (concrete or not) with greater power - that prevents that thing from being possible. i can never square a real number and get a negative number because the laws of mathematics prevent that, and no matter how much i might want to, i cannot change the laws of mathematics. In other words, i am a slave to the laws of mathematics, subordinate to them. In fact, i am slave to many higher powers that i cannot overrule. That's just nature.

So if God is defined as being unable to do anything, logical or no, that means that there is a power greater than him.

And that contradicts tons of statements in the bible. Therefore, unless you want to almost completely write off the biblical description of God, you cannot posit a higher power, and thus you cannot say that God is limited by logic.

Therefore, if there is no power higher than God, then God can do anything, even things that would seem illogical to us, because there would be nothing to stop him. So God could create a rock he cannot lift - because there's nothing that can stop him from doing it. But that's an illogical proposition, which makes God an illogical concept.

----------------

There's another aspect to the discussion here i've found disturbing. Several people have argued that a single omnipotent being is logical, but more than one is not, based on the idea that two omnipotent beings would eventually come into a conflict that neither could win. i don't agree that a single god is logical - and i showed why above - but setting that aside for the moment, let's work with the assumption that a single omnipotent being is logical, and analyze whether multiple omnipotent beings are logical or not.

There have been two arguments so far that i have identified. The first is that if there were two omnipotent beings, their actions would have to be restrained by the fact that two omnipotent beings cannot both exercise omnipotence without stepping on each others' toes. The second is that if two omnipotent beings were to fight, the battle would be endless and never have a victor.

Both arguments are flawed because they both ignore the problem of omnipotence of a single god, so they both have to be analyzed under the two types of omnipotence: true omnipotence, and Lewisian/Aquinan pseudo-omnipotence.

Assuming true omnipotence, all the arguments against two gods fall apart, because if both beings are omnipotent, then neither is restricted by anything. Yes, that leads to logical inconsistencies (such as that both gods can destroy the other and yet both can never be destroyed by the other), but that can't be helped simply because the definition of true omnipotence is illogical period - even for a single omnipotent being. One true omnipotent being is illogical. Two are illogical. *shrug* If you accept one, you can't argue against two.

Assuming Lewisian/Aquinan pseudo-omnipotence, you are assuming the existence of a higher power that limits the power of the god(s). So why can't that higher power also prevent the two gods from fighting each other or otherwise stepping on each others' toes?

Even without that, if you argue that two omnipotent deities cannot exist because they would cancel each other out... that doesn't rule out the existence of three omnipotent deities. If any two should come into conflict, the third would have the advantage over all of them. Thus it is in everyone's best interest to never come into conflict. Even if two of the gods form an alliance to overthrow the third, the remaining two gods would then be making themselves vulnerable. A system of three pseudo-omnipotent deities would thus be stable.

So there are no real arguments against having more than one god... once you first allow for the existence of one.
SonLight
OK, there seems to be some difficulty about what the word "omnipotent" means. If you don't want to accept Lewis's definition of the word as valid, then perhaps I need to be more specific about what the minimum standard for the God I worship is.

No being, no matter how powerful, is worthy (in my opinion) to be worshipped as God, unless He is powerful enough to limit all other beings in the universe to only those things which He allows them to do.

This is sufficient to insure that there can be only one such being. The standard is less than what I would define as omnipitence, and less than what I am sure God can really do, but it is sufficient for my argument. I do believe that God can do much more than this, but I agree that it would be pointless for Him to do something which inherently violates logic.
Soulfire
I guess that it's possible there are other gods, if you think about it. Think of God's commandment "There shall be no other gods before me" - does that hint at the existence of other gods? Well, I'm not one to say... But I'm sure there are other Biblical references to One True God (meaning there can be no other gods/goddesses).
NemoySpruce
Indi wrote:
Even if two of the gods form an alliance to overthrow the third, the remaining two gods would then be making themselves vulnerable. A system of three pseudo-omnipotent deities would thus be stable.

So there are no real arguments against having more than one god... once you first allow for the existence of one.



A stable system of 2 or more omnipotent Gods would in effect be just one God. They would never disagree and always act as one. Assuming they were also omniscient, they would know what the others were thinking at all times. There could be a billion of them, but they would all be part of one consciousness.
palavra
firstly
Quote:
“You know that a village cannot be without a headman, a needle without the one who manufactured it, and a letter without its writer, so how is it that this country (universe)so infinitely well-ordered should be without a Ruler?”

http://www.nur.org/treatise/articles/questions_of_science_and_technology.htm

we accept there is a god


"He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God, there is no God but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (59:22-24)


quran says "there is no god but he"
and we believe this.
NemoySpruce
palavra wrote:

quran says "there is no god but he"
and we believe this.


Ok let me get this straight, so the question is;

"How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?"

and your reply is...bcoz the quran says so. end of argument. Thanks for playing.
Moonspider
Indi wrote:

Defining omnipotence in this way is all fine and good... but for one not-so-small problem.

That definition means that God would be subject to a higher power. Think for a second on what makes something impossible. Something can only be impossible if there exists a higher law - a force or thing (concrete or not) with greater power - that prevents that thing from being possible. i can never square a real number and get a negative number because the laws of mathematics prevent that, and no matter how much i might want to, i cannot change the laws of mathematics. In other words, i am a slave to the laws of mathematics, subordinate to them. In fact, i am slave to many higher powers that i cannot overrule. That's just nature.

So if God is defined as being unable to do anything, logical or no, that means that there is a power greater than him.

And that contradicts tons of statements in the bible. Therefore, unless you want to almost completely write off the biblical description of God, you cannot posit a higher power, and thus you cannot say that God is limited by logic.


I stand by my argument: you can't judge a being to not be omnipotent because that being cannot work contradictory nonsense. And I can't put it any more succinctly or eloquently than C.S. Lewis in the quote referenced (ironically) by The Conspirator.

I define omnipotence as the ability to do all things that are possible. Nonsense is nonsense no matter how you cut it.

Yes, you are right in that if someone defines "omnipotence" as the ability to do all things no matter how absurd they are trapped by the "rock paradox" (or any other nonsensical thing you wish to use, such as a square circle, a sky that is both red and blue, ad infinitum).

However, the paradox here is spurious because it does in fact rely upon a definition of omnipotence not held by theists.

To say any hypothetical omnipotent being is not omnipotent because it cannot perform or create an oxymoron is absurd. As I said, God is not limited because he cannot perform the task. The task does not exist.

Indi wrote:
Therefore, if there is no power higher than God, then God can do anything, even things that would seem illogical to us, because there would be nothing to stop him. So God could create a rock he cannot lift - because there's nothing that can stop him from doing it. But that's an illogical proposition, which makes God an illogical concept.


I don’t hold to this line of argument since I find the assumed definition of omnipotence to be false. However let’s examine it.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God can do anything in set A.
3. Set A includes all things both logical and illogical.
4. God can do the illogical.

If God can do the illogical, why is his nature (or existence) suddenly bound by logic as it is in your conclusion? (“But that’s an illogical proposition…”) Yes it is, but did your argument not just state that God can do the illogical, and thus fulfill even an illogical proposition?

For further reading on this argument (and the definition of omnipotence) I recommend the following. However, there is a plethora of information and arguments from all sides of the aisle on this classic argument.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://radgeek.com/gt/1997/08/12/the_big
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/omni.htm

----------------

Indi wrote:
There's another aspect to the discussion here i've found disturbing. Several people have argued that a single omnipotent being is logical, but more than one is not… If you accept one, you can't argue against two.


Agreed. As I mentioned before, the existence of God cannot be proven by empirical evidence or logic. Thus two or more gods cannot be proven either. It is a matter of faith or belief based on that which cannot be observed. Logically the belief in one God is no more or less valid than a belief in infinite gods. One can only argue it from a standpoint of one faith or belief system vs. another.

Respectfully,
M
palavra
NemoySpruce wrote:
palavra wrote:

quran says "there is no god but he"
and we believe this.


Ok let me get this straight, so the question is;

"How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?"

and your reply is...bcoz the quran says so. end of argument. Thanks for playing.


i already wrote my answer.

“You know that a village cannot be without a headman, a needle without the one who manufactured it, and a letter without its writer, so how is it that this country (universe)so infinitely well-ordered should be without a Ruler?”
Indi
SonLight wrote:
OK, there seems to be some difficulty about what the word "omnipotent" means. If you don't want to accept Lewis's definition of the word as valid, then perhaps I need to be more specific about what the minimum standard for the God I worship is.

No being, no matter how powerful, is worthy (in my opinion) to be worshipped as God, unless He is powerful enough to limit all other beings in the universe to only those things which He allows them to do.

This is sufficient to insure that there can be only one such being. The standard is less than what I would define as omnipitence, and less than what I am sure God can really do, but it is sufficient for my argument. I do believe that God can do much more than this, but I agree that it would be pointless for Him to do something which inherently violates logic.

That's not a definition of omnipotence though, or even a basic definition of a god by most measures. Imagine i had a closed room that nothing could get into or out of - my universe. Imagine i filled it with all kinds of creatures, large and small - my subjects.

Now imagine i shot them all dead. i have now effectively limited them to do the only thing i chose for them to do: decompose. They can do absolutely nothing except for what i desire them to do, which is lie still and rot.

By your definition, i would be a god. Obviously, that doesn't fly, does it? Would you say that i was a god of that universe? What if i developed a way to kill every living thing in the universe? Would i then be god of everything?

NemoySpruce wrote:
A stable system of 2 or more omnipotent Gods would in effect be just one God. They would never disagree and always act as one. Assuming they were also omniscient, they would know what the others were thinking at all times. There could be a billion of them, but they would all be part of one consciousness.

Nonsense: nothing in the situation i described implies that they never disagree or that they always act as one. On the contrary, they may disagree bitterly and each attempt to garner their own followers in the hopes of amassing more power, so that they may eventually overthrow the others. In a system of three gods any one of them would be prevented by doing so by the fact that if they started to get too large, the other two would step in to stop them.

There is no reason to assume they all agree or that they get along. All you need to do is assume a treaty of sorts: "Ok, יהוה‎ you get to do what you want with the people in the Middle East, 玉帝 you get Asia, and Almighty Dollar, you get the West." This does not preclude occasional skirmishes when one of them oversteps their bounds, provided they don't overstep so far as to draw the wrath of the third. For example, יהוה‎ may attempt a sortie into Almighty Dollar's territory that results in a small but fierce struggle between the two. As long as the dispute is small, it will be no problem. But if יהוה‎ overreaches - if he gets a little too carried away in his zeal to take as much of Almighty Dollar's power as he can, 玉帝 will step in to protect his own interests and ensure that if יהוה‎ does not get too strong. Also, it is in the interest of both יהוה‎ and Almighty Dollar not to let the struggle get too out of hand, lest they both make themselves vulnerable to 玉帝.

Assuming omniscience does not suddenly make them chummy, it simply rules out the possibility of any surprise attack. It also rules out the possibility of anyone setting a long-term plan in motion to eventually attain absolute power. In other words, omniscience does not bring about harmony, it simply makes the uneasily balanced truce eternal.

A balanced tripod of power does not imply harmony, it simply implies peace. Peace and harmony are two different things altogher. There is no harmony in peace enforced at the barrel of a gun.

Moonspider wrote:
I stand by my argument: you can't judge a being to not be omnipotent because that being cannot work contradictory nonsense. And I can't put it any more succinctly or eloquently than C.S. Lewis in the quote referenced (ironically) by The Conspirator.

I define omnipotence as the ability to do all things that are possible. Nonsense is nonsense no matter how you cut it.

Yes, you are right in that if someone defines "omnipotence" as the ability to do all things no matter how absurd they are trapped by the "rock paradox" (or any other nonsensical thing you wish to use, such as a square circle, a sky that is both red and blue, ad infinitum).

However, the paradox here is spurious because it does in fact rely upon a definition of omnipotence not held by theists.

To say any hypothetical omnipotent being is not omnipotent because it cannot perform or create an oxymoron is absurd. As I said, God is not limited because he cannot perform the task. The task does not exist.

You missed my point. If you want to define omnipotence that way, go ahead. It's not true omnipotence, but it is a limited kind of omnipotence. No one could fault you for using that definition, though. It's what i would normally use, myself. It's not really true omnipotence, it's pseudo-omnipotence. But at least it's a functional form of omnipotence that you can work with mentally.

The problem i was getting at is not whether your definition of omnipotence is really omnipotence or not. The problem is that your definition of omnipotence - pseudo-omnipotence - is not supported by scripture in all of the Judaistic religions (although that's not really true in all religions in general, just the Judaistic ones). So basically, if you want to use Judaistic scripture to define God, the debate is over. Judaistic scripture makes no bones about the fact that nothing has greater power than God, thus your definition of omnipotence is not applicable. QED.

However, if you want to say that Judaistic scripture is not correct - that its description of God is false - that is, that you get your concept of God from some other source than the old testament, that's fine and good. Because now you can apply your definition of omnipotence - pseudo-omnipotence - without constraint.

Of course, each of those two possibilities offers their own challenges. The first one is easy: if God can do the illogical, then God is illogical, then you can't argue that one illogical entity is ok but two are not.

The second one is trickier. If God is defined as pseudo-omnipotent, then he is logical... but he is not infinitely powerful - he is limited by something. That means that the door is now open for many gods, because what ever it is that constrains God from doing the illogical, it could constrain an infinite number of gods the same way, allowing them all to coexist. (This is essentially the case in our universe, minus the infinities - each person is limited by nature and physics to certain boundaries, which means that within the larger universe there can be several people coexisting without stepping on each others toes.) Or to put it another way, can a being of infinite power destroy itself against its will? No, that's illogical. So a pseudo-omnipotent god can't do it. Thus, since a psuedo-omnipotent god could not destroy another pseudo-omnipotent god (without consent). Thus two pseudo-omnipotent gods could co-exist indefinitely, each unable to destroy the other.

Two different arguments, same conclusion. If you allow one god, you cannot argue logically against allowing more than one.
The Conspirator
Moonspider, omnipotence, means all powerful, infinite power. It could have an infinite reservoir of energy to draw from but its not infinitely powerful, thus not omnipotent. It it is not bound by logic or physics than it is infinitely powerful and thus omnipotent.
Moonspider
The Conspirator wrote:
Moonspider, omnipotence, means all powerful, infinite power. It could have an infinite reservoir of energy to draw from but its not infinitely powerful, thus not omnipotent. It it is not bound by logic or physics than it is infinitely powerful and thus omnipotent.


But the real questions is, "What does it mean to be "all powerful?" That is a philosophical debate in and of itself, yet the meaning of that question lies at the heart of the modus tollens set forth in the "rock paradox" question.

I refer you back to an article you referenced in a previous post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

You will note that according to the article, the scholastic definition of "omnipotent" does not imply that an omnipotent being has infinite abilities.

Respectfully,
M
The Conspirator
But we are discussing religious version of omnipotents (God can do anything no matter if its logical or not) with the base argument being there can only be one god cause Go is omnipotent and another god would diminish his omnipotents (not your argument but the argument that lead to this one).
NemoySpruce
Indi wrote:

NemoySpruce wrote:
A stable system of 2 or more omnipotent Gods would in effect be just one God. They would never disagree and always act as one. Assuming they were also omniscient, they would know what the others were thinking at all times. There could be a billion of them, but they would all be part of one consciousness.

Nonsense: nothing in the situation i described implies that they never disagree or that they always act as one. On the contrary, they may disagree bitterly and each attempt to garner their own followers in the hopes of amassing more power, so that they may eventually overthrow the others. In a system of three gods any one of them would be prevented by doing so by the fact that if they started to get too large, the other two would step in to stop them.

There is no reason to assume they all agree or that they get along.


A disagreement between 2 omnipotent beings is nonsensical. As mentioned before in a previous post, its like asking what happens when 2 irresistible forces collide? If one of these omnipotent beings does not get his way, then he is not omnipotent. And so, the only way for 2 omnipotent beings to co-exist in one universe is for them to agree in all things.

Indi wrote:

All you need to do is assume a treaty of sorts: "Ok, ????? you get to do what you want with the people in the Middle East, 玉帝 you get Asia, and Almighty Dollar, you get the West." This does not preclude occasional skirmishes when one of them oversteps their bounds, provided they don't overstep so far as to draw the wrath of the third. For example, ????? may attempt a sortie into Almighty Dollar's territory that results in a small but fierce struggle between the two. As long as the dispute is small, it will be no problem. But if ????? overreaches - if he gets a little too carried away in his zeal to take as much of Almighty Dollar's power as he can, 玉帝 will step in to protect his own interests and ensure that if ????? does not get too strong. Also, it is in the interest of both ????? and Almighty Dollar not to let the struggle get too out of hand, lest they both make themselves vulnerable to 玉帝.


What you are describing here are man made gods (reminds me of Neil Gaiman's work). An omniGod would have no need for followers, and would have no need for more power.
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
A disagreement between 2 omnipotent beings is nonsensical. As mentioned before in a previous post, its like asking what happens when 2 irresistible forces collide? If one of these omnipotent beings does not get his way, then he is not omnipotent.

Yes. Omnipotents is infinite power and beyond the lows of physics and logic. Having two dose not take away its omnipotents cause omnipotents its power, not the power of others.

Quote:
And so, the only way for 2 omnipotent beings to co-exist in one universe is for them to agree in all things.

Your assuming an omnipotent bing is restricted to one universe? It would be beyond the laws of physics thus it would not be limited to one universe.
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:

Yes. Omnipotents is infinite power and beyond the lows of physics and logic. Having two dose not take away its omnipotents cause omnipotents its power, not the power of others.


Yes, I agree, its possible there exists more than one omnipotent being as long as they dont disagree with each other. Omnipotence, I think is not beyond physics and logic, but it may be beyond the current state of physics and logic that we are using to describe our reality.

The Conspirator wrote:

Quote:
And so, the only way for 2 omnipotent beings to co-exist in one universe is for them to agree in all things.

Your assuming an omnipotent bing is restricted to one universe? It would be beyond the laws of physics thus it would not be limited to one universe.


No. your trying too hard to prove that an omnipotent being is illogical and absurd. There can exist an omnipotent being limited to one universe. relative to his universe he is omnipotent. Relative to a greater superset of universes, he is not, because he is limited by his own universe.
Indi
NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

NemoySpruce wrote:
A stable system of 2 or more omnipotent Gods would in effect be just one God. They would never disagree and always act as one. Assuming they were also omniscient, they would know what the others were thinking at all times. There could be a billion of them, but they would all be part of one consciousness.

Nonsense: nothing in the situation i described implies that they never disagree or that they always act as one. On the contrary, they may disagree bitterly and each attempt to garner their own followers in the hopes of amassing more power, so that they may eventually overthrow the others. In a system of three gods any one of them would be prevented by doing so by the fact that if they started to get too large, the other two would step in to stop them.

There is no reason to assume they all agree or that they get along.


A disagreement between 2 omnipotent beings is nonsensical. As mentioned before in a previous post, its like asking what happens when 2 irresistible forces collide? If one of these omnipotent beings does not get his way, then he is not omnipotent. And so, the only way for 2 omnipotent beings to co-exist in one universe is for them to agree in all things.

Dude, seriously. Have you been reading anything that's been written in this entire thread?

Do we have to go back to the basics here? Alright. Fine. Answer this question: can an omnipotent being create a rock it cannot lift?

If yes:
Then a single omnipotent being is illogical. If you can allow one illogical entity, then you can't offer a single rational argument for why you cannot allow two. The end.

If no:
Then your whole argument about irresistable forces falls apart, because neither god would actually be a truly irresistable force. Both would only be pseudo-omnipotent. Which means it is possible to have two or many gods, provided that the real irresistable force that prevents the one god from doing anything illogical allows it.

For details on either aspect, read the rest of the thread, because there's no point in repeating the entire argument here when it's visible two or three posts up.

NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

All you need to do is assume a treaty of sorts: "Ok, ????? you get to do what you want with the people in the Middle East, 玉帝 you get Asia, and Almighty Dollar, you get the West." This does not preclude occasional skirmishes when one of them oversteps their bounds, provided they don't overstep so far as to draw the wrath of the third. For example, ????? may attempt a sortie into Almighty Dollar's territory that results in a small but fierce struggle between the two. As long as the dispute is small, it will be no problem. But if ????? overreaches - if he gets a little too carried away in his zeal to take as much of Almighty Dollar's power as he can, 玉帝 will step in to protect his own interests and ensure that if ????? does not get too strong. Also, it is in the interest of both ????? and Almighty Dollar not to let the struggle get too out of hand, lest they both make themselves vulnerable to 玉帝.


What you are describing here are man made gods (reminds me of Neil Gaiman's work). An omniGod would have no need for followers, and would have no need for more power.

Regarding whether or not an omnipotent god would want followers: If any of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikh, Hindus, etc. etc. are right, then you're wrong.

*shrug* That's about all that can be said about that.

Besides, my silly example was just that. i named one of the gods "almighty dollar" for christ's sake. -_- It was meant to be allegorical, not literal. Come on. It doesn't have to be followers or anything really tangible, it just has to be something that can be used to symbolize power - not even a real source of power or anything they really "need", just a godly status symbol or something they "want". The point was that it is very possible to have a triumvirate of gods that form a stable system where they never fight - which sinks your objection that they would inevitably fight. Which makes the whole argument about two omnipotent beings fighting moot.
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

Yes. Omnipotents is infinite power and beyond the lows of physics and logic. Having two dose not take away its omnipotents cause omnipotents its power, not the power of others.


Yes, I agree, its possible there exists more than one omnipotent being as long as they dont disagree with each other. Omnipotence, I think is not beyond physics and logic, but it may be beyond the current state of physics and logic that we are using to describe our reality.

The known laws of physics may change as we learn more buy logic doesn't.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:

Quote:
And so, the only way for 2 omnipotent beings to co-exist in one universe is for them to agree in all things.

Your assuming an omnipotent bing is restricted to one universe? It would be beyond the laws of physics thus it would not be limited to one universe.


No. your trying too hard to prove that an omnipotent being is illogical and absurd. There can exist an omnipotent being limited to one universe. relative to his universe he is omnipotent. Relative to a greater superset of universes, he is not, because he is limited by his own universe.


If it is limited to one universe than it is not omnipotent. An omnipotent bing would not be bound by the laws of physics and logic thus it could not be bound to a single universe. If it were it would be bound by the laws of physics. An omnipotent bing would not be bound by physics so it would not be bound to a single universe and would be able to create its own universes within or out side ours.
NemoySpruce
Indi wrote:

Dude, seriously. Have you been reading anything that's been written in this entire thread?


Yes. Have you?


Indi wrote:

Do we have to go back to the basics here? Alright. Fine. Answer this question: can an omnipotent being create a rock it cannot lift?

If yes:
Then a single omnipotent being is illogical. If you can allow one illogical entity, then you can't offer a single rational argument for why you cannot allow two. The end.

If no:
Then your whole argument about irresistable forces falls apart, because neither god would actually be a truly irresistable force. Both would only be pseudo-omnipotent. Which means it is possible to have two or many gods, provided that the real irresistable force that prevents the one god from doing anything illogical allows it.

For details on either aspect, read the rest of the thread, because there's no point in repeating the entire argument here when it's visible two or three posts up.


I think this was answered by moonspider's post. Basically the 'rock paradox' is irrelevant to our issue.

"To say any hypothetical omnipotent being is not omnipotent because it cannot perform or create an oxymoron is absurd. As I said, God is not limited because he cannot perform the task. The task does not exist. " -- moonspider


Basically your argument is, if God cannot do something illogical then he is not omnipotent. So poor monotheist has to admit that God can defy logic, and since he turns his back on logic, he cannot use it to argue anymore. boo hoo hoo.

You see? the rock paradox doesnt really prove or disprove anything, it just muddles the issue and makes it harder to answer Conspirators question. ("How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?")


Indi wrote:

Regarding whether or not an omnipotent god would want followers: If any of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikh, Hindus, etc. etc. are right, then you're wrong.

*shrug* That's about all that can be said about that.

Besides, my silly example was just that. i named one of the gods "almighty dollar" for christ's sake. -_- It was meant to be allegorical, not literal. Come on. It doesn't have to be followers or anything really tangible, it just has to be something that can be used to symbolize power - not even a real source of power or anything they really "need", just a godly status symbol or something they "want". The point was that it is very possible to have a triumvirate of gods that form a stable system where they never fight - which sinks your objection that they would inevitably fight. Which makes the whole argument about two omnipotent beings fighting moot.


No. I could think of a lot of possibilities why God would want to help us understand him, religions are just that, different attempts by humans to understand God. They have nothing to do with your comic book example. A true God would not need followers. Only men mascarading as God's servants would need followers.
Indi
NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

Dude, seriously. Have you been reading anything that's been written in this entire thread?


Yes. Have you?

Well you might want to check again because you keep arguing points that have already been resolved.

Moonspider's definition of omnipotence is not true omnipotence. That's not even something you can argue - it's in the very definition of the word. For a truly omnipotent being, nothing is impossible. Nothing. Nothing at all. The word "can't" does not apply. Any statement of the form "an omnipotent being can't do X" is implicitly false, regardless of what X is. That's what being omnipotent means. Omni. Potent.

However, that definition, by it's very nature, gives rise to logical impossibilities. These kinds of logical difficulties always arise when you start dealing with infinities without great care.

In order to keep the definition within the realm of the logical, it is necessary to LIMIT (i highlight this word to make it extra clear to you what is going on) the things that an omnipotent being may do to only the things that are actually logical. Thus you have an "omnipotent" being that CAN'T do everything, but can do everything that is logical. Since they CAN'T DO EVERYTHING, they are not truly omnipotent.

However, although that definition is not true omnipotence, it is a very useful form of limited omnipotence. You can't really have a logical discussion about an illogical entity, so using the limited definition of omnipotence is a way of scaling down an impossible problem down to the realm of the conceivable. This is not a revolutionary concept. The exact same thing is done in physics and engineering every day. We treat a steel beam in a calculation as a uniform beam, even though we know it is not due to metal impurities and crystal imperfections. It is a simplifying assumption.

Now to make this absolutely clear, i will put it in point form.

True omnipotence:
- means infinite power.
- has no limits (by definition of infinite).
- allows for illogical actions (by definition of no limits).

Pseudo-omnipotence:
- does not allow for illogical actions.
- means power is limited (by being able to do only the logical and not everything).
- means power is not infinite (because it is limited).
- is a useful and necessary simplifying assumption in order to allow omnipotence to be discussed using logic.

This has all been discussed already. i have just given you the coles notes so you can catch up.

Now, if you're all caught up so far, you have finally figured out what omnipotence means (infinite power), why it's problematic (the inifinite part) and how that problem can be resolved (by imposing limits on the "infinite", so it is no longer truly infinite).

If you got this far, then you can start catching up on the rest:
NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

Do we have to go back to the basics here? Alright. Fine. Answer this question: can an omnipotent being create a rock it cannot lift?

If yes:
Then a single omnipotent being is illogical. If you can allow one illogical entity, then you can't offer a single rational argument for why you cannot allow two. The end.

If no:
Then your whole argument about irresistable forces falls apart, because neither god would actually be a truly irresistable force. Both would only be pseudo-omnipotent. Which means it is possible to have two or many gods, provided that the real irresistable force that prevents the one god from doing anything illogical allows it.

For details on either aspect, read the rest of the thread, because there's no point in repeating the entire argument here when it's visible two or three posts up.


I think this was answered by moonspider's post. Basically the 'rock paradox' is irrelevant to our issue.

"To say any hypothetical omnipotent being is not omnipotent because it cannot perform or create an oxymoron is absurd. As I said, God is not limited because he cannot perform the task. The task does not exist. " -- moonspider

Um, basically, wrong.

Moonspider did not suddenly magically change the real definition of the word omnipotent. He simply chose to use a working definition that allows the concept to be considered logically. He didn't make the rock paradox irrelevant. He just chose option B.

All fine and good. He chose to use the limited definition of omnipotence, and we went from there. As i pointed out, the limited definition of omnipotence is not scriptural. However, that's not really relevant to the problem at hand - the question of multiple gods.

NemoySpruce wrote:
Basically your argument is, if God cannot do something illogical then he is not omnipotent. So poor monotheist has to admit that God can defy logic, and since he turns his back on logic, he cannot use it to argue anymore. boo hoo hoo.

No, basically, that is not my argument. i really do suggest actually reading the thread.

i stated the rock paradox, which has two solutions. One solution is to point out that true omnipotence allows the illogical. Doing that means that you toss logic out the window, and thus there is no way you can logically argue anything - let alone the existence of only one god.

But the other solution - the one you seem to be pointedly ignoring, and which has already been discussed - is to use the limited definition of omnipotence and say "no, god can't create a rock that he can't lift because that's illogical". In other words, the second solution is to use Moonspider's definition of omnipotence.

So once again, here it is in point form so you can catch up.

The question "Can God create a rock he can't lift?" has two answers:
- Yes: which means you're assuming true omnipotence, which includes the ability to do the illogical.
- No: which means you're assuming pseudo-omnipotence, which does not allow the illogical. (Moonspider's view.)

Do you understand now? If not, let me state it specifically:

NemoySpruce wrote:
You see? the rock paradox doesnt really prove or disprove anything, it just muddles the issue and makes it harder to answer Conspirators question. ("How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?")

The rock paradox is not supposed to prove or disprove anything. It is supposed to pin you down to determine whether or not you define God as truly omnipotent (and thus illogical) or just pseudo-omnipotent.

If you'd stop dodging the question and whining about how unfair it is and just answer it, then you would know whether or not your definition of God is true omnipotent or pseudo-omnipotent. Which is the point of it.

And then - after you have determined whether your god is true omnipotent or pseudo-omnipotent - then and only then can you begin to discuss the possibility of other gods. The discussion is totally different for a true omnipotent god as opposed to a pseudo-omnipotent god, so before any discussion can begin, it has to be determined what kind of omnipotence you really mean. After we know what kind of omnipotent your god is, then we can discuss it. (But of course, we've already done all that, for both cases of omnipotence. If you'd read up, you would know this.)

NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

Regarding whether or not an omnipotent god would want followers: If any of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikh, Hindus, etc. etc. are right, then you're wrong.

*shrug* That's about all that can be said about that.

Besides, my silly example was just that. i named one of the gods "almighty dollar" for christ's sake. -_- It was meant to be allegorical, not literal. Come on. It doesn't have to be followers or anything really tangible, it just has to be something that can be used to symbolize power - not even a real source of power or anything they really "need", just a godly status symbol or something they "want". The point was that it is very possible to have a triumvirate of gods that form a stable system where they never fight - which sinks your objection that they would inevitably fight. Which makes the whole argument about two omnipotent beings fighting moot.


No. I could think of a lot of possibilities why God would want to help us understand him, religions are just that, different attempts by humans to understand God. They have nothing to do with your comic book example. A true God would not need followers. Only men mascarading as God's servants would need followers.

i think this is going over your head. Stop, step back and try to grasp this.

THE MEN ARE IRRELEVANT. i only included them to give the three gods an excuse to fight. They are not necessary. Got it? None of the three gods needs them as followers. Can you understand that? i just needed something for the gods to fight about. If the intellectual weight of the men in that example is too much for you, take them out. They don't really need to be there. Let the three gods fight over who is prettiest, or who should be the supreme god, or whatever. It doesn't matter. It's just details. It doesn't change the dynamic of the example one little bit.

Now step back, take a slow, deep breath and let that sink in.

Do you realize what you're doing? What you're doing is the equivalent of worrying about how cruel the cat is being treated in Schrödinger's thought experiment. It is absolutely irrelevant to the point of the example, and in fact completely idiotic to bother worrying about it. <whisper>it's not a real experiment, and there's no real cat... it's just a thought experiment</whisper> (<whisper>it's not a real model of a three god system, and they're not real followers... it's just a theoretical example</whisper>).

Learn these. Live them.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/example
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illustration
NemoySpruce
Indi wrote:
NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

Dude, seriously. Have you been reading anything that's been written in this entire thread?


Yes. Have you?

Well you might want to check again because you keep arguing points that have already been resolved.


Well when you get old, the first thing to go is memory retention. Next is.. I cant remember.


Indi wrote:

Now to make this absolutely clear, i will put it in point form.

True omnipotence:
- means infinite power.
- has no limits (by definition of infinite).
- allows for illogical actions (by definition of no limits).


illogical perhaps for human logic.. remember that we mortals have limited understanding of the universe. So our logic could very well be flawed. We used to think the world was flat. It was logical to assume the world was flat. But then mathematics advanced and so our logic improved.


Indi wrote:

Pseudo-omnipotence:
- does not allow for illogical actions.
- means power is limited (by being able to do only the logical and not everything).
- means power is not infinite (because it is limited).
- is a useful and necessary simplifying assumption in order to allow omnipotence to be discussed using logic.


Pseudo-omnipotence really doesnt make any sense, its like de-decaffeinated coffee, non-alcoholic beer, sugarfree sugar, phone sex....

Indi wrote:

This has all been discussed already. i have just given you the coles notes so you can catch up.


Why thank you young man. So kind of you.


Indi wrote:

Now, if you're all caught up so far, you have finally figured out what omnipotence means (infinite power), why it's problematic (the inifinite part) and how that problem can be resolved (by imposing limits on the "infinite", so it is no longer truly infinite).


This is where youve lost me. I dont claim to know what 'infinite' means, but I dont think imposing limits will resolve anything. Does that work in physics? hmmm, something wrong with that concept dont you think? We dont understand it so... lets use this number! its probably correct.. ok now fire up the particle accelerator!!!


Indi wrote:

NemoySpruce wrote:
Basically your argument is, if God cannot do something illogical then he is not omnipotent. So poor monotheist has to admit that God can defy logic, and since he turns his back on logic, he cannot use it to argue anymore. boo hoo hoo.


No, basically, that is not my argument. i really do suggest actually reading the thread.

i stated the rock paradox, which has two solutions. One solution is to point out that true omnipotence allows the illogical. Doing that means that you toss logic out the window, and thus there is no way you can logically argue anything - let alone the existence of only one god.

But the other solution - the one you seem to be pointedly ignoring, and which has already been discussed - is to use the limited definition of omnipotence and say "no, god can't create a rock that he can't lift because that's illogical". In other words, the second solution is to use Moonspider's definition of omnipotence.


Ignoring? how can you ignore something that doesnt exist? Thats not a solution. "limited definition of omnipotence" agreeing to that is same as saying there is no such thing as omnipotence. God can make a rock so big that he cant lift it. he can make it as big as the entire universe, so he cant lift it right?.... But just to show off, he can make a planet big enough to hold the rock so he can show you he can lift it. There you go. True omnipotence. Not logical? Well answer me this, if the universe began as one point, then that point is the center of the universe correct? is the earth closer to the center of the universe or the edge? use your logic on that.


Indi wrote:

So once again, here it is in point form so you can catch up.

The question "Can God create a rock he can't lift?" has two answers:
- Yes: which means you're assuming true omnipotence, which includes the ability to do the illogical.
- No: which means you're assuming pseudo-omnipotence, which does not allow the illogical. (Moonspider's view.)

Do you understand now? If not, let me state it specifically:

NemoySpruce wrote:
You see? the rock paradox doesnt really prove or disprove anything, it just muddles the issue and makes it harder to answer Conspirators question. ("How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?")

The rock paradox is not supposed to prove or disprove anything. It is supposed to pin you down to determine whether or not you define God as truly omnipotent (and thus illogical) or just pseudo-omnipotent.

If you'd stop dodging the question and whining about how unfair it is and just answer it, then you would know whether or not your definition of God is true omnipotent or pseudo-omnipotent. Which is the point of it.

And then - after you have determined whether your god is true omnipotent or pseudo-omnipotent - then and only then can you begin to discuss the possibility of other gods. The discussion is totally different for a true omnipotent god as opposed to a pseudo-omnipotent god, so before any discussion can begin, it has to be determined what kind of omnipotence you really mean. After we know what kind of omnipotent your god is, then we can discuss it. (But of course, we've already done all that, for both cases of omnipotence. If you'd read up, you would know this.)


No need to be condescending young man. There is really only one kind of omnipotence. Dont make up things like that, it makes the discussion unproductive.


Indi wrote:

NemoySpruce wrote:
Indi wrote:

Regarding whether or not an omnipotent god would want followers: If any of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikh, Hindus, etc. etc. are right, then you're wrong.

*shrug* That's about all that can be said about that.

Besides, my silly example was just that. i named one of the gods "almighty dollar" for christ's sake. -_- It was meant to be allegorical, not literal. Come on. It doesn't have to be followers or anything really tangible, it just has to be something that can be used to symbolize power - not even a real source of power or anything they really "need", just a godly status symbol or something they "want". The point was that it is very possible to have a triumvirate of gods that form a stable system where they never fight - which sinks your objection that they would inevitably fight. Which makes the whole argument about two omnipotent beings fighting moot.


No. I could think of a lot of possibilities why God would want to help us understand him, religions are just that, different attempts by humans to understand God. They have nothing to do with your comic book example. A true God would not need followers. Only men mascarading as God's servants would need followers.

i think this is going over your head. Stop, step back and try to grasp this.

THE MEN ARE IRRELEVANT. i only included them to give the three gods an excuse to fight. They are not necessary. Got it? None of the three gods needs them as followers. Can you understand that? i just needed something for the gods to fight about. If the intellectual weight of the men in that example is too much for you, take them out. They don't really need to be there. Let the three gods fight over who is prettiest, or who should be the supreme god, or whatever. It doesn't matter. It's just details. It doesn't change the dynamic of the example one little bit.

Now step back, take a slow, deep breath and let that sink in.

Do you realize what you're doing? What you're doing is the equivalent of worrying about how cruel the cat is being treated in Schro"dinger's thought experiment. It is absolutely irrelevant to the point of the example, and in fact completely idiotic to bother worrying about it. <whisper>it's not a real experiment, and there's no real cat... it's just a thought experiment</whisper> (<whisper>it's not a real model of a three god system, and they're not real followers... it's just a theoretical example</whisper>).

Learn these. Live them.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allegory
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/example
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illustration


<whisper> Why are we whispering? </whisper> I was just pointing out that your metaphor/allegory/example/illustration is inaccurate. Omnipotent beings could not argue about anything. Because they would be the prettiest, most powerful, richest, coolest... if they fought, they wouldnt be omnipotent.
mike1reynolds
Indi's argument is sort of like Xeno's Paradox, not a paradox at all really, just a stupid way of framing the subject that makes it look like the hare can never catch the tortoise. As much as Indi insists that Moonspider’s criticism falls flat, it is quite the other way around. Her criticism is damning and his argument falls completely flat in the face of her’s.

Clearly in a world with free will the Source cannot be omnipotent in the manner you are insisting, Indi, because simply by virtue of not being able to violate our free will God is limited in power. Your contrived definition of omnipotence makes no sense what-so-ever theologically. You are not using the definition of omnipotence used by any mature theological doctrine, you are just taking a definition from the dictionary and trying to construct a theological argument from that! You aren’t going to find theological doctrines, no matter how commonly subscribed to, delineated in the dictionary.

What is infinite power to a totally selfless being who’s only suffering and joy is our own? God is all of us as a single being traveling in time. Take a step back, Indi, and try to think about the issue in a more concrete fashion, rather than in the absurdly abstract and meaningless notions that you have been beating like a dead horse. What would the collective consciousness of all sentient life, as a single being with infinite power, want to do with that power? I don’t think that creating an immovable object would be on the list. Creating better forms for the incarnation of more advanced souls probably would be, however. And creating 100% certainty that in the end, everything will eventually work out, is another high priority. There is nothing that the Source would truly desire to do that would be impossible. The only impossibilities that you can come up with, Indi, are these contrived absurdities, without providing any practical motivation for why an omniscient being would want to do such an absurd thing.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds omnipotents (that omnipotence, all knowing)dose not negate free will, an omnipotent bing could choose not to use its power or not care enough to use its power.
Omnipotents means all powerful, infinitely powerful so to be limited by logic, it wouldn't have infinite power
mike1reynolds
"Have you not read the scriptures [Psalms] where it is written, 'You are all gods'!"

-Jesus


You refer to God as something other than yourself when it is explicit in all living world religions, except Islam, that God is the sum toto of the consciousness of all living beings, at a highly evolved state as a time traveler. God knows everything because God is us in the future. God remembers being each and every one of us, and thus knows everything about us.

So how would a time traveler from the future want to violate his own free will in the past? In this context for God your line of reasoning becomes clearly facile and misleading. Clearly omniscience is the primary characteristic of God, and omnipotence is a ruse that produces a lot of Ivory Tower pie in the sky nonsense. God is not separate from us, so the whole MO you are applying to God is plainly false. You presume that God would cavalierly man handle human fate just because He can, when in fact God has every motivation to, as us, learn at exactly the pace that is right for us/Him at this stage in our existence.
Indi
mike1reynolds wrote:
Indi's argument is sort of like Xeno's Paradox, not a paradox at all really, just a stupid way of framing the subject that makes it look like the hare can never catch the tortoise. As much as Indi insists that Moonspider’s criticism falls flat, it is quite the other way around. Her criticism is damning and his argument falls completely flat in the face of her’s.

Clearly in a world with free will the Source cannot be omnipotent in the manner you are insisting, Indi, because simply by virtue of not being able to violate our free will God is limited in power. Your contrived definition of omnipotence makes no sense what-so-ever theologically. You are not using the definition of omnipotence used by any mature theological doctrine, you are just taking a definition from the dictionary and trying to construct a theological argument from that! You aren’t going to find theological doctrines, no matter how commonly subscribed to, delineated in the dictionary.

What is infinite power to a totally selfless being who’s only suffering and joy is our own? God is all of us as a single being traveling in time. Take a step back, Indi, and try to think about the issue in a more concrete fashion, rather than in the absurdly abstract and meaningless notions that you have been beating like a dead horse. What would the collective consciousness of all sentient life, as a single being with infinite power, want to do with that power? I don’t think that creating an immovable object would be on the list. Creating better forms for the incarnation of more advanced souls probably would be, however. And creating 100% certainty that in the end, everything will eventually work out, is another high priority. There is nothing that the Source would truly desire to do that would be impossible. The only impossibilities that you can come up with, Indi, are these contrived absurdities, without providing any practical motivation for why an omniscient being would want to do such an absurd thing.

Both you and NemoySpruce are misrepresenting what i said.

i have said repeatedly that the true definition of omnipotence allows for illogical actions. HOWEVER, i have also pointed out that that does not work theologically. In essence, i have already stated that which you just stated above. Repeatedly.

That is why i considered both kinds of omnipotence - true ominpotence and pseudo-omnipotence - separately. The question about the rock that cannot be lifted has one purpose - to force you to determine what kind of omnipotence you ascribe to your god(s) (if any). Nothing more, nothing less. If a god can create a rock it cannot lift, then it is a truly omnipotent god. If it cannot, then it is only pseudo-omnipotent.

Once you have determined what kind of omnipotence you think a god should have, then the rest of the discussion can actually begin.
mike1reynolds
Since your definition of “true omnipotence” is not a theological doctrine, and all theological doctrines of all world religions fall into the other category, the dichotomy you have constructed here is not one of theological relevance.
Bikerman
NemoySpruce wrote:

illogical perhaps for human logic.. remember that we mortals have limited understanding of the universe. So our logic could very well be flawed. We used to think the world was flat. It was logical to assume the world was flat. But then mathematics advanced and so our logic improved.

This is a poor analogy on several levels :
1) The number of people who thought the world was flat has been greatly exaggerated. The Greeks knew the world was round(ish) about 500BC and the idea that the 'dark' ages fostered a universal conception of a flat earth is mistaken - it didn't. Thinkers of that period were well aware that in physical reality terms the world was not flat but it was all jumbled up by the difference between scriptural truth and imperfect observation and understanding of reality (a la Plato in the cave wall analogy). Thus a type of 'double-think' was the order of the era -'saving the appearance' was the phrase used to describe the phenomenon. To quote Wikki on the issue
Quote:
By the time of Pliny the Elder in the 1st century, however, the Earth's spherical shape was generally acknowledged among the learned in the western world. Around then Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (circa. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth. The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century.

2) Logic did not suggest the world was flat because logic is a formal system of reasoning which would produce the same outcome each time. I suspect you may instead be describing what we often call 'common sense' (which is often neither). The conception that the world was flat did not arise out of faulty math or a previous and inferior version of logic, it arose (with the relatively small number of proponents) often out of religious conviction/interpretation. Likewise the conviction of the sphericity of the earth did not arise from some development in math or logic because practitioners in those fields were always (since philosophy began with the Greeks, at least) aware of the arguments for it being so.

3) Logic has not changed in the way suggested since it's origins in Greek philosophy. Aristotelian logic is the same now as it was then. The field has been added to over the years, for sure, but axioms in logic which were true in ancient times would be true now.
NemoySpruce wrote:

This is where youve lost me. I dont claim to know what 'infinite' means, but I dont think imposing limits will resolve anything. Does that work in physics? hmmm, something wrong with that concept dont you think? We dont understand it so... lets use this number! its probably correct.. ok now fire up the particle accelerator!!!

In fact infinities are constantly treated thus in physics. Re-normalization is one technique used to treat apparent infinities in a way which can be handled mathematically and eliminated from equations.
NemoySpruce wrote:
Ignoring? how can you ignore something that doesnt exist? Thats not a solution.

We do it all the time. Scientists mostly ignore perpetual energy machines, spirit manifestations, alien abductions and so on.
NemoySpruce wrote:
"limited definition of omnipotence" agreeing to that is same as saying there is no such thing as omnipotence. God can make a rock so big that he cant lift it. he can make it as big as the entire universe, so he cant lift it right?.... But just to show off, he can make a planet big enough to hold the rock so he can show you he can lift it. There you go.

That logic does not hold. 'Limited definition' is not the same thing as 'defined limitation'.
NemoySpruce wrote:
True omnipotence. Not logical? Well answer me this, if the universe began as one point, then that point is the center of the universe correct? is the earth closer to the center of the universe or the edge? use your logic on that.

This is a false paradox.
Logically it fails because a point cannot be it's own centre.
Scientifically it fails because the BB does not posit that the universe began with a point. The universe is not expanding into space from a central point because the universe IS space. Therefore the BB did not begin at a 'point' because the concept relies on the existence of space to be sensible and the BB occurred in no space.
NemoySpruce wrote:
Omnipotent beings could not argue about anything. Because they would be the prettiest, most powerful, richest, coolest... if they fought, they wouldnt be omnipotent.

Illogical. By that 'logic' the concept of 'argument', being impossible, would represent a limitation in itself and therefore refute the omnipotence claim. It also fails because omnipotence does not necessarily imply omniscience and therefore the concept allows for the existence of differences of opinion.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Since your definition of “true omnipotence” is not a theological doctrine, and all theological doctrines of all world religions fall into the other category, the dichotomy you have constructed here is not one of theological relevance.

The definition and meaning of omnipotence is a deeply theological issue. Aquinas was amongst the first Christian theologians to document the issues and he himself goes on to define the concept in 'limited' terms. Some Christian 'sects' (eg 1&2)
reject the concept of omnipotence itself and they do so on scriptural grounds as well as philosophical grounds.
a) The word does not occur in scripture
b) The OT largely describes God interacting with creation through persuasive or suggestive means, rarely through force.
c) Proponents argue that the adoption of the doctrine of omnipotence is merely a result of the synthesis of Hellenic and early Christian thought

An example of a philosophical objection from Process theology would be :
Quote:
1) God exists
2) Existence is power
3) If a being exists, then it must have power
4) If all beings have some power, then they have some power to resist God
5) If beings have the power to resist God, then God does not have absolute power


Regards
Chris
Indi
mike1reynolds wrote:
Since your definition of “true omnipotence” is not a theological doctrine, and all theological doctrines of all world religions fall into the other category, the dichotomy you have constructed here is not one of theological relevance.

How many times do i need to say this?

There.

Is.

No.

Dichotomy.

There is no dichotomy. i have not constructed a dichotomy. i have just offered two different definitions for omnipotence.

One is the actual definition of the word. The other is the definition used by most theologists that talk about gods.

i offered those two definitions, and i offered a means for you to determine which definition you use.

There is no dichotomy, unless you're making one yourself. You either use the first definition or the second definition. i don't freaking care which, ok? Choose one and discard the other if you want.

And once you know which type of omnipotence you believe gods have, then we can discuss the implications of that. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF OMNIPOTENCE AND THE QUESTION ABOUT LIFTING THE ROCK IS ONLY TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF OMNIPOTENCE YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE.

There is no dichotomy. Pick one or the other. That's it. End of story.
mike1reynolds
Well, thanks for making this distinction between a real theology and a dictionary definition that is not an actual theology that anyone believes in.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Well, thanks for making this distinction between a real theology and a dictionary definition that is not an actual theology that anyone believes in.

I think you'll find that Indi, like myself, tends to quote sources and acknowledge references. I'm sure Indi would have done so for any dictionary definition. I know that this is not something that you yourself tend to do, so that might be the source of your confusion.

Regards
Chris
QrafTee
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?

Dude, I'll tell you. Because they believe their God exist, they cannot believe any other gods exist or they'll burn for eternity in Hell. I find it a little weird that religions with more than one god are less strict in allowing their followers to look into other religions while one God religions are strict as hell and only give you the option of Hell afterwards. I mean they say if you change to their side, it can be forgiven, but if you change back or if you change away from them, then in you go into the burner.

They have to believe in what they do since the alternative is painful... or sounds that way. If they didn't believe what they did, then they'd be lost. I mean seriously, being lost is freakin' scary. I'm not being sarcastic, to be lost with nothing to look for, no one to guide to, it's like looking into a black hole. I say as long as they don' try to convert you, kill you, or harm you or your family/friends in any way or form, then let them be and let them believe whatever they want.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Well, thanks for making this distinction between a real theology and a dictionary definition that is not an actual theology that anyone believes in.

I think you'll find that Indi, like myself, tends to quote sources and acknowledge references. I'm sure Indi would have done so for any dictionary definition. I know that this is not something that you yourself tend to do, so that might be the source of your confusion.

My confusion? *Chortle*

Anyway, you made our point for us and squashed Indi's meaningless tangent. Moonspider already definitively squashed it two pages ago, as several others have noted, so I doin't know why we are still talking about it.

Even if Moonspider didn't provide any references, his/her argument was sufficently convincing for everyone else that has posted here. Some people worship references the way Christians worship the Bible, when common sense is all that is required.
mike1reynolds
QrafTee wrote:
I find it a little weird that religions with more than one god are less strict in allowing their followers to look into other religions while one God religions are strict as hell and only give you the option of Hell afterwards. I mean they say if you change to their side, it can be forgiven, but if you change back or if you change away from them, then in you go into the burner.

You are slaughtering both Eastern and Western religions. Taoism is explicitly monotheistic and Hinduism is also monotheistic, all other gods are merely fragments of Brahma. It is just a translation issue, their various terms for angels, prophets, saints and messiahs all get falsely translated into one single term: “gods”.

While Judeo-Christian religions are hardly the only monotheistic religions around, you are also applying an ultra-conservative right wing fanatic interpretation to the Bible. Romans 11:28 says that good Jews go to Heaven even if they are “enemies of the gospel”. John famous says, “God is love! Anyone who knows love knows God.” So what the Bible really says is that if you had a good upbringing and you are a loving person then that is all that counts.

Its one of those duh, common sense things. This is what religions really are, as opposed to an atheists facile parody of religions. Only Islam is pathetic enough to actually fit the above parody. It really does fall to all of the above criticisms in full measure.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
My confusion? *Chortle*
.
Yes...And obviously it persists,,,,
Quote:
Anyway, you made our point for us and squashed Indi's meaningless tangent. Moonspider already definitively squashed it two pages ago, as several others have noted, so I doin't know why we are still talking about it.

I did ? Wow....and I thought that I simply stated the case that some Christians take...I neither endorsed it at the time, nor, in fact, do I do so now since it is a weak argument and can easily be defeated logically.
Quote:
Even if Moonspider didn't provide any references, his/her argument was sufficently convincing for everyone else that has posted here. Some people worship references the way Christians worship the Bible, when common sense is all that is required.

I think you must either be in Love or having a 'bad-glasses' day. Moonspider did not refute Indi's points at all. His/Her last posting on this contained the following gist :
Quote:
But the real questions is, "What does it mean to be "all powerful?" That is a philosophical debate in and of itself, yet the meaning of that question lies at the heart of the modus tollens set forth in the "rock paradox" question.
and a reference to a Wikki article on the subject, from which (s)he singles out a particular definition of Omnipotent first coined by Aquinas and restricted in scope, as the article clearly states
Quote:
to be compatible with certain limitations upon God's power, as opposed to implying infinite abilities.


Indi later points out, quite correctly, that
Quote:
Moonspider did not suddenly magically change the real definition of the word omnipotent. He simply chose to use a working definition that allows the concept to be considered logically. He didn't make the rock paradox irrelevant. He just chose option B.
All fine and good. He chose to use the limited definition of omnipotence, and we went from there. As i pointed out, the limited definition of omnipotence is not scriptural. However, that's not really relevant to the problem at hand - the question of multiple gods.


Which is exactly correct. I think you need to either read postings a bit slower/more carefully or consider a quick course in Logic.

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
You don’t even understand the implication of your own post to the debate! You two are the only confused one’s here, but I’m not going to beat a dead horse to patiently prove something to you that everyone else has long ago already figured out.

In some ways, both of your are smarter than just about everyone else here, or at least, you obviously have higher IQ’s, but in arguments like this it becomes extremely clear how emotional intelligence is far more important than IQ for understanding extremely simple and elementary philosophical issues like this. The high IQ / low EQ folks just get all tangled up in the most ridiculous logical follies.
HereticMonkey
I'm still a fan of the one omnipotent being; it just has the fewest limits. This isn't to say that the one being couldn't have multiple avatars or personalities; I just like how relatively clean-cut it is.

It should be noted that pantheons were made of beings that were high-powered, but hardly omnipotent. Even Zeus, leader of the Greek gods, had very definite limits on his powers, as there were things that he couldn't do, but other gods/goddesses could. Heck, there were gods/goddesses who could do something Zeus did, but do it better (Ares, for example, was better at fighting, Athena was better at war, and Aphrodite was better at love).

So, I guess I'm suggesting that you could either have a single omnipotent being, or a pantheon of limited gods who can take up the slack...

HM
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
You don’t even understand the implication of your own post to the debate! You two are the only confused one’s here, but I’m not going to beat a dead horse to patiently prove something to you that everyone else has long ago already figured out.

In some ways, both of your are smarter than just about everyone else here, or at least, you obviously have higher IQ’s, but in arguments like this it becomes extremely clear how emotional intelligence is far more important than IQ for understanding extremely simple and elementary philosophical issues like this. The high IQ / low EQ folks just get all tangled up in the most ridiculous logical follies.


I'm afraid you can't/won't understand basic logic and philosophy Mike.
You may think you know what you are talking about but, I'm sorry to say, it's either gibberish, non-sequeters or some other fallacy with almost each sentence.
Philosophy is a discipline which, above any other, requires a precision in the use of language that some mistake for pedantism or nit-picking. It is not, since it is impossible to discuss even basic concepts and ideas of philosophy unless the two parties know what THEY mean AND what the other party means by a specific term or phrase.
In this case, Omnipotence is a term with a clear and fairly unambiguous meaning. It means All Powerful
(lit. having unlimited power, all-powerful, almighty. Etymology omni-all from the Latin root + potens, present participle of posse, to be able; see poti-from the French root).

Now Unless you start with that understanding then it is pointless talking about whether it is possible or paradoxical or anything else. Indi has been trying hard to make you start from the correct point and you keep arrogantly assuming a lack of debating skill, knowledge or linguistic ability. From this it follows that there are 2 choices - define Omnipotence in a way which ameliorates or resolves potential paradox or accept that the concept is inherently paradoxical and live with it (this is perfectly normal and done in many other cases).
Indi has gamely pointed this out again and again and each time it whizzes over your head with no apparent effect. Try practising some Christian humility - be prepared to at least consider than Indi actually knows a lot more about philosophy in general and linguistics/semantics in specific. My observation is that Indi has probably forgotten more philosophy than you currently know and all the cut-pasting from sources that you can muster will not change the fact that at a very basic level you don't/won't/can't start and maintain a philosophically coherent and valid thread or point.

You are obviously not completely thick or Indi (and me for that matter) would not have wasted so much time on you, but the alternative is either a complete and overweening arrogance or a very naive and shallow understanding of philosophy. I can't help the first, but gladly try to address the second where I meet it.

Despite what you think/post about sense and my grasp and use of sensibility, I have studies philosophy in a little more depth than I suspect you have and certainly in more breadth.
There is no ego involved for my part - I know and acknowledge my many limitations and regard doing so as both correct and required behaviour in serious debate. You will not find me unwilling to admit ignorance or error I can assure you. What is harder to deal with is your instant attack response when someone disagrees or challenges you on a posting. The immediate reaction is abusive and aggressive. It works fine for kids in the playground but not for adults in serious debate. I have fallen out enough times myself to know that it is a counter productive behaviour trait and ultimately not only self defeating (you learn nothing) but also silly (the lack of learning is widely advertised).

If you don't recognise this as you and think I'm still spouting nonsense then fair enough, I'll happily move on to debate with other people on other threads with no rancour or ill feeling. If, however, you can refrain from immediate assumptions of superiority long enough to recognise that the apparent simple-minded or over-pedantic postings of others may actually be both accurate and meaningful (as well as being informative, hopefully) then I'll happily debate as hard and as deeply as you like.

I have no problem with passion in debate at all but I do have a problem with arrogant dismissal or disregard of others on the blanket supposition that since you don't immediately see their point and they have challenged your point then they must be wrong or they should be responded to with aggression and detraction. It is unworthy behaviour and eventually get's irritating enough to provoke either response (which I am determined to avoid) or desertion of the effort (which would be a shame because Indi has a lot of knowledge that you would find easier to access than simply skimming Wikki and other sources to find supporting snippets).

There are several people on here who are extremely well qualified, articulate, experienced and expert in various fields of study and it is an awful shame when people miss the chance to engage with them because under other circumstances they would have to pay about 30 quid an hour minimum to sit with 12 other people and get a fraction of the attention.......Even my own humble skills as a teacher cost 30 quid an hour at least to access professionally, yet I am happy and willing to spend hours for the love of it on debate IF I can see that either I am learning something, the other person is, or we are engaged in a meaningful, enjoyable or (very rarely) fairly important exercise/debate/exploration. My own knowledge and expertise (like many Lecturers/teachers) ir pretty broad but not very deep - Jack of many trades and master of very few - but I'm fairly articulate and well read, have a good grasp of philosophy, a reasonable grounding in math/logic and other non natural languages and have enough general knowledge to know what I don't know (most of the time). I don't pick points up unless I think there is something to be gained so I don't sit around waiting to jump on your (or anyone else's) postings. Normally it's the old process - thesis+antithesis = (at least limited) synthesis. Your approach seems to be
thesis +antithesis = 'how dare you think you can challenge me'!' ATTACK!
It can work well, I'll admit, if a bloke comes up to you in a pub and leads off with the immortal line "Wot you lookin at!". In that circumstance a fight is almost certain so smack him as hard as you can in a vital spot is often a good strategic move. In debate though it is not needed, not pleasant and not informative. That's why I make such efforts to avoid it myself - I used to mix it with the best and some of my flames are still probably burning up some quiet servers on the internet to this day. It didn't take too long to realise that I was spending hours massaging my own ego and generating and relieving aggression for absolutely no mental physical or financial gain. Rather like the guy who spends months writing a virus that nobody will ever know was his - it gives a temporary sense of satisfaction sometimes but it always leads to problems later and almost never earns you currency, respect or knwledge.

Anyway....now I'm sounding more like a Priest than the flippin' clergy I spend so much time challenging. I will shut up and leave you alone. It's really your choice pal.
I'm a teacher by nature and training so I always hope people want to learn. I'm also old and wise enough to know that is not always the case Smile

Either way
Best wishes
Chris
mike1reynolds
Blow hard, blow *real* hard!
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Blow hard, blow *real* hard!


No problem...I'll leave you to it.

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
I don't have anything like that kind of lung capacity!
Indi
(This took some time to get to because i was preoccupied with repeating myself eariler. Sorry. >.<)

Bikerman wrote:
The definition and meaning of omnipotence is a deeply theological issue. Aquinas was amongst the first Christian theologians to document the issues and he himself goes on to define the concept in 'limited' terms. Some Christian 'sects' (eg 1&2) reject the concept of omnipotence itself and they do so on scriptural grounds as well as philosophical grounds.
a) The word does not occur in scripture

Aaaaahhhh >.< Well, it's not quite so simple.

Yes, technically, the precise Greek word for omnipotent is not used. However, God is very frequently named simply as "the Almighty" or "All-powerful" - or he is described as almighty in either directly or by implication (for example, with "παντοκράτωρ" in the new testament and "שדי" in the old). Almighty means, essentially, omnipotent.

Although it's technically true that the word omnipotent is never used, the bible does not leave much doubt that that was the intention. The idea that that caused problems and contradictions with other attributes assigned to God probably didn't even come up until centuries after the fact. In fact, it probably didn't occur to millenia of Jews how problematic it was to have God so powerful yet unable to defeat Satan (the problem of evil). The limited form of omnipotence currently ascribed to God by theologers is probably post-hoc rationalization.

Bikerman wrote:
b) The OT largely describes God interacting with creation through persuasive or suggestive means, rarely through force.
c) Proponents argue that the adoption of the doctrine of omnipotence is merely a result of the synthesis of Hellenic and early Christian thought

An example of a philosophical objection from Process theology would be :
Quote:
1) God exists
2) Existence is power
3) If a being exists, then it must have power
4) If all beings have some power, then they have some power to resist God
5) If beings have the power to resist God, then God does not have absolute power

All true - i'd actually never heard of the idea that it was the Grecian influence on Judaistic thought that introduced the idea of pure omnipotence. Makes a lot of sense, though.

i personally don't really believe that the ancient Jewish prophets (aka, the composers of the Tanakh etc) really bothered to contemplate their own religious philosophies in that much depth. In fact, i suspect that Judaism was never really subjected to any deeper thought before the Greek and Roman philosophers looked into it. Before that point, i suspect that any one of the prophets - indeed any Jewish religious leader - would have insisted unconditionally that God is truly and completely omnipotent, and damn all objections.

Indeed, Hellenistic philosophy's contribution may not have been to introduce the concept of total omnipotence, but rather to define it clearly and properly. After which, of course, it could be explored and found to be lacking. Put it another way, i suspect that the original philosophy was one of complete and total power - omnipotence - and what the Greeks did was solidify and quantify the idea... and once it was clarified, it could be examined.
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
(This took some time to get to because i was preoccupied with repeating myself eariler. Sorry. >.<)
NP. Smile
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
The definition and meaning of omnipotence is a deeply theological issue. Aquinas was amongst the first Christian theologians to document the issues and he himself goes on to define the concept in 'limited' terms. Some Christian 'sects' (eg 1&2) reject the concept of omnipotence itself and they do so on scriptural grounds as well as philosophical grounds.
a) The word does not occur in scripture

Aaaaahhhh >.< Well, it's not quite so simple.
Yes, technically, the precise Greek word for omnipotent is not used. However, God is very frequently named simply as "the Almighty" or "All-powerful" - or he is described as almighty in either directly or by implication (for example, with "παντοκράτωρ" in the new testament and "שדי" in the old). Almighty means, essentially, omnipotent.

I quite agree - I was, of course, trying to present the most positive view of the other viewpoint, whilst personally disagreeing with the interpretation and certainly with the logic.
I think your comment shows I was fairly successful in that endeavour Smile

Quote:
Although it's technically true that the word omnipotent is never used, the bible does not leave much doubt that that was the intention. The idea that that caused problems and contradictions with other attributes assigned to God probably didn't even come up until centuries after the fact. In fact, it probably didn't occur to millenia of Jews how problematic it was to have God so powerful yet unable to defeat Satan (the problem of evil). The limited form of omnipotence currently ascribed to God by theologers is probably post-hoc rationalization.


Again I tend to agree. I think Aquinas was the first to seriously address the issue as late as the 13th Century. Certainly he seems to be the first to attempt to marshal any sort of logical counter to the obvious paradox raised - even though he does so by redefining the question itself (in typical Jesuit style as I know)
.....<snip>....
Indi wrote:
i personally don't really believe that the ancient Jewish prophets (aka, the composers of the Tanakh etc) really bothered to contemplate their own religious philosophies in that much depth. In fact, i suspect that Judaism was never really subjected to any deeper thought before the Greek and Roman philosophers looked into it. Before that point, i suspect that any one of the prophets - indeed any Jewish religious leader - would have insisted unconditionally that God is truly and completely omnipotent, and damn all objections.

Once more we are in accord. One interesting observation I would make is that in my experience the Hebrew tradition is amazingly sanguine on many points of doctrinal observance and the opprobrium that failure in such matters that is handed out. (as compared to many Christians, for example). When I first looked seriously at Judaism I found this strange and most unexpected. Jewish tradition is not nearly so critical and judgemental at the peer/congregant basis, and seems to accept that 'you do what you can within the framework given' even though their God is certainly a much more demanding character.
Aside from some of the ultra orthodox sects, the Jews seem much more 'relaxed' about scripture in general and although doctrinally their interpretations are often even more literal and demanding than fundamental Christian sects, this does not seem to permeate through to individual worship/attitudes in the same way. It has always puzzled me and is an interesting phenomenon I think...

Best regards
Chris
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Again I tend to agree. I think Aquinas was the first to seriously address the issue as late as the 13th Century. Certainly he seems to be the first to attempt to marshal any sort of logical counter to the obvious paradox raised - even though he does so by redefining the question itself (in typical Jesuit style as I know)

(heh)

That's probably true. i can't think of any earlier writings on omnipotence wrt Christianity or Judaism. That would mean that the original statement is probably right - that original Jewish thought had God as omnipotent without really clarifying what that meant or considering the implications, then Hellenistic thought formalized the concept of God's omnipotence as true omnipotence, and then, centuries later, people started realizing the problems with that, starting with Aquinas.

i suppose it just strikes me as odd that people would go thousands of years without considering the implications of their theologies. But then again, that's probably the way it was back then.

Bikerman wrote:
Once more we are in accord. One interesting observation I would make is that in my experience the Hebrew tradition is amazingly sanguine on many points of doctrinal observance and the opprobrium that failure in such matters that is handed out. (as compared to many Christians, for example). When I first looked seriously at Judaism I found this strange and most unexpected. Jewish tradition is not nearly so critical and judgemental at the peer/congregant basis, and seems to accept that 'you do what you can within the framework given' even though their God is certainly a much more demanding character.
Aside from some of the ultra orthodox sects, the Jews seem much more 'relaxed' about scripture in general and although doctrinally their interpretations are often even more literal and demanding than fundamental Christian sects, this does not seem to permeate through to individual worship/attitudes in the same way. It has always puzzled me and is an interesting phenomenon I think...

Yes! Me too! i've always found that particularly strange given several additional facts:
1.) The Jewish component of the religion is far more harsh, brutal and demanding than the later Christian additions.
2.) The Jewish people have been the target of persecution for millenia whereas Christianity has been dominant and secure in power.

The first would suggest a more hard-line religion right from the get-go. The second would imply a close knit and rigid community that tolerated little or no dissent - hunted societies are almost never the most liberal.

And yet, as you say, Judaism seems far more accepting of criticism, and tolerant of other worldviews. By and large Jews embraced evolution, and even today most conservative Jews accept the scientifc conceptions of creation, abiogenesis and macroevolution - they simply say God made all of those things happen the way they did. Aside from some of the more fundamentalist groups of orthodox Jews, that's the near universal concensus - that science and Judaism can coexist. By contrast most Christian sects actively oppose research on those lines, and seek to warp science to fit their beliefs rather than adapting their beliefs to agree with science.

Now on the one hand you can argue that because they do not hold power, they don't feel the need to assert it or maintain it - and historically being the underdog makes one more tolerant and adaptive than always having been the big dog. But on the other hand, the religion is so much stricter than the later additions.

My admittedly offhand hypothesis has always been that it is because the literal interpretation of the religion is so strict and vicious that the practice has become more sanguine. Early on Jews realized that stoning non-virgins was savage and barbaric, but because they had no scriptural escape valve, their only recourse to was to loosen up their interpretation of scripture. By contrast, Christianity always had that "new" testament concept that allowed them to selectively apply and ignore parts of the old testament, according to their moral whims. In other words, they never had to admit that scripture is not the be-all and end-all of everything.

That means that Jews in general are well versed in interpreting the bible metaphorically, whereas some of the largest Christian demoninations still preach literal inerrancy. And that's why Jews in general tend to be more laid back religiously than Christians (that and the earlier points about being the underdog, of course).

That's just my seat of the pants perspective, though. i can't say i've ever read anything that supports it or even mentions it.
QrafTee
mike1reynolds wrote:
QrafTee wrote:
I find it a little weird that religions with more than one god are less strict in allowing their followers to look into other religions while one God religions are strict as hell and only give you the option of Hell afterwards. I mean they say if you change to their side, it can be forgiven, but if you change back or if you change away from them, then in you go into the burner.

You are slaughtering both Eastern and Western religions. Taoism is explicitly monotheistic and Hinduism is also monotheistic, all other gods are merely fragments of Brahma. It is just a translation issue, their various terms for angels, prophets, saints and messiahs all get falsely translated into one single term: “gods”.

While Judeo-Christian religions are hardly the only monotheistic religions around, you are also applying an ultra-conservative right wing fanatic interpretation to the Bible. Romans 11:28 says that good Jews go to Heaven even if they are “enemies of the gospel”. John famous says, “God is love! Anyone who knows love knows God.” So what the Bible really says is that if you had a good upbringing and you are a loving person then that is all that counts.

Its one of those duh, common sense things. This is what religions really are, as opposed to an atheists facile parody of religions. Only Islam is pathetic enough to actually fit the above parody. It really does fall to all of the above criticisms in full measure.

Well see, I believe in equal opportunity. Why just "slaughter" one side of a religion when you can put doubt in both? Seriously, I don't have a problem with the good teaching religion brings in people, but to teach people that others that don't share their religion are going to Hell? No wonder why those girls in HS were to bent up on "praying" for me.
jabapyth
does anyone see a need for more than one god? i'm not excluding all other gods, i'm saying that they are one and the same.
NemoySpruce
Bikerman wrote:
NemoySpruce wrote:

illogical perhaps for human logic.. remember that we mortals have limited understanding of the universe. So our logic could very well be flawed. We used to think the world was flat. It was logical to assume the world was flat. But then mathematics advanced and so our logic improved.

This is a poor analogy on several levels :
1) The number of people who thought the world was flat has been greatly exaggerated....
2) Logic did not suggest the world was flat because logic is a formal system of reasoning which would produce the same outcome each time....
3) Logic has not changed in the way suggested since it's origins in Greek philosophy. Aristotelian logic is the same now as it was then. The field has been added to over the years, for sure, but axioms in logic which were true in ancient times would be true now.


Very interesting. I have to admit, I was wrong in several levels, except the level that I wanted to express. The accuracy of the human system of reasoning is totally dependent on his understanding of his surroundings (i cant quote anybody famous with that because I just made it up (because Im too lazy to read all those godam books)...based on my system of reasoning, so accuracy is questionable). Its easy to explain why the world is round today because we have numbers, tools and words to express it. As our technology improves, so does the accuracy of our logic, or system of reasoning. Given that, wouldnt it be stupid arrogance to claim to know what infinity is? Technology has given us an idea of how big the universe is, and it's possible our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes. Isnt it possible we only have a very small percentage of the entire knowledge in the universe? Now we come to this word that we made up, 2 words actually that we squished into one. We call it omni-potence, allmighty, can do anything. It doesnt mean God. it means can do anything. We have thought of this concept but figured out that it does not conform to our logic. Nothing can be omnipotent because then nobody would have freewill, which is impossible because I can do what ever I want, I can think however I want, I control my actions. Therefore, there is no omnipotent being. OR your logic could be flawed.

I know you educated atheist types hate it when stupid monotheist types like me use concepts you feel you own, like technology, logic etc.. I know you feel I have no right to use scientific discoveries to make my life better, well son lets just call it a fair trade. You provide me with all that luxury, and I will sheild you from the truth. Why? because you can't handle the truth. Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Bikerman? You Indi?? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Happy Holidays
-NemoySpruce
Bikerman
NemoySpruce wrote:

Very interesting. I have to admit, I was wrong in several levels, except the level that I wanted to express. The accuracy of the human system of reasoning is totally dependent on his understanding of his surroundings (i cant quote anybody famous with that because I just made it up (because Im too lazy to read all those godam books)...based on my system of reasoning, so accuracy is questionable).

I agree to an extent - certainly perception is filtered and not 'reality'. Science doesn't rely on perception though - that is the point. Logic is important (and logic is not changing that much since it is, in essence, a set of formal rules, unlike knowledge which is (?) open-ended. Repeatability is also a cornerstone and unless eveyone shares the same flawed perceptions this will normally lessen error due to misconception or misinterpretation/misperception.
Quote:

Its easy to explain why the world is round today because we have numbers, tools and words to express it.

Who has ? Ask 20 people for the circumference and see what you get back.
The point I make in response is the same - the Greeks calculated the circumference of the Earth in around 250BC to be 25,000 miles.. Sure we have more accuracy now...we know know that it should be 24,855 miles - not a huge leap though....
Quote:

As our technology improves, so does the accuracy of our logic, or system of reasoning.
Are you sure about that ? The accumulation of knowledge has certainly increased but the rest...hmm...
Quote:
Given that, wouldnt it be stupid arrogance to claim to know what infinity is?

Not really. The concept is very simple, just the application/acceptance is the hard bit.
[quote]Technology has given us an idea of how big the universe is, and it's possible our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes. Isnt it possible we only have a very small percentage of the entire knowledge in the universe?[/quote Sure...I would never claim otherwise.
Quote:
Now we come to this word that we made up, 2 words actually that we squished into one.
That's how language works - find a word for a concept and, if desirable, use a combination of old words for a new concept, otherwise use a new one. How else should we proceded ?
Quote:
It doesnt mean God. it means can do anything. We have thought of this concept but figured out that it does not conform to our logic. Nothing can be omnipotent because then nobody would have freewill, which is impossible because I can do what ever I want, I can think however I want, I control my actions. Therefore, there is no omnipotent being. OR your logic could be flawed.

It means omni (all) potent) powerful. The meaning came before the application. Logic is a closed and defined system of tautologies - each follows explicitly. It cannot, in that sense, be flawed in itself, just wrongly applied.
Quote:

I know you educated atheist types hate it when stupid monotheist types like me use concepts you feel you own, like technology, logic etc.. I know you feel I have no right to use scientific discoveries to make my life better, well son lets just call it a fair trade. You provide me with all that luxury, and I will sheild you from the truth.
This is either paranoid fantasy or you have been speaking to some very strange 'educated people'.
Quote:
Why? because you can't handle the truth. Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Bikerman? You Indi?? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

err. I don't want you anywhere near me thanks. As for Santiago -I never mentioned the issue. The rest is frankly not worth responding to.

Chris
The Conspirator
jabapyth wrote:
does anyone see a need for more than one god? i'm not excluding all other gods, i'm saying that they are one and the same.

There isn't a need for a single god, or anything at all.
stone1343
(I'm not pretending I'm the first to ask this question, but I've always wanted to hear the answer from various religious points of view)

So if I'm a christian and am going to heaven, are all the muslims, jews, hindus etc going to hell?

And is it fair that a christian like Hitler can go to heaven just be believing in Jesus?

I believe in the god gene thing, though I'm not really that informed on the subject. Basically, there's something hard-wired in people that they believe in a greater power than us.

Which is all fine, except when it leads to people rejecting science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
SonLight
stone1343 wrote:
(I'm not pretending I'm the first to ask this question, but I've always wanted to hear the answer from various religious points of view)


I am a Christian. To me, that means that I know that Jesus Christ sacrificed His life so that every sin, every flaw in my character that separated me from God can be forgiven and overcome. He is the only person in history who has been restored to life as proof of His triumph. My only hope is my trust in the power of His sacrifice.

I do not claim to be Christian because of the church I attend, my behavior, or the fact that I mentally acknowledge Jesus. Instead, I seek to fellowship with others who understand Jesus in the same way and to conform my behavior to Jesus' standards out of love and respect for Him. At times I fall far short in both understanding and behavior.

Christianity is a condition of the heart (our innermost being), and only God is qualified to say for sure who is a Christian.

stone1343 wrote:
So if I'm a christian and am going to heaven, are all the muslims, jews, hindus etc going to hell?

And is it fair that a christian like Hitler can go to heaven just be believing in Jesus?


I sincerely believe that all will stand before Jesus one day to be judged. He will know the condition of their heart. Those who reject Him, whether they give lip service to Him or not, will be lost. For those who know nothing of Jesus, or who were badly misled concerning Him, I think He may have compassion, but if so, I believe He will give them an opportunity to accept or reject. Their choice will seal their fate and declare the condition of their heart.

I find it nearly impossible that Hitler's heart would have been inclined to God. I believe he was not a true Christian. Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge that there might be some possibility that even He could have accepted God in his final hour, and had all his sins washed away by the blood of Jesus. I'm glad Jesus is God and I'm not.

stone1343 wrote:
I believe in the god gene thing, though I'm not really that informed on the subject. Basically, there's something hard-wired in people that they believe in a greater power than us.

Which is all fine, except when it leads to people rejecting science because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.


There is something hard-wired that wants to believe. Why that is so will never be clear to science. Christians should not reject science out of hand, but we must compare what appears with what God says.
the1991
belief in an all-powerful being logically excludes the possibility of another all-powerful being...if that's what you define as a god.
mike1reynolds
Note from God to Goddess: see the above message? Don't you forget it!!!







Very Happy Very Happy
The Conspirator
the1991 wrote:
belief in an all-powerful being logically excludes the possibility of another all-powerful being...if that's what you define as a god.

That argument has already been defeated.
Indi
The Conspirator wrote:
the1991 wrote:
belief in an all-powerful being logically excludes the possibility of another all-powerful being...if that's what you define as a god.

That argument has already been defeated.

Yes. Repeatedly. -_-;
mike1reynolds
.



The Goddess may not be all powerful, but I wouldn't mess with Her just the same!
NemoySpruce
Indi wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
the1991 wrote:
belief in an all-powerful being logically excludes the possibility of another all-powerful being...if that's what you define as a god.

That argument has already been defeated.

Yes. Repeatedly. -_-;


Nope. I disagree. argument not defeated. not even close. If there is an omnipotent being, then there is only one. If ever there are 2 or more of them, they act as one. Its so simple. Dont know why you guys dont get it.

And technically omnipotent does not mean omniscient, but if you are omnipotent, why would you choose not to know everything? and if you dont know everything, how can you be able to do everything. by definition its different, but in reality its the same.

Pseudo-omnipotent is not the same as omnipotent. The rock paradox is senseless, it shows how limited our understanding of the universe is. Science has gotten far, but it has a loooong way to go.
The Conspirator
If something is omnipotent (as in omnipotents, can do anything no matter what it is no matter if it is logical or not) than it can not exists, it is illogical as demonstrated by the omnipotents paradox (and despite what some have said, you there could be more than one with and it wouldn't limit its power), if something is pseudo-omnipotents (as in not) it is merely infinitely powerful and possible not bound by the laws of physics, there is no reason why you couldn't have more than one of then.
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:
If something is omnipotent (as in omnipotents, can do anything no matter what it is no matter if it is logical or not) than it can not exists


So if our words fail to describe something correctly... it cannot possibly exist?

The Conspirator wrote:

it is illogical as demonstrated by the omnipotents paradox (and despite what some have said, you there could be more than one with and it wouldn't limit its power), if something is pseudo-omnipotents (as in not) it is merely infinitely powerful and possible not bound by the laws of physics, there is no reason why you couldn't have more than one of then.



yes, no reason why there wouldnt be more than one of them, but to us, they would act as one entity. We would perceive them as only one. please read the thread carefully before posting, this has been mentioned before. That argument has already been defeated.
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If something is omnipotent (as in omnipotents, can do anything no matter what it is no matter if it is logical or not) than it can not exists


So if our words fail to describe something correctly... it cannot possibly exist?

No, its not that we can't describe it, its that it can not exist. Its like a square circle, 1+1=5 or this .
It simply can not exist.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:

it is illogical as demonstrated by the omnipotents paradox (and despite what some have said, you there could be more than one with and it wouldn't limit its power), if something is pseudo-omnipotents (as in not) it is merely infinitely powerful and possible not bound by the laws of physics, there is no reason why you couldn't have more than one of then.

And why would they do that? There is no reason they would act as one unless they wonted to.


yes, no reason why there wouldnt be more than one of them, but to us, they would act as one entity. We would perceive them as only one. please read the thread carefully before posting, this has been mentioned before. That argument has already been defeated.
[/img]
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If something is omnipotent (as in omnipotents, can do anything no matter what it is no matter if it is logical or not) than it can not exists


So if our words fail to describe something correctly... it cannot possibly exist?


No, its not that we can't describe it, its that it can not exist. Its like a square circle, 1+1=5 or this .
It simply can not exist.



and yet it does

what you are demonstrating are limitations of our knowledge of the universe, and the inadequacies of the symbols we use to describe it.
The Conspirator
Thats an optical illusion, it dose not actually exist like that.

There are things that can not exist or happen. You can't have a square circle or an imposable object, you can't make 1+1=5. It is imposable. Just as you can not have a truly omnipotent bing. You can not have a bing that can create a rock too heavy it him to lift and it be able to lift it. Your answer is pseudo omnipotents which dose not exclude the possibility of another pseudo omnipotent bing (nether dose a true omnipotents mean there can be only one cause it can do anything including create another universe to do things in thus not steeping on the toes of any other omnipotent bing)
JJGY
The Conspirator wrote:
Thats an optical illusion, it dose not actually exist like that.

There are things that can not exist or happen. You can't have a square circle or an imposable object, you can't make 1+1=5. It is imposable. Just as you can not have a truly omnipotent bing. You can not have a bing that can create a rock too heavy it him to lift and it be able to lift it. Your answer is pseudo omnipotents which dose not exclude the possibility of another pseudo omnipotent bing (nether dose a true omnipotents mean there can be only one cause it can do anything including create another universe to do things in thus not steeping on the toes of any other omnipotent bing)

This right here, is exactly what separates monotheistic faiths from all other philosophy. There is no logic, no reason and no way of fully comprehending "God" Faith, blind faith without knowledge or understanding, is what these religions require. What then is a religion? Why do so many people believe in what is impossible to understand? Is it simply human instinct, revoking the possibility that we are the most powerful beings?
To make a very simple comparison... Some time ago, I was sailing in a very small (8') boat when the weather turned bad. The lake sprouted waves capable of capsizing the boat, and the wind made it nearly impossible to get anywhere. I was only about nine years old at the time, and my partner, although older than myself, broke down and began crying. In retrospect, the people running the sailing camp were there for us. I was in no real danger and it's actually an experience that's had a very positive impact on my life. But I remember the feeling. It was just me. That was it. Due to my poor logic, I had decided that I was fully responsible for keeping myself (and my blubbering friend) safe and back to the dock.
Extrapolate this out to life. Are we solely responsible for not only ourselves, but all other living beings as well? The mind will say no, out of sheer instinct if nothing else. The sophistication of a religion however, is something more than this. It's not only the grasp at something more powerful, but the knowledge that any truly omnipotent being will be something beyond our understanding.
jrschool
Very Happy my city have a lot of gods and ghost type, if u want to know more
please msn to me urg..
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:
Thats an optical illusion, it dose not actually exist like that.

There are things that can not exist or happen. You can't have a square circle or an imposable object, you can't make 1+1=5. It is imposable.


You do know that shapes and numbers are abstract entities yes? they do not really exist. We only use them to make sense of our surroundings. A straight line does not exist anywhere in nature, even light travels through curved space. There is no such thing as a circle. And there is no such thing as a square. 1+1 could equal 5 if we all agreed that 5 is equal to 1 + 1. it would be stupid, but 1 + 1 would equal 5.
The Conspirator
You know exactly what I mean. I'm not talking about changing definitions, I mean a circle that is also a square, 1+1 actually equaling 5, this .
Theses things can't exist. Omnipotents is one of those.
Indi
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Thats an optical illusion, it dose not actually exist like that.

There are things that can not exist or happen. You can't have a square circle or an imposable object, you can't make 1+1=5. It is imposable.


You do know that shapes and numbers are abstract entities yes? they do not really exist. We only use them to make sense of our surroundings. A straight line does not exist anywhere in nature, even light travels through curved space. There is no such thing as a circle. And there is no such thing as a square. 1+1 could equal 5 if we all agreed that 5 is equal to 1 + 1. it would be stupid, but 1 + 1 would equal 5.

1 + 1 does not equal 5 because we say it does. if i had one ball on a table, then i put another ball on the table without any other balls being added or removed, there would now be two balls on the table. No matter how many people say that there would be five, there would be only two. You can't redefine reality. Numbers and mathematical operations may be abstract entities, but they represent real world conditions and phenomena.

But if you want to persist in arguing nonsense about "abstract" entities having no relevance, i have to ask you how abstract life and death is? Do you think it's possible to be both alive and dead at the same time? Show me.

Do you think existence is an abstract concept? Would you like to demonstrate by existing and not existing simultaneously?

Omnipotence is just as real or abstract as existence. And it is just as easy to violate logically by proposing an entity that is both omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time.

So i offer you two choices. Give me a god that is omnipotent, or give me a god that is not omnipotent, because it would be nonsense for me to ask you for a god that is both.

If you choose to give me a god that is omnipotent, fine. That means that god can do everything. That is what omnipotent is. You can attempt to redefine it to mean something else until the sun explodes, but, just like attempting to redefine two to be five, your efforts are futile and nonsensical. Therefore, an omnipotent god means an omnipotent god, and that means a god that can do everything. Period. If that is the god you wish to discuss, read the blue below.

If, on the other hand, you choose to define a god that is incapable of even one thing - anything, whatever it is, even if it is illogical - then you have a god that is not capable of doing everything, and thus is not omnipotent. Omnipotent means capable of doing everything, so if the being is not capable of doing everything, it is not an omnipotent being. Period. This is the view of "omnipotence" that Aquinas, and by extension most Christians, apply to God. But it is not true omnipotence, it is merely partial omnipotence. An omnipotent being is defined as "a being that can do anything". If your definition is "a being that can do anything <disclaimer here>" - whatever the disclaimer is, be it "that is logically possible", "that does not violate the other definitions of God (Aquinas)", or whatever - then it is not an omnipotent god. That's all there is to it. And if that is the god you wish to discuss, read the red below.

If you choose not to accept either form of omnipotence... then i've made a new green argument just for you.

Can there be more than one god? (assuming omnipotence)
  1. An omnipotent god can do anything, without any limit (by definition of omnipotence)
  2. "Anything" must include the illogical, or it is not without limit
  3. Therefore, an omnipotent god can even do the illogical
  4. Therefore, an omnipotent god is an illogical concept
  5. If you allow the existence of one illogical concept, you cannot logically argue against allowing the existence of two or more
  6. Therefore, multiple gods are possible

Can there be more than one god? (assuming limits on power - for example, that it cannot do the illogical)
  1. A god that cannot do everything, including the illogical, has limits on its power
  2. Something must enforce those limits (that something does not need to be sentient)
  3. There is no reason that thing cannot enforce limits that allow for the existence of multiple gods
  4. Therefore, multiple gods are possible

Can there be more than one god? (no assumptions of the limit of its power)
  1. A god is greater than a human
  2. Greater implies that a god can do everything that a human can do, and then more
  3. Humans can create other humans (offspring)
  4. Therefore, a god must be able to as well
  5. Therefore, multiple gods are possible
kochelp
Assumption 1:
God exists outside of any dimension, but then creates "dimension A" (our world).

Assumption 2:
God is fully omnipotent in the strongest sense of the word.

We (those who live in dimension B) know a priori that there can be no square circle or round square. But consider whether you can know a priori whether or not the principle of non-contradiction would apply to a God (if a God created dimension A, which we are assuming for the sake of this mental exercise).

I would argue that if there is a creator, he/she is not bound by the laws that obtain within his/her creation no more than a video game designer is bound by the rules he/she creates for the characters within the game.

I say all this to say the following:

Many theists believe that God is PRIOR to any laws we can conceive of (including laws of logic).
Bikerman
kochelp wrote:
Assumption 1:
God exists outside of any dimension, but then creates "dimension A" (our world).

So God starts as a dimensionless being? Is that not just another way of saying that he didn't exist. Even the wackiest super string and membrane theories acknowledge that dimensions are necessary for existence and although they may postulate more than our normally experienced 4, I think that they would all treat a zero-dimensional state as a non existent entity. Black holes are thought of as having only a point existence (ie no spatial dimensions) at the singularity but that is seen by most as an indication that the model -General Relativity- does not work in this situation. Even so the BH exists in the temporal dimension.
I cannot conceive of how something could exit without space and time in which to do so....
Quote:

Assumption 2:
God is fully omnipotent in the strongest sense of the word.

So completely without limit in terms of power. Hmm...then you run headlong into the paradoxes of omnipotence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Quote:
We (those who live in dimension B) know a priori that there can be no square circle or round square. But consider whether you can know a priori whether or not the principle of non-contradiction would apply to a God (if a God created dimension A, which we are assuming for the sake of this mental exercise).

No...that was not your posit. You posited an 'extra' dimensional god - ie one existing outside dimensions completely - who then created dimension A (by which I'm assuming you mean 4-D spacetime).
If God created spacetime and therefore our universe then such a God must exist outside spacetime and therefore would only ever be manifest in the laws of physics. In that case Occam's razor would indicate that he should be discarded since a God is then an extra entity in a model that works without the God in exactly the same way.
Quote:
I would argue that if there is a creator, he/she is not bound by the laws that obtain within his/her creation no more than a video game designer is bound by the rules he/she creates for the characters within the game.

The video game designer is bound by external constraints, nontheless. He cannot build a video game which contravenes the fundamental laws of physics. Also once the rules of the game are created it is obvious that any change in the rules must be due to something outside the system. The laws of physics seem to be consistent and therefore it is not necessary to posit something outside the system - this takes us back to Occam's razor.
Quote:

I say all this to say the following:
Many theists believe that God is PRIOR to any laws we can conceive of (including laws of logic).

In that case there would be no point in worshipping such a God because anything that is outside logic is something we can make no meaningful comment about.

Regards
Chris
Eyvind
I don't know if it's funny or sad. The first time I ever heard the rock paradox it was courtesy of the FOX network. Homer Simpson's version goes something like:

Quote:
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he himself could not eat it?


A real noodle-scratcher for me at the time.

While I find the concept of omnipotence/pseudo-omnipotence intriguing and have been really enjoying the discussion thus far, for me personally, I see it as a non-issue. I pretty much agree with Indi's green argument above. "As above, so below," as the adage goes.

jabapyth wrote:
does anyone see a need for more than one god? i'm not excluding all other gods, i'm saying that they are one and the same.


I don't think it's about "needing" more than one god. I think it's about looking at deity in a way that reflects the world around us. I see a plurality in life all around me. There is male and female, old and young, different colours and shapes. Personally, it seems more likely to me that deity mirrors this plurality (or this plurality mirrors deity, if you prefer). But that's really more of a cosmic hunch than anything based on logic so it probably doesn't have much of a place in this thread.

Take care,
Eyvind
Indi
kochelp wrote:
Assumption 1:
God exists outside of any dimension, but then creates "dimension A" (our world).

Assumption 2:
God is fully omnipotent in the strongest sense of the word.

We (those who live in dimension B) know a priori that there can be no square circle or round square. But consider whether you can know a priori whether or not the principle of non-contradiction would apply to a God (if a God created dimension A, which we are assuming for the sake of this mental exercise).

I would argue that if there is a creator, he/she is not bound by the laws that obtain within his/her creation no more than a video game designer is bound by the rules he/she creates for the characters within the game.

I say all this to say the following:

Many theists believe that God is PRIOR to any laws we can conceive of (including laws of logic).

Then see the blue argument above.

Eyvind wrote:
I don't know if it's funny or sad. The first time I ever heard the rock paradox it was courtesy of the FOX network. Homer Simpson's version goes something like:

Quote:
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he himself could not eat it?


A real noodle-scratcher for me at the time.

While I find the concept of omnipotence/pseudo-omnipotence intriguing and have been really enjoying the discussion thus far, for me personally, I see it as a non-issue. I pretty much agree with Indi's green argument above. "As above, so below," as the adage goes.

For fun, here's another formulation for the folks who argue against true omnipotence because it's illogical.
  1. If A is greater than B, then A should be able to do anything B can do and then more.
  2. A dung beetle can make a ball (of crap) that it can't lift.
  3. God, apparently, cannot, because it would create a logical contradiction.
  4. Therefore a dung beetle is greater than God.

Theists who casually dismiss the "can God create a rock he can't lift" problem are being really disingenious. There really is no solution. Either God is illogical (as kochelp concluded above), or a dung beetle is greater than God.
Eyvind
Indi wrote:
Theists who casually dismiss the "can God create a rock he can't lift" problem are being really disingenious.


I'm not sure if this was directed specifically at me or not but I'd like to make one thing clear. I am in no way "casually dismissing" the problem. When I say it's a non issue, I mean it in the context of my own polytheistic religion. The gods I honour are certainly "potent" but in no way are they "omnipotent"; so the logic, or lack thereof, of omnipotence is irrelevant to my theology.

In the context of monotheism, where the belief/assumption of an omnipotent god is often held, the problem, indeed, does have relevance.

Take care,
Eyvind
Tumbleweed
Indi wrote:
kochelp wrote:
Assumption 1:
God exists outside of any dimension, but then creates "dimension A" (our world).

Assumption 2:
God is fully omnipotent in the strongest sense of the word.

We (those who live in dimension B) know a priori that there can be no square circle or round square. But consider whether you can know a priori whether or not the principle of non-contradiction would apply to a God (if a God created dimension A, which we are assuming for the sake of this mental exercise).

I would argue that if there is a creator, he/she is not bound by the laws that obtain within his/her creation no more than a video game designer is bound by the rules he/she creates for the characters within the game.

I say all this to say the following:

Many theists believe that God is PRIOR to any laws we can conceive of (including laws of logic).

Then see the blue argument above.

Eyvind wrote:
I don't know if it's funny or sad. The first time I ever heard the rock paradox it was courtesy of the FOX network. Homer Simpson's version goes something like:

Quote:
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he himself could not eat it?


A real noodle-scratcher for me at the time.

While I find the concept of omnipotence/pseudo-omnipotence intriguing and have been really enjoying the discussion thus far, for me personally, I see it as a non-issue. I pretty much agree with Indi's green argument above. "As above, so below," as the adage goes.

For fun, here's another formulation for the folks who argue against true omnipotence because it's illogical.
  1. If A is greater than B, then A should be able to do anything B can do and then more.
  2. A dung beetle can make a ball (of crap) that it can't lift.
  3. God, apparently, cannot, because it would create a logical contradiction.
  4. Therefore a dung beetle is greater than God.

Theists who casually dismiss the "can God create a rock he can't lift" problem are being really disingenious. There really is no solution. Either God is illogical (as kochelp concluded above), or a dung beetle is greater than God.


If the universe exists inside God, then God is allready lifting any rock (however big ) he creates , if the dimensions the rock exists in are allready being held up or susstained by God then God would allready be holding all matter(and of cause anti-matter) as we know it, he does not create any extra weight (so to speak) to bare ,its just a transition of Gods own self to God

If once there was only God and nothing else,its logical to say we exist inside God, to me it seems illogical to say God would create a place externally of God because God is all there was
Bikerman
tumbleweed wrote:

If the universe exists inside God, then God is allready lifting any rock (however big ) he creates , if the dimensions the rock exists in are allready being held up or susstained by God then God would allready be holding all matter(and of cause anti-matter) as we know it, he does not create any extra weight (so to speak) to bare ,its just a transition of Gods own self to God

If the Universe exists inside God it doesn't solve the basic paradox, it just diverts it slightly.
eg. 1) If the universe exists inside God then it implies that God is bounded, otherwise the word 'inside' means nothing. If God is bounded then can he choose to be unbounded ? If so what happens to the Universe ?
2) If God existed before the universe then he existed before spacetime (which was created with the universe). So where WAS he and when was he? He must exist in another set of dimensions which means that there would be at least 1 (temporal) dimension previous to creation, and in the act of creation, he increased the number of dimensions by 4. This sounds mathematically nonsensical to me but I haven't sat down to work it out I must admit.
The very act of creating a new dimension opens up a whole new avenue of freedom and therefore increases the size of the model and the scope of the 'objects' in the model. Consider a 2 dimensional being - it can only move forwards and backwards (assuming the second dimension is temporal), or also left and right if we remove time and suppose 2 spacial dimensions. (The lack of temporality would mean no cause-effect, amongst other problems). Now each dimension added increases (infinitely?) the degree of freedom of movement available - we can suddenly move up and down, and if we continue then next we could move in a way that we could not perceive in the 4th spatial dimension (call it zig and zag, or whatever name you like).
This all implies that God increased his own ability and freedom when he created the universe since he would now exist in 4 more dimensions than before. That would indicate that he was restricted before creation which doesn't marry with the idea of omnipotence.
3) The universe is expanding so therefore God must be either unbounded, expanding, or significantly bigger than the universe currently is. Can he expand for ever ?

Regards
Chris
The Conspirator
tumbleweed wrote:
If the universe exists inside God, then God is allready lifting any rock (however big ) he creates , if the dimensions the rock exists in are allready being held up or susstained by God then God would allready be holding all matter(and of cause anti-matter) as we know it, he does not create any extra weight (so to speak) to bare ,its just a transition of Gods own self to God

If the universe exists inside God, that dose not negate the paradox. The basics of the paradox is "can God create a force grater than him" and both answers mean the same thing, he is not omnipotent.

Quote:
If once there was only God and nothing else,its logical to say we exist inside God, to me it seems illogical to say God would create a place externally of God because God is all there was

How can theists be so willing to say that God has always existed ye not be willing to say that the universe (in some form) and the matter and energy (in some form) in it has always existed?
Tumbleweed
Bikerman wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:

If the universe exists inside God, then God is allready lifting any rock (however big ) he creates , if the dimensions the rock exists in are allready being held up or susstained by God then God would allready be holding all matter(and of cause anti-matter) as we know it, he does not create any extra weight (so to speak) to bare ,its just a transition of Gods own self to God

If the Universe exists inside God it doesn't solve the basic paradox, it just diverts it slightly.
eg. 1) If the universe exists inside God then it implies that God is bounded, otherwise the word 'inside' means nothing. If God is bounded then can he choose to be unbounded ? If so what happens to the Universe ?
2) If God existed before the universe then he existed before spacetime (which was created with the universe). So where WAS he and when was he? He must exist in another set of dimensions which means that there would be at least 1 (temporal) dimension previous to creation, and in the act of creation, he increased the number of dimensions by 4. This sounds mathematically nonsensical to me but I haven't sat down to work it out I must admit.
The very act of creating a new dimension opens up a whole new avenue of freedom and therefore increases the size of the model and the scope of the 'objects' in the model. Consider a 2 dimensional being - it can only move forwards and backwards (assuming the second dimension is temporal), or also left and right if we remove time and suppose 2 spacial dimensions. (The lack of temporality would mean no cause-effect, amongst other problems). Now each dimension added increases (infinitely?) the degree of freedom of movement available - we can suddenly move up and down, and if we continue then next we could move in a way that we could not perceive in the 4th spatial dimension (call it zig and zag, or whatever name you like).
This all implies that God increased his own ability and freedom when he created the universe since he would now exist in 4 more dimensions than before. That would indicate that he was restricted before creation which doesn't marry with the idea of omnipotence.
3) The universe is expanding so therefore God must be either unbounded, expanding, or significantly bigger than the universe currently is. Can he expand for ever ?
Regards
Chris


If we assume there was nothing but God, then what bounds something that has no edges ? how do we limit infinity ?

The Conspirator wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:
If the universe exists inside God, then God is allready lifting any rock (however big ) he creates , if the dimensions the rock exists in are allready being held up or susstained by God then God would allready be holding all matter(and of cause anti-matter) as we know it, he does not create any extra weight (so to speak) to bare ,its just a transition of Gods own self to God

If the universe exists inside God, that dose not negate the paradox. The basics of the paradox is "can God create a force grater than him" and both answers mean the same thing, he is not omnipotent.

Quote:
If once there was only God and nothing else,its logical to say we exist inside God, to me it seems illogical to say God would create a place externally of God because God is all there was

How can theists be so willing to say that God has always existed ye not be willing to say that the universe (in some form) and the matter and energy (in some form) in it has always existed?


Does God, if he indeed does exist, have an imagination ?, you could say imagination which intern leads to infinate avenues in infinite fields of endevour is the most powerfull force ....well...imaginable

Can God create a force greater than himself ?
Maybe thats the point of anything existing
Bikerman
tumbleweed wrote:

If we assume there was nothing but God, then what bounds something that has no edges ? how do we limit infinity ?

If God were alone, though, there would be no requiement for him to be infinite.
In any case you can postulate an infinite extent with bounds. Imagine 4-D spacetime as a 2-D surface of a ball and the radius of the ball representing time. You could travel forever around the surface and never meet an edge or boundary. If spacetime is curved in that way then the same would apply. Spacetime, however, is a property of the BB. Before BB in this universe there would be no spacetime and therefore no space to be infinite in.
Quote:
Does God, if he indeed does exist, have an imagination ?, you could say imagination which intern leads to infinate avenues in infinite fields of endevour is the most powerfull force ....well...imaginable

Well, you could if you wanted to. Personally I'd chose a different force if I were looking for power. A large Sun or maybe even a black hole. Imagination is not infinite in extent or duration as far as we can tell.

Chris.
Indi
Eyvind wrote:
Indi wrote:
Theists who casually dismiss the "can God create a rock he can't lift" problem are being really disingenious.


I'm not sure if this was directed specifically at me or not but I'd like to make one thing clear. I am in no way "casually dismissing" the problem. When I say it's a non issue, I mean it in the context of my own polytheistic religion. The gods I honour are certainly "potent" but in no way are they "omnipotent"; so the logic, or lack thereof, of omnipotence is irrelevant to my theology.

In the context of monotheism, where the belief/assumption of an omnipotent god is often held, the problem, indeed, does have relevance.

No, actually, i can't remember who it was directed at, but it was the person or people who keep trying to "solve" the logical paradoxes that arise when you use true omnipotence by attempting to use pseudo-omnipotence.

A couple of replies that i have gotten when i pointed out the illogic that arises from using the true definition of omnipotence are along the lines of saying that no one really uses the true definition of omnipotence when defining god because it's "stupid" (at least one person used that word, can't remember who, but it's all there if you read back). The gist of the responses have been that "all" theists use some form of the limited definition of omnipotence, and that i was being low and unfair by bringing the true definition into the discussion (but of course, ask ten theists and you'll get ten different descriptions of what "all" theists believe). Some went so far as to say that i was deliberately trying to derail the discusson and make theists look bad by even mentioning the true definition of omnipotence, as if discussing anything but limited omnipotence was offensive.

i didn't say anything at the time because i didn't really think they were worth responding in that much detail to, but they were really just shooting themselves in the foot the whole time. Because, as i show above, if you do accept the limited form of omnipotence, you open up a whole new category of problems. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, you can't just fix the problems with godly omnipotence by eliminating the potental for logical paradoxes.
NemoySpruce
This is how I resolve the rock paradox. Does it make sense?

Can God create a stone so large he cant lift it? yes.
Then he is not omnipotent because there is something he cannot do.

correct. at that moment, when he created the rock, he made himself non-omnipotent. he can still do everything else, except lift the rock. when he wants to become omnipotent again, he simply disappears the rock. Its not absolute omnipotence because there are times when he is not omnipotent, but not pseudo-omnipotence either because he can do whatever he wants, and no force is greater than his Will.

Can he make 1 + 1 = 3? yes, if he wanted to. he could make it so that when ever you put 2 apples in a basket a third one will appear, and he could make it logical if he wanted to. how? i dont know, maybe he could create smart particles that were present every where, these particles could detect human brain impulse of addition, so that when we add something, the particles will turn itself into an extra of that something. we would probably just go about our lives and not notice anything is wrong, and just accept that as part of reality. we would all have 3 eyes, 3 legs, 3 balls. how do you know that 1 + 1 = 2 is the logical answer? because we can all 'see' and count the result? but why is it that way? why does our universe behave that way?

Therefore multiple Gods are possible. Yes. Quite possible. But if they have all attained power enough to be called omnipotent, then they would all be exactly the same wouldnt they? These beings would know each other's thoughts at all times, these beings would always come to the same conclusions and act as one. Should there be conflict for whatever reason, a fight would ensue, those defeated will be deemed not omnipotent, the victors will still be God. Therefore, in effect there can be only one God relative to a given plane of existence. Any life can become a God if it is able to learn and improve itself and not die. eventually it will become a God, or part of God.

There is only one God.



@Indi
Thanks for color coding your arguments. Im just wondering why you keep re-posting it? They have been defeated 2-3 pages ago.
Bikerman
NemoySpruce wrote:

at that moment, when he created the rock, he made himself non-omnipotent. he can still do everything else, except lift the rock. when he wants to become omnipotent again, he simply disappears the rock. Its not absolute omnipotence because there are times when he is not omnipotent, but not pseudo-omnipotence either because he can do whatever he wants, and no force is greater than his Will.

No, that won't do at all. How can an unlimited power impose limits on itself ? If the limits were real then they would not be reversible and if they were not real then he would just be playing silly games.
Quote:

Can he make 1 + 1 = 3? yes, if he wanted to. he could make it so that when ever you put 2 apples in a basket a third one will appear, and he could make it logical if he wanted to. how? i dont know, maybe he could create smart particles that were present every where, these particles could detect human brain impulse of addition, so that when we add something, the particles will turn itself into an extra of that something. we would probably just go about our lives and not notice anything is wrong, and just accept that as part of reality. we would all have 3 eyes, 3 legs, 3 balls. how do you know that 1 + 1 = 2 is the logical answer? because we can all 'see' and count the result? but why is it that way? why does our universe behave that way?

The point is not the absolutes, but the consistency. You can quite easily sit down and devise a system of closed logic which has 1+1=3. It would not, however be consistent with the rest of perception and theory.

If god made 1+1=3 then the whole of math would stop working and we would have to redefine it. Perhaps there is a universe where 1+1=3 but it cannot be just limited to apples in a bucket. It would have to occur everytime 2 entities were brought together...ie a third one would have to appear. In that case 2 would cease to be a real number since you could never have 2 of anything. This would lead to multiple paradoxes immediately. If you sit and think about it I'm sure you will see that this is not feasible.
Quote:

Therefore multiple Gods are possible. Yes. Quite possible. But if they have all attained power enough to be called omnipotent, then they would all be exactly the same wouldnt they? These beings would know each other's thoughts at all times, these beings would always come to the same conclusions and act as one. Should there be conflict for whatever reason, a fight would ensue, those defeated will be deemed not omnipotent, the victors will still be God. Therefore, in effect there can be only one God relative to a given plane of existence. Any life can become a God if it is able to learn and improve itself and not die. eventually it will become a God, or part of God.

1. Omnipotence does not imply omniscience.
2. Do you know what a plane of existence is?
3. How can a finite being become infinitely poweful just by living longer?
Quote:

There is only one God.
@Indi
Thanks for color coding your arguments. Im just wondering why you keep re-posting it? They have been defeated 2-3 pages ago.

WHAT? Defeated ? LOL. Not only has Indi not been defeated, nobody has even come close to it. I think you might want to read through again with brain engaged and glasses on.
Chris.
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
This is how I resolve the rock paradox. Does it make sense?

Can God create a stone so large he cant lift it? yes.
Then he is not omnipotent because there is something he cannot do.

correct. at that moment, when he created the rock, he made himself non-omnipotent. he can still do everything else, except lift the rock. when he wants to become omnipotent again, he simply disappears the rock. Its not absolute omnipotence because there are times when he is not omnipotent, but not pseudo-omnipotence either because he can do whatever he wants, and no force is greater than his Will.

Than he was not omnipotant in the first place, there was allways a limit to its power, he just hadn't created the thing that shows its limit.

Quote:
Therefore multiple Gods are possible. Yes. Quite possible. But if they have all attained power enough to be called omnipotent, then they would all be exactly the same wouldnt they? These beings would know each other's thoughts at all times, these beings would always come to the same conclusions and act as one.

Thats omnipotence, not omnipotents. Omnipotents, all powerful, omniscient, all knowing. Having one dose not mean having the other.
Note: omnipotence come with its own paradox unless there is no such thing as free will.

Quote:
Should there be conflict for whatever reason, a fight would ensue, those defeated will be deemed not omnipotent, the victors will still be God. Therefore, in effect there can be only one God relative to a given plane of existence. Any life can become a God if it is able to learn and improve itself and not die. eventually it will become a God, or part of God.

Omnipotents is being all powerful not the most powerful. Unless you are all powerful, it dose not matter how powerful you are, you not omnipotent.

Quote:
@Indi
Thanks for color coding your arguments. Im just wondering why you keep re-posting it? They have been defeated 2-3 pages ago.

No, they wern't.
NemoySpruce
Bikerman wrote:

No, that won't do at all. How can an unlimited power impose limits on itself ? If the limits were real then they would not be reversible and if they were not real then he would just be playing silly games.


well its a silly request anyway. make a rock so heavy you cant lift it... why do that?

Bikerman wrote:

The point is not the absolutes, but the consistency. You can quite easily sit down and devise a system of closed logic which has 1+1=3. It would not, however be consistent with the rest of perception and theory.


and you cant think of anyway to make it work? to cheat it? therefore its impossible. are you omnicient?

Bikerman wrote:

If god made 1+1=3 then the whole of math would stop working and we would have to redefine it. Perhaps there is a universe where 1+1=3 but it cannot be just limited to apples in a bucket. It would have to occur everytime 2 entities were brought together...ie a third one would have to appear. In that case 2 would cease to be a real number since you could never have 2 of anything. This would lead to multiple paradoxes immediately. If you sit and think about it I'm sure you will see that this is not feasible.


not feasible i agree, maybe thats why god didnt make our universe that way, But its not impossible.

Bikerman wrote:

1. Omnipotence does not imply omniscience.
2. Do you know what a plane of existence is?
3. How can a finite being become infinitely poweful just by living longer?


1. Yes it does. If you can do anything then you can will yourself to know everything as well. 2 times ive said this.
2. Plane of existence, i meant our 4d universe. was that inaccurate? sorry.
3. no. not live longer. not die, and constantly improve itself. eventually it will become omnipotent.

Bikerman wrote:

WHAT? Defeated ? LOL. Not only has Indi not been defeated, nobody has even come close to it. I think you might want to read through again with brain engaged and glasses on.
Chris.


I didnt say Indi was defeated. I said his arguments about mulitple gods has been defeated. multiple omnipotent Gods = one God. Sorry if I hurt your feelings Bikerman, I know you love Indi.
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

No, that won't do at all. How can an unlimited power impose limits on itself ? If the limits were real then they would not be reversible and if they were not real then he would just be playing silly games.


well its a silly request anyway. make a rock so heavy you cant lift it... why do that?

Your missing the point of the paradox. Its not about what it would do it about what it could do.

Quote:
Bikerman wrote:

The point is not the absolutes, but the consistency. You can quite easily sit down and devise a system of closed logic which has 1+1=3. It would not, however be consistent with the rest of perception and theory.


and you cant think of anyway to make it work? to cheat it? therefore its impossible. are you omnicient?

Its not logical, there is no logical way to make it work.

Quote:
1. Yes it does. If you can do anything then you can will yourself to know everything as well. 2 times ive said this.

No. just cause something is omnipotents, that dose not mean in omniscient. And just cause two beings are omniscient, that dose not mean they would be the same, just as two people with the exact same experiences would still have different personality's due to there genetic personality traits, an omniscient bing could have inherited personality traits (genetic or not) that distinguished it from other omniscient beings.

Quote:
3. no. not live longer. not die, and constantly improve itself. eventually it will become omnipotent.

An omniscient bing would have infinite power, if something or someone can constantly improve it/him/her self, it/him/her would never become all powerful, even if it/him/her doubled in power every year it/his/her power would power would be finite.


Quote:
I didnt say Indi was defeated. I said his arguments about mulitple gods has been defeated. multiple omnipotent Gods = one God. Sorry if I hurt your feelings Bikerman, I know you love Indi.

No. multiple gods would not equal one God. there is no reason to think they would act as one. Even if two or more beings are both omnipotent and omniscient, that dose not mean they would all be the same and if there are differences than there would be differences in action and behaver.
Bikerman
NemoySpruce wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

No, that won't do at all. How can an unlimited power impose limits on itself ? If the limits were real then they would not be reversible and if they were not real then he would just be playing silly games.

well its a silly request anyway. make a rock so heavy you cant lift it... why do that?

In other words you cannot address the issue so the issue is silly.....?
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

The point is not the absolutes, but the consistency. You can quite easily sit down and devise a system of closed logic which has 1+1=3. It would not, however be consistent with the rest of perception and theory.
and you cant think of anyway to make it work? to cheat it? therefore its impossible. are you omnicient?
It's not a case of what I can or cannot do. Can you see two of something or can you not? If you can then the 1+1=3 is not consistent with reality.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

If god made 1+1=3 then the whole of math would stop working and we would have to redefine it. Perhaps there is a universe where 1+1=3 but it cannot be just limited to apples in a bucket. It would have to occur everytime 2 entities were brought together...ie a third one would have to appear. In that case 2 would cease to be a real number since you could never have 2 of anything. This would lead to multiple paradoxes immediately. If you sit and think about it I'm sure you will see that this is not feasible.

not feasible i agree, maybe thats why god didnt make our universe that way, But its not impossible.

It is impossible according to the rules of this spacetime. Since we are talking about our universe then it is impossible.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

1. Omnipotence does not imply omniscience.
2. Do you know what a plane of existence is?
3. How can a finite being become infinitely poweful just by living longer?

1. Yes it does. If you can do anything then you can will yourself to know everything as well. 2 times ive said this.

and 2 times I disagree. To know everything you would have to know what everything is. It is possible to have the power to do anything you like, but if you don't know that a particular thing exists then although you could do it, you effectively cannot do it. This was one of the several (quite subtle) points made in Hitchhiker's Guide by the late, great Douglas Adams. The whole story of Deep thought and 'the answer is 42' speaks to this issue
Quote:

2. Plane of existence, i meant our 4d universe. was that inaccurate? sorry.
Ahh...OK...plane of existence is something different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plane_%28cosmology%29&redirect=no
Quote:

3. no. not live longer. not die, and constantly improve itself. eventually it will become omnipotent.

OK...represent power as P and improvement by +1.
P+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1...................
Now tell me, when will I get to infinity?
Do you see now ?
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:

WHAT? Defeated ? LOL. Not only has Indi not been defeated, nobody has even come close to it. I think you might want to read through again with brain engaged and glasses on.
Chris.

I didnt say Indi was defeated. I said his arguments about mulitple gods has been defeated. multiple omnipotent Gods = one God. Sorry if I hurt your feelings Bikerman, I know you love Indi.

No you didn't say anything about multiple Gods in the passage concerned. Your comment was in the context of Indi's earlier post which was colour coded.
As for 'loving Indi', I have no idea whether Indi is male or female (I never make that assumption about posters unless they reveal it themselves) so I presume you mean platonic love? That should be no problem for a Christian should it, since you are supposed to love all your fellow humans? In fact Indi and I have clashed quite hard a couple of times and agreed to differ. I share many opinions with Indi, for sure, but that is not relevant here is it?
You didn't hurt my feelings at all (that's why I put the LOL in front of the passage...because I was laughing out loud).
Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
NemoySpruce wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

No, that won't do at all. How can an unlimited power impose limits on itself ? If the limits were real then they would not be reversible and if they were not real then he would just be playing silly games.

well its a silly request anyway. make a rock so heavy you cant lift it... why do that?

In other words you cannot address the issue so the issue is silly.....?

Bikerman, you just pointed out how the question you pose is inherently self-contradictory, and then protest when someone points out, for the hundredth time, that it is a silly and inane approach?

This tired argument is 100% circular reasoning, completely guaranteed to be utterly insulated from any relevance to reality. It poses an inherently self-contradictory question, and then claims that because this inane question has no meaningful answer that this somehow proves that God does not exist? (((*Chortle*))) That is *some* reasoning there.

Garbage in, garbage out. Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer:

What if the sky was green? What if you had an ego so big no one could stroke it? What if you could stick your head so far up your own ass you could suck yourself out of existence? Then what would happen to your soul? What if, what if…
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
NemoySpruce wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

No, that won't do at all. How can an unlimited power impose limits on itself ? If the limits were real then they would not be reversible and if they were not real then he would just be playing silly games.

well its a silly request anyway. make a rock so heavy you cant lift it... why do that?

In other words you cannot address the issue so the issue is silly.....?

Bikerman, you just pointed out how the question you pose is inherently self-contradictory, and then protest when someone points out, for the hundredth time, that it is a silly and inane approach?

a) I did not pose the question.
b) The question is not self contradictory, the concept is...hence we use the word Paradox.
Quote:

This tired argument is 100% circular reasoning, completely guaranteed to be utterly insulated from any relevance to reality.

I suggest you check what circular reasoning means
Quote:
It poses an inherently self-contradictory question,
no it doesn't..the concept is self contradictory and the example merely illustrates it.
Quote:
and then claims that because this inane question has no meaningful answer that this somehow proves that God does not exist? (((*Chortle*))) That is *some* reasoning there.
Garbage in, garbage out. Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer:
Posit a stupid concept and recieve an illustration of it's stupidity
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:

Bikerman, you just pointed out how the question you pose is inherently self-contradictory, and then protest when someone points out, for the hundredth time, that it is a silly and inane approach?

a) I did not pose the question.

If you did not pose this lame concept then why are you so vigorously trying to defend it?

Bikerman wrote:
b) The question is not self contradictory, the concept is...hence we use the word Paradox.

The concept is an inherently atheistic one that assumes its own conclusion by positing an asinine question, and then ridiculously asserting that the question must be answered for God to exist.

This is not a paradox, it is simply a BS political slogan that attempts to smear the other side as wishy washy. It is a stupid ploy in politics that often works on stupid people, but in a theological argument it is just completely brainless and doesn’t work on anyone at all.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

This tired argument is 100% circular reasoning, completely guaranteed to be utterly insulated from any relevance to reality.

I suggest you check what circular reasoning means

Hey, I looked it up in the dictionary and found a picture of Bikerman!!

Bikerman wrote:
Posit a stupid concept and recieve an illustration of it's stupidity

You mean like my analogy where I compare your question about omnipotence with the profoundly penetrating question of, “what if you could stick your head so far up your own ass that you could suck yourself out of existence?”
Bikerman
Quote:
This is not a paradox, it is simply a BS political slogan that attempts to smear the other side as wishy washy. It is a stupid ploy in politics that often works on stupid people, but in a theological argument it is just completely brainless and doesn’t work on anyone at all.

Again I suggest you read up on the issue before further comment. This is a classic paradox examined by Church theologians over the ages from Hume onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:s5JnBEKrvQcJ:www.etext.leeds.ac.uk/hume/articles/1989DevAdv.doc+omnipotence+hume&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html

As for the rest of your response..why is it that you resort to insult and abuse rather than debate ? It seems to be a characteristic.

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
The Muslims make the same claim about me. You just have a particularly weak argument that lends itself to humorous analogies! It is an exact analogy, you are basically asking, "What if God could stick His head so far up His own ass that He could suck Himself out of existence?" It is just a silly question for playing meaningless head games.

As to what a lofty theological argument this is, theologians were the first Ivory Tower idiots. Funny how, around here, only atheists seem to think that there is anything of value to your meaningless appeals to omnipotent contradiction. Now you claim that ancient theologians really loved your atheistic arguments. Likely story!

You are basically arguing that for God to be real, He would have to be able to suck Himself out of existence through His own ******, because, after all, that is part of being omnipotent, isn't it? If He couldn't suck Himself out of existence through His own ****** would He still be omnipotent?

The corollary to this is, when God defecates, is it as omnipotent as Bikerman's argument here?
Bikerman
Clearly you are either unwilling or unable to conduct a civilised debate without recourse to childish insult and abuse. I made no claims that I did not support with references so your point about theologians is irrelevant.
I try to avoid abusive posts rather than respond to them, since they are rarely useful to the debate, but since you seem determined to provoke a response then my only recourse is to ask the moderator to intervene and make a ruling.
Chris
The Conspirator
Why is it when theists don't like the question, they ignore or fight the question instead of answering it?
An omnipotent bing can do everything no matter if its logical or not. Thats then comes with a paradox. It dose not negate the existence of any god, it just means that it or anything else can not be omnipotent. Its not about what it would do, its about what it could do.
Quit dodging the questions! Quit ignoring the questions! Quit trying to redefine words to match your world view!
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
Quit dodging the questions! Quit ignoring the questions! Quit trying to redefine words to match your world view!


Such hypocrisy!

That is the whole point of this exercise, to create a contrived definition predesigned to support your world view. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, you are guilty as charged, and I have simply done a better job.

The Conspirator wrote:
Why is it when theists don't like the question, they ignore or fight the question instead of answering it?

Bring it on tough guy, I can stomp any atheistic argument you have into the ground. My expereince is quite to the contrary, that most atheistic arguments are rooted in BS mental machinations. I was an atheist from 12 to 21, and you never heard me making such lame arguments for atheism, even though, at that time, I could stomp any theist's argument into the ground!

The Conspirator wrote:
An omnipotent bing can do everything no matter if its logical or not.
Can an omnipotent Bing sing White Christmas with his head all the way up his ass? If not, then he is not an omnipotent Bing now is he?
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Quit dodging the questions! Quit ignoring the questions! Quit trying to redefine words to match your world view!


Such hypocrisy!

That is the whole point of this exercise, to create a contrived definition predesigned to support your world view. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, you are guilty as charged, and I have simply done a better job.

I'm not the one trying to redefine omnipotence, omnipotents means all powerful, can do anything. Not can do anything except blah.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Why is it when theists don't like the question, they ignore or fight the question instead of answering it?

Bring it on tough guy, I can stomp any atheistic argument you have into the ground. My expereince is quite to the contrary, that most atheistic arguments are rooted in BS mental machinations. I was an atheist from 12 to 21, and you never heard me making such lame arguments for atheism, even though, at that time, I could stomp any theist's argument into the ground!

Try the question at hand. read the title of the topic.
If your God exist than why dose your bible have so many inconsistencies. If God exists than there would be objective evidence of it, why isn't there? (And don't use any of that God of the gaps crap). If you can say "God allways existed" how come you can't say "the matter and energy that makes up the unaverce has allways existed in some form"?
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
I'm not the one trying to redefine omnipotence, omnipotents means all powerful, can do anything. Not can do anything except blah.

You are the one trying to impose utterly irrelevant criteria on God. I am not redefining omnipotence. Its total irrelevance to the subject at hand is not a redefinition. Even Bikerman very eloquently pointed out how that is not a real theological position that any theologian in history has ever held.

You are constructing a strawman and then having a temper tantrum when the strawman gets exposed for what it is as a contrived argument that you have constructed purely for the purposes of contradicting.

The Conspirator wrote:
Try the question at hand.

You mean this nonsense about falsely supposing that theism requires that God must be omnipotent? You are contradicting a point of view that doesn’t exist, constructing your own atheistic God as a punching bag, that has nothing to do with any genuinely theistic concept of God.

The Conspirator wrote:
If your God exist than why dose your bible have so many inconsistencies.

My Bible? Chortle!

The Conspirator wrote:
If God exists than there would be objective evidence of it, why isn't there? (And don't use any of that God of the gaps crap).

I don’t shop at the Gap and I really doubt that God works there.

The Conspirator wrote:
If you can say "God allways existed" how come you can't say "the matter and energy that makes up the unaverce has allways existed in some form"?

Because God is about consciousness, not matter and energy.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
I'm not the one trying to redefine omnipotence, omnipotents means all powerful, can do anything. Not can do anything except blah.

You are the one trying to impose utterly irrelevant criteria on God. I am not redefining omnipotence. Its total irrelevance to the subject at hand is not a redefinition. Even Bikerman very eloquently pointed out how that is not a real theological position that any theologian in history has ever held.

You are constructing a strawman and then having a temper tantrum when the strawman gets exposed for what it is as a contrived argument that you have constructed purely for the purposes of contradicting.

I'm not the one saying God is omnipotent! God dose not have to be omnipotent to exist. go back to the first page and read the posts.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Try the question at hand.

You mean this nonsense about falsely supposing that theism requires that God must be omnipotent? You are contradicting a point of view that doesn’t exist, constructing your own atheistic God as a punching bag, that has nothing to do with any genuinely theistic concept of God.

How can you say there is one god and not other gods? Thats the qestion.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If God exists than there would be objective evidence of it, why isn't there? (And don't use any of that God of the gaps crap).

I don’t shop at the Gap and I really doubt that God works there.

And you dodg the question.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If you can say "God allways existed" how come you can't say "the matter and energy that makes up the unaverce has allways existed in some form"?

Because God is about consciousness, not matter and energy.

If God always existed than thing can always exist than the universe and everything in it could have always existed. And if the universe always existed and for every action there is a reaction than everything can be part of an infinite series of event with no need for a god.
No evidence plus no need make the plausibility of a god remote.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
If God exists than there would be objective evidence of it, why isn't there?

Now this is a legit question. Since God is pure consciousness, the Source of consciousness, to use the Jewish terminology, logic would dictate that the evidence would present itself through consciousness rather than through dead material.

I can present a number of cases of objective evidence for the fact that the universe is conscious. However, I’m not going to write a novel here, first let me ask you what you mean by objective evidence? Is it like UFOs where the skeptics won’t accept anything but a hunk of spacecraft or a dead alien body?
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
I try to avoid abusive posts rather than respond to them, since they are rarely useful to the debate, but since you seem determined to provoke a response then my only recourse is to ask the moderator to intervene and make a ruling.

Once they stop laughing at the imagery of God being *required* to stick His head up His own ass in order to be omnipotent, I don't think they will have much to rule on, other than that it was a good laugh!
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
You are the one trying to impose utterly irrelevant criteria on God. I am not redefining omnipotence. Its total irrelevance to the subject at hand is not a redefinition. Even Bikerman very eloquently pointed out how that is not a real theological position that any theologian in history has ever held.

Err..no I didn't. In fact I made the opposite point. The paradox of omnipotence were created and examined by Church Theologians from the 7th century onwards. Thomas Aquinas is the first version of the paradox I know of with his question of whether God could create a triangle with angles more than 180 degrees.
Quote:

You are constructing a strawman and then having a temper tantrum when the strawman gets exposed for what it is as a contrived argument that you have constructed purely for the purposes of contradicting.
See above.
Quote:

You mean this nonsense about falsely supposing that theism requires that God must be omnipotent? You are contradicting a point of view that doesn’t exist, constructing your own atheistic God as a punching bag, that has nothing to do with any genuinely theistic concept of God.

Err...sorry, wrong again. It was the religious theologians that constructed the notion and importance of omnipotence, not us nasty atheists. It was theologians (including Jewish thinkers who you have no doubt heard of - Nahman of Bratslav, for example) who spent a great deal of time debating the whole issue. It was later picked up by philosophers who were not theists but the origin of the concept of omnipotence and the origin of the inherent paradoxes involved have nothing to do with any atheists.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Omnipotence
Modern theology addresses the issue in different ways, depending on which church you consider. The Catholic approach is to define omnipotence in a way which rules out the paradox. Thus the definition reads:
Quote:
Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.
and further defines intrinsically impossible as
Quote:

1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc..


The Jewish theologians have several different approaches to the problem. The Hasidic thinker Nahman of Bratslav maintained that it was possible for God to do anything but that it was impossible for man to understand because God's ways are incapable of understanding by man. Other Jewish thinkers argued that while God can do the impossible, there is a class of thing which is 'absolutely impossible'. This approach is very similar to that of the Catholics (above), but differs in that it doesn’t define ‘possible’ in theological terms, as the Catholic approach does, but entirely in logical terms.

Philosophically the problem with the concept of Omnipotence is that it defines a concept incorrectly at a basic level.
A concept is a collection of ideas which are integrated to form a new whole. The concept of omnipotence, on the other hand, starts with 1 concept – ability – and tries to integrate it with a contradictory concept – unbounded. In philosophical jargon, it violates the axiom of identity.

For anyone interested :-
http://www.quodlibet.net/snell-freedom.shtml
http://www.quodlibet.net/horner-logic.shtml
http://www.courses.rochester.edu/wierenga/REL111/omnipch.html
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say there is one god and not other gods? Thats the question.

Wasn’t it in this thread where Absolute Infinity was debated? There can be only one Absolute Infinity, that is why Cantor’s work was taken up much more enthusiastically by theologians in his day, and he was completely ignored by mathematicians until after his death!

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
Because God is about consciousness, not matter and energy.

If God always existed than thing can always exist than the universe and everything in it could have always existed. And if the universe always existed and for every action there is a reaction than everything can be part of an infinite series of event with no need for a god.
No evidence plus no need make the plausibility of a god remote.

God is the entire universe. Your argument is based on making a false dichotomy. Also, you are focusing on the material rather than on consciousness. The universe has always been conscious, it didn’t just start becoming conscious recently.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say there is one god and not other gods? Thats the question.

Wasn’t it in this thread where Absolute Infinity was debated? There can be only one Absolute Infinity, that is why Cantor’s work was taken up much more enthusiastically by theologians in his day, and he was completely ignored by mathematicians until after his death!

Your not missing my point, you dodging it.
If God is eternal, always existing, then the universe can be eternal with cause an effect going back forever. In such a system, God is implausible.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
Because God is about consciousness, not matter and energy.

If God always existed than thing can always exist than the universe and everything in it could have always existed. And if the universe always existed and for every action there is a reaction than everything can be part of an infinite series of event with no need for a god.
No evidence plus no need make the plausibility of a god remote.

God is the entire universe. Your argument is based on making a false dichotomy. Also, you are focusing on the material rather than on consciousness. The universe has always been conscious, it didn’t just start becoming conscious recently.[/quote]

Fist you don't give objectiv evidence for the existence of God than you try to define what God is.
"Theres a universal cosiness" prove it. Show evidence that there is a God and there is a "universal conciseness".
NemoySpruce
Bikerman wrote:

In other words you cannot address the issue so the issue is silly.....?


i just did. i addressed the issue, you called it silly, so i called the question silly. it is a silly question dont you think?

Bikerman wrote:

It is impossible according to the rules of this spacetime. Since we are talking about our universe then it is impossible.


no. its not impossible. it just seems unnatural and cumbersome. but it is possible.


Bikerman wrote:

and 2 times I disagree. To know everything you would have to know what everything is. It is possible to have the power to do anything you like, but if you don't know that a particular thing exists then although you could do it, you effectively cannot do it. This was one of the several (quite subtle) points made in Hitchhiker's Guide by the late, great Douglas Adams. The whole story of Deep thought and 'the answer is 42' speaks to this issue


I understand what your saying, but I think I have a point here. If a being has the ability to do anything, but is limited by not knowing, then its the same as not having the ability to do that thing. We could all posses telepathic abilities, but if we dont know how to use it, would we still be called telepathic? In order for us to be called telepathic, we need to know how to use the skill. So in order for an omnipotent being to be correctly called omnipotent, it must be omniscient as well. Does that make sense?


Bikerman wrote:

Ahh...OK...plane of existence is something different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plane_%28cosmology%29&redirect=no


thanks. I will read up on it. thank you.

Bikerman wrote:

OK...represent power as P and improvement by +1.
P+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1...................
Now tell me, when will I get to infinity?
Do you see now ?


Ok. represent P as one of your cells, P+1+1+1..... now tell me, when does P become you?

Bikerman wrote:

No you didn't say anything about multiple Gods in the passage concerned. Your comment was in the context of Indi's earlier post which was colour coded.


Yes sir. notice that all three end with 'multiple Gods are possible'

Bikerman wrote:
....That should be no problem for a Christian should it, since you are supposed to love all your fellow humans? In fact Indi and I have clashed quite hard a couple of times and agreed to differ. I share many opinions with Indi, for sure, but that is not relevant here is it?
You didn't hurt my feelings at all (that's why I put the LOL in front of the passage...because I was laughing out loud).
Regards
Chris


I doubt I can still call myself Christian or Catholic, though I was raised Catholic and a great chunk of what I use to try to make sense of the universe comes from Roman Catholic institutions. I wished I had as much brainpower and time as you guys seem to have to devote on this subject, but at the moment I believe there is one God, and none of the arguments here have convinced me to the contrary. I do try to love all my fellow humans, but some of them make it damn near impossible. I have to admit I have personal reasons why I want to believe that there is a God, but I dont want to believe just for the sake of believing. I try to use whatever reasoning powers i have, and at the moment they lead me to believe that there is One God.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say there is one god and not other gods? Thats the question.

Wasn’t it in this thread where Absolute Infinity was debated? There can be only one Absolute Infinity, that is why Cantor’s work was taken up much more enthusiastically by theologians in his day, and he was completely ignored by mathematicians until after his death!

Your not missing my point, you dodging it.

You are the one dodging, the following argument is a completely different argument from the one I quoted above.

The Conspirator wrote:
If God is eternal, always existing, then the universe can be eternal with cause an effect going back forever. In such a system, God is implausible.

How does the universe’s eternal existence make it’s consciousness any more or less likely?

The Conspirator wrote:
Fist you don't give objectiv evidence for the existence of God than you try to define what God is.
"Theres a universal cosiness" prove it. Show evidence that there is a God and there is a "universal conciseness".

I have, you just weren’t paying attention. Associative Memory Theory in mathematics stipulates that all matrix operations form Bidirectional Associative Memory Mechanisms (BAMMs) when multiplying the output vector back through as the input vector repeatedly. It has been formally proven that all matrices will resonate on at least two associative patterns. Your brain is not much more than cascaded matrix operations. Physics guarantees that all particle interactions are vast matrix operations.

If the universe can self-organize to become self-aware with the extremely primitive physical mechanism of creating dynamical matrix operations using cells to simulate subatomic particles, what then is the likelihood that the much more rapid processing rates, with vastly greater vector sizes, of particle matrix operations, wouldn’t self-organize?

Give me a single good reason why particle matrices would not self organize into coherent memory mechanism, just like the much more primitive neural matrices obviously have?
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say there is one god and not other gods? Thats the question.

Wasn’t it in this thread where Absolute Infinity was debated? There can be only one Absolute Infinity, that is why Cantor’s work was taken up much more enthusiastically by theologians in his day, and he was completely ignored by mathematicians until after his death!

Your not missing my point, you dodging it.

You are the one dodging, the following argument is a completely different argument from the one I quoted above.

No, you are. If you allow for the existence of one God, than you allow for the existence of another. There is no way around that. It doesn't matter if you use ancient pegen gods, the Judeo/Christan God or some New Age idea of a god, you except the existence of one then you should not only except the possibility of another but a hight likelihood of another.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If God is eternal, always existing, then the universe can be eternal with cause an effect going back forever. In such a system, God is implausible.

How does the universe’s eternal existence make it’s consciousness any more or less likely?

The Conspirator wrote:
Fist you don't give objectiv evidence for the existence of God than you try to define what God is.
"Theres a universal cosiness" prove it. Show evidence that there is a God and there is a "universal conciseness".

I have, you just weren’t paying attention. Associative Memory Theory in mathematics stipulates that all matrix operations form Bidirectional Associative Memory Mechanisms (BAMMs) when multiplying the output vector back through as the input vector repeatedly. It has been formally proven that all matrices will resonate on at least two associative patterns. Your brain is not much more than cascaded matrix operations. Physics guarantees that all particle interactions are vast matrix operations.

If the universe can self-organize to become self-aware with the extremely primitive physical mechanism of creating dynamical matrix operations using cells to simulate subatomic particles, what then is the likelihood that the much more rapid processing rates, with vastly greater vector sizes, of particle matrix operations, wouldn’t self-organize?

Give me a single good reason why particle matrices would not self organize into coherent memory mechanism, just like the much more primitive neural matrices obviously have?

The universe can't have a conciseness. We have a cosinesses cause we have brains, our brains gather and preses information. For something to have a cosinesses it would need some way of gathering and processing information, a brain of computer of some sort. When water freezes the molecules organise into crystals but that dose not make memory, an ocean is a mass of water molecules, each one interacting with the one next to it but that dose not make it a processor. The universe is similar, made mostly of dark energy and dark matter, these particle interact with each other but that dose not produce processing or memory. And even if the universe was set up in such a way to produce a consciouses, the universal speed limit is 186,282.397 miles per second (299,792,458 metres per second) the processing power of the universe would be very, very slow.
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:
The universe is similar, made mostly of dark energy and dark matter, these particle interact with each other but that dose not produce processing or memory. And even if the universe was set up in such a way to produce a consciouses, the universal speed limit is 186,282.397 miles per second (299,792,458 metres per second) the processing power of the universe would be very, very slow.



this is the drawback of relying too much on existing information to solve problems. no imagination.
The Conspirator
NemoySpruce wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The universe is similar, made mostly of dark energy and dark matter, these particle interact with each other but that dose not produce processing or memory. And even if the universe was set up in such a way to produce a consciouses, the universal speed limit is 186,282.397 miles per second (299,792,458 metres per second) the processing power of the universe would be very, very slow.



this is the drawback of relying too much on existing information to solve problems. no imagination.

I have plenty of imagination (allot of it) but I'm not going to let my imagination delude me into thinking something means this when it doesn't. If you use imagination instead of relying on available information than you won't get reality, you'll get imaginary things.
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:
I have plenty of imagination (allot of it) but I'm not going to let my imagination delude me into thinking something means this when it doesn't. If you use imagination instead of relying on available information than you won't get reality, you'll get imaginary things.


and yet you let your understanding of reality limit your assumptions on what is possible or not. Are you sure that nothing in the universe travels faster than the speed of light? nothing we have observed has travelled faster, but are you sure it is impossible? when discussing topics about God/s, science is inadequate. Im not saying abandon science when discussing God, but we should know where science ends. Where there is no science, what are we left with but our imaginations. Without imagination, science will die. without science, imagination is worthless... didnt you watch Flight of Dragons?
The Conspirator
This is a discussion of reality, not fiction. You can use you imagination and come up with a universal cosinesses, it could make a good story but when discussing reality you stick with facts and logic, the only time you use your imagination is when discussing something hypothetical.
NemoySpruce
The Conspirator wrote:
This is a discussion of reality, not fiction. You can use you imagination and come up with a universal cosinesses, it could make a good story but when discussing reality you stick with facts and logic, the only time you use your imagination is when discussing something hypothetical.


A discussion on God is inherently hypothetical isnt it? there are no empirical evidence to suggest God's existence. More of Philosophy than Science. Facts are not so important as logic.
The Conspirator
Ow! You jabbed me with your point.

Theres a problem with that though. You can use you imagination to take that idea and turn it into something completely different. You could say that all life is connected to this universal cosiness, our souls are pat of the universal cosiness. But that has a problem, we all have our own cosinesses, so its not a single universal conciseness as there are innumerable different individual cosinesses interconnected by this "universal cosinesses". Its no longer a universal cosiness, its a force that interconnects our conciseness. Effectively turning God into The Tao. An omnipresent force.

If you choose to believe things not based on objective evidence than you can believe anything. No matter how ridiculous it is.

At last a theist admits theres no real evidence for God.
theres no empirical evidence for God and you choose to believe in God why choose to believe in only one god?
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
This is a discussion of reality, not fiction. You can use you imagination and come up with a universal cosinesses, it could make a good story but when discussing reality you stick with facts and logic, the only time you use your imagination is when discussing something hypothetical.

Quantum computers are a fact. You would like to refer to such unavoidable basic facts in science as fiction, because it does not aide your intellectual bias that rejects any aspect of reality that you dislike.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
Theres a problem with that though. You can use you imagination to take that idea and turn it into something completely different. You could say that all life is connected to this universal cosiness, our souls are pat of the universal cosiness. But that has a problem, we all have our own cosinesses, so its not a single universal conciseness as there are innumerable different individual cosinesses interconnected by this "universal cosinesses".

Just as the ocean is full of individual waves, and yet are they really individual? How many people genuinely act in a unique way aren’t simply generic replicas of their racial and social type, like so many colony insects?

The Conspirator wrote:
Its no longer a universal cosiness, its a force that interconnects our conciseness. Effectively turning God into The Tao. An omnipresent force.

You are confusing Taoism and Buddhism. The Book of Changes (I Ching) refers repeatedly to the Supreme Ruler, i.e. God. Buddhism is the “non-theistic” religion that eschews any reference to God.

The Conspirator wrote:
If you choose to believe things not based on objective evidence than you can believe anything. No matter how ridiculous it is.

At last a theist admits theres no real evidence for God.

You act as though pure logic is not evidence? I seriously doubt that he does not believe in tangible evidence, the problem is that such incidents are always anecdotal in scientific terms, so he expects you to automatically reject them on those terms, no matter how personally compelling and well documented any of the innumerable such instances are.


The Conspirator wrote:
theres no empirical evidence for God and you choose to believe in God why choose to believe in only one god?

There is tons of evidence, I already asked you for your evaluation criteria on the matter because, as I said, I’m not going to write a novel here for you. I want you to specify your evaluation criteria first.

You have refused to do so and instead simply make false assertions in a vacuum, acting as though others have failed your challenge, rather than the truth which is that you have yet to comply with the challenge made to you.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
This is a discussion of reality, not fiction. You can use you imagination and come up with a universal cosinesses, it could make a good story but when discussing reality you stick with facts and logic, the only time you use your imagination is when discussing something hypothetical.

Quantum computers are a fact. You would like to refer to such unavoidable basic facts in science as fiction, because it does not aide your intellectual bias that rejects any aspect of reality that you dislike.

The universe is not a quantum computer. You could make a quantum computer but the universe will dose not form into one.

mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Theres a problem with that though. You can use you imagination to take that idea and turn it into something completely different. You could say that all life is connected to this universal cosiness, our souls are pat of the universal cosiness. But that has a problem, we all have our own cosinesses, so its not a single universal conciseness as there are innumerable different individual cosinesses interconnected by this "universal cosinesses".

Just as the ocean is full of individual waves, and yet are they really individual? How many people genuinely act in a unique way aren’t simply generic replicas of their racial and social type, like so many colony insects?

We are not ants, we are not waves. Each of us has our own cosinesses, our own minds and thoughts.
Note: if you could make an ant enough of a brain each one would have its own cosinesses. Just cause they work together dose not mean there one.

The Conspirator wrote:
Its no longer a universal cosiness, its a force that interconnects our conciseness. Effectively turning God into The Tao. An omnipresent force.

You are confusing Taoism and Buddhism. The Book of Changes (I Ching) refers repeatedly to the Supreme Ruler, i.e. God. Buddhism is the “non-theistic” religion that eschews any reference to God.[/quote]
The Tao. The eternal but not unchanging, non sentient force that all things come from.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If you choose to believe things not based on objective evidence than you can believe anything. No matter how ridiculous it is.

At last a theist admits theres no real evidence for God.

You act as though pure logic is not evidence? I seriously doubt that he does not believe in tangible evidence, the problem is that such incidents are always anecdotal in scientific terms, so he expects you to automatically reject them on those terms, no matter how personally compelling and well documented any of the innumerable such instances are.

Pure logic is not evidence. You can use logic to make anything seem reasonable.


Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
theres no empirical evidence for God and you choose to believe in God why choose to believe in only one god?

There is tons of evidence, I already asked you for your evaluation criteria on the matter because, as I said, I’m not going to write a novel here for you. I want you to specify your evaluation criteria first.

You have refused to do so and instead simply make false assertions in a vacuum, acting as though others have failed your challenge, rather than the truth which is that you have yet to comply with the challenge made to you.

I already said, objective evidence that dose not rely on gaps in current knowledge. There is none of that. There is no evidence that dose not have a more plausible none god explanation.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
The universe is not a quantum computer. You could make a quantum computer but the universe will dose not form into one.

All particle interactions through all four of the fundamental forces of the universe are matrix operations.

Are you trying to deny this fundamental fact of physics?

The Conspirator wrote:
We are not ants, we are not waves. Each of us has our own cosinesses, our own minds and thoughts.
Note: if you could make an ant enough of a brain each one would have its own cosinesses. Just cause they work together dose not mean there one.

You turned my point on its head: I’m saying that most *people* are brainwashed automations. You are trying to negate my analogy from the wrong direction, as if my analogy required the automated and brainless examples to be conscious. Most people have a herd mentality and do precious little thinking for themselves. They are already one consciousness in that respect, reduced to the common denominator of the collective psyche.

The Conspirator wrote:
The Tao. The eternal but not unchanging, non sentient force that all things come from.

The Tao translates to the “Way”. It has to do with personal conduct. You seem to be getting the Tao confused with the Force from Star Wars.

The Conspirator wrote:
Pure logic is not evidence. You can use logic to make anything seem reasonable.

I don’t see you making any arguments that tie directly back into physics. All of your arguments are nothing more than blanket negations.

The Conspirator wrote:
I already said, objective evidence that dose not rely on gaps in current knowledge. There is none of that.

What is that suppose to mean? Any kind of mystical phenomena is obviously going to be beyond conventional explanation, by the very definition of “mystical phenomena”. It sounds like you are saying it has to be evidence that explicitly rules out the very thing you are demanding that it prove?

The Conspirator wrote:
There is no evidence that dose not have a more plausible none god explanation.

I’m going to drop the God part for the moment and just go for any data that confirms any sort of supernatural phenomena.

Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The universe is not a quantum computer. You could make a quantum computer but the universe will dose not form into one.

All particle interactions through all four of the fundamental forces of the universe are matrix operations.

Are you trying to deny this fundamental fact of physics?

You are trying to twist physics into somethings its not. Interactions between particles do not a computer make.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
We are not ants, we are not waves. Each of us has our own cosinesses, our own minds and thoughts.
Note: if you could make an ant enough of a brain each one would have its own cosinesses. Just cause they work together dose not mean there one.

You turned my point on its head: I’m saying that most *people* are brainwashed automations. You are trying to negate my analogy from the wrong direction, as if my analogy required the automated and brainless examples to be conscious. Most people have a herd mentality and do precious little thinking for themselves. They are already one consciousness in that respect, reduced to the common denominator of the collective psyche.

Now you are tyring to twist my argument into something its not and trying to redefine what consciousness is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The Tao. The eternal but not unchanging, non sentient force that all things come from.

The Tao translates to the “Way”. It has to do with personal conduct. You seem to be getting the Tao confused with the Force from Star Wars.

You don't know what the Tao is.
http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/Tao_te_Ching.PDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Understanding_Tao

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Pure logic is not evidence. You can use logic to make anything seem reasonable.

I don’t see you making any arguments that tie directly back into physics. All of your arguments are nothing more than blanket negations.

I don't need to, you are not no matter how much you think you are, Its just new age pseudo scientific crap.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
I already said, objective evidence that dose not rely on gaps in current knowledge. There is none of that.

What is that suppose to mean? Any kind of mystical phenomena is obviously going to be beyond conventional explanation, by the very definition of “mystical phenomena”. It sounds like you are saying it has to be evidence that explicitly rules out the very thing you are demanding that it prove?

There is nothing mystical or supernatural. All things considered mystical or supernatural are misinterpretations, miss understanding, self delusion and myth.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
There is no evidence that dose not have a more plausible none god explanation.

I’m going to drop the God part for the moment and just go for any data that confirms any sort of supernatural phenomena.

Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception

Fist of all, if such things exist, that dose not mean such things are supernatural. secondly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception#Difficulties_testing_ESP and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception#General_criticism
Note on this "Although a majority of scientists and the public believe that ESP exists,[18]" the majority of scientists also believe in God but they don't let that interfere in the science that they do, its the same with ESP.
chrismen
I have to say I didn't read all the 7 pages of posts but I did read the first and this one. Anyways, something interesting to me is that most of the world is monotheistic. I think that Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. all believe in the same god. Muslims even think that one can achieve greatness with other religions (but that their is the best). Therefore, I think that most people in the world no-a-days believes in the same God.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The universe is not a quantum computer. You could make a quantum computer but the universe will dose not form into one.

All particle interactions through all four of the fundamental forces of the universe are matrix operations.

Are you trying to deny this fundamental fact of physics?

You are trying to twist physics into somethings its not. Interactions between particles do not a computer make.

Not a computer, an Associative Memory Mechanism. Show me the primary difference between how this mechanism operates in neural matrices, and how this could not just as easily develop in particle matrices?

Simply being a computer wouldn’t be good enough, but denials of that are absurd. I heard an interview on Dr. Kaku’s (a physicist at NYU) show Explorations that airs on a local radio station (KPFK), with a quantum physicist working on quantum computing. He made the statement that they are simply tapping into the computational power already inherent in the universe, and added, “If the universe were not already a quantum computer there is no way that any of this would work.”

Face it, the universe is definitively a vast computational device, but Turing machines don’t self-organize, whereas neural networks do. The universe is not just a computer, it is a vast matrix operation that easily satisfies the mathematical models that are our best understanding of how human neural networks fundamentally operate.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
We are not ants, we are not waves. Each of us has our own cosinesses, our own minds and thoughts.
Note: if you could make an ant enough of a brain each one would have its own cosinesses. Just cause they work together dose not mean there one.

You turned my point on its head: I’m saying that most *people* are brainwashed automations. You are trying to negate my analogy from the wrong direction, as if my analogy required the automated and brainless examples to be conscious. Most people have a herd mentality and do precious little thinking for themselves. They are already one consciousness in that respect, reduced to the common denominator of the collective psyche.

Now you are tyring to twist my argument into something its not and trying to redefine what consciousness is.

You turned my point around 180 degrees to the opposite of my intended meaning and then accuse me of twisting your point?

How can you prove to me that you are conscious? I insist that you’re nothing more than an automation, stuck in circular reasoning so deep that there is nothing left but the autopilot. How can you prove to me otherwise? Your knee jerk denials of God’s consciousness can just as easily be applied to you. Show me that you can pass the Turing test?

Note, there has never been proven to be an absolute Turing test that can distinguish automated responses from “conscious” responses. So now how do you prove to any of us that you are really conscious?

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The Tao. The eternal but not unchanging, non sentient force that all things come from.

The Tao translates to the “Way”. It has to do with personal conduct. You seem to be getting the Tao confused with the Force from Star Wars.

You don't know what the Tao is.
http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/Tao_te_Ching.PDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Understanding_Tao

All of these references say exactly what I said. Taoism does include a concept of the Force of course, but that is most definitely not what the Tao is. If you think you can define the Tao in this manner then you should start by reading the first page of Tao de Ching, which states that anyone who tries to define the Tao doesn’t know anything about the Tao, because the Tao is something that can only be lived and experienced.

BTW, I am a Taoist, and I was an atheist until my father challenged me to test the Book of Changes, the principle work of Taoism, saying, “If you call yourself a scientist you will test this book because it makes predictions that are testable.” That was an evocative challenge, sort of like telling a mountain climber, “There’s a huge mountain and you’re not going to climb it? Pussy!” It didn’t convince me right away, but it hit me hard enough to where I couldn’t dismiss it out of hand either and decided it need further study. After two years of testing it out, it gradually transformed my life in the most unexpected ways.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Pure logic is not evidence. You can use logic to make anything seem reasonable.

I don’t see you making any arguments that tie directly back into physics. All of your arguments are nothing more than blanket negations.

I don't need to, you are not no matter how much you think you are, Its just new age pseudo scientific crap.

You counter hard core science with nothing more than slogans, and then claim that you are opposing pseudo science? Such hypocrisy!

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
I already said, objective evidence that dose not rely on gaps in current knowledge. There is none of that.

What is that suppose to mean? Any kind of mystical phenomena is obviously going to be beyond conventional explanation, by the very definition of “mystical phenomena”. It sounds like you are saying it has to be evidence that explicitly rules out the very thing you are demanding that it prove?

There is nothing mystical or supernatural. All things considered mystical or supernatural are misinterpretations, miss understanding, self delusion and myth.

In other words, your idea of “objective” evidence is only those things which support your original bias. Do you know that this is the very antithesis of good science? You don’t seem to have any notion of what the scientific method is, do you? This approach you prescribe precisely defines what scientists mean when they refer to a flawed and biased methodology.

The Conspirator wrote:
Fist of all, if such things exist, that dose not mean such things are supernatural.

How can ESP be anything other than supernatural? How are you defining what is and isn’t supernatural, if no conventional or material explanation is even remotely possible?

The Conspirator wrote:
Note on this "Although a majority of scientists and the public believe that ESP exists,[18]" the majority of scientists also believe in God but they don't let that interfere in the science that they do, its the same with ESP.

What’s your point? There are not studies on God. This study provided one solid piece of evidence in favor of supernatural phenomena, and a majority of scientists accept it as valid, while you dismiss it with nothing more than vague innuendos.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The universe is not a quantum computer. You could make a quantum computer but the universe will dose not form into one.

All particle interactions through all four of the fundamental forces of the universe are matrix operations.

Are you trying to deny this fundamental fact of physics?

You are trying to twist physics into somethings its not. Interactions between particles do not a computer make.

Not a computer, an Associative Memory Mechanism. Show me the primary difference between how this mechanism operates in neural matrices, and how this could not just as easily develop in particle matrices?

Simply being a computer wouldn’t be good enough, but denials of that are absurd. I heard an interview on Dr. Kaku’s (a physicist at NYU) show Explorations that airs on a local radio station (KPFK), with a quantum physicist working on quantum computing. He made the statement that they are simply tapping into the computational power already inherent in the universe, and added, “If the universe were not already a quantum computer there is no way that any of this would work.”

Face it, the universe is definitively a vast computational device, but Turing machines don’t self-organize, whereas neural networks do. The universe is not just a computer, it is a vast matrix operation that easily satisfies the mathematical models that are our best understanding of how human neural networks fundamentally operate.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
We are not ants, we are not waves. Each of us has our own cosinesses, our own minds and thoughts.
Note: if you could make an ant enough of a brain each one would have its own cosinesses. Just cause they work together dose not mean there one.

You turned my point on its head: I’m saying that most *people* are brainwashed automations. You are trying to negate my analogy from the wrong direction, as if my analogy required the automated and brainless examples to be conscious. Most people have a herd mentality and do precious little thinking for themselves. They are already one consciousness in that respect, reduced to the common denominator of the collective psyche.

Now you are tyring to twist my argument into something its not and trying to redefine what consciousness is.

You turned my point around 180 degrees to the opposite of my intended meaning and then accuse me of twisting your point?

How can you prove to me that you are conscious? I insist that you’re nothing more than an automation, stuck in circular reasoning so deep that there is nothing left but the autopilot. How can you prove to me otherwise? Your knee jerk denials of God’s consciousness can just as easily be applied to you. Show me that you can pass the Turing test?

Note, there has never been proven to be an absolute Turing test that can distinguish automated responses from “conscious” responses. So now how do you prove to any of us that you are really conscious?

Yous still twisting physics. Theres nothing in physics to even suggest that the universe has a consciousness, yes it can self organise, so can water. There are certain parameter to what a consciousness is,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Quote:
Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Consciousness
Quote:
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

we meet those paramiters, theres nothing in physics that even sugests that the unavere can even meet any one of those paramiters.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The Tao. The eternal but not unchanging, non sentient force that all things come from.

The Tao translates to the “Way”. It has to do with personal conduct. You seem to be getting the Tao confused with the Force from Star Wars.

You don't know what the Tao is.
http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/Tao_te_Ching.PDF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Understanding_Tao

All of these references say exactly what I said. Taoism does include a concept of the Force of course, but that is most definitely not what the Tao is. If you think you can define the Tao in this manner then you should start by reading the first page of Tao de Ching, which states that anyone who tries to define the Tao doesn’t know anything about the Tao, because the Tao is something that can only be lived and experienced.

I used force to describe the Tao for lack of a better word.
I meant Tao, non-intelligent, non-sentient, omnipresent, eternal thing that all things come from..
By the way, the Tao religion is polytheistic, not monotheistic.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Pure logic is not evidence. You can use logic to make anything seem reasonable.

I don’t see you making any arguments that tie directly back into physics. All of your arguments are nothing more than blanket negations.

I don't need to, you are not no matter how much you think you are, Its just new age pseudo scientific crap.

You counter hard core science with nothing more than slogans, and then claim that you are opposing pseudo science? Such hypocrisy!

No I'm not, you using psudo scientific argumints not baced in science, there is nothing in physics the even sugest that the unaverce has a consciousness.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
I already said, objective evidence that dose not rely on gaps in current knowledge. There is none of that.

What is that suppose to mean? Any kind of mystical phenomena is obviously going to be beyond conventional explanation, by the very definition of “mystical phenomena”. It sounds like you are saying it has to be evidence that explicitly rules out the very thing you are demanding that it prove?

There is nothing mystical or supernatural. All things considered mystical or supernatural are misinterpretations, miss understanding, self delusion and myth.

In other words, your idea of “objective” evidence is only those things which support your original bias. Do you know that this is the very antithesis of good science? You don’t seem to have any notion of what the scientific method is, do you? This approach you prescribe precisely defines what scientists mean when they refer to a flawed and biased methodology.

Yes! Many, many things that has been consider mystical or supernatural has been shown to have natural explanations. Ghosts, UFOs crop circles, the origins of humanity, lightening, storms, earth quakes all have natural explanations and have been believed to have supernatural, paranormal or mystical explanations and many people still believe they do have supernatural or mystical explanations. All of these supernatural and mystical explanations have been based on misinterpretations, misunderstanding, self delusion and myth. Given this history it is foolish to assume anything has supernatural, paranormal or mystical sources.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Fist of all, if such things exist, that dose not mean such things are supernatural.

How can ESP be anything other than supernatural? How are you defining what is and isn’t supernatural, if no conventional or material explanation is even remotely possible?

How can radios send massages and other radios receive them? How can radar detect things?
If ESP exists it would be more related to radio and radar and so on.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Note on this "Although a majority of scientists and the public believe that ESP exists,[18]" the majority of scientists also believe in God but they don't let that interfere in the science that they do, its the same with ESP.

What’s your point? There are not studies on God. This study provided one solid piece of evidence in favor of supernatural phenomena, and a majority of scientists accept it as valid, while you dismiss it with nothing more than vague innuendos.

1.
you wrote:
I’m going to drop the God part for the moment and just go for any data that confirms any sort of supernatural phenomena.

2. If ESP exists, that dose not mean its supernatural in origin.
Tumbleweed
The Conspirator wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Quote:
Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Consciousness
Quote:
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

we meet those paramiters, theres nothing in physics that even sugests that the unavere can even meet any one of those paramiters.


We meet those parameters but we are not part of the universe !!!! ?

Could we not say at least part of the universe is conscious (ie you and me), then once you assume there is one form of consciousness in the universe you must assume there are others forms of consciousness, using your logic

The Conspirator wrote:
If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.


What forms could these consciousness's take ?...... and why would we have to consider them as physical and bound by the same forces as we are ?
The Conspirator
tumbleweed wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Quote:
Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Consciousness
Quote:
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

we meet those paramiters, theres nothing in physics that even sugests that the unavere can even meet any one of those paramiters.


We meet those parameters but we are not part of the universe !!!! ?

Could we not say at least part of the universe is conscious (ie you and me), then once you assume there is one form of consciousness in the universe you must assume there are others forms of consciousness, using your logic

Your right, you could say that since we are part of the universe that the universe has concisenesses. But what mike1reynolds is saying is the universe itself has a conciseness and saying that physics says implies that it dose, there is nothing in physics that even suggests that it dose.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.


What forms could these consciousness's take ?...... and why would we have to consider them as physical and bound by the same forces as we are ?

The statement you quoted is not about any conciseness, its about God.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Simply being a computer wouldn’t be good enough, but denials of that are absurd. I heard an interview on Dr. Kaku’s (a physicist at NYU) show Explorations that airs on a local radio station (KPFK), with a quantum physicist working on quantum computing. He made the statement that they are simply tapping into the computational power already inherent in the universe, and added, “If the universe were not already a quantum computer there is no way that any of this would work.”
Face it, the universe is definitively a vast computational device, but Turing machines don’t self-organize, whereas neural networks do. The universe is not just a computer, it is a vast matrix operation that easily satisfies the mathematical models that are our best understanding of how human neural networks fundamentally operate.


OK…let’s de construct this.
a) Quantum interactions as matrix operations.
It is possible to regard quantum interactions as matrix operations using the Heisenberg formulation. This is known as matrix mechanics and is a perfectly viable model of quantum physics. It is also possible to use the Schrödinger wave model which does not treat the interactions as matrix operations. Both models are valid – in fact it can be demonstrated that the models are equivalent. It is therefore a case of 'pick your model' rather than being a case where there is one clear and agreed model. Both models work so neither is any more valid than the other.
b) The universe as a quantum computer.
This is an interesting theory, but to say any denial of its validity would be ‘absurd’ is to massively overstate the case.
The idea is not new but has recently made the science news because of a book by Seth Lloyd (‘Programming the Universe’) which states the case for the proposition. Previous ideas along the same lines include – the universe is a computer program or simulation (the basis for the Matrix films); the universe is a classical computer; and the universe is a computational algorithm. I have not yet read the book but I have read several reviews* as well as two interviews by Lloyd on the subject** and several discussions of the issue on the web. ***My own conclusion at this point is that, although the idea is interesting and worth considering, there are a number of problems with it.
1) I cannot see how the idea in its current form can be refuted. Unless it can be formulated in a way which is subject to refutation then it simply isn’t science.
2) Quantum computers are themselves still largely theoretical. Although some experiments have been done with single qubits, I am not aware of an actual quantum computer being built yet and as far as I know the major theoretical problem (decoherence) has still not yet been solved.
3) I cannot see how the model deals with the quantum phenomenon of entanglement
(I am more familiar with a related field - quantum consciousness, having recently read up on the matter by Roger Penrose and having just watched a video lecture by Roger Penrose - link below).

General references
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm
http://camres.frih.net/resources/IT/quantumcomputing.pdf

Quantum Consciousness Links
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0183.html?m%3D3
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/penrose/
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
1) I cannot see how the idea in its current form can be refuted. Unless it can be formulated in a way which is subject to refutation then it simply isn’t science.

This is a criticism of science and technology, not a matter of great import to the ultimate truth of reality. That is precisely why science has always been distinct from religion and philosophy. You can do almost all science with virtually no EQ.

Bikerman wrote:
2) Quantum computers are themselves still largely theoretical. Although some experiments have been done with single qubits, I am not aware of an actual quantum computer being built yet and as far as I know the major theoretical problem (decoherence) has still not yet been solved.

That is a side issue really, the universe is more fundamentally a quantum neural net than it is a quantum Turing Machine.

Bikerman wrote:
3) I cannot see how the model deals with the quantum phenomenon of entanglement
(I am more familiar with a related field - quantum consciousness, having recently read up on the matter by Roger Penrose and having just watched a video lecture by Roger Penrose - link below).

I don’t understand how entanglement is supposed to have a bearing on quantum consciousness. How would this effect the operations of a quantum neural net?
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
1) I cannot see how the idea in its current form can be refuted. Unless it can be formulated in a way which is subject to refutation then it simply isn’t science.

This is a criticism of science and technology, not a matter of great import to the ultimate truth of reality. That is precisely why science has always been distinct from religion and philosophy. You can do almost all science with virtually no EQ.

It's a strength of science rather than a weakness I think. 'The ultimate truth of reality'? That definitely puts it outside the scope of science. From my perspective, until it can be brought into the realms of science then it will remain in the metaphysical realm, indicating that the view is something that has to be taken on faith like religion or metaphysical philosophy.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
2) Quantum computers are themselves still largely theoretical. Although some experiments have been done with single qubits, I am not aware of an actual quantum computer being built yet and as far as I know the major theoretical problem (decoherence) has still not yet been solved.

That is a side issue really, the universe is more fundamentally a quantum neural net than it is a quantum Turing Machine.

Or it may be neither of course, which is my own view.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
3) I cannot see how the model deals with the quantum phenomenon of entanglement
(I am more familiar with a related field - quantum consciousness, having recently read up on the matter by Roger Penrose and having just watched a video lecture by Roger Penrose - link below).

I don’t understand how entanglement is supposed to have a bearing on quantum consciousness. How would this effect the operations of a quantum neural net?

Most of the current Quantum Computer models rely on entanglement for the proposed fantastic processing speeds. The problem is (or was, last time I did any reading in this) that the qubits themselves tend to become 'spin-entangled' with their environment. Put simply, it is as though the environment was constantly taking a peek at the state of the qubit which in itself changes the state of the qubit. This is one form of decoherence and I don't think it has been sorted yet.

Regards
Chris
Tumbleweed
The Conspirator wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Quote:
Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Consciousness
Quote:
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

we meet those paramiters, theres nothing in physics that even sugests that the unavere can even meet any one of those paramiters.


We meet those parameters but we are not part of the universe !!!! ?

Could we not say at least part of the universe is conscious (ie you and me), then once you assume there is one form of consciousness in the universe you must assume there are others forms of consciousness, using your logic

Your right, you could say that since we are part of the universe that the universe has concisenesses. But what mike1reynolds is saying is the universe itself has a conciseness and saying that physics says implies that it dose, there is nothing in physics that even suggests that it dose.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.


What forms could these consciousness's take ?...... and why would we have to consider them as physical and bound by the same forces as we are ?

The statement you quoted is not about any conciseness, its about God.


So God would have no consciousness ?
The Conspirator
I didn't say that, I say there is nothing on physics to even suggest there is a universal conciseness. If a god exists it doesn't;t mean it would have conciseness, but I don't see how a bing could create a universe and not have one unless you think of God as some natural force (for lack of a better word) but then God is no longer a go but more like the Tao.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
1) I cannot see how the idea in its current form can be refuted. Unless it can be formulated in a way which is subject to refutation then it simply isn’t science.

This is a criticism of science and technology, not a matter of great import to the ultimate truth of reality. That is precisely why science has always been distinct from religion and philosophy. You can do almost all science with virtually no EQ.

It's a strength of science rather than a weakness I think. 'The ultimate truth of reality'? That definitely puts it outside the scope of science. From my perspective, until it can be brought into the realms of science then it will remain in the metaphysical realm, indicating that the view is something that has to be taken on faith like religion or metaphysical philosophy.

I wasn’t very clear. I’m not saying the issue is intractable to science. I’m saying that what science doesn’t know is not a limitation on how the universe operates. Superstring theory, much less Brane theory, is irrefutable at this time, but that doesn’t make it any less scientific.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
2) Quantum computers are themselves still largely theoretical. Although some experiments have been done with single qubits, I am not aware of an actual quantum computer being built yet and as far as I know the major theoretical problem (decoherence) has still not yet been solved.

That is a side issue really, the universe is more fundamentally a quantum neural net than it is a quantum Turing Machine.

Or it may be neither of course, which is my own view.

Neural net analogues are an inherently more intractable issue because science’s understanding of how the brain operates to produce consciousness is in such a primitive state. All that can be said with certainty is that the universe is capable of operating as an associative memory mechanism.

However, when it comes to whether or not the universe is a computational device, I have a fundamental objection to the notion that it could possibly not be a computational device. At very least it is a digital cellular automata. There are quanta of space and time as well as energy, everything is digitized.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
3) I cannot see how the model deals with the quantum phenomenon of entanglement
(I am more familiar with a related field - quantum consciousness, having recently read up on the matter by Roger Penrose and having just watched a video lecture by Roger Penrose - link below).

I don’t understand how entanglement is supposed to have a bearing on quantum consciousness. How would this effect the operations of a quantum neural net?

Most of the current Quantum Computer models rely on entanglement for the proposed fantastic processing speeds. The problem is (or was, last time I did any reading in this) that the qubits themselves tend to become 'spin-entangled' with their environment. Put simply, it is as though the environment was constantly taking a peek at the state of the qubit which in itself changes the state of the qubit. This is one form of decoherence and I don't think it has been sorted yet.

Whether or not their present approach is efficacious, I don’t see how it is possible that the universe could not be a computational device. How are you defining computational device such that it could exclude the operations of the universe?
Tumbleweed
The Conspirator wrote:
I didn't say that, I say there is nothing on physics to even suggest there is a universal conciseness. If a god exists it doesn't;t mean it would have conciseness, but I don't see how a bing could create a universe and not have one unless you think of God as some natural force (for lack of a better word) but then God is no longer a go but more like the Tao.


Religions are a way to contact the divine, Christianity , Islam , Hinduism , Buddhism , Sikism , Judaism , and the multitude of different cults/sects that have lived and died (or gone into hiding) you could say at a basic level are all different storys with the same plot , they are shown to share fables or idioms , Christianity could be said to have taken its "turn the other cheek" from the Tao teaching of "inaction", if Tao is said to be the way of the cosmos and the word logic derives from the Greek word "logos" wich is the way of the cosmos could we say science wich relys on logic is Taoism ?......I doubt it Confused ... One thing all these religious things do share for sure(along with science) is that there is an order to the universe , some call it intelligent design , some call it the force of nature , some call it one of the religions mentioned

I would agree I to see no direct evidence that the universe itself has a conscious or is some form of computer ( for want of a better word) but given the fact that we ourselfs look likely to one day create AI , you have to assume that AI can be contained in a computer ( again for want of a better word) or some form of electronic/biological/chemical hybrid, it can be told its in an infinate space even if its not...I assume a good programmer could tell it anything... could logically one conscious being can be a God to another conscious being ?
make_life_better
mike1reynolds wrote:
I wasn’t very clear. I’m not saying the issue is intractable to science. I’m saying that what science doesn’t know is not a limitation on how the universe operates. Superstring theory, much less Brane theory, is irrefutable at this time, but that doesn’t make it any less scientific.


I do have some reservations about such things - as superstring and brane theories don't yet seem able to produce really testable predictions, then they may not really be science...

mike1reynolds wrote:
However, when it comes to whether or not the universe is a computational device, I have a fundamental objection to the notion that it could possibly not be a computational device. At very least it is a digital cellular automata. There are quanta of space and time as well as energy, everything is digitized.


and then later...

mike1reynolds wrote:
Whether or not their present approach is efficacious, I don’t see how it is possible that the universe could not be a computational device. How are you defining computational device such that it could exclude the operations of the universe?


I have a problem with this too. You also stated in an earlier post that particle interactions are matrix interactions. I feel that you may be making the leap that just because things in the real world may be modelled or represented or reasoned about in a certain way, that the model is the reality and all the consequences of that model must also follow. That's a dangerous leap of (false) logic. Science is just about building models and theories and testing how well they describe the universe - we should not assume that the universe is the model. So, although particle interactions are well described by matrix models, this doesn't mean that they are matrix models.
mike1reynolds
make_life_better wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
I wasn’t very clear. I’m not saying the issue is intractable to science. I’m saying that what science doesn’t know is not a limitation on how the universe operates. Superstring theory, much less Brane theory, is irrefutable at this time, but that doesn’t make it any less scientific.


I do have some reservations about such things - as superstring and brane theories don't yet seem able to produce really testable predictions, then they may not really be science...

That is an extremely loose and ambiguous statement. What precisely do you mean when you say that something “may not really be science”? Are you saying that the model may turn out to be inaccurate? If so, that is a very odd way to express it. Or are you saying that it is the act of reaching beyond what technology can currently test? Testing some predictions of superstring theory is just a matter of waiting for them to build a big better cyclotron. That would be an arbitrary and capricious way of defining what is and what is not science. It took quite a long time for Relativity to get its first test, and theoretical physics has apparently mostly never been a real science, in your opinion…

make_life_better wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
However, when it comes to whether or not the universe is a computational device, I have a fundamental objection to the notion that it could possibly not be a computational device. At very least it is a digital cellular automata. There are quanta of space and time as well as energy, everything is digitized.


and then later...

mike1reynolds wrote:
Whether or not their present approach is efficacious, I don’t see how it is possible that the universe could not be a computational device. How are you defining computational device such that it could exclude the operations of the universe?


I have a problem with this too. You also stated in an earlier post that particle interactions are matrix interactions. I feel that you may be making the leap that just because things in the real world may be modelled or represented or reasoned about in a certain way, that the model is the reality and all the consequences of that model must also follow. That's a dangerous leap of (false) logic. Science is just about building models and theories and testing how well they describe the universe - we should not assume that the universe is the model. So, although particle interactions are well described by matrix models, this doesn't mean that they are matrix models.


Dude, this is ABC stuff, not far flung abstractions. All n-body calculations are matrix operations. But even if this were a lofty and obscure insight, your philosophical approach to science here is a dream-like fantasy approach. It is not a dangerous or false leap to attribute validity to the mechanism of a model when that model makes accurate predictions. That is a completely vacuous assertion, and the motive behind it is a purely emotional one, not a logical one at all. It is just a wimpy excuse for moral relativism and an attempt to draw attention away from certitude, because you have taken sides and want to deny that it is 100% certain that you are wrong.

Science does not distinguish between the predictions of a model and the mechanisms of a model. You have posed an entirely false dichotomy, these two things can in no way be extricated from each other, and then you say that one side of this false dichotomy represents science and the other side does not, and is rather entirely a realm of dangerous and false leaps of logic. You are making up science as you go along here, this has nothing to do with real science.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:

I wasn’t very clear. I’m not saying the issue is intractable to science. I’m saying that what science doesn’t know is not a limitation on how the universe operates. Superstring theory, much less Brane theory, is irrefutable at this time, but that doesn’t make it any less scientific.

That was my point really...it does make it so. As make-life-better was also trying to point out, I think, refutability is one of the core distinguishing characteristics of science. Any statement, posit or theory which cannot be refuted is not science. This follows from Popper's work early last century in response to the basic problem of never being able to positively prove any theory in science (Induction problem).
Quote:

Neural net analogues are an inherently more intractable issue because science’s understanding of how the brain operates to produce consciousness is in such a primitive state. All that can be said with certainty is that the universe is capable of operating as an associative memory mechanism.

I fail to see how that can be said with any certainty at all......
Quote:
However, when it comes to whether or not the universe is a computational device, I have a fundamental objection to the notion that it could possibly not be a computational device. At very least it is a digital cellular automata. There are quanta of space and time as well as energy, everything is digitized.

I have never said that it is not possible - I have pointed out specific problems with the theory.
Quote:
Whether or not their present approach is efficacious, I don’t see how it is possible that the universe could not be a computational device. How are you defining computational device such that it could exclude the operations of the universe?

Computational device: simplest definition will do - a device which carries out computation. Once again I have not rules anything out. I have merely pointed out that there are problems with such a definition. The references I gave cover the matter in depth and point out the problems.. There is also a problem which I failed to mention....Is the universe finite? Science doesn't know. Without knowing the answer to that any statement that the 'universe' is a computer is speculative at best.

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:

I wasn’t very clear. I’m not saying the issue is intractable to science. I’m saying that what science doesn’t know is not a limitation on how the universe operates. Superstring theory, much less Brane theory, is irrefutable at this time, but that doesn’t make it any less scientific.

That was my point really...it does make it so. As make-life-better was also trying to point out, I think, refutability is one of the core distinguishing characteristics of science. Any statement, posit or theory which cannot be refuted is not science. This follows from Popper's work early last century in response to the basic problem of never being able to positively prove any theory in science (Induction problem).

Are you saying that before 1919 when Relativity was finally tested, it was not science? Like I said, that is an arbitrary and capricious definition of science.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

Neural net analogues are an inherently more intractable issue because science’s understanding of how the brain operates to produce consciousness is in such a primitive state. All that can be said with certainty is that the universe is capable of operating as an associative memory mechanism.

I fail to see how that can be said with any certainty at all......
Quote:
However, when it comes to whether or not the universe is a computational device, I have a fundamental objection to the notion that it could possibly not be a computational device. At very least it is a digital cellular automata. There are quanta of space and time as well as energy, everything is digitized.

I have never said that it is not possible - I have pointed out specific problems with the theory.

The only possible way that universe could not be a computational device is if it were totally static. As long as it has more than one state than at the very minimum, it is a finite state automata, which is a computational device.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Whether or not their present approach is efficacious, I don’t see how it is possible that the universe could not be a computational device. How are you defining computational device such that it could exclude the operations of the universe?

Computational device: simplest definition will do - a device which carries out computation. Once again I have not rules anything out. I have merely pointed out that there are problems with such a definition. The references I gave cover the matter in depth and point out the problems..

Nothing you have provided even remotely suggests that the universe could not even be a finite state automata. The very notion that it could not be a finite state automata should be obviously absurd on the face of it.

Bikerman wrote:
There is also a problem which I failed to mention....Is the universe finite? Science doesn't know. Without knowing the answer to that any statement that the 'universe' is a computer is speculative at best.

Why does this question matter at all? If a computer has to have infinite processing power and storage, then you have just defined computers out of existence.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:

I wasn’t very clear. I’m not saying the issue is intractable to science. I’m saying that what science doesn’t know is not a limitation on how the universe operates. Superstring theory, much less Brane theory, is irrefutable at this time, but that doesn’t make it any less scientific.

That was my point really...it does make it so. As make-life-better was also trying to point out, I think, refutability is one of the core distinguishing characteristics of science. Any statement, posit or theory which cannot be refuted is not science. This follows from Popper's work early last century in response to the basic problem of never being able to positively prove any theory in science (Induction problem).

Are you saying that before 1919 when Relativity was finally tested, it was not science? Like I said, that is an arbitrary and capricious definition of science.

Nonono...relativity was CAPABLE of refutation from the word getgo. It's the capability of being proved wrong which is important - even if the tools are not currently here....It is neither arbitrary nor capricious....it is standard operating procedure. Any theory in science must contain a refutable element....something like....;
"Here is my theory. It says that you will see a or b when you do such and such. If, however, you do not see either a' or b' or, worse, you see c, then my theory is wrong."
This is the way all science is done. Then a peer review panel do such and such and try everything they can to show that they cannot see a or b....If they DO see a or b and find no other flaws, then the paper can be called a theory and accepted into the body of work in that field.....this is how it works....Anything which cannot be refuted is either pseudo-science or metaphysics. In fact the idea of refutability was originally proposed exactly as a method of telling the difference between science and 'not science'.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

Neural net analogues are an inherently more intractable issue because science’s understanding of how the brain operates to produce consciousness is in such a primitive state. All that can be said with certainty is that the universe is capable of operating as an associative memory mechanism.

I fail to see how that can be said with any certainty at all......
Quote:
However, when it comes to whether or not the universe is a computational device, I have a fundamental objection to the notion that it could possibly not be a computational device. At very least it is a digital cellular automata. There are quanta of space and time as well as energy, everything is digitized.

I have never said that it is not possible - I have pointed out specific problems with the theory.

The only possible way that universe could not be a computational device is if it were totally static. As long as it has more than one state than at the very minimum, it is a finite state automata, which is a computational device.

not so. There are at least 2 ways I can imagine a dynamic universe not qualifying as a FSA/FSM (Finite State Automata/Finite State Machine).
1) If it contains infinite states then, by definition, it cannot be a finite state automata.
2) If you cannot define specific transitions reliably - as in quantum particles which can exist as probability waves, until collapsed at observation - then this cannot be defined as a FSA/FSM. In such a case you have a Quantum Finite Automata which is not the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_finite_automata.
Now I personally don't believe either of those to be 'in reality' show stoppers. There is some work, for example, on infinite state computing being done. As for the second, if you can model a Quantum Finite Device then that is probably possible of being turned into a computer given the right language and logic design.
Quote:
Nothing you have provided even remotely suggests that the universe could not even be a finite state automata. The very notion that it could not be a finite state automata should be obviously absurd on the face of it.

See above. The only point I have made and am making (and have consistently stuck to) is that it is a nice idea but it is not yet science and may not ever be science. On the otherhand it may.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
There is also a problem which I failed to mention....Is the universe finite? Science doesn't know. Without knowing the answer to that any statement that the 'universe' is a computer is speculative at best.
Why does this question matter at all? If a computer has to have infinite processing power and storage, then you have just defined computers out of existence.

No...since in an infinite universe you could not map the possible states to corresponding inputs because the group of possible states and the group of possible inputs could both be infinite. Without such a mapping there is no FSA/FSM. Once again you would have to move from that model to a quantum model.
mike1reynolds
You have two basic points here: misapplying Popper and distorting the essential nature of what an automata is. You are splitting hairs over what it is to be an automata. None of the distinctions you refer to have any impact or present any complications for the Theory of Algorithms. ToA steps over all of the distinctions you are making like they are nothing.

Bikerman wrote:

mike1reynolds wrote:

Bikerman wrote:
There is also a problem which I failed to mention....Is the universe finite? Science doesn't know. Without knowing the answer to that any statement that the 'universe' is a computer is speculative at best.

Why does this question matter at all? If a computer has to have infinite processing power and storage, then you have just defined computers out of existence.

No...since in an infinite universe you could not map the possible states to corresponding inputs because the group of possible states and the group of possible inputs could both be infinite. Without such a mapping there is no FSA/FSM. Once again you would have to move from that model to a quantum model.

This distinction is shunted in an instant with the realization that any infinite state automata can easily simulate not only one, but an infinite number of finite state automatas. An infinite state automata does not have less power than a finite state automata, it has more power. Most of the basic automatas in ToA do have infinite states, for example a push down automata has an infinite stack. The Turing Machine has an infinite two directional tape storage.

=================================================================

Your attempts to apply Popper in a one size fits all manner represents the classic flaw in understanding empirical methodologies that is made by most technicians who don’t get out of the lab much. I challenge you to apply your notions of refutability to astronomy and the scientific endeavors of early natural explorers. You will invariably run up against the problem of constructing ad hoc explanations designed simply to account for everything that has been seen without making any real testable predictions. While I detest Freud and think that he was in fact guilty of mostly pseudo-science, I doubt that you would be able to describe the conduct of astronomy in a manner that makes a meaningful distinction between it and Freudian psychology.

A further question is, if Freudian psychology is so clearly irrefutable then why is there a single Freudian walking around today? Why is it, in fact, that there are LOTS of them in the psychological and psychiatric community? Do you think that they just never heard of Popper? While in the one case of Freud, the violation of Popper leads to real pseudoscience, it is also true that virtually anything of real mental substance in psychology deals with problems that are so complex that Popper’s basic primitive outline of the common denominators of problem solving, are hopelessly outclassed by the magnitude of inseparable independent variables that could never be fixed. It is like trying to use a sowing needle for wood working, it is just the wrong tool for the job and is not applicable to all of science, most especially the philosophy of science.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
You have two basic points here: misapplying Popper and distorting the essential nature of what an automata is. You are splitting hairs over what it is to be an automata. None of the distinctions you refer to have any impact or present any complications for the Theory of Algorithms. ToA steps over all of the distinctions you are making like they are nothing.

LOL...if you say so. I thought I knew Popper better than most - I did my Masters on Scientific method, logical positivism and refutation...Still, it's a while since I read his Conjecture and Refutations...
I never mentioned, or meant to mention, Freud so I'm not sure what the refers to.
As for the automata...hmm..I think you missed the point...it's the possible infinity of states AND transactions which is the problem but anyway, I really don't want to continue with this any more since it's giving me a headache...so I'll leave and let you get on with it and bow out to go and read some Popper.

Regards
Chris
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You have two basic points here: misapplying Popper and distorting the essential nature of what an automata is. You are splitting hairs over what it is to be an automata. None of the distinctions you refer to have any impact or present any complications for the Theory of Algorithms. ToA steps over all of the distinctions you are making like they are nothing.

LOL...if you say so. I thought I knew Popper better than most - I did my Masters on Scientific method, logical positivism and refutation...Still, it's a while since I read his Conjecture and Refutations...I never mentioned, or meant to mention, Freud so I'm not sure what the refers to.

I challenged you to compare and contrast astronomy (clearly a science) to psychoanalysis (rejected by most as science) in order to demonstrate that you can test Popper, but you have refused, implying that you feel that Popper is irrefutable and need not be tested.

Bikerman wrote:

As for the automata...hmm..I think you missed the point...it's the possible infinity of states AND transactions which is the problem

I hardly missed the fact that you have no point at all. “Transactions”?

Bikerman wrote:

but anyway, I really don't want to continue with this any more since it's giving me a headache...

Must be painfully hard trying to make up your argument as you go along!

Bikerman wrote:

so I'll leave and let you get on with it and bow out to go and read some Popper.

You worship at the alter of blind faith in Popper and scoff at the godless heathens who would dare to question Popper and demand that he be tested by his own criteria.
parokya
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


The assumption is mistaken. It is not as if there are several groups claiming that theirs is the only God. There can only be one God but several groups have experienced him differently. There are in other words different perceptions of the one God.

As to the second question: How do I know that the God I recognize is real ... what do you mean by "real"?
sergio_ykz
parokya wrote:
As to the second question: How do I know that the God I recognize is real ... what do you mean by "real"?


Many religions believe that your is the right, and the other are faces of demon to make people in the wrong path.

I prefer a easier definition:

Only have the wrong and the right.

You are your judge.

If you are in a wrong path, you need to self correct.

No more from here exists or you don't know nothing more. Then don't loose your life with a chance of eternity life.

Its my way of life. Billions of peoples, Billions of minds.

Try you your own path.
The Conspirator
parokya wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


The assumption is mistaken. It is not as if there are several groups claiming that theirs is the only God. There can only be one God but several groups have experienced him differently. There are in other words different perceptions of the one God.

As to the second question: How do I know that the God I recognize is real ... what do you mean by "real"?

You missed the point of the question. If one god exists, than there can be other gods and would be other gods.
sergio_ykz
I think that gods don't exists.
mike1reynolds
sergio_ykz wrote:
I think that gods don't exists.

That is of course the only meaningful point that Conspirator is trying to make.

The Conspirator wrote:
parokya wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


The assumption is mistaken. It is not as if there are several groups claiming that theirs is the only God. There can only be one God but several groups have experienced him differently. There are in other words different perceptions of the one God.

As to the second question: How do I know that the God I recognize is real ... what do you mean by "real"?

You missed the point of the question. If one god exists, than there can be other gods and would be other gods.

How could anyone miss such a simplistic point, repeated over and over again ad nauseum? He didn’t miss anything, he directly and resoundly rebutted your other false statement (quoted in red) about how every religion supposedly views all other religions as believing in a myth and not the real God.

As to the statement in blue, in the Bible both God and angels are referred to as elohim, and both Psalms and Jesus say, “ye are all gods!” Your criticism is completely meaningless from the point of view of Judeo-Christian theology. Whose theological notion of God are you attempting to attack here, because it is singularly meaningless in a Judeo-Christian context.
The Conspirator
He said
Quote:
The assumption is mistaken. It is not as if there are several groups claiming that theirs is the only God. There can only be one God but several groups have experienced him differently. There are in other words different perceptions of the one God.

Translations: all those other gods are the same god just experienced in different was and misinterpreted as some other god.
The questing is.
If one god exists, how can you say no other god exists?
What he said was not even close to what the question asked.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
The questing is.
If one god exists, how can you say no other god exists?
What he said was not even close to what the question asked.


No, the question you presented was:

The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


Are you an Alzheimer patient? It is hard for me to believe that you are genuinely getting so profoundly confused over such a simple matter. It looks like a lame polemic ploy to me.
sergio_ykz
If you have presenced a miracle or a God presence or a spirit presence, its ok for you to believe in that. But many peoples only believe in things that other peoples have experienced.

Like it:

[quote=believer]I believe in God because He salved my brother of drugs.[/quote]

"He" don't save anything, it is only a way that many peoples have to believe in yourself.

YOU ARE YOUR POWERFULL AND TRULLY GOD.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
The questing is.
If one god exists, how can you say no other god exists?
What he said was not even close to what the question asked.


No, the question you presented was:

The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


Are you an Alzheimer patient? It is hard for me to believe that you are genuinely getting so profoundly confused over such a simple matter. It looks like a lame polemic ploy to me.

Same question, different wording.
Don't be so literal.
the_mariska
The Conspirator wrote:
He said
Quote:
The assumption is mistaken. It is not as if there are several groups claiming that theirs is the only God. There can only be one God but several groups have experienced him differently. There are in other words different perceptions of the one God.

Translations: all those other gods are the same god just experienced in different was and misinterpreted as some other god.
The questing is.
If one god exists, how can you say no other god exists?
What he said was not even close to what the question asked.

I think the answer isn't that difficult. If you believe in a God that is infinitely powerful, infinitely great, infinitely good, overall infinite, and the cause of everything there's no room for another infinity in that kind of reality. This matches the Christian definition of God: transcendent - above and independent of the material universe, immanent - "in Him we live, move and are", and the Creator of the whole universe. If there were more than one gods like this, none of them would actually be the Almighty. Well,we're stepping to the territory between logic and philosophy, and the problem of infitity, which is actually beyond our cognitive possibilities. So is God.
Indi
the_mariska wrote:
I think the answer isn't that difficult. If you believe in a God that is infinitely powerful, infinitely great, infinitely good, overall infinite, and the cause of everything there's no room for another infinity in that kind of reality. This matches the Christian definition of God: transcendent - above and independent of the material universe, immanent - "in Him we live, move and are", and the Creator of the whole universe. If there were more than one gods like this, none of them would actually be the Almighty. Well,we're stepping to the territory between logic and philosophy, and the problem of infitity, which is actually beyond our cognitive possibilities. So is God.

Infinity is not beyond our cognitive possibilities, it is simply outside of the realm of "common sense". Just because we cannot grasp something automatically does not make it impossible to grasp. It simply means you have to strain a little and perhaps rely on external tools and analogical help. You just have to work a little at it. (And incidently, this is neither outside of nor "between" logic and philosophy - this is exactly the kind of thing both are commonly applied to, since the days of Socrates. And isn't it rather strange to say "the answer isn't difficult" and it is "beyond our cognitive possibilities" in one paragraph? If it really were impossible to conceive of infinity, how could you conceive of an infinite God?)

Unfortunately, because it takes a moment for us to wrap our minds around infinity, that means that sometimes nonsense can slip in under the radar before we manage to bring our conceptual tools to bear. For instance, how can God be both transcendant (outside of the universe) and immanent (inside of the universe)? Or do you mean that God is transcendant (relative to the universe), but the universe in immanent (relative to God) - or in other words, God is outside of the universe but the universe is within God? That seems to fit what you said more closely.

But let's consider your point. You say that God is infinitely powerful, infinitely great, infinitely good, infinitely x, y and z, right? Infinites of everything are possible, according to your description. And yet, of gods, there is only one. Why? Why infinite everything else, and only one god? If you can have infinite greatness, why can't you have infinite infinite greatnesses? Because the first makes sense but the latter doesn't? Why?

You say there's only room for one infinity, and this is where i have to call you out on failing to try to grasp infinity. One infinity is the same as an infinite infinities. If one infinite being can fit in an infinity, an infinite number of them can. It's not like you can crowd an infinite space. As a matter of fact, you could have an infinite amount of infinite beings in an infinite space, and there could still be an infinite amount of space between them.

If there were an infinite amount of infinite gods, each could be almighty without contradicting the term. That's the nature of infinity.
mike1reynolds
Indi wrote:
Unfortunately, because it takes a moment for us to wrap our minds around infinity, that means that sometimes nonsense can slip in under the radar before we manage to bring our conceptual tools to bear. For instance, how can God be both transcendant (outside of the universe) and immanent (inside of the universe)? Or do you mean that God is transcendant (relative to the universe), but the universe in immanent (relative to God) - or in other words, God is outside of the universe but the universe is within God? That seems to fit what you said more closely.
You love to split hairs over false dichotomies. God is both inside and outside the visible universe, but if by universe you mean multiverse, then God is the entire multiverse. Your contrived attributes fall to pieces as meaningless definitions of nothing, in this light.

Indi wrote:
But let's consider your point. You say that God is infinitely powerful, infinitely great, infinitely good, infinitely x, y and z, right? Infinites of everything are possible, according to your description. And yet, of gods, there is only one. Why? Why infinite everything else, and only one god? If you can have infinite greatness, why can't you have infinite infinite greatnesses? Because the first makes sense but the latter doesn't? Why?
You are confusing transfinite infinities with Absolute Infinity. Cantor proved that there is only one Absolute Infinity.

Indi wrote:
You say there's only room for one infinity, and this is where i have to call you out on failing to try to grasp infinity. One infinity is the same as an infinite infinities. If one infinite being can fit in an infinity, an infinite number of them can. It's not like you can crowd an infinite space. As a matter of fact, you could have an infinite amount of infinite beings in an infinite space, and there could still be an infinite amount of space between them.
You are about 200 years behind the times on mathematics, my friend.

Indi wrote:
If there were an infinite amount of infinite gods, each could be almighty without contradicting the term. That's the nature of infinity.
I thought this lame argument was put to rest pages ago...
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
You are confusing transfinite infinities with Absolute Infinity. Cantor proved that there is only one Absolute Infinity.

You seem convinced of this and yet I still maintain he did nothing of the sort. He 'believed' there was an absolute infinity and it was a real thing rather than a conceptual model, I agree. He never proved it though...it is not capable of proof since it is a metaphysical concept. Although I freely admit that Cantor was a genius and that much of his work remains beyond my meagre abilities, I understand enough of his work on transfinite numbers to know that it is rigorous but, like all closed systems of logic/math, it is also tautological and, more importantly, cannot claim to make definite statements about physical reality - as I am positive that any mathematician would be quick to say. One of his biographers put it like this
Quote:
Cantor believed that a theory’s internal consistency proved the mathematical possibility of a concept. That is, if one can define the parameters of the theory such that no contradictions may be produced as a result of mathematical manipulations (i.e. it is consistent), it is mathematically possible. Importantly, for Cantor “consistency alone was the determining factor in any question of mathematical existence, since God could realize any ‘possibility’” (Dauben 229). In other words, internal consistency was sufficient to prove the possibility of a mathematical object, and this mathematical possibility in turn was sufficient to prove mathematical existence of the object, because God would necessarily bring any possibility to existence. But what sort of existence? To Cantor, phenomenological existence held little weight on the absolute existence of an object, and thus never claimed that his ideas had any existence in the physical world.
(P Carey - Beyond Infinity: Georg Cantor and Leopold Kronecker’s Dispute over Transfinite Numbers)

That seems a fair summary to me.
Obviously this makes no claims about spacetime, nor can it.
mike1reynolds
The notion of an Absolute Infinity is so obviously compelling that the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence otherwise. Physical reality cannot defy 1+1=2, nor can it defy mathematical notions of infinity.

This is such a pervasive fact of reality that even spiritualists not attempt to approach these facts through science, come up with very much the same answer. The demiurges of Gnosticism are a perfect of example of how the consicousness of the universe can turn into something quite ugly along transfinite infinities. Only the ultimate God, the Absolute Infinity of consciousness, is pure in the Gnostic reckoning of things.

Once you start getting out towards an infinity, any infinity, even the most primitive computational/dynamical systems begin to self organize. But at Absolute Infinity the system closes and completes itself, there is not possibility of the consciousness of Absolute Infinity being corrupted or even altered in any way. It is beyond all dimensions of time. It is always and eternally Conscious. The Source of all Consciousness.
Whong
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


Because my Lord God Almighty has given me the faith in Him. A man by himself can't believe because it isn't of a man to believe! Idea

Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
The Conspirator
God may have given you faith in him (no, you choose to have faith in him but thats not faith, you have some thing(s) that you use as "evidence" to convince your self of your beliefs. But thats off topic) but that dose not mean he is the only one. He could still be one of many and the monotheist aspect could be a human addition or a lie.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You are confusing transfinite infinities with Absolute Infinity. Cantor proved that there is only one Absolute Infinity.

You seem convinced of this and yet I still maintain he did nothing of the sort. He 'believed' there was an absolute infinity and it was a real thing rather than a conceptual model, I agree. He never proved it though...it is not capable of proof since it is a metaphysical concept. Although I freely admit that Cantor was a genius and that much of his work remains beyond my meagre abilities, I understand enough of his work on transfinite numbers to know that it is rigorous but, like all closed systems of logic/math, it is also tautological and, more importantly, cannot claim to make definite statements about physical reality - as I am positive that any mathematician would be quick to say. One of his biographers put it like this
Quote:
Cantor believed that a theory’s internal consistency proved the mathematical possibility of a concept. That is, if one can define the parameters of the theory such that no contradictions may be produced as a result of mathematical manipulations (i.e. it is consistent), it is mathematically possible. Importantly, for Cantor “consistency alone was the determining factor in any question of mathematical existence, since God could realize any ‘possibility’” (Dauben 229). In other words, internal consistency was sufficient to prove the possibility of a mathematical object, and this mathematical possibility in turn was sufficient to prove mathematical existence of the object, because God would necessarily bring any possibility to existence. But what sort of existence? To Cantor, phenomenological existence held little weight on the absolute existence of an object, and thus never claimed that his ideas had any existence in the physical world.
(P Carey - Beyond Infinity: Georg Cantor and Leopold Kronecker’s Dispute over Transfinite Numbers)

That seems a fair summary to me.
Obviously this makes no claims about spacetime, nor can it.

All true, but short of the mark. Cantor may have been a genius, but he was also batty. He certainly did not prove any "absolute infinity", he just made it up as a way to rationalize his religious beliefs pseudo-mathematically.In fact, he went out of his way to say that "absolute infinity" had no relevance in the real world - he was at least smart enough to know when he was spouting crap.

As you say, Cantor was fully well aware that existence does not follow math - math follows existence... sometimes. He had terms that he used to divide "existing" into three parts, which are (from very vague memory): "divinus intellectus" (in the mind of God), "in abstracto" (in the mind of humans) and "in i-cant-remember-but-something-like-real" (in physical reality). Anything that exists in physical reality must also exist in the mind of humans and God, but the reverse is not true. There are things that may exist in the minds of humans but not in physical reality, although they must exist in the mind of God.

Cantor's "absolute infinity" is the infinity to end all infinities - the only one that he believed wasn't "transfinite" (one of those words that really doesn't have a meaning, rather like "macro-evolution"). Cantor believed that the only place "absolute infinity" can exist is in the mind of God. It cannot exist in the minds of humans... and... it cannot exist in reality! O_O

So... let's wrap our minds around that. According to Cantor himself, reality does not contain "absolute infinity", but God contains "absolute infinity". Therefore, God cannot exist in reality ^_^; Go figure. (Actually, Cantor's work is loaded with paradoxes, and has mostly been superseded by more modern theories.)

Or perhaps a more precise way of saying it is "reality cannot contain God". Either way, if you really want to accept Cantor's wacky philosophy, you have to write off the idea of God existing "within" anything - because if he contains the "absolute infinite", nothing can contain him. But there's nothing in any of that that even implies that there can't be more than one God. All Cantor's logic leads to is that you can't have more than one God in God. Which... really... proves nothing.

Really, this whole Cantor thing is just waste of time.
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
All true, but short of the mark. Cantor may have been a genius, but he was also batty. He certainly did not prove any "absolute infinity", he just made it up as a way to rationalize his religious beliefs pseudo-mathematically.In fact, he went out of his way to say that "absolute infinity" had no relevance in the real world - he was at least smart enough to know when he was spouting crap.

As you say, Cantor was fully well aware that existence does not follow math - math follows existence... sometimes. He had terms that he used to divide "existing" into three parts, which are (from very vague memory): "divinus intellectus" (in the mind of God), "in abstracto" (in the mind of humans) and "in i-cant-remember-but-something-like-real" (in physical reality). Anything that exists in physical reality must also exist in the mind of humans and God, but the reverse is not true. There are things that may exist in the minds of humans but not in physical reality, although they must exist in the mind of God.

Agreed - I've read a bit about the chap and he did seem several trees short of a forest. The point is well made - he started from the position of being a strict Lutheran and was surprised that his theory was attacked by other religious because he saw it as an extension to god's glory - the ultimate.
Quote:
Cantor's "absolute infinity" is the infinity to end all infinities - the only one that he believed wasn't "transfinite" (one of those words that really doesn't have a meaning, rather like "macro-evolution"). Cantor believed that the only place "absolute infinity" can exist is in the mind of God. It cannot exist in the minds of humans... and... it cannot exist in reality! O_O
So... let's wrap our minds around that. According to Cantor himself, reality does not contain "absolute infinity", but God contains "absolute infinity". Therefore, God cannot exist in reality ^_^; Go figure. (Actually, Cantor's work is loaded with paradoxes, and has mostly been superseded by more modern theories.)
Agreed again....his transfinite work is still relevant from my limited readings but there seems to be a sort of embarrassed silence by many mathematicians when the topic of absolute infinities is raised.
Quote:

Or perhaps a more precise way of saying it is "reality cannot contain God". Either way, if you really want to accept Cantor's wacky philosophy, you have to write off the idea of God existing "within" anything - because if he contains the "absolute infinite", nothing can contain him. But there's nothing in any of that that even implies that there can't be more than one God. All Cantor's logic leads to is that you can't have more than one God in God. Which... really... proves nothing.

Really, this whole Cantor thing is just waste of time.

Yep - I've felt that for some while. Unfortunately it seems to be raised in many different topics to prove all sorts of things and I was trying, fairly gently, to say that it really proves nothing.
mike1reynolds
Indi wrote:
All true, but short of the mark. Cantor may have been a genius, but he was also batty. He certainly did not prove any "absolute infinity", he just made it up as a way to rationalize his religious beliefs pseudo-mathematically.In fact, he went out of his way to say that "absolute infinity" had no relevance in the real world - he was at least smart enough to know when he was spouting crap.
References please? If actual references are dug up it will be shown that this not even remotely what he was saying. It is this synopsis of Cantor that is clap.

Indi wrote:
As you say, Cantor was fully well aware that existence does not follow math - math follows existence... sometimes. He had terms that he used to divide "existing" into three parts, which are (from very vague memory): "divinus intellectus" (in the mind of God), "in abstracto" (in the mind of humans) and "in i-cant-remember-but-something-like-real" (in physical reality). Anything that exists in physical reality must also exist in the mind of humans and God, but the reverse is not true. There are things that may exist in the minds of humans but not in physical reality, although they must exist in the mind of God.
Exactly, Absolute Infinity is simply the superset of all sets. This is not some bizarre abstract notion of modern math, it is a simple straightforward proposition. You are getting all bent out of shape because he presents an early notion of what a parameter space is. That is hardly inconsistent with the mathematical models of many dynamical systems. The fact that at any given time some of the parameter space exists in physical reality and other parts of it do not, does not in any way invalidate these models.

Indi wrote:
Cantor's "absolute infinity" is the infinity to end all infinities - the only one that he believed wasn't "transfinite" (one of those words that really doesn't have a meaning, rather like "macro-evolution"). Cantor believed that the only place "absolute infinity" can exist is in the mind of God. It cannot exist in the minds of humans... and... it cannot exist in reality! O_O
If it doesn’t have any meaning then why did Poincare dedicate his entire life’s work to extending Cantor’s work on transfinite infinities?

Indi wrote:
So... let's wrap our minds around that. According to Cantor himself, reality does not contain "absolute infinity", but God contains "absolute infinity".
This is a translation error, in the language of today’s science he would not call that “reality”, he would call it the visible universe. Absolute Infinity is much more vast than the visible universe. This is a real “no duh” issue, so I’m not sure what it is that you are objecting to.

Indi wrote:
Therefore, God cannot exist in reality ^_^; Go figure. (Actually, Cantor's work is loaded with paradoxes, and has mostly been superseded by more modern theories.)
That is a bunch of nonsense, you are presenting Cantor the way a Republican would portray gay rights activists.

Indi wrote:
Or perhaps a more precise way of saying it is "reality cannot contain God". Either way, if you really want to accept Cantor's wacky philosophy, you have to write off the idea of God existing "within" anything - because if he contains the "absolute infinite", nothing can contain him.
And the problem here is exactly what…? Naturally God is the superset of all Consciousness. This is a real no brainer, so what are you objecting to?

Indi wrote:
But there's nothing in any of that that even implies that there can't be more than one God.
Give it a rest, god! The Bible refers to God, angels, men and even evil gods, with the same word, elohim. It’s like a fractal that is made up of an infinite number of little copies of itself. Your point here is utterly and completely moot.

Indi wrote:
All Cantor's logic leads to is that you can't have more than one God in God. Which... really... proves nothing.
Nonsense, that is not what Cantor proved at all. What Cantor proved was an anticipation of the Mandelbrot set, almost two hundred years beforehand.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
Agreed - I've read a bit about the chap and he did seem several trees short of a forest.
You rely heavily on character assassination and insinuations, and only lightly on references and evidence. Obviously, anyone who believes in God must be nutty, right?

Bikerman wrote:
The point is well made - he started from the position of being a strict Lutheran and was surprised that his theory was attacked by other religious because he saw it as an extension to god's glory - the ultimate.
What are you babbling about? He was enthusiastically embraced by theologians, it was mathematicians who ignored him until after his death, for precisely the reasons of bigoted religious conviction about materialism that you demonstrate. Atheism is the ugliest form of religious bigotry there is when in the hands of angry narrow minded geeks.

Bikerman wrote:
Agreed again....his transfinite work is still relevant from my limited readings
Ever read Poincare?

Bikerman wrote:
but there seems to be a sort of embarrassed silence by many mathematicians when the topic of absolute infinities is raised.
You wouldn’t happen to be able to provide a reference to back up this insinuation would you? I get 12,000 hits for “absolute infinity” on google, so if there is such a reference, it should not be so hard to find…?
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Indi wrote:
All true, but short of the mark. Cantor may have been a genius, but he was also batty. He certainly did not prove any "absolute infinity", he just made it up as a way to rationalize his religious beliefs pseudo-mathematically.In fact, he went out of his way to say that "absolute infinity" had no relevance in the real world - he was at least smart enough to know when he was spouting crap.

As you say, Cantor was fully well aware that existence does not follow math - math follows existence... sometimes. He had terms that he used to divide "existing" into three parts, which are (from very vague memory): "divinus intellectus" (in the mind of God), "in abstracto" (in the mind of humans) and "in i-cant-remember-but-something-like-real" (in physical reality). Anything that exists in physical reality must also exist in the mind of humans and God, but the reverse is not true. There are things that may exist in the minds of humans but not in physical reality, although they must exist in the mind of God.

Agreed - I've read a bit about the chap and he did seem several trees short of a forest. The point is well made - he started from the position of being a strict Lutheran and was surprised that his theory was attacked by other religious because he saw it as an extension to god's glory - the ultimate.
Quote:
Cantor's "absolute infinity" is the infinity to end all infinities - the only one that he believed wasn't "transfinite" (one of those words that really doesn't have a meaning, rather like "macro-evolution"). Cantor believed that the only place "absolute infinity" can exist is in the mind of God. It cannot exist in the minds of humans... and... it cannot exist in reality! O_O
So... let's wrap our minds around that. According to Cantor himself, reality does not contain "absolute infinity", but God contains "absolute infinity". Therefore, God cannot exist in reality ^_^; Go figure. (Actually, Cantor's work is loaded with paradoxes, and has mostly been superseded by more modern theories.)
Agreed again....his transfinite work is still relevant from my limited readings but there seems to be a sort of embarrassed silence by many mathematicians when the topic of absolute infinities is raised.

i don't know much about how Cantor's work was received by philosophers at the time, because... frankly... it's not really that interesting. But Cantor's work was rather a mindfrak to mathematicians at the time. Most of them didn't know what to do with it, and some of the greatest minds of the time simply rejected it outright because it didn't extend from first principles - or to use proper mathematical language, it was not rigorous from an axiomatic standpoint. Cantor didn't care. As far as he was concerned, as long as a mathematical theory is internally consistent and does not violate any mathematical principles, it should be a good theory.

Didn't work that way, though. His set theory turned out to be a disaster, full of paradoxes. Mathematicians who liked his theory quickly realized that they needed to plug the holes, so they attempted to develop a set of axioms that would rigourize his set theory - which is now referred to as "naive" set theory. The first attempt was a slipshod attempt to slap a set of axioms directly onto Cantor's theory - but that didn't work (see Russell's paradox). Zermelo finally came along, and - with a little help - managed to do it... but in doing it he pretty much showed that Cantor's version (insofar as he could understand Cantor's version - because since Cantor did not use clear cut axioms, it's hard to say precisely what he was thinking) is wrong. The modern form of Zermelo's theory is ZFC theory, and that is the state of the mathematical art as far as set theory is concerned, not counting alternatives to set theories.

To make a long story short... Cantor was vague, and obviously wrong (assuming paradoxes as proof of being wrong). His work has been corrected and superseded. He's dead, Jim. He may have been a visionary, but so was Aquinas at his time. We've moved on. Put him to rest. Next time someone shoves him in your face, tell them just saying "Cantor" isn't good enough in this new age. Or in other words, "X is true because Cantor said so" doesn't fly - show that X is true by its own merits, because Cantor was wrong about so many things, and vague about so many more, that he doesn't really count as an unquestionable authority anymore.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:

Or perhaps a more precise way of saying it is "reality cannot contain God". Either way, if you really want to accept Cantor's wacky philosophy, you have to write off the idea of God existing "within" anything - because if he contains the "absolute infinite", nothing can contain him. But there's nothing in any of that that even implies that there can't be more than one God. All Cantor's logic leads to is that you can't have more than one God in God. Which... really... proves nothing.

Really, this whole Cantor thing is just waste of time.

Yep - I've felt that for some while. Unfortunately it seems to be raised in many different topics to prove all sorts of things and I was trying, fairly gently, to say that it really proves nothing.

This "absolute infinity" nonsense strikes me as having the stink of the worst of the Cosmological arguments: "there must be something there... call it God." Absolute infinity sure sounds like it's defined with little more rigour than: "Well, imagine an infinity that you can't imagine. Call it God. We're done." Everything i've read about it reads to me like Cantor just makes the classic mistake about infinity - assuming it has an "end" - and then says "well, the end must be in God". The only novel step he makes beyond, say Aquinas or Clarke, who simply said (or implied) that the "end" of infinity exists, is saying that the "end" of infinity exists but is beyond human comprehension, it's in God. Um, yay? Am i missing something? Is there some secret sentence Cantor wrote that makes his conclusion any more profound than that? What did Cantor do with regards to "absolute infinity" that hadn't been done before - aside from couching the same-old-same-old in pseudoscientific nonsense (in this case, pseudomathematical nonsense, that we have since shown to be flawed - modern set theory does not allow for "absolute infinity" because it would violate the rule about ill-defined, unbounded sets)? Hell, did he even do that? As far as everything I've ever read from or about Cantor goes, he didn't even go that far. He talked about how the infinity to end all infinities ends in God, but did he ever do any kind of mathematical proof to that effect? As far as I know, he just made some footnotes about it in a paper or two, and mentioned it in some letters (to the Pope!!! O_O). What's the deal with this Cantor thing?
mike1reynolds
So Indi, you are arguing that, in terms of mathematics and physics, there is no all?

Please present evidence that there is not set of all that is possible in mathematics and physics.

This assertion smacks of the most profound circular reasoning that one can possibly fall into, the very worst form of religious blind faith.
Tumbleweed
Who the hell is Cantor Razz .... anyway ... Isnt infinity a concept, so how would you measure infinity with math , is the real world like a calculator and as you make a number smaller it actually covers more points and more space is needed to view it ? whats bigger 1 or 0.99999999999999999999999999999 conceptually Confused
Indi
Tumbleweed wrote:
Who the hell is Cantor Razz ....

Good question. -_-

Tumbleweed wrote:
anyway ... Isnt infinity a concept, so how would you measure infinity with math

There are many different types of "infinity"; physical, mathematical and metaphysical for starters, but then even within any one of those broad categories, there are many different types of infinity.

This "absolute infinity" thing that Cantor came up with is based on the logic that if you take all of those other infinities and clump them altogether in a big-ass "set of everything", that set would be "absolute infinity". And, since Cantor was Lutheran, it follows that this "absolute infinity" must be God. Or something like that. -_-

Doesn't really work that way in modern math, though. You can't just make arbitrary sets like that and expect them to have meaningful properties. That's like making up an imaginary animal - a "jackelope" - and then trying to infer its phylum. Or making up an imaginary element "unobtainium" and then trying to guess its atomic properties. In either case, if you were to start from real properties - such as by actually specifying the "jackelope"'s phylum beforehand, or saying that "unobtainium" has atomic mass 115 - then you could hypothesize behaviours and characteristics that may or may not be seen in reality if either of those things are ever found. But if you start from nonsense properties, like saying "unobtainium" has infinite atomic mass, then you're not going to end up with even a meaningful guess. That's exactly what Cantor did with his theory, though, and that's why it had so many paradoxes in it.

Tumbleweed wrote:
is the real world like a calculator and as you make a number smaller it actually covers more points and more space is needed to view it ?

Maybe, maybe not. Is reality a continuum, or is it discrete? We don't know. The answer used to be pretty obvious - that it is a continuum - but since the dawn of the quantum mechanics age....

Is the universe really infinite? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, you'll find that most philosophers don't really care, because whether or not the universe is infinite, God is almost always described as infinite, so the question is not really relevant. It is relevant to lots of questions, but not God, generally. As long as God is "bigger" than the universe, whether he's bigger because the universe is finite and he's infinite or whether he's bigger because the universe is infinite and he's a bigger infinite doesn't really matter.

Tumbleweed wrote:
whats bigger 1 or 0.99999999999999999999999999999 conceptually Confused

1. However, if you had an infinite number of 9's behind the decimal point, they would be equal. 0.9˜ = 1 (where ˜ means repeat the last digit an infinite number of times). Of course, the real story isn't that simple, but the details don't really matter to anyone but a hard-core mathematician.
Tumbleweed
Thanks Indi there great answers... "unobtainium" Laughing
Indi
Tumbleweed wrote:
Thanks Indi there great answers... "unobtainium" Laughing

i can't take credit for that, unfortunately. Believe it or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
HereticMonkey
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?

Indi wrote:
Tumbleweed wrote:
Who the hell is Cantor Razz ....

Good question. -_-


A mathematician who played with some weird (for the time) math.

Quote:
Doesn't really work that way in modern math, though. You can't just make arbitrary sets like that and expect them to have meaningful properties. That's like making up an imaginary animal - a "jackelope" - and then trying to infer its phylum. Or making up an imaginary element "unobtainium" and then trying to guess its atomic properties. In either case, if you were to start from real properties - such as by actually specifying the "jackelope"'s phylum beforehand, or saying that "unobtainium" has atomic mass 115 - then you could hypothesize behaviours and characteristics that may or may not be seen in reality if either of those things are ever found. But if you start from nonsense properties, like saying "unobtainium" has infinite atomic mass, then you're not going to end up with even a meaningful guess. That's exactly what Cantor did with his theory, though, and that's why it had so many paradoxes in it.

The problem is that "absolute infinity" doesn't exist in reality; the reason that so many paradoxes came up is because it was a meta-set (it's a set composed of a set). In fact, that it was a set composed of every set made it seem paradoxical (if it contained every set, then why couldn't contain itself?).

However, a number of things that we deal with on a regular basis that have no basis in reality but nonetheless have practical use; consider imaginary numbers, for example, which are used all the time in electronics. Even our math itself is more of a fiction than fact, or would you care to show me where are the numbers on each member of a flock of chickens? That is, you can describe a group of 108 chickens, but the number itself can exist without the chickens.

As such, it shouldn't be that hard to reconcile the concept that a set containing all the ordinal numbers in it exists...

Quote:
Is the universe really infinite? Maybe, maybe not. Generally, you'll find that most philosophers don't really care, because whether or not the universe is infinite, God is almost always described as infinite, so the question is not really relevant. It is relevant to lots of questions, but not God, generally.

Actually, it is, if for no other reason than by exploring the nature of things we tend to find some really neat stuff. And given that a lot of philosophers like finding proof of God in various things, the more things we explore the more we find signs of His presence. Some philosophers don't like that stuff being found as it questions their beliefs, and that applies to both sides...

Quote:
As long as God is "bigger" than the universe, whether he's bigger because the universe is finite and he's infinite or whether he's bigger because the universe is infinite and he's a bigger infinite doesn't really matter.

But it can be a fun debate...

Quote:
Tumbleweed wrote:
whats bigger 1 or 0.99999999999999999999999999999 conceptually Confused

1. However, if you had an infinite number of 9's behind the decimal point, they would be equal. 0.9˜ = 1 (where ˜ means repeat the last digit an infinite number of times). Of course, the real story isn't that simple, but the details don't really matter to anyone but a hard-core mathematician.


The question was "conceptually"; whereas the number may only matter to hard-core mathematician, the conceptual difference is major. It's a preciseness issue, and a certain degree of fun to debate over...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
However, a number of things that we deal with on a regular basis that have no basis in reality but nonetheless have practical use; consider imaginary numbers, for example, which are used all the time in electronics. Even our math itself is more of a fiction than fact, or would you care to show me where are the numbers on each member of a flock of chickens? That is, you can describe a group of 108 chickens, but the number itself can exist without the chickens.

But 'imaginary' numbers do have a basis in reality surely? The name is confusing and I prefer 'complex' numbers.
Complex numbers are just as real as the 'real' numbers we are more familiar with. As you point out they are used frequently in circuit theory - also in cartography, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory and many other real world applications. Since they describe real and testable phenomena then they are just as real as any 'normal' numbers. In the sense that all numbers are abstractions from reality then complex numbers are abstractions themselves but in all other senses they are no different from the real numbers we are all familiar with.
HereticMonkey
Sort of the point, actually...Heh.

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Sort of the point, actually...Heh.

HM

Not really.....the point was that the concept of absolute infinity in set theory has no analogy/reflection in reality, and my point here is that complex numbers are not analogous in this debate since they DO have.
mike1reynolds
mike1reynolds wrote:
So Indi, you are arguing that, in terms of mathematics and physics, there is no all?

Please present evidence that there is not set of all that is possible in mathematics and physics.

This assertion smacks of the most profound circular reasoning that one can possibly fall into, the very worst form of religious blind faith.
Can't come up with an answer, not even a long winded circuitous one, Indi???

==========================

OK, now I will address the 90% majority of your post which was simply a personal attack on Cantor.

I remind you both that you are talking to someone with a degree in mathematics and that your hack job of character assassination against one of the greats of science was noting more than a campaign of bigotry, not a rational argument.

I was the only undergrad hired by Dr. Michael F. Barnsley, often written about pioneer of Chaos Theory. Not only are the two of your completely full of crap about how Cantor is viewed in modern mathematics, but quite to the contrary, Cantor is considered one of the founding forefathers of Chaos Theory, the first prophet of the line.

You might as well go after Einstein with the same kind of venom for all the validity your bigoted statements have. I never ONCE heard a mathematician even vaguely bad mouth Cantor, and I heard his name a LOT in college. I worked exclusively with postdoctoral mathematicians who were trying to get a professorship, and Cantor’s name came up with extreme frequency.
mike1reynolds
HereticMonkey wrote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?
Because they are the least objective, arguing from a biases, slanted and highly emotional point of view. I did not argue like that at all when I was an atheist from the age of 12 to 21, so I find it even more annoying.

HereticMonkey wrote:
The problem is that "absolute infinity" doesn't exist in reality; the reason that so many paradoxes came up is because it was a meta-set (it's a set composed of a set). In fact, that it was a set composed of every set made it seem paradoxical (if it contained every set, then why couldn't contain itself?).
It does contain itself, obviously. That is not a meaningful objection. How are you defining "real" here such that the term "all" does not refer to reality???

What is unreal about the concept of all????

Occam's Razor stipulates that if you think that all is not real then you must provide evidence of such a seemingly preposterous assertion.
HereticMonkey
mike1reynolds wrote:

It does contain itself, obviously. That is not a meaningful objection. How are you defining "real" here such that the term "all" does not refer to reality???


Sorry; I was just noting a problem that some had with the meta-set (a set that included all sets, including itself) was pretty silly. Past that, (and slightly unrelated) I was trying to show that there are a number of things that we know don't exist, but still have a practical use in reality (imaginary numbers are based on the square root of -1, making them, well, imaginary, but still have a multitude of uses).

HM
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
However, a number of things that we deal with on a regular basis that have no basis in reality but nonetheless have practical use; consider imaginary numbers, for example, which are used all the time in electronics. Even our math itself is more of a fiction than fact, or would you care to show me where are the numbers on each member of a flock of chickens? That is, you can describe a group of 108 chickens, but the number itself can exist without the chickens.

But 'imaginary' numbers do have a basis in reality surely? The name is confusing and I prefer 'complex' numbers.
Complex numbers are just as real as the 'real' numbers we are more familiar with. As you point out they are used frequently in circuit theory - also in cartography, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory and many other real world applications. Since they describe real and testable phenomena then they are just as real as any 'normal' numbers. In the sense that all numbers are abstractions from reality then complex numbers are abstractions themselves but in all other senses they are no different from the real numbers we are all familiar with.

Yes, just because you can't hold i apples in your hand does not make i non-real. You can't hold π apples in your hand either, but i can't imagine that anyone would claim that irrational numbers have no basis in reality.

My objection with any discussion based on Cantor's "absolute infinity" is based not on the fact that "absolute infinity" cannot exist in reality, but that it's just not well-defined. Hell, not only is it not well-defined, it is little more than pseudo-religious, mystical mumbo jumbo. You can write that off as my opinion if you want, and berate me (and all atheists) and call me names if that pleases you. But i point to Cantor's own words and deeds as supporting evidence in this regard.

How did Cantor describe "absolute infinity"? i think you'll find that he just followed Aquinas' lead - which had no mathematical basis at all - and simply said that the absolute infinite is God. He didn't even bother to try to describe it any better than that. Here, his words exactly:
Georg Cantor wrote:
The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute;...

It's right there. Plain as day. The absolute infinite is God. That's all there is to it. It's not a mathematical concept and it never was.

In fact, he went so far as to say:
Georg Cantor wrote:
The absolute can only be acknowledged but never be known–and not even approximately known.


So all of this attempt to characterize "absolute infinity" as a real mathematical concept is simply dishonest. Cantor was nuts, but he was smart enough to realize when he was spouting pseudo-religious nonsense and not actual mathematical language. Just replace the phrase "absolute infinity" with "God", and you haven't changed a thing from Cantor's concept, such as it was.

Alright, but that's apparently not good enough for this thread's debate. Even if "absolute infinity" is not actually a mathematical concept, if it is a representation of the "all", it still deserves consideration. So let's consider its role in this debate.

The argument goes that there can only be one "absolute infinity", and since AI is equated with God, there can only be one God. Thus, monotheism is the only logical belief system.

Now, there are dozens of obvious objections - starting with most readily apparent, that there is no reason other than blind faith to equate God with AI and not simply say that God is simply one more aspect of AI - but i'm not going to bother. It will simply get me insulted for being a contrary, irrascible atheist jerk. Instead, i am going to repeat the argument as it is, just like that, without adding anything that isn't already there. i'm not going to argue anything. i'm not going to add my own opinions.

Yup, that's what i'm going to do.

And so, without further ado, here is, in its entirety, the argument presented in this thread by those who claim that monotheism is the only logical theism. i am only a lowly, biased, ignorant and petty atheist, however, so i may possibly misstate something, even though i am basing everything i write either directly from Cantor's writings, or the arguments presented in this thread. Feel free to object to any point here which does not match what has been stated so far:
  1. It is possible to create a set of everything - the all - that will be referred to as absolute infinity (AI). (From Cantor.)

  2. AI cannot exist within the physical universe, or even be conceived in the minds of men. It exists only in the mind of God (or, alternatively, it is God). (Again, from Cantor, quoted above, twice.)

  3. Therefore, AI can be equated with God. (Cantor again, but also the gist of the first premise of the argument presented in this topic.)

  4. You can't have two AIs. (Implicit from Cantor, but explicit in the argument of this topic.)

  5. AI is also a singular object. (Implicit in the argument in this topic.)

  6. Yes, folks, the same AI that cannot possibly be conceived of, that cannot even be "approximately known" (Cantor's words), has the properties that it must exist alone, and must be singular. We know this because of the way we conceive of AI... i mean... um.... (Both implicit and explicit in the argument in this topic.)

  7. Anyway, um, we know this as a fact. (Both implicit and explicit in the argument in this topic.)

  8. We know this as a fact despite the fact that AI is explicitly conceived of as inconceivable, and that one cannot draw conclusions (or "approximations") from it. (Both implicit and explicit in the argument in this topic.)

  9. And therefore, only one omnipotent God can exist. (Explicit conclusion in this topic.)

  10. And atheists who don't deign to take the argument above seriously must simply be unable to defeat the argument! (Explicit in this post.)

  11. And you're just discounting it because you don't like it! (Explicit in this post. (And boy does it hurt to restrain myself from pointing out theist rejection of evolution, heliocentrism, etc. in response to that.))

  12. Plus, you're angry, narrow-minded geeks, and atheism is ugly religious bigotry! (Explicit in this post.)

  13. Also you're being annoying! (Explicit in this post.)

  14. And, plus, you smell bad! (Not yet explicit in this thread, but apparently inevitable, so i thought i'd just speed things along.)

i'm a helper!
mike1reynolds
All you have done is repeat yourself, and with some already corrected errors as well. But no attempt what-so-ever to refute the basic assertion. How can there POSSIBLY not be a set of all?


Cantor's assertion that you construe to be "reality" was about the visible universe. Clearly in mathematical terms the universe is much more vast than the observable physical universe. You would condemn Cantor simply because he was centuries ahead of his time? This is just a polemic hack job, because you can't answer the question.
mike1reynolds
HereticMonkey wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:

It does contain itself, obviously. That is not a meaningful objection. How are you defining "real" here such that the term "all" does not refer to reality???


Sorry; I was just noting a problem that some had with the meta-set (a set that included all sets, including itself) was pretty silly.
All sets contain themselves. That is what the definition of set is, for God's sake!

Sorry if the mathematics lingo has your brain getting all wonky, this is not like a vacuum cleaner sucking itself out of existence. It is just the statement that you are you, you are contained within the boundaries of you. To say that this obvious truth is silly is rather silly in of itself!
mike1reynolds
As to attacking the link between God and infinity, that is far more reasonable than anything else you've attempted to argue, but as you well know that is a separate argument for me where I bring in Goedel's Theorem.

As to many atheists being religious bigots, I would put them on par with anti-Catholic anti-Jewish non-denominational Christians who are probably mostly racists too. But a gay friend said it best, "the only thing worse than a bitchy woman is a bitchy guy!" The word bigot actually is derived from a French word that means opinionated uneducated old peasant woman. Female atheists are the worst, generally, but not as bad as the majority of non-demoniational Christians most likely.

As to my smelling badly, I'll try to work on that one. (Calgon, take me away!)
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Agreed - I've read a bit about the chap and he did seem several trees short of a forest.
You rely heavily on character assassination and insinuations, and only lightly on references and evidence. Obviously, anyone who believes in God must be nutty, right?

No..I base my opinion on the fact that Cantor was mentally ill - a fact which is not in dispute - and the fact that this caused many incidents of erratic, eccentric behaviour and writings which are well documented. Perhaps my shorthand is a little callous...but it is certainly not based on some asinine generalisation about the religious - and my previous postings certainly do not show any evidence of such generalisations.
Quote:


Bikerman wrote:
Agreed again....his transfinite work is still relevant from my limited readings
Ever read Poincare?
Yep - for example
Poincare wrote:
Actual infinity does not exist. What we call infinite is only the endless possibility of creating new objects no matter how many exist already.

or
Poincare wrote:
Set theory is a disease, from which I hope future generations will recover.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
but there seems to be a sort of embarrassed silence by many mathematicians when the topic of absolute infinities is raised.
You wouldn’t happen to be able to provide a reference to back up this insinuation would you? I get 12,000 hits for “absolute infinity” on google, so if there is such a reference, it should not be so hard to find…?
Sure. The basic paradox in the absolute infinity concept arises from :Let ת be the set of all transfinites (absolute infinity) where By Cantor's theorem it follows that
Card (תּ) > Card (P (תּ)) and also Card (P (תּ)) > Card (תּ)
Paradox!
So this is where the idea of absolute infinity is born. Cantor solves the paradox by inventing another type of infinity - absolute infinity. According to Achtner
Quote:
Cantor resolved this contradiction by claiming that ת, the absolute infinity, can not be object of quantitative discursive rational operation. It can not be understood by logical discernment but only by intuitive insight, and even more, it can not be recognized but only be accepted without any further discursive rational activity and logical discernment
Obviously, as Cantor explicitly states, this concept is metaphysical and not one subject to 'logical discernment'.
Cantor wrote:
In contrast, infinite sets such that the totality of their elements cannot be thought of as "existing together" or as a "thing for itself" or an ajwrismenon, and that therefore also in this totality are absolutely not an object of further mathematical contemplation, I call "absolutely infinite sets", and to them belongs the "set of all alephs".
My mathematician friend newolder summarises as follows:
Quote:
The cardinality, C, of the real numbers is written as C = 2∞
Nothing observed in the universe, so far, requires a number strictly larger than C.

As for the 'silence' of modern maths on the topic....here is the Cantor biography at St Andrews math site - one of the more complete and well referenced, cited by many academic sources. Absolute infinity is barely mentioned.
HereticMonkey
mike1reynolds wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:

It does contain itself, obviously. That is not a meaningful objection. How are you defining "real" here such that the term "all" does not refer to reality???


Sorry; I was just noting a problem that some had with the meta-set (a set that included all sets, including itself) was pretty silly.
All sets contain themselves. That is what the definition of set is, for God's sake!

Sorry if the mathematics lingo has your brain getting all wonky, this is not like a vacuum cleaner sucking itself out of existence. It is just the statement that you are you, you are contained within the boundaries of you. To say that this obvious truth is silly is rather silly in of itself!


Dude: All I'm doing is quoting what mathematicians with far more expertise in the subject than I have stated. This paradox pertains specifically to this set (AND ONLY THIS SET) because of the nature of the set. I do agree that it is silly, and most mathematicians do agree with you. It's seen as specifically a way to discredit the AI set...

Just pointing out that a chink exists is not the same as acknowledging that it's a real one...

HM
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?
Because they are the least objective, arguing from a biases, slanted and highly emotional point of view. I did not argue like that at all when I was an atheist from the age of 12 to 21, so I find it even more annoying.

That is not true and I would go so far as to call it a lie.
You are the one arguing that the universe has a consciousness, a higher consciousness, some thing that only a person who doesn't know what conciseness is would say, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=consciousness) has absolutely no basis in science or reality and with a false idea of what religus Taoism is despite claming to be taoist (religions taoism is polytheistic, not monotheistic and is basically Chinies folk religion)
We are dealing in objective facts, you are trying to use things as evidence for some new age idea of God when its not.
mike1reynolds
HereticMonkey wrote:
Dude: All I'm doing is quoting what mathematicians with far more expertise in the subject than I have stated. This paradox pertains specifically to this set (AND ONLY THIS SET) because of the nature of the set.
If there is a paradox in Cantor's construction, which has yet to be demonstrated conclusively, it is certainly not the fact that it has a property (self containment) that all sets in mathematics have.
littletomi714
Everyone has a different belief. We say they don't have them because in our POV, we're correct. That is probably why everyone is a little bit selfish
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Agreed - I've read a bit about the chap and he did seem several trees short of a forest.
You rely heavily on character assassination and insinuations, and only lightly on references and evidence. Obviously, anyone who believes in God must be nutty, right?

No..I base my opinion on the fact that Cantor was mentally ill
He had a bought of depression, and based on the fact that his health deteriorated steadily even after his spirits recovered, it was most likely a physiologically induced depression. It was basically the end of his career and health, although he did continue working in a limited capacity.

Bikerman wrote:
- a fact which is not in dispute –
His depression? Certainly not. Mentally ill? That is quite a term for depression. You are not exactly objective, you want to hack the memory of one of science’s greatest men any way you can. Kind of pathetic coming from someone who claims to love science.

Bikerman wrote:
and the fact that this caused many incidents of erratic, eccentric behaviour and writings which are well documented.
You provided a biography, but it doesn’t say a WORD about any of this, only that he was DEPRESSED.

Poincare wrote:
Set theory is a disease, from which I hope future generations will recover.
If that were a true quote it would make Poincare look quite bad since Set Theory is an integral part of modern mathematics, but that quote is apocryphal:
Quote:
Henri Poincaré is supposed to have said "set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day recover", (this quotation is part of the folklore of mathematics; the original source is unknown)
http://www.answers.com/topic/axiomatic-set-theory

Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
but there seems to be a sort of embarrassed silence by many mathematicians when the topic of absolute infinities is raised.
You wouldn’t happen to be able to provide a reference to back up this insinuation would you? I get 12,000 hits for “absolute infinity” on google, so if there is such a reference, it should not be so hard to find…?
Sure.
There is not one reference provided here to the supposed “embarrassed silence” on absolute infinity.

Bikerman wrote:
The basic paradox in the absolute infinity concept arises from :Let ת be the set of all transfinites (absolute infinity) where By Cantor's theorem it follows that
Card (תּ) > Card (P (תּ)) and also Card (P (תּ)) > Card (תּ)
Paradox!
So this is where the idea of absolute infinity is born. Cantor solves the paradox by inventing another type of infinity - absolute infinity.
The fact that infinity is larger than any finite construction is a paradox? Only to very small minds.

Bikerman wrote:
As for the 'silence' of modern maths on the topic....here is the Cantor biography at St Andrews math site - one of the more complete and well referenced, cited by many academic sources. Absolute infinity is barely mentioned.
It hardly mentions Set Theory too, which permeates modern math. It is a biography not a mathematical treatises, so what a surprise.

Try again, can you provide a single reference for this supposed silence about Cantor?
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?
Because they are the least objective, arguing from a biases, slanted and highly emotional point of view. I did not argue like that at all when I was an atheist from the age of 12 to 21, so I find it even more annoying.

That is not true and I would go so far as to call it a lie.
That is nothing more than a playground taunt. I will only entertain a mature adult level of discussion here.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Agreed - I've read a bit about the chap and he did seem several trees short of a forest.
You rely heavily on character assassination and insinuations, and only lightly on references and evidence. Obviously, anyone who believes in God must be nutty, right?

No..I base my opinion on the fact that Cantor was mentally ill
He had a bought of depression, and based on the fact that his health deteriorated steadily even after his spirits recovered, it was most likely a physiologically induced depression. It was basically the end of his career and health, although he did continue working in a limited capacity.

Bikerman wrote:
- a fact which is not in dispute –
His depression? Certainly not. Mentally ill? That is quite a term for depression. You are not exactly objective, you want to hack the memory of one of science’s greatest men any way you can. Kind of pathetic coming from someone who claims to love science.

You don't know what you are talking about. My father died from lithium induced poisoning from his bipolar medicine and I too am bipolar. Depression is a word used by those who have no clue of real mental illness and that seems to be you.
Since I have, and it is not something I wish to share, then you can believe me or not when I say that Bipolar illness, (Manic Depression) and other forms of depressive illness are very serious mental conditions and not, as you seem to think, minor passing problems.


Bikerman wrote:
and the fact that this caused many incidents of erratic, eccentric behaviour and writings which are well documented.
You provided a biography, but it doesn’t say a WORD about any of this, only that he was DEPRESSED. Depression is serious.
As for my biography links - you are a lazy and disingenuous poster. You have never, to my knowledge, provided one single link to back up any of the nonsense you post and that is not really surprising since much of it cannot be supported.
You claim to be expert on Cantor and Poincare and yet don't know his basic biography and don't recognise Poinxare's quotes on set theory.....strange. Like your other claims I think this is either exaggerated or completely ficticious.
Cantor's illness is described by both his biographers - go and see either of the two biographies in print goes into quite some detail...I presume you do know who Cantor's biographers are ?
Quote:
Poincare's quote is not apocyphal, it is taken from @-

Poincare wrote:
Set theory is a disease, from which I hope future generations will recover.
If that were a true quote it would make Poincare look quite bad since Set Theory is an integral part of modern mathematics, but that quote is apocryphal:
Quote:
Henri Poincaré is supposed to have said "set theory is a disease from which mathematics will one day recover", (this quotation is part of the folklore of mathematics; the original source is unknown)

No...it is taken exacrly and literally from his early collected papres...word for word.

http://www.answers.com/topic/axiomatic-set-theory

Bikerman wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
but there seems to be a sort of embarrassed silence by many mathematicians when the topic of absolute infinities is raised.
You wouldn’t happen to be able to provide a reference to back up this insinuation would you? I get 12,000 hits for “absolute infinity” on google, so if there is such a reference, it should not be so hard to find…?
Sure.
There is not one reference provided here to the supposed “embarrassed silence” on absolute infinity.

Bikerman wrote:
The basic paradox in the absolute infinity concept arises from :Let ת be the set of all transfinites (absolute infinity) where By Cantor's theorem it follows that
Card (תּ) > Card (P (תּ)) and also Card (P (תּ)) > Card (תּ)
Paradox!
So this is where the idea of absolute infinity is born. Cantor solves the paradox by inventing another type of infinity - absolute infinity.
The fact that infinity is larger than any finite construction is a paradox? Only to very small minds. [/quote]
So you claim to be a mathematics grad but you clearly don't read even very basic set notation...hmmm...more strangeness. If you could read basic math then you would know that what you have said here is silly, wrong, and completely misses the point. Since you claim to be a math grad I was being considerate by phrasing this passage in what should be your natural language for this sort of problem but, clearly, you don't understand even the basic notation....that is very difficult to understand since this is noddy stuff for a math grad. Where did you graduate ?

Bikerman wrote:
As for the 'silence' of modern maths on the topic....here is the Cantor biography at St Andrews math site - one of the more complete and well referenced, cited by many academic sources. Absolute infinity is barely mentioned.
It hardly mentions Set Theory too, which permeates modern math. It is a biography not a mathematical treatises, so what a surprise.
It is a biography of his maths achievements. It mentions set theory approximately 365 times with approx 232 references. It mentions absolute infinity 1 time with no reference......
[/quote]Try again, can you provide a single reference for this supposed silence about Cantor?[/quote]

I could but you would not understand it (as you failed to understand the basic math in this article. You are clearly something of a Walter Mitty character and not to be trusted with your pronouncements. If you have a math degree then it must be either bought, stolen, or, more likely, imaginary.

Chris.
Indi
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?
Because they are the least objective, arguing from a biases, slanted and highly emotional point of view. I did not argue like that at all when I was an atheist from the age of 12 to 21, so I find it even more annoying.

That is not true and I would go so far as to call it a lie.
That is nothing more than a playground taunt. I will only entertain a mature adult level of discussion here.

i'm sorry to butt in, Conspirator, but this was just waaaaaay too funny to let pass by. ^_^;

The following is just a small collection of quotes made in this topic alone. In every case, i have provided a reference link. In addition, i helpfully grouped them into categories.

i'm a helper! ^_^

The people who disagree with me are stupid:

mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-516028.html#516028 wrote:
You two are the only confused one’s here, but I’m not going to beat a dead horse to patiently prove something to you that everyone else has long ago already figured out.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-516028.html#516028 wrote:
In some ways, both of your are smarter than just about everyone else here, or at least, you obviously have higher IQ’s, but in arguments like this it becomes extremely clear how emotional intelligence is far more important than IQ for understanding extremely simple and elementary philosophical issues like this. The high IQ / low EQ folks just get all tangled up in the most ridiculous logical follies.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-530916.html#530916 wrote:
(((*Chortle*))) That is *some* reasoning there.

Garbage in, garbage out. Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer:

What if the sky was green? What if you had an ego so big no one could stroke it? What if you could stick your head so far up your own ass you could suck yourself out of existence? Then what would happen to your soul? What if, what if…


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-550695.html#550695 wrote:
That is a bunch of nonsense, you are presenting Cantor the way a Republican would portray gay rights activists.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-554067.html#554067 wrote:
You are not exactly objective, you want to hack the memory of one of science’s greatest men any way you can. Kind of pathetic coming from someone who claims to love science.


You have no point at all, you're just too stupid to realize it:

mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-515119.html#515119 wrote:
Indi's argument is sort of like Xeno's Paradox, not a paradox at all really, just a stupid way of framing the subject that makes it look like the hare can never catch the tortoise.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-532648.html#532648 wrote:
You would like to refer to such unavoidable basic facts in science as fiction, because it does not aide your intellectual bias that rejects any aspect of reality that you dislike.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-540851.html#540851 wrote:
Are you an Alzheimer patient? It is hard for me to believe that you are genuinely getting so profoundly confused over such a simple matter. It looks like a lame polemic ploy to me.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-553217.html#553217 wrote:
Sorry if the mathematics lingo has your brain getting all wonky, this is not like a vacuum cleaner sucking itself out of existence. It is just the statement that you are you, you are contained within the boundaries of you. To say that this obvious truth is silly is rather silly in of itself!


I don't need to provide any references or sources for my outlandish claims... but you do!:

mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-515793.html#515793 wrote:
Some people worship references the way Christians worship the Bible, when common sense is all that is required.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-549552.html#549552 wrote:
The notion of an Absolute Infinity is so obviously compelling that the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence otherwise.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-550699.html#550699 wrote:
You wouldn’t happen to be able to provide a reference to back up this insinuation would you?


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-552930.html#552930 wrote:
Occam's Razor stipulates that if you think that all is not real then you must provide evidence of such a seemingly preposterous assertion.

(Bonus points for misrepresenting what Ockham's Razor really is.)

Nyah, nyah:

mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-516186.html#516186 wrote:
Blow hard, blow *real* hard!


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-516225.html#516225 wrote:
I don't have anything like that kind of lung capacity!


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-530992.html#530992 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I suggest you check what circular reasoning means

Hey, I looked it up in the dictionary and found a picture of Bikerman!!


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-531214.html#531214 wrote:
The corollary to this is, when God defecates, is it as omnipotent as Bikerman's argument here?


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-531299.html#531299 wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If God exists than there would be objective evidence of it, why isn't there? (And don't use any of that God of the gaps crap).

I don’t shop at the Gap and I really doubt that God works there.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-552916.html#552916 wrote:
Can't come up with an answer, not even a long winded circuitous one, Indi???

(No, actually, i just can't be bothered to defend a statement i never made, or even implied.)

Atheists and Muslims just suck (oh, and women atheists suck more):

mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-515801.html#515801 wrote:
Its one of those duh, common sense things. This is what religions really are, as opposed to an atheists facile parody of religions. Only Islam is pathetic enough to actually fit the above parody. It really does fall to all of the above criticisms in full measure.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-531214.html#531214 wrote:
The Muslims make the same claim about me.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-531214.html#531214 wrote:
As to what a lofty theological argument this is, theologians were the first Ivory Tower idiots. Funny how, around here, only atheists seem to think that there is anything of value to your meaningless appeals to omnipotent contradiction. Now you claim that ancient theologians really loved your atheistic arguments. Likely story!


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-550699.html#550699 wrote:
Atheism is the ugliest form of religious bigotry there is when in the hands of angry narrow minded geeks.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-552930.html#552930 wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?
Because they are the least objective, arguing from a biases, slanted and highly emotional point of view.


mike1reynolds in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-553222.html#553222 wrote:
As to many atheists being religious bigots, I would put them on par with anti-Catholic anti-Jewish non-denominational Christians who are probably mostly racists too. But a gay friend said it best, "the only thing worse than a bitchy woman is a bitchy guy!" The word bigot actually is derived from a French word that means opinionated uneducated old peasant woman. Female atheists are the worst, generally, but not as bad as the majority of non-demoniational Christians most likely.
HereticMonkey
Almost want to say Indi has a point; someone attacking Bikerman like that! Shocked

On the other hand, Indi does seem to have an uncommon talent for either taking things too far, or quoting things well out of context (best example so far is showing that everything Cantor did should be erased because the guy suffered from depression (you can't go after one part of a person's thinking without attacking the rest of it)).

The bottom line is that you can't prove (or disprove!) the existence of God empirically. It's just not possible with our current tech and/or abilities...

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
On the other hand, Indi does seem to have an uncommon talent for either taking things too far, or quoting things well out of context (best example so far is showing that everything Cantor did should be erased because the guy suffered from depression (you can't go after one part of a person's thinking without attacking the rest of it)).

What "Indi said" is nothing of the sort. What you are quoting is the distortion of what i said made by the previous poster. What i said was the following:
  1. Cantor's work on set theory has been shown to be full of holes - evidenced by the paradoxes that arise from it. (See Russell's paradox and the Burali-Forti's paradox... and Cantor's paradox! Which he found himself! (He actually found some of the others, too, but others published them first.) The man was not an idiot. He knew he had problems in his theory, and held to a lot of it by faith alone (more on that in a second).) It has been superseded with more modern set theories that do not allow for the creation of abstract sets like "absolute infinity". So we're talking about mathematics that is... dead! It would be like trying to prove a point in a medical debate by talking about the four humours. (Note: do you see anything in there related to Cantor's mental health? Anything at all? Yeah, i didn't think so.)

  2. Read what Cantor actually wrote about "absolute infinity" (GIYF). Don't believe how it's being characterized here, go see for yourself. You will find that it is not, and never has been - even in Cantor's own set theory, which is now obsolete - an actual rigorous mathematical concept. It was never math. It was always religion, and Cantor himself was honest enough to say so. The man was not a fool - he knew he was spouting mystical nonsense when he talked about "absolute infinity".

    Look, these are his own words:
    George Cantor (found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinity ) wrote:
    The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute;...
    It's right there! In plain English! "The absolute infinite... is God!" Clearly stated! i mean, good grief, accuse me of distorting quotes all you want... but how can anyone misinterpret the text above in any way but the plainly obvious? Go ahead and read up on the context of the quote if you want to, it won't change anything.

    In other similar statements (some of which i have quoted!), Cantor goes out of his way to say that "absolute infinity" cannot be made sense of and cannot be described by human terms. Just read back to my previous post. Again, if you want to accuse me of distorting Cantor's own words, you tell me how else to interpret: "The absolute can only be acknowledged but never be known–and not even approximately known". It's as plain as English allows!!! So, to summarize, here is Cantor's description of what absolute infinity is: "God is absolute infinity. And absolute infinity cannot be grasped by human minds." So even if we don't take "absolute infinity" as a rigorous mathematical concept - even if we only consider it as a vague, philosophical idea of the sum collection of everything - it still can't be used in any rational argument because the idea itself, as defined by its originator, is explicitly an irrational idea!

    And yet!!! Despite this, the argument here has assumed properties of "absolute infinity" - notably, that it is a singular entity - and then used it as justification to hurl insults at anyone who disagrees! Look, this is the actual argument, starting from Cantor and ending here: "God is absolute infinity. And absolute infinity cannot be grasped by human minds. / But i grasp absolute infinity enough to be able to make true statements about it. And i say it's singular. And the absolute infinite is God. Therefore, i have proven that only one God can exist." i mean, just look at that argument, putting aside your obvious hatred of me! Just look at the argument. Does that look anything like a sound argument? Anything at all? It's circular in the same way as the ontological argument, and makes the same kinds of leaps in logic as empirical arguments for God's existence. It is... and i challenge anyone to deny this in a rational manner without resorting to the insults and intellectual bullying that has arisen so far... a lousy argument.

    In fact, the argument is so bad, that i wouldn't even deign to respond to it, normally. i did try just brushing it aside in the beginning. But it has been hurled at all of us again and again, with a stream of insults to boot. We can't even seem to get away from this crap-ass argument, as bad as it is. (Note: and, yes, once again, do you see anything in there related to Cantor's mental health? Anything at all? Again, yeah, i didn't think so.)

So there is no empirical, mathematical or logical basis to absolute infinity. And thus there is no way it can be used to make a logical argument.... So why are we still talking about it??? Why are people being verbally abused for not taking it seriously? And we're the irrational, closed-minded, ignorant ones??? (According to you as well, apparently. What, you have no problem with abusing atheists, but when you yourself get a share of the abuse, it's too much? Gotta love that Christian charity.)

i just don't get it.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?
Because they are the least objective, arguing from a biases, slanted and highly emotional point of view. I did not argue like that at all when I was an atheist from the age of 12 to 21, so I find it even more annoying.

That is not true and I would go so far as to call it a lie.
That is nothing more than a playground taunt. I will only entertain a mature adult level of discussion here.

No, its not. You state that atheists are not objective, that is simply not true. Generally atheists are more objective than theists, many far more.
Take your beliefs for example, you believe in a pantheist god that you have called a universal consciousness. For that to be the universe would have to be able to 1. gather and proses information, 2. it would have to proses that information in such a way as to have a mind, 3. that mind would have to fit the requirements of having consciousness.
1. there is no evidence that the universe can gather and proses information, 2. theres no evidence that the universe has a mind, 3. to know if the universe has a consciousness, we would have to be able to observe and or interact with the universal mind (something that there is no evidence for).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Theists claims that there is a god(s), and atheists ask for evidence, there is non. weather be monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, or panentheist, there is no evidence for any god. An objective person dose not believe based on faith, they believe based on evidence, theists believes with out evidence, atheists generally believes cause of the lack of evidence. Which is more objective?
mike1reynolds
HereticMonkey wrote:
Almost want to say Indi has a point; someone attacking Bikerman like that! Shocked
Indeed, how shocking!?

HereticMonkey wrote:
On the other hand, Indi does seem to have an uncommon talent for either taking things too far, or quoting things well out of context (best example so far is showing that everything Cantor did should be erased because the guy suffered from depression (you can't go after one part of a person's thinking without attacking the rest of it)).
The really ironic thing is that Bikerman did EXACTLY the same thing, and then turned around and called me insensitive to his condition because BM apparently suffers from the same condition that Cantor did. Interestingly, under BM’s argument, this would mean that everything that BM says should be ignored too, doesn’t it? If Bikerman really has the same condition that Cantor did, then Bikerman's claims that Cantor's condition invalidates anything Cantor ever said, also invalidates anything Bikerman ever said.

If anyone is insensitive to BM's condition here it is BM himself!

HereticMonkey wrote:
The bottom line is that you can't prove (or disprove!) the existence of God empirically. It's just not possible with our current tech and/or abilities...
Heh heh, it sounds like you actually want to have a REASONABLE discussion. Around here, imagine that!

I want to disagree however, in that empirical methods don’t have to involve a lab. Since God exists primary within us and not externally to us, the only sort of empirical methods that are relevant to the topic are ones involving manipulation of one’s own consciousness. Thus the invariant emphasis on prayer and meditation across all theistic religions.
mike1reynolds
Indi wrote:
The people who disagree with me are stupid:

You have no point at all, you're just too stupid to realize it:

I don't need to provide any references or sources for my outlandish claims... but you do!:

Nyah, nyah:

Atheists and Muslims just suck (oh, and women atheists suck more):

Anyone get the impression that I really got Indi's goat this time?

*BAaAaAaAaA* *BAaAaAaAaAaAaAaAaA!*

ssshh!! they'll hear you!

I'm not trying to get anyone's goat here, I am just somewhat dismissive of ego based arguments rather than logic based arguments. When the basis is ego rather than logic, I poke fun at the argument which drives their egos mad. It is a means of demonstrating more clearly who is arguing from a desire simply to win, and who is really arguing to try and get at the truth, no matter where it leads.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
No, its not. You state that atheists are not objective, that is simply not true. Generally atheists are more objective than theists, many far more.
I did not say ALL atheists, that would be a statement of bigotry. (Not only that but I was once an atheist myself so your rendition of my view is obviously distorted.) This is projection, and only proves my point. You twisted my much more measured statement about SOME atheists to a bigoted generalization of all atheists because that is precisely what you do. You are asserting that ALL atheists are more objective than ALL theists. That is an obviously false statement of intransigent bigotry.

Bigotry is defined in the dictionary as any intolerantly held belief. Bigotry is never objective, it is always biased and slanted, the very worst flaw in science. Also, the arguments by atheists here present a great deal of heat without much light. The arguments are mostly ego driven and not a genuine search for the truth, or a sincere attempt to meet anyone half way and have a real meeting of minds.

Bigots of course have no interest what-so-ever in any meeting of minds, unless someone wants to come all the way to them. Bigotry is the very antithesis of the scientific method. It is a guarantee of faulty methodology.
mike1reynolds
Indi wrote:
So there is no empirical, mathematical or logical basis to absolute infinity.
Indi asserts that "all" is not a mathematical concept.

Indi wrote:
And thus there is no way it can be used to make a logical argument....
I don't ever want to see anyone here using the word "all" again! Indi has proven that it cannot be validily used in any logical statement.

Indi wrote:
So why are we still talking about it???
Well, some fools here are still not convinced that there is no such thing is this made up "all" nonsense.

Indi wrote:
Why are people being verbally abused for not taking it seriously?
I think Cantor is by far the most abused person here.

Indi wrote:
And we're the irrational, closed-minded, ignorant ones???
That's right, anyone who believes in "all" is a complete idiot.

Indi wrote:
What, you have no problem with abusing atheists, but when you yourself get a share of the abuse, it's too much? Gotta love that Christian charity.)
What on Earth are you talking about? You are calling HM a hypocrite for being upset at me? He isn’t upset at me, unless I’m really missing out on something, so your claim that he is a hypocrite for this just sounds loony.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
No, its not. You state that atheists are not objective, that is simply not true. Generally atheists are more objective than theists, many far more.
I did not say ALL atheists, that would be a statement of bigotry. (Not only that but I was once an atheist myself so your rendition of my view is obviously distorted.) This is projection, and only proves my point. You twisted my much more measured statement about SOME atheists to a bigoted generalization of all atheists because that is precisely what you do. You are asserting that ALL atheists are more objective than ALL theists. That is an obviously false statement of intransigent bigotry.

Bigotry is defined in the dictionary as any intolerantly held belief. Bigotry is never objective, it is always biased and slanted, the very worst flaw in science. Also, the arguments by atheists here present a great deal of heat without much light. The arguments are mostly ego driven and not a genuine search for the truth, or a sincere attempt to meet anyone half way and have a real meeting of minds.

Bigots of course have no interest what-so-ever in any meeting of minds, unless someone wants to come all the way to them. Bigotry is the very antithesis of the scientific method. It is a guarantee of faulty methodology.

You start with a point but then but then go on to twist my words and leave reality.
I said
Quote:
Generally atheists are more objective than theists, many far more.

and then make my point by pointing out that atheists wont evidence, evidence that theists have not shown. and hammered the point in by pointing out the problems with your beliefs (which is actually easer cause pointing out many problems in other god beliefs)
This was in response to you saying
Quote:
Because they are the least objective, arguing from a biases, slanted and highly emotional point of view.

A statement that is clearly false.
in response too
Quote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?

Which is mostly false (there are some that do that, most don't)

Then you go an call me a bigot and call me intolerant of other people beliefs. Since when is pointing out error in people beliefs intolerant? I I pointed out to a nazi that there is no basis for there racist and antisemitic beliefs and the belief in the "master race", be intolerant? Or is it you don't like what I'm saying so you attack my credibility (it would not be first time)
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:

No, its not. You state that atheists are not objective, that is simply not true. Generally atheists are more objective than theists, many far more.

So...When do we get to actually see some of this? So far, I've seen the least objectivity from atheists. If something disagrees with you, you slam it. If someone wants to look at something from a different perspective, that's a sure sign that the point is valueless.

Belief in a god, one way or another isn't an issue; it's the degree of fanaticism in that belief that is, and fanaticism isn't good. Any religious person knows that because of the religion's history; you would have thought that atheists would have learned from that lesson.

Quote:

Take your beliefs for example, you believe in a pantheist god that you have called a universal consciousness. For that to be the universe would have to be able to 1. gather and proses information, 2. it would have to proses that information in such a way as to have a mind, 3. that mind would have to fit the requirements of having consciousness.


Why? Just because you say so? And don't you mean "conscious universe"? That isn't something that Christians worry about; that's a pagan belief. Christians believe is a supernatural presence that's not part of nature, even while permeating it. Big difference than a conscious universe...

[BTW: A "universal consciousness" has been debated by such as Jung as actually existing; some believe that the whole of humanity does communicate on some level, regardless of distance, and can share information, albiet subconsciously through it.


Quote:
1. there is no evidence that the universe can gather and proses information,

Based on our limited abilities at this point, I don't really see your ability to believe this. Even scientists on the edge of high tech point out there is a lot in the universe that we can't detect beyond the merest taste of its existence (dark matter, for example); how can you say that we have detected all that there is to detect?

Quote:
2. theres no evidence that the universe has a mind,

In your limited perspective, sure. But, like I said, there's still a lot of room for belief...

Quote:
3. to know if the universe has a consciousness, we would have to be able to observe and or interact with the universal mind (something that there is no evidence for).

On the other hand, we do have a lot of unexplained phenomena. A lot that can proved to have happened, and a lot of evidence that just doesn't make sense.

Quote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Theists claims that there is a god(s), and atheists ask for evidence, there is non. weather be monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, or panentheist, there is no evidence for any god.

Depends if you are actually looking for evidence, or are just wanting spoon-fed to you...

Quote:
An objective person dose not believe based on faith, they believe based on evidence, theists believes with out evidence, atheists generally believes cause of the lack of evidence. Which is more objective?

This is why you would never be a decent scientist, much less a great one. A scientist bases his belief on his faith that there is something out there, regardless of what others say. This is how almost all of our greatest discoveries have been made. A religious scientist doesn't allow his faith to cause him to ignore the evidence he sees; rather, he reconciles his faith with the evidence.

It's worth noting, in that regard, that almost all the great discoveries have been made by people with at least a modicum of religious belief, and, if the person didn't already have some religious belief, then the discovery gave them some.

There may be atheists in a foxhole, but it's not common...

HM
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:

Quote:
Why do atheists always discount something when it disagrees with them and celebrate when it agrees with them?

Which is mostly false (there are some that do that, most don't)

Then you go an call me a bigot and call me intolerant of other people beliefs. Since when is pointing out error in people beliefs intolerant? I I pointed out to a nazi that there is no basis for there racist and antisemitic beliefs and the belief in the "master race", be intolerant? Or is it you don't like what I'm saying so you attack my credibility (it would not be first time)


1) I made the observation based on a Wired article's demonstration that atheists tend to attack Christianity almost on general purpose (Penn & Teller, for example). In general, anything that smacks of the supernatural is attacked, regardless of how much proof there is that something happened. So, there may be atheists that don't discount things that disagree with them, but I have yet to see any evidence that they exist...

2) I call you a "bigot" because it's a title that, well, you've gone out of your way to prove. You base arguments off things that simply no longer apply, modes of thought that have been discredited, and basically appear to be attacking Christianity just to be attacking Christianity. And now, you apear to be comparing your line of reasoning to attacking nazism (yeah, I know you're probably not, just pointing it out).

In essence, update your knowledge of Christianity if you wish to seen as credible; there are probably arguments out there against Christianity...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey: You completely missed all the point.
Atheists are generally more objective, atheists can and many do look at things from different perspectives (and that dose not make it valueless) but looking at things objectively means looking at things with out any preconceived ideas and when you look at things like that you what becomes important is evidence, the strength of that evidence and the validity of that evidence. Theists believe in God any some arguer for the existence of God many trying to convert people, there is no objective reason to believe in God, weather that god be pantheist, panentheist or multiple gods. Most atheists do not believe in God(s) simply for the fact that there is no evidence for God(s).
Which is more objective, believing in something purely by strong, valid evidence or believing in something then trying to find the evidence to support you view (what theists do)?
Its believing based on valid and strong evidence.
Atheists are also generally more skeptical and use critical thinking more than theists.
Now there are atheists who don't believe in God for personal reasons and try to push atheism but those are few and far between.

If you don't won't atheists "attacking" (we don't attack, we point out flaws you theists call it attacking cause you theists don;t like it) Christianity, move somewhere not overwhelmingly (and I do mean that in a bad way) Christan. Its a huge target. get over it.

You call be a bigot, you don't like what I saw so you call me it. Before you call some one it, look up what it means cause nothing I have said anywhere is even remotely bigoted or intolerant.
The problems in religion and peoples religion should be pointed out cause those problems effect the world.
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
HereticMonkey: You completely missed all the point.

No...I simply disagreed.

Quote:
Atheists are generally more objective, atheists can and many do look at things from different perspectives (and that dose not make it valueless) but looking at things objectively means looking at things with out any preconceived ideas and when you look at things like that you what becomes important is evidence, the strength of that evidence and the validity of that evidence.

Unfortunately, you have yet to demonstrate this. Heck, look at the last line of your post:
Quote:
The problems in religion and peoples religion should be pointed out cause those problems effect the world.

This is hardly objective; it doesn't for other perspectives (such as greed or revenge), nor does it begin to allow for the fact (note: NOT OPINION) that atheists have committed genocide in God's name (Hitler claimed publicly to be Christian, but his notes demonstrated his atheism), and that Mao and Stalin (also atheists) committed genocide in the name atheism.

I could say that atheism is therefore worse than Christianity, or I could say (objectively) that the men did what they did without their religion.

Quote:
Most atheists do not believe in God(s) simply for the fact that there is no evidence for God(s).

There is also no evidence against His/their existence. A truly open-minded individual would not continually point out that that's the reason not to believe in God(s).

Quote:
Which is more objective, believing in something purely by strong, valid evidence or believing in something then trying to find the evidence to support you view (what theists do)?

As well as atheists, please note...

Quote:
Its believing based on valid and strong evidence.
Atheists are also generally more skeptical and use critical thinking more than theists.

Again, what is this evidence? And I have yet to see any critical thinking. Plenty of skepticism, but little in the way of critical thinking.

Quote:
If you don't won't atheists "attacking" (we don't attack, we point out flaws you theists call it attacking cause you theists don;t like it) Christianity, move somewhere not overwhelmingly (and I do mean that in a bad way) Christan.

No, you attack. You slander people, you claim people didn't exist when historians say they did, and you conveniently shift facts when it's convenient to the situation. When it's admitted that your point has been made, and the Christian allows for it, you press your attack by pointing out that the logic didn't apply in the first place.

Quote:
You call be a bigot, you don't like what I saw so you call me it. Before you call some one it, look up what it means cause nothing I have said anywhere is even remotely bigoted or intolerant.

Whatever. You believe that you aren't a bigot if it allows you to sleep at night. Your words continually say the opposite...

HM
The Conspirator
Quote:
No...I simply disagreed.

Yes you have

Quote:
Unfortunately, you have yet to demonstrate this. Heck, look at the last line of your post:

I did. Atheists say "Dose God exist? What dose the evidence say?" theists say "God exists, what is the evidence?"
The difference is the atheists bases his opinion on the evidence, the theists look for the evidence to support his opinion. The first is more objective. It is far more objective for a person to say "is blah, blah? What dose the evidence say?" then basing his opinion on the evidence.

Quote:
This is hardly objective; it doesn't for other perspectives (such as greed or revenge), nor does it begin to allow for the fact (note: NOT OPINION) that atheists have committed genocide in God's name (Hitler claimed publicly to be Christian, but his notes demonstrated his atheism), and that Mao and Stalin (also atheists) committed genocide in the name atheism.

I could say that atheism is therefore worse than Christianity, or I could say (objectively) that the men did what they did without their religion.

You have some flaws in your knowledge of history.
No one has killed in the name of atheism, they have killed cause of hatred, ideology and fear.
Stalin killed cause of paranoia, fear and power, not atheism. Mao didn't kill for atheism ether, he killed for an ideology, communism. And Hitler, he was not atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs)
Where you head these from, smack him.
Killing in the name of atheism is like killing in the name of theism, dose not happen. Both are category's of belief, not ideology's or religions.

[quote]There is also no evidence against His/their existence. A truly open-minded individual would not continually point out that that's the reason not to believe in God(s).[/
Quote:
quote
]
If there is no evidence for, than there is no reason to believe in god. There is no evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny, leprechauns and Invisible Pink Unicorn, there is no evidence against them yes you don;t hear people saying they are real.
Absince of evadence is evadence of absince.
You theists will use that arguments when it comes to God yes if someone used that argument for the existence of the easter Bunny you would laugh at them. Its hypocritical if you ask me.

Quote:
As well as atheists, please note...

No, we look at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence.

Quote:
Again, what is this evidence? And I have yet to see any critical thinking. Plenty of skepticism, but little in the way of critical thinking.

Atheists don't generally take things as true with out evidence.

Quote:
No, you attack. You slander people, you claim people didn't exist when historians say they did, and you conveniently shift facts when it's convenient to the situation. When it's admitted that your point has been made, and the Christian allows for it, you press your attack by pointing out that the logic didn't apply in the first place.

No, we do not, we don't, we do not do any of that, any of that. And I challenge you to point out anywhere that has happened.
Oh yeah, the non existence of Jesus is a valid argument.

Quote:
Whatever. You believe that you aren't a bigot if it allows you to sleep at night. Your words continually say the opposite...

You can try to attack me but that dose not change the fact that I have said nothing bigoted. I have said nothing intolerant of any ones beliefs, I have only pointed out holes in theistic beliefs. And I challenge you to point anything I've said even remotely bigoted.
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:

Quote:
An objective person dose not believe based on faith, they believe based on evidence, theists believes with out evidence, atheists generally believes cause of the lack of evidence. Which is more objective?

This is why you would never be a decent scientist, much less a great one. A scientist bases his belief on his faith that there is something out there, regardless of what others say. This is how almost all of our greatest discoveries have been made. A religious scientist doesn't allow his faith to cause him to ignore the evidence he sees; rather, he reconciles his faith with the evidence.

What you have described is the antithesis of science. A scientist does not start by believing in pseudo-science ('something' out there). Most scientists are not famous and do not do world-shaking things or discover fantastic new phenomena. Most scientists do repetitive, unimaginative and, frankly, boring work for a large part of their career. I honour them for it and note that these are the real heroes of science. Science is about finding a consistent, testable explanation for the world around us. It does not start with the assumption that there is anything out there and it should not be based on a personal faith.
I agree that some great science has been done by people with personal beliefs of a sometimes fanatical intensity. You say this is 'how almost all' great discoveries were made - I think that is wrong. I will, however, give you 2 examples where it is certainly true that the scientist concerned had a preconception an idée fixe which was relevant to their work. I will also choose two personal favourites so I cannot be accused of building a straw man.

1) Johannes Kepler. He started with an idée fixé that the orbit of the planets could be explained by fitting them into the 'perfect solids' -

Complete bunkum of course. It is difficult to make the case that this was a reason for his greatness - more of a handicap since it preoccupied his thoughts and led him down many blind allies. The reason he was, in my opinion, a great scientist - far more so than his contemporary, Koppernigk (Copernicus) - was an incredible ability to persist and persevere with a single concept, coupled with a very high degree - particularly for the time of, sometimes coruscating, self-honesty.
He eventually, of course, set the stage for Newton with his laws of planetary motion and he discovered gravity in all but name before Newton's birth. One of my favourite Kepler writings illustrates this wonderfully - remember that this is written 100 years before Newton discovers gravity :
Johannes Kepler wrote:
If two stones were placed anywhere in space near to each other, and outside the reach of force of a third cognate body, then they would come together, after the manner of magnetic bodies, at an intermediate point, each approaching the other in proportions to the other's mass.
Personally that still sends a shiver down my spine - it is as close as you could imagine to the theory of gravity.

2) Pythagoras. In my opinion the first scientist in any sensible meaning of the word. From what we know he started with the notion that numbers were the key to the universe and that everything is in reality an expression of proportion, divinely conceived. Thus the pitch of a stringed instrument depends not on the string itself, only on the length of the string, and the intervals which we find musically pleasing or consonant are perfect proportions within that length (thus an octave - 2:1, a fifth - 3:2, a fourth - 3:4 and so on). From this simple idea came a fantastic wealth of understanding which still permeates our thinking and language today. A few examples would be :- armonia (Harmony) ; the medical concepts of 'tension', 'tonic', 'well-tempered', 'tone' and 'temperance'; 'Katharsis' - the notion of purging or purification which came from the Pythagorean idea that illness was caused by incorrect tensions in the body's 'strings'.

So there I give you two supporting cases - indeed two of my own personal heroes of science. You may presume, therefore, that I make your case for you. Not at all. In Kepler's case the idée fixe was a definite hindrance and in Pythagoras' case the idée fixe was certainly productive but ultimately led to a crisis from which the movement never recovered - the discovery of 'irrational' numbers.*
If we think of other great scientists - Newton, Galileo, Crick & Watson, Einstein, Fermi,
Fleming, Hubble - they started not from a fixed notion but from a basic curiosity or from an anomaly which required explanation. Any scientist who starts with a preconceived notion of what he is investigating is in danger of being a very BAD scientist because it inevitably colours perception and often influences experimental result. The ideal scientist starts with no belief and forms a theory based on logic and experiment/observation. Preconceptions or even 'common sense' (which I find is rarely either - common or sense) often serve a scientist very poorly in the pursuit of his/her chosen career.
Quote:

It's worth noting, in that regard, that almost all the great discoveries have been made by people with at least a modicum of religious belief, and, if the person didn't already have some religious belief, then the discovery gave them some.

The notion that religious scientists have contributed disproportionately to science is like the notion than white men represent the worlds greatest artists, or that no woman ever wrote a good symphony - they are truisms which tell us absolutely nothing about the real story involved. In a world where everyone of note is Christian then it is unsurprising that most scientists were Christian. In a world where women did not compose music then it is unsurprising that not many great works were written by women. In a world of slavery and racial bigotry it is unsurprising that (from a western 'classical' perspective) most great works of art are by white men. A better test of that will have to wait for a while yet - we are beginning to get to a world where atheism is not such a negative factor in professional life and I would suggest that we come back to this in, say, 20 years, and examine the list of Nobel Laureates in science for the intervening period -that might be a fairer methodology.

*An irrational number is the antithesis of Pythagorean proportion - it is a number which cannot be expressed as a fraction (proportion) of two integers; ie it cannot be expressed in whole numbers. The diagonal of any square is an example of such a number and is the easiest formal proof of the concept-as follows:
Let d be the diagonal of square of side a as follows:

Proposition : Let d=m/n and let a=1
Therefore
It follows that m or n must be odd and because m*m=2*n*n it also follows that n must be odd and therefore m even.
If m is even we can say m=2p (where p is a integer) therefore m*m=4*p*p=2*n*n therefore n must be even.
Conclusion d cannot be represented by any rational fraction.
Mouldylocks
I think all gods are the same god, just decorated differently. Nature can be a god. Human nature can also be a god. People just believe in what suits them best or what they were taught.
For example, Allah and Jesus have similarities, and religion basically preaches the same thing. It's just the illustrations of god that change. Even Satan and Buddha are the same god, since god is a principle, an object of faith created by man to survive in the hell that would be life without Rock n'Roll. God save MouldyLocks!
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:

The difference is the atheists bases his opinion on the evidence, the theists look for the evidence to support his opinion.

What evidence? This is the bottom line problem. To say that there is evidence without actually having any is not objective. This is the crux of the problem; belief is purely on faith.

Read: There is no proof one way or another. There's just too much weirdness out there to legitimately judge one way or another.


Quote:
You have some flaws in your knowledge of history.
No one has killed in the name of atheism, they have killed cause of hatred, ideology and fear.
Stalin killed cause of paranoia, fear and power, not atheism. Mao didn't kill for atheism ether, he killed for an ideology, communism.

Dude: Read your own statements for logic issues.

SO: If I kill due to my Christian beliefs, Christianity is bad. BUT if I kill because of my belief in something else, it's my fault? Convenient double standards...

Quote:
And Hitler, he was not atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs)
Where you head these from, smack him.

Actually, it was based off his personal journals. Also, had you read the article objectively, that those closest to Hitler noted his almost aggressive atheism, and the article divides his thinking on Christendom into public and private beliefs.

Meaning that Hitler acted Christian-like in public, but was still an atheist.

Quote:
Quote:
There is also no evidence against His/their existence. A truly open-minded individual would not continually point out that that's the reason not to believe in God(s).

If there is no evidence for, than there is no reason to believe in god. There is no evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny, leprechauns and Invisible Pink Unicorn, there is no evidence against them yes you don;t hear people saying they are real.

Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Also, there are too many documented miracles.

[quote]Absince of evadence is evadence of absince.[quote]
The problem is that logic doesn't work. Biologists were able to show that life has very strict limits, and had no evidence that there were exceptions to that. Then algae was found that thrived in deadly radiation, and then there are the other extremophiles. Heck, a number of physicists believe in dark matter, which cannot be detected by any means. So, that line may make a great bumper sticker, it has no relevance to reality.

Quote:
You theists will use that arguments when it comes to God yes if someone used that argument for the existence of the easter Bunny you would laugh at them. Its hypocritical if you ask me.

Not really...We know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist; no proof, and his job (hiding eggs) is done by parents.

[quote]
Quote:
As well as atheists, please note...

No, we look at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence.[quote]
Again, what evidence?


[quote]
Quote:
Again, what is this evidence? And I have yet to see any critical thinking. Plenty of skepticism, but little in the way of critical thinking.

Atheists don't generally take things as true with out evidence.[quote]
Except...you ignore the evidence when it's been presented, and you logic out things even when they are right in front of you.


Quote:
Quote:
No, you attack. You slander people, you claim people didn't exist when historians say they did, and you conveniently shift facts when it's convenient to the situation. When it's admitted that your point has been made, and the Christian allows for it, you press your attack by pointing out that the logic didn't apply in the first place.

No, we do not, we don't, we do not do any of that, any of that. And I challenge you to point out anywhere that has happened.
Oh yeah, the non existence of Jesus is a valid argument.

Excellent point, actually... Too many historians have been able to point to an actual man. We have proof in a number of references that He was around. But, because Jesus' existence is not convenient to your belief, you can't allow Him to even exist.


Quote:
I have said nothing intolerant of any ones beliefs, I have only pointed out holes in theistic beliefs. And I challenge you to point anything I've said even remotely bigoted.

Gee...You mean outside of denying someone His existence, arguing that Christianity has a negative impact while Atheists that kill are just following a personal ideolgy, posting stuff that's not relevant to the discussion at hand in order to make Christianity look bad? Can't think of a thing...

I don't people poking holes in my beliefs; it allows me to see where I need to grow. But I do mind someone just attacking them...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

I would like to see this demonstration please.
Quote:
The problem is that logic doesn't work. Biologists were able to show that life has very strict limits, and had no evidence that there were exceptions to that. Then algae was found that thrived in deadly radiation, and then there are the other extremophiles. Heck, a number of physicists believe in dark matter, which cannot be detected by any means. So, that line may make a great bumper sticker, it has no relevance to reality.

Dark matter can be detected by many means.
Quote:

Excellent point, actually... Too many historians have been able to point to an actual man. We have proof in a number of references that He was around. But, because Jesus' existence is not convenient to your belief, you can't allow Him to even exist.

Please name any of these historians. Just one will do.
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

I would like to see this demonstration please.

Just to clarify: Any problem with this origin of the Universe:
The Big Bang happened (Let there be light!). After a while, the various gases cooled and started forming stars and planets (among other things). Some of these gases became the Earth, which continued to rotate (separating it into day and night).

As Earth cooled off, clouds filled the sky (creating a firmament separating Heaven from the waters below), and eventually rained down upon Earth to be covered in water. Eventually, enough water evaporated, allowing dry and to appear (gathering the water into seas and letting the earth through).

Plant life was the first life on the planet, and the first life mentioned in the Bible. Thanks to plants getting rid of certain greenhouse gases, and allowing sun and stars to shine through (filling the heavens with stars).

Life started coming quicker, as the seas filled with life and the skies were filled with insects (filling the seas and skies with life). The land was filled afterwards (bringing forth every creeping thing and the cattle). Obviously, man was among the last creatures that evolved (bringing forth man in His image).

[Yeah, there are some minor problems, but the biblical account is one of the closest accounts...]

Basically, if the biblical account is that close, then the two can be reconciled...

Quote:
Dark matter can be detected by many means.

In which case you have the potential for a Nobel Prize. No one has been able to actually detect the stuff; we just know that's it's around because of its effects, not because dark matter itself is detectable (deductible, yes; detectable, not so much).

Quote:
Quote:

Excellent point, actually... Too many historians have been able to point to an actual man. We have proof in a number of references that He was around. But, because Jesus' existence is not convenient to your belief, you can't allow Him to even exist.

Please name any of these historians. Just one will do.

My personal fave is Celsus, just because he hated Christians, but still allowed that Jesus Christ was an actual person...

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Quote:

Excellent point, actually... Too many historians have been able to point to an actual man. We have proof in a number of references that He was around. But, because Jesus' existence is not convenient to your belief, you can't allow Him to even exist.

Please name any of these historians. Just one will do.

My personal fave is Celsus, just because he hated Christians, but still allowed that Jesus Christ was an actual person...

(*ahem* There are several missing facts behind that statement.

First, Celsus claimed a lot of things about Jesus that are contrary to the biblical stories. If Celsus' writings are historical, then the bible is not. Strike one.

Second, Celsus named his source. He said he heard all of his "facts" from some unnamed Jew. Not from any historical source. Not from "common knowledge" at the time. Some random Jewish guy came to Celsus and said, "so, yeah, i heard Mary was a slut", and Celsus duly recorded it. So if i walked up to a historian and said "so, yeah, i heard Robin Hood was a pedophile", and that historian recorded my claims, by the logic above that historian believes Robin Hood existed. Um no. Strike two.

i leave it to the reader to see the obvious strike three.)
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

First, Celsus claimed a lot of things about Jesus that are contrary to the biblical stories. If Celsus' writings are historical, then the bible is not. Strike one.

Whew...Good thing that "the bible" doesn't exist. Now, if it had contradicted The Bible, which we both have agreed is not historically correct (great ref, but only as a ref, not an actual history), well, that would still not be a problem...

[Yeahyeah, I'm just tweaking you a little. But we have agreed that The Bible is not historically accurate. I don't see this is as an issue.]

Quote:
Second, Celsus named his source. He said he heard all of his "facts" from some unnamed Jew.

I'm confused: This was a named unnamed Jew? So...What was his name?

Also, that his style: He used two characters, one who was an anonymous Jew, and the other was him. As such, it may be a pretentious literary device, but it's not that uncommon among philosophical works.

Also, he had some scholarly background, and apparently knew a good part of the Old Testament. The biggest strike against him was that the Jews he was most experienced with the Oriental Jews, not the European Jews, but that's totally important, as his critique was against Christians, not Jews.

Quote:

i leave it to the reader to see the obvious strike three.)


Let's see: A century or so late? So were The Gospels, and most good histories are written well after the fact. Actually respected them a tad? Oops. Oh! I got it! Said that The Bible was as bad as it seems at first. That's it!

On the other hand, I do like that he pointed out that The Bible was a plagiarized version of the Logos philosophy. As The Bible touches on a number of other philosophies, it's always interesting to see ties to another one...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

I would like to see this demonstration please.

Just to clarify: Any problem with this origin of the Universe:
The Big Bang happened (Let there be light!). After a while, the various gases cooled and started forming stars and planets (among other things). Some of these gases became the Earth, which continued to rotate (separating it into day and night).

No...the earth is at least generation 3 I think (ie it and the solar system are the result of material from previous novae 3 times)
Quote:
As Earth cooled off, clouds filled the sky (creating a firmament separating Heaven from the waters below), and eventually rained down upon Earth to be covered in water. Eventually, enough water evaporated, allowing dry and to appear (gathering the water into seas and letting the earth through).
Not really..the earth wasn't covered at any point - it is more likely that the volume of water has increased over time.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117439/geologic-history-of-Earth
Quote:
Plant life was the first life on the planet, and the first life mentioned in the Bible. Thanks to plants getting rid of certain greenhouse gases, and allowing sun and stars to shine through (filling the heavens with stars).

Well...algae are technically not plants, but the problems are much deeper than that. Here is a time line of current thinking on the genealogy of life

Quote:
Life started coming quicker, as the seas filled with life and the skies were filled with insects (filling the seas and skies with life). The land was filled afterwards (bringing forth every creeping thing and the cattle). Obviously, man was among the last creatures that evolved (bringing forth man in His image).
[Yeah, there are some minor problems, but the biblical account is one of the closest accounts...]

What definition of 'close' are you using here? By my understanding it is not only not close it is completely and irredeemably different and distant. Here is a quick summary of just a few of the more obvious differences..
    Item.......................According to Genesis............................According to Evolution Theory
  • Source....................................................Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 ............................................................Paleontologists, Biologists, etc.
  • Sun........................................................Created after the world ...................................................... Present before world coalesces
  • Grass, land plants, trees........................Created before the sun........................................................Evolved after the sun
  • First forms of life..........................................Land plants....................................................................Marine organisms
  • Birds......................................................Created before land animals.................................................Evolved from land animals
  • Fruit Trees...........................................Created before fish....................................... ............................Evolved after fish
  • Initial diet of animals..........................Restricted to plants........................... ...............................Animals evolved as meat, plant eaters
  • Age of the universe.............................Less than 10,000 years.............................................................Over 14 billion years
  • Age of the Earth.................................Less than 10,000 years..............................................................About 4.5 billion years
  • Age of earliest life forms....................Less than 10,000 years.............................................................About 3.5 billion years
  • Where humans came from......................Created from dirt .........................................................Evolved; higher apes and Homo Sapiens

Quote:
Basically, if the biblical account is that close, then the two can be reconciled...

Sure - if it were they could
Quote:
Quote:
Dark matter can be detected by many means.

In which case you have the potential for a Nobel Prize. No one has been able to actually detect the stuff; we just know that's it's around because of its effects, not because dark matter itself is detectable (deductible, yes; detectable, not so much).

You speak as if we know what dark matter is...we don't. The only thing we are sure about is it is dark - non radiating. There are several candidates and each can be detected (yes, I mean detected) in different ways. The main candidates are :

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Excellent point, actually... Too many historians have been able to point to an actual man. We have proof in a number of references that He was around. But, because Jesus' existence is not convenient to your belief, you can't allow Him to even exist.

Please name any of these historians. Just one will do.

My personal fave is Celsus, just because he hated Christians, but still allowed that Jesus Christ was an actual person...

Ahh..I think you have misunderstood what I meant by historical source and proof
Celsus was 2nd century AD and only repeated stories (and taunts) about Jesus that he picked up from the Jews. When I say a historical source I mean contemporaneous or in some way authoritative - Celsus has s few things to say directly about Jesus...these are mainly covered in the Contra Celsus by Origen and the passage reads (allowing for translation and the fact that non of his writings exist so this is taken from Origen's later critique)
Origen quoting Celsus wrote:
Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.

Now the problem here is that this is second hand, but more importantly it is not possible to judge where he got his stories about Jesus from since his original work doesn't survive (apart from a few fragments). I agree that he accepts Jesus as a historical personage but this is more circumstantial than "proof in a number of references that He was around" I think.....

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03490a.htm
http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ef954b4319a9619faa0fd7adfa034bbb&board=35.0
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

I would like to see this demonstration please.

Just to clarify: Any problem with this origin of the Universe:
The Big Bang happened (Let there be light!). After a while, the various gases cooled and started forming stars and planets (among other things). Some of these gases became the Earth, which continued to rotate (separating it into day and night).

No...the earth is at least generation 3 I think (ie it and the solar system are the result of material from previous novae 3 times)
Quote:
As Earth cooled off, clouds filled the sky (creating a firmament separating Heaven from the waters below), and eventually rained down upon Earth to be covered in water. Eventually, enough water evaporated, allowing dry and to appear (gathering the water into seas and letting the earth through).
Not really..the earth wasn't covered at any point - it is more likely that the volume of water has increased over time.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117439/geologic-history-of-Earth
Quote:
Plant life was the first life on the planet, and the first life mentioned in the Bible. Thanks to plants getting rid of certain greenhouse gases, and allowing sun and stars to shine through (filling the heavens with stars).

Well...algae are technically not plants, but the problems are much deeper than that. Here is a time line of current thinking on the genealogy of life

Quote:
Life started coming quicker, as the seas filled with life and the skies were filled with insects (filling the seas and skies with life). The land was filled afterwards (bringing forth every creeping thing and the cattle). Obviously, man was among the last creatures that evolved (bringing forth man in His image).
[Yeah, there are some minor problems, but the biblical account is one of the closest accounts...]

What definition of 'close' are you using here? By my understanding it is not only not close it is completely and irredeemably different and distant. Here is a quick summary of just a few of the more obvious differences..

What's really depressing is that this entire line of debate has been done to death already:
Indi wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Worse, the origin of the Universe as per Genesis squares with what we know of the origin of the Universe as per physics.

Absolute crap. Ignoring the fact that it all apparently happened in a matter of days, because apparently it's ok to consider the "days" allegorical but not the rest of it (selective interpretation), the chronology is flawed.

Third "day": oceans and continents are created.
Fourth "day": the stars and sun are created.

Gee...I'm supposed to listen to you, but you don't have to listen to me? How convenient for you...
a) I've said multiple times that they aren't literal days. Again: They aren't literal 24-hr periods of the planet rotating on its axis.
b) Not bad: One event out of order. And it's one that's up to interpretation: The Sun had already been created (the day had already been split into day and night). Then the firmament and then heaven (you needed Earth to spew forth clouds of material to create an atmosphere, and then you can see the stars and sun when the clouds settle down). I see no contradiction...

1.) i explicitly said i was going to accept that assumption, as ridiculous as it is. Note the quotes around the "day"s there?
2.) a] Two "days" wrong out of six. That's lousy stats, man.
b] You have described the formation of Earth wrong. There was a period when the Earth was pretty much a barren rock with the stars clearly visible through a thin atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium - then rainfalls began - then the oceans formed.
c] Your "interpretation" is wrong.

And you weren't satisfied with what i've already proven wrong? Then consider this:
Second "day": waters of Earth are created and separated from Heaven.
Third "day": land is created.

We know this is wrong because the land formed first from coallescing stellar matter as magma, then cooled to a solid crust, then water collected in the dips to form the oceans. In other words, land first, then water. Wrong again.

That's three "day"s out of six wrong. It's getting worse.

But wait, there's more!
Fifth "day": Air and sea creatures are created.
Sixth "day": Land creatures are created (including humans).

But "air creatures" (presumably birds, but even flying bugs evolved from crawling bugs) evolved from land creatures. First came "sea creatures", then some crawled on land, then some of those took flight. Once again, wrong.

Crap on a stick! That's five days out of the six demonstratably wrong! And the only day left is just the separation of "light" from "darkness", which is meaningless drivel in physics anyway. So even that day is questionable and only gets away because it's so vague and non-sensical it can't be discussed without extreme interpretation.


HereticMonkey wrote:
Also, that his style: He used two characters, one who was an anonymous Jew, and the other was him. As such, it may be a pretentious literary device, but it's not that uncommon among philosophical works.

i wasn't talking about the character he used as a mouth piece. i said "source". The source for the claims that he puts in the mouths of his characters. The source was basically hearsay. Gossip. Celsus was repeating rumours, and he admitted it obliquely.

And even worse, we now have a fairly good idea of where those rumours that Celsus is quoting first started. And - surprise, surprise - they have nothing to do with a historical Jesus.
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
What evidence? This is the bottom line problem. To say that there is evidence without actually having any is not objective. This is the crux of the problem; belief is purely on faith

I did show evidence. Evidence in what they believe and why.
Atheists do not believe n God due to the lack of evidence for God, theists believe in God despite the lack of evidence.
Objective: Dose God exist? What is the evidence?
Nonobjective: God exists. What is the evidence for this.

Quote:
Read: There is no proof one way or another. There's just too much weirdness out there to legitimately judge one way or another.

Quote:
Not really...We know that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist; no proof, and his job (hiding eggs) is done by parents.

Quote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Also, there are too many documented miracles.

No, no, no, no.
First: there is no evadence for God, none what so ever.
Deconed: intelagent desine IS creationsis call it what it is. and its crap.
Thread: If you use the argument "theres no evidence against it" than you have to admit that the easter bunny, lepricons, dragons, unicorns, pixies, frays,succubus's, incubuses, vampires, werwolf's, alien abduction, Zeus, Thore, Radon from Mortal Combat, The Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn and anything else. And not only that, you would have to admit that they are all just as plausible as your god.


Quote:
Dude: Read your own statements for logic issues.

SO: If I kill due to my Christian beliefs, Christianity is bad. BUT if I kill because of my belief in something else, it's my fault? Convenient double standards...

I did not say that. Belefe or ideoligy can not be blamed but it can lead to bad things.

Quote:
Actually, it was based off his personal journals. Also, had you read the article objectively, that those closest to Hitler noted his almost aggressive atheism, and the article divides his thinking on Christendom into public and private beliefs.

Meaning that Hitler acted Christian-like in public, but was still an atheist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs#Private_statements
Quote:
Private statements

Hitler’s private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[11] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[12]


Quote:
Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,[13] but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[14] In Mein Kampf he wrote that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."[15][16]


Quote:
Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"[17] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival along social darwinist lines. The "Aryan race", supposedly the bearer of civilization, is allocated a special place:

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."[18]

The Jews he viewed as enemies of all civilization and as materialistic, unspiritual beings, writing in Mein Kampf: "His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine." Hitler described his supposedly divine mandate for his anti-Semitism: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."


HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Absince of evadence is evadence of absince.

The problem is that logic doesn't work. Biologists were able to show that life has very strict limits, and had no evidence that there were exceptions to that. Then algae was found that thrived in deadly radiation, and then there are the other extremophiles. Heck, a number of physicists believe in dark matter, which cannot be detected by any means. So, that line may make a great bumper sticker, it has no relevance to reality.

1. There is allways limmits, some have more limits that others.
2. Before it was detected there was observational evidence, despite galaxy clusters not having enough mass to hold them self together they did. There was something else there that could not be seen and had mass. Dark matter. And it has been detected. http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/02/found_most_of_the_universe.php

[quote][quote]No, we look at the evidence and come to a conclusion based on the evidence.
Quote:

Again, what evidence?

Talk to atheists.

[quote][quote]Atheists don't generally take things as true with out evidence.
Quote:

Except...you ignore the evidence when it's been presented, and you logic out things even when they are right in front of you.

No, we don't, we do not ignore evidence. And before you say "evidence" see above.

Quote:
Excellent point, actually... Too many historians have been able to point to an actual man. We have proof in a number of references that He was around. But, because Jesus' existence is not convenient to your belief, you can't allow Him to even exist.

Really? Who?
Wait, you answered that, and he was anti Christan and contradicted things the bible says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth
It is a valid argument.

Quote:
Gee...You mean outside of denying someone His existence, arguing that Christianity has a negative impact while Atheists that kill are just following a personal ideolgy, posting stuff that's not relevant to the discussion at hand in order to make Christianity look bad? Can't think of a thing...

Now your twisting my words. I have never said Jesus didn't exist, it is a valid argument though, so are arguments that Moses, King David, Hercules and others don't exists, Jesus isn't the only one. Christianity dose have a negative impact on the would, it states that its god is the only god and those who do not except Jesus as there savourer are doomed to suffer for eternity in hell which lead to many trying to force there religion onto others in the guise of "saving there souls" and oppression of those of different religions, it states homosexuality is a horrible sin leading to violence against homosexuals and depression and even suicide of homosexual cause of there homosexuality, it make sex sinful unless in marriage and in some versions even masturbation sinful. And that dose not include the all the stupid, evil and horrible things in the bible. And Ideology likely religion can have negative impacts. And Atheists do not and have never killed in the name of or for atheism.

Quote:
I don't people poking holes in my beliefs; it allows me to see where I need to grow. But I do mind someone just attacking them...

I'm not attacking, If I wonted to attack your religion. You don;t like people poking wholes in your religion, get a better one.

Quote:
Just to clarify: Any problem with this origin of the Universe:
The Big Bang happened (Let there be light!). After a while, the various gases cooled and started forming stars and planets (among other things). Some of these gases became the Earth, which continued to rotate (separating it into day and night).

As Earth cooled off, clouds filled the sky (creating a firmament separating Heaven from the waters below), and eventually rained down upon Earth to be covered in water. Eventually, enough water evaporated, allowing dry and to appear (gathering the water into seas and letting the earth through).

Plant life was the first life on the planet, and the first life mentioned in the Bible. Thanks to plants getting rid of certain greenhouse gases, and allowing sun and stars to shine through (filling the heavens with stars).

Life started coming quicker, as the seas filled with life and the skies were filled with insects (filling the seas and skies with life). The land was filled afterwards (bringing forth every creeping thing and the cattle). Obviously, man was among the last creatures that evolved (bringing forth man in His image).

[Yeah, there are some minor problems, but the biblical account is one of the closest accounts...]

Basically, if the biblical account is that close, then the two can be reconciled..


Read Genesis you'll find that its dose not mean what you say they mean when you take them alone.
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
No...the earth is at least generation 3 I think (ie it and the solar system are the result of material from previous novae 3 times)

So, the Earth was not formed of stellar gas that cooled? Weird...

[Note: Generation of the material isn't an issue here; what the Earth was formed from initially was is.]

Quote:
Not really..the earth wasn't covered at any point - it is more likely that the volume of water has increased over time.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117439/geologic-history-of-Earth

I'm seeing rains all over the place, volcanoes that extruded below water, even the eventually draining. Based on geographical studies of the planet, based on paleontological evidence (fossils of shellfish), I know that that's happened several times. I can therefore make a case that most, if not all, the Earth's surface was covered by water in its early eras.

[And, yes, the volume of water has increased over time. That's null/void in this situation.]


Quote:
Well...algae are technically not plants, but the problems are much deeper than that.

Depends on which species. But...bear in mind that the division of bacteria and plants is a recent reclassification. That is, only recently would the distinction have been of note; for an ancient person the distinction is moot.

Quote:

[Yeah, there are some minor problems, but the biblical account is one of the closest accounts...]

What definition of 'close' are you using here? By my understanding it is not only not close it is completely and irredeemably different and distant. Here is a quick summary of just a few of the more obvious differences..[/quote]
1) As compared to most mythological origins of the world, and those of other religions, the qualitative judgment that The Bible's account is closest is, I believe, a sound one.

2) You chart has a number of problems with it. It assumes not only a specific translation, but a literal one ("creatures of the air"="birds", for example). Also, the time frames are off. Note that I'm not assuming that 1 day=24 hours, for example. Also, I don't get the 10,000 figure, as most literal Christian thought would put the Earth's age at 6,000 years.

3) Also, you'll note that I'm making the case that Sun/Stars/Moon were formed almost off the bat, but not counted as being created as until they visible from the Earth due to obstruction of the atmosphere. Otherwise, you have night and day existing without source. I'm seeing the holes, and trying to logically fill them...


Quote:
You speak as if we know what dark matter is...we don't. The only thing we are sure about is it is dark - non radiating.


You'll note two things:
a) I never stated what dark matter is; as you pointed out, WE DON'T KNOW, and would therefore not be able to speak of what it is.
b) Yes, we have some guesses as to what it is, but we don't know what it is. As such, we can't detect it. Yes, we can detect what you pointed out, but as we don't know what it is, we can't detect dark matter itself. Now, once we know what it is, then we should be able to detect it no problem.

Quote:
Ahh..I think you have misunderstood what I meant by historical source and proof

Nope; I was already aware (as per a prior thread) that looking for a single person who makes everyone happy is not possible. For example, the best source would be Tallus' book (as he would have been a reasonably impartial source as well as a contemporary), but no copy actually exists.

The problem is that there is not only an issue with limited direct sources, but that the way we record history and the way the ancients recorded history are incredibly different. We prefer it impartial, whereas the ancients allowed for a lot of exaggeration. As such, I'd be more willing to trust a modern day archaeologist than I would an ancient historian.

The bottom line here is that you're not going to find an accurate history of anyone from that era. Think what I'm saying before you respond; yes, I know that just about everyone had some history that is accessible, and that some even have virtual libraries written about them. However, most of them are about as good as relying on blogs in today's world: Would you trust a book whose sole purpose was to exalt or condemn someone for facts on that person?

HM
HereticMonkey
Yawn...

The Conspirator wrote:

Objective: Dose God exist? What is the evidence?
Nonobjective: God exists. What is the evidence for this.

Dude: Non-issue. This is not part of the problem. The question is whether or not you believe the evidence. Although there is no definitive proof that God exists, but there is a lot of circumstantial proof. An objective viewpoint can allow that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, and therefore leave the case open, so to speak.



Quote:
No, no, no, no.

Repetition<>True.

Quote:

Deconed: intelagent desine IS creationsis call it what it is. and its crap.

Your personal belief (and spelling)...

Quote:
Thread: If you use the argument "theres no evidence against it" than you have to admit that the easter bunny, lepricons, dragons, unicorns, pixies, frays,succubus's, incubuses, vampires, werwolf's, alien abduction, Zeus, Thore, Radon from Mortal Combat, The Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn and anything else. And not only that, you would have to admit that they are all just as plausible as your god.

Except that there is proof of God (however circumstantial). There is no proof (even circumstantial) that none of those exists, and there is evidence that some of those don't exist. Okay, except for vampires, werewolves, and unicorns; those apparently did/do exist (the first two are humans suffering from specific diseases, and the unicorn is actually a goat with a fused horn). And "frays" do exist; these huge fights show up on videos shows all the time...

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, it was based off his personal journals. Also, had you read the article objectively, that those closest to Hitler noted his almost aggressive atheism, and the article divides his thinking on Christendom into public and private beliefs.

Meaning that Hitler acted Christian-like in public, but was still an atheist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs#Private_statements
Quote:
Private statements

Hitler’s private statements are more mixed. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[10] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[11] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[12]

Bear in mind: The issue is not Hitler's religion, but his Christianity. That he believed in something is not at issue; it's that his specific belief in Christianity was used as proof of Christianity's problems is. If he was merely religious, I wouldn't have bothered with it.
Quote:
1. There is allways limmits, some have more limits that others.
2. Before it was detected there was observational evidence, despite galaxy clusters not having enough mass to hold them self together they did. There was something else there that could not be seen and had mass. Dark matter. And it has been detected. http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/02/found_most_of_the_universe.php


Your point?


Quote:
Talk to atheists.

Why not just do the research?

Quote:

No, we don't, we do not ignore evidence. And before you say "evidence" see above.

If the evidence doesn't go your way, then, yes, you do.


Quote:
Gee...You mean outside of denying someone His existence, arguing that Christianity has a negative impact while Atheists that kill are just following a personal ideolgy, posting stuff that's not relevant to the discussion at hand in order to make Christianity look bad? Can't think of a thing...

Now your twisting my words. I have never said Jesus didn't exist, it is a valid argument though, so are arguments that Moses, King David, Hercules and others don't exists, Jesus isn't the only one.[/quote]
Except that we have historical records and archaeological proof that Moses, King David, and Jesus did exist.


Quote:
Christianity dose have a negative impact on the would, it states that its god is the only god and those who do not except Jesus as there savourer are doomed to suffer for eternity in hell which lead to many trying to force there religion onto others in the guise of "saving there souls" and oppression of those of different religions, it states homosexuality is a horrible sin leading to violence against homosexuals and depression and even suicide of homosexual cause of there homosexuality, it make sex sinful unless in marriage and in some versions even masturbation sinful. And that dose not include the all the stupid, evil and horrible things in the bible. And Ideology likely religion can have negative impacts. And Atheists do not and have never killed in the name of or for atheism.

1) Atheists have killed to support atheism. Or why exactly did Stalin and Mao go after churches and any followers of any religion?
2) How is it that an ideology or philosophy can not lead to bad things happening (as per your quote), yet one does?
3) Hell and sin are up for debate; there are threads even now going on that debate that.
4) So Christian charities have had a negative impact? Weird that...especially as some countries depend on those charities, and even the US counts on them as a support network.


Quote:
Quote:
I don't people poking holes in my beliefs; it allows me to see where I need to grow. But I do mind someone just attacking them...

I'm not attacking, If I wonted to attack your religion. You don;t like people poking wholes in your religion, get a better one.

Dude: Go back and reread the quote. Please...



Quote:

Read Genesis you'll find that its dose not mean what you say they mean when you take them alone.

Didn't take them alone; I wan interested in fitting them into a larger whole...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
No...the earth is at least generation 3 I think (ie it and the solar system are the result of material from previous novae 3 times)
So, the Earth was not formed of stellar gas that cooled? Weird...
You said "The Big Bang happened (Let there be light!). After a while, the various gases cooled and started forming stars and planets (among other things). Some of these gases became the Earth, which continued to rotate (separating it into day and night)." and I pointed out that the Earth is a part of a third generation system.
Quote:
[Note: Generation of the material isn't an issue here; what the Earth was formed from initially was is.]
Yes...and the point is that without the intervening generations then there would be no heavy elements, which is why I mentioned it. Stellar gas is main hydrogen...Also it is important when considering timescales.
Quote:
Quote:
Not really..the earth wasn't covered at any point - it is more likely that the volume of water has increased over time.
I'm seeing rains all over the place, volcanoes that extruded below water, even the eventually draining. Based on geographical studies of the planet, based on paleontological evidence (fossils of shellfish), I know that that's happened several times. I can therefore make a case that most, if not all, the Earth's surface was covered by water in its early eras.
And your evidence is? Cite some sources for your palaeontology please - otherwise these are just words....You will notice that I reference claims I make...please do the same unless they are either uncontested or uncontroversial.
Quote:
[And, yes, the volume of water has increased over time. That's null/void in this situation.]
If the volume of water has increased and the earth was once covered, and it is not covered now, then please explain?
Quote:
1) As compared to most mythological origins of the world, and those of other religions, the qualitative judgment that The Bible's account is closest is, I believe, a sound one.
You also said "Basically, if the biblical account is that close, then the two can be reconciled..." which is not a comparative measurement against other faiths but a statement of closeness to scientific theory. I maintain that it is not close and not reconcilable..I await evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
2) You chart has a number of problems with it. It assumes not only a specific translation, but a literal one ("creatures of the air"="birds", for example). Also, the time frames are off. Note that I'm not assuming that 1 day=24 hours, for example. Also, I don't get the 10,000 figure, as most literal Christian thought would put the Earth's age at 6,000 years.
It uses generally accepted translations. Are you saying that creatures of the air does not mean birds? In what way are the time-frames off? If you have a system of computation different to others then please share it. How do you reconcile sequences and timescales with Genesis?
Quote:
3) Also, you'll note that I'm making the case that Sun/Stars/Moon were formed almost off the bat, but not counted as being created as until they visible from the Earth due to obstruction of the atmosphere. Otherwise, you have night and day existing without source. I'm seeing the holes, and trying to logically fill them...
And I have already pointed out that it does not work. The Sun stars and moon were created over a time-scale of around 10 billion years (which is why, again, the fact that the Solar system is 3rd generation is relevant). The idea that the atmosphere created a false night is possible for a brief period but it is not sustainable much beyond that - in other words day and night could be distinguished well before the first proto-life appeared over 3 billion yrs ago. If that is your contention then, fine, I'll accept it as a working hypothesis.
Quote:
You'll note two things:
a) I never stated what dark matter is; as you pointed out, WE DON'T KNOW, and would therefore not be able to speak of what it is.
b) Yes, we have some guesses as to what it is, but we don't know what it is. As such, we can't detect it. Yes, we can detect what you pointed out, but as we don't know what it is, we can't detect dark matter itself. Now, once we know what it is, then we should be able to detect it no problem.
And I repeat - it consists of several known entities - MACHOS, and other baryonic matter and also (the bit I suspect you meant to refer to) some unknown non-baryonic dark matter. That is why I helpfully gave you a chart. I would not have made an issue of it but for your sarcastic reference to Nobel Prizes - but since you did then I must refute the notion. Now what you actually said was "a number of physicists believe in dark matter, which cannot be detected by any means." My point stands unaltered - that statement is incorrect. You then said "No one has been able to actually detect the stuff; we just know that's it's around because of its effects, not because dark matter itself is detectable". Once again the statement is incorrect because Dark Matter is being continually detected - MACHOs, for example, are regularly being notched up now that astronomers have really started to look. Some by gravitational lensing (which is not deduction but observation),
Others by more direct observations. http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicId=2276
Quote:
The problem is that there is not only an issue with limited direct sources, but that the way we record history and the way the ancients recorded history are incredibly different. We prefer it impartial, whereas the ancients allowed for a lot of exaggeration. As such, I'd be more willing to trust a modern day archaeologist than I would an ancient historian.

The bottom line here is that you're not going to find an accurate history of anyone from that era. Think what I'm saying before you respond; yes, I know that just about everyone had some history that is accessible, and that some even have virtual libraries written about them. However, most of them are about as good as relying on blogs in today's world: Would you trust a book whose sole purpose was to exalt or condemn someone for facts on that person?
Err...this is complete balderdash. The Romans, and the Greeks before them, had excellent chroniclers and historians well before Jesus time. Their reliability and accuracy has, in many cases, been tested by cross reference with other sources and in some cases has also had climatic or other environmental corroboration.
A few examples from around this era would be :
* Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE)o Rome at the End of the Punic Wars
* Livy (59 BCE-17 CE): History of Rome (Complete surving text online in English translation) o Volume I [Books 1-5], Volume II [Books 6-10], Volume III [Books 21-25], Volume IV [Books 26-32]
* Josephus (37- after 93 CE) o Complete Works [At CCEL] Includes Antiquities of the Jews, The Jewish War and Against Apion
* Plutarch (c.46-c.120 CE) o Lives [At MIT]
* Tacitus: (b.56/57-after 117 CE) o Histories [At MIT] o Annals and Histories, Full texts [At M Univ]
The Conspirator
Quote:
Dude: Non-issue. This is not part of the problem. The question is whether or not you believe the evidence. Although there is no definitive proof that God exists, but there is a lot of circumstantial proof. An objective viewpoint can allow that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence, and therefore leave the case open, so to speak.

You ask for evidence, I give you evidence, then you say its a non issue? It is, it is evidence. If there is no evidence for something and no evidence against it, than it is most likely false. And there is no evidence what so ever for God, none, not circumstantial, none.

Quote:
Quote:
Deconed: intelagent desine IS creationsis call it what it is. and its crap.

Your personal belief (and spelling)...

No, fact. ID is creationism.

Quote:
Except that there is proof of God (however circumstantial). There is no proof (even circumstantial) that none of those exists, and there is evidence that some of those don't exist. Okay, except for vampires, werewolves, and unicorns; those apparently did/do exist (the first two are humans suffering from specific diseases, and the unicorn is actually a goat with a fused horn). And "frays" do exist; these huge fights show up on videos shows all the time...

There is no evadence for God. None!

Quote:
The issue is not Hitler's religion, but his Christianity. That he believed in something is not at issue; it's that his specific belief in Christianity was used as proof of Christianity's problems is. If he was merely religious, I wouldn't have bothered with it.

You said
Quote:
The problems in religion and peoples religion should be pointed out cause those problems effect the world.

This is hardly objective; it doesn't for other perspectives (such as greed or revenge), nor does it begin to allow for the fact (note: NOT OPINION) that atheists have committed genocide in God's name (Hitler claimed publicly to be Christian, but his notes demonstrated his atheism), and that Mao and Stalin (also atheists) committed genocide in the name atheism.[/quote]

Quote:
Quote:
1. There is allways limmits, some have more limits that others.
2. Before it was detected there was observational evidence, despite galaxy clusters not having enough mass to hold them self together they did. There was something else there that could not be seen and had mass. Dark matter. And it has been detected. http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/02/found_most_of_the_universe.php

Your point?


You said
Quote:
The problem is that logic doesn't work. Biologists were able to show that life has very strict limits, and had no evidence that there were exceptions to that. Then algae was found that thrived in deadly radiation, and then there are the other extremophiles. Heck, a number of physicists believe in dark matter, which cannot be detected by any means. So, that line may make a great bumper sticker, it has no relevance to reality.


Quote:
If the evidence doesn't go your way, then, yes, you do.

No we don't, you are, but we don't!

Quote:
1) Atheists have killed to support atheism. Or why exactly did Stalin and Mao go after churches and any followers of any religion?

They were communist. The argument you are using is fallacious. Your saying cause communism is atheistic and they were communist they killed for atheism. Communism is atheistic, thus any one who kills fighting for communism, they kill for atheism? Doy you not see the fallacy there? You don't? The I'll turn it around. If a guy kills for Christianity, Christianity is theistic, did he killed for theism. NO! He did not kill for theism he killed for Christianity! Dose that make Christianity bad? No. Dose Christianity encourage such things? It can. Dose atheism encourage such things? No, its a lack of belief in god(s). No dogma, no ideology just a lack of belief in god(s).
And your ignoring the fact that Stalin was a paranoid mad man and much of the death caused by Mao were not intentional but cause by his stupidity, socio-political programmes that were colossal fallers.

Quote:
2) How is it that an ideology or philosophy can not lead to bad things happening (as per your quote), yet one does?

I didn't say it can't.

Quote:
4) So Christian charities have had a negative impact? Weird that...especially as some countries depend on those charities, and even the US counts on them as a support network.

Do they use the charity to spread there religion? Or do they just use it to help people?

Quote:
Didn't take them alone; I wan interested in fitting them into a larger whole...

Yes you did, If you take "let there be light" on its own it can be taken as the big bang but when you take it with the rest of Genesis, it dose not match what the evidence tels us how it happened.
Captain Fertile
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


I guess this question is following the same train of thaought as satating if Black hair exists then how cen we deny Pink hair exisits?

Answer - Simply because it doesn't (one of the few times this answer will suffice).

What I am saying is that if one exisits this does not prove the existance of others.

And for the more dogmatic among us I am talking about natural hair colour of course in this example. Very Happy
Indi
Captain Fertile wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


I guess this question is following the same train of thaought as satating if Black hair exists then how cen we deny Pink hair exisits?

You are attempting to use a logical fallacy called a straw man attack. You have constructed an entirely different question that is not like the actual question being asked, then argued that your warped version of the question is lame, and thus the original question is lame.

The question being asked is nothing like the warped question you have constructed as a straw man. The question being asked is clearly in this form: "You know one X exists. How can you say for certain that only one X exists?"

If that is all the information you have, the only correct answer is you can't.

The form of the question you constructed as your straw man is: "You know one X exists. How can you say for certain that Y does not exist?" It's a nonsense question that has nothing to do with the discussion.

If we were to use the examples you used in your straw man form of the question in the actual form of the question being discussed, it would be: "If one person with black hair exists. How can you say for certain that only one person with black hair exists?"

Or: "If one person with natural pink hair exists, how can you say for certain that only one person has natural pink hair?"

And anyway:
Captain Fertile wrote:
Answer - Simply because it doesn't (one of the few times this answer will suffice).

No, actually, that answer does not suffice, even in this case. You are using yet another logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You can't prove that natural pink hair does not exist simply because you have not observed it.

Which, in the context of this discussion, means that just because only one god wrote a bible (assume for a moment that were true and provable), that does not imply that it is the only god that exists.

Captain Fertile wrote:
What I am saying is that if one exisits this does not prove the existance of others.

No, that's not what you said at all. You said that if one X exists, it does not prove or disprove the existence Y. Which is true, but absolutely irrelevant to the discussion.
mike1reynolds
The fact that the solar system is a third generation system means that there were two prior supernovas, not three.
Bikerman
mike1reynolds wrote:
The fact that the solar system is a third generation system means that there were two prior supernovas, not three.

Quote right...correction noted and accepted...
Chris.
mike1reynolds
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

I would like to see this demonstration please.
Chaos Theory is, I think, the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality. The universe is self organized in an incredibly complex manner such that nothing is truly random, no matter how random it might appear to be.
mike1reynolds
I see Conspirator going on and on with this false strawman that there is no evidence for God. There is a vast quantity of evidence, but because you are so far from being objective you reflexively reject it all as not even being evidence. You don’t try to make the more reasonable and respectable assertion that the evidence is not compelling, instead you just wave your magic wand and declare that none of it is evidence at all. That is just an exercise in circular reasoning.

You don’t just reject theism, you reject anything beyond a purely materialistic view. You are a fanatical materialist. So lets go back to the evidence I gave earlier of a reproducible experiment demonstrating that one particular dog (in England) knows when it’s master has decided to head home. This is extremely compelling evidence for psychic perception.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

I would like to see this demonstration please.
Chaos Theory is, I think, the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality. The universe is self organized in an incredibly complex manner such that nothing is truly random, no matter how random it might appear to be.


Um no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Quote:
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. In ecology, chaos theory can explain how small random events may affect large ecosystems in an unpredictable way. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is the sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economics, population growth and the vast variety of dissipative structures.


Quote:
I see Conspirator going on and on with this false strawman that there is no evidence for God. There is a vast quantity of evidence, but because you are so far from being objective you reflexively reject it all as not even being evidence. You don’t try to make the more reasonable and respectable assertion that the evidence is not compelling, instead you just wave your magic wand and declare that none of it is evidence at all. That is just an exercise in circular reasoning.

You don’t just reject theism, you reject anything beyond a purely materialistic view. You are a fanatical materialist. So lets go back to the evidence I gave earlier of a reproducible experiment demonstrating that one particular dog (in England) knows when it’s master has decided to head home. This is extremely compelling evidence for psychic perception.

Thats crap. I try to be objective as a possible (hey I am human), you on the other hand you have not, you make claims that there is a pantheistic god, there is nothing to even suggest that the universe has any form of concisenesses, or of any other god in what ever form. You claims there is evidence. What evidence? I've heard it all, "we don't know how the universe started", that not evidence, thats a lack of available knowledge, "no one found the missing link", learn about evolution, "the bible says things that matches what science says" no it dose not, read it, you'll see. I've heard it all and its all fallacy, misunderstanding, lies and myth. None of it is evidence so if you have real evidence, show it or else don't claims there is.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Except that there is circumstantial evidence of God. Intelligent design and evolution both work; you can demonstrate that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive....

I would like to see this demonstration please.
Chaos Theory is, I think, the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality. The universe is self organized in an incredibly complex manner such that nothing is truly random, no matter how random it might appear to be.


Um no.
Um yes.

The Conspirator wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Quote:
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. In ecology, chaos theory can explain how small random events may affect large ecosystems in an unpredictable way. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is the sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economics, population growth and the vast variety of dissipative structures.
How does this in any way counter my extremely straightforward true statement about Chaos Theory? It does not, you are just once again demonstrating your total lack of objectivity. This does not even remotely counter anything I said, and yet you smugly act as though it conclusively counters some point I made.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
I see Conspirator going on and on with this false strawman that there is no evidence for God. There is a vast quantity of evidence, but because you are so far from being objective you reflexively reject it all as not even being evidence. You don’t try to make the more reasonable and respectable assertion that the evidence is not compelling, instead you just wave your magic wand and declare that none of it is evidence at all. That is just an exercise in circular reasoning.

You don’t just reject theism, you reject anything beyond a purely materialistic view. You are a fanatical materialist. So lets go back to the evidence I gave earlier of a reproducible experiment demonstrating that one particular dog (in England) knows when it’s master has decided to head home. This is extremely compelling evidence for psychic perception.

Thats crap. I try to be objective as a possible (hey I am human), you on the other hand you have not, you make claims that there is a pantheistic god, there is nothing to even suggest that the universe has any form of concisenesses, or of any other god in what ever form. You claims there is evidence. What evidence? I've heard it all, "we don't know how the universe started", that not evidence, thats a lack of available knowledge, "no one found the missing link", learn about evolution, "the bible says things that matches what science says" no it dose not, read it, you'll see. I've heard it all and its all fallacy, misunderstanding, lies and myth. None of it is evidence so if you have real evidence, show it or else don't claims there is.
I just provided a solid piece of evidence against MATERIALISM, not God. You not only didn’t even consider addressing it, just as you did the first time it was presented, but then you contrive all sorts of strawman arguments that I have never made, even accusing me of being a Creationist?!

As far as I am concerned you are in the same boat as Creationists. You are not the slightest bit more rational or objective than any other kind of religious bigot. Your arguments are all dishonest distortions, and blithe attempts to ignore the data, just like a Creationist. You are so biased that you make Indi look rational by comparison.
mike1reynolds
Conspirator, what do you have against Christians? I’ve told you before that I am not a Christian as such, but you are so overwhelmingly angry at Christians that you seem to have completely forgotten this fact and are once again railing against me as if I were a fundamentalist conservative Protestant. Why is it that you see all of your opponents as fundamentalist conservative Protestants? That is a very odd pattern of behavior to keep slipping into. It sounds to me like you had an unpleasant fundamentalist upbringing, or something like that.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
How does this in any way counter my extremely straightforward true statement about Chaos Theory? It does not, you are just once again demonstrating your total lack of objectivity. This does not even remotely counter anything I said, and yet you smugly act as though it conclusively counters some point I made.


You said
Quote:
Chaos Theory is, I think, the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality. The universe is self organized in an incredibly complex manner such that nothing is truly random, no matter how random it might appear to be.

This is Chaos theory (or a better explanation than I can come up with)
Quote:
In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. In ecology, chaos theory can explain how small random events may affect large ecosystems in an unpredictable way. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is the sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economics, population growth and the vast variety of dissipative structures.

Which in any way shape or form is an example of "how intelligent design permeates reality".

Quote:
Conspirator, what do you have against Christians? I’ve told you before that I am not a Christian as such, but you are so overwhelmingly angry at Christians that you seem to have completely forgotten this fact and are once again railing against me as if I were a fundamentalist conservative Protestant. Why is it that you see all of your opponents as fundamentalist conservative Protestants? That is a very odd pattern of behavior to keep slipping into. It sounds to me like you had an unpleasant fundamentalist upbringing, or something like that.

What are you talking about? I have nothing aginst Christans and I have debated fundamintilist Chrsitans and I can tell you that no one who has posted in this thread or on this forum is a fundamintelist Christan nor do i act as they or you are.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you state something as a fact you should be able to defend that fact with evidence, you and others state that God exists, pantheist or not, you nor any one else has given real evidence for the existence of God, you people give "evidence" that is misunderstanding ("the thread law of thermodynamics blah,, blah, blah," "the missing link has never been found,"), you people give "evidence" that is fallacious ("there is no evidence against the existence of God," If god dose not exist the blah, blah, blah, negative") and of course the miracle myths that people spread. But none of that is evidence.
If you have real evidence, show it.
mike1reynolds
mike1reynolds wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception
This is reposted from page 7. You never addressed it. Instead you focused exclusively on trying to argue with me about what the Tao is in Taoism. You are completely ignorant of Taoism, which isn't surprising since you are an atheist, so why would you even care? And yet instead of addressing the evidence I put forward all you did was make ridiculous trite assertions about Taoism.

====================

As to Chaos Theory, you are talking to a mathematician. I must have heard it stated a thousand times in my life that Chaos Theory asserts that there is no such thing as pure randomness. How many books have you read on the subject? (Zero , obviously.)

You are such a presumptuous know it all. As much as Indi drives me nuts some times, you are far more arrogant than he is.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
What are you talking about? I have nothing aginst Christans and I have debated fundamintilist Chrsitans and I can tell you that no one who has posted in this thread or on this forum is a fundamintelist Christan nor do i act as they or you are.
You just put the argument of a Creationist into my mouth. You’d have to be looking for Creationists around every corner to think that *I* have any sympathy for Creationism.

The Conspirator wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you state something as a fact you should be able to defend that fact with evidence, you and others state that God exists, pantheist or not, you nor any one else has given real evidence for the existence of God,
I'll cut this run-on sentence here. (Con, you always sound like you are speaking frantically without taking a breath with all of these run-on sentences.)

What is the point of presenting evidence to a bigot? You are biased and intolerantly convinced of your opinion, which is the dictionary definition of bigotry. No matter how compelling the evidence, you will find a way to rationalize your a priori dismissal of all evidence regardless of the circumstance. You have demonstrated in numerous ways that you are biased and irrational on this matter. That is really the only issue to be dealt with. Unless you can prove that you are not biased and irrational, what is the point of even attempting to present any evidence?

The Conspirator wrote:
blah,, blah, blah," "the missing link has never been found,"),
There it is again!! You are so biased and irrational that you will project the arguments of Creationists onto anyone who disagrees with you. Did creationists beat you up when you were a child? Did you have some kind of traumatic experience with creationists? Why are you projecting Creationism onto all theists?

The Conspirator wrote:
you people give "evidence" that is fallacious ("there is no evidence against the existence of God," If god dose not exist the blah, blah, blah, negative") and of course the miracle myths that people spread. But none of that is evidence.
If you have real evidence, show it.
”you people” is a classic bigoted phrase. Whenever you hear someone saying, “you people” to refer to some abstract category of people, you can be completely certain that what follows will be bigoted and biased.
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:
[You can't prove that natural pink hair does not exist simply because you have not observed it.

Interesting...Does this also apply to God?

HM
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
If you have real evidence, show it.

We have. Except that, you (and a few others) have placed such rules on the evidence so that no one could prove anything. Why bother posting evidence if it's going to be shot down because the rules for its inclusion can change?

Worse, it's getting bogged down in superfluous detail, illogical attacks that ignore facts against one group while enforcing them against others, and ignorance of the very definition of something as long as it's convenient to the poster's point.

The problem is that it's an issue of semantics rather than straightforward logic....

HM
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception
This is reposted from page 7. You never addressed it.

Ok, I apologise for not addressing that.
As the owner of 3 dogs (one deceased), I know how dogs act, my dogs, will bark at nothing, run up to the doer when no ones out there. So I have to ask, how often did the dog run up to the doer or window during the time its owner was gone?

Quote:
Instead you focused exclusively on trying to argue with me about what the Tao is in Taoism. You are completely ignorant of Taoism, which isn't surprising since you are an atheist, so why would you even care? And yet instead of addressing the evidence I put forward all you did was make ridiculous trite assertions about Taoism.

This from the person who says religions taoism is monotheistic (its i not, it is Chinese folk religion) and use (the I Ching to as an example. Ther I Ching is not a taoist (see TaoTe Ching and Zhuangzi are) text, it is a
Quote:
The I Ching or "Book of Changes" is an ancient Chinese divination manual and book of wisdom. Especially since the 1960's, its poetic text and extraordinary symbolism — to say nothing of its strange effectiveness in divination — have gained it a following in the West.

Taoism it not monothistic, its not even theistic and is not a religion, it is a philosophy (though some can call it both) and is part of Chinese philosophy and sine its origins have mixed in with Chinese religion and other philosophy's.

Quote:
As to Chaos Theory, you are talking to a mathematician. I must have heard it stated a thousand times in my life that Chaos Theory asserts that there is no such thing as pure randomness. How many books have you read on the subject? (Zero , obviously.)

You are such a presumptuous know it all. As much as Indi drives me nuts some times, you are far more arrogant than he is.

Ok, how is Chaos Theory an example of "how intelligent design (creationism) permeates reality"

mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
What are you talking about? I have nothing aginst Christans and I have debated fundamintilist Chrsitans and I can tell you that no one who has posted in this thread or on this forum is a fundamintelist Christan nor do i act as they or you are.
You just put the argument of a Creationist into my mouth. You’d have to be looking for Creationists around every corner to think that *I* have any sympathy for Creationism.

That is the evidence people use. And I've heard it repeatedly, even by those who believe in evolution.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you state something as a fact you should be able to defend that fact with evidence, you and others state that God exists, pantheist or not, you nor any one else has given real evidence for the existence of God,
I'll cut this run-on sentence here. (Con, you always sound like you are speaking frantically without taking a breath with all of these run-on sentences.)

What is the point of presenting evidence to a bigot? You are biased and intolerantly convinced of your opinion, which is the dictionary definition of bigotry. No matter how compelling the evidence, you will find a way to rationalize your a priori dismissal of all evidence regardless of the circumstance. You have demonstrated in numerous ways that you are biased and irrational on this matter. That is really the only issue to be dealt with. Unless you can prove that you are not biased and irrational, what is the point of even attempting to present any evidence?

Quit attacking me!! You don't like what I'm saying, don't read it, don't attack me! I have said nothing bigoted, nothing intolerant!! You have posted no evidence, only quotes from an 1800 mathematician and his idea of absolute infinity. Other than that you haven't even attempted to post evidence.
Look up bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
Quote:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I have said or dosne nothing to fit the defanition of a bigot.

Put up the evidence or admit you have none. HereticMonkey has tried, its time for you too.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
blah,, blah, blah," "the missing link has never been found,"),
There it is again!! You are so biased and irrational that you will project the arguments of Creationists onto anyone who disagrees with you. Did creationists beat you up when you were a child? Did you have some kind of traumatic experience with creationists? Why are you projecting Creationism onto all theists?

That is the evidence people use for the existence of God, I have heard it many times in arguments about the existence of God.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
you people give "evidence" that is fallacious ("there is no evidence against the existence of God," If god dose not exist the blah, blah, blah, negative") and of course the miracle myths that people spread. But none of that is evidence.
If you have real evidence, show it.
”you people” is a classic bigoted phrase. Whenever you hear someone saying, “you people” to refer to some abstract category of people, you can be completely certain that what follows will be bigoted and biased.
[/quote]
You people = theists. Thats not bigoted.
This would be bigoted: "You people are morons, you believe stupid mindless things. Your idiots! You have to be mentally retarded or completely insane to believe that stupid shit. Do the world;d a favor and kill your selves."
I never said anything like that.
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
And there is no evidence what so ever for God, none, not circumstantial, none.

In your opinion. There is far too many events and situations that have happened that are just not reasonable to explain away as natural phenomena. There's just not enough randomness in the universe...


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Deconed: intelagent desine IS creationsis call it what it is. and its crap.

Your personal belief (and spelling)...

No, fact. ID is creationism.

Actually, I was referring to your opinion that ID is crap...

Quote:
There is no evadence for God. None!

In your opinion. A number of men more learned than I, however, have disagreed with that statement.

Quote:
Quote:
If the evidence doesn't go your way, then, yes, you do.

No we don't, you are, but we don't!

?


Quote:
Your saying cause communism is atheistic and they were communist they killed for atheism.

Actually, I'm not; Stalin and Mao did. Keep in mind that Mao is famous for that nugget "Religion is the opiate of the masses", and Stalin disliked anyone loyal to something other than him (ie, religion where loyalty is the deity rather than the human leader). Also, the basic texts for communism show a general dislike of religion.

So I'm reasonably comfortable saying that atheists killed for atheism...

Quote:
Communism is atheistic, thus any one who kills fighting for communism, they kill for atheism? Doy you not see the fallacy there? You don't? The I'll turn it around. If a guy kills for Christianity, Christianity is theistic, did he killed for theism.

Actually, I have no problem with that logic. My only problem is that it needs to be realized that not all wars were fought for Christianity, merely by Christians (ie, just because they fought does not mean that they necessarily fought for God).

On the other hand, communists went after anyone or thing that was representative of religion, often killing numbers of unarmed people at one time. Mao went after Shaolin temples, even though there was no actual wealth there, killing the priests and destroying their manuscripts. Stalin did the same in Russia. Both did it because the church represented a threat to their rule.

Now, if you want to argue that they weren't truly Communist, I have no problem with that. I'm just trying to point out that you had atheists engaging in religious war that resulted in genocide...

Quote:
Dose atheism encourage such things? No, its a lack of belief in god(s). No dogma, no ideology just a lack of belief in god(s).

Any belief can create fanaticism. To deny that is to deny humanity itself.

Quote:
And your ignoring the fact that Stalin was a paranoid mad man and much of the death caused by Mao were not intentional but cause by his stupidity, socio-political programmes that were colossal fallers.

Actually, those pogroms (yes; it's a word) are actually encouraged by the very nature of communism (any threat to equality of each man must be destroyed, and religion is seen as such a threat).



Quote:
Quote:
2) How is it that an ideology or philosophy can not lead to bad things happening (as per your quote), yet one does?

I didn't say it can't.

Actually, you, um, actually did. That would explain the whole "(as per your quote)" thing...


Quote:
Do they use the charity to spread there religion? Or do they just use it to help people?

Some do, most don't. The smarter churches have realized that proselytizing to those under duress actually causes more problems down the line than it's worth, and have actually fired or transferred those that do so.


Quote:
Quote:
Didn't take them alone; I wan interested in fitting them into a larger whole...

Yes you did, If you take "let there be light" on its own it can be taken as the big bang but when you take it with the rest of Genesis, it dose not match what the evidence tels us how it happened.

So in other words, the Big Bang did not result in a vast wave of energy going away from a central source? Stupid physicists have it all wrong then...

HM
HereticMonkey
[quote][bikerman]Yes...and the point is that without the intervening generations then there would be no heavy elements, which is why I mentioned it. Stellar gas is main hydrogen...Also it is important when considering timescales. [quote]
Erg.
a) Stop with the the irrelevant science lessons: I do have an astronomical background. The details aren't relevant in this situation, at least, not THAT much detail. Put another way: The question is simply whether or not the Earth was formed, not what it is made of.
b) The same pretty much goes for your detailing dark matter. We are not at the stage yet where we can DIRECTLY detect dark matter; it's still basically an unknown. Yeah, I know we can detect its presence (that's not a question here); we just don't know what dark matter really is. No one has captured a bit of it and said, "THIS is dark matter.' I'm sorry about the Nobel Prize ref, but it was semi-valid at the time...
b) Time Scale: Relevance? If a day doesn't equal 24 hours (for the purpose of this discussion), then how relevant is the time scale?

[quote]And your evidence is? Cite some sources for your palaeontology please - otherwise these are just words....You will notice that I reference claims I make...please do the same unless they are either uncontested or uncontroversial.[quote]
Actually, I'm citing the same sources you gave. I just read them a bit more thoroughly than did you did (it would just be difficult to have it rain everywhere for hundreds of years and not cover the planet). Also, it's common knowledge that the Earth has been covered in water several times; that's sort of why we find fish skeletons in landlocked states.

Quote:
If the volume of water has increased and the earth was once covered, and it is not covered now, then please explain?

No offense, but whereas your background in physics is pretty good, I'm guessing you did pretty bad at geology.

During the ice ages, the volume of the oceans shrank as the ice increased; not only did the seas lose water due to evaporation (that obviously wouldn't be replaced as it was being made into ice on land), but a lot of water got captured in ice floes and shelves in the polar regions.

Note that, if the global warming figures are accurate, if all of the ice at the poles were to melt, then most of the world would again be covered. Also, bear in mind that we've lost a lot of water as it has become hydrogen (which has been lost to space) and oxygen...

Quote:
You also said "Basically, if the biblical account is that close, then the two can be reconciled..." which is not a comparative measurement against other faiths but a statement of closeness to scientific theory. I maintain that it is not close and not reconcilable..I await evidence to the contrary.

Open eyes and mind; the proof surrounds you...

Quote:
It uses generally accepted translations. Are you saying that creatures of the air does not mean birds? In what way are the time-frames off? If you have a system of computation different to others then please share it. How do you reconcile sequences and timescales with Genesis?

a) Actually, I'm hardly the first to suggest that "day" can be translated as "era", and not just "24 hours". If I look at it in terms of "eras" (which is a reasonable translation of "day"), then the timescales is pretty easy to reconcile, as I'm no longer limited to a mere 144 hours...
b) Birds aren't the only things that fly...Especially when you realize that insects had already established themselves well before the fish started crawling across land.

Quote:
And I have already pointed out that it does not work. The Sun stars and moon were created over a time-scale of around 10 billion years (which is why, again, the fact that the Solar system is 3rd generation is relevant). The idea that the atmosphere created a false night is possible for a brief period but it is not sustainable much beyond that - in other words day and night could be distinguished well before the first proto-life appeared over 3 billion yrs ago. If that is your contention then, fine, I'll accept it as a working hypothesis.

It wouldn't need to be that long; just long enough for blue-green algae to start processing the atmosphere.

Quote:
Err...this is complete balderdash. The Romans, and the Greeks before them, had excellent chroniclers and historians well before Jesus time. Their reliability and accuracy has, in many cases, been tested by cross reference with other sources and in some cases has also had climatic or other environmental corroboration.

At the same time, the cross-referencing is required, as opinions had their own effects. Most notable in this era were battle field reports, as well as numbers in general; it wasn't uncommon for two historians on separate sides to have entirely different numbers. It must have sucked to do term papers;-)! So, whereas the basic facts are pretty good, accuracy is an issue.

My consideration here is that, if you do the same cross-referencing, then the existence of Jesus becomes an interesting issue. A number of historians mention Him, but never in a lot of detail. A lot of that's not a major surprise (historians of the time didn't consider Judea a big deal). So there is a historical record of Jesus, it's just rather well hidden. Throw in the Gospels (Gnostic and otherwise), and it becomes an interesting puzzle.

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
If you have real evidence, show it.

We have. Except that, you (and a few others) have placed such rules on the evidence so that no one could prove anything. Why bother posting evidence if it's going to be shot down because the rules for its inclusion can change?

What rules? Accurate, evidence that dos not have a more plausible explanation? We haven't placed any rules that makes it imposable to prove anything. The rules for evidence for God is the same as the rules for the evidence of leprechauns, this guy committed this crime, for the hypotheses that this causes this.

Quote:
Worse, it's getting bogged down in superfluous detail, illogical attacks that ignore facts against one group while enforcing them against others, and ignorance of the very definition of something as long as it's convenient to the poster's point.

And I've done nothing like that as you have accused me of on past posts!

Quote:
The problem is that it's an issue of semantics rather than straightforward logic....

HM

No, the problem is you not giving real evidence, you ignore the evidence I post and you stated blatant falsehoods (Stalin and Mou killing for atheism and Hitler being an atheist)
HereticMonkey
First off: This is an attack: Spellcheck. Learn it. Love it. PLEASE start using it...

Quote:
As the owner of 3 dogs (one deceased), I know how dogs act, my dogs, will bark at nothing, run up to the doer when no ones out there. So I have to ask, how often did the dog run up to the doer or window during the time its owner was gone?

4% and 78% of the time, depending on whether or not Pam was on the way home...

Quote:
Ok, how is Chaos Theory an example of "how intelligent design (creationism) permeates reality"

As Chaos Theory shows that the universe is ordered to the point where true randomness doesn't exist, it calls into question how the ball got started, as it needed a start from somewhere outside the system.

Quote:
Look up bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
Quote:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I have said or dosne nothing to fit the defanition of a bigot.

Except that you have only evidence if it fit your perspective. In a true argument, all evidence would be considered on its own merits, not on whether or not it fit a particular perspective. However, the Christians in this debate are constantly forced to disallow evidence that doesn't fit the atheist perspective.

It's readily demonstrable, for example, that psychic phenomenon is real and consistent; some police departments use them on a regular basis. Yet, there is no scientific way to show why, nor is there any discernible difference between a psychic and a normal person. Admittedly, psychic proof isn't allowed in court, but the results are and court orders have been granted based on psychic evidence.

Note that I'm just trying to point out something that can survive scientific scrutiny, yet we have no idea how it works. We know religion has a number of scientifically proven advantages; yet atheists (such as yourself) attack it based on the problems, even as those problems are basically worked out.

Too bad you weren't attacking the politics that make them so bad...


Quote:
Put up the evidence or admit you have none. HereticMonkey has tried, its time for you too.

Thanks, I think...

Quote:
You people = theists. Thats not bigoted.

Actually, I sort of agree with The Conspirator here..."You people" is fine as long as it's referring to a specific group as a way to differentiate from the speaker's own group. It's "You [plural slur]" that's an issue...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
Ok, how is Chaos Theory an example of "how intelligent design (creationism) permeates reality"

As Chaos Theory shows that the universe is ordered to the point where true randomness doesn't exist, it calls into question how the ball got started, as it needed a start from somewhere outside the system.

Quote:
Look up bigot.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
Quote:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I have said or dosne nothing to fit the defanition of a bigot.

Except that you have only evidence if it fit your perspective. In a true argument, all evidence would be considered on its own merits, not on whether or not it fit a particular perspective. However, the Christians in this debate are constantly forced to disallow evidence that doesn't fit the atheist perspective.[/quote]
That is completely false. I'm am open to the evidence, theists have not shown real evidence. They constantly use misconceptions, fallacy's, and myths. They have never shown real evidence. Don't complain about us not excepting evidence that is flawed. A story of a "miracle" that happened to some one is not evidence, a vision is not evidence, a majority people believing something is not evidence, our existence is not evidence, placing God in some gap of knowledge is not evidence, saying this line in the bible mean this when examination of the line what it says around it would debunk that is not evidence.
Show real evidence. Observations of something that can be attributed a god or gods with out any other more plausible explanations.

Quote:
It's readily demonstrable, for example, that psychic phenomenon is real and consistent;

No. There is no such thing a s psychic power. So called psychics use whats called cold reading, they ask a vague question like "I'm getting a g, is there any one in you family that has a g in there name" then the person answers "Oh yes, my brother Greg" "I;m also seeing something about money" "o, I owe him some money, he helped me buy my car", they get people to give them information then feed it back too them. Haven't you ever wondered why any time you see a psychic that they ask vague questions? If psychics really back psychic powers don't you think they would be more like "Pay your brother back, you know how he is with money and the IRS will find out you haven't paid you taxes in 5 years"

Quote:
some police departments use them on a regular basis.

Who say vegue things like "I'm seeing water" then if water or any place near water is part of the they then say "see, I have powers"

Quote:
Note that I'm just trying to point out something that can survive scientific scrutiny, yet we have no idea how it works.

Nope, its pretty much been destroyed. Theres even a 1 million dollar prize if some one can prove they have psychic powers. Yet no one gotten the million.

Quote:
We know religion has a number of scientifically proven advantages;

Such as?
Quote:
yet atheists (such as yourself) attack it based on the problems, even as those problems are basically worked out.

We do not attack. And name one thing that has been worked out.

Quote:
Too bad you weren't attacking the politics that make them so bad...

The bad pre-exists the politics of it.


Quote:
Quote:
Put up the evidence or admit you have none. HereticMonkey has tried, its time for you too.

Thanks, I think...

Your welcome.

Quote:
You people = theists. Thats not bigoted.

Actually, I sort of agree with The Conspirator here..."You people" is fine as long as it's referring to a specific group as a way to differentiate from the speaker's own group. It's "You [plural slur]" that's an issue...[/quote]
Thank you.
Captain Fertile
@Indi
Oh give me a break! I am answering the question I was asked which was;

Quote:
How can YOU say YOUR god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can YOU believe YOUR god is real?


And MY answer to THAT question (all 25 words or so if it) was exactly as I posted.

I am actually a Christian and not a theorising atheist, agnostic or whatever label you choose. Therefore I am adequately able to answer the question aimed at, as I understand it, believers in God. Didn’t seem to mention any prerequisite qualifications required to answer the post other than that.

Sorry I didn't get out my slide-rule, Flip- Chart, and My First Book of Impressive Facts to answer this short question.

But I read the simple question posed in a simple way to be answered by me a man of simple beliefs. I am seeking neither validation nor marks out of 10 for my answers.

All I wish to do it make MY point in MY way.

I was asked a question and I answered it honestly and how I see it. You can be as smart is you like, you can have PHDs coming out of your ear-holes but even then you cannot tell me what perceived question I am answering nor indeed what MY perceived answer was or was not. How dare you be so arrogant and presumptuous to assume YOU know what question I am answering!

Disagree by all means but don’t talk to me like I am a wayward student being guided by a frustrated tutor. I left those days behind me years ago.

I am certainly not going to take such patronising from someone who makes a career out of creating posts that boil down to the same conclusion every single time – that conclusion being, I am right you are wrong.

So get on with your posturing, dissecting the odd psyche here and there if you so wish but I have answered the question as I saw it – don’t attempt to define me.

I am not attempting to convert anyone to my beliefs about God but I expect to be allowed my own archaic beliefs that have been of great comfort to me. Just as you have the right to believe your own particular brand of personal clap-trap.

No doubt you are flicking through your psychology text books as we speak to pigeon hole me but I will save you the trouble – simple, proud, unpretentious and a good person who believes in God - but not always in that order.

God bless you! I love you my brother and so does Jesus! Very Happy
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
Indi wrote:
[You can't prove that natural pink hair does not exist simply because you have not observed it.

Interesting...Does this also apply to God?

Yes.

Captain Fertile wrote:
@Indi
Oh give me a break! I am answering the question I was asked which was;

Quote:
How can YOU say YOUR god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can YOU believe YOUR god is real?


And MY answer to THAT question (all 25 words or so if it) was exactly as I posted.

I am actually a Christian and not a theorising atheist, agnostic or whatever label you choose. Therefore I am adequately able to answer the question aimed at, as I understand it, believers in God. Didn’t seem to mention any prerequisite qualifications required to answer the post other than that.

Sorry I didn't get out my slide-rule, Flip- Chart, and My First Book of Impressive Facts to answer this short question.

But I read the simple question posed in a simple way to be answered by me a man of simple beliefs. I am seeking neither validation nor marks out of 10 for my answers.

All I wish to do it make MY point in MY way.

I was asked a question and I answered it honestly and how I see it. You can be as smart is you like, you can have PHDs coming out of your ear-holes but even then you cannot tell me what perceived question I am answering nor indeed what MY perceived answer was or was not. How dare you be so arrogant and presumptuous to assume YOU know what question I am answering!

Disagree by all means but don’t talk to me like I am a wayward student being guided by a frustrated tutor. I left those days behind me years ago.

I am certainly not going to take such patronising from someone who makes a career out of creating posts that boil down to the same conclusion every single time – that conclusion being, I am right you are wrong.

So get on with your posturing, dissecting the odd psyche here and there if you so wish but I have answered the question as I saw it – don’t attempt to define me.

I am not attempting to convert anyone to my beliefs about God but I expect to be allowed my own archaic beliefs that have been of great comfort to me. Just as you have the right to believe your own particular brand of personal clap-trap.

No doubt you are flicking through your psychology text books as we speak to pigeon hole me but I will save you the trouble – simple, proud, unpretentious and a good person who believes in God - but not always in that order.

God bless you! I love you my brother and so does Jesus! Very Happy

i assumed you cared about whether or not your response had any basis in logic, because if your answer was just "because i believe it to be so", you could have answered in a whole lot less than 25 words. Instead you attempted to construct what looked like a rational argument to support your beliefs, which, to me, would lead any rational human being to assume that you were actually trying to prove what you believe. That argument was constructed badly, using logical fallacies. i pointed that out.

Or to put in in short:
  1. You made what looked like a logical argument.
  2. i assumed that since it looked like a logical argument, it was actually intended to be one.
  3. There were logical fallacies in your apparent logical argument.
  4. i pointed them out.
  5. That is all.

And what i got in response for that is several paragraphs of text accusing me obliquely of being a "narrow-minded geek" (to use someone else's words) and of trying to psychologically profile you (?). If you took the time to open your eyes and actually read what i wrote before launching into a tirade about what a closed-minded, bigoted fool i am, you would have noted that at no point did i say that what you believed was wrong. All i said was that the form of your logical argument was flawed by the fact that it contained two fallacies.

All that other stuff - about being closed-minded and bigoted - came from you (or probably you picked those claims up from the other people here who are calling me a closed-minded bigot, in which case i have to point out that you are relying on the opinions of other people - so you should probably do a little bit or research into those other people before blindly accepting their conclusions... you might be surprised about those you have assumed to be non-bigoted).

However, you are right. i made a mistake. i assumed you were actually trying to make a rational point and be taken seriously, rather than simply jumping into an ongoing debate and saying: "i believe it to be so!" then expecting no one to challenge that declaration (in a debate!?!?!). Alright then, as you request, i will never make the mistake of taking you seriously again.
Captain Fertile
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.

I had typed a long reply to you but I could see this would just degenerate into a slanging match resulting in someone ele's thread being closed.

So I will say I can accept happily that you believe yourself to be right.

Bless you brother and may our Lord Jesus Christ keep you safe. Very Happy
HereticMonkey
Captain Fertile: And thus was the cause of Christianity set back decades...

Indi: Thanks for doing what I wanted to...

The Conspirator (Your Captain Fertile):
The Conspirator wrote:
That is completely false. I'm am open to the evidence, theists have not shown real evidence. They constantly use misconceptions, fallacy's, and myths. They have never shown real evidence. Don't complain about us not excepting evidence that is flawed. A story of a "miracle" that happened to some one is not evidence, a vision is not evidence, a majority people believing something is not evidence, our existence is not evidence, placing God in some gap of knowledge is not evidence, saying this line in the bible mean this when examination of the line what it says around it would debunk that is not evidence.
Show real evidence. Observations of something that can be attributed a god or gods with out any other more plausible explanations.

In an nutshell: No.

Here's the deal: As a science geek, I'm aware of a lot of stuff that makes no sense in a causal universe. A logical explanation may be found at some point, but for now a lot of it makes no logical sense. I have two options: I can believe that there is a supernatural force, or the collective will of humanity can be a bitch to go up against.

I've simply decided that the supernatural force is easier to believe in. Otherwise, I need to wonder more interesting thoughts (like how do airplanes fly if people can't? (I know the physics; just putting it in the framework I just developed)).


Quote:
No. There is no such thing a s psychic power.

So...people can detect water sources without equipment, find objects or people with no sample of either, or guess almost 100% (expected is 20%; I'm obviously referring to a certain deck of cards) without aid, or roll 20's using a twenty-sided die consistently due to skill (even when the die has been checked for balance)?

Quote:
So called psychics use whats called cold reading, they ask a vague question like "I'm getting a g, is there any one in you family that has a g in there name" then the person answers "Oh yes, my brother Greg" "I;m also seeing something about money" "o, I owe him some money, he helped me buy my car", they get people to give them information then feed it back too them. Haven't you ever wondered why any time you see a psychic that they ask vague questions?


I'm guessing you watch Psych to show where the guy isn't a psychic?

Quote:
Nope, its pretty much been destroyed. Theres even a 1 million dollar prize if some one can prove they have psychic powers. Yet no one gotten the million.


Most true psychics don't bother with that kind of thing; they know it's rigged. However, there is a lot of scientific study on the subject that shows that there is something to it (not "parachute" level security; more like "water wings" level of security).

Quote:
Quote:
We know religion has a number of scientifically proven advantages;

Such as?

Longer life, better adjusted to life, overall better health, and able to deal with crises better.

Quote:
Quote:
yet atheists (such as yourself) attack it based on the problems, even as those problems are basically worked out.

We do not attack. And name one thing that has been worked out.

Religions are getting along better, at least at the local level. Also, they are trying to be more aware of reality, rather than living in white towers. And we've gotten the number of religions that believe that jihads are cool down to one sect...I'd call that progress...

Quote:
Quote:
Too bad you weren't attacking the politics that make them so bad...

The bad pre-exists the politics of it.

[Did you know that Babelfish has a channel specifically for you?]
Power corrupts. Anyone given a chance to mess with Big Decisions usually does; when religion is kept out of the direct decision process, cool things happen. It's only when they are state-licensed that major problems happen...(Inquisitions, fatwas, some fashion disasters)

For what it's worth...
HM
Montressor
HereticMonkey wrote:
Captain Fertile: And thus was the cause of Christianity set back decades...

If this is the cause of Christianity, then I am not a Christian. You cannot force or argue anyone into being a Christian, and attempting to do so only makes it more likely for them to not accept the precepts of your invented militant (not quite, but almost militant) Christianity. There is a reason that we call it a Faith, it cannot be scientifically proven correct or incorrect (since the basics of the Faith are not based on the physical, but the spiritual). The best evidence for our Faith, is ourselves. If we are different, and treat others differently (better than those godless atheists Wink ) then they may wish to pursue the same knowledge we have. And we are different if we truly believe what we say we do, since our philosophical outlook/ideology/world-view directly rule what we do.
HereticMonkey
Actually, I was looking more at his style when I said that; it managed to undermine a lot of what little I had built up...

As for the "faith" issue: The problem is that faith can't be debated, nor do you learn anything about your religion or self if you don't explore either. Whereas I'm perfectly willing to let this be a "we just have to agree to disagree), that just wouldn't be any fun Twisted Evil ...

HM
Montressor
HereticMonkey wrote:
Actually, I was looking more at his style when I said that; it managed to undermine a lot of what little I had built up...

Then I would not be so presumptuous to say that the cause of Christianity was set back several years, but that the cause of HereticMonkey had been set back a bit.
HereticMonkey
Montressor wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Actually, I was looking more at his style when I said that; it managed to undermine a lot of what little I had built up...

Then I would not be so presumptuous to say that the cause of Christianity was set back several years, but that the cause of HereticMonkey had been set back a bit.


The pun value alone...However, I would be so presumptuous, especially when I've been working so hard to put a decent light on Christianity, and that it has so little cred due to attitudes like Capt. Fertile. Just as an observation...

HM
Mannix
The Conspirator wrote:
How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?


Because God Himself came to Earth, and died for us, yet did not leave us orphans.
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator (Your Captain Fertile):

And more attacks on me cause you don't like what I say.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
That is completely false. I'm am open to the evidence, theists have not shown real evidence. They constantly use misconceptions, fallacy's, and myths. They have never shown real evidence. Don't complain about us not excepting evidence that is flawed. A story of a "miracle" that happened to some one is not evidence, a vision is not evidence, a majority people believing something is not evidence, our existence is not evidence, placing God in some gap of knowledge is not evidence, saying this line in the bible mean this when examination of the line what it says around it would debunk that is not evidence.
Show real evidence. Observations of something that can be attributed a god or gods with out any other more plausible explanations.

In an nutshell: No.

Here's the deal: As a science geek, I'm aware of a lot of stuff that makes no sense in a causal universe. A logical explanation may be found at some point, but for now a lot of it makes no logical sense. I have two options: I can believe that there is a supernatural force, or the collective will of humanity can be a bitch to go up against.

I've simply decided that the supernatural force is easier to believe in. Otherwise, I need to wonder more interesting thoughts (like how do airplanes fly if people can't? (I know the physics; just putting it in the framework I just developed)).

There is gaps i our currant scientific knowledge so you insert God in them, a in other words, you god is a god of the gaps. A gap in knowledge is not evidence for God.


Quote:
Quote:
No. There is no such thing a s psychic power.

So...people can detect water sources without equipment, find objects or people with no sample of either, or guess almost 100% (expected is 20%; I'm obviously referring to a certain deck of cards) without aid, or roll 20's using a twenty-sided die consistently due to skill (even when the die has been checked for balance)?

Such things have never been scientificaly demonstrated a working.

Quote:
Quote:
So called psychics use whats called cold reading, they ask a vague question like "I'm getting a g, is there any one in you family that has a g in there name" then the person answers "Oh yes, my brother Greg" "I;m also seeing something about money" "o, I owe him some money, he helped me buy my car", they get people to give them information then feed it back too them. Haven't you ever wondered why any time you see a psychic that they ask vague questions?


I'm guessing you watch Psych to show where the guy isn't a psychic?

Only a 5 minute part, then a commercial came on and I changed the channel.

[quote]
Quote:
Nope, its pretty much been destroyed. Theres even a 1 million dollar prize if some one can prove they have psychic powers. Yet no one gotten the million.


Quote:
Most true psychics don't bother with that kind of thing;

I wander why. Getting there power proven would do allot to help there business of charging people lots of money for readings.

Quote:
they know it's rigged. However, there is a lot of scientific study on the subject that shows that there is something to it (not "parachute" level security; more like "water wings" level of security).

Name them.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We know religion has a number of scientifically proven advantages;

Such as?

Longer life, better adjusted to life, overall better health, and able to deal with crises better.

And you get this information from?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
yet atheists (such as yourself) attack it based on the problems, even as those problems are basically worked out.

We do not attack. And name one thing that has been worked out.

Religions are getting along better, at least at the local level. Also, they are trying to be more aware of reality, rather than living in white towers. And we've gotten the number of religions that believe that jihads are cool down to one sect...I'd call that progress...

But in doing so they have weekend there religion leading people to go to religions like fundamentalist Christianity (thou they call it Evangelical, but there no difference between them).

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Too bad you weren't attacking the politics that make them so bad...

The bad pre-exists the politics of it.

[Did you know that Babelfish has a channel specifically for you?]
Power corrupts. Anyone given a chance to mess with Big Decisions usually does; when religion is kept out of the direct decision process, cool things happen. It's only when they are state-licensed that major problems happen...(Inquisitions, fatwas, some fashion disasters)

Really? Cause I though the problems were caused by the idea that only those who fallow the religion get in to heaven and every one else suffers for eternity in hell and the idea that is right and every other is wrong and not only are they right but God is on there side and the God is the source of there morality and his word is ts the bible and the old testament justifies allot of horrible thing and Jesus said "I am not here to change the law, I am here to for fill it".
Wait! They did come from those.
HereticMonkey
Mannix: Actually, it was Jesus, Son of God. The Trinity are at once separate and together, but God cannot die, and the Holy Spirit had yet to be introduced...

The Conspirator wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator (Your Captain Fertile):

And more attacks on me cause you don't like what I say.


Just messin'...

Quote:
There is gaps i our currant scientific knowledge so you insert God in them, a in other words, you god is a god of the gaps. A gap in knowledge is not evidence for God.

At the same time, it's interesting to note the breadth of discoveries that have been made available when a believer did look for answers (like that evolution guy). You can't learn unless you realize that there is something that you don't know, which a belief in God tends to foster.

At the same time, a belief in the supernatural may just be a way to deal with some of the weirder things that pop up.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No. There is no such thing a s psychic power.

So...people can detect water sources without equipment, find objects or people with no sample of either, or guess almost 100% (expected is 20%; I'm obviously referring to a certain deck of cards) without aid, or roll 20's using a twenty-sided die consistently due to skill (even when the die has been checked for balance)?

Such things have never been scientificaly demonstrated a working.

So how do you explain them as working?


Quote:
I wander why. Getting there power proven would do allot to help there business of charging people lots of money for readings.

Guess they aren't too worried about the money, are just tired of dealing with with non-believers, or figure that there would be way too much stress...

Quote:
Quote:
they know it's rigged. However, there is a lot of scientific study on the subject that shows that there is something to it (not "parachute" level security; more like "water wings" level of security).

Name them.

I'll just throw a wiki link at you...



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We know religion has a number of scientifically proven advantages;

Such as?

Longer life, better adjusted to life, overall better health, and able to deal with crises better.

And you get this information from? [/quote]
Weird...I thought that this was actually common knowledge...Advantages and the psychology.

Quote:
Really? Cause I though the problems were caused by the idea that only those who fallow the religion get in to heaven and every one else suffers for eternity in hell and the idea that is right and every other is wrong and not only are they right but God is on there side and the God is the source of there morality and his word is ts the bible and the old testament justifies allot of horrible thing and Jesus said "I am not here to change the law, I am here to for fill it".
Wait! They did come from those.


Actually, Jesus was there to fulfill prophecy, not the law, and he ended up backing the local law up more often than not. At the same time, I've noticed that when religion has not been given the reigns, there hasn't been as many issues (such as Ancient China)...

HM
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
There is gaps i our currant scientific knowledge so you insert God in them, a in other words, you god is a god of the gaps. A gap in knowledge is not evidence for God.

At the same time, it's interesting to note the breadth of discoveries that have been made available when a believer did look for answers (like that evolution guy).

Not really. Charles Darwin didn't look for evolution, it came to him so did Newtons theory of gravity and Einsteins theory of relativity, most often its through observation, experimentation, thought and inspiration that things are discovered.

Quote:
You can't learn unless you realize that there is something that you don't know, which a belief in God tends to foster.

No, theism takes the mistory out of it by having a god(s). "You don't know, look to God"

Quote:
At the same time, a belief in the supernatural may just be a way to deal with some of the weirder things that pop up.

There are much better ways.


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No. There is no such thing a s psychic power.

So...people can detect water sources without equipment, find objects or people with no sample of either, or guess almost 100% (expected is 20%; I'm obviously referring to a certain deck of cards) without aid, or roll 20's using a twenty-sided die consistently due to skill (even when the die has been checked for balance)?

Such things have never been scientificaly demonstrated a working.

So how do you explain them as working?

It dosn't.

Quote:
Quote:
I wander why. Getting there power proven would do allot to help there business of charging people lots of money for readings.

Guess they aren't too worried about the money, are just tired of dealing with with non-believers, or figure that there would be way too much stress...

No, there con-artists. They con people out of there money by manipulating them into believing that they have psychic powers and charging them for readings. They don't have power, the use cold reading to get the victim to give them information to feed back to them, the victims body language and a knowledge of common human problems.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
they know it's rigged. However, there is a lot of scientific study on the subject that shows that there is something to it (not "parachute" level security; more like "water wings" level of security).

Name them.

I'll just throw a wiki link at you...

You missed some parts of the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_in_parapsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_skeptical_view_of_parapsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_and_response_in_parapsychology
Remember so called psychics (and others who claims to have paranormal powers) (particularly the famous ones) are very good at what they do.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We know religion has a number of scientifically proven advantages;

Such as?

Longer life, better adjusted to life, overall better health, and able to deal with crises better.

And you get this information from?

Weird...I thought that this was actually common knowledge...Advantages[/quote]
You shoud have scrolled down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_belief#Modern_reasons_for_rejection_of_religion
Quote:
and the psychology.

The article failed to show any advantage or disadvantage of having a religion.

Quote:
Quote:
Really? Cause I though the problems were caused by the idea that only those who fallow the religion get in to heaven and every one else suffers for eternity in hell and the idea that is right and every other is wrong and not only are they right but God is on there side and the God is the source of there morality and his word is ts the bible and the old testament justifies allot of horrible thing and Jesus said "I am not here to change the law, I am here to for fill it".
Wait! They did come from those.


Actually, Jesus was there to fulfill prophecy, not the law, and he ended up backing the local law up more often than not.

[/quote]
I didn't get the quote quite right but you get the point of it, the old testament rules still apply.

Quote:
At the same time, I've noticed that when religion has not been given the reigns, there hasn't been as many issues

So the problom isn't the power, its the religion?

Quote:
(such as Ancient China)...

In ancient China many of the governments were deeply influenced by religions (many were not). But Chinese religions dose not have many of the same problems as Christianity and Islam, fallow the religion or suffer forever in hell and morality comes from God, Chinese religion lacks that (except if you have committed heinous crimes, brought misery to the people and betrayed the ruler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di_Yu#Eighteen_levels_of_Hell)).
Indi
Montressor wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Captain Fertile: And thus was the cause of Christianity set back decades...

If this is the cause of Christianity, then I am not a Christian. You cannot force or argue anyone into being a Christian, and attempting to do so only makes it more likely for them to not accept the precepts of your invented militant (not quite, but almost militant) Christianity. There is a reason that we call it a Faith, it cannot be scientifically proven correct or incorrect (since the basics of the Faith are not based on the physical, but the spiritual). The best evidence for our Faith, is ourselves. If we are different, and treat others differently (better than those godless atheists Wink ) then they may wish to pursue the same knowledge we have. And we are different if we truly believe what we say we do, since our philosophical outlook/ideology/world-view directly rule what we do.

You sound like you're fairly confident that accepting something on faith is a rational and/or moral decision. Sounds like something that should be questioned to me... (and i will, too, but not in this topic).

And for the record, the whole idea of "forcing" someone to be Christian or atheist or whatever by arguing about it is exceptionally idiotic. i can't believe anyone with a double digit or better IQ could seriously believe that such a pursuit would be 1.) rational 2.) fruitful. Surely that's not what you're doing, and surely that's not what you think anyone else around here is doing?

This is what i'm thinking when i debate belief B, whether B is that God exists, that God doesn't exist or whatever. i assume that:
  1. There is a rational reason for believing B.
  2. There is a rational, open-minded person out there who has not concluded whether or not to believe B.
  3. That person is willing to listen to the case for or against B, and make a conclusion based on that case.

The whole debate then becomes about collecting the evidence that will convince this undecided. When i discuss whether God exists or not, i don't seriously believe any atheist is magically going to convince a theist to ditch God, or vice versa - because i assume that both the atheist and the theist have already considered the case for and against and have come to the conclusion that they have come to for a reason. To assume anything else would be to assume that the person i'm talking to is an idiot, and that is not an assumption i make lightly.

i am under no illusions that there are any definite answers to most of the questions being discussed on the philosophy forums. Most of these questions have been debated for thousands of years with no answer. Tell me you don't seriously believe they're going to be solved once and for all on the Frihost forums. -_-; Of course they're not. There is no definite answer, only cases for and cases against. A good debate will essentially be people presenting a strong case for and a strong case against (without resorting to name calling -_-). It may be that one side or the other presents a significantly stronger case - one that would turn the undecided. Congratulations to them, but get serious. You don't seriously think that that might mean the question has been actually answered here, do you? Of course not - at best it means that the one side had better debaters than the other, nothing more, nothing less.

If you (and this is not directed at anyone in particular, but rather everyone in general) are here on some crusade to turn atheists into theists, or theists into atheists, or Muslims into Christians... or whatever... i can find no better way to express what i think about your aim than to simply say that you're a consummate idiot. And since i don't believe in assuming that people are idiots (untill they prove otherwise), i assume that no one is actually here to do that. You (again, everyone in general) might find these discussions more productive if you assume the same.
Montressor
Indi wrote:
The whole debate then becomes about collecting the evidence that will convince this undecided. When i discuss whether God exists or not, i don't seriously believe any atheist is magically going to convince a theist to ditch God, or vice versa - because i assume that both the atheist and the theist have already considered the case for and against and have come to the conclusion that they have come to for a reason.
So your looking to convince the person that not only isn't an atheist or theist but is so ignorant of the notion of the presence or absence of a god or many gods that he or she has not formed a decision on the matter? good luck. Theism or atheism is central to someone's ideology, that is, if you believe in a god, your outlook on life is significantly different than someone who chooses not to believe in a god, to change that ideology significantly is a tremendous task that is rarely based on debates and theoretical arguments. I can expound on the benefits of communism all I want, but very few people with change their ideology unless I provide a physical, and constant example of what my ideology is lived out.

Indi wrote:
To assume anything else would be to assume that the person i'm talking to is an idiot, and that is not an assumption i make lightly.
I would claim that your definition of "idiot" is someone who does not hold the same values and fundamental beliefs as you, but won't in order to refrain from initiating:
Indi in The Church and Homosexuality wrote:
a barrage of abuse by those who claim to be morally/intellectually superior because they believe in gods while i do not. One of them just made animal noises at me to mock me in what i can only assume must be a morally/intellectually superior manner of mocking someone. A couple of them have made numerous vitriolic, hate-filled posts talking about the evils of atheism and atheists. Except for other atheists, no-one - not a single person - has stepped up to denounce the bigotry. Given that, i find myself forced to believe that the general consensus is that people agree with the idea that atheists are closed-minded, lying fools whose only goal in life is to refute religion. Hence, i no longer think it's reasonable to believe that i'm going to be taken seriously, because i'm an atheist. And for that reason, i don't bother to try.
I will make no further comment on that remark.

The post you reacted to was neither directed at you, nor was it interpreted in the manner I created it for.
mike1reynolds
This is rather off topic, but Con, you don't know the fist real thing about Taoism. The Book of Changes, the oldest book of Taoism, refers innumerable times to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. If that is not God, then who is that?

You just make up your evidence as you go along, and then when evidence is presented, you blithely ignore it. You still have not ever addressed the replicatible evidence about the psychic dog that knows when his owners are coming home. All you did was make an utterly false assertion about it, which should have been easily resolved for yourself simply by reading the reference I quoted. When HereticMonkey corrected this, you never addressed the topic again.

You refuse to address evidence to the contrary of your opinion. You are not in the least bit objective, you are totally biased and bigoted. Bigots are “intolerantly convinced of their own opinion”, that is the dictionary definition, and it comes with a picture of you next to the entry.
HereticMonkey
TheConspirator:
1) The "Psychology" article listed the advantages of dealing with stress and meditation.
2) The Old Testament rules applying is a matter of debate; there seems to be a wealth of evidence (no sacrificing, the "don't throw stones", and the changes in diet) that it's been turned into guidelines rather than hard and fast rules.
3) Ancient China was actually more of bureaucracy, where religion held little actual sway. Ironically, it wasn't until Communism took over that religion became a problem (atheism's darkest day).

Indi:
1) Re: Accepting things on faith:
Quote:
You sound like you're fairly confident that accepting something on faith is a rational and/or moral decision. Sounds like something that should be questioned to me... (and i will, too, but not in this topic).

Before you question it too much, consider how much stuff you accept on faith each day (any research you do is ultimately faith-based, as you hope the person's research is somewhat accurate, for example). In other words, our society is based on some faith in other people, whether those people are still living or not. So accepting things on faith is a moral/rational action (unless you, for example, can perform extensive medical testing on yourself AND know everything about physics AND ad infinitum).

2) When we debate belief, I don't see it as trying to convince anyone of anything; that's well beyond the scope of a discussion forum. Rather, I see it as a chance to explore my faith.

For what it's worth...
HM
mike1reynolds
I disagree, HM, but only because I have a more fundamental disagreement with the terms in which Indi has set theism. Is your “faith” based on a lack of evidence? Since God is the Source of all Consciousness, then logically it is only within one’s own consciousness that one will find compelling evidence. It is there first, or it is nowhere, by the very definition of what God is. When you look within, is there really no evidence? While it can’t be measured in a lab, the evidence within one’s own consciousness is the primary issue, but because it is invisible it is a little harder to defend to materialists and easier for materialists to attack. References to Cognitive Science, verified psychic phenomena and ANYTHING else that is ACTUALLY relevant to the topic, is blithely ignored by the materialistically faithful, in favor of vague meaningless abstractions of an argument.

On the other hand, Indi’s and Conspirator’s materialistic point of view is a far more fanatical faith than the vast majority of religionists, and certainly much more so than those who follow shamanistic traditions. Their contention is pure faith, without a shred of evidence.

Here is a personal example, when I was an atheist I had a friend who was trying very hard to help me. He was a genius, so it took him all of 60 seconds to see the logical flaw in his whole approach. Most people had to beat their heads against a wall for a half hour or hour to get that point. The bottom line for me was personal experience. I understood logically, that if there were any evidence of God to be found, that would be the logical place to find it. My friend apprehended this in mid sentence, and just went silent. He never brought up the subject again until he found a good counter argument.

A few months later, smiling from ear to ear, he had to tell me about a dream that he had had. He knew me well enough to know that this dream was not meant for him at all, but was meant for me: In the dream he was taken to the center of the universe where there was a giant space station with the letters G.O.D. on the side.

Doesn’t sound like much, but it hit me right between the eyes. Just like he knew me, I knew him pretty well too, and Spaceship God was not something from his psyche at all. That was something that had been specifically tailored for a far out Sci-Fi nut like me, not for a very conservative staid fellow like him. He knew it damn good and well to, and that was the whole point, he was offering me tangible evidence of an intelligent design behind the construction of his dream, because the whole nature of the dream was clearly completely alien to his way of thinking. While he never said as such, I knew that he had been thinking very hard about how to counter my arguments, and that he had been feeling strongly enough to pray about it regularly. Knowing these things, I could not bring myself to believe that he could really have influenced his own dreams in such a manner so obviously perfectly tailored for me, which was significant evidence that God had answered his prayer and given him a dream image that would be like a Zen Koan to me, a mental puzzle that blows the intellect out of the way so that it is no longer an obstruction.

The intellect churns over the same data over and over, and it thinks that it is thinking, when it is really just stuck in an infinite loop of circular reasoning. There is only one way out, a Koan to smash the intellect so that higher mental faculties of the spirit are no longer being blocked out. This is hardly what I would call faith! It is direct perception. Do you have faith that the sun will rise? Just so, I do not have faith in God, I have experience.

P.S. That experience did not smash my atheism in one fell swoop, but it was the beginning of a long process, facilitated most strongly by usage of the Book of Changes (an ancient Tarot-card like oracle) which lead me back to the awareness of God. Taoism ended my atheism, which is why I found Conspirators inept and completely erroneous descriptions of Taoism to be ironic. He knows everything, don’t try to tell him otherwise!
Indi
Montressor wrote:
Indi wrote:
The whole debate then becomes about collecting the evidence that will convince this undecided. When i discuss whether God exists or not, i don't seriously believe any atheist is magically going to convince a theist to ditch God, or vice versa - because i assume that both the atheist and the theist have already considered the case for and against and have come to the conclusion that they have come to for a reason.
So your looking to convince the person that not only isn't an atheist or theist but is so ignorant of the notion of the presence or absence of a god or many gods that he or she has not formed a decision on the matter? good luck. Theism or atheism is central to someone's ideology, that is, if you believe in a god, your outlook on life is significantly different than someone who chooses not to believe in a god, to change that ideology significantly is a tremendous task that is rarely based on debates and theoretical arguments.

Undecideds exist - people who believe in a god but are severely questioning their beliefs, or people do do not believe in a god but feel that something is missing in their lives, or people who neither believe or disbelieve and seek to decide which path to take from here. Imagine a person raised by wolves who comes into contact with humans for the first time and hears about this "god" thing - they have no idea whether to take it seriously or dismiss it until you provide evidence for or against. Or imagine we create an artificial intelligence that is a blank slate - it knows nothing at all - how would you convince that intelligence that a god exists? To say that there's no such thing as an undecided is fallacious, unless you have some kind of proof to back that up.

You assume that the presence/absence of a god must be tremendously significant to a person's life based on what? Your own life? Surely you know the fallacy of assuming that. Aren't there many "Christians" who live their lives without any real concern for God or God's laws (this is not my claim, but the claim of many a theist who refers to them as not "true" Christians)? If they believe in God, but do not obey his rules (except when it's convenient), he's obviously not particularly important to them.

You are implying that everyone believes in something. Why? Where's the evidence for that, other than "i've never met anyone who didn't have a conception of god already" (argument from ignorance).

Montressor wrote:
I can expound on the benefits of communism all I want, but very few people with change their ideology unless I provide a physical, and constant example of what my ideology is lived out.

Did you read nothing i wrote? i explicitly said this has nothing to do with changing ideologies. It's more about building a case for why you believe whatever ideology you believe (or building a case for whatever ideology you happen to be defending, which you may not believe). If you are incapable of thinking about a discussion as anything but adversarial, fine, then think of what you're doing as a defence, not an offence.

Montressor wrote:
Indi wrote:
To assume anything else would be to assume that the person i'm talking to is an idiot, and that is not an assumption i make lightly.
I would claim that your definition of "idiot" is someone who does not hold the same values and fundamental beliefs as you

You can claim whatever you want about me and my views. It does not make them true. Putting words in my mouth seems to be a hobby around here, but the practice says far more about the people that do it than it does anything about me.

i have never been anything but clear and explicit when i have described what makes an idiot and idiot, and that includes the message you just quoted. i have always been quite clear and explicit that aside from beliefs that are obviously irrational, harmful and immoral (ex, believing that Jews are evil), what makes an idiot an idiot is not what they believe, but what they do. There are just as many idiot atheists proportionally as there are idiot theists.

That being said, i think it should be obvious that the reason the person(s) who did:
Indi in The Church and Homosexuality wrote:
a barrage of abuse by those who claim to be morally/intellectually superior because they believe in gods while i do not. One of them just made animal noises at me to mock me in what i can only assume must be a morally/intellectually superior manner of mocking someone. A couple of them have made numerous vitriolic, hate-filled posts talking about the evils of atheism and atheists. Except for other atheists, no-one - not a single person - has stepped up to denounce the bigotry. Given that, i find myself forced to believe that the general consensus is that people agree with the idea that atheists are closed-minded, lying fools whose only goal in life is to refute religion. Hence, i no longer think it's reasonable to believe that i'm going to be taken seriously, because i'm an atheist. And for that reason, i don't bother to try.
is clearly an idiot based on the actions i described, and not what they believe. The fact that i have singled out attacks on atheists is simply because they are so prevalent and widespread on this board (and are at least tacitly accepted as normal by the theists who claim to be morally superior, as evidenced by their lack of any kind of effort to put a stop to it, which raises other issues). Furthermore, not only are these attacks so frequent, they are among the most nasty and hate-filled attacks i see on Frihost... yet nothing is done. (Don't believe me that they're nasty? See here and here. Do you believe the kinds of things in those posts are justified? If no, then why have you done nothing to stop them? Further, why do you continue to side with the very people responsible for those kinds of attacks, and call me the unreasonable one in the exchange? Just because i must deserve it because i'm an atheist willing to defend their beliefs? Here's another one to consider - do you think that my claim that this is a widespread problem on Frihost that is not being addressed is nonsense? Then explain how it could happen that just the mention of the idea - not even a report - invited a public dismissal of the very idea by a moderator... and not a soul has spoken up about how questionable that kind of response is?)

While it's obvious that by extension most of the attackers in this case are probably theists simply because the victims are atheists, that does not make theism their crime. Their crime, the one that makes them idiots, is clearly the attack. That happens to be exactly what i said. Anything else you read, you put there yourself.
Manntis
How about everyone just looks at it this way... You believe what you want to believe, it doesn't mean that it's true, but it also doesn't mean that it's false. We all have our own beliefs based on our view of the Universe. Whether there is 1 God, many gods, or no gods at all, what you want to believe is totally up to you.
mike1reynolds
Indi, nobody hates you. You have a chip on your shoulder and are the pot calling the kettle black in claiming that others are being pugnacious too you, but we love you anyway.

As to whether there are more bigoted atheists or more bigoted theists, the problem with comparing these two groups is that theism is a lot more diverse than atheism, and some groups of theists are more bigoted than others. If you compared atheists to fundamentalists Christians or Muslims, I think atheists would compare favorably, but I don’t think that atheists would compare favorably to many other groups of theists.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
This is rather off topic, but Con, you don't know the fist real thing about Taoism. The Book of Changes, the oldest book of Taoism, refers innumerable times to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. If that is not God, then who is that?

I don't? I Ching is not the oldest taoest text, it fact its not even taoist text, Tata Te Ching is the oldest Taoest text
Perhaps you should actualy learn aboput it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching
Quote:
The I Ching (often spelled as I Jing, Yi Ching, Yi King, or Yi Jing ; also called "Book of Changes" or "Classic of Changes") is the oldest of the Chinese classic texts. A symbol system designed to identify order in what seem like chance events, it describes an ancient system of cosmology and philosophy that is at the heart of Chinese cultural beliefs. The philosophy centers on the ideas of the dynamic balance of opposites, the evolution of events as a process, and acceptance of the inevitability of change (see Philosophy, below). In Western cultures, the I Ching is regarded by some as simply a system of divination; many believe it expresses the wisdom and philosophy of ancient China.


http://www.cfcl.com/ching/
Quote:

The I Ching or "Book of Changes" is an ancient Chinese divination manual and book of wisdom. Especially since the 1960's, its poetic text and extraordinary symbolism — to say nothing of its strange effectiveness in divination — have gained it a following in the West.

The I Ching
The (with commentary)
Tell, were dose it it say supreme ruler?

As I've said, the oldest taoist text is the [url=http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/Tao_te_Ching.PDF]Tao te ching
written by Lau Tzu in the 600s bce. It is not theistic but since its beginning has been integrated into local Chinese religions (along with Buddhism and Confucianism) which are polytheist not monotheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
http://web.archive.org/web/20010430052927/www.thetemple.com/alt.philosophy.taoism/taofaq.htm
http://www.thetao.info/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm
http://www.religionfacts.com/taoism/index.htm
But you'll probably ignore this too.

Quote:
You just make up your evidence as you go along, and then when evidence is presented, you blithely ignore it. You still have not ever addressed the replicatible evidence about the psychic dog that knows when his owners are coming home. All you did was make an utterly false assertion about it, which should have been easily resolved for yourself simply by reading the reference I quoted. When HereticMonkey corrected this, you never addressed the topic again.

I did. As an owner of dogs I know that dogs will run up too the doer barking doer no apparent reason, 2 to 3 time a day I look out the window and say "theres no one there"cause they ran up to the doer barking, and that when I'm home, I'm sure they do it much more when its just them here. What I'm saying its like the horoscope, (if enough predictions are made, some will be right by chance alone)

[qupte]You refuse to address evidence to the contrary of your opinion. You are not in the least bit objective, you are totally biased and bigoted. Bigots are “intolerantly convinced of their own opinion”, that is the dictionary definition, and it comes with a picture of you next to the entry.[/quote]
Quit ****** attacking me, I am in no way, bigoted or intolerant nor have I said or done or said anything bigoted or intolerant. And I challenge you to show anything I said bigoted! If you can't shut up!
I'm open to the evidence, you have not given any except for one mathematician (which in and of it self is not evidence), you haven't even tried to show evidence (and the first one to not to try and show evidence).
Show some evidence or admit you don't have any.

Oh yeas, you have not addressed Chaos Theory.

HereticMonkey wrote:
TheConspirator:
1) The "Psychology" article listed the advantages of dealing with stress and meditation.

Though meditation is often used in religious practises, its not a religions thing..
Quote:
2) The Old Testament rules applying is a matter of debate; there seems to be a wealth of evidence (no sacrificing, the "don't throw stones", and the changes in diet) that it's been turned into guidelines rather than hard and fast rules.

Due to contradictions in the bible. But there are \parts that say the old testament laws still do apply.

Quote:
3) Ancient China was actually more of bureaucracy, where religion held little actual sway. Ironically, it wasn't until Communism took over that religion became a problem (atheism's darkest day).

Ancient China was made up of many nations, riled (like most nations at the time) by kings and emperors who had almost absolute power, so it depended on who was in charge. But given the nature of Chinese religion nd philosophy's they were much more likely to be excepting of religions beliefs.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
This is rather off topic, but Con, you don't know the fist real thing about Taoism. The Book of Changes, the oldest book of Taoism, refers innumerable times to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. If that is not God, then who is that?

I don't?
No, you don’t. Not even remotely.

The Conspirator wrote:
Tell, were dose it it say supreme ruler?
The following is from the preface of James Legge’s translation of the I Ching (that was the first English translation).
Quote:
In the preface to the third volume of these 'Sacred Books of the East,' containing the Shû King, Shih King, and Hsiâo King, I have spoken of the Chinese terms Tî and Shang Tî, and shown how I felt it necessary to continue to render them by our word God, as I had done in all my translations of the Chinese classics since 1861. My doing so gave offence to some of the missionaries in China and others; and in June, 1880, twenty-three gentlemen addressed a letter to Professor F. Max Müller, complaining that, in such a work edited by him, he should allow me to give my own private interpretation of the name or names in question instead of translating them or transferring them. Professor Müller published the letter which he had received, with his reply to it, in the 'Times' newspaper of Dec. 30, 1880. Since then the matter has rested, and I introduce it again here in this preface, because, though we do not meet with the name in the Yî so frequently as in the Shû and Shih, I have, as before, wherever it does occur, translated it by God. Those who object to that term say that Shang Tî might be rendered by 'Supreme Ruler' or 'Supreme Emperor,' or by 'Ruler (or Emperor) on high;' but when I examined the question, more than thirty years ago, with all possible interest and all the resources at my command, I came to the conclusions that Tî, on its first employment by the Chinese fathers, was intended to express the same concept which our fathers expressed by God, and that such has been its highest and proper application ever since. There would be little if any difference in the meaning conveyed to readers by 'Supreme Ruler' and 'God;' but when I render Tî by God and Shang Tî by the Supreme God, or, for the sake of brevity, simply by God, I am translating, and not giving a private interpretation of my own. I do it not in the interests of controversy, but as the simple expression of what to me is truth; and I am glad to know that a great majority of the Protestant missionaries in China use Tî and Shang Tî as the nearest analogue for God.


The Conspirator wrote:
I Ching is not the oldest taoest text,
King Wên and the Duke of Zhou, the first two emporers of the 2nd dynasty, wrote the I Ching. That was somewhere between 500 and 700 years ealier than the Tao Te Ching, which Lao Tsa (Tzu promotes mispronunciation) wrote in the BC 500’s.
Quote:
It was not until then that the whole context of I Ching was understood. Its philosophy heavily influenced the literature and government administration of the Zhou Dynasty (1122 BCE - 256 BCE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching
Quote:
King Wen of Zhou (周文王) designed this sequence in the 12th century BC while imprisoned by the tyrant King Zhou of Shang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Wen_sequence

The Conspirator wrote:
it [the I Ching] fact its not even taoist text
You found and provided one quote that mentions the I Ching, and because it didn't mention Taosim you conclusively decide that the I Ching is not Taoist? That is the most brainless logic that I have ever seen in my life.

Quote:
Course Title: Initiation into Taoism
Level Two: I-ching - Philosophy and Practice
http://www.taopage.org/leveltwo.html
Quote:
Taoism > Sources > I-ching
Introduction to I-ching (Book of Changes)
http://www.taopage.org/iching.html

You just flunked Taoism 101, kid.

The Conspirator wrote:
, Tata Te Ching
Tata? Tudaloo to you too!

The Conspirator wrote:
[Tao Te Ching] is the oldest Taoest text
The Tao Te Ching (not tata!) is somewhere between 500 and 700 years younger than the I Ching.

The Conspirator wrote:
Perhaps you should actualy learn aboput it.
I have the entire I Ching memorized from cover to cover, young man. I've been studying it for 20 years. It is the MAIN reason that I am not still an atheist.

Perhaps if *you* knew something about it you would not be an atheist either, but probably not. The I Ching is an extremely advanced book, and in the commentaries in the middle, called the Ten Wings, it says that the I Ching is like an encrypted code that only wise sages can decipher. There is no deliberate attempt to be obtuse, quite to the contrary, every attempt is made to distill each archetype into direct and visceral situations that can be easily understood, and yet the political situations in each image are so complex that it is simply beyond the comprehension of anyone but political geniuses. Then to boot, it is really all about spirituality, so the political situations are just analogies to something that is much less tangible and more elusive.

BTW, the word archetype was coined by Carl Jung, specifically to describe the kind of images put forward by the I Ching. Jung got the idea from the I Ching, but found it to be a general truth that is applicable in countless ways.

=================================================================

Now, Con, let's repeat the original question that you ignored in favor of presenting even the most basic facts of Taoism in a totally distorted manner:
The Book of Changes, the oldest book of Taoism, refers innumerable times to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. If that is not God, then who is that?
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
You just make up your evidence as you go along, and then when evidence is presented, you blithely ignore it. You still have not ever addressed the replicatible evidence about the psychic dog that knows when his owners are coming home. All you did was make an utterly false assertion about it, which should have been easily resolved for yourself simply by reading the reference I quoted. When HereticMonkey corrected this, you never addressed the topic again.

I did. As an owner of dogs I know that dogs will run up too the doer barking doer no apparent reason, 2 to 3 time a day I look out the window and say "theres no one there"cause they ran up to the doer barking, and that when I'm home, I'm sure they do it much more when its just them here. What I'm saying its like the horoscope, (if enough predictions are made, some will be right by chance alone)


It was only two paragraphs and you didn’t even read the second one! HereticMonkey replied to your vacuous criticism:

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
As the owner of 3 dogs (one deceased), I know how dogs act, my dogs, will bark at nothing, run up to the doer when no ones out there. So I have to ask, how often did the dog run up to the doer or window during the time its owner was gone?

4% and 78% of the time, depending on whether or not Pam was on the way home...


Con, if you are going to reply to something, PLEASE READ IT. What is the point of replying to something you didn’t even read all the way through? It just makes you look like a complete idiot.

Here it is again:

Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
This is rather off topic, but Con, you don't know the fist real thing about Taoism. The Book of Changes, the oldest book of Taoism, refers innumerable times to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. If that is not God, then who is that?

I don't?
No, you don’t. Not even remotely.

You don't, I do.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Tell, were dose it it say supreme ruler?
The following is from the preface of James Legge’s translation of the I Ching (that was the first English translation).
Quote:
In the preface to the third volume of these 'Sacred Books of the East,' containing the Shû King, Shih King, and Hsiâo King, I have spoken of the Chinese terms Tî and Shang Tî, and shown how I felt it necessary to continue to render them by our word God, as I had done in all my translations of the Chinese classics since 1861. My doing so gave offence to some of the missionaries in China and others; and in June, 1880, twenty-three gentlemen addressed a letter to Professor F. Max Müller, complaining that, in such a work edited by him, he should allow me to give my own private interpretation of the name or names in question instead of translating them or transferring them. Professor Müller published the letter which he had received, with his reply to it, in the 'Times' newspaper of Dec. 30, 1880. Since then the matter has rested, and I introduce it again here in this preface, because, though we do not meet with the name in the Yî so frequently as in the Shû and Shih, I have, as before, wherever it does occur, translated it by God. Those who object to that term say that Shang Tî might be rendered by 'Supreme Ruler' or 'Supreme Emperor,' or by 'Ruler (or Emperor) on high;' but when I examined the question, more than thirty years ago, with all possible interest and all the resources at my command, I came to the conclusions that Tî, on its first employment by the Chinese fathers, was intended to express the same concept which our fathers expressed by God, and that such has been its highest and proper application ever since. There would be little if any difference in the meaning conveyed to readers by 'Supreme Ruler' and 'God;' but when I render Tî by God and Shang Tî by the Supreme God, or, for the sake of brevity, simply by God, I am translating, and not giving a private interpretation of my own. I do it not in the interests of controversy, but as the simple expression of what to me is truth; and I am glad to know that a great majority of the Protestant missionaries in China use Tî and Shang Tî as the nearest analogue for God.

Look, [url=http://tcp.frih.net/images/something_blue_massages.png]here[/quote] is an online copy of the I Ching, so where dose it say supreme ruler.
I've looked, no where in it dose the word "supreme" and "ruler" appear together. Theres supreme good and supreme success but no where is there supreme ruler.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
I Ching is not the oldest taoest text,
King Wên and the Duke of Zhou, the first two emporers of the 2nd dynasty, wrote the I Ching. That was somewhere between 500 and 700 years ealier than the Tao Te Ching, which Lao Tsa (Tzu promotes mispronunciation) wrote in the BC 500’s.
Quote:
It was not until then that the whole context of I Ching was understood. Its philosophy heavily influenced the literature and government administration of the Zhou Dynasty (1122 BCE - 256 BCE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching
Quote:
King Wen of Zhou (周文王) designed this sequence in the 12th century BC while imprisoned by the tyrant King Zhou of Shang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Wen_sequence

Ne where did I say it was not ancent.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
it fact its not even taoist text
Then what is this quote you provided that is all about the I Ching?

Quote:
The I Ching (often spelled as I Jing, Yi Ching, Yi King, or Yi Jing ; also called "Book of Changes" or "Classic of Changes") is the oldest of the Chinese classic texts. A symbol system designed to identify order in what seem like chance events, it describes an ancient system of cosmology and philosophy that is at the heart of Chinese cultural beliefs. The philosophy centers on the ideas of the dynamic balance of opposites, the evolution of events as a process, and acceptance of the inevitability of change (see Philosophy, below). In Western cultures, the I Ching is regarded by some as simply a system of divination; many believe it expresses the wisdom and philosophy of ancient China.

No where in there was mintion the Tao or Taoism.

Quote:
[quote="The Conspirator"]is the oldest Taoest text
The Tao Te Ching (not tata!) is somewhere between 500 and 800 years younger than the I Ching.[/quote[
But the I Ching is not taoist. The Tao te cheng is

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Perhaps you should actualy learn aboput it.
I have the entire I Ching memorized from cover to cover, young man. I've been studying it for 20 years. It is the MAIN reason that I am not still an atheist.

And you still are misinformed about it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010414020024/http://www.thetemple.com/alt.philosophy.taoism/taofaq.htm#God
Quote:
TAOISM is non-theistic. That is, TAOISM postulates or recognizes the existence of a supreme ultimate force that, for want of a better word, is called TAO. TAOISM is a Mystical philosophy. That is, it accepts the direct experience of the supreme ultimate by individuals. There is no personification of a supreme deity in TAOISM except for the pantheistic forms in some versions of the Chinese religion


http://www.religionfacts.com/taoism/index.htm
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/taoism.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/taoism/
http://www.thetao.info/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
You just make up your evidence as you go along, and then when evidence is presented, you blithely ignore it. You still have not ever addressed the replicatible evidence about the psychic dog that knows when his owners are coming home. All you did was make an utterly false assertion about it, which should have been easily resolved for yourself simply by reading the reference I quoted. When HereticMonkey corrected this, you never addressed the topic again.

I did. As an owner of dogs I know that dogs will run up too the doer barking doer no apparent reason, 2 to 3 time a day I look out the window and say "theres no one there"cause they ran up to the doer barking, and that when I'm home, I'm sure they do it much more when its just them here. What I'm saying its like the horoscope, (if enough predictions are made, some will be right by chance alone)


It was only two paragraphs and you didn’t even read the second one! HereticMonkey replied to your vacuous criticism:

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
As the owner of 3 dogs (one deceased), I know how dogs act, my dogs, will bark at nothing, run up to the doer when no ones out there. So I have to ask, how often did the dog run up to the doer or window during the time its owner was gone?

4% and 78% of the time, depending on whether or not Pam was on the way home...


Con, if you are going to reply to something, PLEASE READ IT. What is the point of replying to something you didn’t even read all the way through? It just makes you look like a complete idiot.

Here it is again:

Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception


Quote:
Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[25]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception#Difficulties_testing_ESP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception#Controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_in_parapsychology
mike1reynolds
Kid, how many copies of the I Ching have you read? I own a dozen translations of the I Ching, and my favorite, the Wilhelm/Baynes trasnlation, I've read upwards of a hundred times from cover to cover. The I Ching says "Supreme Ruler" all through it.

As to Taoism being non-theistic, I provided a reference from James Legge, the most preeminent 19th century researcher into the I Ching, the first to translate it into English, while you just provided some quote off the net. Do you believe everything you read?

While Taoism is most definitely theistic, Zen, which is a much more popular and better understood synthesis of Buddhism (non-theistic) and Taoism (theistic), leans heavily towards Buddhism with regards to Zen’s theism. This gives lots of people with only a passing familiarity with the two the impression that Zen is a full synthesis of Taoism, when it is not at all. Zen throws out the great majority of Taoism and is only vaguely influenced by it. Zen’s non-theism is in no way a reflection of Taoism.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception


Quote:
Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[25]


Can you read? Just go a sentence past the one you quoted (highlighted in blue) and what does the next sentence say??

Quote:
However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
Kid, are you out of diapers yet? How many copies of the I Ching have you read? I own a dozen translations of the I Ching, and my favorite, the Wilhelm/Baynes trasnlation, I've read upwards of a hundred times from cover to cover.

The I Ching says "Supreme Ruler" all through it. Don't argue with me, argue with a copy of the I Ching. This argument is completely asinine.

You claims yet you have not demonstrated this! Where,! I searched, I use Opera, I clicked the 'find" button and typed in supreme and ruler in it and searched each chapter, no where did I find supreme and ruler together.

mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
Quote:
Sometimes, ESP experiments are inaccurately portrayed through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data. Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:

"As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant"[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception


Quote:
Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted 4 trials of their own and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[25]


Can you read?

Quote:
[19] However, Sheldrake convincingly demonstrated that the data they collected actually matched his own data.


There are several problems with your "evidence."
1. Its in a section that titled "ESP in the media."
2. Rupert Sheldrake never published a paper on this experiment fr pear review.
3. Two scientists noted that the dog when to to the window many times.
and 4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/155928.stm , it was reproduced and failed.


Lets review!
You say theres allot of evidence for the existence of God. I say "show it" you don't.
You say "Chaos Theory is, I think, the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality." I way how the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality." you don't say.
You say "the I Chng mentions
You say "The Book of Changes, the oldest book of Taoism, refers innumerable times to the Supreme Ruler of the universe." I say "Where, I looked" you don't say.

You've made allot of statements but have shown no evidence.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
You claims yet you have not demonstrated this! Where,! I searched, I use Opera, I clicked the 'find" button and typed in supreme and ruler in it and searched each chapter, no where did I find supreme and ruler together.

I did a google search on "I Ching" and "Supreme ruler" and got a thousand hits. I have provided a reference from James Legge, the most preeminent 19th century researcher into the I Ching, the first to translate it into English, while you just provided some quote off the net that simply asserted that Taoism is non-theistic. Do you believe everything you read?

The Conspirator wrote:
1. Its in a section that titled "ESP in the media."
That is where I first found it. Googling Jaytee psychic and sheldrake gives more than 500 hits.

This particular link ranks prominently in search engines because Wiseman, the critic you are worshiping, is a well known media personality in the UK. Dr. Richard Wiseman started his career as a conjurer, and like Randi is a skilled illusionist. He is well known in Britain as a media Skeptic, and regularly appears on radio and TV programmes as a debunker of psychical phenomena. In addition, he tirelessly promotes the Skeptical cause through public lectures.

The Conspirator wrote:
2. Rupert Sheldrake never published a paper on this experiment fr pear review.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 63, 306-311

The Conspirator wrote:
3. Two scientists noted that the dog when to to the window many times.
and 4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/155928.stm , it was reproduced and failed.
This is a ten year old article about Wiseman who has been thoroughly discredited since then. It is also a cutesy spoon fed pop science article, not especially penetrating, even if it was more current. Wiseman is a hack. Here is more detail on what happened:
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/wiseman.html

The Conspirator wrote:
Lets review!
You say theres allot of evidence for the existence of God. I say "show it" you don't.
I started with something simple for a simple mind, but it is still way too much for you.

The Conspirator wrote:
You say "Chaos Theory is, I think, the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality." I way how the most compelling example of how intelligent design permeates reality." you don't say.
You can’t demonstrate reading comprehension and you want me to get into Chaos Theory with you?

The Conspirator wrote:
You say "the I Chng mentions
You say "The Book of Changes, the oldest book of Taoism, refers innumerable times to the Supreme Ruler of the universe." I say "Where, I looked" you don't say.
I quoted James Legge, the most preeminent 19th century researcher into the Chinese classics, which conclusively proves my case, if you would bother to actually read it. You simply say, “I can’t find it on the internet so it must not be there!” That is not much of an argument.
The Conspirator
Now your flaming me.

1. ESP and dog. Debunked.
2. You stated that there is evidence for God. Put up or shut up.
3. Chaos Theory and ID. Put up or shut up.
4. Show where it says supriem ruler not who says it says it. (heres a link to the I Ching online). Put up or shut up.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
Now your flaming me.

1. ESP and dog. Debunked.
You are a biased and bigoted against even the most objective and tangible evidence. This has now been proven beyond a doubt.

The Conspirator wrote:
2. You stated that there is evidence for God. Put up or shut up.
Yelling shut up just proves my point. I provided compelling evidence of mystical phenomena and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and declare, "No it's not! No it's not!"

The Conspirator wrote:
3. Chaos Theory and ID. Put up or shut up.
4. Show where it says supriem ruler not who says it says it. (heres a link to the I Ching online). Put up or shut up.
Kid, I am done with you. Get back to your high school work.
The Conspirator
Listen, 10 year old child, your supposed to act like an adult here. Its time to grow up and act like us adults.

mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
Now your flaming me.

1. ESP and dog. Debunked.
You are a biased and bigoted against even the most objective and tangible evidence. This has now been proven beyond a doubt.

Objective and tangible evidence has not been given. You attack is baseless.

Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
2. You stated that there is evidence for God. Put up or shut up.
Yelling shut up just proves my point. I provided compelling evidence of mystical phenomena and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and declare, "No it's not! No it's not!"

Evadence of mystical things is not evadence of God and your evadence of mystical thinsg, well.
Quote:
In 1994, the Austrian programme-makers carried out an experiment which seemed to prove Ms Smart's claim that her parents, with whom she lives, had noticed that Jaytee was able to sense when she started her journey home.

He would then sit on the porch awaiting her return.

But according to the latest study, which was carried out by some of Britain's leading paranormal experts, Jaytee's love affair with sitting by the porch has more to do with passing cats, playing children and cars whizzing by.

Four experiments were carried out in all. One group of researchers stayed at home to film Jaytee and monitor his behaviour.

Another accompanied Ms Smart on her journeys, made at different times of the day, and recorded the exact time she would decide to return home.

They found that although Jaytee regularly visited the porch during the day, it was more to do with something outside that had caught his attention.

The report concluded: "In all four experiments Jaytee failed to detect accurately when Pam Smart set off to return home."

All gone dog-eared

The researchers put Jaytee's behaviour down to selective memory, good guesswork and coincidence, which the report says "could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect".

Although it says four experiments are too few to rule out completely a psychic effect, they are enough "to contradict the claim made by the media that the effect is strong and completely reliable."

As for Jaytee, his fall from fame will have probably left him with one thought: "It's a dog's life."



Quote:
The Conspirator wrote:
3. Chaos Theory and ID. Put up or shut up.
4. Show where it says supriem ruler not who says it says it. (heres a link to the I Ching online). Put up or shut up.
Kid, I am done with you. Get back to your high school work.
Quote:

And again you attack me instead of actually displaying what would prove your point.

Again I say.
If you have evidence for God, If Chaos theory is an example of how intelligent design permeates reality, If the I Ching actually says any where in it "supreme ruler", put up or shit up.

Don't say you have evidence if you don't, don't state something as fact if you don't have evidence, don't attack people when they disagree with you.
horseatingweeds
Con, you’re really asking for a whole lot, after demonstrating your unwillingness not only to comprehend but even to read.

Mike has made an excellent case and you’re just being obnoxious. Is it intentional?
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
4. Show where it says supriem ruler not who says it says it. (heres a link to the I Ching online). Put up or shut up.
From the site you referenced, at this sub-page: http://www.cfcl.com/ching/P/42.43.shtml
Quote:
Six in the second place means:
Someone does indeed increase him;
Ten pairs of tortoises cannot oppose it.
Constant perseverance brings good fortune.
The king presents him before God.


Your reference excludes Confucius’ commentaries, called the Ten Wings, or Ten Commentaries. Buy a decent copy of the I Ching, the Ten Wings are not directly available on the net. The Ten Wings are full of references to the Supreme Ruler.

The Wilhelm/Baynes translation of the I Ching is widely considered to be the best, and the easiest to find in a book store. It contains the Ten Wings. While only the first section is on the net, in Wilhelm’s translation the explanatory comments are taken directly from the Ten Wings, and so the word God appears in the commentaries for 10 of the hexagrams in the first section: Google search on [God "I Ching" site:http://afpc.asso.fr]


In additon here is a quote from Confucius:
Quote:
Proverbs and Teachings of Confucius

"I believe in the presence of the Supreme Ruler in all things, and in heaven as the ethical principlewhole only law is order, impersonal and yet interested in the affairs of mankind."
Confucius and Confucianism!

Quote:
Ancient Chinese Recognition of Laws of Nature



It is noteworthy that the first and the fourth categories of the Great Norm concern the order of Nature; they are the laws of Nature. Moreover, all nine categories are said to derive their existence from Ti or T'ien whom the ancient Chinese, since the times of the Oracle Bones at about 1324-1123 B.C., unanimously and consistently believed to be the supreme ruler over all natural and human orders.17
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-9/chapter_ix.htm

Quote:
Fr. Damascene states, "Of all the primordial people, save the Hebrews, the Chinese-together with their racial cousins the native North Americans -- retained the purest understanding of the One God, the Supreme Being.
http://bonovox.squarespace.com/journal/2004/11/28/the-logos-and-the-tao.html
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
Four experiments were carried out in all. One group of researchers stayed at home to film Jaytee and monitor his behaviour.
You've quoted a reference to Wiseman, the discredited magician and popular British TV figure, again.

How many times are you going to reference the same discredited researcher?

What a vacuous argument.
The Conspirator
horseatingweeds wrote:
Con, you’re really asking for a whole lot,

No, I'm asking for evadence.
Quote:
after demonstrating your unwillingness not only to comprehend but even to read.

Comprehend and read what? Hes until now hes only posted a 1800 mathematician and psychic dog that turns out not to be psychic

Quote:
Mike has made an excellent case and you’re just being obnoxious. Is it intentional?

He has not made a case at all. For anything. And now he only gives me 1 thing after I asked a dozen times.

mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
4. Show where it says supriem ruler not who says it says it. (heres a link to the I Ching online). Put up or shut up.
From the site you referenced, at this sub-page: http://www.cfcl.com/ching/P/42.43.shtml
Quote:
Six in the second place means:
Someone does indeed increase him;
Ten pairs of tortoises cannot oppose it.
Constant perseverance brings good fortune.
The king presents him before God.


Quote:
() Six in the second place means:
Someone does indeed increase him;
Ten pairs of tortoises cannot oppose it.
Constant perseverance brings good fortune.
The king presents him before God.
Good fortune.

Ok I concede it dose say that.
You could have done that earlier.

Quote:
Your reference excludes Confucius’ commentaries, called the Ten Wings, or Ten Commentaries. Buy a decent copy of the I Ching, the Ten Wings are not directly available on the net. The Ten Wings are full of references to the Supreme Ruler.

The Wilhelm/Baynes translation of the I Ching is widely considered to be the best, and the easiest to find in a book store. It contains the Ten Wings. While only the first section is on the net, in Wilhelm’s translation the explanatory comments are taken directly from the Ten Wings, and so the word God appears in the commentaries for 10 of the hexagrams in the first section: Google search on [God "I Ching" site:http://afpc.asso.fr]


In additon here is a quote from Confucius:
Quote:
Proverbs and Teachings of Confucius

"I believe in the presence of the Supreme Ruler in all things, and in heaven as the ethical principlewhole only law is order, impersonal and yet interested in the affairs of mankind."
Confucius and Confucianism!

Quote:
Ancient Chinese Recognition of Laws of Nature



It is noteworthy that the first and the fourth categories of the Great Norm concern the order of Nature; they are the laws of Nature. Moreover, all nine categories are said to derive their existence from Ti or T'ien whom the ancient Chinese, since the times of the Oracle Bones at about 1324-1123 B.C., unanimously and consistently believed to be the supreme ruler over all natural and human orders.17
http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-9/chapter_ix.htm

Quote:
Fr. Damascene states, "Of all the primordial people, save the Hebrews, the Chinese-together with their racial cousins the native North Americans -- retained the purest understanding of the One God, the Supreme Being.
http://bonovox.squarespace.com/journal/2004/11/28/the-logos-and-the-tao.html
Quote:


I must add, ancient China was polytheistic, supreme ruler could be the highest god (like Zeus in Greek mythology) or in other cases supreme ruler may mean a king or emperor.

Quote:
You've quoted a reference to Wiseman, the discredited magician and popular British TV figure, again.

How many times are you going to reference the same discredited researcher?

What a vacuous argument.


Quote:
The researchers put Jaytee's behaviour down to selective memory, good guesswork and coincidence, which the report says "could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect".

Although it says four experiments are too few to rule out completely a psychic effect, they are enough "to contradict the claim made by the media that the effect is strong and completely reliable."

In other words, the dog has no powers.

Quote:
He went to the window and did so quite frequently, but only once did he do so near the exact time his master was preparing to come home and that case was dismissed because the dog was clearly going to the window after hearing a car pull up outside his domicile. Four experiments were conducted and the results were published in the British Journal of Psychology (89:453, 1998).


http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk
http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/research/papers.html
http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/psychicdogreply.pdf
Quote:
In short, we strongly disagree with the arguments presented in RS’s
commentary. We believe that our experiments were properly designed and that
the results did not support the notion that Jaytee could psychically detect when
PS was returning home. Moreover, we are not convinced otherwise by RS’s reanalysis
of our data and reserve judgment about his own experiments until they
are published in a peer reviewed journal. We also believe that our comments to
the media were responsible and accurate, and that the description of our
experiments presented in RS’s book is misleading.


Now. post you evidence of God and Chaos Theory and ID.
mike1reynolds
Polytheism was a later addition to Chinese culture. You have it backwards.

Quote:
No Devil, No Hell.--In this primitive monotheism, of which only scanty, but no doubt genuine, records remain, no place was found for any being such as the Buddhist Mara or the Devil of the Old and New Testaments. God inflicted His own punishments by visiting calamities on mankind, just as He bestowed His own rewards by sending bounteous harvests in due season. Evil spirits were a later invention, and their operations were even then confined chiefly to tearing people's hearts out, and so forth, for their own particular pleasure; we certainly meet no cases of evil spirits wishing to undermine man's allegiance to God, or desiring to make people wicked in order to secure their everlasting punishment. The vision of Purgatory, with all its horrid tortures, was introduced into China by Buddhism, and was subsequently annexed by the Taoists, some time between the third and sixth centuries A.D.

Chinese Terms for God.--Before passing to the firmer ground, historically speaking, of the Chou dynasty, it may be as well to state here that there are two terms in ancient Chinese literature which seem to be used indiscriminately for God. One is T'ien , which has come to include the material heavens, the sky; and the other is Shang Ti , which has come to include the spirits of deceased Emperors. These two terms appear simultaneously, so to speak, in the earliest documents which have come down to us, dating back to something like the twentieth century before Christ. Priority, however, belongs beyond all doubt to T'ien , which it would have been more natural to find meaning, first the visible heavens, and secondly the Deity, whose existence beyond the sky would be inferred from such phenomena as lightning, thunder, wind, and rain.
In other words, an impersonal monotheistic God, not the head of a pantheon like Zeus.
Quote:
Distinction between T'ien and Shang Ti.--The term Shang Ti means literally Supreme Ruler. It is not quite so vague as T'ien , which seems to be more of an abstraction, while Shang Ti is a genuinely personal God. Reference to T'ien is usually associated with fate or destiny, calamities, blessings, prayers for help, etc. The commandments of T'ien are hard to obey; He is compassionate, to be feared, unjust, and cruel. Shang Ti lives in heaven, walks, leaves tracks on the ground, enjoys the sweet savour of sacrifice, approves or disapproves of conduct, deals with rewards and punishments in a more particular way, and comes more actually into touch with the human race.
http://www.romanization.com/books/giles/religions/chap01.html
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You've quoted a reference to Wiseman, the discredited magician and popular British TV figure, again.

How many times are you going to reference the same discredited researcher?
So what does Con do? He quotes Wiseman's discredited results some more.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The researchers put Jaytee's behaviour down to selective memory, good guesswork and coincidence, which the report says "could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect".

Although it says four experiments are too few to rule out completely a psychic effect, they are enough "to contradict the claim made by the media that the effect is strong and completely reliable."

In other words, the dog has no powers.
In other words, your one and only reference has been thoroughly discredited.

Independent third parties conducted their own studies of Wiseman’s video evidence and found that it unequivocally supported Dr. Sheldrake’s assertions. For the 6th or 7th time now, you are quoting the same discredited results over and over, as if it means something. The only thing it means is that you are biased and bigoted and will cling desperately to even the flimsiest argument.

How many times are you going to repeat ancient quotes of Wiseman's work without addressing the fact that everyone now knows that he was completely discredited?

I will not address this issue again unless you stop acting like a stubborn child.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
Mike has made an excellent case and you’re just being obnoxious. Is it intentional?

He has not made a case at all. For anything. And now he only gives me 1 thing after I asked a dozen times.
Asked? You repeatedly asserted your authority as a high school student, confidently contradicting me in condescending terms, even as I presented conclusive references on the topic.

I’m surprised that there is anything that would convince you on any topic once you’ve put your ego behind an assertion.
The Conspirator
mike1reynolds wrote:
Polytheism was a later addition to Chinese culture. You have it backwards.

Quote:
No Devil, No Hell.--In this primitive monotheism, of which only scanty, but no doubt genuine, records remain, no place was found for any being such as the Buddhist Mara or the Devil of the Old and New Testaments. God inflicted His own punishments by visiting calamities on mankind, just as He bestowed His own rewards by sending bounteous harvests in due season. Evil spirits were a later invention, and their operations were even then confined chiefly to tearing people's hearts out, and so forth, for their own particular pleasure; we certainly meet no cases of evil spirits wishing to undermine man's allegiance to God, or desiring to make people wicked in order to secure their everlasting punishment. The vision of Purgatory, with all its horrid tortures, was introduced into China by Buddhism, and was subsequently annexed by the Taoists, some time between the third and sixth centuries A.D.

Chinese Terms for God.--Before passing to the firmer ground, historically speaking, of the Chou dynasty, it may be as well to state here that there are two terms in ancient Chinese literature which seem to be used indiscriminately for God. One is T'ien , which has come to include the material heavens, the sky; and the other is Shang Ti , which has come to include the spirits of deceased Emperors. These two terms appear simultaneously, so to speak, in the earliest documents which have come down to us, dating back to something like the twentieth century before Christ. Priority, however, belongs beyond all doubt to T'ien , which it would have been more natural to find meaning, first the visible heavens, and secondly the Deity, whose existence beyond the sky would be inferred from such phenomena as lightning, thunder, wind, and rain.
In other words, an impersonal monotheistic God, not the head of a pantheon like Zeus.
Quote:
Distinction between T'ien and Shang Ti.--The term Shang Ti means literally Supreme Ruler. It is not quite so vague as T'ien , which seems to be more of an abstraction, while Shang Ti is a genuinely personal God. Reference to T'ien is usually associated with fate or destiny, calamities, blessings, prayers for help, etc. The commandments of T'ien are hard to obey; He is compassionate, to be feared, unjust, and cruel. Shang Ti lives in heaven, walks, leaves tracks on the ground, enjoys the sweet savour of sacrifice, approves or disapproves of conduct, deals with rewards and punishments in a more particular way, and comes more actually into touch with the human race.
http://www.romanization.com/books/giles/religions/chap01.html


This monotheistic religion is not mentions in the Other religions section of the monotheism Wikipedia article.
In and of it self, it means nothing but used with.
(I also did a google search for "history of monotheism" and "Chinese monotheism" and didn't find any references to it but google is only good for finding sites about things not accurate information)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian
Quote:
Tian sometimes seems to be God itself, or Heaven, or the entire celestial bureaucracy. Therefore, it is often difficult to ascertain whether Tian is being used to mean a personal force or an impersonal one.


Quote:
The religions that are monotheistic today are often thought of as having been of relatively recent historical origin — although efforts at comparison are usually beset by claims of most religions to being very ancient or eternal. Eastern religions, especially in China and India, that have concepts of panentheism, are notably difficult to classify along Western notions of monotheism vs. polytheism. Attempting to compare the two is much like asking how many sides a circle has when comparing to a square, in that it makes no sense.


I've looked and found no other references to this ancient Chinese monotheistic religion

mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You've quoted a reference to Wiseman, the discredited magician and popular British TV figure, again.

How many times are you going to reference the same discredited researcher?
So what does Con do? He quotes Wiseman's discredited results some more.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The researchers put Jaytee's behaviour down to selective memory, good guesswork and coincidence, which the report says "could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect".

Although it says four experiments are too few to rule out completely a psychic effect, they are enough "to contradict the claim made by the media that the effect is strong and completely reliable."

In other words, the dog has no powers.
In other words, your one and only reference has been thoroughly discredited.

Independent third parties conducted their own studies of Wiseman’s video evidence and found that it unequivocally supported Dr. Sheldrake’s assertions. For the 6th or 7th time now, you are quoting the same discredited results over and over, as if it means something. The only thing it means is that you are biased and bigoted and will cling desperately to even the flimsiest argument.

How many times are you going to repeat ancient quotes of Wiseman's work without addressing the fact that everyone now knows that he was completely discredited?

I will not address this issue again unless you stop acting like a stubborn child.

You attack me one more time I going to the admins.
Learn a little bit about respect!
Your ignoring the facts. Further examination and further reproduction of the experiment has shown no ESP. If you know of others scientists who has examine or reproduced the experiment and has came to the result that the dog has ESP, show them.



No you still haven't addressed the evidence for god and Chaos theory so.
How is "Chaos Theory and example of how intelligent design permeates reality"?
What is the "vast quantity of evidence" for god?
Both things you've stated but presented nothing on them.
I will not reply to your posts until you have stated how "Chaos Theory and example of how intelligent design permeates reality" and shown the "vast quantity of evidence for god".
Note: Evidence for the paranormal is not evidence for God, it actually diminishes the probability of Gods existence cause many of the things attributed to God or divine power can then be attributed to human paranorman abilitys.
mike1reynolds
The Conspirator wrote:
(I also did a google search for "history of monotheism" and "Chinese monotheism" and didn't find any references to it but google is only good for finding sites about things not accurate information)
Searching on Chinese and monotheis* gets almost half a million hits:
Google [chinese monotheism OR monotheistic OR monotheist]

Searching on ["chinese monotheism" OR "chinese monotheistic" OR "chinese monotheist"] gives only 114 hits, but the top three are perfect, especially the third one: From Monotheism to Polytheism


The Conspirator wrote:
I've looked and found no other references to this ancient Chinese monotheistic religion
You did not look very hard.

The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
mike1reynolds wrote:
You've quoted a reference to Wiseman, the discredited magician and popular British TV figure, again.

How many times are you going to reference the same discredited researcher?
So what does Con do? He quotes Wiseman's discredited results some more.

The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
The researchers put Jaytee's behaviour down to selective memory, good guesswork and coincidence, which the report says "could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect".

Although it says four experiments are too few to rule out completely a psychic effect, they are enough "to contradict the claim made by the media that the effect is strong and completely reliable."

In other words, the dog has no powers.
In other words, your one and only reference has been thoroughly discredited.

Independent third parties conducted their own studies of Wiseman’s video evidence and found that it unequivocally supported Dr. Sheldrake’s assertions. For the 6th or 7th time now, you are quoting the same discredited results over and over, as if it means something. The only thing it means is that you are biased and bigoted and will cling desperately to even the flimsiest argument.

How many times are you going to repeat ancient quotes of Wiseman's work without addressing the fact that everyone now knows that he was completely discredited?

I will not address this issue again unless you stop acting like a stubborn child.

You attack me one more time I going to the admins.
Learn a little bit about respect!
Your ignoring the facts. Further examination and further reproduction of the experiment has shown no ESP. If you know of others scientists who has examine or reproduced the experiment and has came to the result that the dog has ESP, show them.
The source you site for support actually confirmed Dr. Sheldrake’s results. You yourself are providing what you requested here. Wiseman’s video taped evidence was evaluated by other scientists, and no one else can confirm Wiesmen’s results. They all confirm Sheldrake’s results. This is from Wiseman’s own evidence.

How many more times is this same simple point going to have to be repeated? I’m not going to do it again. Ignore it one more time and I will not address you again in this topic, except to point out that your mode of argument is dishonest. You are not addressing the evidence at all. Address it or the debate is over.
horseatingweeds
Conspirator wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Con, you’re really asking for a whole lot,


No, I'm asking for evadence.


Conspirator wrote:
He has not made a case at all. For anything. And now he only gives me 1 thing after I asked a dozen times.


Then what are you asking, or don't YOU even know?

Conspirator wrote:
You attack me one more time I going to the admins.


This tops it off Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

"I'm gona tell"

Conspirator wrote:
Learn a little bit about respect!


Learn a little humility when you’re unable to support your argument! What do you want Mike to do? He shovels a pile of solid support for his argument from years of study using multiple translations of above referred to writings and you do a Google search.

YOU need to learn the respect! Mike, for reasons I have difficulty understanding, has shown EXTREEM patience for you and still seems to remain committed enlightening you. I decided you where a lost cause a long time ago….

And go tell the mods how abusive evil Mike has been, let them read through the past two or there pages of this thread. If their not all beating their heads against the keyboard or laughing, I’ll jump out the window again.
The Conspirator
horseatingweeds wrote:
Conspirator wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Con, you’re really asking for a whole lot,


No, I'm asking for evadence.


Conspirator wrote:
He has not made a case at all. For anything. And now he only gives me 1 thing after I asked a dozen times.


Then what are you asking, or don't YOU even know?

Evidence! If you make a statement that God exists, you should be able to show the evidence for God (and normally when some one says that, they have something they see ass evidence), he has stated that there is a vast amount of evidence for God, something he has not shown, he said the chaos theory id an example of how intelligent design permeates reality, he has not shown this ether.

Quote:
Conspirator wrote:
Learn a little bit about respect!


Learn a little humility when you’re unable to support your argument! What do you want Mike to do? He shovels a pile of solid support for his argument from years of study using multiple translations of above referred to writings and you do a Google search.

He has made grate statements but has shown very little to support it and he has blatantly ignored all the facts and links I have posted that contradict what he says.

Quote:
YOU need to learn the respect! Mike, for reasons I have difficulty understanding, has shown EXTREEM patience for you and still seems to remain committed enlightening you. I decided you where a lost cause a long time ago…..

Yes, calling some one a bigot simply cause you don't like what he says and the fast that he asks for evidence you refuse to show and calling some one a child when they don't mindlessly take what you sat a fact and instead look for them selves and find many error in your statements and beliefs. Yes that patience.
The Conspirator
More information on this Sheldrake psudoscientists.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html
Sheldrake preformed 2 exprimints on psychic staring.
Quote:
There are two basic methods that Sheldrake's revolutionary experimenters are expected to use:

1.Pairs of schoolchildren divide into starers and starees with the starer sitting at least one meter behind the staree. Using random number sequences and a method for signalling trials such as a "clicker," the starer signals the start of each of a sequence of twenty trials. The staree wears airline blindfolds, and responses are recorded on data sheets by the starer. After a block of twenty trials, the two children change roles.

1. Starers and starees are isolated with starers inside and starees outside of the school building.

His exprimints shown and acording to these expirimints the starees has 60% acresy rate in guessing if they where stard at or not. But the expirimints were reapeated in controled labritory condidtions with some dirent results.

Quote:
Experiment One
Twelve volunteers, seven men and five women, who believed in the staring detection effect, were tested individually in a situation where they were stared at (or not) through a one-way mirror while sitting with their back to the mirror. Sheldrake's original sequences were downloaded from the New Scientist Web site and used to guide staring and non-staring trials. Each participant received the first 12 sequences in the same order, with 20 trials in each sequence. The beginning and end of each trial was signaled to the staree on a monitor, after which he indicated whether or not he thought he was being stared at by pressing one of two response buttons. No feedback was given on the accuracy of each trial for the first three sessions (60 trials), but on the remaining nine sequences (180 trials) the word "correct" or "false" appeared after each response. The results are summarized in table 1.

Non-Feedback Trials
Avrage
Stare: 16.4 No Stare: 13.5 Total accuracy: 29.9
Mean Chance Expectation
Stare: 15.0 No Stare: 15.0 Total accuracy: 30.0
Feedback Trials
Stare: 53.7 No Stare: 45.0 Total accuracy: 98.7
Mean Chance Expectation
Stare: 45.0 No Stare: 45.0 Total accuracy: 90.0


Qute difrent results with the frrd back. Why?

Quote:
The starees may have been learning something useful about the sequences as a result of the feedback. If the sequences used to generate the trials were not perfectly random then they could have a predictable patterning in their structure. It is sometimes the case that experimenters use pseudo-random sequences rather than truly random ones (Brugger, Landis, and Regard 1990). This enables the experimenter to equalize the number of trials in two different experimental conditions (e.g., stare versus non-stare) and means that the starees may have been able to learn the sequence structure from the feedback. Such learning will increase with exposure, and to test for this possibility the twelve sessions were divided into four blocks of three sessions each (table 2) and accuracy scores were compared across the four blocks of sessions.

Block 1
Stare Avg: 16.42, Stare Sig Level: Ns, No Stare Avg: 13.50, No Stare Sig Level: Ns, Total (Stare + No Stare): 29.92, Total Sig Level: Ns

Block 2
Stare Avg: 17.25, Stare Sig Level: .009, No Stare Avg: 13.67, No Stare Sig Level: Ns, Total (Stare + No Stare): 30.92,Total Sig Level: Ns

Block 2
Stare Avg: 17.75, Stare Sig Level: .001, No Stare Avg: 15.33, No Stare Sig Level: Ns, Total (Stare + No Stare): 33.08, Total Sig Level: .002

Block 2
Stare Avg: 18.67, Stare Sig Level: .0001, No Stare Avg: 16.00, No Stare Sig Level: Ne, Total (Stare + No Stare): 34.67, Total Sig Level: .001
Avg.-Average
Sig.-Significance
NS-Not Significant

Its clear what happened, Sheldrake experiment was not truly random and the and the subject where able to gage weather they wer