An exchanging of thoughts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2010, 09:54 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
argh the same problem yet again

you claim that omnipotency makes everything possible but this possibility would still need laws to govern it. so i am asking for different laws for the world you are envisioning in which the body is perfect in every way.

if you cant even envision laws which facilitate a small fraction of the world to be perfect how are you going to make ones to create a perfect world.

ps also does the perfect organism only include humans because if animals are also invulnerable. how do we eat meat, do we resign ourselves to veggies. and if we exclude animals dont we also exclude the possibilty for a perfect world. because some people like cat people would wanna keep their cats. and therefore not see it as perfect.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 10:02 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
That wouldn't be a problem, I could simply have it set up so that the organism in question would be fine without cats, or anything really.

Universal laws would likely need to be different, and with an omnipotent base to work from, that wouldn't be a problem.

For the sake of this conversation, I'll point out, that because I have been given the position of omnipotence, anything that I claim, will be true in this hypothetical universe. It just doesn't matter, as the governing laws in our own universe simply wouldn't apply if I didn't want them to. That's the trouble though, of arguing for the existence of Yahweh, taking into account its other descriptive factors it creates an illogical, contradictory position that makes no sense.
It'd be like presenting a cookie, that is both circular and square, because it does not exist.

The descriptive factors of the cookie add up to a null hypothesis. Include that it is true, by default, and the description forms a self refuting loop. It exists, because it doesn't exist; so the existence of its non-existence. Just because I am able to formulate a concept, does not give it credibility.

Likewise, if say Yahweh had a slightly different description, then it might become virtually impossible to refute...but it doesn't.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 10:22 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
(27-04-2010 10:02 AM)Ceryle Wrote:  That wouldn't be a problem, I could simply have it set up so that the organism in question would be fine without cats, or anything really.

Universal laws would likely need to be different, and with an omnipotent base to work from, that wouldn't be a problem.

For the sake of this conversation, I'll point out, that because I have been given the position of omnipotence, anything that I claim, will be true in this hypothetical universe. It just doesn't matter, as the governing laws in our own universe simply wouldn't apply if I didn't want them to. That's the trouble though, of arguing for the existence of Yahweh, taking into account its other descriptive factors it creates an illogical, contradictory position that makes no sense.
It'd be like presenting a cookie, that is both circular and square, because it does not exist.

The descriptive factors of the cookie add up to a null hypothesis. Include that it is true, by default, and the description forms a self refuting loop. It exists, because it doesn't exist; so the existence of its non-existence. Just because I am able to formulate a concept, does not give it credibility.

okay didnt get the descriptive factors part but the cookie that is both circular and round is representing perfectnes in every single way. it cant be done in any way even if you are omnipotent because it is impossible to create nonconflicting laws for this world

your making the assumption that it doesnt matter because he is omnipotent he can do anything even defy logic., but i say it does matter it has to stay with in logical boundaries because a world cant exist without logic of some sorts.but its starting to feel like a yes no yes no yes no conversation. i'm gonna watch numb3rs for a while.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 10:27 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
Lol ^_^

Again, I am arguing from the base that due to my omnipotent position, it simply wouldn't matter. As to be omnipotent is to be all powerful, and to be all powerful is to have the ability to do anything.

"it cant be done in any way even if you are omnipotent because it is impossible to create nonconflicting laws for this world"

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. Yahweh does not exist in our universe, because of this very reason. However, if it did exist, then such a boundary would be meaningless, as the governing laws themselves would be moot.
After all, I would be a supernatural, infinitely perfect entity. By my very definition, nothing that I do would be impossible. Case in point, ask a Christian if there is something that Yahweh can't do.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 10:36 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
it is impossible to make a perfect world with non conflicting laws but a inperfect world with non conflicting laws is possible. the fact that he cannot create a perfect world due to the basic necessity of logic doesnt mean he doesnt exist.

you cant build a house without something to hold it together. so you cant build whatever you want. but you can build anything within that boundary. so the architect could still exist. now i'm really gonna watch numbers or house, i need a fix.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 10:39 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
If the architect is omnipotent then I see no conflicting reasons.

"the fact that he cannot create a perfect world due to the basic necessity of logic doesnt mean he doesnt exist."

You're forgetting, or overlooking, something though. It would have created those laws.

You appear to be thinking within the constraints of this universe. What I am arguing, again, is that such constraints should not exist, for an entity such as Yahweh.

"you cant build a house without something to hold it together."

Sorry I couldn't help myself, think timber-frame construction. ^_^
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 10:55 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
i am arguing that logic should apply as a basis for any universe no matter what subsequent rule there after is envisioned. a just because universe is something i despise and reject.

logic is a force more powerful than god. it predates genesis.

the idea of god as the unmoved mover who set all causal things in motion requires that before he created those causal things. logic already existed else there would not be a causal link, now would there.

if it is a just because universe, god would have to monitor every event as it isnt automated. and than we might argue it got over his head and he stopped trying after the garden of ede. and tried to make it managable with the great flood.

but than i can also argue some other completely vague illogical ideas who turn to just because too.

i can accept radical new laws that govern the world but never one without logic i would rather not exist in the first place. it would be a dream like state where nothing has substance consequences causes or real meaning or other participants it is just you drowning in yourself. with nothing but one black void. even a concious is impossible without logic.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 11:58 AM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
(26-04-2010 10:53 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-04-2010 10:23 PM)Michael R Wrote:  Pretty interesting thread. I know one person that thought it would be a good idea if atheists united to form a political party. In response, another person thought that would be about as easy as herding cats.

Possibly me. Where was this?

This was on the Think Atheist forum recently.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 12:01 PM
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
(27-04-2010 11:58 AM)Michael R Wrote:  
(26-04-2010 10:53 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(26-04-2010 10:23 PM)Michael R Wrote:  Pretty interesting thread. I know one person that thought it would be a good idea if atheists united to form a political party. In response, another person thought that would be about as easy as herding cats.

Possibly me. Where was this?

This was on the Think Atheist forum recently.

Ah, never mind then. I was thinking about a thread on the Facebook Atheism page.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2010, 01:35 PM
 
RE: An exchanging of thoughts
(27-04-2010 10:55 AM)ulfark Wrote:  i am arguing that logic should apply as a basis for any universe no matter what subsequent rule there after is envisioned. a just because universe is something i despise and reject.

logic is a force more powerful than god. it predates genesis.

the idea of god as the unmoved mover who set all causal things in motion requires that before he created those causal things. logic already existed else there would not be a causal link, now would there.

if it is a just because universe, god would have to monitor every event as it isnt automated. and than we might argue it got over his head and he stopped trying after the garden of ede. and tried to make it managable with the great flood.

but than i can also argue some other completely vague illogical ideas who turn to just because too.

i can accept radical new laws that govern the world but never one without logic i would rather not exist in the first place. it would be a dream like state where nothing has substance consequences causes or real meaning or other participants it is just you drowning in yourself. with nothing but one black void. even a concious is impossible without logic.

This would imply that Yahweh is no longer a god then; let alone a god as it is understood by a significant portion of the population of today. At best you would be talking about a highly advanced and entirely fallible civilization.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: