Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

well i wrote this out in another thread n thought it was worthy of its own. here are some of the BASIC reasons why any relegion with an omnipotent god can not be right and are flawed at the very bases{the moral wrongs in the lesser details are not even important}. this is not anti relegious bashing, just the truth from my prespective which can not be denied, and has not been denied yet, i have listened to many arguments against my argument but none have been able to convince me that mine has any flaws or is not true{n im bein totally unbiased here} im just posting this so that every1 who follows organised relegion can see this and if possible give LOGICAL counterarguments{which i dont think its possible to give but i might be wrong}.



there are many problems with the very CONCEPTS of omnipotence/omniscience. if god is omnipotent than he is self sustaining, he neither needs nor wants. but then why would an omnipotent god need OR want to create the world/satan/angels or anythin let alone want people to pray to him. all will is in one way or another related to desire, if u will sumthing to happen or make it happen, its because u either WANT or NEED that thing to happen for whatever reason, but if god was all that there was omnipotent, he would not desire anything else and there would be no reason to create anythin else, even if sum1 does sumthin just for the heck of it, theres still desire behond it n and omnipotent god SHOULD be beyond any desire because there is nuthin MORE than himself, he is all. also the concept of omnipotence is flawed, if a god is all powerful that means that he can do ANYTHING, but anything also includes him being able to create another omnipotent god{for he can do ANYTHING} but if another omnipotent god exists, the very concept of all powerful omnipotence goes down the drain as it is only for ONE not two, secondly an omnipotent god COULD create an even more powerful being than himself{as he is omnipotent} and that also destroyes the concept. another thing an omnipotent god cud also kill himself if he wanted {as he is all powerful} but that too would destroy the concept and above all if he CANT or wont do these things than THAT TOO denies the concept of omnipotence as he would then not be ALL POWERFUL.
theres also a problem with omniscience{the ability to see and know all, past/present/future ad anythin and everythin else, material/spiritual and beyond. an omniscient god would KNOW what lied in his future n what actions he WOULD take but if that was true than the omniscient god would be RESTRICTED to doing only those things which would deny the concept of omnipotence of god. also people say that god has a choice to do whatever he wants n he is not limited{to say that his omniscince is like the thoughts of a human who knows what he is gonna do in the future ashe KNOWS himself, this argument is given to truy n validate god's omnipotence with his omniscience} but if that were true than the prospect of god NOT being SURE about the future would come up as he COULD do anything he wanted, but THAT defies his other aspect OMNISCIENCE, god WOULD know what decisions he was going to make if he truly was omniscient and therefore put limits upon himself which would destroy his omnipotence in any way.

lastly if god is omniscient than man does not have a free will as god knows the path he will choose even IF any choice to the human is given, god KNOWS what the human will do and the human wont do anything other than what god knows, this means that the human is not in control of himself even if he thinks he is and his every single actions is predestined, why ten would god punish any1 n why then is it in almost every relegion that free will exists? lastly if god is all powerful than the world is ALSO a part of god with everythin in it, because nuthing OTHER than god can exist because even though it might be much weaker, anythin OTHER than god would nullify his omnipotence.

these {yea i know they are borin n sumwhat cumbersome to go through} are some of the main reasons i dont believe in ANY relegion with an omnipotent god in it n im 100% sure that no OMNIPOTENT/OMNISCIENT god exists. just hope it opens the eyes of others. the other issues dont even matter when the basic concept behind god is 100% false.


yup ive gone on for too long, hope sum1 goes to the trouble of readin this.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
well i wrote this out in another thread n thought it was worthy of its own. here are some of the BASIC reasons why any relegion with an omnipotent god can not be right and are flawed at the very bases{the moral wrongs in the lesser details are not even important}. this is not anti relegious bashing, just the truth from my prespective which can not be denied, and has not been denied yet, i have listened to many arguments against my argument but none have been able to convince me that mine has any flaws or is not true{n im bein totally unbiased here} im just posting this so that every1 who follows organised relegion can see this and if possible give LOGICAL counterarguments{which i dont think its possible to give but i might be wrong}.

there are many problems with the very CONCEPTS of omnipotence/omniscience. if god is omnipotent than he is self sustaining, he neither needs nor wants. but then why would an omnipotent god need OR want to create the world/satan/angels or anythin let alone want people to pray to him. all will is in one way or another related to desire, if u will sumthing to happen or make it happen, its because u either WANT or NEED that thing to happen for whatever reason, but if god was all that there was omnipotent, he would not desire anything else and there would be no reason to create anythin else, even if sum1 does sumthin just for the heck of it, theres still desire behond it n and omnipotent god SHOULD be beyond any desire because there is nuthin MORE than himself, he is all. also the concept of omnipotence is flawed, if a god is all powerful that means that he can do ANYTHING, but anything also includes him being able to create another omnipotent god{for he can do ANYTHING} but if another omnipotent god exists, the very concept of all powerful omnipotence goes down the drain as it is only for ONE not two, secondly an omnipotent god COULD create an even more powerful being than himself{as he is omnipotent} and that also destroyes the concept. another thing an omnipotent god cud also kill himself if he wanted {as he is all powerful} but that too would destroy the concept and above all if he CANT or wont do these things than THAT TOO denies the concept of omnipotence as he would then not be ALL POWERFUL.
theres also a problem with omniscience{the ability to see and know all, past/present/future ad anythin and everythin else, material/spiritual and beyond. an omniscient god would KNOW what lied in his future n what actions he WOULD take but if that was true than the omniscient god would be RESTRICTED to doing only those things which would deny the concept of omnipotence of god. also people say that god has a choice to do whatever he wants n he is not limited{to say that his omniscince is like the thoughts of a human who knows what he is gonna do in the future ashe KNOWS himself, this argument is given to truy n validate god's omnipotence with his omniscience} but if that were true than the prospect of god NOT being SURE about the future would come up as he COULD do anything he wanted, but THAT defies his other aspect OMNISCIENCE, god WOULD know what decisions he was going to make if he truly was omniscient and therefore put limits upon himself which would destroy his omnipotence in any way.

lastly if god is omniscient than man does not have a free will as god knows the path he will choose even IF any choice to the human is given, god KNOWS what the human will do and the human wont do anything other than what god knows, this means that the human is not in control of himself even if he thinks he is and his every single actions is predestined, why ten would god punish any1 n why then is it in almost every relegion that free will exists? lastly if god is all powerful than the world is ALSO a part of god with everythin in it, because nuthing OTHER than god can exist because even though it might be much weaker, anythin OTHER than god would nullify his omnipotence.

these {yea i know they are borin n sumwhat cumbersome to go through} are some of the main reasons i dont believe in ANY relegion with an omnipotent god in it n im 100% sure that no OMNIPOTENT/OMNISCIENT god exists. just hope it opens the eyes of others. the other issues dont even matter when the basic concept behind god is 100% false.

yup ive gone on for too long, hope sum1 goes to the trouble of readin this.

I took the trouble and 'twas no trouble 'tall.
I agree with your reasoning, per se, on many counts. But I disagree with the basic (unspoken) premise that the existence/nonexistence of God is something which can be resolved through reasoning. IMO, since our Minds are not omnipotent, how can human reasoning possibly come to some definitive conclusion regarding omnipotence? What one ends up with is paradox.

IMO, much of the confusion/disappointment/hostility apparent in many of these God threads stems from "God" being considered in the limited, biblical, religionistic sense. God is put through the meat-grinder of words and ideas, and you end up with the palest shadow - if not a bonafide corruption - of the actual experience which, ultimately, is ineffable.

Originally posted by Mindship
I took the trouble and 'twas no trouble 'tall.
I agree with your reasoning, per se, on many counts. But I disagree with the basic (unspoken) premise that the existence/nonexistence of God is something which can be resolved through reasoning. IMO, since our Minds are not omnipotent, how can human reasoning possibly come to some definitive conclusion regarding omnipotence? What one ends up with is paradox.

IMO, much of the confusion/disappointment/hostility apparent in many of these God threads stems from "God" being considered in the limited, biblical, religionistic sense. God is put through the meat-grinder of words and ideas, and you end up with the palest shadow - if not a bonafide corruption - of the actual experience which, ultimately, is ineffable.


clapping

You wrote all of that out to try to counter me in another thread and got the same result here...

Once again... God doesn't play by the rules he created for us...(Logic, reasoning, etc....)

Definition issue.

Omnipotent means you can do anything that can be done, not anything that can be imagined.

Omniscient means you know everything that can be known, not every single thing you can think of.

Both terms refer to the maximum possible level of either power or knowledge; that is the 'all' that they deal with.

An Omnipotent being, therefore, cannot do something that it is literally impossible to do. Creating another being like yorurself may be one of those things.

And so on...

I liked that omnipotence paradox thing that was posted (can't remember which thread) about God creating a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it !!! hope that makes sense

Originally posted by Ogami Itto
I liked that omnipotence paradox thing that was posted (can't remember which thread) about God creating a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it !!! hope that makes sense

If you get rid of the creation part it is no a paradox, for God is a rock that he can't lift.

There is no point of creation, the universe and God have always been and always will be. Stop thinking about time as if it was a river, time is space.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
well i wrote this out in another thread n thought it was worthy of its own. here are some of the BASIC reasons why any relegion with an omnipotent god can not be right and are flawed at the very bases{the moral wrongs in the lesser details are not even important}. this is not anti relegious bashing, just the truth from my prespective which can not be denied, and has not been denied yet, i have listened to many arguments against my argument but none have been able to convince me that mine has any flaws or is not true{n im bein totally unbiased here} im just posting this so that every1 who follows organised relegion can see this and if possible give LOGICAL counterarguments{which i dont think its possible to give but i might be wrong}.



there are many problems with the very CONCEPTS of omnipotence/omniscience. if god is omnipotent than he is self sustaining, he neither needs nor wants. but then why would an omnipotent god need OR want to create the world/satan/angels or anythin let alone want people to pray to him. all will is in one way or another related to desire, if u will sumthing to happen or make it happen, its because u either WANT or NEED that thing to happen for whatever reason, but if god was all that there was omnipotent, he would not desire anything else and there would be no reason to create anythin else, even if sum1 does sumthin just for the heck of it, theres still desire behond it n and omnipotent god SHOULD be beyond any desire because there is nuthin MORE than himself, he is all. also the concept of omnipotence is flawed, if a god is all powerful that means that he can do ANYTHING, but anything also includes him being able to create another omnipotent god{for he can do ANYTHING} but if another omnipotent god exists, the very concept of all powerful omnipotence goes down the drain as it is only for ONE not two, secondly an omnipotent god COULD create an even more powerful being than himself{as he is omnipotent} and that also destroyes the concept. another thing an omnipotent god cud also kill himself if he wanted {as he is all powerful} but that too would destroy the concept and above all if he CANT or wont do these things than THAT TOO denies the concept of omnipotence as he would then not be ALL POWERFUL.
theres also a problem with omniscience{the ability to see and know all, past/present/future ad anythin and everythin else, material/spiritual and beyond. an omniscient god would KNOW what lied in his future n what actions he WOULD take but if that was true than the omniscient god would be RESTRICTED to doing only those things which would deny the concept of omnipotence of god. also people say that god has a choice to do whatever he wants n he is not limited{to say that his omniscince is like the thoughts of a human who knows what he is gonna do in the future ashe KNOWS himself, this argument is given to truy n validate god's omnipotence with his omniscience} but if that were true than the prospect of god NOT being SURE about the future would come up as he COULD do anything he wanted, but THAT defies his other aspect OMNISCIENCE, god WOULD know what decisions he was going to make if he truly was omniscient and therefore put limits upon himself which would destroy his omnipotence in any way.

lastly if god is omniscient than man does not have a free will as god knows the path he will choose even IF any choice to the human is given, god KNOWS what the human will do and the human wont do anything other than what god knows, this means that the human is not in control of himself even if he thinks he is and his every single actions is predestined, why ten would god punish any1 n why then is it in almost every relegion that free will exists? lastly if god is all powerful than the world is ALSO a part of god with everythin in it, because nuthing OTHER than god can exist because even though it might be much weaker, anythin OTHER than god would nullify his omnipotence.

these {yea i know they are borin n sumwhat cumbersome to go through} are some of the main reasons i dont believe in ANY relegion with an omnipotent god in it n im 100% sure that no OMNIPOTENT/OMNISCIENT god exists. just hope it opens the eyes of others. the other issues dont even matter when the basic concept behind god is 100% false.


yup ive gone on for too long, hope sum1 goes to the trouble of readin this.
Well first of all, I am NOT going to read all of that to begin with. Second of all, this may come off as harsh but WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE? You seem like you are trying to force us "NOT" to believe in God. I'll give you a piece of advice, I (and everyone else who choose to) believe in God and obviously YOU dont. We already have enough threads about you non-believers so quit making NEW ones just to start a rile because it's stupid and you are just going to cause me to fuss even more.

Originally posted by Ogami Itto
I liked that omnipotence paradox thing that was posted (can't remember which thread) about God creating a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it !!! hope that makes sense

What your referring to is a paradox that goes;

Could god create a Rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

Well the problem with this (in my eyes) is that god lives outside of our universe... He could create a huge rock... But he wouldn't be effected by the law of gravity... He is immune to all laws/logic/reasoning... His will (what ever he wants) be done... *if god wanted to create a square circle he could... Or if god wanted to create a new colour, No problem...*

If god limited himself to the laws of gravity, then he possibly couldn't lift it...

But then god isn't Omnipotent anymore as he is confided by a rule.. That would be in direct conflict with being all powerful.... so then he wouldn't be using his full powers...

Thats my take on it...!! Hope someone understands me..

Originally posted by leonheartmm
well i wrote this out in another thread n thought it was worthy of its own. here are some of the BASIC reasons why any relegion with an omnipotent god can not be right and are flawed at the very bases{the moral wrongs in the lesser details are not even important}. this is not anti relegious bashing, just the truth from my prespective which can not be denied, and has not been denied yet, i have listened to many arguments against my argument but none have been able to convince me that mine has any flaws or is not true{n im bein totally unbiased here} im just posting this so that every1 who follows organised relegion can see this and if possible give LOGICAL counterarguments{which i dont think its possible to give but i might be wrong}.



there are many problems with the very CONCEPTS of omnipotence/omniscience. if god is omnipotent than he is self sustaining, he neither needs nor wants. but then why would an omnipotent god need OR want to create the world/satan/angels or anythin let alone want people to pray to him. all will is in one way or another related to desire, if u will sumthing to happen or make it happen, its because u either WANT or NEED that thing to happen for whatever reason, but if god was all that there was omnipotent, he would not desire anything else and there would be no reason to create anythin else, even if sum1 does sumthin just for the heck of it, theres still desire behond it n and omnipotent god SHOULD be beyond any desire because there is nuthin MORE than himself, he is all. also the concept of omnipotence is flawed, if a god is all powerful that means that he can do ANYTHING, but anything also includes him being able to create another omnipotent god{for he can do ANYTHING} but if another omnipotent god exists, the very concept of all powerful omnipotence goes down the drain as it is only for ONE not two, secondly an omnipotent god COULD create an even more powerful being than himself{as he is omnipotent} and that also destroyes the concept. another thing an omnipotent god cud also kill himself if he wanted {as he is all powerful} but that too would destroy the concept and above all if he CANT or wont do these things than THAT TOO denies the concept of omnipotence as he would then not be ALL POWERFUL.
theres also a problem with omniscience{the ability to see and know all, past/present/future ad anythin and everythin else, material/spiritual and beyond. an omniscient god would KNOW what lied in his future n what actions he WOULD take but if that was true than the omniscient god would be RESTRICTED to doing only those things which would deny the concept of omnipotence of god. also people say that god has a choice to do whatever he wants n he is not limited{to say that his omniscince is like the thoughts of a human who knows what he is gonna do in the future ashe KNOWS himself, this argument is given to truy n validate god's omnipotence with his omniscience} but if that were true than the prospect of god NOT being SURE about the future would come up as he COULD do anything he wanted, but THAT defies his other aspect OMNISCIENCE, god WOULD know what decisions he was going to make if he truly was omniscient and therefore put limits upon himself which would destroy his omnipotence in any way.

lastly if god is omniscient than man does not have a free will as god knows the path he will choose even IF any choice to the human is given, god KNOWS what the human will do and the human wont do anything other than what god knows, this means that the human is not in control of himself even if he thinks he is and his every single actions is predestined, why ten would god punish any1 n why then is it in almost every relegion that free will exists? lastly if god is all powerful than the world is ALSO a part of god with everythin in it, because nuthing OTHER than god can exist because even though it might be much weaker, anythin OTHER than god would nullify his omnipotence.

these {yea i know they are borin n sumwhat cumbersome to go through} are some of the main reasons i dont believe in ANY relegion with an omnipotent god in it n im 100% sure that no OMNIPOTENT/OMNISCIENT god exists. just hope it opens the eyes of others. the other issues dont even matter when the basic concept behind god is 100% false.


yup ive gone on for too long, hope sum1 goes to the trouble of readin this. The problem with looking at religion from a scientific prespective is that it takes away the whole point of religion! I mean, some people that are out there need this comfort of knowing that there is a life after death with this higher being. There is no reason for trying to disprove it because its impossible TOO proove. But what we can look at, is the whole reason for religion and not what sort of higher being is formed by the religions evolution.

We can't proove that there is indeed a Noah's ark under that mountain, but people have found wood that is bet to be 5000 years old, which would've put it around that time. I know what you're all thinking "So what, its wood." right? Well thats not the whole point of the noahs ark story.

Let me put it this way. Science has no place in religion, what-so-ever. This coming from a person that has no religion of his own, so i could just be speaking out of my arse. But i think i have made my point. Science doesn't need to be in religion because the scince portion of religion would want to find out the maximum velocity that jesus could run at, or how much the buddah weighed. There is no way to proove the existance of a god, or disproove it. So whats the point?

I understand (i think)wallbash

You won't disprove all religion through logical arguments involving omnipotence. Not Buddhism, certainly. Probably not Shinto.

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
Well first of all, I am NOT going to read all of that to begin with. Second of all, this may come off as harsh but WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE? You seem like you are trying to force us "NOT" to believe in God. I'll give you a piece of advice, I (and everyone else who choose to) believe in God and obviously YOU dont. We already have enough threads about you non-believers so quit making NEW ones just to start a rile because it's stupid and you are just going to cause me to fuss even more.

I don't think he is doing that at all. He seems to merely be expressing his opinion. It seems that you don't like your faith being questioned.

You cant disprove religions because they are myths that have no concrete support to begin with. Its like me saying that purple fish people exist somewhere in the universe...cant be proved or disproved.

There is an incongruity between existence of free will and the existence of an omniscient infallible God.

it seems that no1 can deny it, the best counterargument any1 has given is that god is simply beyond my or any1 else's logic based arguments{which i dont see as a reasonable responce}. the wrest are just oppinions without reasonable evidence.

Dude, just define god the way you want and be done. Then everyone else can bash yours. Sheesh.

In much the same way you can't give a figure to infinity, you can't define god by words.. you can give it a name.. But you can't give a value...

In much the same way you could never beat god at any argument.. As he could simply change...

your point is that the definition of Omnipotent means he has a value attached to him, and that logically he must meet the criteria... God is held by no rules or such logic...

Think of it this way... You want to argue that any process can be broken down into its actions. so "A human will eat cause they are hungry"
God doesn't act that way...
He is beyond our logic, so you can never use a logical point to prove/deny his existence...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
In much the same way you can't give a figure to infinity, you can't define god by words.. you can give it a name.. But you can't give a value...

In much the same way you could never beat god at any argument.. As he could simply change...

your point is that the definition of Omnipotent means he has a value attached to him, and that logically he must meet the criteria... God is held by no rules or such logic...

Think of it this way... You want to argue that any process can be broken down into its actions. so "A human will eat cause they are hungry"
God doesn't act that way...
He is beyond our logic, so you can never use a logical point to prove/deny his existence...

well thats really GREAT isnt it. seeing as all argments are based on logic and since he is beyond logic, therefore no logical thinking and hence NO argument can be used to challenge or question his existance. do u know how RIDICULOUS that sounds? i cud just as well say that everything i say is right and i say that every1 having a point of view other than me is wrong. i also say that my mind is infinitely beyond all concepts and no opposing arguments can be made to challange my statement as im beyond logic and every who does so is wrong. in so doing i eliminate every possible argument any1 cud ever make against me.............hmm, i wonder why you wudnt believe THAT?

Mind (logical/symbolic reasoning) can not prove/disprove the existence of spirit, anymore than the physical senses can prove/disprove the existence of logical/symbolic reasoning.

For example: both a person and a mouse can see the mathematical symbols in a calculus text, but only the person can mentally "see" the higher level of meaning behind the symbols. The mouse will never "see" that higher level.

If it helps, use neutral terms: As Level I can not grasp Level II, Level II can not grasp Level III.

Or think of it this way: something of 2-dimensions can not adequately describe a 3 (or higher)-dimensional entity. If you see a circular shadow, how do you know if it represents a sphere, a cone or a cylinder? The only way to know is to directly perceive the 3-dimentional entity.

Mind is 2D trying to resolve a 3D entity. All it's gonna get is shadow. Everything past that is 2D guesswork.

Let him look up into the heavens & laugh in the bright air
Let the enchained soul shut up in darkness and in sighing -William Blake

I'm not trying to convince you that this is the correct answer and that this is the correct god, Im just trying to show you that what your trying to convince others is wrong... The bible and the Christian faith states that god is Omnipotent... If your talking about the Christian god then Omnipotent is what he is, so I will try to explain to you why your wrong...

You can challenge and question his existance based on his actions, But you can't hold god to word definitions... as there isn't a word definition that can hold a value to god... (Cept for omnipotent as it itself holds no value other then infinity...)

God by definition doesn't have to make sense to you... "he works in mysterious ways????"



IF you could do that then you would be god! I'm not going to argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because I don't want it to, I will argue it equals 4 because thats what it equals...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i cud just as well say that everything i say is right and i say that every1 having a point of view other than me is wrong.

This is exactly what you did.

Are you trying to understand yourself or do you have beliefs beyond the idea that everyone else's beliefs are wrong?

They look behind at every step & believe it is a dream,
Singing, 'The Sun has left his blackness, & has found a fresher
morning - William Blake

Originally posted by ImOne
This is exactly what you did.

Are you trying to understand yourself or do you have beliefs beyond the idea that everyone else's beliefs are wrong?


neither. im trying to show by example that such illogical arguments are ridiculous and flawed n should not be made by any1 reasonable as its just plain old stobbornness and not an argument. its just like saying, as a reply to a good reason " NO YOUR WRONG AND ANYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG N IM RIGHT AND THATS THE WAY IT IS AND THERES NUTHIN U CAN DO TO CHANGE THAT"

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm not trying to convinc

Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither. im trying to show by example that such illogical arguments are ridiculous and flawed n should not be made by any1 reasonable as its just plain old stobbornness and not an argument. its just like saying, as a reply to a good reason " NO YOUR WRONG AND ANYTHING YOU SAY IS WRONG N IM RIGHT AND THATS THE WAY IT IS AND THERES NUTHIN U CAN DO TO CHANGE THAT"

Funny, as a Christian/Creationist, I feel like I get that response from people all the time.

oh I wonder why?

Originally posted by finti
They look behind at every step & believe it is a dream,
Singing, 'The Sun has left his blackness, & has found a fresher
morning - William Blake

Wasn't Blake a Swedenborgian? You heard of them, right?

Originally posted by finti
oh I wonder why?

Apparently because:

"ANYTHING I SAY IS WRONG, AND THEY'RE RIGHT, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, AND THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO TO CHANGE IT."


At least, that's what I'm told.


I don't believe everything I'm told though, do you?

I prefer what my life experience has shown me to be true.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm not trying to convinc


You butchered it! you monster! Leave my poor words alone when you plan on doing heinous crimes like that to them!

no I dont and especially not from religious people

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I'm not trying to convince you that this is the correct answer and that this is the correct god, Im just trying to show you that what your trying to convince others is wrong... The bible and the Christian faith states that god is Omnipotent... If your talking about the Christian god then Omnipotent is what he is, so I will try to explain to you why your wrong...

You can challenge and question his existance based on his actions, But you can't hold god to word definitions... as there isn't a word definition that can hold a value to god... (Cept for omnipotent as it itself holds no value other then infinity...)

God by definition doesn't have to make sense to you... "he works in mysterious ways????"



IF you could do that then you would be god! I'm not going to argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because I don't want it to, I will argue it equals 4 because thats what it equals...


erm, dude no offence but it seems like thas just a vain effort to support the validity of an argument that has been proven wrong but one which believers wont let go off n be stubborn about n bring in the most ludicrous of arguments, WELL things which cant be considered arguments anyway cause theyr not based on logic{im not tryin to flame u or insult ur belief, just statin sumthin}

I accept myself that god is a very illogical thing.. I'm not going to try to give a reason to god existing in the first place... nor to as why god felt the need to create us... Or why he doesn't help us now... The list of questions as to why he can't exist is long... But the point that he can't exist because of the definition of omnipotent is silly... God has all these powers... He is 1 above all... You can't bring reason or logic him out as he is far toooo complex...

On a side note.. Please type out in full.. "n1 likes havin 2 transl8 everythin ya rite..." it also makes it harder to understand what your trying to say...

Personaly I don't believe that the bible is a creditable source.. I only use it as a referance on being good... Should I steal this money??? what does the bible say??? no.... Should I kill all the gays and witches... erm.. No cause the bible is out of date... however to me God is omnipotent.. His will be done regarless of weither it is logical... He could have a master plan for us that could span decades... He could have a plan that will span the 50 years until some random comet kills all life here... There could be no god at all.... God could have to asexualy reproduce himself everytime he wants to create a new universe, I just don't know...

But the definition of God given by faith and the term omnipotent doesn't prove that he doesn't exist... And to me... Whatever the answer your attempt to prove he doesn't exist is flawed...

leonheartmm, I would like to preface this post by stating that I am an atheist, and that I find the arguments you have presented to be sound.

However, the arguments in question do not prove that God does not exist, but rather, that the characteristics ascribed to God, e.g. omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. do not exist.

Perhaps a more suitable argument would be, if the characteristics ascribed to God do not exist, then God exists but is not truly a god.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
leonheartmm, I would like to preface this post by stating that I am an atheist, and that I find the arguments you have presented to be sound.

However, the arguments in question do not prove that God does not exist, but rather, that the characteristics ascribed to God, e.g. omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. do not exist.

Perhaps a more suitable argument would be, if the characteristics ascribed to God do not exist, then God exists but is not truly a god.

Or the characteristics ascribed to God are incorrect.

erm i already said in the first post that an OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT god can not exist{that is the god of most faiths like christianity, judaism, islam etc} i never said that other minor gods cant exist{although i cud make arguments for those aswell but why bother, ive seen the counterarguments even for ONE god, i shudder to think what wierd things would be thought up for if many were concerned.}

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or the characteristics ascribed to God are incorrect.

Even if we presume that the characteristics ascribed to God are incorrect, the conclusion is the same, i.e. God exists but is not truly a god.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even if we presume that the characteristics ascribed to God are incorrect, the conclusion is the same, i.e. God exists but is not truly a god.

Then what would you call the universe, if it was alive and had an alien conciseness?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then what would you call the universe, if it was alive and had an alien conciseness?

ans: a living universe with an alien conciousness

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ans: a living universe with an alien conciousness

That would be correct from the outside looking at the universe. But if you were inside the universe, like we are, you would be part of that alien consciousness.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ans: a living universe with an alien conciousness

Which is also part of what we could call god...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Which is also part of what we could call god...


but then this god would neither be omnipotent nor be omniscient.

True, and I don't have a problem with that.......It would be omni present in all things.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but then this god would neither be omnipotent nor be omniscient.

Why is that required? That also means that God would be both good and evil sense good and evil exist in the universe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why is that required? That also means that God would be both good and evil sense good and evil exist in the universe.

its not regquired, not really, but then the god wouldnt be GOD at all. just sumthin with things higher than it is.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its not regquired, not really, but then the god wouldnt be GOD at all. . Why?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why?

because it defeats the very purpose of what we attribute to GOD, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing. it then just becomes sumthin highre than YOU, not THE highest. im not sayin it cant happen, just sayin that we shudnt call it GOD then.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im not sayin it cant happen, just sayin that we shudnt call it GOD then. Why?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
because it defeats the very purpose of what we attribute to GOD, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing. it then just becomes sumthin highre than YOU, not THE highest. im not sayin it cant happen, just sayin that we shudnt call it GOD then.

True, but if there was nothing higher and you were connected to this entity, then it would be responsible for your existence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
True, but if there was nothing higher and you were connected to this entity, then it would be responsible for your existence.


the very fact that your brain allows for the possibility{mine anyway} of there existing sumthing higher than such an entity is reason enough to believe that its not the highest{this is gettin phylosophical}

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the very fact that your brain allows for the possibility{mine anyway} of there existing sumthing higher than such an entity is reason enough to believe that its not the highest{this is gettin phylosophical}

That is why I call God the universe +.

Religions are flawed, though god is not. It just is what it is. People have put restrains and inconsistence on IT.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Religions are flawed, though god is not. It just is what it is. People have put restrains and inconsistence on IT.

All religions are made by humans.

Really? ........Ohhhhhhhhh..LOL

Originally posted by debbiejo
Really? ........Ohhhhhhhhh..LOL

I was translating. Some people can't understand you. jk

1. I disagree with the basic (unspoken) premise that the existence/nonexistence of God is something which can be resolved through reasoning. IMO, since our Minds are not omnipotent, how can human reasoning possibly come to some definitive conclusion regarding omnipotence? What one ends up with is paradox.

2. Mind (logical/symbolic reasoning) can not prove/disprove the existence of spirit, anymore than the physical senses can prove/disprove the existence of logical/symbolic reasoning.

For example: both a person and a mouse can see the mathematical symbols in a calculus text, but only the person can mentally "see" the higher level of meaning behind the symbols. The mouse will never "see" that higher level.

If it helps, use neutral terms: As Level I can not grasp Level II, Level II can not grasp Level III.

3. Something of 2-dimensions can not adequately describe a 3 (or higher)-dimensional entity. If you see a circular shadow, how do you know if it represents a sphere, a cone or a cylinder? The only way to know is to directly perceive the 3-dimentional entity.

Mind is 2D trying to resolve a 3D entity when all it sees is the shadow.


I'm fresh outta fresh wording jerry

Originally posted by Mindship
1. I disagree with the basic (unspoken) premise that the existence/nonexistence of God is something which can be resolved through reasoning. IMO, since our Minds are not omnipotent, how can human reasoning possibly come to some definitive conclusion regarding omnipotence? What one ends up with is paradox.

2. Mind (logical/symbolic reasoning) can not prove/disprove the existence of spirit, anymore than the physical senses can prove/disprove the existence of logical/symbolic reasoning.

For example: both a person and a mouse can see the mathematical symbols in a calculus text, but only the person can mentally "see" the higher level of meaning behind the symbols. The mouse will never "see" that higher level.

If it helps, use neutral terms: As Level I can not grasp Level II, Level II can not grasp Level III.

3. Something of 2-dimensions can not adequately describe a 3 (or higher)-dimensional entity. If you see a circular shadow, how do you know if it represents a sphere, a cone or a cylinder? The only way to know is to directly perceive the 3-dimentional entity.

Mind is 2D trying to resolve a 3D entity when all it sees is the shadow.


I'm fresh outta fresh wording jerry

There is one thing that over comes all of this, a leap of faith. A two dimensional being can believe there is a three dimensional being, and understand that entity as best as they can. However, they can never truly understand. This only becomes a problem when they begin to believe their inferior understanding and draw conclusions that are paradoxal. Up this by a couple of dimensions and you can see how we get to were we are today.

Probably God cant be solved thorugh reasoning, as it is beyond logic, but note that every paradox have self references in it, like : "Could God lift a stone that even he cannot lift it?", "Can God kill himself?", "Can God create another omnipotent God?". Also note that the last paradox is not really a self reference but it makes reference to a "God" being.


Now if you say that God omnipotence/omniscience exist only relatively to us, all contradictions will be eliminated as every paradox have self references to God in it, or references to a God being. What am I saying is that the concept of omnipotence/omniscience is only valid below the level of God, so it cannot be applied to God himself, or any other hyphotethical God.

God is only omnipotent in this physical reality which he created. Omnipotence would be a consequence of being greater than this physical reality where we exist in. Omnipotence is only real to those inside that reality. The situation is analogous to an history that you imagine in your head. For the characters of your history, your imagination is omnipotent as you can imagine whatever you want to, and you are omniscient since all events must be imagined by you. But outside your imagination you are not omnipotent. What means that no paradoxes can be made from that, and what was to be expected since the situation used in the analogy is real, and it would be weird to see paradoxes in a real situation.

E=5934844]Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was translating. Some people can't understand you. jk Really???.........Oh that would explain many things about me.......people just don't understand me for sure.....Don't even understand my jokes......... ..........and looking for something that's just not there...................Me always angelic... ........Well, at least truthful, integreity and giving respect where respect is due to others...Treating others how I'd like to be treated............Most people aren't like me............

Originally posted by debbiejo
........Well, at least truthful as compared to others.

................It's true..........I'm so damn something...........damn damn damn................Oh my god.....I'm not of this world.!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Atlantis001
God is only omnipotent in this physical reality which he created. Omnipotence would be a consequence of being greater than this physical reality where we exist in. Omnipotence is only real to those inside that reality. The situation is analogous to an history that you imagine in your head. For the characters of your history, your imagination is omnipotent as you can imagine whatever you want to, and you are omniscient since all events must be imagined by you. But outside your imagination you are not omnipotent. What means that no paradoxes can be made from that, and what was to be expected since the situation used in the analogy is real, and it would be weird to see paradoxes in a real situation.

so if u created a robot and programmed it to follow any instrucion without fail would that make u OMNIPOTENT over it? or would it simply give u power over it? i say the later. omnipotent means all powerful, n not sum1 that has complete power over a limited numbre of things.

GOD EXISTS

Originally posted by JaehSkywalker
GOD EXISTS


WOW, that sure proved me wrong

i'm not trying to prove you wrong coz you typed what i wanted to say about omnipotent...



yup...

only in your mind

how about the mind of others?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so if u created a robot and programmed it to follow any instrucion without fail would that make u OMNIPOTENT over it? or would it simply give u power over it? i say the later. omnipotent means all powerful, n not sum1 that has complete power over a limited numbre of things.

It would make you omnipotent to those who are inside that particular universe. You can only say that it will just give you limited power over the robot if you assume the existence of a reality beyond that particular universe. I mean... if the only reality was the robot, then I would be omnipotent.

P.S.: Note that in the way I tryied to solve this problem, those paradoxes are still not possible. I mean... I don´t believe that God could kill itself, create another "omnipotent" God....

I Think religions are very successful despite some of their childish nature of many teachings. They offer the ego an assurance. The "Tell me I'm OK. Tell me I'm right. Tell me I'm special. Tell me I'm accepted by others. Define me through your observation of me." In this way religions fill in the gap, and people feel accepted.

We of this religion are separate and distanced ourselves from the rest of humanity whose destiny it is to be lost in the fires of hell...

in the mind of man, the ones that cant face reality without having a place to escape to, sanctuary of a child yet as adults

That ego thing can be very problematic, many people just expect spiritual comfort from religions, and probably because they do not feel so spiritually evolved. They do not expect do dedicate themselves to their spirituality, but to hear some comfort words about what they do and how they live.

You can't use logic or reasoning to prove god exists... nor can you use it to prove he doesn't.

Until there is cold hard facts that hes there or not there will always be doubt/belief on both sides...

Which god are you talking about?

burden of proof lies on those who says god exist.
All non believers have to say is that god doesnt exsit and you cant proof the non existing................ the existing though is a totally different matter

Originally posted by finti
burden of proof lies on those who says god exist.

Not a burden at all. God exists and His existance is evident in everything around us. No proof is needed. It is all around us. Just because He does not exist for you because you choose to believe so does not require anyone to come up with proof. Open your eyes!

wavey

Hi sonnet........long time, no post....

Hope you brought some raw meat!!!

god is real

Originally posted by cipriani
god is real The myth god? Or the E-n-t-i-t-y?

Originally posted by cipriani
god is real

God is real, but not the god of the bible.

still the task to prove it always seems to delute your faithful ways, proof beyound your flower dreams and butterflies conceptions..............

There are philosophical arguments that provide proof of God. However, these apply to philosophical discussion and not religious debates. I really wouldn't want to claim that there is no way to prove the existence of God. That would a complete absolute.

deluted philosophical arguments yes, but in the end whenever they look into it even they argue against whateer they argued for

So why argue at all if it's pointless?

its just pointless to the ones who accept the truth, the real truth

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There are philosophical arguments that provide proof of God. However, these apply to philosophical discussion and not religious debates. I really wouldn't want to claim that there is no way to prove the existence of God. That would a complete absolute.

Some schools of thought say there is a way to prove God's existence, using strict scientific method, no less. But the first step is defining what you mean by "God."

I would begin with the operational definition that God is Spirit. Why? Consensus. Most people think of God as spirit. It's as good a place to start as any. What is spirit? For now we can only say that it is another mode of being. Matter is one mode; Mind is another mode (completely different from Matter); Spirit is a third mode, as different from Mind as Mind is different from Matter. As I mentioned in another thread, if it helps, consider this in neutral terms: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3. This way we can avoid subtle, biased connotations associated with "Matter, Mind and Spirit."

Then we have to define what we mean by proof. Most people think of scientific proof as empirical (Level 1)...and this is where problems begin.
If you are defining God as a Level 3 entity, where is the fairness is requiring Level 1 (or for that matter, Level 2) evidence? Would you use a telescope to prove axioms of mathematics? No, you would use rules of logic.

Simply put: depending on the phenomenon you want to investigate, you can successfully apply Scientific Method as long as the tools used and the data collected are consistent with the Level being studied.

proof is evidence plain and simpel

Its not the God the only problem, the logic behind the concept of proof is a issue. You must define what proof is first, and only when you did it you can try to prove God, but you always need to remember that the definition of proof was your choice, there is no reason that makes that definition better than others... its just a matter of preference.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Its not the God the only problem, the logic behind the concept of proof is a issue. You must define what proof is first, and only when you did it you can try to prove God, but you always need to remember that the definition of proof was your choice, there is no reason that makes that definition better than others... its just a matter of preference.


this is how far most believers would go to make an argument for their faith or god. warping and changing the very meaning of the english language{not dissin u or anythin, its just a fact}

Everyone wants proof. Something they can see and touch. I believe in God too and I have faith. I believe in air, yet I can not see it, but I still know it's there. God is like that to me. I have seen Him work in my life. I have tried Him for myself and yes, I know he's real.

When it comes down to it, it's all about faith. I could give examples after examples about how I know God is real, and I'm sure some can refute that everything I say as coincidences etc, but when it comes down to it, it's all about faith.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is how far most believers would go to make an argument for their faith or god. warping and changing the very meaning of the english language{not dissin u or anythin, its just a fact}

What do you mean by warping and changing the very meaning of the english language ? Explain.

Leon, I dont disagree with you but I just wanted to point out it is understandable that God would be beyond our logic...much like an ant trying to understand the motives of a human being, except God in comparison would be an even more extreme jump in understanding.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Leon, I dont disagree with you but I just wanted to point out it is understandable that God would be beyond our logic...much like an ant trying to understand the motives of a human being, except God in comparison would be an even more extreme jump in understanding.

Likewise, a being higher than a human is no more a god than a human being is to an ant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Likewise, a being higher than a human is no more a god than a human being is to an ant.

That is true...unless we are talking about the creater of all other things, then such a being would be fit for the term 'god'.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
That is true...unless we are talking about the creater of all other things, then such a being would be fit for the term 'god'.

If the universe is subject to efficient causation, i.e. the universe is created, then the creator is also subject to efficient causation, i.e. the creator must also be created.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the universe is subject to efficient causation, i.e. the universe is created, then the creator is also subject to efficient causation, i.e. the creator must also be created.

What if there is no point of creation?

Originally posted by RoguePw25
Everyone wants proof. Something they can see and touch. I believe in God too and I have faith. I believe in air, yet I can not see it, but I still know it's there. God is like that to me. I have seen Him work in my life. I have tried Him for myself and yes, I know he's real.

When it comes down to it, it's all about faith. I could give examples after examples about how I know God is real, and I'm sure some can refute that everything I say as coincidences etc, but when it comes down to it, it's all about faith.

you can feal air blowing, moving ships with sails, rotating wind mill. theres scientific proof for air and you can physically feal it too, niither exist for god.

There is no proof of the scientific method(or scientific proof if you want) it is something that we choose to believe in it, and to use it. The scientific method in some part of it, basically is a way to define what proof is, so there is no way to prove it since we will need another definition of proof to prove it. God is like the scientific method, we choose to believe in it. Everything else is like this.

With regard to "warping" the language to make a point about God: one doesn't have to involve "God" to highlight the limits of language or our inability to resolve some apparent contradictions. Quantum mechanics does a nice job of it on the physical-sensory level (Level 1); and (eg) the Omnipotence Paradox does so on the mental-symbolic level (Level 2).

When encountering an apparent contradiction, you can come to one of two conclusions. Either you accept it as being "only apparent," as well as accepting our limits to adequately resolve it (as on Level 1); or you regard the contradiction as genuine, one which proves that the phenomenon in question ("omnipotence" doesn't exist.

As for defining "God" or "proof": any substantial philosophical discussion dictates that terms be agreed upon beforehand, otherwise you and the other guy could be talking about (if on a very subtle level) 2 different things.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
well i wrote this out in another thread n thought it was worthy of its own. here are some of the BASIC reasons why any relegion with an omnipotent god can not be right and are flawed at the very bases{the moral wrongs in the lesser details are not even important}. this is not anti relegious bashing, just the truth from my prespective which can not be denied, and has not been denied yet, i have listened to many arguments against my argument but none have been able to convince me that mine has any flaws or is not true{n im bein totally unbiased here} im just posting this so that every1 who follows organised relegion can see this and if possible give LOGICAL counterarguments{which i dont think its possible to give but i might be wrong}.



there are many problems with the very CONCEPTS of omnipotence/omniscience. if god is omnipotent than he is self sustaining, he neither needs nor wants. but then why would an omnipotent god need OR want to create the world/satan/angels or anythin let alone want people to pray to him. all will is in one way or another related to desire, if u will sumthing to happen or make it happen, its because u either WANT or NEED that thing to happen for whatever reason, but if god was all that there was omnipotent, he would not desire anything else and there would be no reason to create anythin else, even if sum1 does sumthin just for the heck of it, theres still desire behond it n and omnipotent god SHOULD be beyond any desire because there is nuthin MORE than himself, he is all. also the concept of omnipotence is flawed, if a god is all powerful that means that he can do ANYTHING, but anything also includes him being able to create another omnipotent god{for he can do ANYTHING} but if another omnipotent god exists, the very concept of all powerful omnipotence goes down the drain as it is only for ONE not two, secondly an omnipotent god COULD create an even more powerful being than himself{as he is omnipotent} and that also destroyes the concept. another thing an omnipotent god cud also kill himself if he wanted {as he is all powerful} but that too would destroy the concept and above all if he CANT or wont do these things than THAT TOO denies the concept of omnipotence as he would then not be ALL POWERFUL.
theres also a problem with omniscience{the ability to see and know all, past/present/future ad anythin and everythin else, material/spiritual and beyond. an omniscient god would KNOW what lied in his future n what actions he WOULD take but if that was true than the omniscient god would be RESTRICTED to doing only those things which would deny the concept of omnipotence of god. also people say that god has a choice to do whatever he wants n he is not limited{to say that his omniscince is like the thoughts of a human who knows what he is gonna do in the future ashe KNOWS himself, this argument is given to truy n validate god's omnipotence with his omniscience} but if that were true than the prospect of god NOT being SURE about the future would come up as he COULD do anything he wanted, but THAT defies his other aspect OMNISCIENCE, god WOULD know what decisions he was going to make if he truly was omniscient and therefore put limits upon himself which would destroy his omnipotence in any way.

lastly if god is omniscient than man does not have a free will as god knows the path he will choose even IF any choice to the human is given, god KNOWS what the human will do and the human wont do anything other than what god knows, this means that the human is not in control of himself even if he thinks he is and his every single actions is predestined, why ten would god punish any1 n why then is it in almost every relegion that free will exists? lastly if god is all powerful than the world is ALSO a part of god with everythin in it, because nuthing OTHER than god can exist because even though it might be much weaker, anythin OTHER than god would nullify his omnipotence.

these {yea i know they are borin n sumwhat cumbersome to go through} are some of the main reasons i dont believe in ANY relegion with an omnipotent god in it n im 100% sure that no OMNIPOTENT/OMNISCIENT god exists. just hope it opens the eyes of others. the other issues dont even matter when the basic concept behind god is 100% false.


yup ive gone on for too long, hope sum1 goes to the trouble of readin this.

man can only comprehend so much and so we may not understand many of these things. He knows EVERYthing we know nothing practically compared to God. so maybe you should just accept the fact that there may just be a God.

if we cant comprehend it all how is it that you faithfull comprehend this gods way to understand it all, I mean you demand this being to comprehend what you yourself cant understand................. what an easy way out of it all.........just as it is with all of the christian belief................dont think of it cause its all answered in the unanswered

Originally posted by finti
what an easy way out of it all.........just as it is with all of the christian belief................dont think of it cause its all answered in the unanswered

Its harder to have blind faith then not to.

Originally posted by finti
if we cant comprehend it all how is it that you faithfull comprehend this gods way to understand it all, I mean you demand this being to comprehend what you yourself cant understand................. what an easy way out of it all.........just as it is with all of the christian belief................dont think of it cause its all answered in the unanswered

doesnt mean i'm wrong...

oh really, we dont struggle to achieve like our opposite so how is it harder?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Its harder to have blind faith then not to. It is???? No..no it's not.......It's harder to look at the truth because it tips your world upside down..

God is the easiest answer to how the universe was created because,Matter can't be created or destroyed so how was the universe made?

easiest way doesnt mean it is the right way...................it would be the same to say the reason why apples are red are cause the are embarrassed cause they aint oranges

Originally posted by finti
easiest way doesnt mean it is the right way...................it would be the same to say the reason why apples are red are cause the are embarrassed cause they aint oranges
I agree.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
God is the easiest answer to how the universe was created because,Matter can't be created or destroyed so how was the universe made? Depends on what you call god....

well Im called so many things so

Originally posted by finti
well Im called so many things so

Antichrist>>>

yeah that too

OHhhhhhhhh..there just must be something about you....

indeed...................never trust a guy with icy blue eyes.........that has a hint of Arkansas accent when he speaks......

Can a cell of your body grasp the consciousness of your entire being? Can a character you are talking to in your dream understand the whole of the dreamer?
How can a finite human being understand Infinity?
IMO, it is arrogance to assume an infinitesimal part can grasp the Whole.
Reality is way bigger than Reason. Reason's "advantage" is that it can fool itself into thinking otherwise.

Originally posted by Mindship
Can a cell of your body grasp the consciousness of your entire being? Can a character you are talking to in your dream understand the whole of the dreamer?
How can a finite human being understand Infinity?
IMO, it is arrogance to assume an infinitesimal part can grasp the Whole.
Reality is way bigger than Reason. Reason's "advantage" is that it can fool itself into thinking otherwise.

A cell of the human body does not have conciousness. A character in a dream does not have conciousness. A so-called "finite" human being does.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A cell of the human body does not have conciousness. A character in a dream does not have conciousness. A so-called "finite" human being does.

By consciousness I mean awareness in the broadest sense, not the "self consciousness" we normally attribute exclusively to human beings. A cell has a very simple, primitive level of awareness. A character in a dream has awareness in that it is part of the dreamer's awareness, representing some aspect of the overall psyche. By finite human being, I mean the physical body and symbolic-reasoning mind: that which is used in science and gets stumped when pondering (eg) the omnipotence paradox.

As an aside, there is a school of thought which sees the relationship between complexity and consciousness like that of density and gravity. Eg, a mote of dust has a gravitational field (according to theory), but we don't notice it because the density/mass of the mote is way too small. We notice gravitational fields only when we encounter substantial masses/densities.

Accordingly, a dust mote has a "field of consciousness," but again we can't detect it because the mote is way too simple. We notice consciousness (again, awareness in the broadest sense) only when we encounter substantial levels of complexity (a cell, a lizard, a person).

Interesting that you indicated "so-called 'finite' human being". I infer from this that you feel there is some aspect of a person which is infinite? If so, on this we may be in agreement.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the universe is subject to efficient causation, i.e. the universe is created, then the creator is also subject to efficient causation, i.e. the creator must also be created.

Yes the universe is subject to causality, but the creator of the universe wouldnt be subject to it because without him there wouldnt be causality. Something has to be there in the beginning to start the supposed infinite causality our universe is currently experiencing and that would be 'god'. Ofcourse causality is a human concept so this logic still doesnt prove god because we still know so little about the way things really are.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yes the universe is subject to causality, but the creator of the universe wouldnt be subject to it because without him there wouldnt be causality. Something has to be there in the beginning to start the supposed infinite causality our universe is currently experiencing and that would be 'god'. Ofcourse causality is a human concept so this logic still doesnt prove god because we still know so little about the way things really are.

You cannot have it both ways; if it is possible that God has simply always existed, then by this same reasoning, it also possible that the universe has simply always existed.

We are do limited in our understanding at this time. Only now are we getting into some new sciences..

Occam's Razor says - all else being equal - we go with the simplest explanation, a very common-sense approach. The simplest state of affairs is that Something Infinite (call it what you will) always was and always will be, outside of which exists nothing.

I'm curious as to why many seem to feel uncomfortable with this, that they insist on some definite Beginning. Yes, science presents the rather reliable "as if" we call the Big Bang, but this may well represent only the beginning of what we generally call the "observable universe." That it has a beginning would seem to imply, IMO, that it is Not the Something Infinite referred to above, but rather, in true scale, only an infinitesimal part of the unending Whole.

Maybe many have a hard time grasping genuine Infinity. My two favorite approaches to "understanding" it (by realizing just how unimaginably unimaginable it is, so why even try) are 1) a sphere with an infinite radius whose center is anywhere; and 2) Everett's many-worlds hypothesis.

Originally posted by Mindship
Occam's Razor says - all else being equal - we go with the simplest explanation, a very common-sense approach. The simplest state of affairs is that Something Infinite (call it what you will) always was and always will be, outside of which exists nothing.

I'm curious as to why many seem to feel uncomfortable with this, that they insist on some definite Beginning. Yes, science presents the rather reliable "as if" we call the Big Bang, but this may well represent only the beginning of what we generally call the "observable universe." That it has a beginning would seem to imply, IMO, that it is Not the Something Infinite referred to above, but rather, in true scale, only an infinitesimal part of the unending Whole.

Maybe many have a hard time grasping genuine Infinity. My two favorite approaches to "understanding" it (by realizing just how unimaginably unimaginable it is, so why even try) are 1) a sphere with an infinite radius whose center is anywhere; and 2) Everett's many-worlds hypothesis.

I think the problem is that most people have a view of time that does not allow for no beginning. However, if you view time as space and not as something that is moving, it is easier to understand. After all, were is the beginning of a room?