|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s)
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269175 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:13 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> T.M. Sommers said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> T.M. Sommers said:
> >>
> >>>So your god can create a round square?
> >>
> >> But more generally, no, I don't think God defies contradictions.
> >
> > Why not, if he is omnipotent? Why can't he create any sort of
> > logic or mathematics that he wants? Just because we can't
> > imagine how it could work does not mean that god could not do it.
>
> Our imagination failure is not the problem. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem
> is the problem.
A literally omnipotent being wouldn't be stopped by a theorem. If God
is one, then she can do two completely contradictory things, _and also
not do them_ at the same time.
Can God be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent? Yes, _because she can do
anything_.
Can't see how it could be possible? Well, neither can I, but we aren't
omnipotent.[1]
Of course, you are free to think that God can't defy logic, that she is
"merely" practically omnipotent. You're the one who believes in her,
after all.
[1] Insert obligatory footnote that basically says "except Rocky".
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269176 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:28 |
|
Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> writes:
> Peter Davies said:
>
> > Don't you feel like doing it somewhere else? Like on
> > talk.origins, perhaps?
>
> Firstly, we're talking about the concept of omnipotence, not
> the concept of origins. Secondly, I didn't raise the subject,
> so perhaps you should ask that question of whoever /did/ raise
> it.
My parents didn't fall for that kind of juvenile "but *he*
started it!" crap when my brother and I were kids. I don't see
why it should be any more acceptable in a newsgroup made up of
supposedly adult human beings.
--
Leo Breebaart <leo [at] lspace.org>
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269177 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
"Peter Ellis" <pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
> >
> > Help us, Oh Peter, show us the way! Tell us the secret of the third worst
> > haiku ever, so that we can reach
> > enlightenment.
>
> Use the light switch,
> Unless
> You have forgotten to pay the electricity bill and been cut off.
> Cherry blossom.
Third worst haiku, ever.
NEXT!
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269178 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
"Stacie Hanes" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
> > T.M. Sommers wrote:
> >
> >> peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jennifer Stone wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> But the omnipotence is THE defining factor of Godhood for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything within the
> >>>> laws of logic, or could God even defy contradictions?
> >>>
> >>> For God there are no contradictions.
> >>
> >> So your god can create a round square?
> >
> > Even little I can do that, if you mean something that is both round
> > and square, depending on your viewpoint. It's called a cylinder.
>
> Whereas I sort of like te idea of a god who'd listen to the questions about
> microwaving a burrito so hot even He couldn't eat it and say, "verily shalt
> thou go find something better to do."
There is a story about Augustinus (probably apocryphal, as most of these
things are) that he was teaching about the creation of the universe. One
of his students asked "But teacher, what did God do _before_ he created
heaven and earth?" Augustinus answered: "He created hell, for people who
ask stupid questions like those!"
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269179 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
"T.M. Sommers" <tms [at] nj.net> wrote:
> Richard Bos wrote:
> >
> > That's a premature conclusion. You can't prove His existence _using
> > physics_. That doesn't mean that He does not exist - it may mean that He
> > transcends physics, because He created them in the first place.
>
> If you can't prove the existence of god using physics, then you
> can't tell the difference between a universe in which god does
> exist and an otherwise identical universe in which he does not
> exist.
....using physics.
Granted, some people cannot believe in anything that doesn't have a
specific mass. This seems to me to be a fault in them, not in the rest
of the universe.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269185 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
"Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote:
> Richard Bos <raltbos [at] xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > "Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> > Science doesn't tell you why a painting is beautiful. It can tell you
> >> > what pigments were used, or the balace of light and dark or different
> >> > colours, or where things are placed on the golden cut (or whatever it's
> >> > called in English).
> >>
> >> But that's juts like saying "science can't tell you
> >> whether it's warm enough to go out naked". (Are we
> >> talking an Inuit here or a Zulu?) No two people can
> >> settle over what is beauty -- just like what's "warm
> >> enough".
> >
> > That's no reason for most people to deny that there _is_ such a thing as
> > "warm enough", or "beauty" - just that science can tell us what it is.
>
> It can to a certain extend.
It can tell us some limits for "warm enough", because we cannot survive
under -40 or over 70. It can't tell us the specific value for a specific
situation, just a WAG. It can't tell me which paintings a person will
find beautiful at all.
> > For some reason, God seems to be required to be an exception to this.
> > Science can't tell us what, or whether, He is - therefore He, and He
> > alone, isn't?
>
> We had been there before in this other thread...
> I make up something. (There's a huge ball of bubble
> gum in the center of our universe.) I declare that
> science won't be able to tell us what, whether,
> where, and how it is. So what? I could still be
> right.
The difference is that a ball of bubble gum is an entirely physical
object, and one would expect there to at least be _some_ physical
evidence for its physical existence. That's not true of love, ugliness,
comfort, or God.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269186 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <Ay8ag.65499$5Z.19812 [at] dukeread02>, rocknatural [at] gmail.com
> says...
>
> > The God I have been discussing is not pleased or propitiated by worship,
> > prefers us to serve one another and arrange our life to achieve harmony
> > and joy.
>
> Is your God any actual use at all?
Yes.
> If God cannot be flattered, bribed, coerced or obeyed into making life,
> or afterlife, better, is there any point in discussing God's nature?
Yes.
> If Gode does not have laws which I am to be punished for breaking or
> rewarded for keeping (same thing really), why does it matter if God exists?
Because God is not a utilitarian tool, let alone a slot machine.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269187 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
Peter Ellis <pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Richard Bos wrote:
> > Eric Jarvis <usenet [at] ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Tomoko Takahashi actually go short listed for the Turner Prize through
> >> installations composed of rubbish. Sometimes described in the press as
> >> piles of rubbish. I've seen her working, because she did a project for a
> >> friend of mine, and she takes ages to position precisely the right object
> >> in exactly the place she wants it. Not that different a process from
> >> placing bits of paint on a canvas.
> >
> > The difference is that the end result stil looks like any other rubbish
> > heap to the observer. To me, it makes no difference whether she arranges
> > her pile just so, just the other way, or whether she dumps her rubbish
> > on the museum floor any which way - or even whether it really _is_ a
> > rubbish heap put there by a dustman, on which she has only stuck her
> > label. It's just a rubbish heap to me - I really do not see the art.
>
> From just hearing about it, I'd say the same. However, hearing about
> visual art isn't a reliable guide. I'll suspend judgement until I've seen
> it, and determined whether it really is different from an ordinary rubbish
> heap.
I agree. However - I have seen such rubbish heaps. Probably not the very
same one as Eric mentions, but ones which, conceptually (ack) are very
similar. None of them told me anything beyond what any other rubbish
heap could have.
Basically, to me, if, to get your intentions across, your work of art
needs to be explained to your contemporary[1] audience, you're on a
losing streak; if it takes longer to read or listen to the explanation
than to see the work, you've already lost. Some artists should consider
whether their art should not explain itself better.
Richard
[1] This is important. I would not fault Rubens because nobody knows the
story of Cimon and Pero anymore, nor Utamaro because I don't
understand most of the allusions in his drawings; no more than I'd
blame a modern artist for using imagery that a Renaissance man
wouldn't have heard of.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269188 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
"Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap [at] gmx.de> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Arthur Hagen said:
> >
> >> Love is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, after all.
> >
> > If you really believe that, I pity you.
>
> I know that good tasting food only tastes good
> because of some chemical reactions on my tongue.
No, you don't. It also tastes good because of memories you have of
eating similar foods; because you are in a certain mood; and for various
other reasons.
> Really, I'd love to believe in the mystery of
> love, but that doesn't mean it /is/ a mystery.
> I remember having read about a study which
> showed that it highly depends on the man's and
> the woman's immune system whether a woman finds
> a man attractive.
Don't confuse attraction with love; that is a mistake you should leave
to romance novels. Don't confuse attraction with beauty; that is a
mistake you should leave to women's magazines.
> There's plenty of studies
> showing that women prefer Mr. Nice Guy for
> helping raising the kids, but Mr. Bad Guy for
> giving them genes. And more like this.
> You know what? I know all these. I still love
> that one woman. And I love the feeling.
> So what?
So - if all the above were the only aspects of love, you would _not_
love just that one woman. Sticking to hormones is for the ducks.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269189 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 13:41 |
|
Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <C_mdnco2DoEm__HZRVny0Q [at] bt.com>, invalid [at] invalid.invalid
> says...
> > Arthur Hagen said:
> >
> > > Love is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, after all.
> >
> > If you really believe that, I pity you.
>
> So says recent work using Positron Emission Tomograpy. They can see the
> areas of the brain that light up when someone in love is shown pictures
> of their loved one, and get those same areas to light up by asking them
> just to think about their loved one. The same areas, incidentally, as
> are affected by cocaine and related drugs.
That identity is the first indication that these studies do not tell the
whole story. Since when do people give flowers to their crack dealer?
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269193 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 14:26 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <C_mdnco2DoEm__HZRVny0Q [at] bt.com>, invalid [at] invalid.invalid
>>says...
>>
>>>Arthur Hagen said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Love is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, after all.
>>>
>>>If you really believe that, I pity you.
>>
>>So says recent work using Positron Emission Tomograpy. They can see the
>>areas of the brain that light up when someone in love is shown pictures
>>of their loved one, and get those same areas to light up by asking them
>>just to think about their loved one. The same areas, incidentally, as
>>are affected by cocaine and related drugs.
>
>
> That identity is the first indication that these studies do not tell the
> whole story. Since when do people give flowers to their crack dealer?
>
> Richard
People give money to their crack dealer and receive crack. People give
love in the hope of receiving love in return.
In both cases you are buying something that alters your state of mind.
Keith
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269194 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 14:38 |
|
Orjan Westin:
> Jens Ayton:
>> Richard Heathfield:
>>>
>>> Q: Can God create an object so heavy that even God cannot lift it?
>>> A: Why would He want to do /that/?
>> I object to the "A:" there; that isn't an answer to the question.
>
> How about this?
>
> An omnipotent being can by definition not make something to limit the
> omnipotence. At least not more than once. As long as the potential of
> limiting omnipotence has not been realised, omnipotence exists.
Q: Can God create an object so heavy that even God cannot lift it, while
remaining omnipotent?
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269195 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 14:50 |
|
Jens Ayton wrote:
> Orjan Westin:
>> Jens Ayton:
>>> Richard Heathfield:
>>>>
>>>> Q: Can God create an object so heavy that even God cannot lift it?
>>>> A: Why would He want to do /that/?
>>> I object to the "A:" there; that isn't an answer to the question.
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>> An omnipotent being can by definition not make something to limit the
>> omnipotence. At least not more than once. As long as the potential
>> of limiting omnipotence has not been realised, omnipotence exists.
>
> Q: Can God create an object so heavy that even God cannot lift it,
> while remaining omnipotent?
No, I wouldn't think so.
But that depends on whether you take the Compact Oxford/Websters
definition (in which case God could) or the Cambrigde
International/Bartleby (in which case God could not) definition of
"omnipotent" (see an earlier post from me on the subject).
So we're left quibbling about semantics, which isn't very fruitful.
Of course, since I neither believe in omnipotence nor God, I can't
really see why the question is worth pursuing so vigorously. Are you
looking for some self-contradiction? There are plenty of those around
if you look for them, but that seems equally pointless to me, as you'll
just end up doing semantic games anyway.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269196 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 14:57 |
|
E.S.:
>
> A literally omnipotent being wouldn't be stopped by a theorem.
Look, this has been discussed over the last thousand years or so, and
most theologians would not agree with this naive definition; more
importantly, none would agree that it's the One True Definition and all
others are invalid. Your assumption that "literally omnipotent"
necessarily means capable of performing any mashed-together series of
words is simply wrong.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269197 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 14:59 |
|
Keefers wrote:
> Richard Bos wrote:
>> Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> So says recent work using Positron Emission Tomograpy. They can see
>>> the areas of the brain that light up when someone in love is shown
>>> pictures of their loved one, and get those same areas to light up
>>> by asking them just to think about their loved one. The same areas,
>>> incidentally, as are affected by cocaine and related drugs.
>>
>> That identity is the first indication that these studies do not tell
>> the whole story. Since when do people give flowers to their crack
>> dealer?
>
> People give money to their crack dealer and receive crack. People give
> love in the hope of receiving love in return.
Oh, boy. That's an unusual view of love, I think. Especially since it
is not under conscious control, for most people. You can chose to act,
or not, on the love you feel but that's another issue.
Of course, you are right that people usually want their love returned,
but it seems you've got cause and effect mixed up here.
You give money because you want crack. Wanting crack is cause, giving
money is effect.
You want love because you love. Loving is cause, wanting love is
effect.
> In both cases you are buying something that alters your state of mind.
No, since you can feel love without buying something.
("Love" and "feel love" here used as shorthand to mean "experience the
chemical processes we usually describe as feeling love", with an
optional spiritual side.)
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269198 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 15:21 |
|
Leo Breebaart said:
> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> Peter Davies said:
>>
>> > Don't you feel like doing it somewhere else? Like on
>> > talk.origins, perhaps?
>>
>> Firstly, we're talking about the concept of omnipotence, not
>> the concept of origins. Secondly, I didn't raise the subject,
>> so perhaps you should ask that question of whoever /did/ raise
>> it.
>
> My parents didn't fall for that kind of juvenile "but *he*
> started it!" crap when my brother and I were kids. I don't see
> why it should be any more acceptable in a newsgroup made up of
> supposedly adult human beings.
I cry foul. This isn't a case of juvenile behaviour; I wasn't arguing that
someone else was to blame.
I was simply arguing that I was taking part in the discussion in the same
place that everyone else was. I did not choose that place.
If we each decide to post our part of the discussion in whatever newsgroup
takes our fancy, we'll all have to subscribe to an awful lot more
newsgroups if we want to follow the discussion. In practice, such a system
would be unworkable, as I am sure you realise.
If people form the opinion that a discussion is misplaced and would be
better off in some other newsgroup, they are free to say so.
In this case, talk.origins has been suggested. If other people want to
discuss the matter there, that's fine by me. Personally, though, I would
add that the discussion is not so desperately important to me that I would
wish to subscribe to Yet Another Group just so that I could continue to
follow it.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269199 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 15:29 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Keefers wrote:
>
>>Richard Bos wrote:
>>
>>>Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So says recent work using Positron Emission Tomograpy. They can see
>>>>the areas of the brain that light up when someone in love is shown
>>>>pictures of their loved one, and get those same areas to light up
>>>>by asking them just to think about their loved one. The same areas,
>>>>incidentally, as are affected by cocaine and related drugs.
>>>
>>>That identity is the first indication that these studies do not tell
>>>the whole story. Since when do people give flowers to their crack
>>>dealer?
>>
>>People give money to their crack dealer and receive crack. People give
>>love in the hope of receiving love in return.
>
>
> Oh, boy. That's an unusual view of love, I think. Especially since it
> is not under conscious control, for most people. You can chose to act,
> or not, on the love you feel but that's another issue.
It is not under conscious control, no
> Of course, you are right that people usually want their love returned,
> but it seems you've got cause and effect mixed up here.
>
> You give money because you want crack. Wanting crack is cause, giving
> money is effect.
>
> You want love because you love. Loving is cause, wanting love is
> effect.
>
>
>>In both cases you are buying something that alters your state of mind.
>
>
> No, since you can feel love without buying something.
You can, but you can not feel love without *spending* something.
Love costs something. It is often something that you are happy to give
because what you recieve in return is more than worth the effort.
Unrequited love is a little like money with no return, you keep throwing
it away and you get nothing back. It costs you a lot, and it hurts, but
there is still something you want from it, you are still *trying* to
buy something. If you receive it, your state of mind alters considerably.
I don't think the cause and effect is clear cut; do you start spending
because you want something, or do you want something because you have
inexplicably started spending?
Keith
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269204 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 16:54 |
|
Peter Ellis wrote:
> Orjan Westin wrote:
>
>>Help us, Oh Peter, show us the way! Tell us the secret of the third worst
>>haiku ever, so that we can reach
>>enlightenment.
>
>
> Use the light switch,
> Unless
> You have forgotten to pay the electricity bill and been cut off.
> Cherry blossom.
>
> Peter
>
>
Peter!
That's my personal nomination for #1, worst of all time!
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269210 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 18:48 |
|
Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
> Peter Ellis wrote:
>>
>> What the
>> hell happened to afp when I wasn't looking?
>
> We were lost and lonley without your guidance, wandering aimlessly in
> the desert of theololologism. Help us, Oh Peter, show us the way!
> Tell us the secret of the third worst haiku ever, so that we can reach
> enlightenment.
Rafflesias blossom
like skunks in the spring
Hot vomit with chunks
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269212 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 18:22 |
|
Richard Heathfield invalid [at] invalid.invalid wrote in
<QoKdnf6ukN838_DZRVnyhQ [at] bt.com>:
> Rocky Frisco said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> >> [The feeding of the 5000 is] just very, very difficult. We could do
> >> it ourselves, if we could work out how to manufacture bread from its
> >> constituent atoms and then teleport it into the baskets from wherever
> >> those atoms were. (I'm not saying that's how God did it; I'm just showing
> >> that it has not been demonstrated that spontaneous bread manufacture and
> >> teleportation are intrinsically impossible.)
> >
> > Everybody had brought some goodies, carefully hidden in their loose,
> > baggy clothing, and kept hidden so as to not have to share with anybody.
>
> That is certainly a view that has been expressed before. I do not think it
> even remotely plausible, however, that the Gospel writers would bother to
> record a non-event such as "and everyone brought a packed lunch".
>
We're back to literalism versus parable. You assume that everything is the
Bible is intended to be taken literally unless otherwise specified, I
assume that everything should be taken as parable unless otherwise
specified.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269218 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:28 |
|
Snorre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:57 +0200, Richard Heathfield
> <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hendrik Schober said:
>>
>>> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip> Blah, blah, omnipotence, blah, blah <snip>
>
>
> Is this when we start quoting Epicurus at one another? :)
>
> "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not
> want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but
> does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish
> evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
There is no evil in God or in God's world. The concept of evil is
introduced and maintained by Man as a result of Man's unwillingness to
see what's so. What's so is The Truth that has the capability to set
Man free.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269219 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:31 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> You are arguing from etymology. I am arguing from logic - indeed, my
> argument is classic reductio ad absurdum.
>
> If an omnipotent being can do impossible things, then those things are not
> in fact impossible after all, because of this very fact that the omnipotent
> being can do them; and so this omnipotent being cannot after all do
> impossible things, because the things he/she/it can do must, by virtue of
> his/her/its being able to do them, be possible.
>
> So either we can conclude that our meaning of "omnipotent" must restrict
> itself only to those things that are not intrinsically impossible, or we
> conclude that no omnipotent being can exist, and that for all these
> centuries people have been using the wrong word to describe God. They
> should have used something like "omnipossepotent" (able to do all that it
> is possible to do). But it's a horrible word, etymologically and
> aesthetically speaking.
"Where's the Omni Posse?"
"They're in the Pot Tent."
("pffffffft")
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269220 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:33 |
|
On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:29:08 +0100, Keefers wrote:
> Love costs something. It is often something that you are happy to give
> because what you recieve in return is more than worth the effort.
I gladly agree with this bit, I've been madly in love with the same man
since 1984, and he's still mad about me - though defininitely not
spiritually, we're both atheists!
> Unrequited love is a little like money with no return, you keep throwing
> it away and you get nothing back. It costs you a lot, and it hurts, but
> there is still something you want from it, you are still *trying* to
> buy something. If you receive it, your state of mind alters considerably.
This is also true, I'd absolutely die if he left me after all this time,
but I thought that it might be specifically aphrodisiac's that cause the
brain to react to these lab tests Alec was talking about, you know,
viagra, alcohol, caffeine, crack, or even oysters if it happens to be a
turn on for you - what do you think?
All the best
Sofie
--
Please visit my deviantART page: http://sofen.deviantart.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269221 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:32 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Snorre said:
>
>
>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:57 +0200, Richard Heathfield
>><invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hendrik Schober said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip> Blah, blah, omnipotence, blah, blah <snip>
>>
>>Is this when we start quoting Epicurus at one another? :)
>>
>>"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not
>>want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but
>>does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil,
>>and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
>
>
> God *can* abolish evil, but only by abolishing mankind's free will - because
> evil is the result of mankind's disobedience to God.
>
> Do you *really* want to give up your freedom?
Birth is painful. We are against pain. Let's abolish birth! ;)
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269222 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:47 |
|
Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Birth is painful. We are against pain. Let's abolish birth! ;)
Fine with me! If we really need more people after a while, we can clone me.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269223 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:44 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>>Hendrik Schober said:
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, but to me it seems it's /your/ concept that
>>> is strange. (What again was the meaning of "omni"?)
>>
>>All. As in "all-powerful". As in "can do ALL that it is possible to
>>do". IF it's impossible to do it AND God can do it, THEN it's not
>>impossible after all. Don't you see that?
>
>
> Thing is, though, that there are impossibilities and there are
> impossibilities. There are plenty of things that are impossible for us
> to do, like teleportation or transmutation on a marco scale, but might
> be possible for God.
>
> This has always been true. God could go to the moon while it was
> impossible for men, for instance, and God could travel at immense
> speeds, like hundreds of miles per hour, and talk to people over huge
> distances, and that was something men would never be able to do.
The Moon exists within God. It's not necessary for God to go anywhere at
any speed, since God is already omnipresent. It takes no time to travel
to where you already are.
God is omnipresent and omniscient, but not omnipotent in the sense that
humans use the word. God is more powerful than any other entity, since
all entities exist within God, but there are things God will not do.
> So far, so god^Hod. We can understand, and in some way relate to the
> fact that things that were previously thought to be impossible have
> since been proven to be possible and, in the high-speed travel and
> long-distance talk examples, even mundane.
>
> But this kind of leads to the conclusion that sooner or later we'll
> catch up with God in the doing-impossible-things stakes.
>
> And that's where the other kind of impossible comes in. For God to be
> God, there must be things God can do that mankind will never get the
> ability to do.
>
> That is, impossible to all but God. If you can do everything anyone
> else can ever learn to do, then you can do everything that's possible,
> and are omnipotent. It's not inconcievable that mankind, or some other
> intelligent species, will one day, far in the future, reach that point.
It will happen, because time has a beginning and an end, and is
therefore cyclic, circular; all came from God, so all must eventually
return. The description of time being circular is, however a
simplification; the gross pattern, from Man's viewpoint, is a torus, the
Big Wheel and the little wheel, where each cycle completes a tiny bit to
the side of where it began, so that the great cycle is also being followed.
> If you can do more, you can do the impossible. And that's where God is.
> He's not just omnipotent, but superomnipotent.
>
> But it's a bit pointless to discuss this, because we do not know what is
> intrinsically impossible, or impossible to all but God, or just
> impossible as far as we know.
>
> Because our understanding is rather limited.
Our understanding is limited to verbal descriptions within human logic.
A human can be one with the information, but cannot describe it
adequately for another human to comprehend the description.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269224 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:48 |
|
Rocky Frisco wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> Do you *really* want to give up your freedom?
>
> Birth is painful. We are against pain. Let's abolish birth! ;)
Sounds good to me, I have no desire to be born again.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269226 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:50 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Orjan Westin <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thing is, though, that there are impossibilities and there are
>> impossibilities. There are plenty of things that are impossible for
>> us to do, like teleportation or transmutation on a marco scale,
>
>
> While scale models from Marco Polo Importers are nice, and you can find
> transformers, I don't think they have transmuters, no.
>
>> but might be possible for God.
>
>
> Absolutely. But since we can't know this, why even postulate it?
>
>> And that's where the other kind of impossible comes in. For God to be
>> God, there must be things God can do that mankind will never get the
>> ability to do.
>
>
> I don't get that. Why does a god have to be superpotent? I see no
> problems with believing in a subpotent god.
May I suggest that, for the purposes of this discussion, perhaps we
should see God as a direction, called "Godness," rather than a person or
final destination, in other words, there's always "closer to God," no
matter how far you travel in that direction. Something like the charming
doggerel posted here recently about little gods having bigger God's to
"smite'em." Hmmmmm. maybe I shouldn't call that "doggerel," maybe it's
"Godderel."
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269227 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:54 |
|
Snorre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:06:06 +0200, Richard Heathfield
> <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> God *can* abolish evil, but only by abolishing mankind's free will -
>> because
>> evil is the result of mankind's disobedience to God.
>>
>> Do you *really* want to give up your freedom?
>
>
> Is a lack of free will an evil? If so, can yhvh truly abolish evil?
>
> Also, I'm not buying that non-human evils, such that natural disasters,
> are caused by our actions. Why cannot at least /they/ be abolished?
What is evil to one person or group might be seen as great good to
another person or group, so the concept of evil is relative to the
perceiver. I suggest that evil is not an absolute, but is in the eye of
the beholder, like beauty or any other subjective quality. Subjectivity
depends on the quality of separateness, so these human judgments are not
relevant to God or to a valid discussion of the nature of God.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269228 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 19:57 |
|
Hendrik Schober wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Arthur Hagen said:
>>
>>
>>>Love is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, after all.
>>
>>If you really believe that, I pity you.
>
>
> I know that good tasting food only tastes good
> because of some chemical reactions on my tongue.
> That doesn't, however, influence the joy of
> eating tasty food.
> Do you now pity me, too?
>
> Really, I'd love to believe in the mystery of
> love, but that doesn't mean it /is/ a mystery.
> I remember having read about a study which
> showed that it highly depends on the man's and
> the woman's immune system whether a woman finds
> a man attractive. There's plenty of studies
> showing that women prefer Mr. Nice Guy for
> helping raising the kids, but Mr. Bad Guy for
> giving them genes. And more like this.
> You know what? I know all these. I still love
> that one woman. And I love the feeling.
> So what?
> If this makes you pity me, I pity you.
No! Please! Don't pity each other; pity Ross Porumovale.
Then buy a bottle of "Head n' Shoulders."
Problem solved.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269229 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 20:00 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Consider it "shooting the breeze", if it helps. :-)
Don't even think about it.
I would be out of a job and minus my best friend. :)
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269231 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 20:30 |
|
In article <446dacd2.12779703 [at] news.xs4all.nl>, raltbos [at] xs4all.nl says...
> Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <C_mdnco2DoEm__HZRVny0Q [at] bt.com>, invalid [at] invalid.invalid
> > says...
> > > Arthur Hagen said:
> > >
> > > > Love is nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, after all.
> > >
> > > If you really believe that, I pity you.
> >
> > So says recent work using Positron Emission Tomograpy. They can see the
> > areas of the brain that light up when someone in love is shown pictures
> > of their loved one, and get those same areas to light up by asking them
> > just to think about their loved one. The same areas, incidentally, as
> > are affected by cocaine and related drugs.
>
> That identity is the first indication that these studies do not tell the
> whole story. Since when do people give flowers to their crack dealer?
And I never said that it was. It merely *suggests*, not proves, that the
high felt by someone in love is similar to the high felt by someon on
cocaine. What you have to do to achieve and maintain that high may be
very different.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269232 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 20:45 |
|
Orjan Westin wrote:
> Now you've introduced the possibility of a god that is or might be less
> capable than mankind is or might become. Fine. What, then, would make
> this god a god? Not the abilities or powers, so what?
How about having created everything in the "beginning?"
What about the Gloamingerites' God? God created the universe and the
world and then humans, then God became a human so as to experience what
it's like, then God got bound up in the human experience and many
sequential human lives, through a process something like reincarnation
and forgot his/her true nature and that he/she was the creator.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269236 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 21:02 |
|
Snorre wrote:
> On 2006-05-18, Graycat <graycat.meow [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 12:49:19 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
>><art [at] broomstick.com> jotted down:
>>
>>
>>>Speculating about things not known to exist is one thing.
>>>Speculating about things where it *cannot* be known whether they exist or
>>>not is another.
>>
>>yeah...'s called faith...
>
>
> Or:
> a. superstition
> b. pseudoscience
> c. a waste of time (unless it's done as an intellectual
> exercise, of course)
If we take it as a given, Faith can move mountains and heal the sick.
Neither a nor b can do that, so they are not synonymous with Faith. c is
not really a candidate.
It's possible that a or b might be able to heal the sick, referencing
the placebo effect and psychosomatic illness.
As far as moving mountains is concerned, I once told Mount Evans, west
of Denver, to move into the Gulf of Mexico and it instantly began to
comply with my command, so I reckon I have Faith. Of course, as I'm sure
you know, mountains move at their own speed.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269238 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 21:07 |
|
Jens Ayton wrote:
> "Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly,
> fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a
> butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly,
> unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was,
> veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a
> man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly,
> dreaming I am a man." -- Zhuangzi
>
> Surely everyone who thinks about the deeper question of life has come
> across concepts like this, and pondered them awhile. Whether this is a
> deep idea or pointless navel gazing is open to discussion, but idiocy?
> Hardly. If nothing else, you have to think about it in order to be
> certain that it _is_ unknowable.
"Pointless" navel-gazing????
I'll have you know my navel is well-worth gazing at, since it's so pretty.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269242 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 21:36 |
|
Rocky Frisco wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> Snorre said:
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 May 2006 15:26:57 +0200, Richard Heathfield
>>> <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hendrik Schober said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Heathfield <invalid [at] invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip> Blah, blah, omnipotence, blah, blah <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this when we start quoting Epicurus at one another? :)
>>>
>>> "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not
>>> want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but
>>> does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish
>>> evil,
>>> and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
>>
>>
>>
>> God *can* abolish evil, but only by abolishing mankind's free will -
>> because evil is the result of mankind's disobedience to God.
>>
>> Do you *really* want to give up your freedom?
>
>
> Birth is painful. We are against pain. Let's abolish birth! ;)
>
> -Rocky
> --
> O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
epidurals are our friends.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269243 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 21:39 |
|
Rocky Frisco wrote:
> Jens Ayton wrote:
>
>> "Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly,
>> fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a
>> butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly,
>> unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was,
>> veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a
>> man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly,
>> dreaming I am a man." -- Zhuangzi
>>
>> Surely everyone who thinks about the deeper question of life has come
>> across concepts like this, and pondered them awhile. Whether this is a
>> deep idea or pointless navel gazing is open to discussion, but idiocy?
>> Hardly. If nothing else, you have to think about it in order to be
>> certain that it _is_ unknowable.
>
>
> "Pointless" navel-gazing????
>
> I'll have you know my navel is well-worth gazing at, since it's so pretty.
>
> -Rocky
> --
> O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
You had to know this was coming, right?
JPG JPG JPG!!!!
peach
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269248 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 21:55 |
|
T.M. Sommers wrote:
> Hendrik Schober wrote:
>
>>
>> We had been there before in this other thread...
>> I make up something. (There's a huge ball of bubble
>> gum in the center of our universe.) I declare that
>> science won't be able to tell us what, whether,
>> where, and how it is. So what? I could still be
>> right.
>
>
> Under current theories, the universe has no center, so there can't be a
> wad of bubble gum there.
On the other hand, don't forget that every point surrounds the universe
in every direction.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269251 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 22:01 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Alec Cawley said:
>
>
>>In article <NtGdnfuCC6WK4vHZnZ2dnUVZ8qGdnZ2d [at] bt.com>,
>>invalid [at] invalid.invalid says...
>>
>>
>>>God *can* abolish evil, but only by abolishing mankind's free will -
>>>because evil is the result of mankind's disobedience to God.
>>>
>>>Do you *really* want to give up your freedom?
>>
>>That you have freedom in the first palce is only a matter of belief. We
>>think we have freedom, but we don't know it.
>
>
> Absolutely. But of course if that's so, then my responses in this thread are
> not my own, so don't blame me for them. I see no rational alternative to
> taking free will as a given, despite the philosophical possibility that it
> does not exist. If we do *not* have free will, I claim you're a cissy - and
> you can't get all uppity at me for making that claim, because after all I
> have no choice in the matter. But if we *do* have free will, I make no such
> claim. :-)
>
> If our actions are pre-ordained, we might as well not bother to get out of
> bed.
Especially if you have one of those Norwegian Ladies in there with you.
I'll be in my room. With the door locked.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #269261 ] |
Fr, 19 Mai 2006 22:48 |
|
peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
>> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>>> So your god can create a round square?
>> Even little I can do that, if you mean something that is both round
>> and square, depending on your viewpoint. It's called a cylinder.
> Thus proving that indeed, Rocky is god.
We're all Gods here. ;)
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optometrist.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:49:47 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10154 Sekunden |
