All Powerful and All Knowing

[lightgigantic]

I was thinking again about the ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-KNOWING God again and I just couldn't remember our last debate so I thought I'd bring up a couple of points.


1) God is defined as ALL POWERFUL (can do anything)
2) God is defined as ALL KNOWING (knows everything)


But, we know humans can doing things god, in these states of being, can not do - like learn. We can learn. God can not learn.

Inasmuch as issues of learning are the inherent qualities of ignorance, it's not clear how that stands as an advantage

What else?

I guess we could also add a host of other things indicative of our fallibility.

here's a few off the top of my head

1. we can be forgetful
   
2. we can get squashed by an elephant
   
3. we can be subject to deep seated anxiety due to the prospect of our inevitable death (technically this is another aspect of ignorance, so I guess you can throw it in with the learning thing)

We can think. God can not think.

I'm not sure how you just bridged the gap between being all knowing and having an absence of thought ..... kind of like having all the world's reserves of water and having nothing to dive into to

Also thinking is a rational process. God therefor is not rational because It can not think. It can only be in the state of ALL KNOWING.

Ditto above

We can Laugh in surprise at a funny joke. God is humorless. It can not be surprised by the ending of a joke. It does not laugh. It can only exist in the state of ALL-KNOWING.

Strangely enough, you are taking the impersonal track of defining god (IOW god cannot have humour, god cannot have form, god is the formless eternal brahman etc etc ...... but by gosh I sure have all these things)

Anyway, it all serves as a good argument for explaining how awe and reverence (or existence in the presence of an all powerful god) is inferior to a more familial relationship (or existence in the presence of a god whom one considers a friend or something more intimate)

Hence there is the notion of god taking on different forms to facilitate the desires of his devotee (IOW if you want to have a god that cracks good jokes, you won't have a god that exists in the mood of awe and reverence)

We feel emotion. Emotion is a change in mental state. God never has a change in mental state. It exists in only the ALL-KNOWING mental state. It has no emotions. It is unemotional.

Its not clear how "all knowing" is a mental state - IOW even awe and reverence offers some facility for the object of worship to have a mental state.

It seems that you are pursuing the notion of an all knowing entity somehow being bereft of action or will, which is kind of absurd, since its nescience that puts the brakes on action.

We feel sensation. Sensation is a change in neural conduction registered as a change in mental state. God is in a constant state of numbness. It can not "feel" as it's mental state is only in one position - - that of ALL-KNOWING.

As above, its not clear how knowledge reduces sensation ... although there is perhaps a good argument for a lack of knowledge to reduce sensation

It doesn't learn, love, hate, feel feelings, feel warmth .... nothing. It just exists as an ALL-KNOWING Thing.

hehe

at this point you would probably receive a bronze medal in impersonal theism

Aside from the fact that we humans being able to do some many things a purportedly ALL POWERFUL God is POWERLESS to do, I'd like to say this God is a f*cking creepy thing to worship.

hehe

and as a further irony, at this point you would probably receive a bronze medal in personal theism for coming to the realization that the impersonal concept offers no facility for the individual (and a world view that doesn't value individuality is by necessity absurd)

It's also pointless to worship It as you can have ZERO affect on it's mental State - which stays at all times and forever in only one immutable state: ALL-KNOWING.

Ooops .... looks like its time to revoke all your bronze medals

Its not clear what need there is to have a god that one can bend to one's will

Someone said that perhaps the action of thinking is not BETTER than that of knowing all. I said that not only is BETTER subjective, that's not the point at all, God CAN NOT exist as ALL POWERFUL and at the same time NOT be able to do all these things we can do. It therefor is not ALL POWERFUL.

I think the word you were after in capital letters at the end is OMNIPOTENT, which would mean exhibiting not only the super powerful one's but also the weeny ones (hence ALL potencies)

....however .....

since we are, by definition, an expansion of god's potency, I guess he's got that base covered.

IOW we have no scope for existing independent from god, so whatever (dismal) thing we can exhibit (like being fallible or getting squashed by an elephant) is already scoped

That aside, God is a thing that ONLY exists in the state ALL KNOWING like some huge computer Hard-Drive.

A hard drive doesn't have individuality/self.
In fact the only value of a hard drive is when it comes in contact with something that does

God is this massive information storage device. A humorlessness, numb, emotionally dead, cold, impassive, unfeeling, irrational ALL-KNOWING Thing. An extremely large USB stick.

+ an individual ..... so all those drab adjectives can be dropped

THIS Thing, someone suggested is BETTER because it exists like this?!?!



Well I don't think so,

neither do the personalists .... although the impersonalists are apt to disagree

 

[S.A.M.]

Kinda like saying energy cannot be created or destroyed. So thats a handicap.

 

[wise acre]

Some other deductions that once seemed obvious that scientific opinion generally rejects:

1) there must be something before the beginning of the universe
2) the universe must have always been here
3) if the universe is not infinite there must be something outside it
4) some of what seemed would be called Lamarkian and therefore necessarily false is now called epigenetics
5) the impossiblity of rogue waves


Deduction is very appealing, but it often turns out to have faulty assumptions in it. Assumptions an entire culture or time period can have.

Spidergoat:

So you don't believe in the power of reason?.

What a strange question.
Plato used deduction to draw all sorts of conclusions include the existence of forms. I can doubt his use of deduction, without deciding that all reason must be thrown out the window.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Scientific opinion does not generally reject there must be something before the beginning of the universe.

 

[Michael]

lightgigantic,

Thinking is the mental manipulation of information to form new concepts or engage in problem solving to reason in order to make decisions.

God only knows-all. There is never a "new" anything. There is no "problem solving" and all reasons are known and decisions made (of we should say known).

Michael

PS: yes
we can be squished by an elephant. But that's not the point.

 

[Michael]

anyway, I have to run home ....

 

[wynn]

I was thinking again about the ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-KNOWING God again and I just couldn't remember our last debate so I thought I'd bring up a couple of points.


1) God is defined as ALL POWERFUL (can do anything)
2) God is defined as ALL KNOWING (knows everything)


But, we know humans can doing things god, in these states of being, can not do - like learn. We can learn. God can not learn.

What else?

We can think. God can not think. Also thinking is a rational process. God therefor is not rational because It can not think. It can only be in the state of ALL KNOWING.

We can Laugh in surprise at a funny joke. God is humorless. It can not be surprised by the ending of a joke. It does not laugh. It can only exist in the state of ALL-KNOWING.

We feel emotion. Emotion is a change in mental state. God never has a change in mental state. It exists in only the ALL-KNOWING mental state. It has no emotions. It is unemotional.

We feel sensation. Sensation is a change in neural conduction registered as a change in mental state. God is in a constant state of numbness. It can not "feel" as it's mental state is only in one position - - that of ALL-KNOWING.

It doesn't learn, love, hate, feel feelings, feel warmth .... nothing. It just exists as an ALL-KNOWING Thing.


Aside from the fact that we humans being able to do some many things a purportedly ALL POWERFUL God is POWERLESS to do, I'd like to say this God is a f*cking creepy thing to worship.


It's also pointless to worship It as you can have ZERO affect on it's mental State - which stays at all times and forever in only one immutable state: ALL-KNOWING.


Someone said that perhaps the action of thinking is not BETTER than that of knowing all. I said that not only is BETTER subjective, that's not the point at all, God CAN NOT exist as ALL POWERFUL and at the same time NOT be able to do all these things we can do. It therefor is not ALL POWERFUL.




That aside, God is a thing that ONLY exists in the state ALL KNOWING like some huge computer Hard-Drive. God is this massive information storage device. A humorlessness, numb, emotionally dead, cold, impassive, unfeeling, irrational ALL-KNOWING Thing. An extremely large USB stick.


THIS Thing, someone suggested is BETTER because it exists like this?!?!



Well I don't think so,

Michael

Here's an attempt at sketching out how Michael constructs his OP arguments on God:

1. He starts with the end in mind: To show that there is no God or that God is not worthy of worship (and therefore might as well not exist).
2. He takes some relatively common or popular notion about God.
3. He fills - with some resentment, anger, sarcasm and passive aggressiveness - in the steps to get from 2 to 1.

 

[scifes]

ugh..
the

problem

is

that

you

think

you

should

know

everything

.

you

should

understand

everything..

if you can understand everything..i mean what's left??

homo saipen is the most arrogant thing in existance indeed..

 

[wise acre]

Scientific opinion does not generally reject there must be something before the beginning of the universe.

Until fairly recently most physicists would say that TIME began during the Big Bang so it does not make sense to talk about before the Big Bang. There is some movement around this, but I doubt more than a handful would say there must have been time before the Big Bang. What seems to lay people counterintuitive and therefore wrong often turns out to be correct or considered correct by a consensus of scientists. We can quibble about this particular one, though I stand by my assertion, but I hope you agree with my general point. Einstein made a lot of what seemed obvious via deduction incorrect. So does QM. A lot of science is counterintuitive.

 

[Cris]

Scifes,

ugh..the problem is that you think you should know everything you should understand everything..

I think that is what religionists think science is about. Most people fully realize that there is a tremendous amount of information we simply do not know about the universe and that we have a lot to learn yet.

if you can understand everything..i mean what's left??

The point is that we know very little and the fun of life is discovery. Now apply your reasoning to an all knowing god – what does he have left to do and why would he mess about creating humans?

homo saipen is the most arrogant thing in existance indeed..

Most of us are not. However, there are groups who are incredibly arrogant, Muslims and Christians for example. They claim with certainty that they know what life is about and what their future is, all under the fantasy of gods. They are so arrogant that they believe that humans are so special that the creator of the universe has chosen them to form a special relationship with him.

Some of us do not suffer from such idiotic delusions of grandeur and fully appreciate we are an insignificant spec in this vast universe and that we live for a relatively short period of time then cease to exist. The best we can do for ourselves is try to enjoy what little time we have.

 

[-ND-]

Been a while since I saw something like that. Good for a chuckle.

You have to feel bad for the disabled, especially if it is mental. You don't make fun of the physically disabled, because it is wrong. I don't want to make fun of you guys, so I ask forgivness from God, that the thought has crossed my mind. I should be patient and understanding when someone is of a lesser than I am. That is the way I learned. Usless getting mad, over every little thing, I become more disappointed everytime I read bs.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Scientific opinion does not generally reject there must be something before the beginning of the universe. ”

Until fairly recently most physicists would say that TIME began during the Big Bang so it does not make sense to talk about before the Big Bang. There is some movement around this, but I doubt more than a handful would say there must have been time before the Big Bang. What seems to lay people counterintuitive and therefore wrong often turns out to be correct or considered correct by a consensus of scientists. We can quibble about this particular one, though I stand by my assertion, but I hope you agree with my general point. Einstein made a lot of what seemed obvious via deduction incorrect. So does QM. A lot of science is counterintuitive.

They claim time began then yet they claim something existed before then.
It doesn't make sense not to talk about before the Big Bang.
Counterintuitive is sometimes correct. Sol does not rise & set.
Something had to have existed before the Big Bang or the Big Bang could not have happened.

 

[wise acre]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Scientific opinion does not generally reject there must be something before the beginning of the universe. ”




They claim time began then yet they claim something existed before then.
It doesn't make sense not to talk about before the Big Bang.
Counterintuitive is sometimes correct. Sol does not rise & set.
Something had to have existed before the Big Bang or the Big Bang could not have happened.

Look, you are focusing on ONE point in my list. My point was that deductions that seem obvious often turn out not to be.

Also I think you meant counterintuitive is sometimes incorrect. You are, above, arguing that what we would intuitively think - there must be a before to the Big Bang is correct - and the counterintuitive is incorrect.

I don't think it serves the thread to argue about the specific case of whether Time must have gone on before the Big Bang. You can take it up with the physicists in the physics forum.

Again, sometimes the counterintuitive is correct. Sometimes. And in those cases deduction will have failed people who are unaware that some of what seem like obviously correct assumptions are incorrect.

 

[wise acre]

Here's an attempt at sketching out how Michael constructs his OP arguments on God:

1. He starts with the end in mind: To show that there is no God or that God is not worthy of worship (and therefore might as well not exist).
2. He takes some relatively common or popular notion about God.
3. He fills - with some resentment, anger, sarcasm and passive aggressiveness - in the steps to get from 2 to 1.

Plato, who was very good at this kind of game, weaned me of my faith in deductive processes like this.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I don't know why you think I meant counterintuitive is sometimes incorrect. Tho it is.
I meant what I said. I gave an example.

You made a claim. I claimed you're wrong. You responded to that then I answered. What's the problem?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Here's an attempt at sketching out how Michael constructs his OP arguments on God:

1. He starts with the end in mind: To show that there is no God or that God is not worthy of worship (and therefore might as well not exist).
2. He takes some relatively common or popular notion about God.
3. He fills - with some resentment, anger, sarcasm and passive aggressiveness - in the steps to get from 2 to 1.

Bullshit.
He proposed something for discussion. If you don't care to participate, don't.
If you do care to participate, try to do so without such assinine assumptions.

 

[wise acre]

I don't know why you think I meant counterintuitive is sometimes incorrect. Tho it is.
I meant what I said. I gave an example.

Edit: now I see what you said and the example of the sun. It seemed strange at first read because suddenly you are acknowledging the main reason I brought up the various examples without, it seemed to me, referring to my main point. I guess, when I am in similar situations, I tend to acknowledge the main point directly, and point out that I have a problem only with a specific point, so that my post does not seem like a potshot acting as if it is countering the main idea.

The sun going up and down is a good example I could have added to my list to support my point.

You made a claim. I claimed you're wrong. You responded to that then I answered. What's the problem?

No problem. Perhaps you will actually respond to the main point I was making. Or not. I think we are off topic focusing on the Big Bang issue without relating it to the OP. My points about counterintuitive truths being a big problem for deduction related to my problem with the OP, which is very confident about extremely abstract deduction. Care to respond to my main point?

As far as the Big Bang...

There are definitely a good number of physicists who do not believe there has to be or was a before.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

There are some who do.

In a thread where an atheist is attacking religion using speculative and poor deduction, it is certainly valid to point out that physicists do not assume that there must be a before and that lay people may be too confident in they assumptions about this issue.

For those representing 'rationality' and science it would be best to consider why scientists rely so much on inductive processes.

You can quote those physicists who say there was a before OR MIGHT HAVE BEEN - which I think is the more common position.

But this will only show the issue is up in the air.

The OP makes it seem like using this kind of deduction we can close the book on the theists - or really certain Abrahamic theists.

Not so fast.

This kind of deduction is misleading and neither group of physicists is going to accept the mere deductive reasoning of the other group.

I am not saying the deduction is wrong. I am saying it is not remotely conclusive.

I'll keep that item on my list.

 

[wise acre]

Bullshit.
He proposed something for discussion. If you don't care to participate, don't.
If you do care to participate, try to do so without such assinine assumptions.

Which parts were assinine assumptions. Certainly not 2. I doubt one is incorrect as far as knowing where he had a conclusion in mind pre-analysis. I doubt he is showing us how he came to disbelieve in God. It is a hindsight proof. The phrase that Signal bolded shows pretty clearly that at least some of the emotions attributed in three are present. Seemed fair.

Obviously Signal wanted to participate. If you don't like what Signal has to say you could not participate in a dialogue with Signal. I don't know that line of logic still doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

[wynn]

Bullshit.
He proposed something for discussion. If you don't care to participate, don't.
If you do care to participate, try to do so without such assinine assumptions.

Bullshit.
I proposed something for discussion. If you don't care to participate, don't.
If you do care to participate, try to do so without such assinine assumptions.

 

[swarm]

You've pretty much recaptured Epicurus' stance on the matter.

A God's lack concern for humans is infinately greater than a human's lack of concern for a bacterium.

Right now there is an e. coli in your gut praying to you theists. Will you answer its prayers?