All Powerful and All Knowing

[wise acre]

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?

This is also problematic deduction. The assumption is that the two relationships would be the same because we are dealing with, in each case, entities that are a number of orders of magnitude different in size.

It might be good deduction. In a sense coincidentally.
It might not.

Could be the makings of a humbling form of pantheism.

 

[ili]

"God" can be realized by Mankind if...

1. We have the ultimate use of physical power (fire>bows & arrows>guns>bombs>nuclear weapons>the god particle)

2. We have the repository of all knowledge (internet, libraries, universities)

3. We are all-loving by living and let live (free speech, freedom, separation of church and state)

 

[Enmos]

"God" can be realized by Mankind if...

1. We have the ultimate use of physical power (fire>bows & arrows>guns>bombs>nuclear weapons>the god particle)

2. We have the repository of all knowledge (internet, libraries, universities)

3. We are all-loving by living and let live (free speech, freedom, separation of church and state)

Is arrogance a 'god-trait' as well ?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
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.

Turnabout doesn't always work.
You proposed nothing other than unsupportable assumptions about his motives. I assumed nothing.

Those who can't support their position attack assumed motives to derail discussion.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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.

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.

You're claiming something came from nothing?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

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.

All parts are assine assumptions. Neither of you know his motives.
Seems unfair.

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.

Obviously, Signal wanted to disrupt not participate.

 

[wynn]

Obviously, Signal wanted to disrupt not participate.

Yeah, I wanted to prevent the thread from going in the same way that so many others did.

 

[swarm]

the god particle

You are watching too many movies and thinking they are real.

 

[scifes]

Is arrogance a 'god-trait' as well ?

well i guess if god existed then he's the only one who should hold that trait..he is the most complete thing there is, right?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Wrong.

 

[scifes]

why not? it makes sense..

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Arrogance is a symptom of incompleteness.
If gods were complete, they wouldn't need worship.

 

[scifes]

yeah but if you are complete..arrogance fits you.. it's like you ave the right to be arrogant..unlike someone who isn't complete and is arrogant..

and it's true that scince gods are complete, they are in no need of any worshipping....

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

There is no right to be arrogant. Arrogance is self-defeating. Arrogance comes from insecurity.

 

[Cris]

It doesn't make sense for something all-powerful to have any opposing qualities since this produces impossible scenarios.

E.g. If we claim a god shows modesty then he can't be arrogant.

We can go on to make a long list that shows opposing conditions that cannot coexist.

The problem with assigning super-superlatives to something in an attempt to show perfection is that the action produces contradictory nonsense instead.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

That's 1 of the huge problems, the square triangle, with the god of the KJV & many others.

 

[lightgigantic]

Very important and well spoken point, Michael. William S. Burroughs said a similar thing once:

If Control’s control is absolute, why does Control need to control?​

Absolute control is only pertinent to conditioned life ... kind of like how the heavy control that is pertinent to maximum security prisons is not pertinent to the outside world.

It all depends on the environment you are relegated to.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Then, of course, absolute control is not pertinent to unconditioned life.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

Actually thinking is all about modeling the world according to one's desires. values, goals, etc

Given that conditioned life is all about problems in progress (or too put it another way, our conditioned models of the universe should be and our role to play in it are not at all persistent or constant), its clear god has plenty to think about.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

That's not clear at all.