Proof that the Christian god cannot exist

[Mythbuster]

Thanks Cris, it's clear now.

 

[Renrue]

c7ityi_,

You are definitely just being a jerk-arse. You question ellipsis and 'pot.' The only reason to do so and not know what they are is because you question EVERYTHING to make people constantly try to make a point. True, if you did not know, you didn't even bother to look it up. And you contradict yourself as well.

you can't unite with something outside you... you have to look inside... everything is inside you...

If you do have it all in you, then obviously knowledge is something you have. If you have no gained the attributes you claim is possible, than your philosophy is wrong because you are unable to attain what you preach.

It is obvious you are kidding around. I say we just ignore c7ityi_ from now on. I can assure you all he is just being a total twit.

Plus, people who are serious actually look into a dictionary and examine another's post. You have not thouroughly examined my post at all if you are going to question what an ellipsis is. Because you do not examine anyone else's post, we are wasting our time and you are just fooling around.


[Renrue]

 

[c7ityi_]

The only reason to do so and not know what they are is because you question EVERYTHING to make people constantly try to make a point.

The reason I asked that is because I wanted to.

And you contradict yourself as well.

Contradictions exist only in your mind.

If you do have it all in you, then obviously knowledge is something you have.

Of course. But there is something that limits people from knowing everything. The body.

Because you do not examine anyone else's post, we are wasting our time and you are just fooling around.

I have never wasted time in my life.

 

[jayleew]

Godless,

Hmm, don't think either is necessarily or likely true. Infinite in time most probably, but its size could be finite and I don't think it is possible to become infinitely smaller, surely at some point one would dissapear.

Well, that depends on what you define as the universe. Are we talking about anomoly to anomoly on the other side of the universe? Or, are we talking about the nothingness in which the anomolies exist? Does the universe have the potential to be infinitely large? The nothing (space) is pretty perplexing thing, isn't it? In our tactile world, it is a difficult concept to grasp nothingness.

 

[Cris]

jayleew,

Yup good point.

 

[Mythbuster]

You are Mistakenly taking the idea that if god knows everything, it means everythign is determined by god.

It does if he planned it that way.[/quote]
That was not implied in your theory.

If you're aware in advance that a war is going to break out tommaow does it mean you can do anything about it?

Set off a chain reaction of nuclear bombs and destroy all the combatants before they fight?

CAn You do that right now? No.

Then you step to the belief that we're doing what god sees we will do which means we're forced into what we will do.

Depends if you see him as a dispassionate observer or merely checking that his plan is proceeding as determined.

You're Applying Human ideals and thoughts to something that is not human. You never imply God created that plan but that we ahve free will in some form. .. Again if You know the Blueprints to a building does that mean you can change the blueprints?

It is quite important that that idea is kept in mind since if he does have a plan and is interested in every detail then he has no need to proceed with the plan unless it is exactly what he wants and he can check all that at the instant of creation. What follows then must be perfectly pre-determined.

Following that line of thought it makes sense. You see God as some type of mirco-manager. Let me try something..
Free will is the furfilling of fate. If you did something that you would not do due to the variables surrounding it you would not be yourself. Free will isn't like fliping a coin. It's not random.

Also there's a thing with free-will. Everyone is predictable. There is a mistaken conclusion that free will equates to you ahve control over your will. No you don't you do as you feel and what you feel is sometimes not logicly what you think. And teh choice of either is proly free will as you see it. And based on you prior actions you'll do as you've done before depdant on the various variables of the situation.

You should probably think that through a little more carefully since it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Simply put you ahve free will, but you can't control your free will. What you do is determined by what you ahve done before, affected now by the variables of the situation. I can want to draw something all i want but for my past experinces and the way my mind works i unable to force myself to draw. I want to draw my my will says i shouldn't and won't.

Read people and you'll udnerstand once you've read most people accuratly you can predict their action to a decent accuracy.

So how about the person who is to be born 5000 years from now, how accurately can you predict their actions?

That doesn't apply to my arguement. If i were here 5000 years from now and met the person you're talking about yes with enough information i can predict what they will do in a situation. But since i can't be here 5000 years from now that's not possible. Now i'm a tad bit confused..

Also there is some confusion on my part about how god is omni. To help clear this up i will restate. Go exist at all points and therefore knows and sees everything. Then it's a mistake to conclude that knowing equates power to change. i don't need to touch anything else i think.

You should make sure you understand the difference between knowing future events and seeing them – two very different conditions. And I don’t think your attempt at clarification actually clarified anything. I am now confused as to what you mean.

You're appling human concepts to udnerstand soemthing not human. I can know i'm going to die tomarow and how but i can't see it. True because of time. But infinite understanding and awareness equates to seeing if god sees as a human does.

Everyone is free of course to hold their own points of view, but the issue here is whether your view represents truth or not. Your statements really just represent an unsupported assertion; you have not addressed the problem of the paradox.

If the Christian god is omniscient then you will have the exact same analogous attributes as a computer program. Everything you do in your life and everything you are going to do has already been pre-determined (programmed by God). The computer program has absolutely no choice as to how it behaves once it has been started. In the same way if God created you according to his universal plans and if he has perfect knowledge of all future events then he has effectively programmed you to carry out those events. You have absolutely no free choice in the matter. Hence free will is a complete illusion, and Christianity is a mockery since it depends on free will to make that choice of being saved or not.

The only way free will is possible is if your future choices are unknown, i.e. have not been pre-programmed. In which case God cannot be omniscient and is hence severely limited in his capabilities, to the point where he cannot be a God according to Christian definitions.

.. I ahve addresed the Paradox. I believev that your logic is flawed adn does not take in to account all the differing variables. I'll touch lightly on teh Tabula rosa theory. You are asserting that god created our program, directly. How you act and precive things is how you respond to situations. That is determined by other situations. And Yes we don't ahve choice in our actions. Do you? Can you do something that you would not do? Can you not do anything you will not do. Not jsut ot prove something but as a normala ction. Everyhitng you do is determined by you, and more or less your sub concious not you the one who formulates and acts. It's hard ot explain. But you can't make anyone do anything they don't want to do. You seem to smash concious decison mkaing with unconcious.

And i'll say it again Your paradox is a bloody paradox. You keep on saying that if someone else knows what you're going to do it's pre-determined in teh sense that you ahve no choice. Wrong you ahve a choice and you chose what was predicted and seen or known. That doesn't mean you're being forced into anything.

But i muct argue that evil does not exist in that sense. It is seen as evil by society. If i killed a thousand people i wouldn't consider myself evil. Just a killer. I kill people. so what. It's not evil. It may be wrong in your eyes to take someone else's life. And i see how you can reason that. But i don't give a f***. So reallyit's back to perspective. And funnily enough i grew up in one of the "seedier" section of LA. Also you mistake that someone who kills becuase of a social background amkes him a serial killer. Is he jsut some bum emotionly driven to kill or is he one of those few who are born as such. Those are the onese you never hear about those who jsut kill without emotion and without care. The people they usualy find are jsut killers not real Serial killers..I think serial has something to do with the randomness of the murders? But i think that's been warped into including patteren killers. w/e that had nothing to do with the discusion.

 

[Cris]

Mythbuster,

It does if he planned it that way.
That was not implied in your theory.

Do you mean the opening post? That is now 4.5 years old and we’ve discussed many variations since then.

“ “ If you're aware in advance that a war is going to break out tommaow does it mean you can do anything about it? ”

Set off a chain reaction of nuclear bombs and destroy all the combatants before they fight?
”
CAn You do that right now? No.

Ahh you are referring to me directly. But really your hypothetical isn’t the same as certainty.

Depends if you see him as a dispassionate observer or merely checking that his plan is proceeding as determined. ”

You're Applying Human ideals and thoughts to something that is not human.

And why assume it doesn’t hold the same values as humans?

You never imply God created that plan but that we ahve free will in some form.

Sure I have in several threads.

.. Again if You know the Blueprints to a building does that mean you can change the blueprints?

What’s your point and how does that relate to timeless omniscience?

You see God as some type of mirco-manager.

Doesn’t perfect knowledge imply every detail?

Free will is the furfilling of fate.

I don’t think so. Aren’t these opposite concepts? One is either free or compelled by a predetermined fate. They are mutually exclusive.

If you did something that you would not do due to the variables surrounding it you would not be yourself.

You are confusing freedom to do anything with typical actions. These are different.

Free will isn't like fliping a coin. It's not random.

So if I choose to flip a coin and follow the outcome is that my free will operating or the randomness of a coin flip?

Simply put you ahve free will, but you can't control your free will. What you do is determined by what you ahve done before, affected now by the variables of the situation. I can want to draw something all i want but for my past experinces and the way my mind works i unable to force myself to draw. I want to draw my my will says i shouldn't and won't.

That’s known as causal determinism and is a very different and more complex debate. This thread has been largely concerned with epistemic determinism.

That doesn't apply to my arguement. If i were here 5000 years from now and met the person you're talking about yes with enough information i can predict what they will do in a situation. But since i can't be here 5000 years from now that's not possible. Now i'm a tad bit confused..

Omniscience also pertains to future contingents not just what you already know.

You're appling human concepts to udnerstand soemthing not human.

And why assume such concepts would not apply?

I can know i'm going to die tomarow and how but i can't see it.

If you can’t see it then you can’t know it?

You are asserting that god created our program, directly.

It’s a scenario consistent with perfect knowledge and the desire to achieve a certain result.

You keep on saying that if someone else knows what you're going to do it's pre-determined in teh sense that you ahve no choice.

That is indeed the classic proposal that has been offered by many famous philosophers for millennia.

Wrong you ahve a choice and you chose what was predicted and seen or known. That doesn't mean you're being forced into anything.

Unless all the conditions and variables that led to your actions were intimately designed so you would take the action you think is from your free will; something possible given the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent creator with a predetermined final outcome.

 

[Mythbuster]

Cris you right about your theory. Today on wiki added this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

 

[cole grey]

mythbuster,

I know you can't be dumb enough to have used that to say cris is shown to be right about the question, when the wikipedia entry specifically points out that there are many disagreements relating to definitions, etc.

 

[Mythbuster]

Not quite. Logic is a system of deduction used to argue valid conclusions. Not just the conclusions we as people can come up with, but anything that can be determined by reason. And in this case it seems the rules of logic force us to accept that God is not omnipotent.

(A) God is omnipotent
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (B)God can lift anything.
If (A)God is omnipotent, then (C)God can make anything.
If (C)God can make anything, then God can make a rock so big that (~B)he can't lift it.

A
A=>B
B
A=>C
C
C=>~B
~B

B^~B => ~A (By negation introduction)

(Note ~A is the negation of A, that is, it means God is not omnipotent)

It seems that by the rules of logic, we're not allowed to assume God is omnipotent because to do so would result in a contradiction. This means we have to change our definitions of both God and omnipotence, Otherwise the rules of logic won't apply at all, and the world would be rendered incoherent.

There's competing claims here. God's very existence on the one hand, and the fundamental rule of logic that contradictions are unacceptable.

The way the paradox works is that you can't simply claim God transcends logic, because for logic to have any real meaning it has to apply all the time, everytime. God either exists and logic doesn't or logic exists and God doesn't. You can't hold God goes beyond the system like some people would be inclined to say.

 

[Kalypso]

Cris, what is the proper response to people who say "You can't understand god or god's logic" when this paradox is presented?

 

[Nisus]

This paradox is a False Dilemna

 

[Mythbuster]

Omnipotence falls under the line of Infinity anyways. It's not quantitative.

 

[The Devil Inside]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.

 

[Mythbuster]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.

It can't do that. Logic gives us a roadmap for our knowledge. Without that roadmap, we'd wander around lost. Logic being a map means it utilizes what we already know.

 

[KennyJC]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.

If God is outside our logic then how come you can describe him?

True, our perceptions may be limited and flawed, but they are our only hope of finding any answers... rather than just blatant guessing.

 

[Mythbuster]

omnipotence can not be measured. G-d would create the rock, and lift the rock. at teh same time, G-d would NOT create the rock, and therefore, there is nothing to lift.

with infinite possibilities, G-d could create the rock, and not create it at the same time.

G-d IS outside our flawed perceptions. logic is absolute in the physical world, that much i believe. but i do not believe G-d to be a physical entity, so why should i apply the limitations of a physical being onto it?

sounds dumb to me. in fact, it goes against LOGIC to do so.

Now he goes agens't logic. Hun ?

 

[Mythbuster]

If God is outside our logic then how come you can describe him?

is a very important question.Since outside logic...god is everything at the same time to us. he exists and not exists,he gives u pleasure and at that very instant also pain.He kills and does not kill us at the same time.Such a thing cant possibly effect us since such a thing to us is 'non-sense'.

So to b brief logic may have limits but we are and everything realted to us is limited within logic.So we shouldnt be even bothered about whats outside logic.



This whole omnipotence paradox is very similar and probably just the opposit of a paradox that I myself invented(as i told u...This post belongs to a genius).
The paradox is called 'nothingness paradox'.Its kinda like this.
Define an entity to be anything that can b defined or in other words that has some distinguishable propertie(s).
Define 'nothing' to b something that is not an entity.
But we just defined 'nothing'.Then is 'nothing' an entity?By definition it is not.But if it is not then it must be.

You want to know how I resolve it?By simply assuming that the concept of such such a 'nothing' is meaningless.Such a thing does not exist.
thats the whole way I will resolve this 1 by saying that the very idea of 'absoulute omnipotence' is meaningless.Such a thing does not exist.

There are many such paradoxes which are very popular...as u might know
such as
tell me whether the statement "this statement is false" is true or false.I will argue that for this kind of statements....the very concept of asserting a true value is as meaningless as asking whether the question "whats the time?" is true or false.

similarly 'a barber in a town shaves all those and only those who do not shave themselves.'"Does the barber shave himself?".I will argue that such a barber satisfying those criteria cannot possibly exist since in the particuase of barber's shaving himself 'logic breaks'.
Did any1 note how similar these 'self indicating' statements are to the singularity of a black hole?In the singularity ...all rules of physics break down...however the the difference is that at the singularity there can be logical rules governing but not in the paradoxical cases above.

Here is 1 very similar paradox that I was not able to resolve-'The RUSSEL's Paradox'
Let T =the set of all such sets that does not contain itself as 1 of its elemnts.
Does T contain itself?If it does..it doesnt,if it doesnt it does.
The problem here is bcoz of 2 things-1,'common sense tells you we can define such a set' and the 2,'T has an infinity of elements'.

I dont know how experts resolve this......all I know is that it changed mathematians' very way of looking at 'set theory'.

 

[Mythbuster]

Very nice question KennyJC.

 

[The Devil Inside]

kenny,
as stated in numerous posts of mine:
you cannot start a sentence with the words "G-d is", and end that sentence having said anything meaningful.

i stand by this statement. that doesnt mean it is necessarily true, only true according to my personal studies and experiences.

i am not dogmatic.