The omnipotence paradox

[wynn]

While I'm athiest I will admit you SAM may be right. Your arse hole of a God may exist and I may burn in Hell for eternity. This is possible.

Perhaps this is the actual crux of the matter here for you, the business of burning in hell for all eternity.

Apart from hearsay and secondary sources (such as popular theistic writers), do you know of any primary theistic source (such as a text that is considered to be inspired by God or the word of God) that actually speaks of eternal damnation for all "nonbelievers"?

 

[Michael]

No. God necessarily knows all that there is to know. I'm sure that you've got something up your sleeve for this one, so instead of trying to guess what it is, I'll just wait for you to put it on the table.

Nothing so tricky, it's just that, again, many of the same people who think God can make a round squares, also don't like the idea that God can not learn. Especially because that's something we can do. It's odd, a God that doesn't learn.

Do you think God thinks?

I mean, if we stop and think about thinking, why we do it, what it is, I'd think that at least one reason for thinking is to arrive at a conclusion.

 

[Michael]

Perhaps this is the actual crux of the matter here for you, the business of burning in hell for all eternity.

Apart from hearsay and secondary sources (such as popular theistic writers), do you know of any primary theistic source (such as a text that is considered to be inspired by God or the word of God) that actually speaks of eternal damnation for all "nonbelievers"?

This may be a good Thread topic?

Heaven and Hell are very important ideological aspects to most, if not all, monotheistic religions. I think it goes to the very reason they were created. The promise of reward or punishment - can't get much simpler than that :shrug:

 

[wynn]

This may be a good Thread topic?

Then post it, please. So we can all look into whether there really is anything to the whole business of burning in hell for all eternity - whether any religion actually proclaims such a thing, and that if it doesn't, how seriously should those threats be taken then and what implications considered.

You seem to have a distate for eternal damnation - who doesn't? - but based on it, you seem to have a distaste toward all religions, esp. the theistic ones.
Let's see if your grounds for dismissing religion are really substantiated.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,
Every shred of scientific evidence demonstrates, robustly, that consciousness is a product of the CNS.

Any objective examination of the subject will conclude the CNS gives rise to consciousness.

If that was the case, a CNS in a lifeless situation would be able to be observed to take on the qualities of life.
As mentioned earlier, establishing something as a cause tends to be a bit more involved then a mere observation of presence

 

[Michael]

Perhaps this is the actual crux of the matter here for you, the business of burning in hell for all eternity.

Apart from hearsay and secondary sources (such as popular theistic writers), do you know of any primary theistic source (such as a text that is considered to be inspired by God or the word of God) that actually speaks of eternal damnation for all "nonbelievers"?

No, I'm not worried about Hell and I don't think that eternal damnation exists for most religions. Sure Xians used to believe in Hell, and Baptists of course they love threatening their "flock" with mental imaginings of Hell, but many don't believe in Hell anymore. Jews don't think there is a Hell. Buddhist don't really have an eternal Hell, maybe a stint in a hell like life?

I think monotheism is itself an inherently intolerant ideology. Regardless of which flavor. It's similar to racism. Racism was once considered normal proper thinking. Whites were on top, then Asians and at the bottom blacks, next to Monkeys. Now, this is NOT acceptable and worse still it's actually not real. Race doesn't even exist! So, I wonder, why perpetuate a idea that has long outlived it's welcome?

We made up religion and we can make it better. There are some aspects to certain religions that are pretty good. Asking Jesus for forgiveness is a good example of something peaceful self centered and probably pretty good. I mean, it's really about asking yourself for forgiveness. So, I think this is good. Bad would be, there is only One God, One Book, One Prophet. These memes, like racism, only serve as a neutral or worse, a negative. Get rid of them then.

 

[Michael]

If that was the case, a CNS in a lifeless situation would be able to be observed to take on the qualities of life.
As mentioned earlier, establishing something as a cause tends to be a bit more involved then a mere observation of presence

Yes and maybe one day a CNS modeled in a computer will take on the qualities of life. Who knows? What we do know is that consciousness exists as a product of the CNS. No more CNS, no more consciousness.


Every single peace of scientific data points to consciousness arising from the CNS and more specifically, within the 3 mm outer edge of the cortex. Soon we'll know exactly where and how consciousness arises and then you won't have to worry about it. The mystery will be solved.

See, that's the great thing about the Scientific method, it works well at describing reality.

 

[quadraphonics]

It is also our everyday experience to have such limited free will.

? Not mine. I can't recall a single time I experienced divine intervention to prevent me from acting on my volition.

Whose definition of omnipotence, and why should that definition be prefered over others?

? There's only one definition of "omnipotence" that I know of, and it's "able to do anything."

But such an approach presumes that humans can know the truth about God on their own, independently of God.
If God is the Creator, Controller, Maintainer, then knowing the truth about God, independently of God, is not possible.

That has no bearing on the inconsistency of an attempt to know God. In fact, under your premises there, we'd have to assume that the resulting non-sense outcomes amount to God telling us that the whole "omnipotence" property must be incorrect.

Apparently, you haven't included all of the above. If you did, I am sure you would have a very different view of the problem of evil.

Nope. It doesn't matter how much goodness exists: there's no reason for an omnipotent, benevolent God to allow any amount of evil.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'm not saying that God did create logic. I'm saying that he is logic. And I am not saying that God is the creator of the "ultimate and only reality". I am saying that He is the ultimate and only reality. Within that ultimate and only reality, He created the universe, which is just a physical extension of Himself.

Okay. And so who created this "ultimate and only reality?"

Alternatively, why invoke God at all?

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes and maybe one day a CNS modeled in a computer will take on the qualities of life. Who knows? What we do know is that consciousness exists as a product of the CNS. No more CNS, no more consciousness.

When your "maybe's" and "who knows" become facts, then you will have your "what we do know's".

Every single peace of scientific data points to consciousness arising from the CNS and more specifically, within the 3 mm outer edge of the cortex. Soon we'll know exactly where and how consciousness arises and then you won't have to worry about it. The mystery will be solved.

actually every piece of data (including what you have referenced) points to consciousness emitting from the CNs (hence the "central " aspect of it). As for solving the mystery of such origins, you have plenty to worry about .....

See, that's the great thing about the Scientific method, it works well at describing reality.

Not in the hands of person's like yourself who can't distinguish the requirements of establishing something as a cause as opposed to a mere presence.

 

[Michael]

When your "maybe's" and "who knows" become facts, then you will have your "what we do know's".





actually every piece of data (including what you have referenced) points to consciousness emitting from the CNs (hence the "central " aspect of it). As for solving the mystery of such origins, you have plenty to worry about .....


Not in the hands of person's like yourself who can't distinguish the requirements of establishing something as a cause as opposed to a mere presence.

Like I said, we've learned more about the CNS since 1990 than in the 5000 years preceding 1990. Sure, we may not fully understand how consciouness arises in the CNS, but I am confident that we one day will. I'm OK with not understanding everything as of today. I don't need an answer. I can live with unknowing. As long as we continue to search that enough for me.

My feeling is that Ca2+ will play an important role in the formation of consciousness. Much like it does in the functioning of the heart. Without understanding the role of calcium it would be impossible to understand heart physiology. Calcium is very important in the brain as well. That said, maybe not. Maybe calciums role is minor? We will just have to experiment and see.

 

[lightgigantic]

Like I said, we've learned more about the CNS since 1990 than in the 5000 years preceding 1990. Sure, we may not fully understand how consciouness arises in the CNS, but I am confident that we one day will.

Your confidence has nothing to do with whether it is established that consciousness arises in the CNS or whether its merely present in it

I'm OK with not understanding everything as of today. I don't need an answer. I can live with unknowing. As long as we continue to search that enough for me.

thats the problem though

one moment you say you don't really know and the next moment you say you're confident you do
:shrug:

My feeling is that Ca2+ will play an important role in the formation of consciousness. Much like it does in the functioning of the heart. Without understanding the role of calcium it would be impossible to understand heart physiology. Calcium is very important in the brain as well. That said, maybe not. Maybe calciums role is minor? We will just have to experiment and see.

Its strange the way you deflect the question of establishing consciousness as contingent on something and instead try and present the "mystery" as merely being how your ideas are right
:shrug:

 

[Rav]

Okay. And so who created this "ultimate and only reality?"

You're kidding me right? It's a meaningless question. It's essentially the same as asking what happened before the Big Bang. The answer, of course, is that nothing happened before the Big Bang. There was no before, because the Big Bang was an explosion of time and space, not an explosion in time and space. That doesn't mean that the universe sprung forth from nothing, only that whatever the something it sprang forth from is timeless. I'm sure that I don't need to relate this directly back to the nature of God. I trust that it's obvious.

Since this discussion has progressed a little since I last mentioned it, I feel inclined to remind you, and everyone else, that I'm actually agnostic. Also, I hate that word, is there a better one? Anyway, I'm not certain that God even exists. I do however seriously consider the idea all the time, which is what compels me to respond when someone tries to suggest that such an idea is completely illogical or paradoxical. When thinking about the concept of God however, I'm thinking about it in general. Personally I'd love to see people leave the idea of a Christian God, or even a personal God who is invested in our affairs, out of the discussion. I can't demand it of course, since this is the religion forum after all.

 

[wynn]

Nope. It doesn't matter how much goodness exists: there's no reason for an omnipotent, benevolent God to allow any amount of evil.

I see that you insist in your own definitions of terms and refuse to look into others ...

 

[Michael]

Your confidence has nothing to do with whether it is established that consciousness arises in the CNS or whether its merely present in it

thats the problem though

one moment you say you don't really know and the next moment you say you're confident you do
:shrug:



Its strange the way you deflect the question of establishing consciousness as contingent on something and instead try and present the "mystery" as merely being how your ideas are right
:shrug:

In the thread on Out of Body Experiences ask BillyT what his opinion is on if consciousness is a product of the CNS ... or ... if it can arise somewhere else. He's written much more extensively on the subject than I. Maybe he can convince you of the FACT that consciousness arises in the CNS and no where else OTHER than the physical CNS.

 

[lightgigantic]

In the thread on Out of Body Experiences ask BillyT what his opinion is on if consciousness is a product of the CNS ... or ... if it can arise somewhere else. He's written much more extensively on the subject than I. Maybe he can convince you of the FACT that consciousness arises in the CNS and no where else OTHER than the physical CNS.

Facts require more than an upper case or getting shrugged off on to some other person.

 

[Michael]

Did you go over to the thread and ask BillyT? He has written a BOOK (all caps) on the subject

 

[scifes]

By definition, something that is omnipotent can do anything, and I imagine that would involve removing its omnipotence if it so desired. So, the question can be rephrased like the following.

And the potential options are

• If it cannot, it is not omnipotent
• If it can, it is omnipotent

Am I correct here?

"removing omnipotence" can be rephrased as "inability to do something(s)" which is the opposite of omnipotence.

hence, removing omnipotence is not part of omnipotence, so an omnipotent being "can't" do it (lol)

it's like, "is god able to be unable" the answer is no, so he is exclusively able..!
like in disny's Fun and Fancy Free, Micky trick the big fat giant who can transform into anything to transform into a fly so he can swat him..if the giant can't transform into something vulnerable, doesn't that mean he's totally invulnerable?

and then, vulnerability to become vulnerable is, well, part of invulnerability.

inability of inability is complete ability.:shrug:

it's a silly play of words

 

[lightgigantic]

Did you go over to the thread and ask BillyT? He has written a BOOK (all caps) on the subject

lol
askbilly.com