-A supreme being must be omniscient and omnipotent.

-If a supreme being is omniscient, he must know everything and that includes all of his future actions.

-Since he knows what his future actions are, in order to be omniscient,he must not be wrong and must do exactly that.

-We defined earlier that a supreme being must be omnipotent as well.

-If he is omnipotent, he must be able to do whatever he wants at anytime.

-However he can only perform the actions that he knows, therefore he would be unable to choose his own actions.

-Therefore such a being would have no free will and would simply be something that follows a set of laws

Since the 2 characteristics contradict each other, they cannot coexist on one being. Therefore a being that matches our definition cannot exist. Therefore a supremebeing cannot exist.



What do you think?

Watch Bruce All Mighty and you'll know what i think.

And no it's not Jim Carrey is a terrible actor.

What if the being wants to do what it knows it will do?

You missed by one forum. MGCBTSOOYG.



Entheogenic

quote:Originally posted by freigeist:



Since the 2 characteristics contradict each other, they cannot coexist on one being. Therefore a being that matches our definition cannot exist. Therefore a supremebeing cannot exist.



What do you think?

looking at the way christians look at it, when Jesus was pimping around earth, he WAS God, in human form. Yet, God was still also up in heaven or whatever. Nothing can be in two places at once right?

WRONG.

If you're fuckin' God, you can do whatever the hell you want whether it makes sense or not. Just because some things are true on earth, doesn't mean that the creator of the universe can't change shit

I am an atheist but you are just randomly defining constrains in a way that supports your argument.

Why can't there be a hierarchy of supreme beings. Why can't a minor god have control over our universe but must answer to a higher dimensional god or something. Why does a supreme being HAVE to be omniscient and omnipotent. How can you even define such terms when cosmology and quantum theory have yet to finish determiningg what the contraints of physics and space are. Your thoughts are being formed in a way that that is bound by human cognitive abilities; why couldn't a supreme being operate in a manor that is beyond comprehention to us?

I am an atheist.

@OP: Don't christians say that God exists outside of time? Making the concept of God having a future nonsense.

quote:Originally posted by rent-a-revolution:

@OP: Don't christians say that God exists outside of time? Making the concept of God having a future nonsense.

Exactly, according to Christians God has always existed and forever will, he created time so there is no reason why he would have to play by our rules.

As a non-christian I can easily see that your arguements don't hold up.

I'm not religious, but your (the OP's) theory is filled with holes.

I'm not religious, but your (the OP's) theory is filled with holes.

1. Who says that a supreme being has to be both omniscient and omnipotent. I don't and a lot of others don't.

2. If he is both, then he can do both. You said he can only perform the actions that he knows, being omniscient he knows everything he is going to do. Therefor he can do whatever he pleases, following these actions only.

3. This is tied to number Two. He is omnipotent supposedly, in your arguement at least, then he can do whatever he wants. If he changes what he saw, through being omniscient, then he knew he was going to change it.

4. He would still have free will as defined before.

If God is omnipotent, then he transcends logic.

If god is omnipotent, he has the power to exist beyond logic.

quote:Originally posted by freigeist:

-A supreme being must be omniscient and omnipotent.

-If a supreme being is omniscient, he must know everything and that includes all of his future actions.

-Since he knows what his future actions are, in order to be omniscient,he must not be wrong and must do exactly that.

-We defined earlier that a supreme being must be omnipotent as well.

-If he is omnipotent, he must be able to do whatever he wants at anytime.

-However he can only perform the actions that he knows, therefore he would be unable to choose his own actions.

-Therefore such a being would have no free will and would simply be something that follows a set of laws

Since the 2 characteristics contradict each other, they cannot coexist on one being. Therefore a being that matches our definition cannot exist. Therefore a supremebeing cannot exist.



What do you think?

Maybe from man's perspective God is omniscient and omnipotent. But...what God actually is...is unknown. Therefore what you describe as being "our definition"...is merely that...an attempt to define what we do not know.

Meh...just my opinion.

Am I the only one to see the irony of believing in the existence of something that is not only unprovable but is also unknown?

Hey there's something invisible and undetectable behind the moon. We have no idea what it is. HEY LET'S WORSHIP IT!

I have to admit that I have trouble with the concept of "worship".

quote:Originally posted by oc6:

I have to admit that I have trouble with the concept of "worship".

Diddo, surely a perfect being wouldn't violate one of its own deadly sins (Pride, envy, wrath)? Or are you allowed to be a hypocrite if you're perfect? But in that case you aren't perfect...maybe a perfect hypocrite, but not a perfect being

You can't disprove God, unicorns, or a teapot orbiting Jupiter, nor should you believe in any of those things.

No christians will be swayed by arguments like that. In fact, I find it much easier to just look through the bible and find instances where God did horrible evil inhumane sadistic things to innocent people that would be condemnable by all of today's moral standards.

Things like that - well they can convince christians.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

You can't disprove God, unicorns, or a teapot orbiting Jupiter, nor should you believe in any of those things.

No christians will be swayed by arguments like that. In fact, I find it much easier to just look through the bible and find instances where God did horrible evil inhumane sadistic things to innocent people that would be condemnable by all of today's moral standards.

Things like that - well they can convince christians.

All underage "Christians" I've met don't believe that exodus 20:21 exists until you stick it in their face. But then in order to preserve their faith they retreat to the shell of the Mysterious Ways of God (tm)

...proof? You dont even set up a coherent idea of what "God" is and then you deny Gods existence? You commited a logical fallacy before even making your theory...

quote:Originally posted by TruthWielder:

...proof? You dont even set up a coherent idea of what "God" is and then you deny Gods existence? You commited a logical fallacy before even making your theory...

Did you even read his post?

quote:Originally posted by Twisted_Ferret:

Originally posted by TruthWielder:

...proof? You dont even set up a coherent idea of what "God" is and then you deny Gods existence? You commited a logical fallacy before even making your theory...

Did you even read his post?



sigh...look you have to define an idea of God before you you talk about Gods attributes or actions. Ok, Omniscient and Omnipresent are titles that place barriers. So what you are saying is that "God" is limited by his own power.However his power equals Gods capability in relation to us, ourselves, and our relation to God. Not Gods relation to itself/himself/whatever which since he is infinitely existing he is thus inexpressible.In other words, youre making an assumption for something you dont know.

You assume that in the flow of the universe and all that it entails (God) would have a desire to unmake himself(existence?) by contradiction. If that was the case well...that would happen. Reality unmade.

Assuming the position that God is without free will and only follows set laws why not is God definied simply as the eternal mover or heartbeat of existence as predetermined by something else or itself?

Hmm... I'll try to briefly summarize my beliefs, and ignore the fact that you delivered absolutely no real proof.

I believe that the thing we call god is the same as the thing we call time. Time being every moment, past, present, and future.

Now, the past always exists to us. It always will exist. The present always exists. There is always a here and now. How can we say the future doesn't always exist? That would take away our beloved concept of free will, and that's just difficult to accept.

We are really only under the illusion that time passes moment by moment. I believe that god is just all these moments... hmm, fuck it, I'll explain some other time.

God, you did not read he topic! once again, you look like an attention whore. No one asked for what you believe.

And to the poster, I do agree with firekitty on on thing. You proved JACKSHIT.

You lose! good day sir!

quote:Originally posted by firekitty751:

Hmm... I'll try to briefly summarize my beliefs, and ignore the fact that you delivered absolutely no real proof.

I believe that the thing we call god is the same as the thing we call time. Time being every moment, past, present, and future.

Now, the past always exists to us. It always will exist. The present always exists. There is always a here and now. How can we say the future doesn't always exist? That would take away our beloved concept of free will, and that's just difficult to accept.

We are really only under the illusion that time passes moment by moment. I believe that god is just all these moments... hmm, fuck it, I'll explain some other time.

An unmoving particle goes through time at the speed of light. Time is only another dimension, which can be manipulated. It is a very real thing.

What I don't understand is how a being that knows everything , knows the future. I mean, wh does knowledge mean knowledge of what hasn't happened. I can understand that this being would probaly have infinite knowledge of the universe. And having such knowledge , and power, could come to predict the exact motion of the entire universe. However this idea of derterminism would only affect a physical world. But how can you measure a Spiritual or non-corporeal world?

Assuming that we are moved solely because of the physical things that have happened before us would only mean that WE didn't have any free-will. Even then you could spout some pseudo-scientific babble about quantum mechanics.

.... I can't even remember if I had a point anymore.

quote:Originally posted by freigeist:

-A supreme being must be omniscient and omnipotent.

-If a supreme being is omniscient, he must know everything and that includes all of his future actions.

-Since he knows what his future actions are, in order to be omniscient,he must not be wrong and must do exactly that.

-We defined earlier that a supreme being must be omnipotent as well.

-If he is omnipotent, he must be able to do whatever he wants at anytime.

-However he can only perform the actions that he knows, therefore he would be unable to choose his own actions.

-Therefore such a being would have no free will and would simply be something that follows a set of laws

Since the 2 characteristics contradict each other, they cannot coexist on one being. Therefore a being that matches our definition cannot exist. Therefore a supremebeing cannot exist.



What do you think?

I think that all of those definitions and characteristics were invented by human beings and one human in particular's sole description of "how things are" and what words mean.

Therefore I hold them to have no scientific proof. Just because one person came along and wrote the dictionary doesn't mean we all have to spell our words the same way; what is considered "right" by one member of society (say society = world, for example) is considered "wrong" by another.

A cup = a drinking device for tea, coffee and other beverages

la tasse = see above

The difference? Different words for the same thing. The second word is in french, by the way.

Both mean exactly the same thing but are written differently



So my point is; Your arguement has no scientific value because you are defining those so called "definitions" with a very narrow perspective to what they really are and mean. Just because the "American heritage dictionary" says it is so does not mean it is; contary to popular belief in american culture - america is not the most powerful country on the planet and sure as hell isn't considered in anyone's books as the one that "decides how everything is and is defined by"