• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 170
    Like Tree68Likes

    Thread: Can "GOD" be manipulated?

    1. #26
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Let's assume the existence of a creatorless, omniscient, and omnipotent being, A.

      This being now creates a second omnipotent and omniscient being, B, but with a few tweaks. Firstly, B does not know about the existence of A and believes itself to be eternal. Secondly, B cannot even detect A. You now have a being that, if A steps out of the picture, is exactly as powerful as A - but who has been manipulated unknowingly. A now has to conclude that he too could have come from similar circumstances and now has to accept that he may or may not be manipulated. Like us, A can now logically reach the conclusion that the only thing he can be absolutely sure of is that he exists - everything else may be an illusion and a trick.
      dutchraptor likes this.

    2. #27
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Let's assume the existence of a creatorless, omniscient, and omnipotent being, A.

      This being now creates a second omnipotent and omniscient being, B, but with a few tweaks. Firstly, B does not know about the existence of A and believes itself to be eternal. Secondly, B cannot even detect A. You now have a being that, if A steps out of the picture, is exactly as powerful as A - but who has been manipulated unknowingly. A now has to conclude that he too could have come from similar circumstances and now has to accept that he may or may not be manipulated. Like us, A can now logically reach the conclusion that the only thing he can be absolutely sure of is that he exists - everything else may be an illusion and a trick.
      A knows everything in existence and cannot be decieved by B it's creation. A will not step out of the picture. A knows it's circumstances and rules forever. B Does not know everything A knows or it would not be A's creation.

      Can you see where your logic falls apart it's between when you claim that A would do something. You don't know A and can't speak for A. You cannot say the true nature of B as a result. In an idea of infinity, the infinite is only a idea in your mind. I can make up ideas too like the fact that an uncreated A would never encounter a situation that it did not know something. That would clearly go against the idea of "all knowing".
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-30-2014 at 10:31 AM.

    3. #28
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      A knows everything in existence and cannot be decieved by B it's creation. A will not step out of the picture. A knows it's circumstances and rules forever. B Does not know everything A knows or it would not be A's creation.
      A would never be deceived by B, no, but B has already been deceived by A. Other than that, there isn't any difference between the two, so none of them can say for sure that there isn't an earlier creator that created A, therefore A could have been deceived - not by B but by someone higher up.

      Can you see where your logic falls apart it's between when you claim that A would do something. You don't know A and can't speak for A. You cannot say the true nature of B as a result.
      Actually, I created A myself when I made that post so yes I can. I gave him three traits and I made him create B, I don't need any more than that to make my conclusions.

      In an idea of infinity, the infinite is only a idea in your mind. I can make up ideas too like the fact that an uncreated A would never encounter a situation that it did not know something. That would clearly go against the idea of "all knowing".
      Yes, that's my point. Omniscience is a paradox like omnipotence; an omnipotent being cannot create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it. An omniscient being cannot know for sure that it hasn't had information withheld from it.

      On a different note, you say starting an argument with "Let's say God isn't real" is only harming yourself as a christian. This is simply not true, starting an argument like that is a very common way to prove the opposite. It is used often in mathematics, if you want to prove that something is true, you can often benefit from attempting to prove the opposite - if you are correct, you'll eventually run into a contradiction, which is what you want. So if you start your argument with "Let's say God isn't real", you should be able to follow that hypothetical idea and, if you're right that he is real, it should lead into a contradiction.
      dutchraptor likes this.

    4. #29
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      Posts
      76
      Likes
      33
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      No, once you are judged as condemed, you can no longer repent. God chooses to forgive those that repent when there is still time because that's his preference. If you think God can be manipulated, it is basically one of the most laughable claims in existence. I guess that is what you get when you become foolish?



      You have that story very wrong and do not understand what you are reading.



      kind regards, Dean



      I genuiley hope that you are not in some fake way trying to accuse me of trying to be perverse (LOCK THE THREAD LOL). I notice how you try and censor people on here by accusing them of stuff. It's lame.



      Perhaps your interpretation of the Book of Job, is the best example of that.



      They create the character of it don't they. They sell batman suits. People dress up as batman and act like batman. They believe in batman. You are not out protesting about batman. If you think My God is equally as real as batman then you should look as silly as fighting me than you do with someone who believes in batman. But since this is a serious topic and is the truth. You have to address it. No-one laughs at you for addressing it, cause it's based on litrature that is the best in history not a batman comic. In congress I think there is actually some guy in America that dresses up as a wizard, that wears this cone hat. Why don't you debate him that there is no wizards?



      Someone asked me for some money for food the other day. Did they "move me" or was I being charitable. God was making the point that it was satans fault that this was happening to Job. Something you deny. Has nothing to do with being manipulated. God could have said NO to satan if he wanted to. It was within Gods power to say "Go away satan". Like Jesus did when he lived on earth. You place no blame on Satan, even though it was Satan that tortured Job? Not very discerning of you.



      I love it how you start debating batman, just to make yourself look credible now.....you wouldn't normally debate batman unless I manipulate you into it. (just a light hearted joke, don't complain to the mods)
      An 8 year old would make a better apologist.

      You have nothing but lies and ignore the facts that your own bible give you.

      Satan moved me to destroy without cause --- was God's words in this myth and they prove Satan manipulated God even to sin.

      Regards
      DL

    5. #30
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3042
      DJ Entries
      6
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Let's assume the existence of a creatorless, omniscient, and omnipotent being, A.

      This being now creates a second omnipotent and omniscient being, B, but with a few tweaks. Firstly, B does not know about the existence of A and believes itself to be eternal. Secondly, B cannot even detect A. You now have a being that, if A steps out of the picture, is exactly as powerful as A - but who has been manipulated unknowingly. A now has to conclude that he too could have come from similar circumstances and now has to accept that he may or may not be manipulated. Like us, A can now logically reach the conclusion that the only thing he can be absolutely sure of is that he exists - everything else may be an illusion and a trick.
      The concept is interesting too when you do not include the terms creator-less, omniscient and omnipotent. And certainly more easy to wrap your head around.

      Let's assume the existence of a god with the ability to create anything that does not result in a paradoxical situation, C.

      This being now creates a second god , D, but with a few tweaks. Firstly, D does not know about the existence of C and believes itself to be the only god. Secondly, D cannot even detect C. You now have a being that according to his entire knowledge of the universe is the most powerful being around. D could easily create an even more limited god without knowing it. Let's call this newest god E. E will now lack the information of both the existence of C and D.

      This situation indeed shows that all but your existence may be an illusion. The example doesn't even need to be limited to knowledge or gods. Each iteration may lose a skill, or an ability to discern some aspect of reality.

      My favorite conclusion from all this is that believing a force capable of creation can have motivations you understand is in itself entirely paradoxical. Just as it itself may have been deluded into the position it's in, this god could equally have put us in that situation. The very essence of believing that you picked the right interpretation of gods deeds goes against what you described god to be.
      Maeni and Gnostic like this.

    6. #31
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      If you read the bible it clearly says that God is often jealous and prideful. It often out right says this such as "You must worship no other gods, for the LORD, whose very name is Jealous, is a God who is jealous about his relationship with you." And is often written about like in the example of the story of Job, where he is basically showing off how faithful his worshipers are to Satan because Satan taunted him into doing it. And clearly the 10 commandants, the first 3 or 4(depending on which you use) are all about worshiping god. These traits make God easily manipulated, and he is manipulated several times in the bible. I am not sure how you can say he can't be manipulated.
      Gnostic likes this.

    7. #32
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      This is simply not true, starting an argument like that is a very common way to prove the opposite. It is used often in mathematics, if you want to prove that something is true, you can often benefit from attempting to prove the opposite - if you are correct, you'll eventually run into a contradiction, which is what you want. So if you start your argument with "Let's say God isn't real", you should be able to follow that hypothetical idea and, if you're right that he is real, it should lead into a contradiction.
      It's almost hopeless to wade through the sea of deception that you have weaved around you and your friends minds. Firstly if a being is all knowing, it's a contradiction to say that they wouldn't know something. Mathematics is nothing to do with proving God. The rational of mathematics is based on a logic with specific rules. If you add infinite into the rules of maths, it no longer makes any sense. That doesn't mean mathematics is illogical. It doesn't mean something limitless is illogical. It just means the two concepts are incompatiable and should not be put together in a sentence. Just like 'cats bark' is nonsensical because barking comes from dogs. A paradox only exists when you fail to face reality. You can make up a string of what you think is logical assumptions, and they can all be based on your delusions. In this example of your A and B theory. Your conclusion is that A could have been fooled by something other than itself. This would be as illogical as saying an emu swims in the water like a fish. There is water in your toliet and you could chuck a fishing line in your toilet to try to catch something. That would be a contradiction of common sense. So even though you think what you said was logical. It was a direct contradiction of ideas that we know about. Contradictions are only evident to those that have the knowledge about them.

      an omnipotent being cannot create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it
      You are taking things that are not compatiable and putting them together. If an all powerful being created a stone in physical reality under the laws of nature. It would have a specific weight, or it wouldn't be a physical rock.....lulz

      Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic View Post
      An 8 year old would make a better apologist.

      You have nothing but lies and ignore the facts that your own bible give you.

      Satan moved me to destroy without cause --- was God's words in this myth and they prove Satan manipulated God even to sin.

      Regards
      DL
      If I have 8 year old logic. Then you have? 4 year old logic? lol even less.

      If Satan was in power, then God wouldn't rule over Satan. Satan wouldn't make a request to have power over Job. When God says "moved me against Job" that is saying you wanted power over Job to prove a point, and you were wrong about it, so are you not demonstratively foolish having tortured Job for nothing? Something has a purpose for not just simplistic reasons. If you want to pretend to be simple minded, you can make the book of Job into some kind of bet. If you want to be more sophisticated and grown up, you can see it as a complex theological work to explain human suffering.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 09:35 AM. Reason: added reply

    8. #33
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 5000 Hall Points
      snoop's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      LD Count
      300+
      Gender
      Location
      Indiana
      Posts
      1,715
      Likes
      1221
      Deanstar he started debating batman because you used it as an example to prove your point and it's a perfect example of how you have some shitty logic because batman fans obviously don't assert that batman is real so it in no way helps your argument that God, therefore, exists. If that's all you could come up with then it really says something about your logical reasoning skills. Then when someone points this out you proceed to use that as evidence that they have to argue batman to prove God doesn't exist (which is laughable considering you had to argue batman to prove that he does, hypocrite) just further proves that you can't properly reason things out.

      Your tactics for debate are those of a person who purposefully uses misinformation to try and prove his point. You can't try to trap people into arguing the way you want them to by saying something stupid and grasping at straws after they point it out. All that shows is that you are afraid to argue God's existence itself, so you have to create something else to argue about while dancing around the actual subject so you feel like you actually "won". In the end you just look like a manipulative asshole or a dunce.

    9. #34
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by snoop View Post
      because batman fans obviously don't assert that batman is real so it in no way helps your argument that God, therefore, exists.
      I never state "therefore God exists" that's not how I discuss things. You discuss as "therefore no God". Mostly you are full of intellectual dishonesty when you reply to this. I know God exists that's my faith, I'm not trying to 'prove' it to you with some 'evidence'. I prefer pointing out the factual errors in your own arguments that science and logic can disprove, cause that's something you claim to agree with the scientific method (but even this you fail anyway). No need to "prove God". That's not even relevant. Many people are batman fans, my point is that you don't go around with some agenda to tell children there is no santa, but by your own double standards you think that believing in santa is like believing in God. Even though no adult believes in santa, but plenty believe in God. No-one dies saying 'i accept santa'. Your analogies are double standards of illogic and they are basically hypocrisy cause your own logic is easily used against you as you use it against people that disagree with you. Your logic is just what your mind wants to believe not based on anything solid just anarchy. That's what atheism really is all about logical anarchy cause you can't base your knowledge on any foundation. It's not your job to think as an atheist about what truth is. Your job is to defend your notion that God don't exist or the bible isn't true. You can only argue with what people say, if it suits you lol.

      The worst thing is you cannot even admit any mistakes, your delusion always stands no matter what facts come up. It's just an orgy of arrogance and condescending scoffing on anyone who doesn't believe in your fantasies, and then you turn around and call the real reality a fantasy. It's absurd and always will be absurd. I already posted a video asking you to explain the rules of logic as an atheist. This you could not answer.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 09:59 AM.

    10. #35
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      It's almost hopeless to wade through the sea of deception that you have weaved around you and your friends minds. Firstly if a being is all knowing, it's a contradiction to say that they wouldn't know something.
      Yes. That's the point. A knows everything, but the fact that he can create a B that believes itself to be just as omniscient, he has to accept that he may falsely believe himself omniscient. You're right, he wouldn't be omniscient if it was the case that A was deceived by someone higher up, but he thinks he is omniscient, and he believes that he is the highest god. But this knowledge might be wrong - he may not be omniscient after all, he can't know that for sure.

      You are taking things that are not compatiable and putting them together. If an all powerful being created a stone in physical reality under the laws of nature. It would have a specific weight, or it wouldn't be a physical rock.....lulz
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, so I'll elaborate: If someone can do anything, they should be able to create a rock so heavy they can't lift it - hell, they would be able to create a rock that heavy, but without having a specific weight and it wouldn't have to follow the laws of nature. He could create a triangular sphere that he can't lift. Or a language he can't read. Or an idea he can't understand.

      If he is omnipotent, he has to be able to create anything, even something that is put together from "not compatible" things.
      Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 10:28 AM.

    11. #36
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, so I'll elaborate: If someone can do anything, they should be able to create a rock so heavy they can't lift it - hell, they would be able to create a rock that heavy, but without having a specific weight and it wouldn't have to follow the laws of nature. He could create a triangular sphere that he can't lift. Or a language he can't read. Or an idea he can't understand.
      This argument is tiresome and ridiculious because you are using your own illogic and projecting it on a being and saying "do the very illogical of my statment". If something doesn't make sense that is a good reason why you wouldn't attempt it. Your A and B theory is the same. You are claiming that your own contradiction you made is evidence that God might not be God, but this is based on your own illogic. Not something you can measure. If God knows everything. No logical reasoning can deduct that he would not know everything. That's against your original premise, even if you created B that thought it was all knowing, and removed A. and then had B as A and then reflected that A could be B. All that nonsense is your own imagination not something that makes sense. Same with your rock example.

      Also materialism is the thing that inhibits free enquiry of science, Those that accept science without God, follow materialism but that does not fit into the world view of most people. Are rules of logic material or not? Do they change or not change? Are they limited or unlimited?

    12. #37
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      This argument is tiresome and ridiculious because you are using your own illogic and projecting it on a being and saying "do the very illogical of my statment". If something doesn't make sense that is a good reason why you wouldn't attempt it.
      We're not talking about whether or not it would be a good idea to attempt it. If the god can do literally anything, why do you get hung up on the fact that my examples are illogical? He can do anything, including making illogical things, right? What's the problem?

      Your A and B theory is the same. You are claiming that your own contradiction you made is evidence that God might not be God, but this is based on your own illogic. Not something you can measure. If God knows everything. No logical reasoning can deduct that he would not know everything.
      That's not what I'm saying either, let's try again:

      Let's assume a God that appears to be, and believes itself to be omniscient, omnipotent and creatorless. This God can create a second, "lower" God that also appears to be and believes itself to be omniscient, omnipotent and creatorless. Now there are three options for what might be the truth:

      #1: The "lower" God is omniscient, omnipotent and creatorless.
      #2: The "lower" God is not omniscient, omnipotent and creatorless, but his higher creator is.
      #3: The "lower" God is not omniscient, omnipotent and creatorless, and his higher creator is also not omniscient, omnipotent or creatorless.

      We know that #1 is false because of the higher God's existence, but the problem is that there is absolutely no way to determine whether #2 or #3 is the truth. Even though the higher God can ostensibly do anything, and seems to know everything, and even though there seems to be no original creator - there may still be.

      I think this is confusion exists because, like you correctly point out, I did start by defining A as being all knowing. I should have said that he is ostensibly all knowing, or seemingly all knowing. The point I'm making is that it's impossible to differentiate between seemingly all knowing and absolutely all knowing. Even a truly all knowing being would have to accept that he may not be truly all knowing.

    13. #38
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Well you can't really imagine what it is like to be all knowing, and you can hardly conclude that from such a position you have to admit that you may not be!

      With your point that God could do anything. That's right he can do anything. But not all things would be practical. I don't know why it would make sense to create an infinitely heavy rock, and after creating it, probaly just get rid of it again......

      It comes down to my questions about what you believe about the laws of logic. As a materialist, you are using 'logic' but what is logic to you.

    14. #39
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Well you can't really imagine what it is like to be all knowing, and you can hardly conclude that from such a position you have to admit that you may not be!
      Alrighty then. Maybe you should try to show me why not instead of just saying I don't know what I'm talking about? Did I not give a hypothetical scenario that showed why he would have to be in doubt? A knows that B is mistaken about its omniscience, and the two are otherwise identical: how can he possibly be certain that he himself is omniscient?

      If you haven't got an argument better than "You don't know that", then you haven't got an argument.

      With your point that God could do anything. That's right he can do anything. But not all things would be practical. I don't know why it would make sense to create an infinitely heavy rock, and after creating it, probaly just get rid of it again......
      Not an infinitely heavy rock; a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. This isn't about what's practical or what he would want to do. Do you agree he can make a rock that he can't lift? (The weight doesn't really matter, he could make a pebble as light as a feather that he couldn't lift, too)

      It comes down to my questions about what you believe about the laws of logic. As a materialist, you are using 'logic' but what is logic to you.
      I don't know what you mean by that...
      Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 12:16 PM.

    15. #40
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Alrighty then. Maybe you should try to show me why not instead of just saying I don't know what I'm talking about? Did I not give a hypothetical scenario that showed why he would have to be in doubt? A knows that B is mistaken about its omniscience, and the two are otherwise identical: how can he possibly be certain that he himself is omniscient?
      ? If he is all knowing, how could he not be certain about things. If he created a copy of himself exactly then B would know the truth and be the same, and there would be no distinction they would be one. If B is not created all knowing then that's below A. A still is certain. I'm not sure how you don't recognize this.

      Not an infinitely heavy rock; a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. This isn't about what's practical or what he would want to do. Do you agree he can make a rock that he can't lift? (The weight doesn't really matter, he could make a pebble as light as a feather that he couldn't lift, too)
      If he made a pebble as light as a feather, then why could he not lift it. Weight does matter cause you are saying to make something he can't lift. You are purposely creating a paradox that doesn't make sense. Is this a challenge? Do you realize how many illogical things I could come up with? It doesn't disprove anything. There is some things God just won't do because they would be completely stupid. So in this context it does matter what God would and wouldn't do, that is highly relevant. Just because God can do all things, doesn't mean he has to do everything, even the things you make up that don't make sense? Say he did create a rock he couldn't lift....then what? He could easily get rid of it, just as he created it. Your paradoxes are resolved when you add the full story.


      I don't know what you mean by that...
      Shouldn't have to repeat things endlessly. Do you see logic as a material thing, or not material. Does logic change or is it unchanging. And is logic limited or not limited.....

      It's important cause your claim is based on what you see as logic. And so you need to understand the nature of logic before making an argument.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 03:22 PM.

    16. #41
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3042
      DJ Entries
      6
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      You are purposely creating a paradox that doesn't make sense.
      Can you fathom what you just said? please give me an example of a paradox that does make sense.
      Gnostic likes this.

    17. #42
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by dutchraptor View Post
      Can you fathom what you just said? please give me an example of a paradox that does make sense.
      A clock will be correct once a day even though it's broken. That's a paradox that makes sense.

    18. #43
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 5000 Hall Points
      snoop's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      LD Count
      300+
      Gender
      Location
      Indiana
      Posts
      1,715
      Likes
      1221
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      It comes down to my questions about what you believe about the laws of logic. As a materialist, you are using 'logic' but what is logic to you.
      There is no "play" to the definition of logic, it doesn't change from person to person or situation to situation, it is meant to describe a specific methodology of thought used in problem solving that does not contradict itself. There isn't anything else logic can mean you dolt. Are you really incapable of admitting when you are wrong just even once??

      edit: Since you ninja'd me.
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      A clock will be correct once a day even though it's broken. That's a paradox that makes sense.
      That isn't a paradox, you need to really think about investing in a dictionary. That's a logical prediction based on the precept that a clock denotes times of day, therefore even if it is stuck in a single position at some point in time throughout the day, it will show the correct time. Nothing about that is a paradox, it totally makes sense!
      Last edited by snoop; 08-31-2014 at 04:06 PM.

    19. #44
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      ? If he is all knowing, how could he not be certain about things. If he created a copy of himself exactly then B would know the truth and be the same, and there would be no distinction they would be one. If B is not created all knowing then that's below A. A still is certain. I'm not sure how you don't recognize this.
      He thinks he is all knowing, but how does he know for certain that he is? Creating B serves as an experiment to show that an otherwise all powerful, all knowing creature can be deceived. Of course, A wouldn't need to perform the experiment as he already knows what the experiment would amount to - it amounts to a fundamental uncertainty about his own origin. If he truly is all knowing, then A was the first, the original, the all powerful and all knowing. But if he isn't (which nobody can either prove nor disprove), then he might have been deceived by a higher god.

      If he made a pebble as light as a feather, then why could he not lift it. Weight does matter cause you are saying to make something he can't lift.
      So you're saying God can't create something that is both light and unliftable at the same time?

      You are purposely creating a paradox that doesn't make sense.
      Yes, because God, being all powerful, would be able to do it no matter how paradoxical it is.

      Is this a challenge? Do you realize how many illogical things I could come up with? It doesn't disprove anything. There is some things God just won't do because they would be completely stupid. So in this context it does matter what God would and wouldn't do, that is highly relevant. Just because God can do all things, doesn't mean he has to do everything,
      I don't care if he doesn't want to do it. I'm only interested in whether or not he can make something he can't lift.

      even the things you make up that don't make sense? Say he did create a rock he couldn't lift....then what? He could easily get rid of it, just as he created it. Your paradoxes are resolved when you add the full story.
      Sure he could get rid of it, but can he lift it?

      This is frustrating? You're right. It's a paradox. That's the point. Omnipotence is impossible. If he can't make the stone, he isn't omnipotent - if he can make the stone, then he can't lift it, and then he isn't omnipotent.

      Shouldn't have to repeat things endlessly. Do you see logic as a material thing, or not material. Does logic change or is it unchanging. And is logic limited or not limited.....

      It's important cause your claim is based on what you see as logic. And so you need to understand the nature of logic before making an argument.
      I have no clue what you're saying, it looks like nonsense to me. You're going to have to explain what you think about logic before I can relate to your thoughts about logic.

    20. #45
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3042
      DJ Entries
      6
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      A clock will be correct once a day even though it's broken. That's a paradox that makes sense.
      That's not a paradox. The definition of broken is not working properly. Just because it shows the time correctly once a day does not mean it works properly.

      You think you can come up with something but you are being ignorant towards what a paradox is. The whole point of a paradox is that the original seemingly sound statement leads to a logically unacceptable conclusion.

    21. #46
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by snoop View Post
      That isn't a paradox, you need to really think about investing in a dictionary. That's a logical prediction based on the precept that a clock denotes times of day, therefore even if it is stuck in a single position at some point in time throughout the day, it will show the correct time. Nothing about that is a paradox, it totally makes sense!
      It's a paradox because even though the clock is broken, it shows the correct time, so it's not broken at the time that it's correct even though it's broken.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      Omnipotence is impossible.
      It takes Omnipotence to create the Universe, since to create something from nothing, you would need to be Omnipotent. That actually proves Omnipotence. If he created a rock that he couldn't lift. That's not creating something he couldn't do because simply by changing the rock or making it liftable, he has done both again.
      Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 08:10 PM. Reason: Merged

    22. #47
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      It takes Omnipotence to create the Universe, since to create something from nothing, you would need to be Omnipotent. That actually proves Omnipotence. If he created a rock that he couldn't lift. That's not creating something he couldn't do because simply by changing the rock or making it liftable, he has done both again.
      Well if changing it counts as lifting it, then he failed at creating an unliftable (unchangable) rock by changing it. I think you're trying to weave away from the conclusion by attempting to confuse things. Changing it isn't lifting it. And if he has to make it liftable before he can lift it, then it still makes omnipotence a paradox. Otherwise:
      How about a writing language he can't read, or an idea he can't understand, or a drink he can't drink, or a thing he can't see?

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      It's a paradox because even though the clock is broken, it shows the correct time, so it's not broken at the time that it's correct even though it's broken.
      So you're saying that if I wrote down "3:45 PM" on a piece of paper, you'd call that a working clock at 3:45 PM?
      Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 04:47 PM.

    23. #48
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      So you're saying that if I wrote down "3:45 PM" on a piece of paper, you'd call that a working clock at 3:45 PM?
      no I would call that you writing down "3:45pm". If you had a clock that was at 3:45pm and didn't work. I would call it a non working clock, that was correct at 3:45pm and so for all intents and purposes, was a working clock at 3:45pm.

      How many other examples is there? Thousands. Use your imagination. The letters of the alphabet do not contradict each other. But you can write a contradictory sentence out of them. That's a paradox that makes sense. Ones and Zeros create everything on a computer, and yet what is on a computer is more than ones and zeros. That's a paradox that makes sense....

      It goes on and on doesn't it.

    24. #49
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      no I would call that you writing down "3:45pm". If you had a clock that was at 3:45pm and didn't work. I would call it a non working clock, that was correct at 3:45pm and so for all intents and purposes, was a working clock at 3:45pm.
      Youre practically saying that all it takes to be a working clock, is for you to be able to state the correct time - even if only for one minute every day. My piece of paper does that job just as well as what you call a working clock. Come on now, you're twisting the meaning of things just to make your 'paradox' work. If a clock doesn't actually follow time correctly, then it is broken 24/7 whether or not it coincidentally happens to point at the correct time once in a while.

      How many other examples is there? Thousands. Use your imagination. The letters of the alphabet do not contradict each other. But you can write a contradictory sentence out of them. That's a paradox that makes sense. Ones and Zeros create everything on a computer, and yet what is on a computer is more than ones and zeros. That's a paradox that makes sense....

      It goes on and on doesn't it.
      These are not paradoxes, you do not understand paradoxes, as has been said before.

    25. #50
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class Tagger Second Class Made lots of Friends on DV 5000 Hall Points
      snoop's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      LD Count
      300+
      Gender
      Location
      Indiana
      Posts
      1,715
      Likes
      1221
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      It's a paradox because even though the clock is broken, it shows the correct time, so it's not broken at the time that it's correct even though it's broken.
      It doesn't matter if you explain to me why you thought it was a paradox, it isn't. Saying a broken clock can show the correct time is a factual statement. Saying a broken clock can keep time, on the other hand, would be a paradox, because that is a contradictory statement. How can a broken clock keep the time, if in order to keep the time, the clock must be running? To reiterate: a broken clock can show the correct time. This is factual, and in no way (seemingly or otherwise) contradicts itself, because a broken clock indeed can show the correct time at least once a day.

    Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Robert Sawyers "Webmind" consciousness "multitask" in lucid dream
      By InsaneInThBrain in forum General Lucid Discussion
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: 09-16-2017, 07:04 PM
    2. Replies: 3
      Last Post: 05-27-2013, 03:04 AM
    3. Replies: 11
      Last Post: 11-14-2012, 11:38 PM
    4. "waking Life" & "eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind"
      By DreamGhost in forum Entertainment
      Replies: 10
      Last Post: 12-11-2006, 07:57 PM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •