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. |
|
Let's assume the existence of a creatorless, omniscient, and omnipotent being, A. |
|
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. |
|
Last edited by Deanstar; 08-30-2014 at 10:31 AM.
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 09:35 AM. Reason: added reply
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. |
|
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. |
|
Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 09:59 AM.
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. |
|
Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 10:28 AM.
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. |
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 12:16 PM.
? 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. |
|
Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 03:22 PM.
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?? |
|
Last edited by snoop; 08-31-2014 at 04:06 PM.
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 08:10 PM. Reason: Merged
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: |
|
Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 04:47 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Bookmarks