• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
    Results 51 to 75 of 170
    Like Tree68Likes

    Thread: Can "GOD" be manipulated?

    1. #51
      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
      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?
      Notice that you added a new condition, that the rock has to be "unchangable". As I say my logic, Your logic also changes to respond (you still didn't say what logic is to you)
      If at the time the rock is not liftable. He did create it in that case.

      As for a language he can't understand. God created your thoughts. But he wouldn't recognize your logic. If he created a drink he can't drink, describe what you are talking about. Poison? There is lots of toxic things, venom of snakes, things you shouldn't drink. He clearly has made drinks that we can't drink. He also makes cures for those things. If you are talking about an infinitely toxic drink. Again, this is a ridiculious discussion because it's not a paradox when God can do anything. That resolves all the paradoxes. However insane it is and however insane you imagine it. All powerful by definition means it can be done. No disputing. So he could create something not drinkable, and then he could create something drinkable. It you think about what God can do, it should frighten you.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      These are not paradoxes, you do not understand paradoxes, as has been said before.
      They are not paradoxes based on what?....your claim that they are not....because I explained them. Many paradoxes are revealed to be non paradoxical. That's another paradox that makes sense....

      What's the law of non contradiction say? Nothing in reality can be contradictory. And yet you speak of paradoxes as if they were a real thing. That's a paradox that doesn't make sense. It can go both ways can't it.
      Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 08:15 PM. Reason: Merged

    2. #52
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Notice that you added a new condition, that the rock has to be "unchangable". As I say my logic, Your logic also changes to respond (you still didn't say what logic is to you)
      If at the time the rock is not liftable. He did create it in that case.
      So you do agree that he can create a rock he can't lift. Doesn't matter if it is heavy, if it's light, if it's unchangable or whatever. I'm guessing you're agreeing that he can make a rock he can't lift. And then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it.

      Logic is just a method of reasoning. It is simply the practice of taking premises and seeing what you have to conclude from those premises. Like what I just did above; If you tell me that "to lift" is the same as "to change", which I believe is an incredibly flawed premise, then you inevitably have to accept that something that cannot be lifted, also cannot be changed. Logic applies to everything, and it always works, but the premises can be wrong.
      I must admit, I don't think I have what it takes to properly describe what logic is.

      As for a language he can't understand. God created your thoughts. But he wouldn't recognize your logic.
      Those are some huge leaps into nonsense. My thoughts have nothing to do with a writing language he can't understand. But anyway, if he doesn't recognize my logic that still makes him not all knowing and not all powerful so win some lose some I guess.

      What I mean is a writing language such as these letters. Can he come up with an actual language that, if someone spoke it to him, he would not be able to decipher.

      If he created a drink he can't drink, describe what you are talking about. Poison? There is lots of toxic things, venom of snakes, things you shouldn't drink. He clearly has made drinks that we can't drink. He also makes cures for those things. If you are talking about an infinitely toxic drink. Again, this is a ridiculious discussion because it's not a paradox when God can do anything.
      Those are some creative leaps into nonsense. I'm not talking about that kind of 'can't'. When you say "Humans can't drink poison" you don't really mean 'can't'. It isn't physically impossible for a human to put a glass full of poison to his lips and to imbibe the poison. He can do that. Can God create a drink that he cannot drink?

      That resolves all the paradoxes. However insane it is and however insane you imagine it. All powerful by definition means it can be done. No disputing. So he could create something not drinkable, and then he could create something drinkable. It you think about what God can do, it should frighten you.
      Okay, so now we have an undrinkable drink. Can God drink it?

    3. #53
      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
      Many paradoxes are revealed to be non paradoxical. That's another paradox that makes sense....
      Many paradoxes are not paradoxical. This is the first example of a paradox that you've given that is actually a paradox, maybe you are actually starting to get it now. :v

      edit:

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      They are not paradoxes based on what?....your claim that they are not....because I explained them.
      There's only so many times you can tell someone that it's not something based off that something's definition man. Are you going to choose to listen this time or do I need to give up for good?
      Last edited by snoop; 08-31-2014 at 05:34 PM.
      dutchraptor likes this.

    4. #54
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      They are not paradoxes based on what?....your claim that they are not....because I explained them. Many paradoxes are revealed to be non paradoxical. That's another paradox that makes sense...
      I'll humor you with one of them. You seem to be making this premise: If the parts (letters) of something (a sentence) have one quality, then the whole thing must have the same quality. Therefore, if letters are not contradictory, no sentence can be contradictory. Your premise is simply false. A word is a separate thing with different qualities from letters, and so are entire sentences. Humans are made entirely of atoms, does that mean my finger is the same as my foot? No, they both just happen to be made of the same stuff. Words don't contradict each other, but when you take them as parts and arrange them into sentences, you can create a contradictory sentence. This isn't a paradox because the parts (the words) do not have to have the same qualities as the whole thing (the sentence).

      EDIT:
      It's a funny premise though.
      1. The parts something is made up of has the same qualities as the thing they make.
      2. Humans are made up of atoms.
      3. Muhammed Ali is a professional boxer.
      4. Muhammed Ali is a human

      So:
      1. Muhammed Ali is made up of atoms.
      2. All atoms are professional boxers.
      Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 05:47 PM.

    5. #55
      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
      Many paradoxes are not paradoxical. This is the first example of a paradox that you've given that is actually a paradox, maybe you are actually starting to get it now. :v
      A simple paradox is? Something that cannot exist in reality. There is no idea you could create, that wouldn't be an idea. Rules of logic are just ideas. Paradox is your own ideas. You are going into anarchy by your own methods of investigation cause if you deny an idea, that's merely another idea. What are you going to use as logic? If logic is material than where is it. If logic is limited what are the limits? If logic is not changing, then tell me the exact conditions. lulz.

      Quote Originally Posted by Maeni View Post
      you're agreeing that he can make a rock he can't lift. And then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it.
      Well he has the power to not be omnipotent, and for this purpose in which you force him not to be, he can do that. Doesn't mean your paradox disproves anything.

      Logic is just a method of reasoning. It is simply the practice of taking premises and seeing what you have to conclude from those premises. Like what I just did above; If you tell me that "to lift" is the same as "to change", which I believe is an incredibly flawed premise, then you inevitably have to accept that something that cannot be lifted, also cannot be changed. Logic applies to everything, and it always works, but the premises can be wrong.
      I must admit, I don't think I have what it takes to properly describe what logic is.
      Your method of reasoning fails and I demonstrated why. You can't explain logic because it's just your own limited ideas about things. If you say you understand logic. You would be all knowing. In order to think your premises are logical, you litrally have to be omnipotent.

      Those are some huge leaps into nonsense. My thoughts have nothing to do with a writing language he can't understand. But anyway, if he doesn't recognize my logic that still makes him not all knowing and not all powerful so win some lose some I guess.
      It's just another way of saying that you can lose this argument if I apply some logic. You can win it again, by applying some different logic to it. Where does it get us?
      In the end I believe in the gospel. You believe in your own logic.
      Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 08:18 PM. Reason: Merged

    6. #56
      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 he has the power to not be omnipotent, and for this purpose in which you force him not to be, he can do that. Doesn't mean your paradox disproves anything.
      It does, though. If at any point there's something he can't do; he isn't omnipotent. If he has to make the rock liftable, or make himself not omnipotent to do it, then he wasn't omnipotent. If there is any one single thing he cannot do, then he is not omnipotent.

      Omnipotence being impossible was really just a tangent of the main point, which was that omniscience is also impossible because nothing can ever be certain of certainty. Even a being who is absolutely all knowing, is still just under the belief that he is absolutely all knowing. There is no way for such a being to prove 100% that he is infact absolutely all knowing and so the being has to accept that he cannot know for sure.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Your method of reasoning fails and I demonstrated why. You can't explain logic because it's just your own limited ideas about things. If you say you understand logic. You would be all knowing. In order to think your premises are logical, you litrally have to be omnipotent.

      It's just another way of saying that you can lose this argument if I apply some logic. You can win it again, by applying some different logic to it. Where does it get us?
      In the end I believe in the gospel. You believe in your own logic.
      It sounds like what you're saying is that neither of us has any possible clue about what we're talking about, and our ideas are just shots in the dark that we cling to with faith. You feel that "logic" is just one possible idea you can cling to, a type of faith, while religion is a different idea, and we basically just have to choose which one we think is correct. Is that somewhat true?
      Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 06:02 PM.

    7. #57
      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
      A word is a separate thing with different qualities from letters, and so are entire sentences.
      by the same token, a word is made up of letters, so the word couldn't exist without the non contradictory letters. Neither could a sentence without words.

      Words don't contradict each other, but when you take them as parts and arrange them into sentences, you can create a contradictory sentence.
      notice the word 'create'. You created it. So If it doesn't make sense. That would be who's fault? Yours! It's not english that is the problem. It's not words or the letters of the alphabet. It would be you. If you are going to claim something doesn't make sense. That's your creation and you should take responsibility for that idea.


      EDIT:
      It's a funny premise though.
      1. The parts something is made up of has the same qualities as the thing they make.
      2. Humans are made up of atoms.
      3. Muhammed Ali is a professional boxer.
      4. Muhammed Ali is a human
      So:
      1. Muhammed Ali is made up of atoms.
      2. All atoms are professional boxers
      I think you are falling into "Deans law" Urban Dictionary: Dean's Law


      Dean's Law states that in any verbal human interaction (usually a conversation, discussion or planning meeting of some nature), given enough time, the said verbal interaction will cease to be realistic and sensible, becoming ridiculous and usually humorous in nature, deviating from the plot and resulting in nothing being accomplished and time wastage. Usually an enjoyable experience.

      In layman's terms, the plot will be lost and people will begin "taking the mickey".

      This law encapsulates the entire human species independent of race, color or culture. Timing and the amusement factor, however, are directly related to the intelligence and attention span of the persons involved in said interaction.

      This Law was coined in 2006 by Dean O'Farrell.

      *** Dean's Law can also be used to illustrate that normal boundaries do not apply to a certain situation or discussion.
      Bob: "I suggest that we get blue curtains, I think they will fit in well with the existing decor and color scheme."

      Kate: "I agree, but maybe the red ones will work equally well"

      Allan: "OK then maybe we should get one red one and one blue one?"

      Bob: "Yeah that's a great idea, if we do that then we can get tons of small blue and red carpets too! We can put them on the floor and make the room look like a big checkers board!"

      Allan: "Yes and then we can paint little blue and red squares on the couches!!Ha Ha!"

      Bob: "ooh ooh yes and then we can change the lampshades to luminous green!"

      Kate: "OK guys, this is getting ridiculous now. Dean's Law has taken over now."

      *** "OK guys, head office has really given us free reign with this project, so let Dean's Law run wild! No holds barred!"

    8. #58
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      by the same token, a word is made up of letters, so the word couldn't exist without the non contradictory letters. Neither could a sentence without words.
      True, a written word can't exist without letters, and a written sentence can't exist without written words... What does that have to do with your supposed paradox?

      notice the word 'create'. You created it. So If it doesn't make sense. That would be who's fault? Yours! It's not english that is the problem. It's not words or the letters of the alphabet. It would be you. If you are going to claim something doesn't make sense. That's your creation and you should take responsibility for that idea.
      That is entirely irrelevant. You asked me to explain how it wasn't a paradox, and what you're quoting is part of my explanation. I don't care if it's "my fault" that a contradiction was made, I'm telling you that you can use non-contradictory letters to make up non-contradictory words which can then be used to make contradictory sentences. It is not a paradox because the smaller parts do not have to have the same qualities as the full product; otherwise atoms would be boxers.

      I think you are falling into "Deans law" Urban Dictionary: Dean's Law
      I think you're absolutely right, I did have a bit of a giggle writing that.

    9. #59
      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
      I think you're absolutely right, I did have a bit of a giggle writing that.
      Rightly so, I thought it was funny too. What I also found funny is that the only dictionary deanstar has used so far is urban dictionary.

    10. #60
      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 think you're absolutely right, I did have a bit of a giggle writing that.
      So you can see that rules of logic are not fixed. I can say that everything is a hologram. So if you understand what a hologram is, you could find something in everything. So if you wanted to find a boxer as an atom you could. Bit like mixing colors in art you can create different colors. Same thing with logic. Writing philosophy is one thing and then living in the world is a different thing again. You cannot do your words. You can write I went to the shop. That's just an idea about what you did. Communication is different to acting something out in reality. It has different rules. I can say anything, but living it would be different rules. That's why talk is cheap lulz.

      Quote Originally Posted by dutchraptor View Post
      Rightly so, I thought it was funny too. What I also found funny is that the only dictionary deanstar has used so far is urban dictionary.
      well you are implying I'm ignorant because of not using a dictionary. But it's just more talk isn't it. In reality I have a similar life as everyone else. I can do most of the things a person is known to be able to do. Any sort of condescending sort of disapproval by you, isn't really backed by anything solid other than your own ideas.
      Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 08:18 PM. Reason: Merged

    11. #61
      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
      A simple paradox is? Something that cannot exist in reality. There is no idea you could create, that wouldn't be an idea. Rules of logic are just ideas. Paradox is your own ideas. You are going into anarchy by your own methods of investigation cause if you deny an idea, that's merely another idea. What are you going to use as logic? If logic is material than where is it. If logic is limited what are the limits? If logic is not changing, then tell me the exact conditions. lulz.
      Again, you ignore what you quote and start a new argument because you fear you have lost the one you were just in. Care to argue against my argument and not just spouting off dribble that makes no sense? Honestly, what in the fuck are you trying to say here? When did I ever mention ideas not being ideas, or assert that ideas were a material thing? What straws did you grasp at in your mind to come up with that? A paradox relies on very specific and vague wording. Let me give you the definition of a paradox according to many internet dictionaries:
      Quote Originally Posted by merriam-webster.com
      [Paradox]

      A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
      Now let us think a moment here. How can a statement be seemingly contradictory but in fact be true? In order to meet that criteria you must be purposefully vague and make a broad, encompassing statement that to most would sound as if to be false, but in fact at least some of the time could be true. "Some paradoxes are not paradoxical" is a paradox, a statement that is seemingly contradictory (how can paradoxes not be paradoxical if paradoxical means to be characteristic of being a paradox?) but may in fact be true, because you did not say if the paradoxes were seemingly paradoxes, guaranteed to be paradoxes, or flat out lies labeled as paradoxes, you just said that some paradoxes are not paradoxical. Since you did not specify if they were true paradoxes or fake paradoxes or paradoxes assumed under false pretenses, the statement is technically true when otherwise it would be false because if you assume that the person asserting the paradox is talking about legitimate paradoxes when he says "some paradoxes", then of course, according to what logic tells us (and again we are talking about logic using its one and only definition, a methodology of thinking that does not contradict itself in any way, shape or form), the statement will always be false. If the giver of the paradox changes what he says to "All legitimate paradoxes are paradoxical," it becomes a factual statement and not a paradox, much like the statement that a broken clock--given that a clock is made with the specific purpose of keeping time during the day--will in fact show the right time at least once a day, even despite its brokenness. The brokenness has no bearing on if it can show the correct time of day once because that's a given! So, as I said, the statement would have to be revised to "broken clocks can keep time throughout the day" or something along that lines.

      Now if you were paying attention, you could trap me here based on my own logic. During the course of this post I actually proved myself wrong somewhat, because you possibly could have been talking about a clock that refers to, for instance, CPU speed, but you never used that argument against me. So while admit I was somewhat wrong at first, I might as well be right because you never brought that valid point up and instead opted to grab for straws and try and get me to change the subject so we would forget that you don't know what a paradox is.

      edit:
      I feel like the reason you are so opposed to admitting you could be wrong or that someone else could possibly be right is because you are taking everyone arguing against you personally. I want you to know that I am not judging you as a person based on your beliefs or the arguments you have been making in this website, and if you bring a valid point when arguing against me I will acknowledge it, I see no shame in it. View this as a challenge, I am trying to make you actually cover your bases instead of ruin your arguments using the tactics you are already using. They aren't working, and they never will. Quit trying to change the subject, quit trying to say that we must be using different definitions for words that only have one accepted definition. Argue with reason and logic man, it helps.
      Last edited by snoop; 08-31-2014 at 06:42 PM.

    12. #62
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7

    13. #63
      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
      Again, you ignore what you quote and start a new argument because you fear you have lost the one you were just in. Care to argue against my argument and not just spouting off dribble that makes no sense? Honestly, what in the fuck are you trying to say here? When did I ever mention ideas not being ideas, or assert that ideas were a material thing? What straws did you grasp at in your mind to come up with that? A paradox relies on very specific and vague wording. Let me give you the definition of a paradox according to many internet dictionaries:

      Now let us think a moment here. How can a statement be seemingly contradictory but in fact be true? In order to meet that criteria you must be purposefully vague and make a broad, encompassing statement that to most would sound as if to be false, but in fact at least some of the time could be true. "Some paradoxes are not paradoxical" is a paradox, a statement that is seemingly contradictory (how can paradoxes not be paradoxical if paradoxical means to be characteristic of being a paradox?) but may in fact be true, because you did not say if the paradoxes were seemingly paradoxes, guaranteed to be paradoxes, or flat out lies labeled as paradoxes, you just said that some paradoxes are not paradoxical. Since you did not specify if they were true paradoxes or fake paradoxes or paradoxes assumed under false pretenses, the statement is technically true when otherwise it would be false because if you assume that the person asserting the paradox is talking about legitimate paradoxes when he says "some paradoxes", then of course, according to what logic tells us (and again we are talking about logic using its one and only definition, a methodology of thinking that does not contradict itself in any way, shape or form), the statement will always be false. If the giver of the paradox changes what he says to "All legitimate paradoxes are paradoxical," it becomes a factual statement and not a paradox, much like the statement that a broken clock--given that a clock is made with the specific purpose of keeping time during the day--will in fact show the right time at least once a day, even despite its brokenness. The brokenness has no bearing on if it can show the correct time of day once because that's a given! So, as I said, the statement would have to be revised to "broken clocks can keep time throughout the day" or something along that lines.

      Now if you were paying attention, you could trap me here based on my own logic. During the course of this post I actually proved myself wrong somewhat, because you possibly could have been talking about a clock that refers to, for instance, CPU speed, but you never used that argument against me. So while admit I was somewhat wrong at first, I might as well be right because you never brought that valid point up and instead opted to grab for straws and try and get me to change the subject so we would forget that you don't know what a paradox is.

      edit:
      I feel like the reason you are so opposed to admitting you could be wrong or that someone else could possibly be right is because you are taking everyone arguing against you personally. I want you to know that I am not judging you as a person based on your beliefs or the arguments you have been making in this website, and if you bring a valid point when arguing against me I will acknowledge it, I see no shame in it. View this as a challenge, I am trying to make you actually cover your bases instead of ruin your arguments using the tactics you are already using. They aren't working, and they never will. Quit trying to change the subject, quit trying to say that we must be using different definitions for words that only have one accepted definition. Argue with reason and logic man, it helps.
      Do you realize how funny you sound right now? You went into overdrive man. You said use logic and reason. But you cannot define logic and reason without being all knowing.


    14. #64
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Do you realize how funny you sound right now? You went into overdrive man. You said use logic and reason. But you cannot define logic and reason without being all knowing.
      There was one question I most wanted you to answer, and it seems like you're coming back to it again now. Do you feel that choosing to have faith in the bible is an alternative to choosing to have faith in logic and reasoning?

      I'm just going to say that, logic and reasoning is sort of all we have. It's implied in the word reasoning - it means to create your reasons, to work out your reasons; you use it for everything. All information passes through your mind and you will be using logic and reasoning to judge it. So if you read the bible and decide "This must be the truth", guess what you used to determine that? You used your own reasoning skills, you had premises and you made conclusions from what you heard or read. You can have faulty, when your conclusions aren't true (Ex. all men are human, Louise is a human, therefore Louise is a man), and you can also have wrong premises.

      We don't have personalized versions of logic and reasoning, we have observable facts out there in the world, and then we can use logic and reasoning to try and find out what the truth about the world is. The logic has to be consistent, otherwise we won't get anywhere since we don't have anything else to use, and we also have to have true premises.

      It's probably not a good explanation, but it's what I can come up with.

    15. #65
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      Posts
      76
      Likes
      33
      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. 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.



      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



      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.
      Yes you could but you do not.

      Revelation 4:11 (KJV)
      Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

      Amos 3:6 (KJV)
      Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?

      Your God enjoys evil and is the author and creator of all evil.

      Unless you wish to name God's co-creator.

      Regards
      DL
      Last edited by Gnostic; 08-31-2014 at 08:33 PM.

    16. #66
      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
      There was one question I most wanted you to answer, and it seems like you're coming back to it again now. Do you feel that choosing to have faith in the bible is an alternative to choosing to have faith in logic and reasoning?
      You realize that logic and reason is not the full extent of your thinking capacity. If you only lived by logic and reasoning. Half of your mind would be gone and you would be blind. Blind to things like emotion and experiences in general.


      I'm just going to say that, logic and reasoning is sort of all we have. It's implied in the word reasoning - it means to create your reasons, to work out your reasons; you use it for everything. All information passes through your mind and you will be using logic and reasoning to judge it. So if you read the bible and decide "This must be the truth", guess what you used to determine that?
      I didn't use logic to realize that the bible was true, for a good portion of my life it didn't make sense and I couldn't see it. What was the difference between when I became a beliver in Jesus Christ and when I wasn't? It was anything but a process of logic happening. Something supernatural happened that made me recognize things.

      You used your own reasoning skills, you had premises and you made conclusions from what you heard or read.
      There is prophecy in the bible that I still can't fully figure out. Something extraordinary happens when you recognize Christ. It's not a logical deduction, and any logic that comes from you, doesn't come from your own reasoning. Something else enters in you that you can't explain. Which people call the holy spirit.

      We don't have personalized versions of logic and reasoning
      This isn't exactly true is it. If you look at the internet. what do you see? Constant arguments. If everyone agreed on what logic was. Then we wouldn't be arguing and we would all be perfect. Logic is drastically different from person to person because we are imperfect.
      Last edited by Deanstar; 08-31-2014 at 08:30 PM.

    17. #67
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      Posts
      76
      Likes
      33
      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!

      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.
      “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
      “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
      Martin Luther “

      This puts the rest of us in a position where reasoning with literalist theist like you becomes impossible.

      It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
      Jonathan Swift

      You say you have faith in God.

      Faith without facts is for fools and your faith has made you adore a genocidal son murdering prick of a God.



      Regards
      DL

    18. #68
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      You realize that logic and reason is not the full extent of your thinking capacity. If you only lived by logic and reasoning. Half of your mind would be gone and you would be blind. Blind to things like emotion and experiences in general.
      Yes, but you use logic to interpret experiences and emotions.
      If you experience something great, you need logic and reasoning to make sense of it.

      It was anything but a process of logic happening. Something supernatural happened that made me recognize things.
      Ah, yes... At first you didn't believe because it didn't seem to make sense. Then you had a supernatural experience that was very clear to you, that made everything make sense. After such an experience, switching to believing in God was only... Oh, what's the word...

      There is prophecy in the bible that I still can't fully figure out. Something extraordinary happens when you recognize Christ. It's not a logical deduction, and any logic that comes from you, doesn't come from your own reasoning. Something else enters in you that you can't explain. Which people call the holy spirit.
      How do you know it isn't your reasoning? How do you know it's something else? Why did this realization make you follow your God? Any answer you can come up with to these questions would be reasons. If it isn't your reasoning, then it is still your reasoning that decided to listen to it. You can't get around your own deduction.

      Indeed we are imperfect, that's why we need an especially hardcore system that can kill false beliefs. We don't have all the facts, so it's not logic that's wrong. I'm not an expert, but logic is actually insanely hardcore, to the point where pure logic is pretty much math. It's all about what you feed into it; if you use true premises and valid inferences, you get the truth.

    19. #69
      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
      pure logic is pretty much math.
      Then why can't you answer some basic questions about what it is. Tell me briefly Is logic immaterial or material? Is logic limited or limitless? Is logic changing or unchanging. Start there if you think logic is so definite. You should be able to tell me the nature of logic by answering these simple questions about it. Then we can deduce what you think logic is. If you can't answer those questions you don't even have any boundary and it wouldn't be like maths at all.

    20. #70
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Then why can't you answer some basic questions about what it is. Tell me briefly Is logic immaterial or material? Is logic limited or limitless? Is logic changing or unchanging. Start there if you think logic is so definite. You should be able to tell me the nature of logic by answering these simple questions about it. Then we can deduce what you think logic is. If you can't answer those questions you don't even have any boundary and it wouldn't be like maths at all.
      I don't know what you mean by that. Clearly logic isn't some object in the world so I guess it's immaterial? Limited or limitless, in what sense? Logic is like language, how can I say whether it is limited or limitless? And no I don't think it changes.

    21. #71
      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 don't know what you mean by that. Clearly logic isn't some object in the world so I guess it's immaterial? Limited or limitless, in what sense? Logic is like language, how can I say whether it is limited or limitless? And no I don't think it changes.
      So if logic is immaterial. You realize that is has to be something outside time and space, and have attributes of things outside time and space. That means it would not be limited by any laws.

    22. #72
      Banned
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      LD Count
      5
      Gender
      Posts
      1,342
      Likes
      728
      DJ Entries
      16
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      So if logic is immaterial. You realize that is has to be something outside time and space, and have attributes of things outside time and space. That means it would not be limited by any laws.
      No, I don't think so. Language is also immaterial, and so is 'a dance', and 'culture', and 'time' and 'space' themselves. There's plenty of concepts that aren't made of actual physical stuff. Paradox, conclusion, law... None of them are things that refer to any physical thing, they're concepts. Logic is a system, it's not a thing.

      Anyway, it appears you're saying logic can't be trusted, and that makes any discussion with you completely meaningless because there's no other way to make an argument. I can say that candy is sweet therefore God doesn't exist - it's faulty logic, gives me wrong conclusions. Just as when you nonsensically leap from "X isn't physical" to "X is outside of time and space and is limitless". It's insane, wrong, and like it or not; an attempt at using logic.
      Last edited by Maeni; 08-31-2014 at 09:11 PM.

    23. #73
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      Isn't there something wrong if you can only find god when you turn off your brain and accept blind faith? Logic is basically defined as sound reasoning, and you just said you can't find God through sound reasoning. You know what that means? You basically said you can only find god through unsound reasoning. If you can't find god with logic then you are finding him through faulty logic and if your using faulty logic to find him, then chances are you are wrong.

      Another area you have faulty logic is in saying that God has to be omnipotent in order to create the universe. Where is the logic in that? A person doesn't have to be all powerful to a create a universe, they only have to be powerful enough to create the universe. There are theories, on how humans could create a new universe. The main problem we have right now, and the reason we can't test it, is that it take an extremely large amount of energy.

      It is also possible to create things without understanding how that thing works. You could for example know if you put helium in a balloon that it will float, and you could go on to make a blimp that floats in air with helium. You don't necessarily know why helium makes the blimp float though. You could think it is just a magic gas. Another example, you could create a living baby without know how to do it. Sex results in children, entirely regardless of if the people know how babies are made or not.

      Also, it is kind of funny you brought up Santa Claus, because I actually created a thread on this forum about Santa Claus once. In that thread I asked and debated if I should tell my nephew that Santa Claus wasn't real or not. I honestly thought I should be honest about it, though my problem was his mother and grand mother really hate the idea so I didn't want to create conflict with them.

      Also, infinity is used in math all the time. Infinity doesn't break math, in fact some math uses infinity to our advantage. So that line of thinking is entirely wrong.

      Lastly, they have a point when they ask if God is really omniscience or if he just thinks he is. As I pointed out earlier, the God of the bible is extremely prideful and arrogant, so it seems extremely likely he can think he knows everything, when in reality he doesn't. In that case, he would still go around telling everyone he was all powerful and all knowing, yet he isn't. As he follower, you would believe his claims even if they were incorrect. Your blind faith requires you not to question him at all.

      Maeni actually hits on a very good point. If God was all knowing, then he would be aware of the fact that it is possible he doesn't know everything. You would think that he would then be a bit more humble, but he isn't. He boasts about it. Which makes it seem more like he just thinks he knows everything, rather than actually knowing it. The bible seems to support that because his actions really don't seem to reflect on an all knowing being.

      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      Then why can't you answer some basic questions about what it is. Tell me briefly Is logic immaterial or material? Is logic limited or limitless? Is logic changing or unchanging. Start there if you think logic is so definite. You should be able to tell me the nature of logic by answering these simple questions about it. Then we can deduce what you think logic is. If you can't answer those questions you don't even have any boundary and it wouldn't be like maths at all.
      Logic is simply sound reasoning. It is a thought process. Your questions don't really make any sense. To say you are not using logic basically means your not thinking. If your not using some form of logic than your opinion is basically gibberish. When you say God can't be understood by logic, you are basically saying your just pulling this stuff out of your ass and have no real grounds for believing what you believe.
      Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 10:48 PM. Reason: Merged
      Maeni likes this.

    24. #74
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      LD Count
      1
      Gender
      Location
      The Future
      Posts
      172
      Likes
      51
      DJ Entries
      7
      It's very simple. If logic is not a material thing. You cannot measure it by anything material. You cannot say it has restrictions if it's not material. That is very basic logic. The very fact you cannot agree on something so simple is evidence that logic really has no real rules.

      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      Also, it is kind of funny you brought up Santa Claus, because I actually created a thread on this forum about Santa Claus once. In that thread I asked and debated if I should tell my nephew that Santa Claus wasn't real or not. I honestly thought I should be honest about it, though my problem was his mother and grand mother really hate the idea so I didn't want to create conflict with them.

      Also, infinity is used in math all the time. Infinity doesn't break math, in fact some math uses infinity to our advantage.
      I used the santa claus thing not because of your thread about it, but because you are so predictable.

      If infinity is mathematical then you should be able to define it properly. Yet what is infinity plus 1? Is it any different an answer to infinite minus 1? No! If two different mathematical questions get the same answer, that proves that it's not logical. 3 plus infinity is? What about 125 times infinity? You must not understand basic maths and your claim that infinity makes sense in mathematics is known to be false. Now you can either admit your mistake or just move on and understand that you may not know everything.
      Last edited by anderj101; 08-31-2014 at 10:54 PM. Reason: Merged

    25. #75
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      Posts
      76
      Likes
      33
      Quote Originally Posted by Deanstar View Post
      It's very simple. If logic is not a material thing. You cannot measure it by anything material. You cannot say it has restrictions if it's not material. That is very basic logic. The very fact you cannot agree on something so simple is evidence that logic really has no real rules.
      Is faith a material thing?

      If faith is not a material thing. You cannot measure it by anything material. You cannot say it has restrictions if it's not material. That is very basic logic.

      Regards
      DL

    Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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
    •