Simple question. Do you think God can be manipulated? Why or why not?
Printable View
Simple question. Do you think God can be manipulated? Why or why not?
Since God is a man made concept he can easily be manipulated. Hence the reason we have thousands of religions, and religious sects. Even if you want to believe there is a God though, it is ridiculously easy to say God said something when it was just your own words. Since if God is real, he clearly doesn't do anything in this world that is visible to people and thus never corrects people who lie in his name, his words can be twisted and manipulated by anyone.
Nicely said Alric.
Nicely said. With no believers around. I can see why they don't bother. And yet I write! I guess I will have to be the 'not approved person' to disagree. I see a general anti god trend with you an some others which is ironic culture for a religion spirituality section.
let me see.....This question is like asking can your mother or father be manipulated, or can your girlfriend or your family be manipulated. It's a jerk ass question but with your reasoning the premise and goal is to make fun of people who believe in God here (due to presumable not existing) You think it's amusing but it's not even a relevant question. Alric's reasoning is a predetermined answer that you already wanted for the thread. Intellectual dishonesty....
Now, The scriptures do say that God can't be mocked, that you reap what you sow. Do you think manipulation wouldn't be a form of mocking. If you think it's not a form of humiliation to be manipulated you would generally be considered wrong by most sensible people. So in essence no God can't be manipulated as that's not apropriate clearly. God isn't imaginary anyway, and yet my very existence in occult philosophy idea's are bullet proof and I'm a witness and that makes it real. Relative truth in a multiverse? Either way you lose on so many levels. But the real level you lose on is the fact God is real and truth is objective despite mans philosophies, even if you try and lie, run away, whatever you do to try and deny it. He's going to deal with you cause it don't matter.
you want to be involved in Lucid, then read the words that elect isn't fooled no matter what technology, no matter what philosophy or what happens. Can't win. Lucifer don't even have the numbers on his side cause it was such a bad idea. Can't get the choosen.
yes I am a crackpot to you, no you can't have some of my crazy. Thank you for reading.
Simple answer, no. Manipulation assumes that you can trick or fool someone by withholding the truth of your actions or intentions.
In the Christian sense, its impossible to trick or manipulate God because God would already know your true intentions and actions. Nor can that same God be pinned down to a corner with only one route of action. Jesus' God is limitless, with limitless actions.
In a more Hindu sense, nothing you say or do will ever tarnish the divine, and that goes for All. In other words, you can't manipulate the divine to be less than what it is. It is and always will be.
If someone is trying to manipulate God or the divine, all that means is they have a bad understanding of those concepts. It kinda goes back to negotiating in prayers. Priests have to remind believers negotiating in prayer doesn't work nor is it what prayer is all about. You can't say "God do this for me if I give up smoking"
Interesting thread, even if you don't believe.
Interesting answer juroara.
I was thinking of manipulation more along the lines of changing something. Like manipulating a piece of clay. I had not even thought of the aspect of tricking or fooling. Along the lines of manipulating in the sense of changing God I first thought, well it's done all the time with differing religions, but that would be from a human perspective, so "God" would not truly be manipulated, but our perception of him would. My other thought was kind of a take off on my other thread "Who or What is God to you". Since I don't subscribe to the magic man in the sky theory, and do subscribe to God as the Universe and creation, I would say yes, God can be manipulated. Man has shown it can manipulate darn near everything in the natural world.
Hmmm....I like what you said about the Hindu sense and not being able to tarnish the divine. Thats got me thinking, so I'll come back to that after a bit of pondering.
Maybe god is some really insecure supernatural being.
He created earth cause he wanted some realistic opinions. The people he created kept twisting his words until he started believing them. Every time a new religion pops up he starts to follow them because a bunch of people start praying to him that their way is the right one.
In that case, yes, god is capable of being manipulated. In fact maybe he's believing what I wrote just now, in which case he once again knows the truth.
In case you believe in one of the less likely situations, like an omnipotent god, then no he can't be manipulated.
The idea of god is manipulated all the time. Even if there is an actual god, nobody really knows what's true about it and what isn't, they can only rely on what people have said on the issue. In fact, the reason the idea of god was created in the first place was for manipulation, and since then it's been used to manipulate in various different ways.
In the immortal words of Michael Stanley in the song Let's Get the Show on the Road: "The lord uses the good ones, and the bad ones use the lord".
Edited to add bonus music video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgFsiDtC2fk
Yeah, that was kind of my thought too. Nice post darkmatters.
For the sake of argument, lets pretend God is real and the bible is true. The bible gives several examples of God being manipulated. For example in the story of Job, Satan clearly manipulates God. In fact that story actually demonstrates that it is extremely easy to manipulate the God of the bible. Satan had him wrapped around his little finger.
Wow. Good reference. I had forgot about that one.
Actually God clearly had Satan wrapped around his little finger, because God proved Satan wrong and ended up giving Job a lot more than he had before (including more glory) as well as taught Job and the rest of humanity an extremely valuable theological lesson about human suffering in the face of righteousness. If you read the book of Job it provides a very good explanation as to why good people have to suffer at all. That dispute is over when Satan lost that argument a long time ago. He lost the argument that we only do it for the reward, and he lost the argument that Good people shouldn't have to suffer. That's 2 birds in one stone. Pretty Good for being 'manipulated'. If I was satan and I had lost that dispute, I would realize I am now a lot worse off than before, he is the one that feels manipulated, he was used as a tool to demonstrate something. Even though those arguments are invalid today people still use them, just like people still believe in all kinds of false things because of a lack of education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
(I love how you say "lets pretend it's real" each time you start your argument. If it wasn't real you wouldn't have to mention it)
I can't believe no one in the thread has suggested yet that God could possibly be someone or something other than what is described in the Abrahamic religions. If you want to break things down, there is a state of nonexistence and a state of existence. This state of existence by its very nature propagates itself and has literally manifested itself in every conceivable way in the universe. Look at it like binary, which is a clear example that everything can be lowered to the most common denominator of an "on" or "off" state, 0 and 1, 1 or 2, however you want to look at it. Existence's manifestation of itself has resulted in literally everything because that's all there is. So what do we find God to be? We literally are the spawns of existence so if you view our definition of God as this state of existence, God is easily manipulated because we can alter which ways this manifestation takes place.
That is silly, why would God need to prove anything to Satan? Obviously Satan is just a plot device in that story. They needed a character to challenge god, so that he would have a reason to hurt his follower to prove his point. However, if you take it literally as if Satan and God were real people, then Satan clearly manipulated God into harming Job. Satan didn't win the argument but he did manipulate god into doing horrible things to his own follower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Also that is pretty messed up that his wife and all his children died and god just replaced them. As if you can replace human that easily. Your child dies, you just have sex and make some more, no big deal right? That is a pretty twisted view of human life.
Also no, you are wrong. I said 'lets pretend it is real', because it isn't real and I don't want people getting weird ideas. Ideally I shouldn't have to say such thing when we are talking about obviously fictional characters, but some people mistake them as real characters.
Deanstar, it's arguendo or postulation; whichever - it is necessary to either expose sophistry or discrepancies in a notion, theory or system. Even believers exploit arguendo some say "Let's say God is not real; then who triggered the Big Bang ?". (;postulation is not applicable) It allows people to delve into an argument more adequately and allows us to recognize dichotomy. "If it wasn't real you wouldn't have to mention it" - I'll presume you were attempting to undermine Alric's post with this comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I kind of said that. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Somehow I completely missed that post :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
ah, God didn't 'need' anything from Satan. Satan was the one with the issues, he requested something of God (to have power over Job), which was granted. He asked if Job feared God for nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
God wasn't afraid of Job being tested, neither was Job. Imagine if God said No. You would have an extra tissy fit and say all of God's followers are fake pussies cause they are never tested. This is how you roll. You and your double standards. When it's demonstrated that the loyalty is not fake through extreme suffering and pain. You complain that it was allowed to happen anyway. This is completely stupid you can't have it both ways.Quote:
Satan clearly manipulated God into harming Job. Satan didn't win the argument but he did manipulate god into doing horrible things to his own follower.
Everyone dies dude. If you have a problem with Job getting another wife. Then you also have a problem with everyone on this planet who's wife has died who has then remarried. Isn't it funny that you only have an issue when it suits you. You never complained about everyone getting another wife, until this argument comes up where you have to defend satan. lolz.Quote:
Also that is pretty messed up that his wife and all his children died and god just replaced them. As if you can replace human that easily.
If you think it's not real. Then why do you feel the need to challenge the theology and the bible itself. Why don't you challenge spiderman or the batman movie? That's not real, argue with that. There is a lot of batman fans, try and convince them batman isn't good or real. They will still be a batman fan. Why are you not threatened by that, but you are threatened by my beliefs.Quote:
Also no, you are wrong. I said 'lets pretend it is real', because it isn't real and I don't want people getting weird ideas.
You don't need to say "lets say God is not real" and people never say that. They just simply ask the question. What triggered the big bang? You never hear christians saying "lets say God isn't real" because that's not what they believe. Anyone that says that is starting with a faulty premise because God IS real, and you don't need to pretend he isn't, to make a good argument. In fact if you pretend he isn't real you are already defeating yourself as a christian. There is no possible gain from starting my argument like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristocles
It's shocking how you can't see the absurdity of that logic.
nice responseQuote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxXGzvZw4F4
You hoe a tough row so better get used to doing your apologetics without whining my friend. That is what I had to do when going from atheist or non-belief to a Gnostic Christian belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That belief has nothing to do with the miracle working God you believe in. The Godhead I found is all natural although many atheists do not see him that way and would rather call what I know to be true as woo. I girdled my loins and so should you.
I believe that God can be manipulated.
For instance. If he is to send you to hell, you can manipulate his judgement from guilty to innocent by just repenting. Right?
There is also the story where God could not win a battle because of steel wheeled chariots. Whoever built those manipulated God with them.
Regards
DL
I genuinely hope that you are intentionally writing in an equivocal fashion to simply be perverse, however, if you are serious then I can only hope disputation will facilitate some form evolution regarding your beliefs.
I can not help but wonder if you would concede that some subscribers of theology exploit it for personal gain (;a charlatan) or intentionally mislead the masses to obtain some kind of social conformity that they approve of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
What sincerely concerns me are those who would legislate on the basis of religious dogma - that to me is frightening. This is explicitly; reason enough to challenge any of whom; who would wish our country("ies") be governed by regressive theological dogmatism.
"Why don't you challenge spiderman or the batman movie ? That's not real, argue with that." I can not allow you to get away with this one - this is directly why I made the above enquiry regarding your intentions. You have to be cognizant of the distinction between theology and that of Batman or Spiderman, though I agree they are all fictional and hold no bearing on the universe. Believing in a intervening personal god is proprietary, however you could imagine if members of our society actually believed in a crime stopping batman they would be stigmatize and rightly so. Majority of us; including you, do not believe in an actual batman or spiderman and I'll add that no politician is currently (;that I know of) legislating on behalf of batman.
"You never hear christians saying "let's say God isn't real" because that's not what they believe" True - it is never usually framed this way ... I should not have framed it that way, but the statement still holds water "Who triggered the Big Bang ?" The very utterance of this statement is a concession (;not capitulation) from a theist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Atheist - "God does not exist !"
Theist - "Oh, well then who triggered the Big Bang ?"
Very simple, but it gets my point across - the question inherently stipulates the non-existence of God. I'll add this to the question to clarify further "Oh, well then who triggered the Big Bang; if god does not exist". Theist use arguendo defensively while atheist typically use arguendo offensively .... enough said.
Can you read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Who manipulated / moved who?
Job 2;3 And the LORD said unto Satan: 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.'
Note God sayin --- moved me.
If you have to lie to make a point, you lose that point.
You say God made up for the harm he did.
If your kids are murdered, is that pain gone and justice done if you have more children?
Only a really immoral man will say yes.
And a really immoral God would think his actions moral in, as God said, destroying without cause.
Regards
DL
Read the story again, you can clearly see that God is very vain and Satan uses that to get God to do what he wants, multiple times. Even after God harms Job, and proves Job is good, Satan comes back and gets God and even more harm is done to Job. It is obviously God is doing all of this because he is vain and feels like he needs to show off and seek Satan's approval for some reason. He is clearly manipulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I wouldn't say anything of the sort. I have never said people had to be tortured to see if they were true followers, and I wouldn't call a person a pussy because they weren't willing to be tortured to prove a point. Also Job did question God and showed he wasn't entirely faithful any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
There is a huge difference between your wife dying naturally, and then moving on and getting a new wife, and someone murdering your wife then giving you a replacement. The murdering part is an issue, and the treating women as property part is an issue. Same thing for the children. You can't just treaty people like property and replace them and say it is good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I have done that before. There is a lot of people who will debate if Batman is good or evil, since his character can skirt around the law and depending on the comic/movie, he can be pretty dark some times. I would say he is generally a good guy, but there is definitely some depictions of him that might be more grey. I am not threaten with either things though, with their idea of batman or your belief in god. I am just describing what is in the bible, and it clearly says God was manipulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
You have that story very wrong and do not understand what you are reading.Quote:
There is also the story where God could not win a battle because of steel wheeled chariots.
kind regards, DeanQuote:
Regards
DL
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristocles
Perhaps your interpretation of the Book of Job, is the best example of that.Quote:
I can not help but wonder if you would concede that some subscribers of theology exploit it for personal gain (;a charlatan) or intentionally mislead the masses to obtain some kind of social conformity that they approve of.
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?Quote:
imagine if members of our society actually believed in a crime stopping batman they would be stigmatize and rightly so. Majority of us; including you, do not believe in an actual batman or spiderman and I'll add that no politician is currently (;that I know of) legislating on behalf of batman.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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".
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.
An 8 year old would make a better apologist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.....lulzQuote:
an omnipotent being cannot create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it
If I have 8 year old logic. Then you have? 4 year old logic? lol even less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.Quote:
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 he is omnipotent, he has to be able to create anything, even something that is put together from "not compatible" things.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That's not what I'm saying either, let's try again:Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
If you haven't got an argument better than "You don't know that", then you haven't got an argument.
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)Quote:
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......
I don't know what you mean by that...Quote:
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.
? 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
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)
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.....Quote:
I don't know what you mean by that...
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.
Can you fathom what you just said? please give me an example of a paradox that does make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
A clock will be correct once a day even though it's broken. That's a paradox that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
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??Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
edit: Since you ninja'd me.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
So you're saying God can't create something that is both light and unliftable at the same time?Quote:
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.
Yes, because God, being all powerful, would be able to do it no matter how paradoxical it is.Quote:
You are purposely creating a paradox that doesn't make sense.
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.Quote:
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,
Sure he could get rid of it, but can he lift it?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.
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 snoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
These are not paradoxes, you do not understand paradoxes, as has been said before.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.
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.Quote:
As for a language he can't understand. God created your thoughts. But he wouldn't recognize your logic.
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Okay, so now we have an undrinkable drink. Can God drink it?Quote:
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.
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. :vQuote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
edit:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.
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 snoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
In the end I believe in the gospel. You believe in your own logic.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
Words don't contradict each other, but when you take them as parts and arrange them into sentences, you can create a contradictory sentence.
I think you are falling into "Deans law" Urban Dictionary: Dean's LawQuote:
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
Quote:
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!"
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.Quote:
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.
I think you're absolutely right, I did have a bit of a giggle writing that.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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 Maeni
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
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 Deanstar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by merriam-webster.com
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbGs_qK2PQA
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.
Yes you could but you do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
You used your own reasoning skills, you had premises and you made conclusions from what you heard or read.
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.Quote:
We don't have personalized versions of logic and reasoning
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
“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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI
Regards
DL
Yes, but you use logic to interpret experiences and emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
If you experience something great, you need logic and reasoning to make sense of it.
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...Quote:
It was anything but a process of logic happening. Something supernatural happened that made me recognize things.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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.
I used the santa claus thing not because of your thread about it, but because you are so predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
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.
Is faith a material thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
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
You are using very poor logic. Let me help.
1. You are not clearly defining your terms and your using them weirdly. Are you considering thought processes as material or immaterial? Seeing as how our brains are material and thoughts happen in our brain, you can say that logic is material because it is happening in our physical brains. However, in a casual conversations a person usually isn't going to say a thought is material. Is a thought a physical thing? Even though the thoughts are inside our brains and so physical things, the ideas them self are not really material. There isn't a 1+1=2 particle that floats in space as a physical object.
2. There is nothing saying immaterial things have no restrictions. If we are using the idea that thoughts and ideas are immaterial, then that makes math immaterial. Math clearly has set rules and restrictions. There is no logical reason to think immaterial things don't have limits and restrictions. You basically just pulled that out of your ass.
That is totally incorrect. I can absolutely prove that your statement is 100% wrong. You just said that if two different mathematical questions have the same answer, that proves it is not logical. That is faulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
3+2=5
6-1=5
That is two separate mathematical equations that gives the same result. You are wrong. There is absolutely no reason what so ever, that multiple equations can't equal the same thing. You just pulled that totally out of your ass. Now I think it is time for you to admit you are wrong, or are you going to argue that 3+2 isn't 5? Or that 6-1 isn't also 5?
How about your inability to counter our arguments, you basing arguments on your own definition of words. There's no talk here, everything you have posted is congruent with the manner in which trolls or self delusional people speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
You bend and twist words, accuse others of their lack of understanding yet you yourself are most guilty of this. If there is one thing you can convince members of dreamviews with, it's a compelling argument. All you have given us is absolute dribble, and most members so far have tried to reason with you but you offer nothing in return. I do look down on the way you think because you shun us in the same fashion and I have no respect for hypocrites.
You have to have faith in something, and then your faith is backed by what you live. So yes it's material to that extent you can see it manifest in your life as you live it, and you can see the effects, you can measure the effects. If you want to claim your logic is material, you have to back it up with rules that you can state clearly and measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
You don't understand. 6-1, is the same amount as 3 + 2. That's not inconsistent at all. But 125 times infinite. Should be more than 2 plus infinite. But it is not. That is inconsistent. Do you know the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
The rules of maths are clear, Addition means that if you add numbers together. the number has to increase. If you add 3 plus infinity. That is the same as if you add 8 times infinity. This has broken the rule of maths.
How is it inconsistent? 125 times infinity is the same thing as 2 plus infinity. Just like 3+2 and 6-1 result in the same thing. Just like 2+2 is the same as 2 times 2, or 2 to the power of 2. They are all the same thing. How is any of this inconsistent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
You are just making the assumption that are incorrect. 125 times something isn't always more than 2 plus something. What if I used the number -1? 125 times -1 is -125. If we add 2 plus -1, we get 1. In which case 125 times -1 is smaller than 2 plus -1.
The flaw isn't in the math or my logic, the flaw is in your assumptions. Tell me why you think 125 times infinity should be more than 2 plus infinity. Otherwise admit that they are the same thing and that I am right.
-125 is a different thing to 2 minus -1. You are just trying to confuse the obvious arn't you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
According to the rules of maths (I can't believe I have to explain addition to you) plus means to add. So If you add numbers together, you have to get more than the two numbers put together. If you have infinity and you try to add numbers to it. That won't increase infinity. You have broken the rules of addition. Infinity doesn't make sense in mathematics.Quote:
Tell me why you think 125 times infinity should be more than 2 plus infinity.
For heaven sake.....
Infinity is not a number.
Let's bring in some people who actually know what they're talking about. Infinity in mathematics is obviously beyond any of our abilities.
numberphile
Basically, it's not as simple as you want it to be here.
It seems I have to make it very simple, or you will simply argue. In fact no matter how simple I make things, or how complex. You argue regardless. That is your goal. To argue no matter what sense it makes. Even when it's verified you argue again. It's a joke....Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Lets just assume that your mind is closed.
dude already in that video I can see that guy is a retard. He says "some infinity is bigger than others". That doesn't make any sense. He is just making his own rules up. It's stupid.
You might be confused but what I said was pretty clear. That multiplication doesn't always result in a larger number than addition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That isn't true. What you just said isn't a rule of math. What if I do negative 5 plus negative 5? I get negative 10, a number smaller than both of the numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
You forget reciprocity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
If logic makes you believe something it is backed by what you live. So yes it's material to that extent you can see it manifest in your life as you live it, and you can see the effects, you can measure the effects. If you want to claim your faith is material, you have to back it up with rules that you can state clearly and measure.
Regards
DL
That is easy to prove. Negative infinity is way smaller than positive infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That's not proper addition. Can you demonstrate minus 5 apples plus another minus 5 apples? Minus 5 apples is not addition. If you don't have any apples, you can't add minus 5 of them. You are completely making the rules of maths into something retarded by adding something into this that is irrelevant. Just like if you started saying there is 2 types of infinite. When there isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
there is no such *facepalm. It doesn't matter if you have negative or positive infinity. Anymore than minus 5 or plu 5. It doesn't make any difference. Negative numbers only make sense when you are using them to take away from something. minus 5 apples makes sense if you have 10 apples. You cannot begin with minus 5 apples in real life.
vi hartQuote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Please don't pretend you know math...
Infinity isn't a number like the other numbers, that's why 125*∞ is the same as 8+∞.
Technically no. I'm assuming we're talking about elementary alegbra, but even then this statement is shaky at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
First of all you've used circular reasoning, by defining that adding numbers together results in more than the two numbers ... added together. You've just described a law using itself, which is generally frowned upon. To prove how malformed this logic is, say you have four apples, that's them all put together. Divide them in to two groups of two, then add them. You get back four. That's not more than the two groups put together, that's just the two groups put together.
Hey hey hey, slow down here. You've somewhat grasped the idea of addition with positive integers, it's exciting, I get it. But infinity isn't a positive integer. It's not even a number, or specific to mathematics at all! Infinity is the simple idea of something without limits. This could be the universe's size, the list of all natural numbers, or the space between two atoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I borrow 5 apples from Bob, then borrow another 5 apples from Bob. How many apples does bob have? He has negative 10 apples compared to what he started with. How did I get that answer? I added negative 5 plus negative 5 to get negative 10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
You clearly don't even know math at all. What you are claiming are rules of math are not rules of math, they are things you just made up. Also your examples are silly. Just because you can't have negative of a physical object, doesn't mean negatives don't exist. I can be in debt and have negative money because I owe money to others. I can move in a negative direction is I walk backwards. I can start floating on the surface of the ocean and go to a negative altitude by diving under water.
I was the one that claimed infinity isn't a number that can be used. So I am getting pretty short on patience by now. I can't tell if you are being a troll or if you really think what I am saying is invalid? No-one with any sensible brain would ever imagine that infinity conforms to the rules of maths. There is not "many types of infinity" unless you start creating them in your own head. That's what mathematicians do when they start making more rules up. You never herd of this controversy before? It's highly comical because it's just so obvious what infinity is. It's not even complex. Even a 10 year old can understand that infinity means forever. There is no way to get around the fact that infinity is not a particular number. Since maths uses numbers infinity is not an answer or even a question. It's just a idea. I could use anything I could say sausage is now a part of maths and every time I say sauage "this happens" and there is different types of sausages. And these are the rules. And I basically would turn into a magical wizard where whatever I say becomes a type of maths. And that's exactly what atheists do they make it up as they go along. But what can you actually do in real life? Not much different to what I can do as a human. you can write about infinity till the cows come home. Won't demonstrate that it makes sense in maths. Unless you change the rules of maths to include the abstract and undefinable. Which is pretty ridiculious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
I'm not a mathematician but people have made infinity work in math; it just doesn't work like normal everyday numbers do. You should listen to some of the many videos Vi Hart creates, she talks about a lot of this, about different types of math and things that are fairly interesting. You're right that infinity is weird and that it isn't a number, but I don't know exactly where you want to go with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
If bob didn't have any apples. Then how would bob give you any apples? Basic logic failed again.....Negative numbers can't work unless they are in relation to something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
negative infinity is equally as large as positive infinity. Only difference is one is negative other is positive. Infinity hasn't changed. rules of maths havn't changed. Neither has apples. Neither has the idea that you are wrong about something. You will fight to make the illogic a reality. But I want to be in reality where things are not delusions.
I haven't really been following the elementary school "take two apples" argument here but uh, this part is pretty obvious:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
The idea of maths is to use it for real life. So let me know when you can use infinity for something practical. Perhaps a free energy generator? There is no invention that currently runs on an equation that has infinity in it. So far as I know no-one has made infinity work and if they did, the FBI or someone would probaly be kicking their door down cause a technology like that would trump all fossil fuels, and all limitations of current technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
You have forgotten the point he was trying to make, and now have no idea what the discussion is. Well done. He was saying negative numbers make infinity different, that infinity was a rational number in mathematics. You agree with someone depending on their world view. Nice one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
THIS WAS HIS ARGUMENT THAT "INFINITY IS RATIONAL IN MATHS". NEGATIVE NUMBERS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INFINITY AND DO NOT CHANGE INFINITY. INFINITY IS NOT A NUMBER. IT BREAKS THE RULES OF MATHS BECAUSE INFINITY CANNOT BE DEFINED AS ANYTHING DEFINITE
I am out of here cause you people are crazy
That's a pretty wild claim. Anyway, without infinity, we wouldn't be able to move because of Zeno's paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
This is where you are an idiot, because infinity is used in calculus and stuff, which is then used in things like engineering to build pretty much all the modern technology we use today. You can say infinity doesn't work in math all you want but it is simply untrue. Like the video about infinity shows all sort of ways to manipulate infinity in mathematical ways. You can claim none of that stuff is real, yet people use that to build all sort of practical things in real life, all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
You simply lack the math skill to even grasp the concept. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you claim you know the rules better than the people who do understand the math and have better math skills than you, you just come across as ignorant.
you lack a capability of basic communication. If infinity can be used then why does everything has definite limitations? No-one claims they can build things with infinity. Where is the computer with infinite cpu power. Doesn't exist cause you are the idiot and not me.
oh it's a wild claim that maths is for real life? LOL. I don't care about zeno's paradox. We have demonstrated that there is no such thing as a paradox either. Not in real life. I didn't say that infinity didn't exist. I said that to use it in mathematics for anything is not rational. Just like speaking with you is not rational. Logic is not material (least not your type of logic) and neither is infinity something material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
you people are infinitely......backwards in your logic.
Where is the computer with seven hundred octillion gigabytes of RAM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Everything doesn't have definite limitations. In any case it doesn't change the fact that infinity can be and is used in math.
EDIT:
Considering how adamant you were about logic and reasoning being somehow untrustworthy concepts, you're getting disproportionately flustered about us being ostensibly "logically backwards" and not "rational".
I won't accept that a googol is a mathematical number before an engineer builds a skyscraper with a googol number of floors!
Infinity is used in mathematics, I don't think this is even something that's up for debate.
ummm. I can use pineapples, unicorns and rainbows in mathematics if I wanted. I can say pineapples plus unicorns equals rainbow rule. But how would you apply it? In an algebra equation Y+Z= X pineapples plus unicorns equals rainbows. It's just an abstract concept. You can't make it work in real life. It's just something that is nonsense. What is the real joke is you can't admit that mathematicians dupe everyone into that without them even knowing that it don't apply to real life problems that you can use. That's the difference between real maths, and irrational maths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
and yeah they have a thing called irrational numbers. Anything you can think of, don't let logic stop you. That's the whole point of my argument! How is logic even definable.
Advanced maths are not just theoretical and concept based, they are used to build bridges and put satellites into orbit and stuff. In that kind of math, infinity is used.
So I googled "infinity in practical math" and this was the top result. There's a couple of examples of where it is used. Again, I'm not a mathematician so I won't pretend I understand it. But I am going to say that it's clearly bullshit to say that it isn't rational to use it. There's like, at least 5 examples just in that random thread on the internet and they clearly aren't all of them. Did you watch the Vi Hart video? Do you think she just made up all those things and pulled them out of her ass? You think someone just had a giggle when they came up with concepts such as cordinals, Aleph Null, Big Omega and so on? Clearly these are real things.
Give me an example of how infinity is used, to put a satellite into space.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Why would you need infinity to build a bridge? There is nothing in the dimensions of any bridge that is infinite.
"ready to build the bridge?"
"have you got that infinity number"
"no"
"oh, we can't build it now, we need infinity"
"no the dimensions of the bridge are clear"
"no it's advanced maths, just trust me it can't work without infinity"
"the bridge is not infinite, neither are it's materials infinite, we don't need infinity"
"don't you know maths? infinity is the only way to design this"
"you are not logical, how did you become an engineer again?"
"they send things into space with infinity"
"How"
"I was taught it off youtube and google"
"I don't think you understand what you are saying"
Here is a video that talks about some example math problems using infinity.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/dif...ts-at-infinity
It is useful for finding the relationship between numbers. When you are building complex things, you must factor in multiple variables at once. For example you have three planes, up down, left right, forward backward. If you push an object through multiple planes at once. For example I have a phone in front of me, and I apply a force to the bottom left corner. It would cause the top right of the phone to move towards me, and in a downward direction, and to the left all at the same time. You also have things like determining the volatility and speed of an object that is flying through the air, which changes due to the friction in the air and gravity of the earth, which changes depending on how high up you go. Now you need to determine where the object will be any any set period given a set constant thrust applied over the length of it's travel time.
I don't want to get into a lecture about how the math works for specific things, but my point is that there is a lot of complex relationships between numbers. So going back to the video example, I have no idea what those formulas are for, and they are probably just made up text book examples with no real life applications. However, similar problems do appear in real life, and when they do knowing the math can solves problems and give you an answer.
A real life example, would be if your trying to figure out the terminal velocity of a person falling. As you may or may not know, as something falls it picks up speed, falling faster and faster as it falls. The variables involved in figuring out terminal velocity any where, would be things like the mass of the person falling, gravity, and the air resistance. Lastly a key part of figuring it out, is the length of time you have been falling. As I said, the longer you fall the faster you fall, so the time your falling makes a big difference in what speed your going. A microsecond after you begin falling your barely moving at all, but a minute later your going really fast.
However, you don't know how long you will fall before reaching the needed velocity. Though in this case it doesn't matter. You just treat the time falling as approaching infinity. Because you are falling at the same speed at infinity seconds as you are 5 seconds after reaching terminal velocity. We could try to plug in a really large number but there is no way to be sure that the large number is large enough for us to have reached terminal velocity. So in this case it makes practical sense to use infinity because then we are guaranteed to have a number large enough to give us the time needed to fully reach terminal velocity.
If I may chime in for a moment, in the standard model of physics, you encounter infinities in energy potentials during certain particle collisions. This was one of the reasons for one of the founders of the model, Paul Dirac to be convinced that it must be wrong for he thought that no theory so ugly could be the way nature really is. String theory apparently resolves that issue but cannot be tested yet until we have particle accelerators far more powerful than even the large hadron collider.
Here's a music video about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc
Hey Deanstar it looks like you still can't argue one thing at a time and you have to keep finding different reasons to deflect, like the fact that I supposedly went in "overdrive". What does that have to do with any of my points? Logic and reasoning are not something that require being all knowing, where are you getting this idea? Logic and reasoning are the labels we gave to the mental processes we use as tools in analyzing the world around us. They are human concepts, and so require having equal intelligence as human beings and to be able to live the human experience to understand. Nothing about being all knowing. In fact if you were all knowing, you wouldn't need to use logic or reasoning to understand your reality. You already know everything. Logic and reasoning exist solely for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Please explain how I am wrong, and don't just ignore what I say, or say you already told me, because you haven't. You can't just claim something and not explain how you came to that conclusion and why it is more correct than somebody else's. You seem really good at avoiding that last part because it's just so damn inconvenient.
Interesting thread. I'm nervous to contribute. ... but ...
At 15 someone identify himself as "God" answered three statements I made, in a place of light. I only had this one audience with "God" and I'll be 55 on October the twelth.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
I said:
This is truth. He said "No, this is not truth" (...)
I said:
I am God. He said "No, you are not God". Then quietly he said, "I am".
At this point all my ... belief system, ... was gone because I believed that the "purpose" of life was to merge-with-truth and become "God".
After a while I mumbled to myself:
What's the purpose?
He said:
"I brought you into being to serve you".
That is very interesting. That would suggest God brought us into being to give him purpose so perhaps God was suffering from existential nihilism at some point. I'm not saying for a moment I believe it but thank you for sharing your experience nonetheless.
Hi DeviantThinker
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Here is where that verse is Psalm 145 verse 16
★★★
Psalm 145 KJV
★★★
Verse 16) - Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing.
I think the problem is that we have lots of miserable desires based on disappointment, fear and anger. And god opens his hand and satisfies those desires too.
Buddha indicates that what we think (desire) creates the scafolding of our future. Dark thoughts create much future suffering.
So maybe, through our desires we manipulate God 100%.
Dammapada verse 1 - 6
The mind is the basis for everything.
Everything is created by my mind, and is ruled by my mind.
When I speak or act with impure thoughts, suffering follows me
As the wheel of the cart follows the hoof of the ox.
*(2)
The mind is the basis for everything.
Everything is created by my mind, and is ruled by my mind.
When I speak or act with a clear awareness, happiness stays with me.
Like my own shadow, it is unshakeable.
*(3)
"I was wronged! I was hurt! I was defeated! I was robbed!"
If I cultivate such thought, I will not be free from hatred.
*(4)
"I was wronged! I was hurt! I was defeated! I was robbed!"
If I turn away from such thoughts, I may find peace.
*(5)
In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred.
Only love*can overcome hatred.
This is an ancient and eternal law.
*(6)
Everything will end.
When I understand this, all quarrels fade away.
Thank you EbbTide. That is beautiful. It is kind of what I was saying to someone else on another thread about hate.
Glad to see you back my dear. :)
You don't need infinity to calculate the speed of something......Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
"He jumped off the airplane, now calculate infinity to open the parachute!"
How would you ever need to apply this?....unless you were buzz light year?
up, down, left, right, that's the third dimension. It's not 'multiple variables'. If I make a chair I don't need to consider 'variables of infinity'. And so what if you press down on your phone, and it lifts up..... why do you need infinity for that? You can measure the force applied it's predictable what will happen, you don't need infinity. No rocket ship or plane, or anything in 3rd dimensional reality, is complex enough for calculation of infinity cause all calculations are based on an actual measurement.Quote:
It is useful for finding the relationship between numbers. When you are building complex things, you must factor in multiple variables at once. For example you have three planes, up down, left right, forward backward. If you push an object through multiple planes at once. For example I have a phone in front of me, and I apply a force to the bottom left corner. It would cause the top right of the phone to move towards me, and in a downward direction, and to the left all at the same time.
What possible revelation can you get from putting infinity into anything, all that you can ever conclude is that infinity won't change, cause it's not a number. It's like putting X into a maths problem and using it as a scapegoat for error. "what happened to your maths problem the equation didn't work", "blame it on X, just infinity".
Any equation you give me for pratical use of something, I can easily show you how to do it without infinity. Use your phone as an example. The amount of force applied in a particular direction and location is directly proportional to it's reaction considering size, mass, and movement. No infinity needed.
My conversation with you Alric can go something like this:
Alric: "you have to measure it by infinity seconds"
Deanstar: "why"
Alric: "terminal velocity"
Deanstar: "the amount of speed I am traveling at, that is the time for the distance covered"
Alric: "but how can we know the relationship between numbers?"
Deanstar "we know what the numbers are"
Alric: "real mathematicians use infinity"
Deanstar: "what for"
Alric: "gravity, we need a number large enough"
Deanstar: "why do you need to insert any irrelevant numbers?"
Alric: "because it's falling down, and we don't know when it will reach terminal velocity"
Deanstar: "you measure it by the gravitational field, we know the mass and the speed"
Alric: "If I press down on my phone, the other half will lift up, multiple variables in space and time"
Deanstar: "so?"
Alric: "infinity is very useful in maths, such as 5 seconds before terminal velocity, to infinity and beyond"
Deanstar: "no it isn't buzz, you are speaking out of your ass again"
Alric: "A microsecond after you begin falling your barely moving at all, but a minute later your going really fast."
Deanstar: like sonic the hedgehog.
Alric: "you are so illogical, you don't even know what a paradox is, if I use infinity then I have a paradox"
Deanstar: "that's why you don't use it in real maths"
Okay, let me try explaining it another way. Often time in math when you have variables that change you put those on a math grid. That way you can easily see how the variable changes in relationship with each other. For example you have Y = x +1. You plug in 1 for Y and x is equal to 0. If you plug 2 in for Y, x is equal to 1. If you plug in 3 for Y, x is 2. There is a relationship between X and Y. Pretty much everything can be put into some type of formula and they can be very complex.
In those problems you can get things like asymptotes, which pass infinity close to numbers without touching the numbers. In math it is often important to know how to find and work with infinity so you can deal with them. Often times because something interesting may be happening at those numbers. Using the terminal velocity example again, the longer you fall the faster you go. You never actually hit a constant speed and are always increasing in speed, however that increase is smaller and smaller. So for example you might hit 50% terminal velocity in 5 seconds, and 99% terminal velocity at 10 seconds, and 99.9% at 15 seconds, and 99.99% at 15 seconds or something(not actual numbers just giving an example). However, you speed is clearly going towards a number. Lets say that the terminal velocity in some specific case is 5 miles per hour. If you graphed it you would find an asymptote at 5, where the graph shows the line getting infinity close to 5 but never reaching it. In that case, you could use that information to determine that the number your looking for is infinity close to 5, or just 5.
However if you weren't able to find the number that the line moved infinity close to, you couldn't solve the equation. Infinity doesn't break the math, math actually uses it to solve the problem.
So if you don't need logic unless your ignorant, then why when you know things does logic become useless? If you can't define it fully when ignorant, what better use is it if when you know everything it's useless anyway? Your reasoning goes something like "I'm not completely knowing, so I'm using logic to become wiser. If I was all knowing then I would not use the same logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
So, if your logic changes as you become wise. Then you cannot even define what absolute logic is right now can you? You admit that you are using logic to try and get more knowledge? But how can you get more understanding if your logic is not complete how do you add logic to yourself? You have not even established that logic causes more knowledge. Are there degree's of logic? Does someone have more logic than others? How do you measure who has more logic? What is 'full reasoning' other than your value judgment? How is your judgment more effective? What do you measure it by to make your claims. How do you pass logic on to someone? Can you define logic in any way whatsoever, since it's your main foundation? If Logic is the core of your beliefs, why is it useless for an all knowing person?
That's a correlation of variables. It's can be used in statistics....but it's not to do with infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Alric this doesn't explain why you need infinity. Why don't you try creating a new rule yourself to explain it? Call is the Alric infinity factor. If you divide a number. Measure it by Alric infinity. This helps you figure out how close the numbers are to each other when they get really tiny.Quote:
asymptotes, which pass infinity close to numbers without touching the numbers. In math it is often important to know how to find and work with infinity so you can deal with them. Often times because something interesting may be happening at those numbers.
If an airplane loses it's engines. Does the pilot say things like "folks at the current rate of fall, infinity is calculated for our relation to gravity, so please wait for us to calculate using infinity so we know when we are going to crash to the ground. Terminal velocity means we are infinity close to 300 miles per hour at 30,000 feet"Quote:
Using the terminal velocity example again, the longer you fall the faster you go. You never actually hit a constant speed and are always increasing in speed, however that increase is smaller and smaller. So for example you might hit 50% terminal velocity in 5 seconds, and 99% terminal velocity at 10 seconds, and 99.9% at 15 seconds, and 99.99% at 15 seconds or something(not actual numbers just giving an example).
passengers: "what does he mean infinity close?"
Steward: "infinity close to crashing"
Passengers: "how much time do we have left?"
Steward: "the pilots are calculating it with infinity, you will know the precise second"
Pilot: You have infinity close to 10 minutes till we hit the ground.
Alric, can you see how this isn't maths because infinity doesn't matter in any calculation. It's completely useless. If you took infinity out of any of your calculations. You could still have them work the same. You are never an infinite distance away from your destination, you don't need to measure by infinity unless you are falling down a bottomless pit. If you are ever in that situation, let me know how the Alric infinity factors works, and see if you can ever know when you will hit the bottom (never?).
How would you write a third as a decimal number if infinity is useless?
Please, do tell me what the answer is to one divided by three.
Deanstar I've talked to you yesterday in private messaging and suggested you not reply any more, to which you agreed. But since then you've written at least half a dozen posts, I feel I should go ahead and try again, this time publically:
You're not making strong arguments. I think a lot of the problem is there's not enough good communication. Nobody's agreeing on common ground, premises, or a set of logic to use. For one, you have a different world view to most. Not in the spiritual sense, in the logical sense. Pragmaticism and the natural world play a big role, which is unfortunately at odds with philosophical arguments (such as these.) Until there's agreement on this, you're looking kind of strange and perhaps irrational to readers, those debating and those spectating.
You also act childish by invoking various logical fallacies from misrepresenting people to mocking. This might not matter to you at the moment, but I'd like you to think on it for a moment. The people here aren't trying to attack you or your ideas, they're trying to discuss and teach you, and have you teach them. Debates are about challenging, sharing, and forming new ideas. The end goal is for agreement on a middle ground by both parties. You're not encouraging such behaviour or trying to educate, and I'm skeptical you're trying to learn from others.
I have faith in you as a human being, and like to think in the future you may be a bit more anchored in your mind, or settled. Maybe more mature and able to articulate your points better. But there's nothing I want less than for you to reach that point and suffer regret or embarrassment in hindsight. So I'm asking you to stop posting as you currently are, and try to work on those things.
Do you ever write a decimal number that goes on forever? Does any calculator? Or do you write it to about 1 or two decimal places? If you divide a pie into 3 parts, do you need infinity to make sure everyone gets a fair slice? Infinity is in everything so you could technically claim that any calculation 'needs infinity' but is it realistic to use it in any maths problem? Not that I know of unless you are doing some weird type of maths philosophy. But I couldn't see any practical use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
I think you are pretty rude, just cause you don't like someone's posts doesn't mean you should private message them to stop and then publically tell them off. You just went through so many accusations of my character again that you pretty much had no right to judge about, I would just say mind your own business about me? I will stop posting in this section when the argument finally dies cause this section is not really good for me....But please leave your hatred out of it, cause I get enough criticism and I don't apreciate yours. I don't even know who you are or why you suddenly approached me you were not even part of the discussion. Worry more about embarassing yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
Yes. We have a specifc way to do it. You use an ellipsis: 0.555... is different from 0.555.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
I know you know the answer, so I'll tell you why infinity makes a difference here. If you refuse to use the decimal that goes on forever, you cannot write a third:
0.3 times 3 is 0.9, so it isn't 1 / 3.
0.333 times 3 is 0.999, so it isn't 1 / 3.
0.333333333333 times 3 is 0.999999999999, so it isn't 1 / 3.
But 0.333... times 3 is 1, making exactly one third.
If you want 1 / 3 you're going to need infinitely repeating decimals or you don't have a third.
The math is used all the time in engineering and science. You can pretend all you want that it isn't used but you are totally wrong. Another example is if you have some irregular shape and you want to find the volume of that shape, how do you do it? Let's say you want to find the volume of a potato. How do you do that? For a cube it is easy, you multiple the length of each side together. However there isn't any formulas for finding the volume of a potato. You could drop the potato in a bucket of water and measure the amount of water that spills out but that isn't practical for everything. What if you want to measure the volume of a car, or a mountain. What if you want to find how much water is in a lake?
You want to do stuff like that, you use calculus. The way you do it in calculus is you take a slice of the object that is basically a line, then take another, and another and so on. If you break up an object into individual lines, how many lines do you have? A infinite amount. Because you can always put another line between each line. So if you have a line at 1 and 2 there is a line at .5. If you have a line at .001 and .002, there is a line at .0005. Then once you have an infinite amount of lines you add them all up and you get the volume of the object.
You are not physically adding each individual line, you are using mathematics which adds them. Like it was mentioned before, there are different kinds of infinity. The infinite number of slices of an object that can be added together, is another type of infinity.
You keep using infinity as if it was a number but it isn't a number, it is a concept. People are not going to randomly add infinity to something, and that is silly for you to even act like that. However, infinity shows up in math all the time.
How did this thread get turned into a math argument? :wtf:
You didn't listen to what I just said about it. It does not matter about infinity here cause you are not using infinity in a maths problem. That is just a simple division... infinity may be part of the answer, but you don't need to use infinity as a maths problem. If it makes you happy. 0.333 does go on forever, goes on for infinity. Who cares? You don't need to use infinity in 1 divided by 3...not in laymans terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Your understanding of math is flawed. Just because an equivalent value that happens to be a rational number exists, that does not mean infinity is not part of the math problem. Any time you deal with math, infinity is part of the problem. I mean if you really want to you could write it off as layman's terms, but the purpose of saying things in layman's terms in the first place is literally to oversimplify a complex idea that one otherwise could not understand because he or she simply does not get it. That doesn't mean by any means that the simplification is no longer a simplification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
edit: Math is not described as the language of the universe because we think it sounds cool, it's because with math you can literally simulate reality, it just depends on the user's proper understanding of math. Saying that 1/3 does not deal with infinity is pretty much openly saying that expressing the same number in an infinite number of ways is not possible, which it clearly is.
1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3
2/3 - 1/3 = 1/3
0.7 repeating - 0.4 repeating = 1/3
Is addition and subtraction enough or do I really need to show you more and start getting into multiplication, division, roots, using numbers that aren't even real, or algebra or calculus or anything else for that matter? Or do you get the point?
How did this thread get turned into a math argument? This line of discussion has nothing to do with the topic. If you want to argue it further, make a thread about it please.
I agree, but it's because Deanstar doesn't know how to debate just one thing. When he is presented with an argument that proves him wrong he just brings up some point that has nothing to do with the topic and thinks it makes him still right.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
Why do you demand that maths is about laymans terms, that math has to be about cutting slices of cake and being "practical"? Math is a lot of things, and you definitely need infinity in a math problem, like for example proving that 0.333... * 3 is 1. Normally you might argue that well, isn't 0.333... * 3 just 0.999... ? And yes indeed it is but proving that 0.999... = 1 requires infinity and that is a maths problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Kadie is implicitly making a good point here, can we maybe try to take a few steps forward and instead ask, why does infinity really matter here? Everything has been a bit of a derail; I will try again with what I said earlier, while making just one premise.
My premise is that you cannot be 100% sure of any belief, except for "I am something".
My conclusion is that any being who believes itself to be all knowing, cannot be 100% sure that it infact is all knowing.
a potato does not have an infinite volume, neither does anything you measure. If you really think that infinity is used, why can't you demonstrate a equation in which it's useful? I'm being skeptical so show me how infinity would solve a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
You don't calculate infinite lines, cause there is no way to measure infinite lines. And if a computer needed to load something that was to do with infinity it would never stop loading because the answer would never be complete, just like if you try to measure a bottomless pit, infinite means limitless.Quote:
once you have an infinite amount of lines you add them all up and you get the volume of the object.
There is only one infinity. You can't change the definition of it.Quote:
there are different kinds of infinity. The infinite number of slices of an object that can be added together, is another type of infinity.
That's what I keep trying to tell you. That it's not compatiable with a real maths question or answer, cause it's not a number, so it can't effect the answer in anyway whatsoever cause it's not part of maths.Quote:
You keep using infinity as if it was a number but it isn't a number, it is a concept.
I don't take bait, so I don't have anything to say to this. But I'm guessing from the last part you missed my post about numbers, which is okay as I'm going to make a new post. Let me introduce you to the (practical) wonders of infinity!Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Let's talk about fonts. Go open up a text editor and type some stuff, then change the fonts. Maybe have a big font for headings, small font for copyright, etcetera. You might have noticed something, fonts can be as small or large as you want and never look pixelly or blurry! But they're images, they're on a computer screen, they're made out of pixels. As you know, resizing things made out of pixels makes them look blocky or blurry. How do fonts not do this? They can be any size and always look sharp! It turns out fonts aren't made of pixels. They're made out of numbers, lines, and curves. They're vector graphics. When you ask a computer to render text at a specific font size, you get a finite view of the font made out of pixels rather than the font itself (which is impossible to show, it's infinite).
In summary, text on your computer screen is able to be scaled up and down because it's infinite and we're seeing an approximation of it. What I mean by approximation can be seen in this fractal video. You can zoom in all you want, and you can see pristine detail, but never the entire image as it's infinite. Fonts are just like this.
You can use maths as a tool, just like you can use english, English uses infinity too? I didn't say that infinity wasn't PART of it. But I did say that it wasn't rational when you add infinity as a concept into your maths. Just like you can have a philosophy about infinity. I could say that if the universe is infinite, that statistically anything is possible. Then I could go on about your clone, about different dimensions. I could talk unlimited nonsense based on infinity, but it would not be realistic or practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
I'm not baiting you, you baited me haha. And I am sorry I missed your post about numbers. A lot of people replied I must have missed it. It's difficult to talk to everyone at once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
Your computer doesn't have infinite CPU power, it is not running on infinity. It's making a calculated estimate based on what it has lol.Quote:
Let's talk about fonts. Go open up a text editor and type some stuff, then change the fonts. Maybe have a big font for headings, small font for copyright, etcetera. You might have noticed something, fonts can be as small or large as you want and never look pixelly or blurry! But they're images, they're on a computer screen, they're made out of pixels. As you know, resizing things made out of pixels makes them look blocky or blurry. How do fonts not do this? They can be any size and always look sharp! It turns out fonts aren't made of pixels. They're made out of numbers, lines, and curves. They're vector graphics. When you ask a computer to render text at a specific font size, you get a finite view of the font made out of pixels rather than the font itself (which is impossible to show, it's infinite).
Exactly. The strong serve the weak. The strong have no need to have the weak serve them.Quote:
Originally Posted by EbbTide000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ
Regards
DL
Actually do you calculate infinite lines and there is a way to measure an infinite amount of lines, with calculus. You may not think it is possible to add an infinite amount of numbers together, but is in fact possible. Some times when you add an infinite amount of numbers together you just get infinity but some times you get a finite answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Could you please explain where I claimed a computer had infinite CPU power or that it was running on infinity? However, you got the point. Fonts are an estimate based on what it has, but it's an estimate of infinity. Without infinity, there'd be no way to estimate it in the first place. Infinity is required to make fonts on your computer scalable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
That actually reminds me, an infinite Turing machine is a good example of the fundamental basis of computers mathematically. If you have a Turing machine, you can do any calculation possible.
As above so below.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
Do inventers create a product to serve man or do they create a product that man must serve?
Jesus preached that the Sabbath was made for man and not man made for the Sabbath.
Follow that line of thinking and note that God was created for man and not man for God.
If you were to encounter God, who do you think would gain from the encounter?
Surly not God, ---if you gain from the encounter, God served you.
I learned this when I forced my apotheosis when God served me. I had nothing to offer God.
Regards
DL
sorry kadie about your thread turning into a maths issue, I guess we should stop.
Let me help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Job 2; 3 And the LORD said unto Satan: 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.'
"thou didst move Me against him,"
To move God to sin is definitely God being manipulated.
Regards
DL
Let me add.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeOfzN8ZTAM
On the topic, manipulation requires deceit. Omniscent beings can't be decieved, thus they can't be manipulated.
Can an omnipotent omniscient being deceive itself though? The former attribute suggests yes, the latter attribute suggests no.
There was no deceit in Job. Did you note the wording?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
It is quite clear.
"thou didst move Me against him,"
To move God to sin is to manipulate God unless your English does not match everyone else's English.
Regards
DL
An omnipotent God would not need a woman to reproduce or could have dozens of begotten by bestiality sons.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviantThinker
If God cannot reproduce true and has to settle for a half breed chimera for a son.
Regards
DL
I don't think the bible is reliable enough to use as a source as to whether the abrahamic god was manipulated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
In your video, the claim that God is morally corrupt doesn't really hold up to any sort of proper comprehension of the book of Job. God never claimed Satan made him do something. He was explaining that Satan had requested by reason of accusation against Job, to test him. God allowed Job to be tested by Satan (then gave him back much more in return for it, so it actually benifited Job) The reason he allowed there was more reasons than just to prove satan wrong. It was a teaching for the world that's why it's written in a book. Jobs responses and how God dealt with Satans accusations, is all more profound and deep than people like you ever want to admit. That guy in the video makes wild claims about people not having morals, but his logic doesn't follow through properly in what he is saying. Christians don't use Satan as someone to blame they are responsible for themselves. But in the book of Job Satan was responsible for what happened to Job, and you couldn't use God as a scapegoat for it. It's a teaching and lesson from History. It doesn't make God evil. Not even Job claimed that God was evil, Job admitted he was vile in comparison and that God was just. This type of suffering made Job wish he wasn't born. Still he didn't blame God. Unless you went through what Job went through and are as just as Job, you look pretty arrogant even attempting to blame God for anything. This insistence that Christians are corrupt or that the bible is fiction, or that the God of the bible is corrupt. Is all based on nonsense from people that are themself corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
There is a reason not many put their hands up, and there is a reason why people like that guy in the video are so afraid of people like us that believe in the gospel. He truly is threatened badly by it. That's why he goes on stage and tried to reason against it.
God is ofcourse Good, and not capable of being manipulated. The entire message of the gospel is a testimony of his love and our salvation by him. The most crazy and evil thing that you could be involved with is claiming something bad about God, or calling something fiction that is true. That really is true evil.
That is the God under discussion. What do you suggest we use?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
Regards
DL
"God allowed Job to be tested by Satan"Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Exactly right. Satan manipulated God to allow what was to come.
Strange that you think that Job would be happy that his children were murdered without cause as God says, when he later had new children.
That sure excuses murder. If a man allowed murder to win a bet like your God did, you would soundly condemn him, --- but you show your corrupted morals by forgiving and even praising your God's for murder.
Shame on you.
Regards
DL
I don't know enough about the Abrahamic religions to make judgement on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
Satans accusation was not something that was a light thing, it was highly insulting and needed to be delt with. These were just the cards that were delt. Everyone righteous or not gets things happens to them. Shame on you for not understanding the book of Job. And also for calling me morally corrupt, and a liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
But you know enough to want to ignore his main book. Bright that. Not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
Regards
DL
You are what you are and it is because of your immoral religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
What is highly insulting is Go rewarding Satan with dominion over man and giving her the power to deceive the whole world.
Human's punish evil yet your evil God rewards it.
Let's see more of your immoral thinking.
Satan was sentenced many years ago. Is justice delayed justice denied and is it good justice for God to not carry out the sentence he has imposed?
Should man also reward criminals and let them roam freely instead of jailing them as your God is doing?
Regards
DL
I don't comment on the contents of the book, only its authenticity and use as a source. It's a collection of arbitrarily selected gospels without clear authorship, with a good amount written hundreds of years after the supposed happenings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
If you are going to seperate yourself from man, and really make yourself into the ultimate enemy. And have the entire world as a tool to prove yourself as righteous against God. Is that something the enemy should even complain about? What have they done with it though? Just decieved people and caused a mess. Well it all has to be accounted for anyway. Satan had the world, and he couldn't make it work because it was about serving him. The idea that he could be above the heavens like God is ridiculious notion conceived of pride. Quite a frightening objective, now bought down lower than even an ordinary person like me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
Clearly my God punishes evil and warns that evil will be destroyed.Quote:
Human's punish evil yet your evil God rewards it.
A severe sentence, ought to be greatful for any delay. It's pretty serious.Quote:
Satan was sentenced many years ago. Is justice delayed justice denied and is it good justice for God to not carry out the sentence he has imposed?
This thing where you assume you know how God is carrying out his justice, or that you assume you have a right to judge against God. It's all born of evil isn't it. Do you really imagine the one that created everything isn't capable or could somehow be replaced? It is insane to even think not to worship the creator. Superior and better in everyway. Capable of what no-one else has done or can do. If you argue with scripture? Your messed up. If you deny the authority of scripture, you are messed in a different way. The prophecy will come true and the words just can't be denied as tested and true.Quote:
Should man also reward criminals and let them roam freely instead of jailing them as your God is doing?
No argument. It is still all there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
Regards
DL
You are favoring Satan over people and injustice over justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
Thanks for doing my job of discrediting you and your genocidal son murdering God.
No wonder you never answer any straight question. You show how corrupting your religion is.
Regards
DL
As the OP requested, please keep this thread on topic.
If this or another thread goes off topic again, I'll be forced to break out the lightning!
http://www.xjimx.com/dreamviews/Misc...ngFingers2.jpg
I was talking about a hypothethical omnipotent, omniscient being, not Jehovah. I have very little interest in discussing the Christian God beyond literary terms (like Aslan in the Chronicles of Narnia or the Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion). For me, the truth value (or rather lack of) in that subject was settled long ago,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic
You basically just admitted he was manipulated. Satan said something insulting and God felt compelled to defend him self. That is being manipulated. God could of just ignored him but instead he ended up doing exactly what Satan manipulated him into doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deanstar
So God, the all knowing and powerful was insulted? He then threw Job under the proverbial bus to deal with Satan? Job, who was by all accounts a good , just and faithful servant of the Lord. Wow, Im glad that was straightened out. Now, shall we be expecting better or worse proof of Gods fallibility?
Job 3 note verse 25
Quote:
Job 3*King James Version (KJV)
3) - *After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day.
2) - *And Job spake, and said,
3) - *Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.
4) - *Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it.
5) - *Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it.
6) - *As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months.
7) - *Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein.
8) - *Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning.
9) - *Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day:
10) - *Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes.
11) - *Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
12) - *Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?
13) - *For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,
14) - *With kings and counsellors of the earth, which build desolate places for themselves;
15) - *Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:
16) - *Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
17) - *There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
18) - *There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
19) - *The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.
20) - *Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul;
21) - *Which long for death, but it cometh not; and dig for it more than for hid treasures;
22) - *Which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave?
23) - *Why is light given to a man whose way is hid, and whom God hath hedged in?
24) - *For my sighing cometh before I eat, and my roarings are poured out like the waters.
25) - *For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
26) - *I was not in safety, neither had I rest, neither was I quiet; yet trouble came.
The story of Job was meant to show people that they could endure terrible things, but should not give up hope and faith in the Lord. It was one of my favorite Bible stories for that reason, however it always bothered me that God had a side bar with Satan in regards to Job. God did give Satan leave to try to dissuade Job from his faith. Call that free will if you like, but the essence of the story is to not give up.
God, absolutely, positively, did NOT set that pit bull on Job
[quote] Job chapter 2 note verse 6
1) - *Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
2) - *And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
3) - *And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that*there is*none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.
4) - *And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
5) - *But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.
6) - *And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he*is*in thine hand; but save his life.
7*So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.
8*And he took him a potsherd to scrape himself withal; and he sat down among the ashes.
9*Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.
10*But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
11*Now when Job's three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place; Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite: for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.
12*And when they lifted up their eyes afar off, and knew him not, they lifted up their voice, and wept; and they rent every one his mantle, and sprinkled dust upon their heads toward heaven.
13*So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that*his*grief was very great. [quote]
I'll explain .... got to go.
*
Pure faith has no doubt (★1★)
Pure love has no fear (★2★)
Every day Job would pray for his many (party-loving, unspiritual, children). But as the years rolled-on Job began to fear for his naughty children. This fear caused a break in his perfect "hedge" of faith.
By the time The accuser (Satan means accuser) challenged God, Job was already vulnerable to the accuser because of fear (and doubt).
Look at Job chapter 1 and note verse 10
10) - Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
12) - And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is (already) in thy power; (...)
In Job Chapter 2 verse 6) - *And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he*is*in thine hand; but save his life.
God was saying ... Look! (stupid) Behold! The once perfect "hedge" of faith, around Job is already compromised due to fear and doubt. He is already in your power ... but dont kill him,
If anything, the powerfull book of Job, (written befor any other book of Bible was written) is showing the importance of maintaining our protective "hedge" of pure love and pure faith. Giveing no place to the accuser.
When a Christian can hear the accuser, they repent. They Get right with God. Then ..... they .... they can freely work on faith and love, (doubt and fear are the antithesis of faith and love).
Pure Love (★1★)
1 John 4:18King James Version (KJV)
18*There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Faith (★2★)
Mark 10:52*- And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.
Hebrews 11:1-3*- Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen..
The Book of Job
1.6 thru 2.6
I don't know what version you are looking at as I don't have an array myself to choose from and compare, but this is the first link I came upon as what do you know......
Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
Hi kaddie
All my Bible quotes are King James Version (kjv).
Job tells us why everything went horribly wrong for him. He had a perfect "hedge" (impenetrable to the accuser) around everything to do with him. His health, wealth and family were covered by his faith and love. Then "doubt and fear" made a hole in that "hedge". The accuser couldn't see the little hole in the hedge. Satan is no where near as ... thingy ... as people think he is.
God did not give the accuser permission or power to do what he did.
Job himself did that through doubt and fear.
But, God did say "But don't kill him!"
God did Not let the accuser at Job (!!!)
Job tells us why there was a hole in the hedge in Job Chapter 3 verse 25
Quote:
25) - *For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbbTide000
How ridiculous.
If Job is the one giving Satan the power, how is it that God is directing the power?
Do you even read what you wright?
You say God did not let Satan at Job but the fact is that God is orchestrating what goes on with restrictions on killing Job while allowing the killing of his children.
Regards
DL
Hi Gnostic,
I think that its pretty clear that God gave Satan leave to do his best with Job, however Ebbtide is a long time member here and I consider her a good person, so please use caution with these comments, after all she is stating her interpretation and is not on the same scale as was Deanstar in regards to the topic.
Kindest regards and much thanks for all your contributions,
Kadie
Who or what is God to you.
The Ancient Hindu's believed that Creation was perfect. Then, some childen of god wanted to enjoy like god. God loved them so much that he devised a way that these few kids could have "that" desire fullfilled.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchraptor
He invented sleep and dreams. Then he let the children who had become envious of Him to fall asleep. And now we are having dream after dream (life after life) of being god and enjoying like god.
And
If you read Genesis, creation was perfect till Adam became discontent. God feels sorry for Adam. God wants Adam happy. God causes a deep sleep to descend on Adam.
Notice, (in Genesis) Adam was not awakened.
The dream begins with god removing something from his perfect creation, Adam.
As a result, Adam is now less than perfect.
Adam, in the dream, falls in love with his rib. And wants nothing more to do with his creator. And the dream (or nightmare) continues to this day.
Will the magic of lucid dreaming awaken Adam.
Adam is not male. Adam becomes male after he falls asleep and his rib is removed to create female.
Before Adam fell asleep he was (and is) a whole and perfect being.
Within time, from the Big Bang to Absolute Zero, maybe Adam dreams?
★★★
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eHFfjH057TY#
★★★
Lyrics
The good Lord made man, then he rested for a little while
Said look what I`ve done, ain't he pretty, then he cracked a smile
I`ll watch him grow, I`ll hear him talk, learn to love and fight
But when he`s had his fill of these I`ll walk him through the night
To someplace green (someplace green)
Someplace nice (someplace nice)
Someplace that I (ooh-ooh) call paradise
Growin` greener in the rain
Waitin` there for man to claim
The good Lord looked down on the earth one afternoon and frowned
Said man ain`t learned an awful lot since I carved him out of ground
He`s built a lot of steeples of clay and rocks and sand
But he hasn`t learned to get along with his fellow man
And someplace green (someplace green)
Someplace nice (someplace nice)
Someplace that I (ooh-ooh) call paradise
Is growin` greener in the rain
Waitin` there for man to claim
The good Lord`s been around a while, eternity at least
And I guess he`ll be around a while, when time and tide have ceased
Lookin` down from somewhere, tryin` hard to find
If man has earned his paradise the other side of time
And someplace green (someplace green)
Someplace nice (someplace nice)
Someplace that he calls paradise
Is growin` greener in the rain
Waitin` there for man to claim
Yes growin` green, green, green in the rai-ai-ain
Waitin` there for man to claim
Oooops wrong thread ... oh well. Thanx kaddie,♥ U
Not to mention that Ebbtide's interpretation brings up a couple of interesting on-topic points:Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
If Satan's actions were the result of Job's failings, and not God's capriciousness, then maybe God cannot be manipulated; at least in the context of Job. By the same token Satan can be manipulated, and Job (Man) certainly could, but God continues to follow His own rules, as it were.
Job was, after all, a test of faith (or at least a callous bet about a man's faith), and the person being tested was Job, and not God. God might not have been quite the loving fellow we think of these days, but he also might not have been being manipulated, if the story were looked at from this point of view.
That said, I must admit I'm not fully on board with this perspective, arguably sound as it may be. This is because Job might also be a cautionary tale about the power of Satan, and in that case maybe God was being manipulated.
I don't know. Who is to be trusted on these matters? No one knows. If your good with words you can manipulate God for whom ever will listen. If you have money you can control peoples thoughts on God through television. This would be your best bet. Everyone watches t.v. so insert your thoughts on God into their favorite shows.
People wondered why good people would have horrible things happen to them some times. They were good, so why would God punish them? This is a basic question that everyone believes in God will think about at some point or another. Bob was a nice guy, why did he get cancer? Why did my daughter get killed by a drunk driver. Stuff like that. The story of Job tries to explain this, and shows a good person going through much trouble. If you read the story, the point clearly seems to be, that you just shouldn't question god and if you keep believing eventually it will work out. In other words, it doesn't answer the question at all and tries to dodge it.
^^ Good point, and I'm feeling a bit sheepish for forgetting to mention that major theme.
This might indicate that God cannot be manipulated as well: Because bad things do happen to people, regardless of their faith, piety, or personal quality. So perhaps God's "Plan" is one that cannot be adjusted by, say, our prayers or good deeds, and sometimes that plan inexplicably ruins an individual's life, just because that is the route It is taking. .
I feel it indicates the exact opposite. If he is all powerful, why does he need to incorporate bad things into his plan? Hell, why does he even need a plan? If he needs to make up a plan and to execute it, that must mean there are some circumstances out of his control that he has to take into account. If everything was up to him, he'd have no reason to plan ahead. So it would seem he is being manipulated by his circumstances; or he just likes making bad things happen to good people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
^^ Or God's version of bad things is way different than ours. Who knows? He might not really care about what happens to us during our brief corporeal visit to this life, which, given the eternal nature of the souls He's given us, will likely be long forgotten during most of our eternal spiritual existence.
God's Plan might be like a long-term construction project, only this project is an entire universe. Sometimes phases of construction demand a little unavoidable pain or very hard work. And, on a universal scale, the growing pains of a group of primitive folks on a backwater planet at the edge of a lesser galaxy might simply not matter all that much in the grand scheme of things.
... So God might not be being manipulated by circumstances as much as He really doesn't care much about very brief individual pain caused by the collateral circumstances generated by His long-term creation project.
[Full disclosure: I am writing in the context of this thread, and not in the context of what I actually believe.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
That may be, but in the Bible, it says many times after each calamity that befell Job, that God called him Blameless and Steadfast, a loyal servant to the Lord. So I still have to agree with whomever first brought up the example of the story of JOB and that God can and was according to the story manipulated.
^^ Fair enough... like I said, it was an interesting perspective because of the bigger questions it raises, but in the context of Job itself it does seem that God was being toyed with.
So... does that mean actual manipulation of God can only be done by someone as powerful as Satan? Does our (meaning we lowly humans) only means of manipulating God lie in how we talk about Him, or in the stories we create about Him (like Job)?
Hey kaddie (and friends)
A Dreamviews member did a video tutorial on how to LD. Had many lovely pictures in the video. I was brand new to Dreamviews then (4 years ago). I grabbed this photo.It is a full screanshot of a post.
♥♥♥
Forum code:*http://www.saltcube.com/img/usr/herm...8092007360.jpg
♥♥♥
Look at point (1:40) of that video I posted in the below quote.
If the link (between the ♥♥♥ ♥♥♥ dont open the highlight, copy this into Google seach bar and view it that way.
immie Rodgers - Someplace Green
I call that a "sinc, sync, sinc, (synchronicity synchronicity synchronicity) !!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EbbTide000
Probably confirms that Lucid Dreaming will awaken Adam.
I made my first post here on DV (4 YEARS and 6 months ago) in the introduction Zone. I wrote:
Soon I found this thread:Quote:
I have a little hiptop mobil to tune in and post but I mostly use internet cafés cos I don't have the internet at home. I am at Netzone Internet Cafe right now and it is 9pm Saturday here in Adelaide, South Australia (20 March 2010)
★★★
http://www.dreamviews.com/attaining-...rmation-7.html
★★★
MY first post in on page 7, post number 159. The link above opens on page 7.
My next post I begin defending my good friend Nick Newport by transcribing his work. This is how, I open post 162:
On that same page a username "edge0125" in post number 173, writes:Quote:
Let’s get to it (!!!)
Some of “You” respected DreamViewers hate my Mat-Nick’s (Nicholas Newport’s) work. Let us get specific about exactly what you hate.
Then he links the LD Youtubes that he'd just loadedQuote:
Some of Nicholaus method just don't make sense. I wonder how many LD that guy has had, i wouldn't be surprised if his number was less than 20.
You guys should check out my LD How to video.
I uploaded this on Friday. real advice that has worked for me. and i tried to cover everything thing i know
★★★
Part 1
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sP_jzImhP8s
★★★ 325,644 views.
Look at point (7:55) of this 10 minute Youtube. there's the exact photo that I screenshoted. The same as picture at the (1:40) point of this YouTube.
☆☆☆
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eHFfjH057TY
☆☆☆
If it don't link then highlight, copy and pasre these words
Jimmie Rodgers - Someplace Green
into the Google search -bar.
*** below is a screenshot of post number 173 but it must have been deleted by a mod , years ago. Lucky I screenshoted it or I wouldent have it. And I wouldn't know about the synchronicity.
Forum code:*http://www.saltcube.com/img/usr/herm...8092007360.jpg
☆☆☆
I always use care with literalists. Those who believe in fantasy, miracles and magic are mentally sensitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
But be these folks way right or just semi-right wing, they are still literalists and have beliefs that the intelligentsia would not agree with.
But that aspect aside, it is the immoral double standards of morality that Christians have to develop to swallow the version their corrupt hierarchy puts out.
Good to torture and kill without cause indeed.
Strange that their God has the balls to admit his sin but Christians will not accept his judgement of his own immoral actions. Insanity that.
It is like not accepting Hitler's confession in the murder of Jews. Ridiculous to the point of stupidity and insanity.
Regards
DL
Do not question is what you get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
This and many others tell you to question.
Fools will not question and judge all aspects of the immoral Gods on offer.
Regards
DL
Her is an interesting article that I found this morning in regards to the authors of the Bible....
10 Theories About Who Really Wrote The Bible - Listverse
This is very interesting even though it is just theory. The part about the Revelations is particularly troubling.
The deeper we look the more inconsistencies and oddities we find.Quote:
Originally Posted by kadie
It is all myth and lies. To think of the old bibles and writings as anything else is quite foolish.
Regards
DL
It's clear that the Bible cannot be trusted as the word of God because a council was required to sit down and pick which texts should go in the book and which should not. Why were the other texts abandoned? Clearly there was an ulterior motive behind choosing which texts should go in, and it was not the word of God that determined how these texts were chosen. So, if humans decided for their own reasons to remove some of the writings, it's logical to conclude that they were manipulating the texts on their own behalf and the resulting collection of writings known as the Bible cannot be the word of God and therefore should not be treated as such. One could contend that God chose the texts himself through divine intervention, but that's awfully convenient, isn't it? Humans are far to corruptible and and far too corrupt to trust that what they claim is "the direct word of God" after being edited by human hands is truly as they describe.
No argument. If the bible is the real words of a God then he is not much of a God.
In fact, he is more satanic than Satan. Strange how Christians call evil good yet they are supposed to be so moral.
Regards
DL