Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The impossibility of infinite ability..aka "god"
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 9 of 94 (449949)
01-19-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 10:53 PM


TheNaturalist writes:
Unless god can't move....
If God is everywhere, "movement" is undefined.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 10:53 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 21 of 94 (450064)
01-20-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by TheNaturalist
01-20-2008 1:25 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
TheNaturalist writes:
Unless god can't move, he is confined to time.
I answered that in Message 9. "Movement" is a nonsensical concept when talking about God. He has no need to "move" since He's already everywhere. Your whole idea of movement and time is worthless in describing God.
ehhh, common sense?
Dirt is common, and not very valuable.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 1:25 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 2:24 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 28 of 94 (450082)
01-20-2008 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by TheNaturalist
01-20-2008 2:24 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
TheNaturalist writes:
It is completely senseless to say that god cant move any distance, since then he would be powerless.
Again, the concepts of "movement" and "distance" are nonsensical when we're talking about something that doesn't have a location. What part of "God is everywhere" don't you understand? The U.S. can't "move" from New York to Los Angeles because it's already there. That doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't exist.
You're "refuting" a strawman.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 2:24 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 3:06 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 32 of 94 (450097)
01-20-2008 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by TheNaturalist
01-20-2008 3:06 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
Thenaturalist writes:
So, are we parts of god, like New York and Los Angeles are parts of the U.S.?
Some people believe we are, but that's irrelevant to the analogy. The point is that God doen't have to move if He's already everywhere. You haven't dealt with that at all.
Once again, the concept of movement is nonsensical when we're talking about a God who is EVERYWHERE There's no "place" for Him to move "to" or "from". He's already there.
You're just making your own little straw version of a god that has to move from place to place. Congratulations on knocking the stuffing out of it.
But you haven't dealt at all with the concept of God that people actually have.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 3:06 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 10:08 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 35 of 94 (450133)
01-20-2008 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheNaturalist
01-20-2008 10:08 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
TheNaturalist writes:
Even if god is everywhere, he would still have to move to cause something to happen.
Non sequitur. "Movement" has no meaning.
And secondly, how the hell does god be everywhere and not be noticed?
That's not the topic. If you're trying to show that the God people believe in can't have infinite ability, you have to accept the properties of the God people believe in.
Doesnt make sense to me.
Doesn't matter a bit what makes sense to you. Your job here is to convince us.
Give a reasonable schematic of the mechanism god uses to avoid being displaced by matter, or displace other matter.
Now you're moving the goalposts.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 10:08 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 46 of 94 (450273)
01-21-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by TheNaturalist
01-21-2008 12:42 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
TheNaturalist writes:
"hey, I know something exists". I ask, "yeah...and? point?" you say, "well it can do anything." I ask, "anything as in what?" you say, "ANYTHING. Its capable of anything." I ask, "uhhhh...well thats..interesting. What is it? How does it work?" you say, "well it doesnt work with time or mathematics"
Please put the goalposts back where you found them.
When you started this thread, you were doing to prove that God doesn't exist or God can't be all-powerful or some such thing. Now that you've failed miserably at that, you want people to prove to you that God does exist or is all-powerful or some such thing.
You don't seem to understand the difference between belief and logic.
Faith is for things that are not seen. It's a fallback position for things where observation and logic don't apply. In most cases - nearly all useful cases - we can do without invoking a supernatural element. And if you want to eliminate any supernatural element from your own thoughts, you're free to do that.
But you can't prove logically that the supernatural doesn't exist.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 12:42 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 1:56 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 94 (450296)
01-21-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheNaturalist
01-21-2008 1:56 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
TheNaturalist writes:
No offense, I only "failed miserably" if you arent smart enough to know what I was talking about. Arent you?
Oh, I knew what you were talking about. I'm just saying that your logic is worthless. You've created a strawman God and demolished it. Yawn.
If you want do something worthwhile, address the God that people actually believe in, the one that isn't constrained by "movement". If you can't do that, fine. But don't pretend that you've made a powerful argument when you haven't.
Explain what "supernatural" means exactly.
Again, that's not the topic. Your argument fails to deal with the supernatural aspect of God. You lose.
By the way, have you noticed that I don't say whether I believe in the supernatural or not? I'm not criticizing your conclusion. I'm criticizing your approach to the question.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 1:56 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 2:31 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 56 of 94 (450306)
01-21-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by TheNaturalist
01-21-2008 2:31 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
TheNaturalist writes:
Uhhhhhh........if I dont know what "supernatural" really means, how can I "address the God that people actually believe in"?
You've been told that "the God that people actually believe in" is everywhere. That automatically nullifies your argument.
If you want more information than that, it's your responsibility to educate yourself (preferably before you start a thread on a subject you know nothing about). But since the thread is already in gear, maybe you can take this oppurtunity to actually learn something instead of just ranting against theists.
By the way, you might also have noticed that I don't say whether I'm a theist or not. Did it ever occur to you that I might just be trying to help you formulate a better argument?

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 2:31 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 2:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 58 of 94 (450315)
01-21-2008 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TheNaturalist
01-21-2008 2:52 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
TheNaturalist writes:
For that to nullify my arguement, god would have to be covering an infinite distance; but infinite distance can only be covered with an infinitely long time, or infinite rate....
Nope. Infinite size.
... the only reason why people believe in theistic nonsense is that their inefficient(or entirely too brainwashed) minds make a sensible mapping of what "god" is....
As I said, your time would be better used learning something about the subject. Instead of flaunting your own brain-wishiwashiness, how about taking a hint and asking some questions?

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 2:52 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 3:17 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 60 of 94 (450320)
01-21-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by TheNaturalist
01-21-2008 2:22 PM


TheNaturalist writes:
Heres something to think about:
God is supposedly all-powerful...
So, it ought to be able to create, if it so chooses, a being as powerful as god itself is.
Being all-powerful, can god do it? If god cant, it isnt all-powerful, is it?
But if god can, then isnt there a being every bit as powerful as god, rendering god not omnipotent?
So, why didn't you use that brilliant argument instead of the lame one in the OP?
I tend to agree that "omnipotent" isn't a very useful term. But the difficulty in defining God's power isn't in itself an argument against the existence of God.
You still seem to be missing the basic point: You can't use logic to explain away something that isn't based on logic. I don't think anybody in this thread is arguing that God exists based on logic.
It's like trying to convince me logically that vanilla is the best flavour of ice cream. You can't do it because I believe chocolate is best.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 2:22 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 4:00 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 63 of 94 (450333)
01-21-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by TheNaturalist
01-21-2008 4:00 PM


TheNaturalist writes:
God, however, is simply impossible because(and this assumes that "god" is supposed to be omnipotent) it is impossible to move at an infinite rate...
Please stop wasting everybody's time by repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again. "Rate" is simply nonsensical to an infinite being. Period.
... god's abilities couldnt allow it to cause things which would render it non omnipotent (such as creating another omnipotent being).
Why can't omnipotence be divisible? And if division did end omnipotence, so what? Why can't something be omnipotent now and not omnipotent tomorrow?
Therefore, it would be true that vanilla could be the "best" ice cream for a person, since for that person, it applies the rules of taste(some things, with natural processes, taste better than others) the most of any flavor. However, since these rules dont apply to the other person(the rules work differently with some than others), chocolate could also be the "best", for them.
So, yes, everything is objective
You mean subjective.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-21-2008 4:00 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024