Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Law Of Contradiction
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 31 of 177 (339248)
08-11-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 2:04 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Is there some introspection going on inside you wondering if my assessment is correct?
There it is, plain and simple - arrogance.
You and your ilk are utterly unable to accept, even conceive, that anyone who disagrees with you could have possibly given the matter deep thought, serious thought, and come to a different conclusion.
There is no introspection going on inside of me. I'm 45 years old. I've spent a great deal of time contemplating the possible existence of some diety. I am not agnostic. I'm not uncertain. I'm not undecided. I don't believe the jury is still out. I have concluded that there is no god.
You want another reason why atheists talk about gods? It's simple. I'm sure you've heard it before. But you dismiss it out of hand. It's the truth, at least as far as we believe it to be. I'm willing to accept at face value your motives as you state them. Are you willing to accept mine? If not, I suspect it's your arrogance getting in the way.
I will not insult your intelligence by suggesting that if you simply gave the matter more thought you'd agree with me. I'm not that arrogant. But I will close with this quote:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts.
If you are interested in understanding the atheist position, and not just concocting a straw man that you can easily demolish, think about that statement.
Edited by subbie, : To provide complete quote.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 2:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 4:46 PM subbie has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 32 of 177 (339255)
08-11-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 2:37 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
I don't get this. Just because he can do something doesn't mean he has to.
But he does have to be able to potentially do it.
He has to have the power to negate his own omniscience since that is quite clearly contained with set of things he can do which are defined by EVERYTHING.
That is a pretty all inclusive set.
He must also have the knowledge of how to limit his omnipotence since that too is well within the bounds of what he knows if he does indeed know EVERYTHING.
Anything that we can concieve of is included in those sets

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:37 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:55 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 177 (339257)
08-11-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PurpleYouko
08-11-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
He has to have the power to negate his own omniscience since that is quite clearly contained with set of things he can do which are defined by EVERYTHING.
Oh, I see what you're saying. One of the things he could do is negate his own omniscience since he can do anything. That might fall into the "round square" category, or at any rate when people--believers--use the word "omnipotent" they don't generally include that.
Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 2:48 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 3:02 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 08-11-2006 3:21 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 38 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 3:34 PM robinrohan has replied

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


Message 34 of 177 (339259)
08-11-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 2:55 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
robinrohan writes:
... when people--believers--use the word "omnipotent" they don't generally include that.
So, when they say "all-powerful", "all" doesn't mean "all" and "powerful" doesn't mean "powerful"....

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:55 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 3:33 PM ringo has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 35 of 177 (339272)
08-11-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 2:55 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
robinrohan
One of the things he could do is negate his own omniscience since he can do anything.
It seems to fall within the mutually exclusive realm of such questions as "What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object"
The existence of one negates the existence of another since the definitions of each require the abscence of the other. This is an example of a wrong question or rather an illegitimate question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:55 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 3:34 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 39 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 3:38 PM sidelined has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 177 (339276)
08-11-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ringo
08-11-2006 3:02 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
So, when they say "all-powerful", "all" doesn't mean "all" and "powerful" doesn't mean "powerful"....
No, not literally "all."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 08-11-2006 3:02 PM ringo has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 177 (339278)
08-11-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by sidelined
08-11-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
This is an example of a wrong question or rather an illegitimate question.
What "question"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 08-11-2006 3:21 PM sidelined has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 38 of 177 (339279)
08-11-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 2:55 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Oh, I see what you're saying. One of the things he could do is negate his own omniscience since he can do anything. That might fall into the "round square" category, or at any rate when people--believers--use the word "omnipotent" they don't generally include that.
If they don't include that then they are limiting Gods abilities aren't they?
But assuming that it does fall into the square circle catagory and ignoring it, there are still much more mundane problems. Look at this example.
We have a totally Omniscient and Omnipotent being (doesn't have to be God. Any ALL-Everything being will do)
He knows with absolute certaintly that on next Thursday afternoon at 3:14 and 23 seconds, he will purchase a Nintendo Gamecube from EB Games in the local mall.
When next Thursday come around he decides that Gamecubes aren't all that and buys a Playstation 2 instead.
Do you see the problem? There is no square circle issue here. he simply knew one thing (omniscience) that couldn't ever possibly be wrong and then went and did something else that made it wrong by means of his Omnipotence.
If he was truly omniscient then nothing he could possibly do would make him buy anything other than the gamecube. He CAN'T be wrong. Ever. This would obviously limit his omnipotence
If he was truly Omnipotent then nothing could prevent him changing his mind and buying the PS2. This would make his omniscience useless since he was wrong.
The only possible conclusion here is that this being either isn't ommipotent or he isn't omniscient. For him to be both is a clear contradiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 2:55 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 3:41 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 39 of 177 (339283)
08-11-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by sidelined
08-11-2006 3:21 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
the definitions of each require the abscence of the other
Exactly.
You summed it up perfectly.
Omniscience and omnipotence fall into that catagory. Within a single being, the definition of either one precludes the presence of the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sidelined, posted 08-11-2006 3:21 PM sidelined has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 177 (339284)
08-11-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PurpleYouko
08-11-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
If he was truly Omnipotent then nothing could prevent him changing his mind and buying the PS2
Well, the traditional idea about God is that he doesn't "change his mind." The reason for changing one's mind is that you find out something. God doesn't find things out. He already knows everything.
Here's a theory: God was omniscient, but he gave it up when He created beings with free will. So he's not omniscient anymore. He sacrificed his omniscience for the good of mankind. I think this is a pretty good theory, but I don't know if any theologians have this view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 3:34 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 3:45 PM robinrohan has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 41 of 177 (339287)
08-11-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 3:41 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Well, the traditional idea about God is that he doesn't "change his mind." The reason for changing one's mind is that you find out something. God doesn't find things out. He already knows everything.
Doesn't change his mind huh?
Doesn't make mistakes either I suppose?
Now what was he that he said to Noah after the flood? Something about being sorry maybe?
Here's a theory: God was omniscient, but he gave it up when He created beings with free will. So he's not omniscient anymore. He sacrificed his omniscience for the good of mankind. I think this is a pretty good theory, but I don't know if any theologians have this view.
I like it.
Good luck selling that to the fundies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 3:41 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 3:47 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 177 (339288)
08-11-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PurpleYouko
08-11-2006 3:45 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Now what was he that he said to Noah after the flood? Something about being sorry maybe?
Well, I wasn't talking about the God as presented in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 3:45 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 3:49 PM robinrohan has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 43 of 177 (339289)
08-11-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Well, I wasn't talking about the God as presented in the Bible.
Uhh... OK then. Some other God perhaps. No Probs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 3:47 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 4:04 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 177 (339299)
08-11-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by PurpleYouko
08-11-2006 3:49 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Some other God perhaps.
Well, one might be a pure theist, in which case one can disregard the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 3:49 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 177 (339303)
08-11-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PurpleYouko
08-11-2006 2:31 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
SO are you saying that Science CAN prove or disprove the existence of God?
Oh, no... Certainly not. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that if God exists He/She/It/They have nothing to do with physical laws. I was contending that.
I know what you are trying to do but the thing is that you are doing once again, the very thing that makes me and many other atheist get into this kind of discussion. You are trying to argue from an atheist mindset and getting it all wrong. Atheist arguments don't go anything like this.
I'm pointing out the flaws in their logic when you place one of their theories next to another. They contain conflicting premises.
You are telling me how I think ,reason beleive but you seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of it. I think you are likely using a very narrow definition of the term Atheist but I'm not absolutely sure. You say... because an atheist is purporting things that he cannot logically refute, whereas, the agnostic is simply claiming that they haven't sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion one way or another.
If you don't know whether or not God exists because you feel that you don't have sufficient evidence but also recognize that you can't disprove a negative, then that's agnosticism. Atheism is making the claim that God does not exist. That's an absolute statement. And some atheists have gone so far to invent different kinds of atheism, i.e. strong and weak atheism. But weak atheism IS agnositicsm! Are they just wanting to keep the coveted title, atheist? Its much more prudent, much more logical to call oneself an agnostic. Atheism is a bold assertion, but agnosticism is an honest inquiry.
Actually I'm not quite sure what you are saying here but I think you are hinting that Atheists actively believe that God does not exist. If so then you are wrong. We don't all think that way. Atheists (by the definition of the word) simply lack an active belief in God. Disbelief is not necessary (although it is present in many). My Atheism is similar to Agnosticism except that I sway way over to the "God is not likelely to exist" camp in just the same way as I think it is highly unlikely that your Flying-Purple-Elephant exists. No positive evidence exists for either so I feel exactly the same about them both.
That's not atheism, that's agnosticism. To be an atheist one has to positively affirm that God doesn't exist. To be an agnostic is to say, whether they lean pro or con, they don't have enough knowledge to make such a decision. That's honest and I can respect that. In fact, I was an agnostic for many years. I was definately leaning towards an atheistic view, but I still understood the law of contradiction, which is the only reason why I would not be an atheist.
[qoute]I could agree with that statement. But what purpose does that serve, particularly if there is no purpose to the universe anyway? That's counter-intuitive. That's like saying being ridiculous is being ridiculous. (I'm using the atheistic argument here to demonstrate that its core beliefs are at odds with one another philosophically)[/quote]
Your answer here isn't even self consistant. It looks like you just pulled a bunch of random words out of thin air and threw them together. What the heck has purpose got to do with anything? It's like I asked you how many eggs you have in your basket and you answered "Chicken". It's meaningless.
If there is no meaning to anything then what compels the atheist to assign meaning? The meaning in meaninglessness? Doesn't sound appealing or logical. Everything has meaning, everything has a purpose. You eat for a reason. The purpose is so you can survive. Now, you keep following that train of thought with literally everything and most assuredly you will realize that anything that exists, exists for a reason, even if we are incapable of percieving the totality of existence. If every natural phenomenon happens for a reason, then why wouldn't the conglomerate of it all? And if there is no meaning then what in the world are you arguing you about? Do you understand?
So what you are saying is that red could quite well actually be yellow. it just means that I don't understand color. very enlightening , I must say.
No, that was your convoluted view on the subject.
omnipotence
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful
omniscience
Having total knowledge; knowing everything
Where in the defintions is that incompatible?
This issue is really at the core of the OP so let's look a bit closer to see if i understand the terms Omniscient and Omnipotent eh?
Okay.
Omnipotent = The power to do absolutely anything. No limits can ever be imposed.
I can agree with this, but there is a point where it breaks down. God cannot go against Himself, i.e. sin.
Omniscient = Unerring Knowledge of Everything, past, present and future. Cannot ever be wrong even in the tiniest way.
I contend that these two concepts cannot co-exist in any one being since he would know everything he is ever going to do and yet still have the power to not do it. Yet the act of not doing itwould mean he was wrong.
That makes no sense. You can know what you are going to do and still have had an option to not do it. That's NOT even close to being a contradiction, only your inability to grasp the concept.
That's like trying to pit God against Himself by asking, "Could God create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it" Its your lack of understanding. God can do anything that isn't contrary to Himself. God cannot sin because He is the very definition of righteousness. Righteousness has no meaning without Him, just as light means nothig without darkness, good means nothing without bad. The whole argument is built upon a non-sequitur. God has absolute power over everything. I'd say that qualifies omnipotence. He also knows what will happen within His creation. That's omniscience. The two fit perfectly.
No no no. We talk about loads of Gods here at EVC. That is half the problem. Everybody here is talking about a subtly different one. makes agreement kind of difficult.
I've never seen anyone in here discussing the intricacies of Zarathustra, Zeus, Marduk, or any other deity.
Actually I attack anything I believe to be untrue and even many things that I believe are true.
Again, for anything to be true there must be a set standard that contains us. This is an absolute phenomenon. If that's the case then absolutes exist. And if absolutes exist then it insinuates that we are accountable to that force, otherwise, why would there be a law? So, which is it?
If the thing stands up to my attack then it is one step closer to acceptance. If it crumbles then it has been falsified. that is the way of science. I only feel threatened by ignorance since it seems to latch onto dangerous notions.
You are using terms that bespeak of absolutism, yet you maintain a relativistic frame of mind. This is why atheism doesn't work. It is constantly at odds with itself.
Morals come from upbringing, society and any number of other factors. Since no two people anywhere share absolutely identical morals, they must be subjective. If there is any such thing as an objective moral then nobody has ever seen it so it might as well not exist.
Sharing or agreeing on the standard doesn't incorporate the meaning of of an absolute standard. But if its all objective, then why are you subjecting me to your rules? What basis do you have?
I call the remarks inflamatory because society recognises them as such.
Who is 'society?' If I'm apart of society then the argument does not stand. If I'm subject to the majority rule, none of which you are able to corroborate either way, then you are denying my 'right' to believe or say as I feel. You are appealing to me to follow your train of thought. You are tacitly requesting me to adhere to some sort of absolute rule. You really, honestly can't see why its a house of cards or a paper tiger? Every other word conflicts with the other's premise.
If i were to call you an ignorant butthole (not that I am doing so) you would feel insulted. So would everybody in our society. maybe in another society it might be a compliment.
Heh. Yeah, I guess a masochist would like it.
because it appears to be an insult and everyone (relatively speaking) gets upset or annoyed when they are insulted.
Why? What's the mechanism? A little odd that such fine instincts could be found in humans and nowhere else in the animal kingdom. Its almost like we're completely separate from them aside from flesh.

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 2:31 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Annafan, posted 08-11-2006 4:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 54 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-11-2006 5:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024