| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2005 07:32:28 PM |
| Object: |
FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and omniscience are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own behavior on the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to foresee precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such an individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future, than they
cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are going to do in the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring others.
--
Bill
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 08:25:42 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gxRKd.39710$8u5.31783@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and omniscience are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own behavior on the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to foresee
precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such an
individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future, than they
cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are going to do in
the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring others.
Since there is no God oin the first place, such speculations are useless.
However, I don't see why the individual human couldn't have free will, while
at the same time an omniscient Being, a Hypothetical one of course could
knopw the outcome. That would be analogous to the Schroedinger's cat
paradox. Oops! I've given away the theory of how to make flying saucers.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 08:33:09 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gxRKd.39710$8u5.31783@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and omniscience are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own behavior on the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to foresee
precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such an
individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future, than they
cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are going to do in
the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring others.
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I ate a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity. An omnisceint God
sees the future with the same determinative ability that I see the past. My
knowledge of the past does not interfer or change any creatures freewill in
the past in any way and Gods knowledge of the future does not interfer or
change my freewill in any way. Its that simple!! God determinitely knows
what I will freely do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 09:42:03 PM |
|
|
It is interesting to see how people can create, out of thin air, scenarios
that fit their beliefs rather than logical objective evidence that supports
their beliefs.
--
Bill
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:10vnsrk1acaq012@corp.supernews.com...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gxRKd.39710$8u5.31783@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and omniscience
are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own behavior on
the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to foresee
precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such an
individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future, than they
cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are going to do in
the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring others.
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I ate
a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity. An omniscient God
sees the future with the same determinative ability that I see the past.
My
knowledge of the past does not interfere or change any creatures freewill
in
the past in any way and Gods knowledge of the future does not interfere or
change my freewill in any way. Its that simple!! God determinitely knows
what I will freely do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 09:56:50 PM |
|
|
It is you Bill that cant see the truth in the previous post. God
determnines but does not cause future events. He simply knows what will be.
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LqTKd.40097$8u5.14771@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
It is interesting to see how people can create, out of thin air, scenarios
that fit their beliefs rather than logical objective evidence that
supports
their beliefs.
--
Bill
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:10vnsrk1acaq012@corp.supernews.com...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gxRKd.39710$8u5.31783@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and omniscience
are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own behavior on
the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to foresee
precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such an
individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future, than they
cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are going to do
in
the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring others.
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I
ate
a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity. An omniscient God
sees the future with the same determinative ability that I see the past.
My
knowledge of the past does not interfere or change any creatures
freewill
in
the past in any way and Gods knowledge of the future does not interfere
or
change my freewill in any way. Its that simple!! God determinitely
knows
what I will freely do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 01:49:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:56:50 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
It is you Bill that cant see the truth in the previous post. God
determnines but does not cause future events.
No one said that causation is necessary to preclude free will. That's
your straw man.
He simply knows what will be.
Then no one can choose to do anything other than what he knows will
be.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 06:26:05 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
It is you Bill that cant see the truth in the previous post. God
determnines but does not cause future events. He simply knows what will
be.
If it is determined, it is caused.
Now you are playing word games.
Determinism and free will cannot co-exist.
By definition. This is what determinism means.
Things are determined.
Determinism means, the state of the present leads to the
state of the future.
If you know the rules of the Universe and its starting
state S1, you can know a future state S2.
What you are doing is saying the Universe is determined
and the Universe is not determined.
You are playing word games.
If god creates a determined world, god does in fact cause
all future events.
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LqTKd.40097$8u5.14771@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
It is interesting to see how people can create, out of thin air,
scenarios that fit their beliefs rather than logical objective evidence
that
supports
their beliefs.
--
Bill
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:10vnsrk1acaq012@corp.supernews.com...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gxRKd.39710$8u5.31783@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and
omniscience
are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own behavior
on
the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to foresee
precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such an
individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future, than
they cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are going
to do
in
the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring others.
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I
ate
a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity. An omniscient
God sees the future with the same determinative ability that I see the
past.
My
knowledge of the past does not interfere or change any creatures
freewill
in
the past in any way and Gods knowledge of the future does not interfere
or
change my freewill in any way. Its that simple!! God determinitely
knows
what I will freely do.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 11:52:28 PM |
|
|
Determinism & causation are not the same catagory.
One has to do with knowledge, the other with the action of the agent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 01:50:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:52:28 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
Determinism & causation are not the same catagory.
One has to do with knowledge, the other with the action of the agent.
And causation isn't needed to preclude free will. As long as the
future is determined there can be no free will. If the future isn't
determined, however, there can be no omniscience.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 01:53:36 AM |
|
|
As long as the future is determined there can be no free will.
I disagree. You choose at your own free will, but God knows in advance what
you will choose.
--
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he
repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he sin against thee seven times in the day, and seven times
turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
www.live365.com/stations/bgamelson?play
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 03:14:26 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
And causation isn't needed to preclude free will. As long as the
future is determined there can be no free will. If the future isn't
determined, however,
can there be free will?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
31 Jan 2005 12:39:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:14:26 GMT, nobody <nobody@here.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
And causation isn't needed to preclude free will. As long as the
future is determined there can be no free will. If the future isn't
determined, however,
can there be free will?
Yes, but not omniscience.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 03:12:20 AM |
|
|
God knows what is going to happen because He is witnessing it happen right
now. God exists in both the past, present, and future. He sees all at once
from the moment of the organization of this cosmos to the moment of the end.
He is the alpha and the omega.
The future isn't so much "determined" as much as it is "witnessed". To say
"God knows" is to apply a time-tense verb to God. When referring to God, it
is best to refer to Him in present tense and without using a verb which in
context can signify past tense. God is witnessing our actions and choices
right now. He is watching us being born and He is with us right now when we
are dying. He watches over us as we cry for the first time and as we cry
for the last. He is with us for every single choice we make. We, on the
other hand, are bound by time and therefore can only view this concept
through the now. God doesn't "know" everything in the sense that before we
were created, everything was determined by Him. God sees everything. The
book of life, as referred to in Psalm 139, then, is more like a journal than
a chronologue.
-RS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 03:12:29 AM |
|
|
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Determinism and free will cannot co-exist.
Are you under the illusion that either one can exist?
What exatcly is free-will?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
01 Feb 2005 07:16:34 PM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Randy Story wrote:
It is you Bill that cant see the truth in the previous post. God
determnines but does not cause future events. He simply knows what
will
be.
If it is determined, it is caused.
Now you are playing word games.
Determinism and free will cannot co-exist.
By definition. This is what determinism means.
Things are determined.
I agree; I would quibble with Randy's use of the word 'determined". I
think Randy is equating "determined" with "known"; he isn't talking
about causal determination.
Determinism means, the state of the present leads to the
state of the future.
If you know the rules of the Universe and its starting
state S1, you can know a future state S2.
What you are doing is saying the Universe is determined
and the Universe is not determined.
That's not what Randy is saying. Randy is not saying that God knows the
future by deriving S2 from S1 and the rules of nature; that would be
impossible absent determinism. But the fact that God couldn't derive S2
from S1 in a non-deterministic universe doesn't imply God couldn't know
what S2 would be by some other means. Randy is proposing that God is
not contrained by the dimension of time and that he can directly
observe all events--events that are (relative to us) past, present and
future--"simultaneously". Imagining a sort of Einsteinish space/time,
the temporal location of an event one coordinate of a point on a 4-d
graph. In Randy's view, God knows by direct observation in space/time
every event in every point on the graph. We, on the other hand, only
experience individual slices of that whole graph.
I'm not sure about that, but it's not a necessary component of the
compatibility of omniscience and free will. Consider a completely
random possible event X--being random you cannot derive from previous
conditions whether or not X will happen opr not. Still, one of these
statements is true, and one of them is false: "X will happen" or "X
will not happen". An omniscient being would know the truth value of any
statement, which means he would know the truth value of both of the
above, which means he would know how this undetermined, random event
will turn out. he would know it not by figuring it out, being
omniscient he already *knows* it.
Keith
You are playing word games.
If god creates a determined world, god does in fact cause
all future events.
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LqTKd.40097$8u5.14771@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
It is interesting to see how people can create, out of thin air,
scenarios that fit their beliefs rather than logical objective
evidence
that
supports
their beliefs.
--
Bill
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:10vnsrk1acaq012@corp.supernews.com...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gxRKd.39710$8u5.31783@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and
omniscience
are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own
behavior
on
the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical
omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to
foresee
precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such
an
individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future,
than
they cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are
going
to do
in
the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring
others.
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact
that I
ate
a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity. An
omniscient
God sees the future with the same determinative ability that I
see the
past.
My
knowledge of the past does not interfere or change any creatures
freewill
in
the past in any way and Gods knowledge of the future does not
interfere
or
change my freewill in any way. Its that simple!! God
determinitely
knows
what I will freely do.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 10:33:43 PM |
|
|
on 29 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Randy Story dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
It is you Bill that cant see the truth in the previous post. God
determnines but does not cause future events. He simply knows what
will be.
Like Pee-Wee Herman once said, "I meant to do that."
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
01 Feb 2005 06:18:55 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
It is interesting to see how people can create, out of thin air,
scenarios
that fit their beliefs rather than logical objective evidence that
supports
their beliefs.
Hi Bill
In this particular discussion your above criticism is misplaced. The
claim was made that omniscience and freewill are incompatible so merely
creating (even out of thin air) a scenario that fits the simultaneous
existence of free creatures and an omniscient God is sufficient to
refute the claimed incompatibility. Randy doesn't have to show any
reason at all to believe that the omniscient being actually exists.
Keith
--
Bill
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:10vnsrk1acaq012@corp.supernews.com...
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gxRKd.39710$8u5.31783@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is a problem with the theist idea that free will and
omniscience
are
compatible.
If individuals were free to capriciously create their own
behavior on
the
spur of the moment, that would rule out the hypothetical
omnipotent,
omniscient creator; since it is not physically possible to
foresee
precisely
what the capricious unpredictable (free will) behavior of such an
individual
would be in advance of the actual event.
If God knows what individuals are going to do in the future, than
they
cannot have free will. If God knows what individuals are going to
do in
the
future he should prevent them from sinning and injuring others.
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact
that I ate
a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity. An
omniscient God
sees the future with the same determinative ability that I see the
past.
My
knowledge of the past does not interfere or change any creatures
freewill
in
the past in any way and Gods knowledge of the future does not
interfere or
change my freewill in any way. Its that simple!! God determinitely
knows
what I will freely do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 10:45:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:33:09 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I ate a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity.
Free will requires a mutable future.
Omniscience requires an immutable future.
Since the future can't be both, free will and omniscience can't exist
simultaneously.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
29 Jan 2005 11:14:40 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bd4ov0lnlec1g9beibn4ruatkr58vj4vom@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:33:09 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I
ate a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity.
Free will requires a mutable future.
Omniscience requires an immutable future.
Since the future can't be both, free will and omniscience can't exist
simultaneously.
It surely can be both from different vantage points, from Gods immutable
from ours mutable and both are real not illusion.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest
of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 12:50:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:14:40 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bd4ov0lnlec1g9beibn4ruatkr58vj4vom@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:33:09 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I ate a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity.
Free will requires a mutable future.
Omniscience requires an immutable future.
Since the future can't be both, free will and omniscience can't exist
simultaneously.
It surely can be both from different vantage points
The vantage point of the universe.
from Gods immutable
from ours mutable and both are real not illusion.
Then he and we are in different universes and can't interact.
Don't try to play games with temporal reality when you don't even know
what the phrase means, Randy. Existence either has the future as
mutable or immutable. Zero can't be non-zero.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 02:54:56 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7mbov09o7bnp8vt7q3p8sgq5u0496lqk81@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:14:40 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bd4ov0lnlec1g9beibn4ruatkr58vj4vom@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:33:09 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I
ate a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity.
Free will requires a mutable future.
Omniscience requires an immutable future.
Since the future can't be both, free will and omniscience can't exist
simultaneously.
It surely can be both from different vantage points
The vantage point of the universe.
from Gods immutable
from ours mutable and both are real not illusion.
Then he and we are in different universes and can't interact.
Don't try to play games with temporal reality when you don't even know
what the phrase means, Randy. Existence either has the future as
mutable or immutable. Zero can't be non-zero.
So you preclude anything you cant comprehend, the temporal & the eternal,
the contingent & the necessary, the finite & the infinite. God can be
immutable & us mutable just as these other attributes, in fact he could be
no other way. We certainly can not interact with God if he chose not, but he
can interact as he chooses if he created it. The only contradiction is you
trying to make God in your image. We are like him in many ways, he is not
like us. The painting may be like the painter but the painter may not be
like the painting.
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife,
brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
31 Jan 2005 12:47:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:54:56 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7mbov09o7bnp8vt7q3p8sgq5u0496lqk81@4ax.com...
Don't try to play games with temporal reality when you don't even know
what the phrase means, Randy. Existence either has the future as
mutable or immutable. Zero can't be non-zero.
So you preclude anything you cant comprehend
No, I comprehend temporality - you don't.
the temporal & the eternal,
the contingent & the necessary, the finite & the infinite. God can be
immutable & us mutable
But not in the same universe at the same time. Nothing within the
universe is atemporal. Your god is defined as being atemporal, so he
can't be within the universe. Since the universe is a singularity,
nothing not within it can interact with it.
Claiming that your god can violate these truths is just the fallacy of
special pleading, not anything sensible.
just as these other attributes, in fact he could be
no other way. We certainly can not interact with God if he chose not, but he
can interact as he chooses if he created it.
Sorry, no. Things that objectively exist within the universe interact
with the universe - there's no "choice". Again, claiming that your
god is different is just a sentence without meaning. You can make up
sentences about your god all you like, but the fact that the words
form sentences doesn't mean that what they describe is reality.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 03:40:50 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7mbov09o7bnp8vt7q3p8sgq5u0496lqk81@4ax.com...
Don't try to play games with temporal reality when you don't even know
what the phrase means, Randy. Existence either has the future as
mutable or immutable. Zero can't be non-zero.
Temporal reality implies that there is a dimension that exists or a fabric
which can be crossed, allowing us to move foward or backwards in "time".
Existence has only now for us. There is no past. There is no future. We
are creatures of the now. Therefore what is to come is mutable. God's
existence surpasses all of this. Ancient philosophers claim that God must
exist in all dimensions at once. He is in the "past", "present", and
"future" as well as many more. He isn't so much as restricting our opinions
by knowing as much as witnessing what we are doing right now in the
soon-after.
"Zero can't be non-zero" depends upon how you define zero. In antiquity,
the math system didn't incorporate zero. In the soon-after, however, there
may be a sub-zero (or a zero within zero) which we haven't discovered yet.
Math right now includes negative, positive, and "imaginary". These
imaginary numbers may become a reality in the future of math. Numbers may
trail off into a different set. Infinity may become a real concept, if it
is applied to real-world implementations. In the now, zero can't be
non-zero, but in the soon-after that may all change. Anyhow, we really
can't comprehend the idea of zero. Zero within itself isn't nothingness.
An empty-set containing zero isn't an empty-set.
Look at binary notation. In binary, zero is something. 1011 implies "11"
and 1100 implies "12". In this system, zero is completely different than it
is in decimal notation, where 0 serves as 0 itself. Whether 0 is positive
or negative is another issue, because any computation we may make which
involves 0 may involve a number so completely small that it is just rounded
to zero. For example, the limit as e^x approaches infinity is 0. That
doesn't indicate, however, that e^x ever reaches zero, because it cannot (or
can it :p). If it ever reaches zero, that implies that it may cross zero
which it cannot. So in this case, 0 is non-zero though to our best
assumption, it is zero.
I know... word games... I wouldn't be so quick to pass off that which you do
not understand as word games. Sometimes, though you may not understand, our
"word-games" are truth in the now. What is true now, however, may not be
true in the soon-after. In the soon after, there may be a new paradigm
which allows for the view of the universe to completely change. Just look
at what happened when we jumped from a geocentric to a heliocentric
paradigm. Maybe in the future we may understand astrophysics a little
better to introduce a completely different paradigm such as the concept that
all which exists now is so because of a central gravitational force which we
have yet to discover (in the future, we may be able to travel to it).
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 04:49:04 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Temporal reality implies that there is a dimension that exists or a
fabric which can be crossed, allowing us to move foward or backwards
in "time". Existence has only now for us. There is no past. There is
no future. We are creatures of the now. Therefore what is to come is
mutable. God's existence surpasses all of this.
This is a claim.
Ancient philosophers
claim that God must exist in all dimensions at once.
Yes, a claim.
He is in the
"past", "present", and "future" as well as many more. He isn't so
much as restricting our opinions by knowing as much as witnessing what
we are doing right now in the soon-after.
Now back that up objectively.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you
wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 05:03:23 AM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDD401DDC7Avicman@216.196.97.136...
On 29 Jan 2005, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Temporal reality implies that there is a dimension that exists or a
fabric which can be crossed, allowing us to move foward or backwards
in "time". Existence has only now for us. There is no past. There is
no future. We are creatures of the now. Therefore what is to come is
mutable. God's existence surpasses all of this.
This is a claim.
Ancient philosophers
claim that God must exist in all dimensions at once.
Yes, a claim.
He is in the
"past", "present", and "future" as well as many more. He isn't so
much as restricting our opinions by knowing as much as witnessing what
we are doing right now in the soon-after.
Now back that up objectively.
I will by saying one thing: Wait until the moment you die. When you die,
all realization of truth will be revealed to you and the objective evidence
you desire now will be given to you. Atheists feel that the end brings
oblivion. I feel that the end is hte beginning to yet a greater part of
life. If I am wrong, I have nothing to lose (since I will fade into
oblivion). If you are wrong, you have everything to lose.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 05:16:46 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDD401DDC7Avicman@216.196.97.136...
On 29 Jan 2005, RS dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Temporal reality implies that there is a dimension that exists or a
fabric which can be crossed, allowing us to move foward or backwards
in "time". Existence has only now for us. There is no past. There
is no future. We are creatures of the now. Therefore what is to
come is mutable. God's existence surpasses all of this.
This is a claim.
Ancient philosophers
claim that God must exist in all dimensions at once.
Yes, a claim.
He is in the
"past", "present", and "future" as well as many more. He isn't so
much as restricting our opinions by knowing as much as witnessing
what we are doing right now in the soon-after.
Now back that up objectively.
I will by saying one thing: Wait until the moment you die. When you
die, all realization of truth will be revealed to you and the
objective evidence you desire now will be given to you.
And you know this how? The only observable thing about death is that it
is the end of life.
Atheists feel
that the end brings oblivion. I feel that the end is hte beginning to
yet a greater part of life. If I am wrong, I have nothing to lose
(since I will fade into oblivion). If you are wrong, you have
everything to lose.
Pascal's Wager is the best you can do? Pitiful.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you
wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 03:25:04 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bd4ov0lnlec1g9beibn4ruatkr58vj4vom@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:33:09 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that I ate
a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity.
Free will requires a mutable future.
Omniscience requires an immutable future.
On the contrary, omniscience is a causality of omnipresence. Since God
exists at all times, He can see all at once. God is witnessing our actions
as we are making them (past, present, and future). The future can't be
anything to us because we are bound in the now. For us there is only the
now. The concept of the past is a human word prescribed to the explaination
of that which had gone before. The past, in this dimension, doesn't exist.
The future in this dimension doesn't exist. There is only now and there
really is no "time". Time is a concept we have placed on our existence to
make sense of all of the moments going on around us. Our view of time is
effected by our place in the universe. "Tick-tock,tick-tock the hand moves
around the clock. The sun rises in the sky and the moon follows close
behind."
We exist in the dimension of matter. Matter changes in form and decays.
Matter knows no time since matter is eternal. Whether it all exists in a
point of density smaller than the diameter of an electron or is spanned
across an entire universe (or multiverse), there is no time. We created the
concept of past, present, and future. There is, however, only now. God, on
the otherhand, isn't bound by the now. He can see the before and the
soon-after all at once. Since He sees all at once He knows all at once. It
isn't so much as He is reaching into the future and knows our choices as
much as He is witnessing us make them right now. My next keystroke is my
choice to make. God witnessed the keystrokes I made and the keystrokes I am
making now. He also sees the keystrokes I am making in the soon-after,
though they are mine to make. Every non-autonomous movement we make with
our body is our choice, whether it is typing or closing our eyes. God sees
us making those choices and hence, is all-knowing.
Therefore, omniscience is a direct effect of omnipresence.
Summary:
The future cannot be anything to us. It is a concept we created.
The actions we make are our own. God sees every action we make ("past",
now, and "future") and knows them because He witnesses us make them.
Since omniscience and free will can exist simultanously and logically, your
arguement is refuted.
We can spend hours talking about this time-paradox or you can accept that
you are mistaken since you are flawed about the system.
If you want to have an opinion about the system of beliefs, at least know
what the beliefs are. To claim what you are claiming now is no better than
a Christian fundamentalist crying out "Catholics worship idols!" (they see
us kneeling before statues and presume that is us kneeling to the statues
despite the fact that we tell them otherwise). God is the author of our
religious system. Our religious system is manifested to the world through
us. Do not learn from your own mind what our religious system is because
you will mold it into something it isn't.
God is all-knowing because He is all-seeing. He doesn't limit our choices
by knowing what they will be because the only reason he knows what they will
be is because He is watching us make them right now. If you wish to concern
yourself with the omnipresence of God, you must remove your definitions of
God from the confines of the now.
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Prism" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 06:37:38 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:bd4ov0lnlec1g9beibn4ruatkr58vj4vom@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:33:09 -0800, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> said in alt.atheism:
Freewill and omniscience are no more incompatible then the fact that
I ate a
cheeseburger yesterday is determined for all eternity.
Free will requires a mutable future.
Omniscience requires an immutable future.
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in news:cthk2o$suj$1@news3.bu.edu:
Therefore, omniscience is a direct effect of omnipresence.
I can agree to that. But...
Omniscience is not dependant on omnipresence. Knowing something does not
rely on been there - saw that. A subject (in this case, life, the
universe and everything) can be known through other occurrences. Reading
it is too obvious because it requires someone else to have acquired the
knowledge in the first place. There is also, I made it - I know it, I
set it in motion - I know where it will go, and, I am smart and can with
pure brain power surmise it from a minimum of known data.
The first two require omnipotence, unlimited force or power to create or
set into action. The third requires an absolute unlimited cognitive
ability to theorize. This can be done with no outside influence
whatsoever other than the original iota of data.
Note: God has not been discussed in this yet, only various abilities
that could be attributed to God.
On the other hand, being somewhere does not necessarily mean you see
everything. (ex. I was there but I missed it...) So, maybe I can't agree
with your conjecture, but perhaps - omniscience is a direct effect of
omni-observance (am I allowed to make up words here?) which can occur
when there is omnipresence. This gives me three methods of achieving
omniscience. Omnipotence, omni-observance and omni-conjecture (two new
words in one paragraph, I am on a roll)
Regarding the second and third methods, in the macroverse (where the
physics of big things rule) and knowing Randy will eat a cheeseburger
tomorrow using either direct observation through having already seen
tomorrow or working it out from what I know today. Using omni-conjecture
will not affect the outcome. A best guess, even if perfect, is still a
gamble. Omni-observance, seeing tomorrow, requires traveling faster than
the speed of light and coming back to today to report my findings. The
first difficulty with this temporally unrestricted omni-observance is
that of predestination. That is what has happened, has happened, and if
what is going to happen has already happened, then it has happened and
cannot change. The second difficulty is that it would require laws of
physics, that don't exist or unknown to man. This leaves the question of
whether the previous statement can be true for the omni-observer and
still separate from and without effect on the human observer. It has
also been suggested such separated observances could happen from outside
the universe which would then remove all possible interactions. (This
leads to the idea you could have in impotent omni-observant being
instead of an omnipotent one)
However, in the microverse (where quantum physics reign) Schrödinger's
Cat begins to play. Theorizing Randy's dinner in the box (that is,
tomorrow) will not affect (cause) it to become so until I see it. But if
I observe what Randy's dinner is it becomes immutable. So if I have
already seen and know that the quantum cheeseburger is eaten tomorrow
because my observations are not restricted by time than they do have
causality.
Therefore (yeah right): All events are fixed by the existence of a being
with omni-observance, but free will could still exist in the macroverse,
where human beings are a factor given if there is some unknown type of
separation between the two. Omni-conjecture does not have any causality,
quantum or otherwise and therefore allows free will.
This leaves omnipotence, the original question in this thread. Maybe
I'll take a crack at it tomorrow. Maybe not. Maybe I will eat a
cheeseburger.
Go ahead, attack at will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
30 Jan 2005 04:48:33 PM |
|
|
"Prism" <looking@thedark.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EDF05E2DD17Prism@24.70.95.211...
I can agree to that. But...
Omniscience is not dependant on omnipresence. Knowing something does not
rely on been there - saw that. A subject (in this case, life, the
universe and everything) can be known through other occurrences. Reading
it is too obvious because it requires someone else to have acquired the
knowledge in the first place. There is also, I made it - I know it, I
set it in motion - I know where it will go, and, I am smart and can with
pure brain power surmise it from a minimum of known data.
The first two require omnipotence, unlimited force or power to create or
set into action. The third requires an absolute unlimited cognitive
ability to theorize. This can be done with no outside influence
whatsoever other than the original iota of data.
Note: God has not been discussed in this yet, only various abilities
that could be attributed to God.
On the other hand, being somewhere does not necessarily mean you see
everything. (ex. I was there but I missed it...) So, maybe I can't agree
with your conjecture, but perhaps - omniscience is a direct effect of
omni-observance (am I allowed to make up words here?) which can occur
when there is omnipresence. This gives me three methods of achieving
omniscience. Omnipotence, omni-observance and omni-conjecture (two new
words in one paragraph, I am on a roll)
Thank you Prism. That is a line of thought I have never considered yet. It
is quite informative, though omni-observance and omni-conjecture still do
not interefere with the ability of free will.
Regarding the second and third methods, in the macroverse (where the
physics of big things rule) and knowing Randy will eat a cheeseburger
tomorrow using either direct observation through having already seen
tomorrow or working it out from what I know today. Using omni-conjecture
will not affect the outcome. A best guess, even if perfect, is still a
gamble. Omni-observance, seeing tomorrow, requires traveling faster than
the speed of light and coming back to today to report my findings.
This restricts you to the now, of course. Omni-observance forces you to
travel faster than the speed of light and coming back to the now... that
presumes you exist only in the now.
The first difficulty with this temporally unrestricted omni-observance is
that of predestination. That is what has happened, has happened, and if
what is going to happen has already happened, then it has happened and
cannot change. The second difficulty is that it would require laws of
physics, that don't exist or unknown to man. This leaves the question of
whether the previous statement can be true for the omni-observer and
still separate from and without effect on the human observer. It has
also been suggested such separated observances could happen from outside
the universe which would then remove all possible interactions. (This
leads to the idea you could have in impotent omni-observant being
instead of an omnipotent one)
God is impotent? Hmmm omnipotent, you mean? The thought of the Divine
being a flaccid old man is a hilarious one. The fact that God exists
outside of this universe doesn't limit His existence within the universe.
It also assumes that you see the universe as a separate thing, leading away
from the theory of layered dimensions. All might exist in the same space,
but in different systems of observation. Maybe we can only see the now,
this universe. God, however, could be present here and witness all
dimensions at once.
However, in the microverse (where quantum physics reign) Schrödinger's
Cat begins to play. Theorizing Randy's dinner in the box (that is,
tomorrow) will not affect (cause) it to become so until I see it. But if
I observe what Randy's dinner is it becomes immutable. So if I have
already seen and know that the quantum cheeseburger is eaten tomorrow
because my observations are not restricted by time than they do have
causality.
*feels headache coming on* I swore to myself I would never become this
wrapped up in a time-paradox but here I am :p
If you see the cheeseburger being eaten and return to the past, you might be
able to prevent the cheeseburger from being eaten which would change what
you would have seen in the future. You see a cheeseburger in the future.
You go back to the now and eat the cheeseburger that you saw in the
future... now when you were originally in the future you would see nothing
there and go back assuming that there is no dinner... though when you return
to the past the second time through, there is no cheeseburger to eat...
where did the cheeseburger go? Regardless of how much we discuss this,
there is no explaining such a paradox in our limited mind-capacity...
There was an episode of Star Trek Voyager where Harry was responsible for
the destruction of Voyager but he survived to return to Earth. 30 years
later, He was able to send a message back in time to prevent Voyager from
being destroyed. He succeeded. In the end, the original Harry in the now
asked Captain Janeway: "If I sent the message from the future causing that
future not to exist, how did I send the message in the first place?" It is
an interesting paradox, isn't it?
Therefore (yeah right :p): We have no damn clue
This leaves omnipotence, the original question in this thread. Maybe
I'll take a crack at it tomorrow. Maybe not. Maybe I will eat a
cheeseburger.
I'm hungry... but I am afraid that if I eat a cheeseburger now, I will not
have a cheeseburger in the future... where did that stupid cheeseburger go?
Now: cheeseburger exists
Future: I see cheeseburger being eaten
Now: I eat cheeseburger
Future: I do not see cheeseburger being eaten
Now: I have no cheeseburger to eat
Where did the cheeseburger go? Ahh! I'm hungry... :p
-RS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Prism" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
31 Jan 2005 03:50:39 AM |
|
|
"RS" <rswarts@bu.edu> wrote in news:ctj355$5uf$1@news3.bu.edu:
The first difficulty with this temporally unrestricted
omni-observance is that of predestination. That is what has happened,
has happened, and if what is going to happen has already happened,
then it has happened and cannot change. The second difficulty is that
it would require laws of physics, that don't exist or unknown to man.
This leaves the question of whether the previous statement can be
true for the omni-observer and still separate from and without effect
on the human observer. It has also been suggested such separated
observances could happen from outside the universe which would then
remove all possible interactions. (This leads to the idea you could
have in impotent omni-observant being instead of an omnipotent one)
Apologies for my horrible sense of humor.
God is impotent? Hmmm omnipotent, you mean? The thought of the
Divine being a flaccid old man is a hilarious one. The fact that God
exists outside of this universe doesn't limit His existence within the
universe. It also assumes that you see the universe as a separate
thing, leading away from the theory of layered dimensions. All might
exist in the same space, but in different systems of observation.
Maybe we can only see the now, this universe. God, however, could be
present here and witness all dimensions at once.
However, in the microverse (where quantum physics reign)
Schrödinger's Cat begins to play. Theorizing Randy's dinner in the
box (that is, tomorrow) will not affect (cause) it to become so until
I see it. But if I observe what Randy's dinner is it becomes
immutable. So if I have already seen and know that the quantum
cheeseburger is eaten tomorrow because my observations are not
restricted by time than they do have causality.
*feels headache coming on* I swore to myself I would never become
this wrapped up in a time-paradox but here I am :p
Having been a reader of sci-fi scinse Tom Swift was cool I have always
hated time paradox as a plot device. It always seem to me to be the
script the ST writers would use when they ran out of good ideas. The
Enterprise' 'timestream cold war' has practically killed by last trekkie
blood cell.
If you see the cheeseburger being eaten and return to the past, you
might be able to prevent the cheeseburger from being eaten which would
change what you would have seen in the future. You see a cheeseburger
in the future. You go back to the now and eat the cheeseburger that
you saw in the future... now when you were originally in the future
you would see nothing there and go back assuming that there is no
dinner... though when you return to the past the second time through,
there is no cheeseburger to eat... where did the cheeseburger go?
Regardless of how much we discuss this, there is no explaining such a
paradox in our limited mind-capacity...
Ah yes, right. So it the being must see all moments in time at the same
time, with no 'travelling' back and forth through time in order for the
future to be immutable.
There was an episode of Star Trek Voyager where Harry was responsible
for the destruction of Voyager but he survived to return to Earth. 30
years later, He was able to send a message back in time to prevent
Voyager from being destroyed. He succeeded. In the end, the original
Harry in the now asked Captain Janeway: "If I sent the message from
the future causing that future not to exist, how did I send the
message in the first place?" It is an interesting paradox, isn't it?
Therefore (yeah right :p): We have no damn clue
This leaves omnipotence, the original question in this thread. Maybe
I'll take a crack at it tomorrow. Maybe not. Maybe I will eat a
cheeseburger.
I'm hungry... but I am afraid that if I eat a cheeseburger now, I will
not have a cheeseburger in the future... where did that stupid
cheeseburger go?
Now: cheeseburger exists
Future: I see cheeseburger being eaten
Now: I eat cheeseburger
Future: I do not see cheeseburger being eaten
Now: I have no cheeseburger to eat
Where did the cheeseburger go? Ahh! I'm hungry... :p
-RS
I hate to say it, but I came up with another one. The divergent time line
theory. Consider, if every time a random event or choice happens an
alternate future is created all possible futures exist and the omni-
observant temporally unrestricted being would see them all at the same
time all the time. (Try to imagine the data storage for such an option.)
In this way all possible futures are not just possible but real and
immutable. When given a choice of paths, all paths have been chosen but
human awareness diverges leaving each divergent awareness limited to a
single divergence.
If before the choice all paths are available to be chosen from to the
non-diverged human awareness than that being has before it a free choice
requiring free will. Immediately after the choice is made the awareness
is forced to diverge and take all paths.
Therefore (I knew this was coming) - With an omni-observant, temporally
unrestricted being in a divergent timeline universe, free will would
exist for the human before any choice is made and would never have
existed after a choice has been made. However for each individual
divergent awareness the next free choice would still exist and it would
have every impression free choice did exist.
This should work for any manner of existence (creation, big bang, other)
that has an immutable future with divergent timelines.
Omnipotence can bloody well wait now. My head hurts and my pizza is
getting cold. Waitaminute where did it go...
Oops, that wasn't time paradox, that was a 14 year old kid...
.
|
|
|
| User: "RS" |
|
| Title: Re: FREE WILL & OMNIPOTENCE ARE IMPOSSIBLE |
31 Jan 2005 05:00:06 AM |
|
|
"Prism" <looking@thedark.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95EED4105F7DAPrism@24.70.95.211...
This should work for any manner of existence (creation, big bang, other)
that has an immutable future with divergent timelines.
Omnipotence can bloody well wait now. My head hurts and my pizza is
getting cold. Waitaminute where did it go...
Oops, that wasn't time paradox, that was a 14 year old kid...
Yeah... I'm still looking for the cheeseburger....
I travel into the future and see a cheeseburger that my friend is going to
heat up and eat. I travel back to the past and eat it so my friend can't.
In the future, I witness no cheeseburger now so I end up returning to the
past again. Wait... I found two problems.... there are two me's and no
cheeseburger....wait... another me arrives... and another... and another....
this is time paradox number 4... (I am numbering my paradoxes). If I travel
into the future and back into the past, wouldn't that create a feedback loop
resulting in an infinite number of me? Now I see why God exists everywhere
at once... :)
-RS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
