| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dave bowman" |
| Date: |
28 Jun 2005 11:34:23 PM |
| Object: |
I wasted my life searching for God ! |
LOL, that isn't true, but it could be true of some people who have
lived and died and never found God. I suspect that I too will waste a
few years looking for God, but not a whole lifetime.
This possibility represents to me why we should not put too much of our
life into the search for God. If you have searched for God for a few
years and haven't found God, then move on to something else - such as
family, community, the sciences, the arts, becoming a businessman, etc.
Wouldn't it be a real waste if you did waste your life searching for
God?
Heh, God may not approve of you wasting your life searching for God.
Consider that too.
I know how some will respond. Just have faith. Yeh, but in which god?
Responses welcomed.
.
|
|
| User: "dave bowman" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
30 Jun 2005 09:39:10 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
"Contradicts the definition of Omnipotent.
If God existed AND wanted a relationship with me THEN we would have a
relationship.
We don't therefore one or both the premise is false. ..."
Hello Richo,
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically possible) and
desire a relationship with you, but another factor could outweigh the
desire to have a relationship with you. That factor could be that God
wants you to have the sort of freedom that only comes when you are not
in an obvious relationship with God.
We need to step back from what traditional religions promote. They
promote the idea that it is good to have a relationship with God. But
that may not be God's view. God may value your freedom more than your
worship, more than your love. This, of course, is heresy to many
religions. Those religions would go out of business if they promoted
the idea that God values your freedom more than your worship.
God may be much more like what the Deists imagine. God stands back, God
leaves the stage, so that God's creatures can exercise their freedom.
This seems to me, much more benevolent and more reasonable than what
traditional religions promote. Any real God would not need your
worship, would not command your love.
So eventhough God, theoretically, would like to have a relationship
with you, your freedom means more to God. But of course, the atheists
may be right and there simply isn't any god at all, even of the Deist
kind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
30 Jun 2005 09:50:43 AM |
|
|
"dave bowman" <daveCbowman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1120142350.820029.247980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Richo wrote:
"Contradicts the definition of Omnipotent.
If God existed AND wanted a relationship with me THEN we would have a
relationship.
We don't therefore one or both the premise is false. ..."
Hello Richo,
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically possible) and
desire a relationship with you, but another factor could outweigh the
desire to have a relationship with you. That factor could be that God
wants you to have the sort of freedom that only comes when you are not
in an obvious relationship with God.
We need to step back from what traditional religions promote. They
promote the idea that it is good to have a relationship with God. But
that may not be God's view. God may value your freedom more than your
worship, more than your love. This, of course, is heresy to many
religions. Those religions would go out of business if they promoted
the idea that God values your freedom more than your worship.
God may be much more like what the Deists imagine. God stands back, God
leaves the stage, so that God's creatures can exercise their freedom.
This seems to me, much more benevolent and more reasonable than what
traditional religions promote. Any real God would not need your
worship, would not command your love.
So eventhough God, theoretically, would like to have a relationship
with you, your freedom means more to God. But of course, the atheists
may be right and there simply isn't any god at all, even of the Deist
kind.
I don't suppose this god could provide some reason (i.e. real world
evidence) to think that he really exists in order for this relationship
to be based on something other than wishful thinking and self delusion?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
30 Jun 2005 06:17:26 PM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
"dave bowman" <daveCbowman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1120142350.820029.247980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Richo wrote:
"Contradicts the definition of Omnipotent.
If God existed AND wanted a relationship with me THEN we would have a
relationship.
We don't therefore one or both the premise is false. ..."
Hello Richo,
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically possible) and
desire a relationship with you, but another factor could outweigh the
desire to have a relationship with you. That factor could be that God
wants you to have the sort of freedom that only comes when you are not
in an obvious relationship with God.
We need to step back from what traditional religions promote. They
promote the idea that it is good to have a relationship with God. But
that may not be God's view. God may value your freedom more than your
worship, more than your love. This, of course, is heresy to many
religions. Those religions would go out of business if they promoted
the idea that God values your freedom more than your worship.
God may be much more like what the Deists imagine. God stands back, God
leaves the stage, so that God's creatures can exercise their freedom.
This seems to me, much more benevolent and more reasonable than what
traditional religions promote. Any real God would not need your
worship, would not command your love.
So eventhough God, theoretically, would like to have a relationship
with you, your freedom means more to God. But of course, the atheists
may be right and there simply isn't any god at all, even of the Deist
kind.
I don't suppose this god could provide some reason (i.e. real world
evidence) to think that he really exists in order for this relationship
to be based on something other than wishful thinking and self delusion?
"Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved
to be known." - Blaise Pascal
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
01 Jul 2005 04:19:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:17:26 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Woden wrote:
"dave bowman" <daveCbowman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1120142350.820029.247980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Richo wrote:
snip
"Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved
to be known." - Blaise Pascal
Love what? If one does not know the object of love, how does one love
it? The foolishness of the above quote should be obvious.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
30 Jun 2005 06:53:38 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in
news:42C47D86.4CD88EE3@nospam.net:
Woden wrote:
"dave bowman" <daveCbowman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1120142350.820029.247980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Richo wrote:
"Contradicts the definition of Omnipotent.
If God existed AND wanted a relationship with me THEN we would have
a relationship.
We don't therefore one or both the premise is false. ..."
Hello Richo,
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically possible)
and desire a relationship with you, but another factor could
outweigh the desire to have a relationship with you. That factor
could be that God wants you to have the sort of freedom that only
comes when you are not in an obvious relationship with God.
We need to step back from what traditional religions promote. They
promote the idea that it is good to have a relationship with God.
But that may not be God's view. God may value your freedom more
than your worship, more than your love. This, of course, is heresy
to many religions. Those religions would go out of business if they
promoted the idea that God values your freedom more than your
worship.
God may be much more like what the Deists imagine. God stands back,
God leaves the stage, so that God's creatures can exercise their
freedom. This seems to me, much more benevolent and more reasonable
than what traditional religions promote. Any real God would not
need your worship, would not command your love.
So eventhough God, theoretically, would like to have a relationship
with you, your freedom means more to God. But of course, the
atheists may be right and there simply isn't any god at all, even
of the Deist kind.
I don't suppose this god could provide some reason (i.e. real world
evidence) to think that he really exists in order for this
relationship to be based on something other than wishful thinking and
self delusion?
"Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be
loved to be known." - Blaise Pascal
So, he was deluded with religion also.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
03 Jul 2005 07:34:24 AM |
|
|
On 30 Jun 2005 07:39:10 -0700, "dave bowman" <daveCbowman@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
"Contradicts the definition of Omnipotent.
If God existed AND wanted a relationship with me THEN we would have a
relationship.
We don't therefore one or both the premise is false. ..."
Hello Richo,
Hi.
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically possible) and
desire a relationship with you, but another factor could outweigh the
desire to have a relationship with you. That factor could be that God
wants you to have the sort of freedom that only comes when you are not
in an obvious relationship with God.
Maybe.
Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese - covered with a thin layer
of rock and dust - I can only make choices with the information I
have.
We need to step back from what traditional religions promote.
I already have done so.
8-)
They
promote the idea that it is good to have a relationship with God. But
that may not be God's view. God may value your freedom more than your
worship, more than your love. This, of course, is heresy to many
religions. Those religions would go out of business if they promoted
the idea that God values your freedom more than your worship.
God may be much more like what the Deists imagine. God stands back, God
leaves the stage, so that God's creatures can exercise their freedom.
This seems to me, much more benevolent and more reasonable than what
traditional religions promote. Any real God would not need your
worship, would not command your love.
In my way of thinking something which exists and doesnt demand my
devotion and worship is not a god - its just another part of reality.
So I wouldnt call it God - but you are free to call it that if you
like.
So eventhough God, theoretically, would like to have a relationship
with you, your freedom means more to God. But of course, the atheists
may be right and there simply isn't any god at all, even of the Deist
kind.
Yup.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
01 Jul 2005 04:19:35 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jun 2005 07:39:10 -0700, "dave bowman" <daveCbowman@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
"Contradicts the definition of Omnipotent.
If God existed AND wanted a relationship with me THEN we would have a
relationship.
We don't therefore one or both the premise is false. ..."
Hello Richo,
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically possible) and
desire a relationship with you, but another factor could outweigh the
desire to have a relationship with you. That factor could be that God
wants you to have the sort of freedom that only comes when you are not
in an obvious relationship with God.
We need to step back from what traditional religions promote. They
promote the idea that it is good to have a relationship with God. But
that may not be God's view. God may value your freedom more than your
worship, more than your love. This, of course, is heresy to many
religions. Those religions would go out of business if they promoted
the idea that God values your freedom more than your worship.
Imagine a man who wants to be loved by you, but wants you to love him
without actually knowing he exists.
God may be much more like what the Deists imagine. God stands back, God
leaves the stage, so that God's creatures can exercise their freedom.
This seems to me, much more benevolent and more reasonable than what
traditional religions promote. Any real God would not need your
worship, would not command your love.
So eventhough God, theoretically, would like to have a relationship
with you, your freedom means more to God. But of course, the atheists
may be right and there simply isn't any god at all, even of the Deist
kind.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
30 Jun 2005 01:11:59 PM |
|
|
dave bowman wrote:
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically
possible)
Bzzzt! Try again.
If God is bound by the laws of logic--and he most certainly
is--then the laws of logic are even stronger than he. Doesn't make
much sense to write of the ``all-powerful'' when there's something
even more powerful than your example, no?
Proclaiming the existence of omnipotence makes just as much sense
as proclaiming the existence of the largest prime number.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "dave bowman" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
30 Jun 2005 05:28:49 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
"Bzzzt! Try again.
If God is bound by the laws of logic--and he most certainly
is--then the laws of logic are even stronger than he. Doesn't make
much sense to write of the ``all-powerful'' when there's something
even more powerful than your example, no? ... "
You are correct. The term "omnipotence" faces immediate objections -
not only on logical grounds, but mathematical grounds. No all-powerful
being can change which numbers are prime numbers, no all-powerful being
can change the value of PI, no all powerful being can make a round
square, etc, etc.
I've had my reservations about using the term "omnipotence" because I
am aware of these exceptions. There needs to be another term that
recognizes these exceptions and at the same time posits a supremely
powerful being. Umm, "superpotent". ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
30 Jun 2005 05:59:40 PM |
|
|
dave bowman wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Bzzzt! Try again. If God is bound by the laws of logic--and
he most certainly is--then the laws of logic are even
stronger than he. Doesn't make much sense to write of the
``all-powerful'' when there's something even more powerful than
your example, no? ...
You are correct. The term "omnipotence" faces immediate
objections - not only on logical grounds, but mathematical
grounds. No all-powerful being can change which numbers are
prime numbers, no all-powerful being can change the value of PI,
no all powerful being can make a round square, etc, etc.
Exactly right.
I've had my reservations about using the term "omnipotence"
because I am aware of these exceptions. There needs to be
another term that recognizes these exceptions and at the same
time posits a supremely powerful being.
That presupposes that there /is/ a ``supremely powerful
being.'' And, as you're starting to realize, THERE IS NO SUCH
THING. Just as there's no largest prime number.
Umm, "superpotent". ?
Personally, I'm rather fond of, ``bug-eyed monsters playing David
Copperfield tricks on us.''
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
03 Jul 2005 07:25:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:11:59 -0700, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>
wrote:
dave bowman wrote:
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically
possible)
Bzzzt! Try again.
If God is bound by the laws of logic--and he most certainly
is--then the laws of logic are even stronger than he.
That doesn't make sense.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that can be done - logically
impossible acts are not acts at all - they are not elements of teh set
of things that can be done - and the failure to do a non-thing cannot
be a failure.
Logic cannot be "stronger" than omnipotence for exactly the same
reason the color red cannot be "rounder" than a circle.
Logic has no power to perform any act - precisely none.
An omeba is "stronger" than logic.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
03 Jul 2005 11:16:46 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
dave bowman wrote:
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically
possible)
Bzzzt! Try again.
If God is bound by the laws of logic--and he most certainly
is--then the laws of logic are even stronger than he.
That doesn't make sense.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that can be done -
logically impossible acts are not acts at all - they are not
elements of teh set of things that can be done - and the failure
to do a non-thing cannot be a failure.
``God can never prove that this sentence is true.''
Now, I don't know about you, but, where I come from, proving
something hardly constitutes a ``non-thing.''
God can't prove that sentence true in much the same way I
can't run a three-minute mile. By your logic, I retain my own
omnipotence despite this failure.
Besides, it demands the question: /why/ is God bound to only do
that which is logically possible? Where did the laws of logic come
from? Why can't he change them?
Logic cannot be "stronger" than omnipotence for exactly the same
reason the color red cannot be "rounder" than a circle.
Logic has no power to perform any act - precisely none. An
omeba is "stronger" than logic.
Logic is a passive, not active, force. Just as, say, relativity
prevents you from accelerating matter to and beyond the speed of
light, logic prevents God from proving the sentence true--or from
making 2 + 2 = 3, for that matter.
Or does God get a pass on the whole matter-faster-than-light deal,
too? Just because it's logically impossible?
If a god can't do miracles, of what use is he?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
03 Jul 2005 10:03:18 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
dave bowman wrote:
Actually, God may be omnipotent (within what is logically
possible)
Bzzzt! Try again.
If God is bound by the laws of logic--and he most certainly
is--then the laws of logic are even stronger than he.
That doesn't make sense.
Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that can be done -
logically impossible acts are not acts at all - they are not
elements of teh set of things that can be done - and the failure
to do a non-thing cannot be a failure.
``God can never prove that this sentence is true.''
Now, I don't know about you, but, where I come from, proving
something hardly constitutes a ``non-thing.''
If the sentence is true then it is unprovable.
Generating a proof for an unprovable is indeed a non thing - and it has
nothing to do with my geographical location.
8-)
God can't prove that sentence true in much the same way I
can't run a three-minute mile. By your logic, I retain my own
omnipotence despite this failure.
Possibility and impossibility are not matters of degree.
How fast you can run is - so your analogy is a failure.
Besides, it demands the question: /why/ is God bound to only do
that which is logically possible? Where did the laws of logic come
from? Why can't he change them?
All good questions.
They don't make imposible actions into actions.
Logic cannot be "stronger" than omnipotence for exactly the same
reason the color red cannot be "rounder" than a circle.
Logic has no power to perform any act - precisely none. An
omeba is "stronger" than logic.
Logic is a passive, not active, force.
Exactly.
(or more accurately not a force at all - but I think understand the
spirit in which you intended it.)
Just as, say, relativity
prevents you from accelerating matter to and beyond the speed of
light, logic prevents God from proving the sentence true--or from
making 2 + 2 = 3, for that matter.
Objects, beings etc have properties.
The relativistic speed limit is a property of space time.
It's a description of "how things are".
Non-things don't have properties.
Logical impossibility is not directly related to the properties of
objects but to the structure of logic itself.
There is no physical constraint on a man that prevents him being a
married batchelor. The problem is that words signify meanings but it is
possible to form meaningless phrases - phrases that signify or refer to
nothing at all.
Or does God get a pass on the whole matter-faster-than-light deal,
too? Just because it's logically impossible?
I don't know about this "get a pass" thing of which you speak.
I am just trying to get you to recognise the necessity of making
meaningful statements.
We dont know if the speed of light being differnt to what we find it to
be *is* a logical imposibility - there may be other regions of space
time in which it is different.
If a god can't do miracles, of what use is he?
Buggered if I know.
I am not defending "God" (I believe a non-thing) - just language, logic
and meaning.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
03 Jul 2005 11:21:57 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
``God can never prove that this sentence is true.''
Now, I don't know about you, but, where I come from, proving
something hardly constitutes a ``non-thing.''
If the sentence is true then it is unprovable. Generating a
proof for an unprovable is indeed a non thing - and it has
nothing to do with my geographical location. 8-)
Ah, then you do not understand the nature of Godel's (second)
Incompleteness Theorem.
The sentence itself /is/ provable. Just not by God. Indeed, simply
by stating it, /I/ have proven it to be true.
I can never prove that this sentence is true. You could,
though. You can never prove that this sentence is true. I could,
though.
Godel sure was a tricky SOB, wasn't he?
I think we can safely leave the rest of your post for later....
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
04 Jul 2005 06:51:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:21:57 -0700, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>
wrote:
Richo wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
``God can never prove that this sentence is true.''
Now, I don't know about you, but, where I come from, proving
something hardly constitutes a ``non-thing.''
If the sentence is true then it is unprovable. Generating a
proof for an unprovable is indeed a non thing - and it has
nothing to do with my geographical location. 8-)
Ah, then you do not understand the nature of Godel's (second)
Incompleteness Theorem.
I understand it better than some.
First a comment from Torkel Franzen that is always a good backdrop to
people using Godel to "prove" stuff.
<quote>
Gödel on the net
Every day, Gödel's incompleteness theorem is invoked on the net to
support some claim or other, or just to whack people over the head
with it in a general way. In news, we find such invocations not only
in sci.logic, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.philosophy.tech and
other such places where one might expect them, but with equal
frequency in groups dealing with politics or religion, and indeed in
alt.cuddle, soc.culture.malaysia, rec.music.hip-hop, and what have
you. In short, whenever a bunch of people get together on the net,
sooner or later somebody will invoke Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
<unquote>
The sentence itself /is/ provable.
I understand what it means for a theorem to be provable but what does
it mean for a statement to be provable?
Provable in which system?
How is it encoded?
Can you show me this proof?
Just not by God. Indeed, simply
by stating it, /I/ have proven it to be true.
Ah!
This is what I think you are doing.
You are arguing by analogy.
You are saying "This looks like the self referential statement that
Godel used in his original proof of the 2nd IT therefore Godels result
applies"
Godels theorem is about decidability and consistency within formal
systems.
An act of speech like your sentence is not a theorem encoded in a
formal system.
I can never prove that this sentence is true. You could,
though. You can never prove that this sentence is true. I could,
though.
Godel sure was a tricky SOB, wasn't he?
Absolutely.
Study this before we continue...
http://www.sm.luth.se/~torkel/eget/godel.html
Leaving aside Godel and whether or not he has anything to say about
your sentence for the moment ...
Let us say that it is impossible for God to prove a particular
"sentence" - whatever that may mean.
What is the significance of this if it were true (in some sense yet to
be established)?
Omnipotence is the power to do anything it is possible to do -
Omniscience is the power to know anything it is possible to know.
By finding an example of something it is impossible to do you have
effectively found a boundary between the possible and the impossible.
That doesn't render God's Omni-power invalid - it merely points out
its shape or form in some sense.
You haven't made God disappear you have glimpsed His shadow and seen
its shape.
Not a grand achievement for an atheist.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
04 Jul 2005 12:25:50 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote:
This is what I think you are doing. You are arguing by analogy.
You are saying "This looks like the self referential statement
that Godel used in his original proof of the 2nd IT therefore
Godels result applies" Godels theorem is about decidability and
consistency within formal systems. An act of speech like your
sentence is not a theorem encoded in a formal system.
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as that
described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on consistency
and completeness apply to God just as they apply to any other
formal system.
Omnipotence is the power to do anything it is possible to do -
Omniscience is the power to know anything it is possible to
know.
I'm sorry, but I gotta call, ``*****.'' By adding that
``anything it is possible to do'' you rob the terms of all
meaning. It is /not/ possible for me to run a three-minute mile;
it is /not/ possible for my cat to levitate herself (as often as
she appears to do so); it is /not/ possible to draw a geometric
shape in Euclidian space with all the properties of a circle and a
triangle; it is /not/ possible for /anything/ to happen that
contravenes the laws of nature.
Really, your definition means that /every/ force is omnipotent.
That which the force does not do is, by definition, impossible for
it to do. Therefore, it does /everything/ which it is possible for
it to do and is omnipotent.
It's a quite simple term: ``omni-,'' meaning ``all,'' and
``potent,'' meaning powerful. It's not ``all-powerful-but-the-
impossible;'' just ``all-powerful,'' /including/ the impossible.
Look at it from another angle, that of a theist's perspective. God
must be capable of miracles, else what's the point? And,
indeed, religion is replete with miracles. But a miracle
is, by definition, something that violates natural law. This
is impossible. Your definition eliminates the possibility of
miracles, making God nothing more than a galactic David
Copperfield on tour at a planet near you. I challenge you to find
any theists who would say that their omnipotent God is incapable
of performing miracles.
Indeed, your redefinition of ``omnipotent'' is almost as damning
to the case for God as mine.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
05 Jul 2005 04:39:12 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> writes:
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as that
described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on consistency
and completeness apply to God just as they apply to any other
formal system.
This is a fine example of a nonsensical invocation of Godel's
theorem. I no longer argue about these things on the net, but I
take the liberty of inserting a plug for my recent book, which
deals among other things with such invocations:
http://www.akpeters.com/product.asp?ProdCode=2388
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
05 Jul 2005 07:00:25 PM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen wrote:
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> writes:
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as that
described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on consistency
and completeness apply to God just as they apply to any other
formal system.
This is a fine example of a nonsensical invocation of Godel's
theorem. I no longer argue about these things on the net, but I
take the liberty of inserting a plug for my recent book, which
deals among other things with such invocations:
http://www.akpeters.com/product.asp?ProdCode=2388
I think I will *have* to buy a copy.
Can I get a commission every time I mention what a clever chap you are?
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
05 Jul 2005 09:04:38 PM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as
that described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on
consistency and completeness apply to God just as they apply to
any other formal system.
This is a fine example of a nonsensical invocation of Godel's
theorem. I no longer argue about these things on the net, but I
take the liberty of inserting a plug for my recent book, which
deals among other things with such invocations:
http://www.akpeters.com/product.asp?ProdCode=2388
Does it deal with this invocation?
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Torkel Franzen" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
06 Jul 2005 12:12:04 AM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> writes:
Does it deal with this invocation?
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
Chapter 4, section 3.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
06 Jul 2005 11:31:22 AM |
|
|
Torkel Franzen wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Does it deal with this invocation?
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
Chapter 4, section 3.
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
06 Jul 2005 01:48:42 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Torkel Franzen wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as
that described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on
consistency and completeness apply to God just as they apply to
any other formal system.
This is a fine example of a nonsensical invocation of Godel's
theorem. I no longer argue about these things on the net, but I
take the liberty of inserting a plug for my recent book, which
deals among other things with such invocations:
http://www.akpeters.com/product.asp?ProdCode=2388
Does it deal with this invocation?
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
That is simply a sentence which refers to itself - and can be used to
generate a paradox.
That sentence ITSELF is not "The 2nd Incompleteness Theorem".
That *should* be obvious.
Godel's original proof of the 2nd Incompleteness Theorem did use a form
of self reference - that is probably the source of your confusion.
In future you could use the words "Analagous to the way Godel proved
the 2nd IT" or something like it - or better yet just dont mention
Godel or the 2nd IT at all.
You can use a self referential sentence to generate a paradox WITHOUT
bullshitting about Godel.
Cheers,
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
06 Jul 2005 11:36:05 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Godel's original proof of the 2nd Incompleteness Theorem did use
a form of self reference - that is probably the source of your
confusion. In future you could use the words "Analagous to the
way Godel proved the 2nd IT" or something like it - or better
yet just dont mention Godel or the 2nd IT at all.
I'll withold judgment until after I've had a chance to review
Mr. Franzen's book. I'd hardly be the first person to have a
misunderstanding about Godel, so I'm fully prepared to make
revisions as necessary.
Even if it's merely inspired by Godel, the fact remains that it's
impossible for any omnipotent being to prove that this sentence is
true. Unless you can prove otherwise...?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
04 Jul 2005 07:19:14 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
This is what I think you are doing. You are arguing by analogy.
You are saying "This looks like the self referential statement
that Godel used in his original proof of the 2nd IT therefore
Godels result applies" Godels theorem is about decidability and
consistency within formal systems. An act of speech like your
sentence is not a theorem encoded in a formal system.
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as that
described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on consistency
and completeness apply to God just as they apply to any other
formal system.
They may - I would have to give it considerablly more time to think
about.
And to confer with people who know more about it than I do.
Omnipotence is the power to do anything it is possible to do -
Omniscience is the power to know anything it is possible to
know.
I'm sorry, but I gotta call, ``*****.'' By adding that
``anything it is possible to do'' you rob the terms of all
meaning.
That's tough.
Two things:
(1) I did not do the adding - it's standard millenia old theology.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
in particular:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
(2) If the terms used to give God his atributes are bulslhit how is
that a problem for me, an atheist? Tell the Catholics - they are more
likely to be interested.
Cheers,
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
04 Jul 2005 10:01:40 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
This is what I think you are doing. You are arguing by
analogy. You are saying "This looks like the self referential
statement that Godel used in his original proof of the 2nd IT
therefore Godels result applies" Godels theorem is about
decidability and consistency within formal systems. An act of
speech like your sentence is not a theorem encoded in a formal
system.
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as
that described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on
consistency and completeness apply to God just as they apply to
any other formal system.
They may - I would have to give it considerablly more time to
think about. And to confer with people who know more about it
than I do.
Please do--and let me know what you come up with.
Omnipotence is the power to do anything it is possible to do -
Omniscience is the power to know anything it is possible to
know.
I'm sorry, but I gotta call, ``*****.'' By adding that
``anything it is possible to do'' you rob the terms of all
meaning.
That's tough.
Two things:
(1) I did not do the adding - it's standard millenia old
theology. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
in particular: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm
So? It's no different than using the excuse of ``free will'' for
the problem of evil. Completely useless. Because, see? /God/ has
free will, yet that doesn't prevent /him/ from having a good moral
nature incapable of evil.
It's just a standard theologician's technique, no different from
sticking fingers in ears and humming. /Move/ those goalposts, my
brethren!
(2) If the terms used to give God his atributes are bulslhit how
is that a problem for me, an atheist? Tell the Catholics - they
are more likely to be interested.
Well, you /were/ the person who brought it up and started
defending it. I say they're *****. If you think them through,
I think you'll agree with me. So why spread *****?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
05 Jul 2005 12:07:11 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Richo wrote:
(2) If the terms used to give God his atributes are bulslhit how
is that a problem for me, an atheist? Tell the Catholics - they
are more likely to be interested.
Well, you /were/ the person who brought it up and started
defending it.
Thats not strictly true - I was saying "This is what they say ... This
is what they mean..." - that isn't the same as defending what they say.
I say they're *****. If you think them through,
I think you'll agree with me. So why spread *****?
The choices are:
(1) Argue against their *****.
(2) Invent your own version of their ***** and THEN argue about
*that*.
I am just *encouraging* you to attack their actual arguments (or the
best version of their arguments) rather than doing the work of both
sides.
I think it makes more sense my way.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
05 Jul 2005 08:38:39 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Richo wrote:
(2) If the terms used to give God his atributes are bulslhit how
is that a problem for me, an atheist? Tell the Catholics - they
are more likely to be interested.
Well, you /were/ the person who brought it up and started
defending it.
Thats not strictly true - I was saying "This is what they say ... This
is what they mean..." - that isn't the same as defending what they say.
I say they're *****. If you think them through,
I think you'll agree with me. So why spread *****?
The choices are:
(1) Argue against their *****.
(2) Invent your own version of their ***** and THEN argue about
*that*.
I am just *encouraging* you to attack their actual arguments (or the
best version of their arguments) rather than doing the work of both
sides.
I think it makes more sense my way.
Mark.
At last, a voice of sanity, and I'll certainly drink to that. Usually
the theist must first deal with his opponent's version of what he
believes, and that for the most part is fruitless. But if the
discussion moves on to what is actually at issue, there is some hope for
understanding. The same, of course, applies equally to most
fundamentalists and their distorted notions of atheist morality and
world views.
Denny
--
"The curse of a godless man can sound more pleasant in God's ears
than the Hallelujah of the pious." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
13 Jul 2005 07:27:52 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
This is what I think you are doing. You are arguing by analogy.
You are saying "This looks like the self referential statement
that Godel used in his original proof of the 2nd IT therefore
Godels result applies" Godels theorem is about decidability and
consistency within formal systems. An act of speech like your
sentence is not a theorem encoded in a formal system.
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as that
described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on consistency
and completeness apply to God just as they apply to any other
formal system.
Well, I don't buy this. How did you arrive at "God's mind must
constitute a formal system"?
I had not read this deep into the thread before. I thought your
sentence was suppose to be analogous to Godel's theorem. I thought
you were invoking similar trick to what Godel had done. I cannot
however agree that it is indeed an application of Godel's theorem. I
had to prove Godel's theorem in college and you set yourself a
difficult task to say the least.
I buy your argument that God can't prove your sentence but everyone
else can. I buy that that is an action. I also buy that it is
unexpected to find an action that most anyone can do and yet god
cannot. That's not something one would expect of omnipotence.
However, after additional thought, it also isn't very interesting.
The sentence "Everybody but Igtheist can prove this sentence true" is
similar and yet god could prove it true. So he is capable of proving
all sentences structured in this fashion except if it refers to him.
Everyone else also is capable of proving all sentences structured in
this fashion except if it refers to themselves. So it doesn't
appear that god is in any way less powerful in this regard than anyone
else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
13 Jul 2005 10:40:22 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jul 2005 17:27:52 -0700, "igtheist"
<igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> wrote:
However, after additional thought, it also isn't very interesting.
The sentence "Everybody but Igtheist can prove this sentence true" is
similar and yet god could prove it true. So he is capable of proving
all sentences structured in this fashion except if it refers to him.
Everyone else also is capable of proving all sentences structured in
this fashion except if it refers to themselves. So it doesn't
appear that god is in any way less powerful in this regard than anyone
else.
Exactly.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: I wasted my life searching for God ! |
13 Jul 2005 08:36:33 PM |
|
|
igtheist wrote:
Ben Goren wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
This is what I think you are doing. You are arguing by
analogy. You are saying "This looks like the self referential
statement that Godel used in his original proof of the 2nd IT
therefore Godels result applies" Godels theorem is about
decidability and consistency within formal systems. An act of
speech like your sentence is not a theorem encoded in a formal
system.
Here's a more precise, yet still informal, summary of what I'm
saying: God's mind must constitute a formal system such as
that described by Godel's theorem. The ``prohibitions'' on
consistency and completeness apply to God just as they apply to
any other formal system.
Well, I don't buy this. How did you arrive at "God's mind must
constitute a formal system"?
Like I said, ``informal.''
I had not read this deep into the thread before. I thought your
sentence was suppose to be analogous to Godel's theorem. I
thought you were invoking similar trick to what Godel had done.
I cannot however agree that it is indeed an application of
Godel's theorem. I had to prove Godel's theorem in college and
you set yourself a difficult task to say the least.
Yeah...to go from ``informal'' to ``formal'' is likely to be a
bear. Since the informal version stands on its own, I'm not
currently making references to Godel.
I buy your argument that God can't prove your sentence but
everyone else can. I buy that that is an action. I also buy
that it is unexpected to find an action that most anyone can do
and yet god cannot. That's not something one would expect of
omnipotence.
Exactly.
However, after additional thought, it also isn't very
interesting. The sentence "Everybody but Igtheist can prove
this sentence true" is similar and yet god could prove it
true. So he is capable of proving all sentences structured in
this fashion except if it refers to him. Everyone else also is
capable of proving all sentences structured in this fashion
except if it refers to themselves. So it doesn't appear that
god is in any way less powerful in this regard than anyone else.
Why should God be /less/ powerful than everybody else? (Aside, of
course, from the fact that he's imaginary....)
Really, what I've done is prove that God ain't nobody special--and
neither is anybody else, either. He might have some special tricks
up his sleeve, but that's it. Ultimately, he's no more significant
than David Copperfield would be if he set himself up as a tin god
to some back-bush tribe.
Since you like the proof against omnipotence, you might also care
for this one against omniscience: ``Tell me God, yes or no, will
you answer `no'?''
Assume for a moment that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. He
therefore could construct a black box that always gave a true
answer to every ``yes or no'' question (perhaps by asking God when
it gets stumped). But, if you were to ask the box, ``Will you
answer `no'?'' (which truly is a ``yes or no'' question), the box
would not be able to answer. If it answered, ``no,'' then it'd be
lying. If it answered, ``yes,'' it would also be lying. There's
therefore at least one unanswerable question, which is another way
of saying that there's a truth which can never be known.
Of course, if you remember the classical proof to Turing's Halting
Problem (not the one that uses diagonalization, but the one that
feeds the proposed solution to itself), then you'll realize that
this just proves that such a box could never be constructed--for
the simple reason that there really /are/ things which can never
be known.
And to those in the peanut gallery who're about to say that it's
silly to limit God to ``yes or no'' answers, I refer you to the
Halting Problem. ``Given this input, will this program loop
forever?'' is a /most/ useful question, and it can only be
answered, ``yes,'' or ``no.'' For many problems it /can/ be
definitively answered. But Turing proved that there is no way to
answer the question for all possible programs and inputs. Your
God--and I say, ``your,'' because it'll invariably be a theist who
complains--is just as limited by the Halting Problem as he is by
the Incompleteness Theorem as he is by the inability to make 2 + 2
= 3 as he is by the inability to draw a circular triangle as he is
by the speed of light as he is by....
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
