If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 118

@K

@K, FT is right. XYZ was a name, not three variables. Substitute X for G, Y for O and Z for D - know what I mean. But honestly, how many Gods are there? One? Is God even something that is measurable or quantifiable? 😉

Maybe someday we will evolve into higher beings to answer all there is to answer. Or maybe not. Maybe we are but one small fraction of God. God is the supreme consciousness, and our sentience is a small fraction of that. A lot of metaphysical and theological philosophies actually support this idea. (Yes, these are all philosophical so don't ask for empirical data).

Will we find the answers once we die? The thought of eternal oblivion (oxymoron?) scares me. I'd rather chose struggle after death than just disappear into nothingness. But once we were nothingness, or at least our memory can't conceive of what was before this life too. It's so wonderfully strange, the numinous mysteries of life, isn't it? I hope one day we merge with God and know all there is to know... 🤔😕


@Freethinker,

I think there was a logical inconsistency or loophole in the question in itself which Angie picked apart. The question itself was like can an omnipotent being prove his non-omnipotence. One could also ask - "Can God become non-omnipotent? If he can. then he is becoming non-omnipotent. If he can't, then he is non-omnipotent." But frankly the question still remains. Let's say God can do anything. Can he destroy himself?

Frankly the concepts God, higher power, Infinite force, supreme being, supreme consciousness, Allah, Ram, Jesus, Odin, Thor, Zeus, mother nature etc etc are so vastly complex and distant that you can pick apart them with ease and also justify them quoting random texts. They are still philosophical in nature and hence will have as many ifs and buts and fallacies and justifications.

Anyway I don't think atheists are close-minded or unrealistic. They simply don't believe. Unless we get an objective analysis on the nature faith and what biological components constitute it, it would be unreasonable to say they are just plain arrogant or ungrateful. Some people believe, some don't. With belief comes disbelief, with faith comes skepticism. I think people who blindly follows doctrines are the ones who'd never bothered to understand what's in there.

corrected order of sequence.
Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Hate to nitpick but why did you use three variables? That adds to the confusion :)

He was making sure to cover all three - father, son and holy ghost.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Can't he use a three character variable? 😉 😆

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

@K, FT is right. XYZ was a name, not three variables. Substitute X for G, Y for O and Z for D

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

He was making sure to cover all three - father, son and holy ghost

HAHA! Clever!

But in math, we always use single symbols for variables and constants. Ex: t, x ,y, z for variables and a, b, c for constants.

I will get to the other stuff in a bit.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

How do you pick apart this one? That's a sincere question, not a joke or sarcasm. 😊

First things first. As Angie and BTV already pointed out, there are many articles available online that refute the omnipotent paradox, on logical, mathematical and physical grounds.

I don't want to repeat them here; I wouldn't get any credit if I do so.

But then again, even if I come up with my own analysis, there are no guarantees that it wouldn't coincide with what's already been said and used to refute this. Simply because I haven't read all the articles that were written on this topic and who knows how many people think alike in this world?!

Usually, when presented with any question, I prefer to think aloud by breaking it down into simpler more atomic questions. Such as:

where is this rock going to be located after creation?
how much space is the rock going to occupy?
how much mass does the rock have?
how much gravitational force is acting on it?
am i  going to end up with arithmetic that involves infinite quantities?
what does the act of lifting entail? is it lifting with a crowbar kind of tool or is it lifting with bare hands? (tools are better than hands :)
is the weight (assuming some gravitational force acting on the rock) uniformly distributed along the length of the mass? is tilting the rock the same as lifting?

And then there is the practical everyday physics that prevents us from speculating about the said rock. We know that matter is only 4% of the universe. Even if the rock is made up of all the matter that exists in the universe, we still know that it can coalesce into a dot (it happened once in the past) as well as it can rip apart (happening now),both phenomena due to gravity, so we know that force would "better" mass when it comes to it. But if all the universe is filled with matter, nothing is moving because there is no room for force to act on it? In that case, it is illogical to pose such a question and yet  expect logic to lead us to a true/false answer?

So, it's not God who is facing the dilemma here. We are the ones facing the dilemma owing to the way we constructed our language (how did we define the word) and our logic (is the contradiction arising from a self reference?).

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

When do we say we have understood a thing? At the smallest level, full differentiated, or at the highest level, fully integrated. I think maybe we  can say we know things when we know every step of the process. Like the math textbooks. You see the question and you may peek at the answer in the back, but unless you can go through the whole process, you have not understood the thing.

So, in other words, we have to experience it to understand it. Because, going through the whole process is nothing but experiencing it.

That could be one probable explanation as to why the universe itself exists. To experience. Don't ask me to experience what.

Originally posted by: Beyond_the_Veil

I hope one day we merge with God and know all there is to know... 🤔😕

So, is it safe to say that you attach more importance to "knowing" than "merging" in the above scenario? Your "goal" to "merge" is borne out of the need to know it all? I think I can understand that.


But frankly the question still remains. Let's say God can do anything. Can he destroy himself?

Is there a restriction for the event to happen if the answer to your question turns out to be an "yes"? In other words, let's say the answer to your question is in the affirmative. Then what?

I will stick to what I said in one my earlier posts in this thread. I am beginning to think that it is not a "true or false" world, It is a "true and false" world. I haven't worked out this theory yet. Just a hunch based on quantum superposition.

Hey freethinker :)
congratulations- your thread has completed 149 pages :)
this topic has some excellent content..enjoyed reading every page.
Don't know if you got any satisfactory answers to your questions (i didn't!), but still!
I must thank k.universe, birdie, vintu, aya, rth and all other active participants...and you too- do start more such topics...wish u all the best.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

So, in other words, we have to experience it to understand it. Because, going through the whole process is nothing but experiencing it.

That could be one probable explanation as to why the universe itself exists. To experience. Don't ask me to experience what.

@The Paradox