As I replied to Baawa, your conjoined twin, we are already discovering things that appear to defy our own understanding of logic. Can something be in two places at once? I would generally say no, but given what appears possible then the self-imposed limit you describe is an arbitrary one. If something could be in two places at once, then a square circle could be possible as well.
So, is it true that a square circle is both possible and not possible? Because that is the level of nonsense you’re reduced to spouting when you try to repudiate logic. Actually, you’re wrong: by definition a square circle is impossible. No amount of evidence will change it. But feel free to cop-out.
-Jon
Yeah, yeah, why don’t you quit throwing around red herrings and get back to the topic at hand which is the rationality of ‘atheistic doctrine’.
You can start by answering my last post so we can get back on track and determine conclusively that you believe that they are irrational because of their lack of belief and not because of any thought process behind their belief system.
No things can’t be in two places at once. See you are claiming that someone has some understanding of quantum mechanics, but they don’t. Oh btw god doesn’t exist lol.
Or the dilemma facing the concept of omnipotence.
-Jon
I wasn’t arguing against belief in God. Instead my quarrel is with people that try to prove it. Sure, if they believe in God, they might be tempted to prove it, but will utterly fail.
Overall, belief in God can possibly help some people find peace of mind easier, so it might be helpful, but only if this belief is moderate and if it does not attempt to replace ration in other parts of life.
Hmm… I wouldn’t have brought up the omnipotence paradox, since it can easily be discarded if one deems “a rock so heavy that cannot be lifted” as inconsistent or ill-defined.
Here’s something I’ve been pondering for a while, concerning omniscience.
It’s been posited that if one knew the positions, properties, and states of motion of every particle in the universe at any given instant, he could know every detail of the past, present, and future of the universe. That would be omniscience. Knowing something requires a method of storing bits of data. There is a theoretical limit to how densely data can be packed into a storage medium. Let’s break the universe down into its most fundamental units, whatever those might be. (I’ll refer to them as “particles” for the sake of convenience.) To store every item of information for every particle in the universe would require an equal number of particles. For example, the data on one particle’s mass, spin, charge, motion, etc, could be contained in an identical particle, and that would be the smallest storage unit capable of recording that data at all.
But, a theist might object, God exists outside the universe, and so He might be composed of that many particles. Yet we know that in order to observe something (let alone to create it!), one must interact with it. Not only does this mean that the very act of observation alters the state of the observed system, it also means that the observer cannot simply exist outside it. He must enter it in some fashion, becoming a part of it. Thus, not only would an omniscient god need to know every particle of the universe, it would also need to know every particle of itself because it is part of the system it’s observing.
It seems to me that true omniscience is a logical impossibility.
Omni- attributes are an end-run around a definition.
You cannot have an omnibenevolent god with evil. No, “free will” won’t work.
You cannot have free will of humans with an omniscient creator of everything.
You cannot have the universe be created, as that steals the concept of existence and creation.
You cannot have an ineffable thing (as christians are wont to describe god) and then describe it!
That’s just some of the problems.
No we aren’t.
And please show that a square circle could be possible, given that a square is defined as an equilateral quadrilateral with all interior angles of 90 degrees, and a circle is defined as the locus of all points equidistant from a central point.
Go to it.
I have. You clearly don’t understand QM.
What about it in particular needs more precise definition? It’s a rather clear-cut counter-example.
-Jon
We need to look no further than the universe itself to see logical contradiction in action. At some point the universe did not exist. Before this point logic would say there is nothing. So the universe was created out of nothing. Everything that exists today is a result of this contradiction, everything from nothing. Since we exist as part of this logical contradiction we know that logical contradictions in an of themselves are not sufficient to deny the possibility of the existence of something. So the universe itself disapproves the infallability of logical contradictions.
So what would seem impossible is in fact possible.
So God despite whatever logical contradictions you might create is still possible.
I think we have come full-circle or square as it were. Having defeated the triple AAA of left-libertarianism (Agorism, Abortionism, Atheism) I need to rest.
Thank you all for coming. God Bless you and Good Night. (Curtain falls, lights fade to black)
On what basis do you make the claim that at some point the universe did not exist? That’s an entirely uwarranted assumption.
Google Translate:
"I’m right because I have proven myself capable of arguing past other arguments & provide enough ridicule & questioning to a supposed nebulous status-quo in a certain community that caught on to my advertising too quickly for me to just simply dissapear, thus justifying borrowing tactics of the Statist pundits in demonizing anyone who disagrees me on Agorism, Abortionism, & Atheism.
The amount of attention whoring I’ve achieved is only surpassed by my arrogant attitude towards everyone on this forum, and the only way they can see the light is by giving into my views & accepting MaxLiberty into their lives.
I have succeeded in furthering divisions among a community that probably didn’t need my help in furthering anyway, & have successfully done this all under the guise of a benevolent search for truth in areas in which I have already decided upon. I made a few temporary allies, but lost some along the way of my quest, & have learned more than enough to become a sucessful leader / vanguard with my own project(s).
Thank you all for being manipulated, and for those who weren;t, thank you for being confused enough to defend me based on the assumption that I meant no social venom.
For those who silently looked on, don’t forget to check out my Liberty Colony, & when you’re doing checking it out, don’t forget to check out my Liberty Colony again, just in case you forget my largley theoretical plans, where any notion of physical existiance of such plans are shrouded in secrecy to protect it from scrutiny.
My God Will Bless You & Wish You Good Night At Gunpoint, Because God Is All Knowing & Just."
As the other guy said, what makes you think there was a point where the universe didn’t exist? Why do you think logic tells us this? However even if it were true, “nothing” still exists, as the balance of gravity to matter/energy cancel each other out: “nothing” came from nothing.
Wrong. The universe has necessarily always existed. You are under the delusion that the big bang created the universe. It did NOT. It was a state-change which reconfigured whatever the universe was into the spatiotemporal continuum we see now.
Please learn about cosmology.
Now then, since you’ve just had your argument again thoroughly annihilated, how can the logically impossible be possible?
Proof?
Ipse dixit.
And what ML isn’t what ML says, but it also is what ML says. How’s life in the psychiatric ward been for you?
I think we’ve established you’re delusional and/or a troll.
-Jon
Category error.
Maxliberty you have no argument at all. You allow your god to be eternal, so you can’t take any issue with anyone saying the universe is eternal.