By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

trestres on 29 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
r505Matt said:
pizzahut451 said:
dib8rman said:
RCTjunkie said:

I find that on the internet forums, people are very respectful to different genders, races, and sexual orientations, but there is something about the belief in God that pushes some (certainly not all) people to become extremely bigoted, more generalizing, and overall more hateful and hostile to this specific group of people. 

Take this random quote:

"I've noticed Christians are hypocrites."

What if we replaced "Christains" with another group:

"I've noticed African Americans are hypocrites."

It seems more hateful and politically incorrect, right? So why is it that people with a belief in God are seemingly excluded for the political corectness that help protects so many other groups?

I know certain groups of people were oppressed over time, but there should be a call for equality, not revenge......

Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but it just comes off that way to me......

Starting today I'm going to start beliving in African American belief diety thing-a-mabob.. damn does that even make sense?

Last I checked a good chunk of African Americans were theists though so then can a theist still be a theist but also be atheist?

I know being a pinker pigment doesn't make you a theist or atheist though... why am I even bothering.

Sad OP is sad. World views are to be criticized and ridiculed when asserted to be correct without any evidence to the claim. In the theist case the very virtue of Christianity is the absence of evidence aka faith.


And  how is atheism any diffrent than Christianity when it comes to evidence and faith? Is there any evidence that supports non-existance of God? HELL NO. Atheist believe theire is no God based on no evidence. Christians beleive there is a God based on no evidence. So we should ridicule Atehism as well right? But, Richard Dawking forbiid than anyone thinks anything even remotly bad about your supeiror beleif. Stop acting like atheism is a proven beleif or something. its not even close to that.

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in one of these kinds of discussions. Let's set this up simply (though it is probably falsely dichotomous). If there is no God, there cannot be evidence for either side of the debate. It would be impossible to find evidence supporting or disproving the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove something that does not exist.Are you saying that when something doesnt exist, you cant prove that it doesnt exist?

However, if there is a God, then there could be evidence to prove the existence of God, but there will still be no evidence to disprove God's existence. In both cases, you cannot have evidence to disprove something, it is logically impossible, therefore the burden of proof falls on believers, not atheists.Actually, existing God would NEVER give evidence to people about his existance.He would never allow humans to find evidence of him (considering thats actually possible) That would chnage the very foundation of life on Earth. That would ruin freedom of choice and will God gave to people and lots of other very important elements of human life. It would also destory the concept of faith  and  like I said, it all comes down to faith.

Now again, this is assuming a dichotomy when that's not really the case, so I think it's better to say whether or not there is a higher power or not. Since God and other possible celestial beings can be classified as a higher power, that wording probably works better. 

Lastly, it can be difficult to discern what is actually evidence and what is merely just a 'red herring' in the end. Maybe there is some true evidence in the Bible or Koran or other religious work that truly points to a higher power but we will probably never know (in life that is).

Are you saying that when something doesnt exist, you cant prove that it doesnt exist? So why even assume it doesnt exist?

Actually, existing God would NEVER give evidence to people about his existance.He would never allow humans to find evidence of him (considering thats actually possible) That would chnage the very foundation of life on Earth. That would ruin freedom of choice and will God gave to people and lots of other very important elements of human life. It would also destory the concept of faith and like I said, it all comes down to faith.So there could be God but there still coudlnt be any evidence of him, because he wouldnt allow it to be.

The rest of the post I agree with you

What do you mean God would never give evidence to people about his existence? Are you a Christian? I mean, according to the Bible God himself sent his only son into human form to save humanity. What do you mean no evidence?

And if you are a Christian you should know that, according to the Christian Church, faith is destroyed either ways once you die, no matter if you are a Christian or not, because God reveals himself to you. There's no more faith there once you see that in what you blindly believed. What remains is the hope that you will once reach Heaven after you cleanse yourself from sin (unless of course you chose to reject God when he revealed himself and asked if you wanted him forever in your life, in which case you will be going to hell, which is NOT a place, but an eternal state of suffering of the soul caused by your own choice of rejecting God and he granting your wish)

Either ways, I don't believe in that. I was raised a Christian, but made my own choices. But if you say you are a Christian, I still cannot believe you deny God would give evidence of his existence, since Jesus was sent not only to save us, but to reveal many Misteries, including the Holy Trinity.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

Around the Network
DélioPT on 29 April 2011

One of the most ridiculosu statements ever made. What do you base this one? More of your circular logic?

It`s the religious understanding - and mine too - that the act of homosexuality is wrong because man and women are seen as complementary. So, going against that line of thought is deviating from human nature.

Circular logic mainly shows how a linguistic argument is flawed in the sense that to explain or expose something it always needs to, in a implicit or explicit way, have the object of said argument to actually be part of it.
Otherwise we would have something like: rain, therefore sun.
Our explanation always used something of it`s object to remain coherent. You can`t explain something with what it`s not.

The relationship you talk about is that of a tyrant (God) and his slaves/puppets (humans). Humans have no rights in the relationship you describe, their individuality, desires don't account, all that matters is satisfying the tyrant's whims. Who wants to be part of such a relationship?
Exactly... if you take out everything that i mentioned to make the statement that i made. So, a person that dies for everyone is the same as a dicatator. Someone who lets you choose is the same as the one who doesn`t allow you to choose. Makes sense?
If you don`t believe in God, it`s one thing, but if you take into consideration one aspect of God, you should at least take everything into consideration.

 

I don't get the "four our sake part". This is probably one of the most irrational parts of Christianity. Also, you used too much circular logic in this post.
 And the point of that was? Considering Jesus was "God" (in your view) no suffering he would've experienced would've been a big deal, and what was the point? What's this whole "dying for us" nonsesne? You're talking as if humanity was in danger and he saved it, however the only thing threatening humanity was, ironically, God.
This action that you don`t understand has a BIG theological implications. It`s not a question of how big was the suffering.
Man sins and by doing that they place themselves away from God. That`s why Jesus/God sacrificed Himself to God so as to not let men die in sin. With His death He also showed that anyone can go to Heaven if they decide to open their hearts to God.

 

If he doesn't want people to suffer he should treat them with respect, rather than demanding submission. If he doesn't like it, he should've created mindless drones, rather than being with free will and the ability (so rarely used) to think critically. Just because he created humans doesn't mean he has any right to people's lives.
Treat them with more respect than offering Himself to die so we can go to Heaven? How more can one person love another, when he or she offer themselves for the ones they love.
That`s an act of love.
He doesn`t have the right to people`s lives? It`s not a matter of who owns who? God sees us as His children no more than you father sees you as his children. He never demands anything, not even Jesus did, He asks for something, which happens to be in our best interest.

 

So you assume that drugs are harmful. Know why? Because it destroys men.
LOL, yes, they can certainly destroy one's health in excess.
The real problem about drugs or other addictions is that they do become your God, that`s why they are considered sinful.

 Homosexuality is perfectly normal. And it's funny how you changed your tone (from the above). Homosexuality, unlike drugs and alcohol (which Jesus himself drank BTW) doesn't destroy men (something perfectly obvious), so why is it wrong?

Don`t know how i changed my tone... honestly.
If something deviates men from God, that results in men`s fall.



DélioPT on 29 April 2011

@Trestres

"...in which case you will be going to hell, which is NOT a place, but an eternal state of suffering of the soul caused by your own choice of rejecting God and he granting your wish)"

Actually, hell was shown, through some apparitions of our mother of the rosary, and it was shown as place.



r505Matt on 29 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
r505Matt said:
pizzahut451 said:
Rath said:
pizzahut451 said:
 


As long as those morals given by XXXXXXXX are perfecttly correct too, I dont see a reason why you shouldnt listen to XXXXXX. That is, assuming XXXXXX ia giving correct, good and righteous morals. If XXXXXXXX is givng false and bad morals, than XXXXXX doesnt hold much credit or value in comprassion with God. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IN THIS ARGUMENT, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WEATHER YOU BELIEVE IN UNVERSAL OR SUBJECTIVE MORALS. I don't think you know the difference between the 2.


Lets say for the sake of argument that morals are objective. Different groups claim to have the correct set of morals. What is it that makes you certain that your morals are the correct and objective ones?


What you desicribed there doesnt differ from subjective morals.If the morals are objective there can be only 1 set of cerrect morals, and what makes me certain that my morals are correct is faith/the principles I beleive in. I dont see how ANY morals Christ gave to people can any reasonable and good person consider wrong. His morals are objectivly correct.


That's only from your perspective. Your basing that on a subjective belief of what is right and wrong. I took a few philosophy classes in college, one of them was about this topic exactly. Is there an objective set of morals? A universal true set of right and wrong? That class was one of the best classes I've ever taken, but in the end, it amounted to one thing. We can never know. There is NO possible way to truly know. We can debate and theorize and think and discuss all we want. But in the end, there is really no way to know for sure either way.

You think it's wrong to kill and steal and lie and cheat. You believe in the 7 deadly sins as sinful. But morals are not that simple. Maybe other cultures/religions/species (talking about possible aliens here since we're talking about universal morals) don't have a problem with murder.  Most of us do, but who's to say we are right? You are just assuming we are right, but in fact we could be wrong. Or maybe there are no morals and what we believe in as right and wrong is merely a higher human powers' attempts to control the masses.

That's pretty much the entire meaning behind Assassin's Creed's creed of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". Who's to say your right and that idea is wrong? You can assume and believe all you want, but there is no answer to be found, and if you think you've found the answer, you haven't. Now maybe like a multiple choice quiz, you could get lucky and stumble on the right answer, but you won't know until you get your test scores back. What you're trying to argue is that you guess on your multiple choice test, and you know you got it all correct. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but the key point is that you do now know, and you will not know until later, if ever (death).


I actually agree with you, I dont know if you noticed that.I did say its all about faith a few posts bac, I dont know if you read that. I dont think all humans can ever agree on universal laws, but that doesnt mean there is no universal and correct law. Hell, I dont know a single culture and religion where it says killing and steling are OK.  I dont think any culture promotes stealing as a correct moral. I beleive to christ's morals because of his 2 messages ''Dont ever do anything that you dont wish to be done to yourself'' and ''respect and love your God''. i just dont see how any reasoable  human can consider those 2 messages wrong. (which are basiclly all christ's messages gathered into 2). They just ''feel'' correct

I somewhat agree with you too, my only point is even if they seem like good morals to EVERYONE on the planet, that doesn't mean they are good morals. We would be basing our idea of good off of what we think, in terms of relativity, is good. Not to mention there is SOOO much grey when it comes to morals. 

So you bring up the golden rule. Treat others as you want to be treated. So if I wanted to be murdered (strange thought, but still) then I rightfully should go commit murder. I'm treating others as I want to be treated. Or maybe, in a less extreme example, what if I like pain (masochistic). Should I think inflict pain on others? Most people see that as wrong, but it follows the golden rule or treating others the way you want to be treated. That thought/idea/moral doesn't hold much weight in serious ethics discussions. 

As for the previous post, let's talk about unicorns. Let's now assume for a moment, without doubt, that unicorns never existed in reality. Assuming that statement to be true, it would be 100% impossible to find evidence of a unicorn, whether it be eyewitness or fossil remains or anything. According to what we've assumed to be true, you would NEVER ever ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of unicorns. There would be no evidence to find. That's my only point. Assuming for a moment that God does not exist, you would not be able to find evidence ever. Atheists believe God doesn't exist. Asking an atheist to find proof God doesn't exist (even if he does) is the same as me asking you to find proof that unicorns don't exist (assuming you don't believe in unicorns, if you do, put in some other mythological creature you don't believe in). That's my only point there.



r505Matt on 29 April 2011
Troll_Whisperer said:
r505Matt said:
Troll_Whisperer said:

Religion is an ideology, it can be discussed, unlike race. What's there to say about skin colour? Not much. Ideology is a choice, that can be right or wrong, so it is normal it sparks debate, as we have seen in this thread. Religion is not untouchable, of course it's not the same arguing against religion and arguing against race. And religious people bash atheists all the time, too.

Personally, I don't participate in these debates usually, because there is no end. I don't care if someone is religious of not unless it affects me directly somehow. I respect it and expect respect, that's it.

There really is no end to these debates, and that's why I've avoided them for a few years, but I just want to mention one thing. Your first paragraph is mostly correct. If you talk about Muslims or Christians, yes, it is true. But this doesn't apply to Orthodox Jews (and maybe non-Orthodox Jews too, I'm not sure). Of the pracitcing Orthodox Jews I know, religion and race are the same thing. Maybe better put, when an Orthodox Jew says he/she is Jewish, he/she is not only commenting on religion, but also race. If you ask them about what they believe, you will hear a term "The Jewish people" often. It's not a reference to their religion but their ancestry and heritage. So while other religions are separate from race, not all of them are. Orthodox Judaism is the only one I know enough about to comment on though, and even then, I know very little.

Not that wikipedia is the best source, but I'll link the first couple sentences.

The Jews, also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[6][7][8] Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia.

Even though the Jewish people are very tolerant and accepting of converts, they still aren't truly considered the same. Ethnoreligious group is the proper term though. I went on about this longer than I thought I would, but I thought it was worth noting.

Sure, you're right. But it's just a case of having the same name for an ethnicity and a religion. You could be ethnically Jewish but still be an atheist, or follow Judaism but be black. The relation between them is manmade. Thanks for your input, anyway.

Oh of course, i wasn't arguing against something like that, just talking about those kinds of groups as a whole =)



Around the Network
trestres on 29 April 2011
DélioPT said:

@Trestres

"...in which case you will be going to hell, which is NOT a place, but an eternal state of suffering of the soul caused by your own choice of rejecting God and he granting your wish)"

Actually, hell was shown, through some apparitions of our mother of the rosary, and it was shown as place.


Hell is not a place, it is a state of the soul. Christian Church says it, unless you don't believe in your own religion. Plus it being a material place makes no sense, as death only means corruption of our material bodies and what remains forever is our soul.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

r505Matt on 29 April 2011
trestres said:
r505Matt said:
trestres said:
r505Matt said:
GameOver22 said:
r505Matt said:
pizzahut451 said:

And  how is atheism any diffrent than Christianity when it comes to evidence and faith? Is there any evidence that supports non-existance of God? HELL NO. Atheist believe theire is no God based on no evidence. Christians beleive there is a God based on no evidence. So we should ridicule Atehism as well right? But, Richard Dawking forbiid than anyone thinks anything even remotly bad about your supeiror beleif. Stop acting like atheism is a proven beleif or something. its not even close to that.

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in one of these kinds of discussions. Let's set this up simply (though it is probably falsely dichotomous). If there is no God, there cannot be evidence for either side of the debate. It would be impossible to find evidence supporting or disproving the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove something that does not exist.

However, if there is a God, then there could be evidence to prove the existence of God, but there will still be no evidence to disprove God's existence. In both cases, you cannot have evidence to disprove something, it is logically impossible, therefore the burden of proof falls on believers, not atheists.

Now again, this is assuming a dichotomy when that's not really the case, so I think it's better to say whether or not there is a higher power or not. Since God and other possible celestial beings can be classified as a higher power, that wording probably works better. 

Lastly, it can be difficult to discern what is actually evidence and what is merely just a 'red herring' in the end. Maybe there is some true evidence in the Bible or Koran or other religious work that truly points to a higher power but we will probably never know (in life that is).

First off, I like your posts. You raise some good points.

With your claim, "You cannot prove or disprove something that does not exist", the truth of this statement depends on your criteria for knowledge. I can definitely make a strong inductive argument for the non-existence of unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, the little green man who sits in my hand, etc. I can base these arguments off of observations. Their truth will never reach certainty, but I would still classify these inductive arguments as proof that these things do not exist.

However, the statement is clearly false when moving away from observation and into the meaning of terms. I can prove without observation that there is no such thing as a square-circle because of the meaning of the terms square and circle. You can transplant any counter-example in here and get similar results using characteristics such as color, weight, measurement, etc.

Thanks =) I like your posts too.

For the most part, I agree. I just want to get a little further out and talk about the 'false by meaning' things you bring up. In our world's rules, I completely agree. I'm going to get a little philosophical here but yes, in our perspective, a square circle cannot exist since the meanings of the terms directly clash with each other. But maybe we don't see the full picture. We perceive 3-4 dimensions (3d time to keep it simple) and yet scientists theorize there may be as many as 11 dimensions. Is it not possible within those other 7 dimensions some sort of 'loophole' that could make a square circle exist logically? We only perceive 3-4 dimensions, so we only see 3-4 dimensions of an object, we don't necessarily see the whole picture. 

Now this idea won't necessarily apply well to the square-circle idea directly, since even with other perceived dimensions, maybe it wouldn't change. Just like how a line is still a line even though we perceive more dimensions than it requires for us to perceive (and I won't even get into cubes and spheres). However, I meant to bring up the idea to apply as a whole to any kind of terms conflict in the manner of the square circle. The square circle is such a good example that I had to use it =)

I know this is the basis for refuting some God theories as well, mostly in terms of the traits given. I've used it myself when people try to say God is omnipotent and omniscient and yet those same people believe in free will. I posit that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. But it may all lie in semantics and the definitions assigned. To me, free will is more than simply the ability to choose your own course of action, but to explain fully requires adding in omniscience. All knowing. A very powerful word, a being who is omniscient is ALL knowing. I cannot stress that all part enough. If God is all knowing, he knows all of the past, all of the present, and all of the possible futures. Just the mere fact that he knows any future you could possibly act on disproves the concept of free will for me.

I won't leave it at that. Most people think free will just means there is no set future, but I don't believe that to be the case. An omniscient and omnipotent creature would be able to foresee every infinte possibility. Just his or her or its mere knowing and understanding of every possible choice would rule out free will possibility existing. At that point, your not choosing your own path, your still walking along a predetermined path. Rather, one of infinite possible predetermined path, but the true choice is beyond you.

Lastly and most importantly, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, not only does God then see every possibilty, but God will still know EXACTLY which path will be taken. That's still part of the all knowing. If God doesn't know which path will be taken, then God is not all knowing and none of this really matters. It took a while to lead up to this most important part, but I had to lead up to it. Omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. Unless, of course, in those other 7 unknown dimensions, there may lie a loophole. So I'm open to the possibility of such a thing, but at this time, just as I accept there cannot be a square circle, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. 

I went a little far out there but I brought it back in the end =P


One thing to consider is that if God created this Universe, he did so with his infinite knowledge and power, but what he created is not part of him, it's not under his control. The universe is moving freely and without the intervention of God past his creation. He is omniscient in the sense that his creation was made with infinite knowledge, but he doesn't know what will happen with free thinking beings, that's the trick there. He may know all possible futures, but he doesn't know which one will be happening, because it's outside of his control.

Just like we say that God is omnipotent, but still God cannot contradict himself. God cannot make one thing to be and not be at the same time, God cannot create another God, God cannot destroy himself. Hope this made sense.

So he's almost omniscient and almost omnipotent is what you really mean. You can't say he is omniscient and then say he doesn't know something. Or that he is omnipotent and cannot do something.

Omni means all. Omni doesn't mean almost everything or almost all. If God is omnipotent, he can create another God or destroy himself if he wants. He can make something be and not be at the same time, even if our limited minds cannot understand that. But you cannot ascribe a trait such as omnipotent and then change the meaning. If God doesn't know everything, including what will be happening, then he is not omniscient. If God cannot do something, even if that means contradicting himself, then he is not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways. Omnipotent and omniscient are very strong wording with very exact meanings.


There's somthing called the principle of no contradiction. Something cannot be and not be at the same time. God is an atemporal, immaterial being that has been since eternity. He created time and matter, but he cannot create another God, since there's only 1 God and that would mean he is contradicting himself, and in his very essence comes the perfection, so he cannot contradict himself if he's perfect, as every decision he makes is the perfect one. God is omnipotent but he will never contradict himself. God is much more than omniscient and omnipotent.

The principle of non-contradiction is a human thought, and omnipotence would supersede it if omnipotence truly existed. But that's besides the point anyways. if God is incapable of doing something, then he cannot be omnipotent. It's about the meaning of all powerful. I was talking about this in another post, but the word all is pretty explicit. It means ALL. Everything, infinity. It doesn't mean all but X. So saying God is omnipotent but cannot contradict himself is a contradictory statement. Please don't confuse "cannot" with "will not". I'm not saying he would ever do something to contradict himself, but if he cannot, then he is not omnipotent. We would need to use a different term. Also, God could not be more than omniscient or omnipotent, at least in those specific degrees or qualities since they already encompass infinite knowledge and power. 



r505Matt on 29 April 2011

Omg, our quotes are getting ridiculously long, I may start seriously trimming them down when I quote from here on out.



trestres on 29 April 2011
r505Matt said:
trestres said:
r505Matt said:
trestres said:
r505Matt said:
GameOver22 said:
r505Matt said:
pizzahut451 said:

And  how is atheism any diffrent than Christianity when it comes to evidence and faith? Is there any evidence that supports non-existance of God? HELL NO. Atheist believe theire is no God based on no evidence. Christians beleive there is a God based on no evidence. So we should ridicule Atehism as well right? But, Richard Dawking forbiid than anyone thinks anything even remotly bad about your supeiror beleif. Stop acting like atheism is a proven beleif or something. its not even close to that.

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in one of these kinds of discussions. Let's set this up simply (though it is probably falsely dichotomous). If there is no God, there cannot be evidence for either side of the debate. It would be impossible to find evidence supporting or disproving the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove something that does not exist.

However, if there is a God, then there could be evidence to prove the existence of God, but there will still be no evidence to disprove God's existence. In both cases, you cannot have evidence to disprove something, it is logically impossible, therefore the burden of proof falls on believers, not atheists.

Now again, this is assuming a dichotomy when that's not really the case, so I think it's better to say whether or not there is a higher power or not. Since God and other possible celestial beings can be classified as a higher power, that wording probably works better. 

Lastly, it can be difficult to discern what is actually evidence and what is merely just a 'red herring' in the end. Maybe there is some true evidence in the Bible or Koran or other religious work that truly points to a higher power but we will probably never know (in life that is).

First off, I like your posts. You raise some good points.

With your claim, "You cannot prove or disprove something that does not exist", the truth of this statement depends on your criteria for knowledge. I can definitely make a strong inductive argument for the non-existence of unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, the little green man who sits in my hand, etc. I can base these arguments off of observations. Their truth will never reach certainty, but I would still classify these inductive arguments as proof that these things do not exist.

However, the statement is clearly false when moving away from observation and into the meaning of terms. I can prove without observation that there is no such thing as a square-circle because of the meaning of the terms square and circle. You can transplant any counter-example in here and get similar results using characteristics such as color, weight, measurement, etc.

Thanks =) I like your posts too.

For the most part, I agree. I just want to get a little further out and talk about the 'false by meaning' things you bring up. In our world's rules, I completely agree. I'm going to get a little philosophical here but yes, in our perspective, a square circle cannot exist since the meanings of the terms directly clash with each other. But maybe we don't see the full picture. We perceive 3-4 dimensions (3d time to keep it simple) and yet scientists theorize there may be as many as 11 dimensions. Is it not possible within those other 7 dimensions some sort of 'loophole' that could make a square circle exist logically? We only perceive 3-4 dimensions, so we only see 3-4 dimensions of an object, we don't necessarily see the whole picture. 

Now this idea won't necessarily apply well to the square-circle idea directly, since even with other perceived dimensions, maybe it wouldn't change. Just like how a line is still a line even though we perceive more dimensions than it requires for us to perceive (and I won't even get into cubes and spheres). However, I meant to bring up the idea to apply as a whole to any kind of terms conflict in the manner of the square circle. The square circle is such a good example that I had to use it =)

I know this is the basis for refuting some God theories as well, mostly in terms of the traits given. I've used it myself when people try to say God is omnipotent and omniscient and yet those same people believe in free will. I posit that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. But it may all lie in semantics and the definitions assigned. To me, free will is more than simply the ability to choose your own course of action, but to explain fully requires adding in omniscience. All knowing. A very powerful word, a being who is omniscient is ALL knowing. I cannot stress that all part enough. If God is all knowing, he knows all of the past, all of the present, and all of the possible futures. Just the mere fact that he knows any future you could possibly act on disproves the concept of free will for me.

I won't leave it at that. Most people think free will just means there is no set future, but I don't believe that to be the case. An omniscient and omnipotent creature would be able to foresee every infinte possibility. Just his or her or its mere knowing and understanding of every possible choice would rule out free will possibility existing. At that point, your not choosing your own path, your still walking along a predetermined path. Rather, one of infinite possible predetermined path, but the true choice is beyond you.

Lastly and most importantly, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, not only does God then see every possibilty, but God will still know EXACTLY which path will be taken. That's still part of the all knowing. If God doesn't know which path will be taken, then God is not all knowing and none of this really matters. It took a while to lead up to this most important part, but I had to lead up to it. Omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. Unless, of course, in those other 7 unknown dimensions, there may lie a loophole. So I'm open to the possibility of such a thing, but at this time, just as I accept there cannot be a square circle, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. 

I went a little far out there but I brought it back in the end =P


One thing to consider is that if God created this Universe, he did so with his infinite knowledge and power, but what he created is not part of him, it's not under his control. The universe is moving freely and without the intervention of God past his creation. He is omniscient in the sense that his creation was made with infinite knowledge, but he doesn't know what will happen with free thinking beings, that's the trick there. He may know all possible futures, but he doesn't know which one will be happening, because it's outside of his control.

Just like we say that God is omnipotent, but still God cannot contradict himself. God cannot make one thing to be and not be at the same time, God cannot create another God, God cannot destroy himself. Hope this made sense.

So he's almost omniscient and almost omnipotent is what you really mean. You can't say he is omniscient and then say he doesn't know something. Or that he is omnipotent and cannot do something.

Omni means all. Omni doesn't mean almost everything or almost all. If God is omnipotent, he can create another God or destroy himself if he wants. He can make something be and not be at the same time, even if our limited minds cannot understand that. But you cannot ascribe a trait such as omnipotent and then change the meaning. If God doesn't know everything, including what will be happening, then he is not omniscient. If God cannot do something, even if that means contradicting himself, then he is not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways. Omnipotent and omniscient are very strong wording with very exact meanings.


There's somthing called the principle of no contradiction. Something cannot be and not be at the same time. God is an atemporal, immaterial being that has been since eternity. He created time and matter, but he cannot create another God, since there's only 1 God and that would mean he is contradicting himself, and in his very essence comes the perfection, so he cannot contradict himself if he's perfect, as every decision he makes is the perfect one. God is omnipotent but he will never contradict himself. God is much more than omniscient and omnipotent.

The principle of non-contradiction is a human thought, and omnipotence would supersede it if omnipotence truly existed. But that's besides the point anyways. if God is incapable of doing something, then he cannot be omnipotent. It's about the meaning of all powerful. I was talking about this in another post, but the word all is pretty explicit. It means ALL. Everything, infinity. It doesn't mean all but X. So saying God is omnipotent but cannot contradict himself is a contradictory statement. Please don't confuse "cannot" with "will not". I'm not saying he would ever do something to contradict himself, but if he cannot, then he is not omnipotent. We would need to use a different term. Also, God could not be more than omniscient or omnipotent, at least in those specific degrees or qualities since they already encompass infinite knowledge and power. 

Yeah, quotes are getting long lol.

I meant God being perfect in every sense, not just omnipotent and omniscient as his only attributes. Infinite, Eternal, prefectly beautiful, perfectly good, perfectly loving, etc. I know you got it either ways.
And yes, I was talking about he not doing it, because he will not contradict himself, so even when he is capable, he will not do such things- I still believe though that God is not capable of creating another God, because God has no beginning and no end, that's one of his attributes. Whatever he creates then will not be a God because his creation will not be meeting these 2 requirements: Being eternal and being uncreated, but I'm sure he would be violating other principles.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

r505Matt on 29 April 2011
trestres said:
Yeah, quotes are getting long lol.


I meant God being perfect in every sense, not just omnipotent and omniscient as his only attributes. Infinite, Eternal, prefectly beautiful, perfectly good, perfectly loving, etc. I know you got it either ways.
And yes, I was talking about he not doing it, because he will not contradict himself, so even when he is capable, he will not do such things- I still believe though that God is not capable of creating another God, because God has no beginning and no end, that's one of his attributes. Whatever he creates then will not be a God because his creation will not be meeting these 2 requirements: Being eternal and being uncreated, but I'm sure he would be violating other principles.

Oh, I'm not arguing that at all. Well, I'm arguing 'not capable of creating another God' part. I mean, saying he's without beginning and end, saying he's uncreated, and eternal, those are just a very narrow, specific view on what God could be. Not to mention, if he really is omnipotent, I'm sure there are ways to get around that. That's really what I'm getting at, if he is omnipotent, there are absolutely no restrictions on his power.