I'm God

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


are you posting this to try an challenge people on or about their faith by trying to prove you wrong?

keeping the faith
TheSkepticSway

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Oh, come on, how can I believe you are a deity, when I know that I'm the one true deity? It takes a woman to give life, so a female god makes more sense.

Do you like nebulae? I worked hard on those, they're my favorite.

All must worship me! Not the false god madness.

Relax, creatures. Your god is still the alpha god. And as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity, he has the potential, the knowledge, and the ubiquity to create an entity such as the OP. Right? Anyway...

Omnipotence without omniscience isn't that great, you know? I tend to think of omnipotence sans omniscience as an absurd situation. MIMS would have the power to do anything but lack the knowledge of how to use that power. I point this out because judging from many of your responses, it is evident that you didn't get that on your own. And good luck disproving a claim of omnipotence. Whereas the OP will be unable to prove his claim, neither will any of you be able to disprove it (much as he is unable to disprove the existence of your god and you are unable to prove the existence of your god). Starting to catch on to the fun little game yet?

As an absurdist, I have to say that I've enjoyed this thread. To the believers, tread carefully here -- you run the risk of becoming part of the, for lack of a better term, meta-joke (several of you have already been assimilated into it). Please think about what you're saying before you say it as well as whether or not you ought to say it at all. I'd like to see you bring something to the table other than "do this, don't do that."

And finally...

MIMS: In regards to the question that you actually posed, there is no reason that I shouldn't believe in you. But isn't the more pertinent question, "Is there a reason that I should worship you?" Again, the answer is no.

/tn.


EDIT:
ben91069: I've never been convinced that the omnipotence paradox is applicable, at least to omnipotent/omniscient entities. I buy into C.S. Lewis's "nonsense" rebuttal. Whether or not such an entity can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it is nonsense. He can no more do that than he can draw a square circle. Two mutually exclusive alternatives cannot be carried out -- "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God" (from The Problem of Pain by Lewis).

Particularly in the case of the OP, because he only has knowledge OF his omnipotence but is unable to actually use it due to his ignorance of how to apply the omnipotence, he cannot create such a rock unless he becomes omniscient (or at the very least, stumbles upon the knowledge necessary for such a situation). I doubt such knowledge would ever become available -- as I said before, I buy Lewis's argument.


[edit on 6-1-2008 by teleonaut]

Please, MMF, have you no sense of history? "First there was the word" and the word came from MIMS. Therefore he must be god, however, I certainly understand your argument, and I recognize that you are the Holy Ghost, equally deserving of my veneration and worship.

Occam

[to correct a typo]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Occam]

reply to post by Occam


Occam?

How dare you??!?!

Do you realize who you are talking to?

For shame!!!!

****

I am the 'goddess of ducks', the one who dispenses out pressies to all the good little aquatic children of the world.

Want proof?

Here I am with my little carp children:

And one for you, and you, and can't forget you too:

MMF, of course you're a female deity. i never said i was a monotheistic one. obviously there are more gods and we must have a female deity as well. i'm just the deity of omnipotence... yep, i represent omnipotence. you're the creator being.

Oh, of course! I must have left my omniscience in my other pants.

Teleopause

Originally posted by teleonaut
Omnipotence without omniscience isn't that great, you know? ...MIMS would have the power to do anything but lack the knowledge of how to use that power.

Not true. The universe is omnipotent in that it is capable of producing any and all phenomena consistent with the laws of physics, though as far as anyone can tell it lacks even consciousness -- let alone omniscience.

Power is independent of knowledge. Madness in My Soul's lack of omniscience does not prevent him from using his power, only from using it wisely. Think of any stupid, drug-addled tinpot dictator flexing his muscles. His ignorance and foolishness don't prevent him from using his power, though they may cause him to lose it in the long run. I don't think Madness claimed eternal omnipotence.

And glory be to MIMS Almighty, he has used his omnipotence responsibly so far.

MIMS: In regards to the question that you actually posed, there is no reason that I shouldn't believe in you. But isn't the more pertinent question, "Is there a reason that I should worship you?"

From whose point of view? Yours or his?

From his perspective, it is the omnipotence that is critical, not the worship it elicits. You may see things differently, but what does he care? He's God and you're just a teleonaut.

I've never been convinced that the omnipotence paradox is applicable, at least to omnipotent/omniscient entities. I buy into C.S. Lewis's "nonsense" rebuttal. Whether or not such an entity can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it is nonsense. He can no more do that than he can draw a square circle. Two mutually exclusive alternatives cannot be carried out -- "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God" (from The Problem of Pain by Lewis).

The quotation - being nonsense - is a clear demonstration of itself.

Here it is in a slightly less dismissible form: can an omnipotent entity ever be wholly good?

Before you decide that the answer is that God can make and break his own rules as he pleases, please consider the character of good and evil: whether they are provisional and temporally malleable, or whether they are absolutes. The concept of God as a moral relativist is slightly ridiculous, even though this is precisely how the gods of all religions are depicted in the relevant mythologies and scriptures.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Astyanax]

He Also Could Become King of Troy
(Consider that a nod, not a slight.)

Originally posted by Astyanax
Not true. The universe is omnipotent in that it is capable of producing any and all phenomena consistent with the laws of physics, though as far as anyone can tell it lacks even consciousness -- let alone omniscience.

I am thinking of omnipotence as "power without limit," not "power within the boundaries of physical laws." Admittedly, this is likely *my* defect here. I do now notice the shady notion of limitless power requiring limitless knowledge in order to take full advantage of said power. Nevertheless, is my definition incorrect? If not, is the universe actually omnipotent? Or is it just nonsense to talk about operating outside of the confines of the laws of physics? Please bear in mind that I am completely willing to be wrong, but I do want to learn in the process.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Power is independent of knowledge. Madness in My Soul's lack of omniscience does not prevent him from using his power, only from using it wisely.

Interesting. Does omniscience guarantee wisdom? I can have all the facts of a given situation laid out before me and still be none the wiser for knowing them. In other words, does "God is wise" necessarily follow "God is all-knowing?" I have no subtle intention here -- I am intrigued. Also, can omnipotence be used to gain omniscience (I would assume that it is possible)?

Originally posted by Astyanax
From whose point of view? Yours or his? [...] From his perspective, it is the omnipotence that is critical, not the worship it elicits. You may see things differently, but what does he care?

From mine. I agree that from his perspective, factoring in only the content of his initial post, the matter is less critical, if it matters at all. However, I do not think that it necessarily follows that MIMS is not interested in my worship merely because he did not mention an interest. Neither does it follow that he won't become interested in it. Perhaps he cares a good deal, but hasn't felt it necessary to say so yet. Perhaps asking for our worship will be his second act as an omnipotent deity. Did I get ahead of MIMS? Yes. Am I completely off base? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Here it is in a slightly less dismissible form: can an omnipotent entity ever be wholly good?

Who draws the line here on what is good and what is evil? Me? God? It still seems a bit nonsensical to me. If he works evil for my benefit, did he effectively work good? Are good and evil really mutually exclusive? If your intention here was to point out that Lewis's argument mainly works due to the slippery nature of words, then I can dig that. I'll also admit that when faced with this wording, I do have to say that I find it hard to take a stance one way or another. There are sincerely difficult ramifications of either stance I could take. What is your opinion?

Anyway, thanks for your post. It forced me to reassess a number of my lines of thinking and for that I am grateful.


/tn.


[edit on 7-1-2008 by teleonaut]

After getting some rest, I would like to add the following:

1) In regards to the omnipotence of the universe, I feel that you are abusing the word omnipotence. Being omnipotent and yet being bound by the laws of physics isn't really being omnipotent, IMHO. Please explain your position further. And while I do notice the "shady notion" I mentioned before, I am not yet entirely persuaded from my initial stance.

2) I disagree in regards to the omnipotence/omniscience discussion. How is he able to use his power? Please explain. My question about guaranteeing wisdom still stands as well.

3) While related via the topic of omnipotence, the rock problem and the evil problem are not the same issue. The rock problem doesn't have the added complication of attributing benevolence to the omnipotent entity. And I still buy Lewis's statement in so far as it references the rock problem. I am considering its applications to the problem of evil. In regards to your question, when you say "wholly good," is benevolence a stipulation of that? If so, how are you defining benevolence? Can one be wholly good without also being benevolent? They seem slightly silly questions to ask, but they have bearing.

/tn.


[edit on 7-1-2008 by teleonaut]

Quote Teleonaut:

I am thinking of omnipotence as "power without limit," not "power within the boundaries of physical laws." Admittedly, this is likely *my* defect here.

No, it's not your defect. While we think an omnipotent god like MIMS would have to obey physical laws, we must not forget that he has the power to change those laws. For example, he could make gravity follow the inverse cube rule, or change the speed of light to twenty-five miles per hour. Of course, since nothing can exceed the speed of light we would never have to worry breaking the speed limit while driving.

Occam