It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm God

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by teleonaut
 

If omnipotence means being able to perform miracles (that is, to act in contravention of the laws of nature), that means being able to draw a square circle, simultaneously create an irresistible force and an immovable object, travel faster than light and so on. You pointed out yourself -- or rather, quoted C.S. Lewis to the effect -- that this is nonsense. I agree. Therefore I define 'omnipotence' as the ability to do anything and everything that is permitted by the laws of nature. 'Miracles' of a kind are still possible, but only because, as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, advanced technology might look like magic to savages.

There is absolutely no reason why omnipotence demands omniscience. It does not even demand consciousness.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Yep.
Guns are evil.
They are the source of all evil.
They kill people.
No, not the people that pull the triggers.
It MAKES them pull the trigger.
They aren't bad that's impossible.
No.
It couldn't be their faults, heck no.
It's the gun's. It MAKES people kill people.


Just using your logic on other things.
Get off your high horses.

Oh and ISMs are D A N G E R O U S.
Those have got to go too.
They make people do bad things too.
Considering atheism is also a ISM.

Must be great to look at the world so simplisticly.
I have noticed it is a great ego builder though.
I mean look at those fools that disagree.
They just don't want to know the truth.

I think I shall adopt anti-ismism.
And yes I notice the contradiction inherent in that statement.

Goodnight. *passes out*


[edit on 8-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
[edit on 8-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   


Oh and ISMs are D A N G E R O U S.
Those have got to go too.


Altruism?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by almighty bob
 


Yep.
All isms are evil and controling and make people do bad stuff.
All isms MUST GO.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
It is I that is God.

You see, I create the rock that is too heavy to carry... but when I choose to, I then have the strength to lift it. And since I am everything... I am the Earth that is lifting rock, and I am nothing that is lifting the rock. I am also the falling of the rock and the eventual dissolving of the rock. I consist of the recycled parts of a rock that 2 billion years ago existed. Can I lift myself? I simply jump... or have another lift me... since myself is not limited to this vessel... because I am omnipresent... yet I am omnipotent and omniscient.... so at my choosing to perceive and create a reality, there it will be for me to understand. This one of me, is only an illusion... here you are... reading you.

Nah, I'm j/k... hope you enjoyed it. God? Logic? Pft.... yeah right. There is a quote that says... where knowledge ends, religion begins... perhaps faith should be in discovering the unkown... not fighting over it... how ludicrous is that?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
There is absolutely no reason why omnipotence demands omniscience. It does not even demand consciousness.


OK, on this matter I'm going to finally concur. When I re-read prior posts, I am more willing to accept what you mean about being "unable to use [his omnipotence] wisely." Lacking omniscience, an omnipotent entity could still hold to a false proposition without realizing it. I think I've been holding onto this as a much bigger defect than you have.



Originally posted by Astyanax
If omnipotence means being able to perform miracles (that is, to act in contravention of the laws of nature), that means being able to draw a square circle, simultaneously create an irresistible force and an immovable object, travel faster than light and so on. You pointed out yourself -- or rather, quoted C.S. Lewis to the effect -- that this is nonsense. I agree.


I worry that you misunderstand me here. By invoking Lewis, my principle point is not to say that omnipotence is nonsense, but that the rock problem is nonsense. I don't see how the rock problem could ever be used to effectively argue for or against omnipotence. A sketchy way to rephrase: it is not actually a matter of whether or not God can create such a rock, but whether there is actually a rock to create. A more direct way: that which cannot be actualized cannot be actualized -- an illogical limit is not technically a limit. I do not think of omnipotence as the ability to do the impossible, but rather to do all things possible. I feel that approach is sound, simple, and still within the scope of the accepted definition of omnipotence as far as philosophy and logic are concerned.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Therefore I define 'omnipotence' as the ability to do anything and everything that is permitted by the laws of nature.


It is possible that here, too, we are in a sort of agreement but semantics are getting in the way. At the moment, I'll say that I disagree. Your use of the phrase "laws of nature" is specious to me and is the main reason I think we espouse two different stances on what omnipotence actually is, and why I think the approach that I advocate is superior. For many years now, philosophers have noted that a requirement of omnipotence is the ability to actualize a state of affairs, that omnipotence cannot yield the nonsensical (Lewis was just batting cleanup -- he certainly wasn't the first to rebut the rock problem as nonsense). One just has to accept that some states of affairs simply cannot be actualized. Being bound by logic is an accepted quality of omnipotence. If by "laws of nature" you mean what I mean when I say "logic," then we are in agreement on what omnipotence is. If not, and you mean things like gravity, inertia, and so on...

Well, consider that my interpretation of your definition of the universe, in the context of this discussion, is "a substance with the property of being all-powerful but bound by either another substance or state of affairs." That strikes me as a reckless stance to hold. That the universe is being actively limited by these real, actualized laws of nature undermines your assertion of its omnipotence. I hate to comment any further without knowing the following: Are you positing a dualism? In other words, are the laws of nature part of the universe or outside of it? If they are part of the universe, and the universe is omnipotent, how then are they able to bind it? If they are outside of the universe, how then are they able to interact with it?

/tn.


[edit on 9-1-2008 by teleonaut]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Ugh... Double post. My bad.

/tn.


[edit on 9-1-2008 by teleonaut]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
seriously, i'm an omnipotent deity.

want me to prove it?
well... i really can't. you see, i may be omnipotent, but i'm not omniscient and thus cannot demonstrate the full extent of my power... or any extent of it at all. but i know that i'm a deity.

my first act as god is to ask why you shouldn't believe in me.


I’m glad to see that you got tired of trying to disprove the existence of a God in the ATS forums so you jumped to the BTS forums to disprove the existence by having people do it for you.

Great job!

Ill tell you flat out im catholic, I have never once in my life tried to shove my religious beliefs into someone the way you have tried to do it here. I have Mormon, Christian, Baptists, and even a couple scientologist friends. That I talk to in a regular basis. But I don’t go around telling them hey your belief in this guy that came from a different universe in 747 is totally wrong, or hey your belief in this guy that looked into a hat and recited his bile is bogus.

I let them believe what they want.

So what if someone believes in god so what if someone believes in Shiva, so what if someone believes in a plate of spaghetti?

I have one question for you that I want YOU the original OP to answer for me. I doubt you will. But here it is anyways:

Why is it so hard for you to let someone believe in what they want to believe?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   


Just because "everyone" believes in something doesn't make them right.


Wouldn’t that fall in the same lines as Atheism? Just because you believe in atheism, and are strong in your beliefs of it, doesn’t make it right for the rest of us. I don’t force my religion on you. I have never started a topic “this is my god believe in him now…blah blah blah” but it always seems that there is always someone going “this is why god is false” why is it so troubling to you people that some of us believe in a higher power? How is it bothering you that my family goes to church on Sundays and worships a god? How does that bother YOU on a daily basis?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostryder21
I have one question for you that I want YOU the original OP to answer for me. I doubt you will.


well, you shouldn't have preconceived notions, as i am about to answer the question.



Why is it so hard for you to let someone believe in what they want to believe?


because faith is dangerous..
i could give you countless examples both modern and archaic

and i really don't do this sort of thing outside of discussions of religion, which is the whole point of FST



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Then give me some modern examples.

About the 15 kids that die a year bc the parents refuse medical care based on religious beliefs? How about the hundreds that die even when they receive medical care but it was wrong.

The whole inoculation thing of not wanting your kids inoculated with viruses. That is not only in religion but also in regular belief system thanks to the media and what has happened to some children when they are inoculated.

Your whole argument is flawed. I’ve seen you and others attack people here on the boards because of their beliefs.

If you care so much for the children then do something about it but don’t do it under the cover of atheism.

When you do it under that cover, your just going back to "hey, my beliefs are better than your beliefs"

As for the whole medieval times thing. Yeah people were stupid back then believing what they believed like the earth being flat and being the center of everything. But they did not have the technology to disprove it. Once they did have the means and know how to disprove it, they did.

No one shoves their religion down your throat, and if they do tell them to back away and leave you alone. My whole argument with you is that your trying to tell us believers how wrong we are, how our religious belief is going to kill us and how it affects our family. But in turn, Christianity did the same thing way back in the day and it got its converts and also its people opposed to it. So in turn you have to realize your using the same tactics from the religions that you so deny. You have learned something from religion, how to use guerrilla tactics, how to view the public. Your going to make a great political figure someday, if you can get your followers.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I think it's strange that the religious are so often complaining about the secular people discriminating against them. I've never read of anyone being fired from his/her job or even held back by an atheist or agnostic boss, but the religious constantly discriminate against the non-religious. A number of law suits were filed for being fired for being an atheist, but they were thrown out because the judges said the law doesn't specifically include atheists as groups suffering discrimination.

Also, there are supposed to be somewhere around 11% of the population who are atheists or agnostics. I know of only one atheist in the federal Senate or Congress. Polls of voters asked who they would and would not vote for. Homosexuals got the next to lowest rating, and atheists/agnostics were even lower on people's voting decision. Note, that they didn't care about anything else such as competence.

So, you may want to consider these before you attack MIMS's thread.

Occam



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Yes what you say is true because that is the general conscious of the public. The majority of the public has some religious belief. So they in turn are going to turn to someone with their same beliefs. I have seen this happen a lot. But in turn if you reverse the numbers and make the majority of the people atheist then the same would be true. Someone’s religious beliefs should not stand in the way of anything, but unfortunate in today’s society it does.

All I ask for is why am I constantly being spoon-fed this by some atheist. Yeah my belief will not be yours, do I spoon-feed you Catholicism. Do I go around posting threads all atheist are wrong this is the true god? No I don’t because I’m content to believe what I want to believe. Why do you have to force your belief on me? Why must you correct me in the errors of my way that you seem I have? Great your atheist awesome for you, you don’t believe in anything except science and fact. Your belief and faith are rooted in that. Stop telling us believers how wrong we are that we believe in what we do. If it’s causing you this much grief, this much pain on a daily basis that I believe this, then prove your case.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Though you didn't address your post to me, I am nevertheless going to respond.


Originally posted by ghostryder21
Someone’s religious beliefs should not stand in the way of anything, but unfortunate in today’s society it does.


That depends on the religious belief. If, for example, one believes that it is okay to kill me, I think it would be pretty nice if someone would stand in the way of that. Now before you get too riled up, I'm not arguing anything in relation to any specific religion -- just saying that Occam is right: faith can be dangerous.


Originally posted by ghostryder21
All I ask for is why am I constantly being spoon-fed this by some atheist. Yeah my belief will not be yours, do I spoon-feed you Catholicism.


While you have never spoon-fed Catholicism to me, there are people who do. One usually thinks of the deep South where I live as being a Protestant stronghold and that is mostly true. But here in Mobile County, there is a large Catholic population. I get it from both sides, and it happens on a regular basis. I always respond kindly if I respond, and I never have a meltdown over the fact that yet another audacious Christian has accosted me to talk about my personal relationship with Jesus or the lack thereof. If we all started complaining about the things that other people say that bother us, we'd be complaining for the rest of our lives.

I have no ego investment in my personal beliefs. You aren't going to see me out and about vying for new recruits. Many Christians buy into doctrines that they should be actively engaged in winning souls over to their side. You may not be one of them, but there are plenty out there. Atheists and agnostics are prime targets for these believers. Why does it bother you that some atheists turn the heat the other direction? What makes it okay when some Christians are out arguing their cases, but deplorable when some atheists are arguing theirs?


Originally posted by ghostryder21
Do I go around posting threads all atheist are wrong this is the true god? [...] Why do you have to force your belief on me? Why must you correct me in the errors of my way that you seem I have?


I'm starting to get amused that you seem to be taking this as if this thread has something to do with you on a personal level, or as if some attack has been designed specifically for you. What does the fact that you don't claim that all atheists are wrong have anything to do with MIMS's right to post this thread? Again, many Christians are out in the world trying to correct the "errors" in the beliefs of others. There is not some atheist monopoly on memetic war. Nothing is being forced on you. You are a willing reader and participant in this thread.


Originally posted by ghostryder21
Stop telling us believers how wrong we are that we believe in what we do. If it’s causing you this much grief, this much pain on a daily basis that I believe this, then prove your case.


Do you plan on having your people stop telling the atheists how wrong they are for not believing what you believe? Doesn't seem like an easy thing to do, does it?

I really don't understand your last sentence about proof. Assuming that the roles were reversed and your position was causing grief for an atheist, would you be able to prove your case? You know you wouldn't (and neither would the atheist be able to prove his case to you). In regards to the topic at hand, MIMS was pretty clear that he could not prove his omnipotence.

/tn.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I was going to respond to each of ghostryder21's points, but I can't improve on the perfection of the above post. I will comment on one item.
Quote ghostryder21:

Yes what you say is true because that is the general conscious of the public. The majority of the public has some religious belief. So they in turn are going to turn to someone with their same beliefs. I have seen this happen a lot. But in turn if you reverse the numbers and make the majority of the people atheist then the same would be true.


I really question your last sentence here. It's just your guess. From my view atheists, agnostics and secularists are far more accepting of diversity than are the religious so I don't think, if they were in the majority, that most of them would avoid voting for a competent candidate if s/he happened to be religious.

Occam



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ok your god? Listen man we gotta talk, seriously, like I really asked for your help a while back dude and you totally let me down man. Seriously man like your bad at your job.

reply to post by helen670
 


Why? If god did not have a sense of humor why else would it create the platypus to begin with?

So if it is truly meant tounge in cheek, then madnessinmysoul. delivered a clever joke with something to make people talk and discuss, therefore, perhaps learn something they did not otherwise know about themselves and others.

Plus the point of if someone walked up to you on the street and said hi im god, wouldn’t you just think they were crazy and keep going? Shake it of man shake it off it’s not that deep.

reply to post by Valdimer
 


Yes sometimes atheists come off believing so much in their atheism that they actively pursue and try and seek others to share their belief system. While the vast majority of humanity believes in some form of higher power. Others do not. Least they don’t go around in packs of two on bicycles and knock on your door on the weekends.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Couldn't the internet be used in the same regard to recruit people on both sides? Atheist and Religious? (I'm Mormon, btw, but I don't go cruising around on bikes and bugging you on weekends
I personally think that's bad form, but hey, people do what they want)

Regardless, you could almost look at this like a never ending war between Atheists and people of Religion. I can almost hear the respones now, but let me curb that. People on both sides do it, and it can't be denied. There are people like me on both sides that don't really care what anyone believes, and leaves it at that, but we have fanatics on both sides that take things way to the extreme. It's an organization on both sides, with groups of people expressing, and in some cases, fighting for what they feel is right.

I've chosen my side, but I'm not being agressive about it, and I'm not claiming anyone here is. This is debate, and I think it's gone pretty good so far. Either I'll see you on the other side, or I won't. No skin off my rear.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Better Belief


Originally posted by ghostryder21
About the 15 kids that die a year bc the parents refuse medical care based on religious beliefs? How about the hundreds that die even when they receive medical care but it was wrong.

Irrelevant. What has death from medical mistakes have to do with this? Are you saying that all those mistakes were made by atheists?


The whole inoculation thing of not wanting your kids inoculated with viruses.

Again, absolutely nothing to do with the topic, unless the parents' reasons for refusing to vaccinate were religious, in which case it further supports Occam's point.


If you care so much for the children then do something about it but don’t do it under the cover of atheism.

I think Occam was just giving an example of the evil consequences of religious belief. Do you want a few more examples of such consequences? Would you like a list the length of your arm? They're easily provided.


your just going back to "hey, my beliefs are better than your beliefs"

They are. Atheism is better -- more prinicipled, more reasoned, more ethical and morally less tainted -- than any kind of religious belief.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join