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.

 

The "Creator" can Either be Omnipotent or Intelligent, not both.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


So if God could do anything, it would also preclude that God would know everything, logically because he did it. It's circular logic, there's no escaping it.

‘Could’ and ‘did’ have different meanings though, don’t they? A being could be omnipotent, and still not know (unless it chose to find out) what other beings have done or are doing.


But that doesn't mean the truth is God. The truth is a state, not a being.

The argument, as presented by the Scholastics and in a later, more refined form by Liebniz, is that God is the perfect being, and since perfection cannot contain anything false, God represents ultimate truth.


God's being would be so automatic as to render possibilities meaningless, he would simply act by his own will, or if not, then the universe could be subject to destruction at any moment, like a man waking from a dream. But since God is in a sleepless dream, he dreams while always awake, then it is more described as a cosmic awareness or consciousness as opposed to an actual being with wants and desires (akin to the Old Testament). God would certainly have no desires if he was perfect. He would have no characteristics of a normal being, he would be the essence of super being, a will beyond all other wills. Intelligence wouldn't even fall under this category, only self-knowledge, since there would be nothing but itself. Intelligence in a normal sense is unnecessary when you have a complete unity. Intelligence is meant for beings on the lower plane so they can escape to the higher transcendental point. When you reach that point you have attained Godhood.

I think you need to fix on one concept and definition of God, for purposes of argument at least. If God is dreaming the world, then you may argue that the dream of a perfect being is reality, but you would be left with the question of how a perfect being could dream (or do anything else, for that matter) without becoming less than perfect. Any change from a state of perfection is obviously a change for the worse. Such a God would be omniscient but impotent, more like the God of the Gnostics than the God of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament God is just Ego deified. He does not even respect the rules of His own creation but breaks them arbitrarily with signs, miracles and so forth. He is an illogical invention, something that could not possibly exist in reality without the fabric of reality itself falling apart. To state only the obvious, an omniscient God would have no need of miracles; with complete foresight, he could always prearrange matters to His own satisfaction, so He would never need to intervene in history as the Bible claims He does. In fact, his non-omniscience is frequently admitted – there are numerous passages in which He is said to feel regret or anger, emotions with which an omniscient being could not be familiar except in the abstract. The God of the Old Testament is omnipotent but ignorant and seems to be as much a slave to Time as any mortal.

As I said before, omnipotence and omniscience are not mutually exclusive. However, one does not, at first blush, imply the other. A deeper question would be whether omnipotence and omniscience are logically possible at all, but that’s not the thread topic.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoTheCapFit
 


once again you seem to think im attacking you or somehow demeaning you and i am not

You are attacking him. Over and over again.


stop with your aggressive ego.


you are simply another case, the blind leading the blind and lying.


your ego needs dissolving and your arrogant stubborness will not help you.

Such personal remarks are rude, aggressive and uncalled-for. They are also completely off topic.

You have not yet posted one word relevant to the topic. You don’t even seem to understand what it is. And frankly, no-one is interested in that boring hippie crap you’re spouting, we’ve heard it all before and it is bollocks. Please, if you can’t keep up your end of the discussion, do the rest of us a favour and leave the thread.

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Why did I say this seemingly odd statement? Well, it's because I realized what intelligence is. I'll give you an example.

Now, what is intelligence? Well...my question for you is: How do we measure it in mice.?

If you just got a mental image of a maze with a chunk of cheese at the end of it, congratulations, you get it. We measure intelligence by testing it, by providing limits. There would be no way to test intelligence if someone is given unlimited resources, time, and power.

Intelligence is therefore not a thing, it's not a characteristic that is inherent. It's a measured trait based upon tests, and tests necessarily have limitations.

If you had access to the internet while taking a history test, it wouldn't be much of a test, would it? It would be even worse if you had a time machine.

Now, an all-powerful being, an 'intelligent designer', is one or the other. If that being is all-powerful than it is inherently not testable. It cannot be limited and is therefore unable to demonstrate whether or not it is intelligent. A truly omnipotent being wouldn't have to design a complex body, our bodies could merely be meet sacks filled with light if the being is truly omnipotent. In fact, that would point to an omnipotent designer a lot more than a big ol' sack of assorted meats and bones.

The question then doesn't become: Who designed the designer? It's more like: "Who is testing the designer?"

What factors are limiting the intelligent designer? What are the obstacles that are overcome? How is the designer overcoming them?


So a being that is all powerful can't have a good understanding or a high mental capacity?

With your realization of intelligence you confused yourself. An intelligent designer from a human beings point of view would be a being that could produce a certain amount of design that seems complex.

If we see words written on an electron, we know that it was intelligently designed. What we can not know is whether that intelligent designer is omnipotent or not.

It's not true, as you state, an all-powerful being is inherently not testable, with regards to intelligence. We can't test the total vastness of the power, but we can easily test the effects of that power, and come to the conclusion the being has intelligence.

I do like when you start thinking about intelligent designers, though.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 



Originally posted by addygrace
So a being that is all powerful can't have a good understanding or a high mental capacity?


...no, a being that is all powerful can not be described as intelligent because intelligence is an assessment based upon some sort of real-world testing in which limits are placed. Being all-powerful means to be limitless.

Thus, a universe cannot be described as intelligently designed because any possible universe, including an incomprehensible universe in which food goes in and poop comes out yet the whole human torso doesn't have any organs, just a faint white light, would actually a be greater evidence of an omnipotent creator.



With your realization of intelligence you confused yourself. An intelligent designer from a human beings point of view would be a being that could produce a certain amount of design that seems complex.


But complexity is not a hallmark of intelligence. The most intelligent solutions are rarely the most complex ones.



If we see words written on an electron, we know that it was intelligently designed.


...no, we would know that it was intelligently inscribed.



What we can not know is whether that intelligent designer is omnipotent or not.


I've yet to hear of people claiming a designer beyond those who have a belief in an omnipotent deity...



It's not true, as you state, an all-powerful being is inherently not testable, with regards to intelligence. We can't test the total vastness of the power, but we can easily test the effects of that power, and come to the conclusion the being has intelligence.


And yet not a single person has come up with any of those tests.



I do like when you start thinking about intelligent designers, though.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
The very fact that you, created by the creator can question such thing's as intelligence using your creative mind proves that the Creator is intelligent. How can the creator of creation in all of it's complexities not be intelligent? Get a life! Oh by the way he/she is omnipotent too. Being out of time as we know it tends to somewhat help the omnipotence factor.
edit on 12-6-2011 by Uncle Gravity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
The very fact that you, created by the creator can question such thing's as intelligence using your creative mind proves that the Creator is intelligent. How can the creator of creation in all of it's complexities not be intelligent? Get a life! Oh by the way he/she is omnipotent too. Being out of time as we know it tends to somewhat help the omnipotence factor.
edit on 12-6-2011 by Uncle Gravity because: (no reason given)


So according to you, a mountain with all its impressive size is a clear sign there's a mountain making god...even if we can perfectly explain how mountains form


Sure, let's all throw objective evidence and rationality out of the window...good plan


PS: Thanks for yet again providing such a good example of "god of the gaps", almost star-worthy...almost...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'm surprised no one has called you out for your definition of intelligence. In bold below.


...no, a being that is all powerful can not be described as intelligent because intelligence is an assessment based upon some sort of real-world testing in which limits are placed. Being all-powerful means to be limitless.


Apparently, intelligence is NOT an assessment. It is a capacity, a manifestation, or a faculty.


–noun 1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit. 3. the faculty of understanding.

dictionary.reference.com...

Therein lies the roots of your misunderstanding. The fact that something can be assessed in no way means that it itself is an assessment, or that assessment is necessary to its definition. This is where the argument falls apart.
edit on 12-6-2011 by joechip because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by joechip because: clarification and addition



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


This is a shallow and narrow position, especially since your whole attack skips the content of my point on intelligence. Let's break down the definition you provided.


1. capacity for learning,


Implies that which is not known.



reasoning,


Implies that there is a problem which needs to be reasoned out.



understanding,


Implies that which is misunderstood.



and similar forms of mental activity;


Which are all rooted in current limits.



aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.


Again, grasping. You have to take them and use them.

The whole definition further reinforces my point that intelligence is something which is based upon a lack of ability. That which is all powerful has no lack. If you're all-powerful and don't know something, you simply will yourself to know it. No reasoning required.

You're going to need a better argument than "This isn't exactly what's in the dictionary"



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 




Yeah..."intelligence"


You might wanna look up the definition of intelligence, because you don't seem to even know what it means. And again, all you're doing is preaching and showing off one example of "god of the gaps" after the other.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The omnipotence which can be named is not the true omnipotence. To borrow from Lao Tzu.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   


The whole definition further reinforces my point that intelligence is something which is based upon a lack of ability. That which is all powerful has no lack. If you're all-powerful and don't know something, you simply will yourself to know it. No reasoning required.
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 


Again, no. Not only is intelligence not an assessment (which I consider conceded) but your justification above is an assumptive logical fallacy. Being all-powerful doesn't directly imply all-knowing (otherwise there wouldn't be an entirely different word for it, omniscient) nor the ability to "will" such knowledge, especially if this knowledge requires experience in order to "grasp." If your conception of God includes the idea of evolution, and there's no reason to exclude such a concept without considering it, God can be both omnipotent and intelligent. Existing as both transcendent omnipotence, and immanent intelligence in a multidimensional sense.

I think it is your understanding that is narrow, though I do thank you for an interesting discussion.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 



Originally posted by joechip
Again, no. Not only is intelligence not an assessment (which I consider conceded)


Condeded? Or conceited? I did not concede the point.



but your justification above is an assumptive logical fallacy.


Which one is it? You don't just get to bandy about the term 'logical fallacy' when it suits your whimsy, you have to justify its use by identifying what the particular logical fallacy is and how my argument is an example of it.



Being all-powerful doesn't directly imply all-knowing (otherwise there wouldn't be an entirely different word for it, omniscient) nor the ability to "will" such knowledge, especially if this knowledge requires experience in order to "grasp."


Then the being isn't all-powerful. If it cannot grant itself knowledge then it lacks the power to do so, thus it is limited and not all-powerful. All-powerful does, in fact, imply all-knowing.



If your conception of God includes the idea of evolution, and there's no reason to exclude such a concept without considering it, God can be both omnipotent and intelligent.


...non-sequitur. Your premises do not lead to a conclusion. If the deity includes evolution, what does that have to do with the question of whether a universe can be a demonstration of the intelligence of a being?



Existing as both transcendent omnipotence, and immanent intelligence in a multidimensional sense.


None of that sentence makes any sense. It's the sort of pseudo-philosophical word salad you deal with first year philosophy students who just don't get philosophy.



I think it is your understanding that is narrow, though I do thank you for an interesting discussion.


No, you just don't seem to get my argument and either called me conceited or claimed I had conceded a point without actually addressing it...somehow, the latter is far more offensive, mainly because it's the sort of gluttial hattery that makes the internet such a stupid place some times.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 


A non-sequitur? Why do people hold this guy in such high regard again? The premise doesn't follow from the conclusion. How does the ability to describe it negate it?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by addygrace
 

...no, a being that is all powerful can not be described as intelligent because intelligence is an assessment based upon some sort of real-world testing in which limits are placed. Being all-powerful means to be limitless.
What is your argument? Because we put limits on testing, an all-powerful being can't be tested? That doesn't stop them from being intelligent. We just can't measure it. This is known. An all powerful being would have infinite intelligence, whether you could measure it or not.


Thus, a universe cannot be described as intelligently designed because any possible universe, including an incomprehensible universe in which food goes in and poop comes out yet the whole human torso doesn't have any organs, just a faint white light, would actually a be greater evidence of an omnipotent creator.
Even if this statement were true, it does nothing for your argument. Because we aren't filled with white light, we're not intelligently designed? You should stick to Science because your philosophy is lacking.





But complexity is not a hallmark of intelligence. The most intelligent solutions are rarely the most complex ones.
I disagree, some examples would be nice.



...no, we would know that it was intelligently inscribed.
Ok...Thank you.



I've yet to hear of people claiming a designer beyond those who have a belief in an omnipotent deity...
That's not my argument. My argument is we can't measure the full intelligence.




And yet not a single person has come up with any of those tests.
You would call it God of the gaps.




I do like when you start thinking about intelligent designers, though.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 



Originally posted by addygrace
What is your argument? Because we put limits on testing, an all-powerful being can't be tested? That doesn't stop them from being intelligent. We just can't measure it. This is known. An all powerful being would have infinite intelligence, whether you could measure it or not.


Again, intelligence is measured as the ability to create solutions within the confines of limitations. An all-powerful being, by definition, has no limitations and can simply 'poof' a solution right away. No intelligence required.


Even if this statement were true, it does nothing for your argument. Because we aren't filled with white light, we're not intelligently designed?


No, this is a straw man. What I said is that no being can be described as intelligently designed by an all-powerful being as a consequence of its appearance because any possible being could have been designed. Filled with white light, empty, meat-based like we are, etc. You cannot say that because the system we have is complex it is designed, much less designed intelligently by an all-powerful being.

Furthermore, if life were designed by an intelligent being, it missed some very basic design issues.



You should stick to Science because your philosophy is lacking.


Actually, my knowledge of philosophy surpasses my knowledge of science, as I actually have a lot of formal education in it.





But complexity is not a hallmark of intelligence. The most intelligent solutions are rarely the most complex ones.
I disagree, some examples would be nice.


Americans spend a buttload developing space pens, Russians use pencils.

Actually, I'll talk about it from something I know very, very well, films. Anyone can make a complicated movie to convey a complicated message, but it takes a true genius of film to make a simple film that conveys the same.




And yet not a single person has come up with any of those tests.
You would call it God of the gaps.

...because it's an argument from ignorance. You're tossing a deity into our hole in understanding without justification beyond "We don't have a better answer". That's beyond ignorant, it's just downright stupid. We've shown time and again that doing that is a bad idea. Kepler made Newton look like a bit of a fool for doing the same thing with planetary motion, and Newton was the superior mind by any stretch.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   


Condeded? Or conceited? I did not concede the point

True. I should have stated that I consider the matter settled, as you did not address your incorrect definition except by re-defining based on implications you drew from the actual definition. Throughout this discussion you have defined intelligence as an assessment. It is not. This is what you fail to refute, and why the matter is settled in my estimation. Claiming that using the dictionary is a shallow or narrow interpretation also fails to negate my point.




Which one is it? You don't just get to bandy about the term 'logical fallacy' when it suits your whimsy, you have to justify its use by identifying what the particular logical fallacy is and how my argument is an example of it.


Okay. Conflating omnipotence and omniscience can be seen as at least two logical fallacies.

straw man:



Another response to those positing these questions of omnipotence and alleged conflict is that the questions of super heavy stones, along with all the other ability-based arguments etc., are actually a clever logical fallacy, and are false straw man arguments. The reason being is that power is not ability, or knowledge, therefore being all-powerful [omnipotent], logically says nothing about knowledge or ability. To assume [wrongly] that an omnipotent [all-powerful] being is also limitless in ability is not only moving the proverbial goal posts, it is specifically setting up a false straw man to argue upon, by saying they [power and ability] go together when there is no logical or rational basis for this assumption.


Begging the question:



The logical difficulty is due to the term omnipotence. If someone attributes the action as a fallacy for a omnipotent, he forgets that the term omnipotence is being investigated. There is another logical fallacy: begging the question. Although some try to defend the existance of an omnipotent being by defining other meanings to the term omnipotence, the new definitions deviate from the common perception of the term and are hard to understand. For example, Power is not ability, nor knowledge, they are separate categories, and not mutually exclusive if [power] were unlimited. Definitions like that needs to be further clarifed or make the term omnipotence void, especially for non-christians, otherwise.

www.greatplay.net...



Then the being isn't all-powerful. If it cannot grant itself knowledge then it lacks the power to do so, thus it is limited and not all-powerful. All-powerful does, in fact, imply all-knowing.
.

A logical fallacy, see above.



If the deity includes evolution, what does that have to do with the question of whether a universe can be a demonstration of the intelligence of a being?


It only illustrates a condition which meets the requirements you set forth as contradictory. It neither asserts that the universe is a demonstration of "intelligence," nor that such a demonstration is necessary to the question.



None of that sentence makes any sense. It's the sort of pseudo-philosophical word salad you deal with first year philosophy students who just don't get philosophy.

Ad Hominem fallacy:



An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: Person A makes claim X. Person B makes an attack on person A. Therefore A's claim is false.

www.nizkor.org...



No, you just don't seem to get my argument and either called me conceited or claimed I had conceded a point without actually addressing it...somehow, the latter is far more offensive, mainly because it's the sort of gluttial hattery that makes the internet such a stupid place some times.


My apologies for claiming you conceded a point, merely because I my view, you should have. Why are you so easily offended. Did you really not expect any responses at all? Responses that accept your interpretation only?
Don't be offended. It's an interesting discussion .Chill. You may indeed be wrong, but that doesn't invalidate you as a person.

Have a nice night.
edit on 12-6-2011 by joechip because: source the quotations

edit on 12-6-2011 by joechip because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by joechip because: source the quotations



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

That’s because he’s misquoting Lao-Tzu, who actually said ‘the Tao that can be described is not the true Tao.’ Frankly, I don’t think the concept of divine omnipotence is compatible with Taoism.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Throughout this discussion you have defined intelligence as an assessment. It is not.

Thus far, I agree with you.


Another response to... (citations of the) alleged conflict (between implied attributes of omnipotence is to state that they) are... false straw man arguments... Power is not ability, or knowledge...

This is casuistry. If power is not ability, what is it?


If someone (points out the logical impossibility of some action that should be attributable to an omnipotent being), he forgets that the term omnipotence is being investigated.

We are not investigating omnipotence here. It is accepted as being defined as ‘the ability to do anything.’

Pardon the sweeping edits in the quotes above, but I thought it would help everyone’s comprehension if we reduced the word salad to a side order and stuck to the main course.



edit on 12/6/11 by Astyanax because: of a missing slash.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   


We are not investigating omnipotence here. It is accepted as being defined as ‘the ability to do anything.’
reply to post by Astyanax
 





As to the substance: Note first that for almost all theists, “omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs (e.g. creating a round square or a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift). The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God’s power would be limited only if there was some power He lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, His inability to do so is no limitation on His power.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
Now, hopefully this explanation sets the stage to examine omniscience from the viewpoint of a immanent God; an actor in time...from this viewpoint freewill and an omniscient creator are likewise "incoherent" and "self-contradictory." Indeed creation itself when viewed through the lens of omniscience becomes a futile exercise.



Well if such an entity is boundless and limitless to which is uncontained, its omniscience would thus need to be infinite. Thus saying it could create that which it doesn't already know would defy its omniscience on an equally infinite scale. If it were omniscient without bounds or limits, it would defy its omnipotence, boundlessness, and limitlessness. It would even collapse its status of being uncontained. And if it were eternally Omniscient without bounds or limits, how could it create anything at all? If information theory is correct, would not this entity be the sum total of all that exists?

en.wikipedia.org...
I think there are inherent problems with conflating omnipotence with omniscience. I think also one has to examine the presumptions underlying both terms with an open mind to different states of being, principally transcendence and immanence. That a new state occurs with the creation event, is indeed a possibility, as is the notion of both states existing simultaneously, in a non-contradictory fashion. This being possibly achieved through a splitting of essence.

Fun stuff to think about!
edit on 13-6-2011 by joechip because: grammar and clarification



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join