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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
probably misunderstanding the op, but wouldn't omniscience and omnipotence also be based on our limited understanding of what those 2 things comprise? it's possible we might even be overstating the original meanings. for example, is it based on comparative analysis? if so, what's our basis for comparison other than ourselves? math would seem omniscient. it can define and be used, to create. but it requires a self aware, sentient life force to recognize (perceive) its usage and definition, which does kinda fit into the duality thing. it's perception that provides understanding and understanding provides opportunity for usage to create and definition of that creation.

perception (observation) creates material reality by collapsing the wave function.




edit on 13-6-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


“Omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs... 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.

Aquinus put it rather more neatly:


Thus is it that the wisdom of the world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence of God does not take away from things their impossibility and necessity. – Summa Theologica I. xxv

The trouble with this is that it reduces God’s scope of action to what is possible under the laws of matter, energy, time and space. Aquinus tries to explain the distinction between ‘that which is impossible in nature’ and what is ‘absolutely impossible’. It sounds like a load of logic-chopping old gibberish to me. If you can explain it to me better than the Angelic Doctor did, I shall be vastly impressed and very grateful. Till then, semantic absurdities like irresistible forces and immovable objects excepted, I regret I must stick with the ‘omnipotence means being able to do absolutely anything’ line.


From the viewpoint of a immanent God, an actor in time... free will and an omniscient creator are likewise "incoherent" and "self-contradictory." Indeed creation itself when viewed through the lens of omniscience becomes a futile exercise.

Yes, indeed. Of course, it’s true that madness didn’t say ‘omnipotent’, merely ‘intelligent’. That eliminates many of those pesky incoherencies and self-contradictions.

By the way, you create an external quote box by typing ‘ex’ within square brackets, and you close the box by typing “/ex’. Or just press that useful 'ex-text’ button above the reply window.


edit on 13/6/11 by Astyanax because: I hit Reply before I hit Reply.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
 

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.


I really don't understand this part of your post.

Are you saying, an omnipotent being should be creating sacks of light meeting together to form a big sack?
Do you think this is the route an omnipotent creator should be focused on so he could be recognized?
Do you think a big ol' sack of assorted meats and bones is too complex, therefore they should have went the simple route of light inside of meeting sacks?
Is complexity defined?
Are you saying sacks of light meeting together are more simple than big ol" sacks of meats and bones?
Are you just being facetious?

edit on 16-6-2011 by addygrace because:
 




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 




Of course, it’s true that madness didn’t say ‘omnipotent’, merely ‘intelligent’. That eliminates many of those pesky incoherencies and self-contradictions.


Actually he did, in the subsequent conversation:



All-powerful does, in fact, imply all-knowing.


And I believe that here he has expressed the root of his theory which in part argues that intelligence is an assessment based on limitation, as well as defining omnipotence in terms that "beg the question," and necessarily imply omniscience. He's saying God couldn't be considered intelligent and omnipotent because God would make himself know everything, ie. be omniscient. Or would be omniscient as a "product" of omnipotence. But this, as seen in the quotation below, he is mixing separate categories and basing his idea on a logical fallacy:


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.

www.greatplay.net...

Thanks for the tip on the ex-text box, never noticed it before.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Thanks for the tip on the ex-text box, never noticed it before.

You’re welcome. However, I would appreciate it if you would address some of my actual points, rather than the side details in my posts.

By the way, Ubik in aerosol form is sold in the UK and some Commonwealth countries as Stoppit.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 



Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
 

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.


I really don't understand this part of your post.

Are you saying, an omnipotent being should be creating sacks of light meeting together to form a big sack?
Do you think this is the route an omnipotent creator should be focused on so he could be recognized?
Do you think a big ol' sack of assorted meats and bones is too complex, therefore they should have went the simple route of light inside of meeting sacks?


...no. I'm saying that a body that seemingly should not function, like one where everything inside is somehow working even though there aren't any organs or functioning systems, would lend more credence to an omnipotent designer than a body that should function anyway.

The other point is that a truly omnipotent being could design a body any damn way it wishes, even if that way would be entirely non-functional, and it should still function as it desires.



Is complexity defined?
Are you saying sacks of light meeting together are more simple than big ol" sacks of meats and bones?


Well, by any comparison a body with an intricate system of parts versus a body with no apparent parts or function would be far more complex.



Are you just being facetious?


...no, though I'm suspecting that you are considering the volume of questions that you're tossing out.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





By the way, Ubik in aerosol form is sold in the UK and some Commonwealth countries as Stoppit.


A star for that.

I must however, let the thread's progression speak for itself as to whose points weren't satisfactorily answered.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Well, considering nobody really addressed the "omnipotent beings can do whatever they want" problem with labeling something as 'intelligently designed'....or that intelligence is a measurement of what is done within limitations and omnipotent beings are definitively without limitation...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
OP. You do understand that God isn't bound by the laws of human nature, right?

God isn't even human to begin with.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


On what basis do you make these claims? Where is your evidence to support them?

I'm not applying human nature related claims to a deity, I'm applying the only definition we have of intelligence and I'm also applying logic.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I know you're banned, and I know I'm late. However, if you ever decide to come look at this thread again, this is my answer.

You can't mix logic and faith. It's like oil and water, so you will never find the real answer in a subject where logic isn't allowed. The same way you can't figure out Calculus with the Alphabet alone. I believe the things we deem impossible in this world are very possible. Most of us are just too stubborn to try something different. Mind over matter my friend, it's more than possible.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join