Define your deity!

reply to post by Sectumsempra

Originally posted by Sectumsempra
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

That is the mystery isn't it?

No, that's the logical contradiction...

Of course G-d knows all and G-d does know the best for us.

I'm not saying the this being knows what's best but actually knows everything and thus knows exactly what you're going to do before you do it, therefore robbing you of any free will.

Keep that in mind. In the past I have read that when we die G-d will show us our lives and what else we could of done if we followed his path.

Well, with an omniscient being there is only one path...the path that you're going to take as known by this being prior to your own existence. If another path is taken then the being didn't know you were going to take it...and thus isn't omniscient.

Remember that I'm Jewish so I do not believe in the Christian or Islamic views.

I get that. I know the often subtle differences. Of course, it doesn't get rid of the contradiction.

Me, Myself and "I"

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Love and Consciousness are missing from yor list.

So, your deity is omnipotent and omniscient? This is inherently contradictory. If I am all knowing, then I know exactly what I will do in the future and I will be unable to change that action in the future because that would violate my omniscience, I wouldn't have seen what I'm changing until I changed it rather than ahead of time. This would make the being incapable of free will as it would be a slave to preordained action.

I think an omnsicient deity knows the entire Play from start to finish. Linear time is a human perception in this material dimension, but from the perspective of the omniscient deity, there is no past or future, because awareness is all-inclusive.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I'm not saying the this being knows what's best but actually knows everything and thus knows exactly what you're going to do before you do it, therefore robbing you of any free will.

From the point of view of the deity, we have no free will at all, but from our human perspective, we do have some free will.

The thing is, we act as if we had free will, we claim the will to act and decide for ourselves, and as we do not know the future and assume that it is in our own hands, we subsequently maintain the illusion that we did, indeed, act from our own free will.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Because words are the only means we have to communicate things.

this is not entirely true... music as just one example is a way to communicate, also there are smoke signals and art in many forms.

I love how some people just automatically assume then base the entire context of the rest of their post off such assumptions.

aside from words there are feelings, emotion and metaphors... and I think b watching a few documentaries about evolution and instincts that "feelings" came first before our words were used to describe them.

feeling and metaphor are alot more powerful than words alone...

reply to post by mysticnoon


You cannot define the Abrahamic deity as 'love' for many, many, reasons.

And consciousness is a known product of matter, not an independent construct. We have yet to see consciousness exist separate of matter...

And knowing the play start to finish would still prevent an omniscient being from having free will. A being without free will is still a being that is not omnipotent.

reply to post by mysticnoon


Free will isn't a matter of perspective, it's a matter of fact. We either have it or we don't. Now, if we don't have it than we cannot be judged for our actions and sentenced to eternal punishment or reward. If we do have it then we can be...but then the deity is rendered as no longer being omniscient.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Music is a language...it is based on mathematics. It's why math prodigies are so often also musical ones. Smoke signals are also a point of language. In fact, all communication has a linguistic component via semiotics.

I'm trying to ask you how you reconcile the inherent contradiction in omniscience and omnipotence.

Inherent? No, those are two strings or tokens. Their etymology is at best suggestive or mnemonic of some actual meanings. You can define them so that they are incompatible qualities, or you can define them so that you are compatible qualities.

That's a choice you make. There is no reason to think that other people will make the same choices that you do. They have no obligation to accept your definitions. Especially not when you acknowledge that if your definitions were accepted, then something they believe to be true could not be true.

There is no "inherent" problem, and your target audience declines to manufacture one. Go figure.

Hell, you just claimed I have free will. How can I have free will if the omniscient being already knows what I'm going to do every second of my life before I'm born?

Evidently, in some way that predictability does not bear adversely on voluntariness. The secular theory of rational choice, for example, implies a great deal of predictability. So if you consistently choose according to your beliefs and values, and so you choose predicatbly, are your choices therefore unfree?

I'm pointing out that your ideas are contradictory, how is that debate?

Uh, no. You pointed out that you would define his terms for him so that they would be contradictory. But, since that is a silly thing to do, we know that what you really meant was that your opinion about his ideas, which oddly you understand perfectly well despite their being contradictions, differs from his. Announcing a difference of personal opinion is often a prelude to debate.

reply to post by eight bits


Simple version of the argument:

If you know everything, you already know all of your future actions. If you are able to change those future actions you do not know what they are.

You have a choice, either you know everything or have free will. A being with no free will would not be omnipotent.

Now, I have no problem with people who are saying that they have a deity that's omnipotent and nearly omniscient or omniscient and nearly omnipotent.

There is no alternative definition for 'omniscient' aside from 'all knowing' and there is no alternative definition of 'omnipotent' aside from 'all powerful'.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Music is a language...it is based on mathematics. It's why math prodigies are so often also musical ones. Smoke signals are also a point of language. In fact, all communication has a linguistic component via semiotics.

ah yes, but let me remind you what you said on page one of this topic when replying to andy1033...

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Na, why should we, words just scramble things. How can you describe anything so important in words, let alone a useless language like english.

Its a useless question.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Because words are the only means we have to communicate things.

I am glad you can actually agree that there are other ways of communicating besides just words, your original response is on page 1 of this very topic.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Music is a language...it is based on mathematics.

I doubt that very highly, music has been around well before mathematics and can be better described as feelings and emotion, how would you explain music coming from people of planet earth today that have no concept of math ? I believe your response here is just one of the only ways a non-musically inclined individual can understand what music actually is, it's better not to try to understand it but rather feel the music as intended.

It's why math prodigies are so often also musical ones

yeah ok, I bet most recognized musical prodigies could not understand much math beyond long division.

Smoke signals are also a point of language.

glad you can agree.

In fact, all communication has a linguistic component via semiotics.

you sound very knowledgeable and versed here, I will have to check into it... thanks.

I say images and music and emotion would be a better way of conveying ones God to others rather than just words alone, these can be used as 3 major tools when describing something... but there are those with no concept of metaphor or feelings and opt only for a words to define certain things.

getting this minority group of people to better understand their own feelings and that of their fellow peers is one of the only problems I see...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Music is a language...it is based on mathematics.

I doubt that very highly, music has been around well before mathematics and can be better described as feelings and emotion, how would you explain music coming from people of planet earth today that have no concept of math ?

Music is mathematics. Take any string instrument and the notes are based upon division of the string into segments each corresponding to a note. Drum beats are mathematical. If anything, music may be considered a pre-math sort of mathematics.

I believe your response here is just one of the only ways a non-musically inclined individual can understand what music actually is, it's better not to try to understand it but rather feel the music as intended.

I play about 6 instruments (I say about because I'm no longer all that good at two of them), and am quite the musically inclined individual overall. Saying music has no basis in mathematics is simply a mild ignorance of music theory.

It's why math prodigies are so often also musical ones

yeah ok, I bet most recognized musical prodigies could not understand much math beyond long division.

Any evidence of this?

In fact, all communication has a linguistic component via semiotics.

you sound very knowledgeable and versed here, I will have to check into it... thanks.

I'd recommend the works of Umberto Eco (his scholarly works, not his novels) and Barthes as an introduction to the subject.

I happen to be majoring in communications...so I've done quite the extensive study.

The attached is a definition I once produced in response to a similar request on the philosophy forum;

A definition of the Christian God

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Music is mathematics.

mkay

so which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

logical and rational foundation of your opening is questionable, the rest not worthy of a read or time consumed.

My God is Jesus Christ that is it.

As for saying atheist do not have a deity; well they do it is their self as they believe they are the ultimate authority in their lives.

Deciding what is right and wrong based upon popular belief and what feels good.

Not believing that what they do releases a spirit upon others that may cause others to do the ill acts against God also.

Some may believe in a spiritually but not that of God's.

Not realizing that we are the only beings able to control all the other organisms and elements on this planet as stated In the Bible thousands of years ago.

Now, I have no problem with people who are saying that they have a deity that's omnipotent and nearly omniscient or omniscient and nearly omnipotent.

When everybody else besides you says "God is omnipotent and omniscient," they mean that the two attributes coexist simultaneously in the same being. Speakers need not further modify their statement, since their words could not possibly mean anything else.

If you prefer to express the same thought differently, then you are welcome to, but nobody need attend to your complaint that they are speaking English.

There is no alternative definition for 'omniscient' aside from 'all knowing' and there is no alternative definition of 'omnipotent' aside from 'all powerful'.

"All knowing" and "all powerful" are expositions of roots, not definitions. Obviously, being "all" powerful does not include the power to create a triangle with four sides and "all" knowing does not include knowing how to compute the area of that four sided triangle.

It is not unusual for noun phrases to mean something conventional, and so have different meanings from the sum of their parts. Whether expressed as a noun phrase (all attributeful) or as a concatenation of roots in another language (omniattributed), the component words will be an unreliable guide to the meaning of the whole phrase.

If you know everything, you already know all of your future actions. If you are able to change those future actions you do not know what they are.

Which does not exclude that I have already chosen the actions, or that all casual factors bearing on my choice have already been determined. I am able to choose jalapeno licorice ice cream instead of chocolate chip. I know that I won't do so, however. I really do know, I really won't change, and I really am able to change at any time during the epsiode.

For someone who knew everything about my beliefs and my preferences, then all my choices might be as clear as that between these two ice cream flavors. There is no necessary contradiction in a being having that kind of knowledge about me. Playing against such an opponent would make tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses) even more boring than it already is, but otherwise would present no impediment to my having a full and exciting career as a free decision maker.

-

reply to post by DISRAELI


That is a surprisingly good start...the problem is you're giving us actions that the deity performs rather than actually giving us some sort of overriding trait.

But it is a good start. Could you build upon this to maybe derive other things about this deity?

reply to post by eight bits


They may very well believe that the two traits exist simultaneously, but those traits are still logically contradictory...unless of course free will isn't considered a portion of 'omnipotence'. Then they might have a point of some sort if they could defend that distinction.