In Gods We Trust(?)

[Kaelik]

Unfortunately for you, it is also against forum rules to go on about hot-button issues like religion in an antagonizing manner, unless you want the topic locked. And if you do want the topic locked, then please recuse yourself from the thread. Also, take it to MPSIMS.

Directed at who? Because I wasn't even talking about religion. Funny that you should then talk about a hot button issue after claiming other people shouldn't.

[TavishArtair]

Directed at who?

People in general.

Because I wasn't even talking about religion. Funny that you should then talk about a hot button issue after claiming other people shouldn't.

I felt beholden to point out that the statement in general was pointless flame-bait. My statements weren't particularly intended as an indictment of any philosophical stance, merely a given presentation. If you feel they were, then I will recuse myself from this thread.

[Anguirus]

Not to be a dick here but you speak from exactly what authority on the matter of religion?

The authority that comes from applying critical thinking skills to religious ideas. But if you can prove that a god exists, I'll gladly retract the statement.

The authority that comes from conflating God with religion. Please don't pretend like you know anything about the subject, you clearly don't, read a book and stop acting like an authority.

[Kaelik]

Not to be a dick here but you speak from exactly what authority on the matter of religion?

The authority that comes from applying critical thinking skills to religious ideas. But if you can prove that a god exists, I'll gladly retract the statement.

The authority that comes from conflating God with religion. Please don't pretend like you know anything about the subject, you clearly don't, read a book and stop acting like an authority.

1) You asked him how he has the authority to speak about religion, then you complained that he was speaking about religion? Really?

2) religious ideas, like the idea of god, which is one such religious idea, are subject to critical thinking just like all other ideas. So yes, critical thinking applies to your favorite ideas too.

3) It is not clear that he doesn't know anything about religion and the concept of gods. He has made no statements that would indicate knowledge or lack of knowledge. He's also not acting like an authority, he's acting like someone who knows what is and isn't true, and doesn't bother demonstrating the argument to reach that conclusion, because he assumes it is obvious.

4) Read what book exactly? Reading a book about religion isn't likely to change his mind, since all the good ones do nothing to dissuade atheism, and a lot to dissuade belief. Cause books about religion usually describe modern knowledge of biology/psychology of religion.

[RandomCasualty2]

2) religious ideas, like the idea of god, which is one such religious idea, are subject to critical thinking just like all other ideas. So yes, critical thinking applies to your favorite ideas too.

Yeah, seriously.

I never understood why religious belief should be some sacred thing that's never questioned with critical thinking.

Fuck that shit.

[Username17]

Actually, the Aquinas "God" who has the three omnis is trivially easy to prove as nonexistent. Omnipotence is by itself a comical joke. Can it create a rock it can't lift? If yes, not omnipotent. If no, not omnipotent. It's just stupid. Logical contradiction for the invalidation in one.

Gods which are merely very, or even unimaginably powerful are possible (but extremely unlikely). But a majority of people who talk about "God" in Western countries are talking about an actually omnipotent, omniscient deity. And that does not exist because it can't exist.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Gods which are merely very, or even unimaginably powerful are possible (but extremely unlikely). But a majority of people who talk about "God" in Western countries are talking about an actually omnipotent, omniscient deity. And that does not exist because it can't exist.

Well honestly, I actually think such is possible, you just have to assume that omnipotence exists only within our reality and may not exist outside. It's like a computer AI running a simulation. The computer has omniscience and omnipotence with regards to the programs it happens to be running. It can change any particular variable at its whim and also knows every variable and object that exists within the simulation.

Even if the computer had to take time to process something, it could just pause the simulation until it was done, and as far as the objects within the simulation are concerned, the action took place instantaneously.

So if you imagine the world as the Matrix and God as just the computer running it, then it would all work out.

[Username17]

That wouldn't be omnipotent though. If the editor can make a change to the Matrix that he cannot unmake, then his powers (though vast) have a definable limit. If he can't change the Matrix in a way that he cannot revert, then his powers still have a definable limit.

While powers can be "practically limitless," the claim that they are actually limitless is ridiculous hyperbole. And if it was treated as just ridiculous hyperbole by the followers of Christianity and Islam I would not have a problem with it. But it's not. They take their trivial and ludicrous hyperbole and ask people to actually take it seriously.

And no. I won't take that suggestion seriously, and I won't treat it kindly. It's stupid. And people who believe it should feel stupid.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

That wouldn't be omnipotent though. If the editor can make a change to the Matrix that he cannot unmake, then his powers (though vast) have a definable limit. If he can't change the Matrix in a way that he cannot revert, then his powers still have a definable limit.

But that doesn't even make any sense. If you're omnipotent you can do anything, so the only thing you can't undo is the stuff that you choose not to undo. You can indeed create a change you can't revert, simply because it's a change you choose not to revert, because the only limitation you have as an omnipotent being is choice.

The omnipotence paradox you're using is similar to Xeno's paradox in that you're trying to create an odd wording to a problem that dismisses the obvious. Being omnipotent by definition means you can do anything, so creating something you can't do is impossible by definition. I mean I suppose you should redefine omnipotent as "capable of doing anything except create something that impedes your abilities."

The only real limitation to omnipotence is that you can't have two omnipotent beings controlling the same reality.

[Fuchs]

We do not have to prove the absence of a god - the burden of proof for something is on those who claim it exists.

Though as was said earlier, if there was proof that god existed then there would not be faith anymore.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Actually, the Aquinas "God" who has the three omnis is trivially easy to prove as nonexistent. Omnipotence is by itself a comical joke. Can it create a rock it can't lift? If yes, not omnipotent. If no, not omnipotent. It's just stupid. Logical contradiction for the invalidation in one.

Gods which are merely very, or even unimaginably powerful are possible (but extremely unlikely). But a majority of people who talk about "God" in Western countries are talking about an actually omnipotent, omniscient deity. And that does not exist because it can't exist.

-Username17

If a being is truly omnipotent, then creating something that it can't lift is a logical impossibility on a par with creating a square circle. Omnipotence doesn't permit a being to do things which are logically impossible, so this argument doesn't hold.

[Crissa]

Actually, you can have an omnipotence in abundance as long as there's no omnipresence.

Yes, Frank loves the can you create something you can't lift thing... Which is odd, because we actually know gravity does go to infinity as well as mass. And yet, those infinitely mass objects still appear to move...

-Crissa

[Amra]

Gods don't exist in the "real world", and yet we have religion. Religion is ultimately born from a confluence of wishful thinking, an ignorance of how the natural world works, and our tendency as a species to organize ourselves in a hierarchical fashion. Forget D&D - religion is the original Magical Tea Party.

Needless to say, no one has successfully proved the absence of deity either.

Oo, oo, it's Russell's Teapot all over again! That's one of the most puerile arguments ever offered; "you can't prove that something doesn't exist, therefore it might". Bollocks. If he'd said "winged horses don't exist in the real world either" then nobody would have batted an eyelid, but because he said "gods" it's suddenly a restricted topic.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There's no more evidence for the existence of gods than there is for the existence of winged horses. I feel perfectly comfortable making the statement that neither exists in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The only difference is that nobody will pop out of the woodwork and tell you you should have added "in my opinion" when you say "winged horses don't exist".

And yet, those infinitely mass objects still appear to move...

-Crissa

Um... *What* infinitely massive objects?

[Psychic Robot]

Yes to gods; no to deity-wanking where the gods sort of appear and fuck with things. I am also a firm believer that the afterlife should not be described--it ruins a large part of the cosmology, and it leads to stupidry (which is now a word) like, "Har-har, I rape infants and now I'm going to hell, but it's okay because it's not like bad hell; it's just another hangout hell." Characters who are rezzed either have their minds wiped entirely or have only the vaguest of recollections of what occurred.

If you're in heaven and you return to Earth, you're in hell. If you're in hell and you return to Earth, you're in heaven. Either way, you're going to be so fucked up that you can't realistically roleplay your character, unless you have really shitty versions of heaven and hell.

EDIT: FUCK YEAH, we're getting into one of these debates.

The authority that comes from applying critical thinking skills to religious ideas. But if you can prove that a god exists, I'll gladly retract the statement.

Enjoy your existence wherein morality is an evolutionary construct and there's nothing morally wrong with your neighbor torturing you to death. Take your "critical thinking skills" and apply them to your own beliefs and come to the realization that life isn't made of ones and zeroes.

(This is going to become fun.)

[Draco_Argentum]

Actually, the Aquinas "God" who has the three omnis is trivially easy to prove as nonexistent. Omnipotence is by itself a comical joke. Can it create a rock it can't lift? If yes, not omnipotent. If no, not omnipotent. It's just stupid. Logical contradiction for the invalidation in one.

You're implying that omnipotence must be true at all times. Thats not part of the definition. If an entity is omnipotent at time x then creates an immovable object at time y they are no longer omnipotent. But as long as we talk about t>y they are still omnipotent.

Heres a more general look at the issue. To be omnipotent requires the ability to give up your omnipotence, if you can't give it up your power is limited and you aren't omnipotent. An omnipotent being must be able to create a rock it can't lift by definition.


Now, omnipotence + free will or omnipotence + omnibenevolence + looking out the window are insurmountable contradictions.

[Psychic Robot]

You're implying that omnipotence must be true at all times.

But can the deity maintain his omnipotence while not being omnipotent? Omnipotence itself is just a retarded logical contradiction, but people don't really think of it as such. Then again, an omnipotent deity can exist in a logical paradox because said deity is omnipotent and can fuck with reality in ways that we can't even imagine.

Now, omnipotence + free will or omnipotence + omnibenevolence + looking out the window are insurmountable contradictions.

These are the fun, complicated discussions.

EDIT: I also think that you're thinking of omniscience, not omnipotence.

[Draco_Argentum]

You're implying that omnipotence must be true at all times. Thats not part of the definition.

Or perhaps it is implied by the definition. I'll have to think about this. Fuck I love this forum.

[MartinHarper]

People say "my god is omnipotent" in the same spirit as they say "yeah, well my dad has a squajillion cars" or "in an infinite universe" or "d&d is a game of limitless possibilities". It's hyperbole, not a logically rigorous statement.

In an RPG, there is no practical difference between a god that is unimaginably powerful, a god that is omnipotent at this point in time, a god that is omnipotent within the bounds of logic, and one that is actually omnipotent in a timeless, self-contradictory and logically impossible way. There's no benefit in having omnipotent gods in a game, when you can have the same effect with unimaginably powerful gods, without the dull philosophical arguments.

[Kaelik]

Enjoy your existence wherein morality is an evolutionary construct and there's nothing morally wrong with your neighbor torturing you to death.

And your point is?

Take your "critical thinking skills" and apply them to your own beliefs and come to the realization that life isn't made of ones and zeroes.

Don't know what world you live in, but when I apply critical thinking to my own "beliefs" (aka reality) it seems trivially obvious that life is made of ones and zeroes. Or more precisely, base 4, but the same idea.

[Voss]

Enjoy your existence wherein morality is an evolutionary construct and there's nothing morally wrong with your neighbor torturing you to death. Take your "critical thinking skills" and apply them to your own beliefs and come to the realization that life isn't made of ones and zeroes.

(This is going to become fun.)

Morality isn't an evolutionary construct. That doesn't even make sense. Hard core survivalist-killers don't make morality, and they are the most likely to survive and breed. Societies define morality, because as collections of weak people, they are banding together to make sure the hard core survivalist killers don't fucking murder them. While you could try to claim this is a reaction to evoultion in some way, its stretching the premise quite a bit.

It isn't about religion or evolution. Its a tool to control the stone-cold killers that society needs to protect itself from threats while not letting them prey on the society itself. Psychopaths actually serve a useful purpose for the community, but you pretty much have to keep them in a box when they aren't needed.

And when you get right down to it, there isn't anything morally wrong with your neighbor torturing you to death... unless your society says there is. And there have been plenty who haven't, a quite a few who said, 'Hey, we need to gather up some folk to torture to death.'


Not ones and zeros? No shit. There are a lot more variables to life than that. But taking out "I worship you, oh intangible god' doesn't turn life into that.

[Thymos]

The rock argument is a simpler way of asking if an omnipotent deity can render a contradiction true.

It's a contradiction, so obviously it cannot be true.

Whether omnipotence is possible depends on if you take it to mean all able or all powerful.

If you take it to mean all able, by which I mean able to do anything that's possible, then it's not a problem. If you take it to mean the ability to do anything, including things that aren't possible, then we have a problem.

[MartinHarper]

Hard core survivalist-killers don't make morality, and they are the most likely to survive and breed.

That's not necessarilly true. In many contexts, survivalist killers are sub-optimal from the perspective of evolution. Killing your own species requires energy and carries a significant risk of being killed. Additionally, people within killing distance are more likely to be related in some way, so killing them reduces the spread of those genes that you share with the victim. Additionally, survivalist killers will have a higher proportion of survivalist killer relatives, and thus an increased risk of being killed by survivalist killers. A survivalist approach is also sub-optimal: once a human passes reproductive age, greater gains in spreading their genes can be achieved by nurturing relatives of reproductive age or below. Evolutionary iterated prisoner's dilemma experiments seem to back that up.

Morality certainly comes in part from society and culture, as you say, but there's reasonable evidence that it comes in part from evolution too.

[Username17]

You're implying that omnipotence must be true at all times. Thats not part of the definition.

Or perhaps it is implied by the definition. I'll have to think about this. Fuck I love this forum.

It is implied by the definition. If there was nothing you couldn't do you cold do anything later. The basic self referentiality paradox is insurmountable by the definition of omnipotence. Either you can do something to keep yourself from being able to change something in the future or you can't. There is no third option. And either option is a limit of some kind.

If your omnipotence allows you to bypass all restrictions - including any you are capable of making - then there is at least one thing you can't do: lock yourself out. If on the other hand you can lock yourself out there is at least one thing you can't do: bypass your own lockout.

It's completely open and shut. It's a better argument even than the fact that perfection would require possession of all positive traits, and improvement is a positive trait.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Omnipotence does not have to be defined as continuous through time. Momentary omnipotence can be defined as 'having the ability to do anything at all for a moment'. Choosing to transcend the limitations of that omnipotence is a choice.

Any omnipotent being that experiences time can be be considered to be in a continued state of momentary omnipotence. At any time, the omnipotent being could choose to become a grain of sand, and therefore create a rock that it cannot lift. Creating a rock that it couldn't have lifted is still a logical contradiction...

[Psychic Robot]

Morality isn't an evolutionary construct. That doesn't even make sense.

I see your statement and raise you a wiki article.

Don't know what world you live in, but when I apply critical thinking to my own "beliefs" (aka reality) it seems trivially obvious that life is made of ones and zeroes. Or more precisely, base 4, but the same idea.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's not worth it.