Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Omnipotence and randomness are not mutually exclusive.
...
But random, and even the notion of "event" only makes sense if you have a timeline. The Omnipotent cares about neither, being outside of time, and outside of that multiverse.
...

You don't see how these contradict?  I don't care about what we as humans see.  The pure existence of an omnipotent being would infer that nothing is random.  You can't have random if someone can see what that random will be.  An omnipotent God cannot ignore the outcome of a random to "feel what's it's like" (as you yourself put it) because it would already see the outcome (also as you put it.)

As I've stated before, they simply can't ignore that because (as you've said):

The Omnipotent sees no progress, he sees the entire graph at once

Then that's where you totally go off on a naive thought:

[The Omnipotent] can imagine being on that line and going up or down and not knowing which way it will go at the same time.

And this is where you lose the whole concept of an omnipotent being.  [edit: bad structure]They can't imagine it.  They see it happen.  They've already seen it happen.[/edit]  That's why Free Will (as explained by religion) doesn't and can't exist.  This God already just knows.

A God that is omnipotent has no point in creating us because they would have already seen the outcome.  It would be an exercise in futility.  An omnipotent God would already know what you plan on doing and how it will end.  An omnipotent God has already seen "the end" in every possible combination that we can come up with, both good and bad, ever.

[Smitehappy]

No, it hasn't, and I read it all. Various aspects of belief, religion, the (im)possibilities of omnipotence, validity and ideas, how ideas and beliefs impact your real world behaviour, how you behaviour impacts others and their beliefs, belief in science and how wrong that is (), belief in "nothing" versus belief in general...

I've been in this topic quite a while now and I can assure you there are very few loops.

This thread has been in my "New Replies" since page 20 or so and I assure you, it has in fact repeated itself for the vast majority of it's existence. Hell, me just stating that this thread has repeated itself is this thread repeating itself.

I don't want to see this thread anymore, I pray every night that this thread ends in some horrible accident. I've used live sacrifices in the hopes that it will somehow appease this thread and return it to an eternity of slumber. It needs to die.

You are NEVER going to convince someone adequately confident in their stance with a simple quote box rhetoric. If you can convince someone that easily then they truly never believed it in the first place, they were just latched onto a certain opinion because that's what the wanted to debate at the time. Our opinions are based on our collective experiences in life, the experience of a single argument held on a thread is not powerful to contradict the collective whole. Epiphanies are not normal, it's a slow process to change someones world view. So in short: STOP SCREAMING AT THE WALL, YOU'RE ANNOYING THE NEIGHBORS!

[Siquo]

I don't care about what we as humans see.

Positioning yourself into what an omnipotent being experiences is... hubris, but I'll humour you.

And this is where you lose the whole concept of an omnipotent being.  [edit: bad structure]They can't imagine it.  They see it happen.  They've already seen it happen.[/edit]  That's why Free Will (as explained by religion) doesn't and can't exist.  This God already just knows.

Imagine a random number. Now you already know the number before you register it as a number. Now was that random or not? Now write a program, using only simple arithmatic, to produce random numbers. You wrote the program, there are no external influences, so you should already know what is the outcome, yet you still have to "run" it once to actually "see" the numbers. The program runs almost instantly, your writing was almost instantly, and still you'd have to run it to see it. Even if you only run it in your mind, and if it's all "instant".

And then, to make it more complicated, there are numerous definitions of omnipotence...

Second alternative: To define "omnipotent" as: Can do ANYTHING within our universe. Knows EVERYTHING within our universe. But he's not outside of time in a way that he's able to see the future without fast-forwarding the universe itself.
Example:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Siquo]

You post something then people put a rebutal. Thats the loop.

Yeah, that's how a civil forum works. You could also enter a topic and start insulting people you disagree with, but that's not how I (t)roll, bro. 

You are NEVER going to convince someone adequately confident in their stance with a simple quote box rhetoric. If you can convince someone that easily then they truly never believed it in the first place, they were just latched onto a certain opinion because that's what the wanted to debate at the time. Our opinions are based on our collective experiences in life, the experience of a single argument held on a thread is not powerful to contradict the collective whole. Epiphanies are not normal, it's a slow process to change someones world view.

Who is convincing? I'm not here to "Preach The One True Faith". Really, if a person never allows his beliefs or "stance" to be attacked by keeping them to himself, and never reads about other peoples' beliefs and stances, how will his opinion ever evolve? This thread is part of my experiences in life. Epiphanies are rare, but if you shut yourself out from every opportunity to have them, they will be even rarer.

[MrWiggles]

The comic posted was just a super powerful person, not an all knowing perosn.

[Andir]

The comic posted was just a super powerful person, not an all knowing perosn.

Also, if I were omnipotent, I'd already know the outcome given any random number I put in to my program.

[Andir]

Also, I suppose you believe in the whatever definition fits your argument at this time. 

[MrWiggles]

The comic posted was just a super powerful person, not an all knowing perosn.

Also, if I were omnipotent, I'd already know the outcome given any random number I put in to my program.

He was also capable of making errors which an omnipotent isn't capable of doing.

[Siquo]

MrWiggles: He would know everything about our universe, so for all practical purposes, he'd be omniscient, except for knowing the future. It's not truly infinitely omnipotent/omniscient, but most religions declare that their god isn't. Also see the wiki link to Omnipotence. The guy in the comic was just an example of what an omnipotent God could be.

Andir: You'd still have to "run" it in "your head". At least once, even if it would only take an instant. There is no "already know", because "already" implies time.
And I never said I believed in the second definition, it's just another way of looking at it.

I believe in an omnipotent God, but where exactly that omnipotence ends beyond this universe is unknown to me. Whether he knows the outcome of this universe is unknown to me. They are, however, interesting things to think about. For me, at least. Would logic even apply to someone outside the universe? How "absolute" and infinite is the word "omni"? And even then, is there something beyond infinite?

[Huesoo]

You cant take a word and just change its meaning to fit your agenda.

[Smitehappy]

Siquo look at every one of your posts in this thread. Then compare how many positive response you've gotten and how many negative response you've recieved. Then go farther back into the thread, during the period that I like to call the "Micro era". Notice how Micro had a similar pattern of negative feedback? That is because you are "That one person" in this thread.

 You constantly get everything you say thrown back into your face but can't seem to correlate that with being wrong. You are the man who battled the heliocentric theory, the man who fought Darwin tooth and nail, the man who could show you evidence of Earth being flat, you are the man who cannot accept new data, the man who uses reason only when it suits your argument and disregards it when it doesn't. You change your conclusion to fit your argument and change your meaning when it's original state is no longer tenable. Please, for the sake of my sanity think about this for a day before you post again.

[dreiche2]

Actually, in defence of Siquo, why would omnipotence imply and necessitate omniscience? If an omnipotent being can do anything it wants, why couldn't it choose to ignore certain knowledge?

I'm going along with the discussion here, although I have to say that my opinion is that the concepts of omnipotence etc. are ill-defined. If there is such a being that we would call omnipotent and omniscient, its nature would be beyond our understanding - and thus, btw., the being would be irrelevant to us, hence resulting again in an agnostic/pragmatically atheistic world view.

[Micro102]

Saying there is an omnipotent being that can do anything has no credibility. It's just a basis for endless excuses. Even gods in religion aren't omnipotent.

[MrWiggles]

Saying there is an omnipotent being that can do anything has no credibility. It's just a basis for endless excuses. Even gods in religion aren't omnipotent.

Monotheistic religion godheads are.

[Siquo]

Smite: "wrong is in the eye of the beholder". Every person knows he's right. And yet most of us disagree. Odd, isn't it? The "negative" responses are not negative to me. They teach me, show me what other people think. Also, I'm not THE UEBERCONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS FREAK that you or Huesoo seem to think I am. Perhaps the most theistic person in this topic, but I choose to believe that beyond the aggressive atheists there are a few willing to talk civilly.

Dreiche: In practice, that's what I do, but just saying "Gods ways are mysterious" in this topic was probably going to get me flamed for taking the easy way out of that argument.

Huesoo: Yes, I can. Although you still miscomprehend my agenda. My agenda is understanding. If my previous definition didn't fly, then another might. I'm actually changing my beliefs before your very eyes.

Micro: We already determined that omnipotence has several definitions. Also, what is "anything"? Is he herself even a thing covered by "anything"? There are too few language-constructs to describe omnipotence.

MrWiggles, please read the omnipotence wikipage.

There's a saying we have: "As the tavern-keeper is, so he trusts his guests". There's probably an English version of it as well. It means that people often suspect other people of things they themselves are guilty of. So I will say it again and again: I'm not interested in "winning", in "being right" or gaining the approval of my fellow forumites. I'm only interested in learning, and if someone else learns something in the process, too, well that's a bonus.