Print

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

[Micro102]

You would also expect one to be able to flip a coin and have unlimited results 

[Neruz]

Unlimited results and unlimited knowledge cancel each other out; you still know what is going to happen.

[Areyar]

Unlimited results and unlimited knowledge cancel each other out; you still know what is going to happen.

Yesss...ALL of it is going to happen.

[Micro102]

But I can also make it so I can't tell whats going to happen. o_O

[Areyar]

Allrite. So tell us when Toady is releasing.
If you don't want to repeat being hung on a cross you better deliver!

[Jackrabbit]

In God's named you better deli - hm. Well played.

[Micro102]

I cannot because Toady transcends even me

[Bauglir]

Unlimited results and unlimited knowledge cancel each other out; you still know what is going to happen.

I actually meant that I expected an omniscient deity to know what the difference between a die and a coin was, but he raises an excellent point about omniPOTENT deities.

[MrWiggles]

But I can also make it so I can't tell whats going to happen. o_O

Once there an event you aren't aware of you are no longer omnipresent, just merely fucking noisy.

[chaoticag]

Ah ok, sorry for misinterpreting that.

Do you mind telling me which logical fallacy that is?

It is what most people call jumping to conclusions, really. More a thing of wisdom than intelligence, but it is there. In general, jumping to conclusions tends to be false, especially when the formed conclusion cannot be tested at the time. No matter how well it explains the world.

[RAM]

This has been said a 100 times in this thread already but I'll try again.

Lack of proof does not = the lack of a thing.  that's a logical fallacy.  evidence simply does not exist in one way or another to disprove or prve that statement.

And it's also logically fallacious to consider something true despite a lack of evidence.

No, no, no it's not. That's called a premise. Otherwise nothing would be true and logic would really be useless.

Lack of proof does actually = lack of thing(or at least lack of any relevance). It is just a matter of whether or not you actually have access to any of that proof. If you can prove that proof should exist and then prove that it doesn't then that proves that either the thing does not exist or you made a mistake with your proofs... Yes, we assume things, but we assume them based upon their reliability, if a child always sees the ground beneath their feet, they assume that it is there, we may not be able to prove that the assumption is accurate, but we can prove that it is rational. The things we believe in are not just chosen at random, the are defendable, gods however, are chosen at random, they could be given any name, any nature(with the possible exception of human benevolence...), and a massive array of capabilities. For all we know, god could be one of you, deciding to be completely human for a change, rendered completely ignorant of its nature, living out its life. If you were god, what would that say about your religion?

[MrWiggles]

But I can also make it so I can't tell whats going to happen. o_O

Once there an event you aren't aware of you are no longer omnipresent, just merely fucking noisy.

And you wouldn't also be omisapient either. Its an all or nothing for the definition.

This is also why there are paradoxes with omi-whatever.

[kuro_suna]

I'm thinking that being all knowing is impossible.

For a example think of a computer program like dwarf fort that relies on pseudo(not true) random seeding with a emergent system of components. Even with a know starting state and a completely deterministic path it not likely you could predict its final state short of running it on a more powerful computer first that sort of defeats the purposes and making sure to never interact with it after its started.

[Neruz]

But I can also make it so I can't tell whats going to happen. o_O

Once there an event you aren't aware of you are no longer omnipresent, just merely fucking noisy.

And you wouldn't also be omisapient either. Its an all or nothing for the definition.

This is also why there are paradoxes with omi-whatever.

It just depends on if your power is more infinite than your knowledge, or visa versa.

[Siquo]

This has been said a 100 times in this thread already but I'll try again.

Lack of proof does not = the lack of a thing.  that's a logical fallacy.  evidence simply does not exist in one way or another to disprove or prve that statement.

And it's also logically fallacious to consider something true despite a lack of evidence.

No, no, no it's not. That's called a premise. Otherwise nothing would be true and logic would really be useless.

Lack of proof does actually = lack of thing(or at least lack of any relevance)

Now you're doing the same thing as G-Flex: confusing logic with empiricism and reality. Logic has NOTHING to do with reality. That's the fun thing about it. The concept of "Relevance" is totally irrelevant to logic itself. I totally agree with what you both say, except that it's a logical fallacy, because it isn't.

Andir raises a point that's often used: "If your God allows suffering, he must be evil and not love you."

I let the person I love the most, suffer on a daily basis, because I love her. My daughter wants cookies. All day long, every day, if it were up to her. Because I love her and know the consequences of that diet, I refuse to give them to her. Which makes my daughter sad. So now I inflicted suffering on her, even though I love her.
Also compare the temporality of life to an infinity of time in heaven. That's less than the blink of an eye worth of suffering. That should be bearable. Yes, God allowed the holocaust to happen, and he's not evil for it.