I wouldn't use the term "bad" to explain it, but there is an obvious contradiction if omnipotence is used to remove omnipotence thus establishing the reality that the being doesn't truly have omnipotence...In other words, the greatest power is to create, destruction is a lesser power, creating can go on indefinitely but there are only so many things you can destroy--it is no surprise here that in Christianity, the Devil who opposes God strives to destroy all things... — Derrick Huestis
Surely if a being is omnipresent, then it must be both inside and outside of the perceiver, and the perceiver should be able to feel what is inside the perceiver, if unable to see the omnipresent hidden inside the perceiver, and surely what is outside of the perceiver must be seen and perceived? — Corvus
This is what happens when you take statements from here and there at random, disconnecting them from their context. This statement refers to a pun I made. There are no arguments or beliefs involved here! :smile:It says that God is not interfering with human affairs.
— Alkis Piskas
What is this "it" and and what are the arguments for it? Or is it just a statement of your beliefs. — Derrick Huestis
I personally see the word omniscience as a tricky word, and there is a reason this has been used as a way to attack the concept of "God." .....
I then study this opposite version and hold my head high at my "knowledge." But you, who realise it is just the opposite of what you were lecturing on, say "it isn't knowledge." I reply, "you think knowing bad things is knowledge, and this is a bad thing, therefore by your own definition I have knowledge!" — Derrick Huestis
The Great Scientist Deity sits back in his plush chair to watch this long great adventure movie or soap opera that He's never seen before… — PoeticUniverse
And does he also sends texts using his mobile phone, and watching TVs, drinking beer, while reading his comic books and mags, while taking a break from playing the online games? :rofl: — Corvus
Have no fear though, for He's not at all like his portrayal in the Old Testament. — PoeticUniverse
So what is the purpose of his existence? — Corvus
We'd first have to show Him to be, and then identify His nature, and then get at His purpose, although He appears to be an unnecessary step to posit in the first place, for Existence has to be. and that's that, end of story, not needing anything extra. — PoeticUniverse
spiritual — Corvus
Can there be a distinct and separate intangible category such as called 'spiritual' which cannot walk the walk and talk the talk of the materiel? If so, it can't interact with us and so it just goes along its separate and merry way.
Anyway, there’s no big wondering required for where things came from. Existence isn’t optional; it is mandatory because ‘nonexistence’ cannot be, much less be productive. — PoeticUniverse
There is no ‘coming from’ for what is eternal. — PoeticUniverse
Every existence is optional and contingent. — Corvus
Trying to assert an invisible, inaudible, untouchable, and un-perceivable object as some existence is irrational. — Corvus
The follow-up question: What does nonexistence mean/refer to?
It means/refers to,
3. The state of not being part of the mental world. Nonexistence is about non-things.
OR/AND
4. The state of not being part of the physical world. Nonexistence is about non-things. — TheMadFool
But just sitting in a room when the time is still ticking on, eternity and infinity must not be used as if it is something that one owns like a table or chairs. Plainly doing so is just plainly illogical. — Corvus
Surely omnipotence means it can do both good and also bad too, but if the omniptencer is a divine being, then it would not do bad. That is just a logic from the definitions. However divine being seems also denying / restricting the definition of omnipotence. It follows that omnipotence and divinity seem clashing / restricting properties of each other. — Corvus
You are obsessed with "beliefs" and you don't realize that you are also presenting your beliefs, even if in an indirect, covert way, like "Or is it just a statement of your beliefs" — Alkis Piskas
I think your point is good (that non-existence is not even describable with grammatics is a bad sign for it to be a real concept). We use a similar argument as part of the video we want to make. I now foresee similar opposition. But remember that it is a youtube video. They want it to have the quality of a university lecture but that will make it so complicated too that no one on youtube will watch it. — FalseIdentity
And then we have to explain how a Mind could be First, instead of evolving later on, since that is the reverse of the process we see in the history of the universe. — PoeticUniverse
Here you get it wrong, the universe is in every way like a magnificent mind, performing many trillions upon trillions of calculations instantaneously without flaw. "Conservation of energy" is possible because the universe never makes an error in its calculations. What is tricky to explain isn't how a Mind could be first, but how the First Mind could create many minds much like it but so much smaller (and unfortunately sizably more inclined to error as well). — Derrick Huestis
Conservation of energy — Derrick Huestis
Calling something "silly" instead of explaining why it is not true, is not a responsible attitude and certainly it does not behove this place. You should just explain why your saying "Or is it just a statement of your beliefs" is not actually a belief of yours. If you can't, you can simply admit it. Or just ignore it. Anyway, that would be much better than producing a "demonstration" that is totally incongruous with my point.demonstrate how silly this sounds — Derrick Huestis
Calling something "silly" instead of explaining why it is not true, is not a responsible attitude and certainly it does not behove this place. — Alkis Piskas
The temporaries come and go; the Fundamental Existence of the quantum fields remains. — PoeticUniverse
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.