26-08-2002 06:04									#31
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen Find me the square root of negative 2, then I'll answer, LOL! Its the same thing.

the square root of negative two isnt a possible number

thus a being who can create the impossible isnt a possible being

	26-08-2002 06:04									#32
	Support Apolyton

In the spirit of DinoDoc's post:

Prove to me that I exist.

	26-08-2002 06:04									#33
	Put an end to popups!

Ninot, there are several answers to your question.

http://www.courses.rochester.edu/wi...L111/omnip.html says

quote: (D3) S is omnipotent =df S can do any action A such that it's logically possible that S do A authoring a book whose sole author is Bertrand Russell is a possible action, but it's not logically possible that God do it. According to (D3), then, God doesn't have to be able to do it in order to be omnipotent. ...God's inability to do something logically impossible for him to do does not count against his omnipotence.

Also, http://clublet.com/c/c/why?GodParadox says

quote: Paul Tillich's related observation was that if God is a being (an "it") then, by construction, there exists something that is not-God and therefore demonstrates that God is not omnipresent

	26-08-2002 06:05									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie If God were real he'd be able to tell us what the square root of negative two is.

There is no square root of negative 2, it is not a real concept, it is something which can only be expressed because our system of numbers blows .

	26-08-2002 06:06									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boshko you can't prove a negative, but in the adsence of credible proof for its existance atheism is the default position

I'd consider agnosticism to be the default position.

	26-08-2002 06:08									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

God wouldn't give up so easily. WWJD?

	26-08-2002 06:10									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ninot the square root of negative two isnt a possible number thus a being who can create the impossible isnt a possible being

So by your logic, we dont exist, because our mathematical system allows for unreal concepts?

Did you just poof out of existance? No?

*resist the urge to makes a bablefish/god refence in the hithickers guide to the galaxy*

	26-08-2002 06:10									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen There is no square root of negative 2, it is not a real concept, it is something which can only be expressed because our system of numbers blows .

you fail to explain how our system of numbers could be improved.
and, simmilarly, as no one will step up and say how to solve the square of -2 problem without high doubt, it is also true that no one will step up and explain the definate presence of an ominpotent power.

	26-08-2002 06:11									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I wonder if God wonders if there is a higher being?

	26-08-2002 06:12									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie I wonder if God wonders if there is a higher being?

if he were omnipotent, he should know

	26-08-2002 06:14									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's omniscient.

	26-08-2002 06:14									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

if one were omnipotent, they would naturally have the power to be or become omniscient.

	26-08-2002 06:15									#43
	Get a bigger avatar today!

But perhaps not the desire.

	26-08-2002 06:16									#44
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by JohnIII But perhaps not the desire.

touché

	26-08-2002 06:17									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: I'd consider agnosticism to be the default position.

No, not really. If you have absolutely no proof that pink unicorns live in the center of mars in big shiny caves then it doesn't make much sense to be a fence-sitter about their existance which is what agnosticism entails (although the term is annoyingly imprecise), sure you don't KNOW that they don't exist but since there's absolutely no reason to think that they do then there's no reason not to treat them provisionally as if they don't exist until evidence comes into light, especially since treating every possibility that even remotely possible would be enough to drive you nuts

As for all the people that are getting all existential with questions like "prove to me that I exist" and whatnot that doesn't get you much of anywhere. There's no 100% proof for anything (unless you have a set of axioms to base things on). So the same sort of deal happens as with the pink unicorns, sure its POSSIBLE that everything we see is an illusion and the real world is just like in The Matrix but we have no evidence whatsoever that the world that our senses percieve is illusionary and plenty of evidence that indicates the opossite (just try walking into a door and seeing how illusory it is) so it makes more sense to treat the reality of what our senses percieve as true at least provionally especially since it makes it a lot easier it get out the door, and being outside doing things tends to be a lot more fun than sitting in your room pondering metaphysics.

I urge you all to read Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, its a hard read and his epistomology is a little shaky but as far as I can see the way he lays out empiricist metaphysics is great and will help correct a lot of confusion I'm seeing on this thread

	26-08-2002 06:22									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen So by your logic, we dont exist, because our mathematical system allows for unreal concepts? Did you just poof out of existance? No? *resist the urge to makes a bablefish/god refence in the hithickers guide to the galaxy*

did i say we dont exist?
noooo
did i use logic that might say that? maybe
but did i say it? nooooo

	26-08-2002 06:22									#47
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: If you have absolutely no proof that pink unicorns live in the center of mars in big shiny caves

You conveniently left out 'have absolutely no proof that they don't'.

quote: sure you don't KNOW that they don't exist but since there's absolutely no reason to think that they do

But there is reason to think a God exists. Millions of people find it so.

quote: especially since treating every possibility that even remotely possible would be enough to drive you nuts

Not, and this is the important bit, if you accept that you don't know and move on.

	26-08-2002 06:28									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

My hat's off to Hume. I like Dewey too, but he's got such a huge bug up his ass that it's difficult to read him. At least Hume has the common decency not to take himself seriously.

As for the original question, you're making an unreasonable request--there is no objective and perfect decision process for verifying or refuting any given metaphysical claim, so it is therefore unreasonable for you to ask for proof of a claim that cannot be proven or disproven. In other words, it is impossible to objectively prove or disprove the existence of god, therefore it isn't worth troubling oneself over (since metaphysics have absolutely no discernible bearing on our existence).

	26-08-2002 06:55									#49
	Tired of ads?

This is a somewhat classical proof of the inexistence of an all-powerful being, which in this case we could call "god".
Letīs suppose that there exists an all-powerful being. Then, it is able to do absolutely everything, right? Well, then it is able to create stones.
Could it be able to create a stone that he couldnīt lift?
-If the answer is "yes", then there exists a stone that it canīt lift, therefore there are things it canīt do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.
-If the answer is "no", then he is not able to create that stone, therefore there are things it canīt do. In conclusion, he is not all-powerful.

Both ways conduct us to the inexistence of this all-powerful being.

Of course, I think of this more like a mathematical game rather than something more "serious". Some people would argue that itīs existence is bases in the idea of "fate" rather than "logic". I cannot say a thing in this aspect, just wanted to participate with this little game.

	26-08-2002 06:58									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

alofatti, had you read the thread you may have noted that this has already been brought up. Thank you.

	26-08-2002 07:13									#51
	Put an end to popups!

yes, the second paragraph but not the first. I thought it is, in a certain way, interesting.

	26-08-2002 07:15									#52
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The first paragraph has also been brought up, only with an uneatable pepper instead of an unliftable rock.

	26-08-2002 07:18									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Oh, my mistake. Yes, Ninot bring it here. Sorry!

	26-08-2002 07:29									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

do the what now?

	26-08-2002 07:35									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: You conveniently left out 'have absolutely no proof that they don't'.

You can't prove a negative.

quote: But there is reason to think a God exists. Millions of people find it so.

Human psychology is a strange and wonderful thing, but that people believe X is, in and of itself, no proof whatsoever that X is true.

quote: Not, and this is the important bit, if you accept that you don't know and move on.

Right, I don't know anything at all for sure and I do move all. However there are a great number of varying degrees of confidence in a proposition between absolute certainly and absolute denial, something that often gets lost in these kind of debates. For example I'm 99% percent sure that my hands are typing on my keyboard right now and 99% percent sure that I am not now wearing roller skates. Sure I don't know for sure about either of them but does it make sense to treat them both equally as things I don't know? Not at all, that would not only be horribly irrational but would make my life a good bit more difficult.

	26-08-2002 08:14									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The question of the existence of God cannot be resolved by rational thought.

	26-08-2002 08:18									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

alofatti: "Oh, my mistake. Yes, Ninot bring it here. Sorry!"
Ninot: "do the what now?"

No, donīt do anything! I was just confirming with JohnIII that you were the one who brought the subject of the uneatable pepper.

	26-08-2002 08:37									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The theory of cause and effect.
The universe has a beginning.

Those two, taken together are probably the best proof we have that (a) God exists.

	26-08-2002 09:28									#59
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns The theory of cause and effect. The universe has a beginning. Those two, taken together are probably the best proof we have that (a) God exists.

Which leads to the question, "then what created God." Usually the response is "the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to God," but then one needs to answer the question, "why does the theory of cause and effect necessarily apply to the origins of the universe yet not apply to God, wouldn't it be much simpler to assume that the theory of cause and effect doesn't apply to the origins of the universe rather than add a seemingly unnecessary and arbitrary layer to the problem of origins." Why have a divine first cause at all? Or, why stop at just one (or two or three etc.) layer(s) of divinity?

	26-08-2002 09:42									#60
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Its worth noting that the theory of cause and effect has not been proven yet, either.