MacDaddy01:

sophistry.

Abeg, God as a concept is described by its nature. Dont try and brainwash me. I am not one of the christian sheep!

Brainwash you? Lol. Looks like one part of your brain just tried to think. Congratulations! You might actually end up having half a per cent of your brain wake up.

As to God being a concept, dude, you really need to use your head. Your position as an atheist is that God does not exist. And you have fought severally all candidates proposed for that position. Now, I have decided to simply deal with this holistically, without proposing or defending any religion's claim or any philosophical persuasion. I am dealing with the question directly and without sentiment. Do you dare do the same?

If you do, then you will face the concept of God. When we have exhausted your objections to the concept, we will attend to its identity and character.

It means that the physical makes the physical. Nature creates natural things. Whatever caused the universe is natural and physical not a spiritual entity. The cause of the universe is part of a caused universe.

Ok. You are saying in other words that the effect must be the same (right?) as the cause. I'm going to agree hypothetically with you and follow that thought through to its end.

If anything caused the universe, it must be part of the universe itself. This essentially means that the universe caused itself. This renders the universe uncaused. It also means that the meaning of existence is the universe itself and that the universe is eternal. In other words, the universe is God.

By that argument, atheism is absurd and thus an untenable philosophical position.

But god didnt. That is an assumption on your part. I cant start an argument with god when there is no evidence of him or her or it or sheit.


Existing outside time would make God non existent.

God is, by definition, eternal, that is, without beginning and end. As such, God is not subject to time. Therefore if time exists, it necessarily does so as a creation of God's. And by your argument in (2) above, God exists. If he/it/she/sheit does, then it is absurd to subject him/it/her/sheit to time. The argument does not follow.

MacDaddy01:


So God isnt sentient? Lmao.


You need Anony to lecture you on your sophistry, you are lacking

We aren't discussing sentience and all that anymore, dude. It keeps us running round in circles. Now we are simply going to treat the existence of something, anything, whatever it may be, called God. When we have exhausted arguments for or against its existence, depending on the outcome, we can try to define and establish the character of said "thing" called God.

wiegraf:

No


































Am I supposed to say/add something else to my answer?

If after that pause, you still couldn't figure out what was wrong with your answer, we have us a big problem.

You cannot define the universe as "just is" which phrase means "self-existent" or "self-existing" both of which connote eternity and absolute reality and still not hold that the universe is not God. That is contradictory and renders your position questionable.

Femmymata2: I've been enlightened and entertained by post from theist and atheist. The humour,witty and intelligent remarks are second to none.

Stick around. It might just get interesting right about now.

Ihedinobi:

If after that pause, you still couldn't figure out what was wrong with your answer, we have us a big problem.

You cannot define the universe as "just is" which phrase means "self-existent" or "self-existing" both of which connote eternity and absolute reality and still not hold that the universe is not God. That is contradictory and renders your position questionable.

Don't you think you should be describing god first? You don't speak of the personal one, do you?

wiegraf:

Don't you think you should be describing god first? You don't speak of the personal one, do you?

lol...... Why? Don't you know what God is? God is that thing, whatever or whoever it is, that self-exists. That's so that you don't get it twisted.

Ihedinobi:

lol...... Why? Don't you know what God is? God is that thing, whatever or whoever it is, that self-exists. That's so that you don't get it twisted.

I've not agreed to there being a self existent item... I do not know
Your definition of god is far too vague. If I were going to accept some self-existent object(s) existed, I'd go with energy, or some by product of numbers. I wouldn't call these sentient, or god, at all. If you want to equate what is essentially energy to god, that's fine, but that is an radically different concept to the personal god I assume you are pushing. It would be misleading to interchange the words.

wiegraf:

That's besides the main point, which is that so long as everything is coded right, there is no way even the architect could tell if the real world was a simulation itself (and indeed it could have been one as agent smith shows up in a human's body in that world, and neo's had abilities in it as well). What he doesn't know he doesn't know, simple.

On another note he could monitor, project and predict neo's thoughts despite neo not being connected into his program as a battery, yet he could not locate rogue elements
in the matrix, displaying limits of his apparent omniscience. He also had problems with infinities. But how/why both these problems occurred were not fully divulged, so while nice to consider, they are moot to this discussion.

The architect in the matrix was not omniscient. God by definition is the ultimate reality. God is the first number in the sequence. Once you ponder over something before that number, then you are you are no longer talking about the first number. You have only succeeded in pushing the sequence back a step. This is what Ihedinobi is pointing at to you guys as God the concept. If you cannot agree that a first cause must exist, then you fall into the loop of infinite regress.

It was supposed to be illogical, hence the think of it as my IPU. Uncaused cause entails infinity, a ridiculous notion in any physical universe, why can't Pikkiwoki have some logic defying traits as well. Anyways, why can't there be multiple uncaused causes? Also note that their effects would have lasted for eternity as well. Pikkiwoki is all of the above.

An uncaused cause is simply a first cause. It is perfectly logical that a first cause must exist. If you say Pikkiwoki is before the first cause, all you have done is push the sequence back a step. You have only succeeded in defining God as Pikkiwoki

We are talking omniscience as our main meat here, not uncaused causingness. Observer and observed, so when our omniscient starts observing himself, he falls into an infinite loop, else he really isn't omniscient. I've mentioned this before but you probably didn't grasp it...

If you can grasp what it means to be first cause, then omniscience wouldn't be hard for you to grasp.


This is what Ihedinobi points out to you. When you describe the universe as "just is", you are essentially saying that the universe has no cause. Therefore you have defined the universe as first cause and made it God.

Ihedinobi:
YEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!!!!!!!!! Now that's what I'm talkin bout @bolded. Anyways, I'm in that loop for sure. Ears on the ground, bro.

Lol, thank God oh! In the fullness of time, you shall hear the bells ringing! By the way, see as una just dey discuss my mata for public eh?

wiegraf:
Anony is a robot, I wouldn't be too excited. He'll probably ignore her emotions, use his famous 'logic' and drive her insane. He won't mean any harm of course

MacDaddy01:
I've met Anony in real life. The guy is a sharp guy. He acts all christian outside but he knows the koko!

Lol, I think you have a stereotype of what a christian is supposed to be implanted in your brains. Thank God I don't fit that stereotype

I'm not sure what you are on about here, we are discussing omniscience, first cause just somehow slipped in

Mr_Anony:
This is what Ihedinobi points out to you. When you describe the universe as "just is", you are essentially saying that the universe has no cause. Therefore you have defined the universe as first cause and made it God.

That quote is in response to a question about purpose, from another discussion. In that context when I say 'just is', I mean 'the universe does not have a purpose, it just exists'. Has nothing to do with how it came to exist

Mr_Anony:
The architect in the matrix was not omniscient. God by definition is the ultimate reality. God is the first number in the sequence. Once you ponder over something before that number, then you are you are no longer talking about the first number. You have only succeeded in pushing the sequence back a step. This is what Ihedinobi is pointing at to you guys as God the concept. If you cannot agree that a first cause must exist, then you fall into the loop of infinite regress.

I'm not discussing first cause, again.
With regards to omniscience, matrix architect probably was as omniscient as possible. I'll get back to that.

Mr_Anony:
An uncaused cause is simply a first cause. It is perfectly logical that a first cause must exist. If you say Pikkiwoki is before the first cause, all you have done is push the sequence back a step. You have only succeeded in defining God as Pikkiwoki

And again...
Also, I don't think it's perfectly logical that a first cause MUST exist. And why can't there be multiple Pikiwokki's? That's another discussion though

Mr_Anony:
If you can grasp what it means to be first cause, then omniscience wouldn't be hard for you to grasp.

Anyways, from the top
God cannot verify he knows everything, so I could only accept his claims on faith

Situations like him observing himself lead to a an infinity.
1- omnis eats a sandwich
2- he decides to ponders on how good the sandwich is
3- if he is really omniscient, he will also need to know what he thought about his pondering in 2
4- he will need to know what he thought about 3
5- he will need to know what he thought about 4
.......
The only way to escape this is if at some point he forfeits knowing something. That's not very omniscient.


Primarily though, so long as he can create new information, he isn't omniscient. That should be obvious, as it's NEW information. It can escape this by voiding its free will, and if it's omnipotent that as well.

With that in mind, considering the architect, he can make myriad postulations as evidenced from his discussion with neo, and fairly accurately predict actions of others (predictions will be hampered though by quantum uncertainty and chaos systems in his case). But the architect has free will, and he is part of the system. Since he can make new information, read info he cannot know due to his ability to spontaneously change his mind, he cannot know the consequences of his actions until after he's made them. Thus limiting his omniscience, his ability to predict the future of the matrix. So you could argue he's as omniscient as is possible once he's in the matrix.

Brah, there are always things an omniscient cannot know


And your frustrating your waifu won't be about being xtian, it would be about you obliviously using your infamous logic time and again when all she'll want is some loving
For instance, can you look her in the eye and tell her "I love you"? You just shivered, didn't you? Better yet, "sugar in my tea", "darling", "in ba ke, se rigiya" etc etc

wiegraf:

I've not agreed to there being a self existent item... I do not know
Your definition of god is far too vague. If I were going to accept some self-existent object(s) existed, I'd go with energy, or some by product of numbers. I wouldn't call these sentient, or god, at all. If you want to equate what is essentially energy to god, that's fine, but that is an radically different concept to the personal god I assume you are pushing. It would be misleading to interchange the words.

Nothing vague about self-existence, dude. And I couldn't care less what you decide to go with: once you render any thing or idea uncaused and self-sufficient in any way, you have named it God. Mr Anony already explained that to you.

wiegraf: That quote is in response to a question about purpose, from another discussion. In that context when I say 'just is', I mean 'the universe does not have a purpose, it just exists'. Has nothing to do with how it came to exist

Ok then, let's talk purpose. What is purpose? Do you agree that asking why is the same as enquiring after a cause? You should unless you want to teach us linguistics. If you say that the universe just exists insubordinate to any reason or purpose, you have rendered it uncaused and therefore God.

Thus, your atheism is necessarily a lie.

I'm not discussing first cause, again.
With regards to omniscience, matrix architect probably was as omniscient as possible. I'll get back to that.


And again...
Also, I don't think it's perfectly logical that a first cause MUST exist. And why can't there be multiple Pikiwokki's? That's another discussion though

Because a first cause is arbitrary. If there are multiple Pikkiwokis, they must necessarily be in perfect agreement or else nothing else would exist.

Anyways, from the top
God cannot verify he knows everything, so I could only accept his claims on faith

Why would he need to observe himself?

Situations like him observing himself lead to a an infinity.
1- omnis eats a sandwich
2- he decides to ponders on how good the sandwich is
3- if he is really omniscient, he will also need to know what he thought about his pondering in 2
4- he will need to know what he thought about 3
5- he will need to know what he thought about 4
.......
The only way to escape this is if at some point he forfeits knowing something. That's not very omniscient.

Omniscience means that the omniscient already knows how good the sandwich is and therefore has no need to ponder about it.

Primarily though, so long as he can create new information, he isn't omniscient. That should be obvious, as it's NEW information. It can escape this by voiding its free will, and if it's omnipotent that as well.

What is "new information"?

With that in mind, considering the architect, he can make myriad postulations as evidenced from his discussion with neo, and fairly accurately predict actions of others (predictions will be hampered though by quantum uncertainty and chaos systems in his case). But the architect has free will, and he is part of the system. Since he can make new information, read info he cannot know due to his ability to spontaneously change his mind, he cannot know the consequences of his actions until after he's made them. Thus limiting his omniscience, his ability to predict the future of the matrix. So you could argue he's as omniscient as is possible once he's in the matrix.

If there's a "cannot know" description or a "changes his mind", you're no longer speaking of omniscience.

Brah, there are always things an omniscient cannot know

Like what? And why do you use "cannot"? Isn't knowledge a "does" or "does not" know affair?

And your frustrating your waifu won't be about being xtian, it would be about you obliviously using your infamous logic time and again when all she'll want is some loving
For instance, can you look her in the eye and tell her "I love you"? You just shivered, didn't you? Better yet, "sugar in my tea", "darling", "in ba ke, se rigiya" etc etc

Whatcha talking? My heart's still in pieces from being separated from my own princess. Why should Anony be any different?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, thank God oh! In the fullness of time, you shall hear the bells ringing! By the way, see as una just dey discuss my mata for public eh?

I no follow o.

Lol, I think you have a stereotype of what a christian is supposed to be implanted in your brains. Thank God I don't fit that stereotype

Exactly what I told wiegraf on another thread. When they're done describing Christianity, I find it hard to say that I'm a Christian. Chei, wetin Christians don see for these atheist dia hand o.

Ihedinobi:

Ok then, let's talk purpose. What is purpose? Do you agree that asking why is the same as enquiring after a cause? You should unless you want to teach us linguistics. If you say that the universe just exists insubordinate to any reason or purpose, you have rendered it uncaused and therefore God.

Thus, your atheism is necessarily a lie.

And you think I will attempt verbal gymnastics?
Inquiring what about the cause ? How, what, when, etc. Not necessarily why. So
inquiring about what?
It could have reason, natural physical laws, not what I suspect you're thinking about. It does not have a purpose, just like the sun doesn't have one when in shining (you could fly up and ask it if for yourself if you wish). There are no goals to achieve. If there are any, kindly illustrate them, as you are the one making the needless claim.

Ihedinobi:
Because a first cause is arbitrary. If there are multiple Pikkiwokis, they must necessarily be in perfect agreement or else nothing else would exist.

Why, oh why, do you say that? How do you know that? Let one god in, let the others in as well

Ihedinobi:
Why would he need to observe himself?

And how does that matter? All that matters is that he can't know some things, thus not omniscient. I'm not versed in math, but I would guess it could be extended to the many infinities. Does he know all the multiples of 2?

Ihedinobi:
Omniscience means that the omniscient already knows how good the sandwich is and therefore has no need to ponder about it.

Again, whether he needs to or not does not matter. This is a cheap attempt to escape having to admit he cannot escape the problem.

Ihedinobi:
What is "new information"?

Free will, the ability to make a spontaneous choice, a new thought. Can god make a new thought? If he can, then it's new, he didn't know it before he made it, therefore he wasn't omniscient. If he can't make a new thought then he has no free will. He cannot change his mind, he's just going through pre-programmed motions without the ability to change them. If you claim he's omnipotent then that is void as well.

Ihedinobi:
If there's a "cannot know" description or a "changes his mind", you're no longer speaking of omniscience.

And you are also voiding his free will

Ihedinobi:
Like what? And why do you use "cannot"? Isn't knowledge a "does" or "does not" know affair?

Like things he does not know.

Ihedinobi:
Whatcha talking? My heart's still in pieces from being separated from my own princess. Why should Anony be any different?

You're different beasts despite looking similar on the surface. You're sensitive (run off for days when you receive a proper beating, show up intermittently to whine, plus imaginary friends), anony is a slave to logic. Might seem pliable on the outside but will have unemotional, cold logic on the inside. Like a vulcan. Except he's not so good with logic.

[s]Put succinctly, your post made no logical sense in its entirety.[/s]

wiegraf:

And you think I will attempt verbal gymnastics?
Inquiring what about the cause ? How, what, when, etc. Not necessarily why. So
inquiring about what?
It could have reason, natural physical laws, not what I suspect you're thinking about. It does not have a purpose, just like the sun doesn't have one when in shining (you could fly up and ask it if for yourself if you wish). There are no goals to achieve. If there are any, kindly illustrate them, as you are the one making the needless claim.

Let's use your example, shall we? The sun has no reason for shining. Why is there life at all on earth? Answer that in relation to the availability of the sun's energy, if you please.

Also, what claims do you say that I have made?

Why, oh why, do you say that? How do you know that? Let one god in, let the others in as well

Whatever you say, but if two or more ultimates exist, no ultimate exists. There must be one alone for anything to exist.

And how does that matter? All that matters is that he can't know some things, thus not omniscient. I'm not versed in math, but I would guess it could be extended to the many infinities. Does he know all the multiples of 2?

What things "can't" he know? If God is omniscient, his knowledge is infinite, therefore there is nothing that exists, has existed or will exist that he does not know.

Again, whether he needs to or not does not matter. This is a cheap attempt to escape having to admit he cannot escape the problem.

Of course, it does. Do you need to eat if you are full? If God already knows something, why would he ponder it? Is pondering not onto more perfect knowledge? If God already possesses perfect knowledge, why would he ponder to perfect his knowledge?

Free will, the ability to make a spontaneous choice, a new thought. Can god make a new thought? If he can, then it's new, he didn't know it before he made it, therefore he wasn't omniscient. If he can't make a new thought then he has no free will. He cannot change his mind, he's just going through pre-programmed motions without the ability to change them. If you claim he's omnipotent then that is void as well.

What is a "new thought"?

And you are also voiding his free will

Am I.

Like things he does not know.

Including . . .

You're different beasts despite looking similar on the surface. You're sensitive (run off for days when you receive a proper beating, show up intermittently to whine, plus imaginary friends), anony is a slave to logic. Might seem pliable on the outside but will have unemotional, cold logic on the inside. Like a vulcan. Except he's not so good with logic.

One of you is yet to give me a proper beating. I, of course, did not have the patience to teach you guys to think so when you got extremely illogical, I got pissed off and left you to your nonsense. But I figure that it's smarter to just help you guys finish every thought you start so that its absurdity becomes absolutely crystal.

Anony is no more a slave to logic than I am. He's just been a great deal more patient with you guys than I knew how to be.

Ihedinobi: [s]Put succinctly, your post made no logical sense in its entirety.[/s]

Let's use your example, shall we? The sun has no reason for shining. Why is there life at all on earth? Answer that in relation to the availability of the sun's energy, if you please.

Also, what claims do you say that I have made?

Because natural laws, the end result of energy interacting. I've said this already. And the sun has a reason it shines (in a sense), again, natural laws. Planets have reasons they form, life has reasons it forms.
What all these, except for maybe some life, don't have is a purpose. Even life doesn't initially form because of a purpose. Though lifeforms may have a purposes after conception, when they do so said purposes are self-generated by the life form via natural laws, thus ultimately they are illusory as well (this could depend on free will though). Exactly how are inanimate objects supposed to generate purposes?
You are asserting there is a purpose, some sort of goal, behind natural laws. Prove it.

Ihedinobi:
Whatever you say, but if two or more ultimates exist, no ultimate exists. There must be one alone for anything to exist.

The ultimate two or more ultimates?

Ihedinobi:
What things "can't" he know? If God is omniscient, his knowledge is infinite, therefore there is nothing that exists, has existed or will exist that he does not know.

Erm, yeah, that was what those examples were for. If you have a problem following the really simple logic, maybe there's not much else I could do. Mayhaps you could wait a bit and I'll find crayons and put up a diagram?
Again, knowing everything implies he has no free will, this is really simple to understand.

Ihedinobi:
Of course, it does. Do you need to eat if you are full? If God already knows something, why would he ponder it? Is pondering not onto more perfect knowledge? If God already possesses perfect knowledge, why would he ponder to perfect his knowledge?

Because he might want to exercise his free will? So grand creator of the universe can't aimlessly reminisce if he wants to? He can't spontaneously change his routine, change his mind? Even 3 year olds can do that in some capacity. I might as well be omnipotent too.
Regardless, it doesn't matter, so long as he cannot do it, wanted to or not, he's not omniscient. I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not does not affect that fact.

Ihedinobi:
What is a "new thought"?

Read up on free will. If you don't need to then you're being disingenuous. Also see above

Ihedinobi:
Am I.

Yes

Ihedinobi:
Including . . .

Again, all the examples

Ihedinobi:
One of you is yet to give me a proper beating. I, of course, did not have the patience to teach you guys to think so when you got extremely illogical, I got pissed off and left you to your nonsense. But I figure that it's smarter to just help you guys finish every thought you start so that its absurdity becomes absolutely crystal.

Anony is no more a slave to logic than I am. He's just been a great deal more patient with you guys than I knew how to be.

Because you're more emotional, that's my point. Your 'feelings' were hurt. Icky icky feelings... Disgusting things

@wiegraf,

Let's start from our friend pickiwoki, Let us say pikkiwocki is the first cause from which everything emanates i.e. the ultimate creator. Naturally, he knows all things because all things come from him. Pikkiwocki by definition would be essentially be God. pickiwoki would then be the first cause i.e. God.

If you now come along and say that there is a cause before pikkiwoki called jugabute, then pikkiwoki is not the first cause, you have only pushed the first cause back a step and given God another name. The definition of God still remains the same.

Let's say you tell us again that fitubunu caused jugabute, then jugabute is not uncaused and therefore is not God. All you have succeeded in doing so far is renaming God nothing more.

You can push the first cause back as many steps as you like, when you eventually arrive at the first cause that doesn't have a preceding cause, you have reached God.

The second part of the argument that follows is this: Since God is the first uncaused cause who created everything that exists then it follows that God knows everything about everything since it is His creation. Beyond God, there is nothing.

Feel free to push the first cause back as many steps as you like.


The only other option open to you is to say that there is no first cause. If you argue this way, then the whole notion of cause and effect breaks down and then we are left with absolute chaos and no sequence

wiegraf:

Because natural laws, the end result of energy interacting. I've said this already. And the sun has a reason it shines (in a sense), again, natural laws. Planets have reasons they form, life has reasons it forms.
What all these, except for maybe some life, don't have is a purpose. Even life doesn't initially form because of a purpose. Though lifeforms may have a purposes after conception, when they do so said purposes are self-generated by the life form via natural laws, thus ultimately they are illusory as well (this could depend on free will though). Exactly how are inanimate objects supposed to generate purposes?
You are asserting there is a purpose, some sort of goal, behind natural laws. Prove it.

lol, dude. What have I asserted?

Ok, so now, it is natural laws that bestow purpose on all things. What then bestows purpose on natural laws? Or are natural laws entirely arbitrary?

The ultimate two or more ultimates?

What do you mean, wiegraf?

Erm, yeah, that was what those examples were for. If you have a problem following the really simple logic, maybe there's not much else I could do. Mayhaps you could wait a bit and I'll find crayons and put up a diagram?
Again, knowing everything implies he has no free will, this is really simple to understand.

I don't have a problem following logic, that's why I can ask how it makes sense for an omniscient which already knows how good a sandwich is to ponder on how good it is. That's nonsense.

Because he might want to exercise his free will? So grand creator of the universe can't aimlessly reminisce if he wants to? He can't spontaneously change his routine, change his mind? Even 3 year olds can do that in some capacity. I might as well be omnipotent too.
Regardless, it doesn't matter, so long as he cannot do it, wanted to or not, he's not omniscient. I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not does not affect that fact.

You know what? Just tell us what omniscience means.

Read up on free will. If you don't need to then you're being disingenuous. Also see above

Can you show me exactly why I need to read up on free will?

Yes

Ok.

Again, all the examples

You mean the logic murderers?

Because you're more emotional, that's my point. Your 'feelings' were hurt. Icky icky feelings... Disgusting things

You do know that patience relates to emotion, right?

Mr_Anony: @wiegraf,

Let's start from our friend pickiwoki, Let us say pikkiwocki is the first cause from which everything emanates i.e. the ultimate creator. Naturally, he knows all things because all things come from him. Pikkiwocki by definition would be essentially be God. pickiwoki would then be the first cause i.e. God.

If you now come along and say that there is a cause before pikkiwoki called jugabute, then pikkiwoki is not the first cause, you have only pushed the first cause back a step and given God another name. The definition of God still remains the same.

Let's say you tell us again that fitubunu caused jugabute, then jugabute is not uncaused and therefore is not God. All you have succeeded in doing so far is renaming God nothing more.

You can push the first cause back as many steps as you like, when you eventually arrive at the first cause that doesn't have a preceding cause, you have reached God.

The second part of the argument that follows is this: Since God is the first uncaused cause who created everything that exists then it follows that God knows everything about everything since it is His creation. Beyond God, there is nothing.

Feel free to push the first cause back as many steps as you like.


The only other option open to you is to say that there is no first cause. If you argue this way, then the whole notion of cause and effect breaks down and then we are left with absolute chaos and no sequence

I don't have a problem with infinite regress. For reality to exist, infinity probably was dealt with; likely it doesn't exist in the real world. Pikiwokki could be first cause, jugabute could be the first effect. Big bang could be the result of different activities/events, actually it probably is. You're going to name the agents behind the event god (conscious purpose or not) I see no reason why they can't be more than one.


edit:

Mr_Anony:
The second part of the argument that follows is this: Since God is the first uncaused cause who created everything that exists then it follows that God knows everything about everything since it is His creation. Beyond God, there is nothing.

And I've mentioned several times before that this is wrong. Example, we could build a black hole, but we would not be able to access any information from beyond its event horizon. There will always be things it could never know/do due to some logical paradox or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Applies to everything, even gods (I can see it coming, you're going to try to use this to 'prove' god exists...)

Even if his creation is part of him, this will still hold. And if you go down that route, god is boundless, everything etc, then well hitler, you, me, air, water, hell, justin beiber etc are all part of god then. Or are we exempt from 'boundless', 'everything', etc? Yet xtians somehow think it just to send life to hell for eternity. Actually, that would mean he was sending himself to hell... Great logicking there yahweh

Now, @ihe, you seem to be unable to ditinguish a personal god from others like a pantheist god. Very different, look them up. Lots of different types of 'gods' could be the agents behind big bang in your fairy tales

Ihedinobi:

lol, dude. What have I asserted?

Ok, so now, it is natural laws that bestow purpose on all things. What then bestows purpose on natural laws? Or are natural laws entirely arbitrary?

The foundational ones probably are. Think of a multiverse. This universe just happens to be capable of supporting our kind of life, just like this planet just happens to be in a goldielucks zone, fairly circular orbit, big moon etc. There are probably myriad other universes, the vast majority not capable of supporting carbon based life (or even carbon), just like there are many other planets/star systems not suitable for life.
This is conjecture though, what I can say with certainty is however the process they came about, no (especially personal) gods were involved. And they probably don't bestow purpose in the way you imply, get this, they are not conscious.

You are asking if there's a reason/purpose behind events, I say there are reasons. There is a purpose? Then show it/them.

Ihedinobi:
What do you mean, wiegraf?

See above, and response to anony

Ihedinobi:
I don't have a problem following logic, that's why I can ask how it makes sense for an omniscient which already knows how good a sandwich is to ponder on how good it is. That's nonsense.

No it's not. At all

Ihedinobi:
You know what? Just tell us what omniscience means.

Know everything. Again, particularly impossible in any form when the entity possessing it is said to have free will as well. Free will involves the ability to make new choices. God is playing tennis, decides to smite instead, then heads out to drop a hurricane or two. If god knew what all his actions were going to be, play tennis then smite, even his thought processes, but could not alter them, then he has no free will. This is simple. He is just a machine going through the motions without the ability to make changes to choices he has/will make. How is this in any way compatible with free will? How is it compatible with omnipotency as well?
Last time I'll state this bro, unless you have a proper argument, as this is ridiculously easy to grasp. Omniscience would mean it cannot change its thoughts, voiding free will and omnipotency. If it can change its mind, then its has neither omniscience or omnipotency, as there are things it cannot know until after conceiving them.

Ihedinobi:
Can you show me exactly why I need to read up on free will?

Read the wikki for a start, they usually have decent sources

Ihedinobi:
You mean the logic murderers?

Ihedinobi:
You do know that patience relates to emotion

Maybe? Not necessarily. So?

wiegraf: Now, @ihe, you seem to be unable to ditinguish a personal god from others like a pantheist god. Very different, look them up. Lots of different types of 'gods' could be the agents behind big bang in your fairy tales

Dude, I don't care if you think that Nature is God or that natural laws are God or that energy is God or that Allah is God. As long as you can attribute self-sufficiency to anything, you make that thing God.

The foundational ones probably are. Think of a multiverse. This universe just happens to be capable of supporting our kind of life, just like this planet just happens to be in a goldielucks zone, fairly circular orbit, big moon etc. There are probably myriad other universes, the vast majority not capable of supporting carbon based life (or even carbon), just like there are many other planets/star systems not suitable for life.
This is conjecture though, what I can say with certainty is however the process they came about, no (especially personal) gods were involved. And they probably don't bestow purpose in the way you imply, get this, they are not conscious.

Therefore the foundational ones, whatever they are, are God.

Again, by assigning arbitrariness to anything, you render it God, thus giving the lie to your atheism.

You are asking if there's a reason/purpose behind events, I say there are reasons. There is a purpose? Then show it/them.

Are you creating a dichotomy between reason and purpose?

See above, and response to anony

Ok. The issue is the existence of multiple ultimates, right? By the definition of the word, ultimate, it is clear that there cannot be multiplicity to it. The ultimate is perfectly arbitrary in nature. If there were more than one entity exercising the quality, they would be in such perfect unity as to never disagree. Or else, none of them would be ultimate.

Therefore, if you like to assume the existence of multiple entities exhibiting arbitrariness, you still have named them God. It matters very little if they are two or two billion.

No it's not. At all

Ok then. Let's work your example another way, shall we?

Wiegraf just had breakfast and he's so full he could burst. Wiegraf is served another dish. Does Wiegraf eat the dish? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Know everything. Again, particularly impossible in any form when the entity possessing it is said to have free will as well. Free will involves the ability to make new choices. God is playing tennis, decides to smite instead, then heads out to drop a hurricane or two. If god knew what all his actions were going to be, play tennis then smite, even his thought processes, but could not alter them, then he has no free will. This is simple. He is just a machine going through the motions without the ability to make changes to choices he has/will make. How is this in any way compatible with free will? How is it compatible with omnipotency as well?
Last time I'll state this bro, unless you have a proper argument, as this is ridiculously easy to grasp. Omniscience would mean it cannot change its thoughts, voiding free will and omnipotency. If it can change its mind, then its has neither omniscience or omnipotency, as there are things it cannot know until after conceiving them.

Ok. See my response above.

Also, what are "new choices"?

Again, if free will means total arbitrariness of will, it means that its wielder does completely as it pleases. As such, it is never under any obligation or necessity to pick from among options. Once options exist, they are necessarily creations and thus unbinding on the uncreated.

I will go on to show you the fundamental error in your logic: that omniscience is ability to know. Do we need to argue over linguistics in this regard? Omniscience is the possession of all knowledge.

Read the wikki for a start, they usually have decent sources

My question was why I need to.

Ihedinobi:

Dude, I don't care if you think that Nature is God or that natural laws are God or that energy is God or that Allah is God. As long as you can attribute self-sufficiency to anything, you make that thing God.




Therefore the foundational ones, whatever they are, are God.

Again, by assigning arbitrariness to anything, you render it God, thus giving the lie to your atheism.



Are you creating a dichotomy between reason and purpose?



Ok. The issue is the existence of multiple ultimates, right? By the definition of the word, ultimate, it is clear that there cannot be multiplicity to it. The ultimate is perfectly arbitrary in nature. If there were more than one entity exercising the quality, they would be in such perfect unity as to never disagree. Or else, none of them would be ultimate.

Therefore, if you like to assume the existence of multiple entities exhibiting arbitrariness, you still have named them God. It matters very little if they are two or two billion.



Ok then. Let's work your example another way, shall we?

Wiegraf just had breakfast and he's so full he could burst. Wiegraf is served another dish. Does Wiegraf eat the dish? If yes, why? If no, why not?



Ok. See my response above.

Also, what are "new choices"?

Again, if free will means total arbitrariness of will, it means that its wielder does completely as it pleases. As such, it is never under any obligation or necessity to pick from among options. Once options exist, they are necessarily creations and thus unbinding on the uncreated.

I will go on to show you the fundamental error in your logic: that omniscience is ability to know. Do we need to argue over linguistics in this regard? Omniscience is the possession of all knowledge.



My question was why I need to.

No offense bro, I can't take this post too seriously.

Note, I have never said I fully buy the idea of self-existent entity

So your ultimate cannot consist of ultimate partnerships? Ultimate rivalries? Ultimate unions? Ultimate threes. Ok, they can.. So your definition of god...
I'm looking at my fan, supposing it inadvertently created the universe, would I then call it god? Then you imply I'm attempting verbal gymnastics.

Reason, why is the ball flying? Because I kicked it
Purpose, what's the ball's purpose in flying? Absolutely non. And wtf kind of silly question is that?

No, not interested in cheap tricks. Again, I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Obligation or not, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Why would he want to? Well, from your descriptions, he has no say in the matter. The path has already been laid down and he cannot deviate from it...

If an omniscient possesses all knowledge, that would mean it would know everything, including its own actions. It would also mean that it could not arbitrarily change said actions (and create new actions), if it do that then that would mean it was not omniscient from the start, as it didn't know the new actions created arbitrarily. If it cannot deviate from the path it knows then it cannot make arbitrary actions. That is not free will, AT ALL. That is more or else a machine programmed to follow exact instructions (not even random, or pseudo-random ones).

Your shenanigans with language are interesting... No, not really. This is an extremely simple concept, there are no excuses for your failing to grasp this except LALALALA. If you cannot understand how free will is void once you have omniscience, then there is little hope of gaining anything else from here....

wiegraf:

No offense bro, I can't take this post too seriously.

Note, I have never said I fully buy the idea of self-existent entity

So your ultimate cannot consist of ultimate partnerships? Ultimate rivalries? Ultimate unions? Ultimate threes. Ok, they can.. So your definition of god...
I'm looking at my fan, supposing it inadvertently created the universe, would I then call it god? Then you imply I'm attempting verbal gymnastics.

Reason, why is the ball flying? Because I kicked it
Purpose, what's the ball's purpose in flying? Absolutely non. And wtf kind of silly question is that?

No, not interested in cheap tricks. Again, I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Obligation or not, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Why would he want to? Well, from your descriptions, he has no say in the matter. The path has already been laid down and he cannot deviate from it...

If an omniscient possesses all knowledge, that would mean it would know everything, including its own actions. It would also mean that it could not arbitrarily change said actions (and create new actions), if it do that then that would mean it was not omniscient from the start, as it didn't know the new actions created arbitrarily. If it cannot deviate from the path it knows then it cannot make arbitrary actions. That is not free will, AT ALL. That is more or else a machine programmed to follow exact instructions (not even random, or pseudo-random ones).

Your shenanigans with language are interesting... No, not really. This is an extremely simple concept, there are no excuses for your failing to grasp this except LALALALA. If you cannot understand how free will is void once you have omniscience, then there is little hope of gaining anything else from here....

Sorry I can't answer you right now. I'll do so a little later.

wiegraf:

No offense bro, I can't take this post too seriously.

Note, I have never said I fully buy the idea of self-existent entity

So your ultimate cannot consist of ultimate partnerships? Ultimate rivalries? Ultimate unions? Ultimate threes. Ok, they can.. So your definition of god...
I'm looking at my fan, supposing it inadvertently created the universe, would I then call it god? Then you imply I'm attempting verbal gymnastics.

Reason, why is the ball flying? Because I kicked it
Purpose, what's the ball's purpose in flying? Absolutely non. And wtf kind of silly question is that?

No, not interested in cheap tricks. Again, I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Obligation or not, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Why would he want to? Well, from your descriptions, he has no say in the matter. The path has already been laid down and he cannot deviate from it...

If an omniscient possesses all knowledge, that would mean it would know everything, including its own actions. It would also mean that it could not arbitrarily change said actions (and create new actions), if it do that then that would mean it was not omniscient from the start, as it didn't know the new actions created arbitrarily. If it cannot deviate from the path it knows then it cannot make arbitrary actions. That is not free will, AT ALL. That is more or else a machine programmed to follow exact instructions (not even random, or pseudo-random ones).

Your shenanigans with language are interesting... No, not really. This is an extremely simple concept, there are no excuses for your failing to grasp this except LALALALA. If you cannot understand how free will is void once you have omniscience, then there is little hope of gaining anything else from here....

Sorry I can't answer you right now. I'll do so a little later.

Ihedinobi:

Sorry I can't answer you right now. I'll do so a little later.

No probs, I should be doing something else as well. Good $deity, I pray to you, help me concentrate.. Pwease?

wiegraf:

No offense bro, I can't take this post too seriously.

Note, I have never said I fully buy the idea of self-existent entity

None taken.

I hear you.

So your ultimate cannot consist of ultimate partnerships? Ultimate rivalries? Ultimate unions? Ultimate threes. Ok, they can.. So your definition of god...
I'm looking at my fan, supposing it inadvertently created the universe, would I then call it god? Then you imply I'm attempting verbal gymnastics.

Dude, I couldn't care less if you called it God or Pikkiwoki or the Royal Roar: if you attribute first cause to anything, that thing is the deity you recognize.

As for the "ultimate" wrangle, shall we call it "first cause" instead? Would it be possible for conflicting first causes to exist?

Reason, why is the ball flying? Because I kicked it
Purpose, what's the ball's purpose in flying? Absolutely non. And wtf kind of silly question is that?

Imagine that I do not know anything about kicking or human beings and I saw a ball flying. What do you suppose is the first question I'd ask knowing what a ball and flying are?

No, not interested in cheap tricks. Again, I can't jump over the moon, whether I want to or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Obligation or not, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Why would he want to? Well, from your descriptions, he has no say in the matter. The path has already been laid down and he cannot deviate from it...

If an omniscient possesses all knowledge, that would mean it would know everything, including its own actions. It would also mean that it could not arbitrarily change said actions (and create new actions), if it do that then that would mean it was not omniscient from the start, as it didn't know the new actions created arbitrarily. If it cannot deviate from the path it knows then it cannot make arbitrary actions. That is not free will, AT ALL. That is more or else a machine programmed to follow exact instructions (not even random, or pseudo-random ones).

Your shenanigans with language are interesting... No, not really. This is an extremely simple concept, there are no excuses for your failing to grasp this except LALALALA. If you cannot understand how free will is void once you have omniscience, then there is little hope of gaining anything else from here....

So that we can get on the same page, what is free will? Also, what does it mean for anything to be perfectly arbitrary?

Ihedinobi:


Dude, I couldn't care less if you called it God or Pikkiwoki or the Royal Roar: if you attribute first cause to anything, that thing is the deity you recognize.

Pikkiwoki is a great, wise, muddy being, true, but his dirtness isn't the only factor involved in first cause. If I were subscribing to the idea of a first cause*, it would not be a deity. It would be something inanimate, energy or the likes. These things are usually not described as 'god' by the very vast majority, so I think it misleading to call them god, s'all I'm sayin'.

Ihedinobi:
As for the "ultimate" wrangle, shall we call it "first cause" instead? Would it be possible for conflicting first causes to exist?

Yes. Confusion here being how we use the words 'first cause'.
I distinguish the agents of first cause (the presumed self-existant ones) from the event(s) (which is an effect, the big bang in this case). My argument is that multiple agents probably exist, and in fact probably multiple events led to the big bang**.
So we could both be correct with certain assertions in a sense, ie, if you insist on grouping them, but I would be more accurate.

Ihedinobi:
Imagine that I do not know anything about kicking or human beings and I saw a ball flying. What do you suppose is the first question I'd ask knowing what a ball and flying are?

I'd ask why, how. I would not assume the ball itself had a purpose, or even that what kicked the ball had a purpose, so long as kicking is an event which can occur without conscious agents.
But this suddenly became interesting because of the nature of the act, kicking. If it were like say rain falling I'd easily attribute rain to natural causes. But a ball flying wouldn't necessarily be so, it would usually indicate a kick, and a kick would usually be applied by a life form (though life is a natural process as well, but we can ignore that). Note this isn't the only solution. Anyways, my question is, do you see any balls flying in nature (metaphorically of course)? (And no this isn't to prove a point, I would assume before you add god to the equations, it's because you see a ball flying and you assume something with a purpose kicked it, I'd like to know what these balls are, out of curiosity mostly. The usual 'life exists'?)

Ihedinobi:
So that we can get on the same page, what is free will? Also, what does it mean for anything to be perfectly arbitrary?

With regards to free will? I would say having the full ability to determine your actions. Having total control of your thoughts, the ability to alter, create, modify, delete etc them as you wish. I think this will suffice... for now...

Even if you say he preprogrammed all his actions to fit his will, which is your argument I assume, it still does not negate the fact that while he is performing these actions in real time he cannot change his mind. He cannot deviate from the path (physical or abstract) he chose earlier. He would have lost his free will.

Also I think there would be some sort of infinity or chicken egg problem with preprogramming considering omnixxx and free will, but I can't articulate it atm.




*and I don't, let it be known, I do not know/not sure, indeed something could spring from nothing, it happens in voodoo quantum mechanics, tested and confirmed (how is a bit of an issue though, understandable since it's from nothing...)

**heck, maybe even simultaneously. Time is a rather complex baby even here. You never know how it could work elsewhere. Time doesn't even flow for energy locally in this universe abi?

EDITED

I'm in a little hurry, but I'll try to make my responses as clear as possible.

wiegraf:
Pikkiwoki is a great, wise, muddy being, true, but his dirtness isn't the only factor involved in first cause. If I were subscribing to the idea of a first cause*, it would not be a deity. It would be something inanimate, energy or the likes. These things are usually not described as 'god' by the very vast majority, so I think it misleading to call them god, s'all I'm sayin'.

To make this simple, you tell me: what is deity? What is God?

Yes. Confusion here being how we use the words 'first cause'.
I distinguish the agents of first cause (the presumed self-existant ones) from the event(s) (which is an effect, the big bang in this case). My argument is that multiple agents probably exist, and in fact probably multiple events led to the big bang**.
So we could both be correct with certain assertions in a sense, ie, if you insist on grouping them, but I would be more accurate.

Is it possible for there to be CONFLICTING FIRST CAUSES? Just wanna make the question clearer.

I'd ask why, how. I would not assume the ball itself had a purpose, or even that what kicked the ball had a purpose, so long as kicking is an event which can occur without conscious agents.
But this suddenly became interesting because of the nature of the act, kicking. If it were like say rain falling I'd easily attribute rain to natural causes. But a ball flying wouldn't necessarily be so, it would usually indicate a kick, and a kick would usually be applied by a life form (though life is a natural process as well, but we can ignore that). Note this isn't the only solution. Anyways, my question is, do you see any balls flying in nature (metaphorically of course)? (And no this isn't to prove a point, I would assume before you add god to the equations, it's because you see a ball flying and you assume something with a purpose kicked it, I'd like to know what these balls are, out of curiosity mostly. The usual 'life exists'?)

Ok. Who is the question, "why", directed at?

With regards to free will? I would say having the full ability to determine your actions. Having total control of your thoughts, the ability to alter, create, modify, delete etc them as you wish. I think this will suffice... for now...

Even if you say he preprogrammed all his actions to fit his will, which is your argument I assume, it still does not negate the fact that while he is performing these actions in real time he cannot change his mind. He cannot deviate from the path (physical or abstract) he chose earlier. He would have lost his free will.

Also I think there would be some sort of infinity or chicken egg problem with preprogramming considering omnixxx and free will, but I can't articulate it atm.

Is that which is eternal subject to time?

*and I don't, let it be known, I do not know/not sure, indeed something could spring from nothing, it happens in voodoo quantum mechanics, tested and confirmed (how is a bit of an issue though, understandable since it's from nothing...)

**heck, maybe even simultaneously. Time is a rather complex baby even here. You never know how it could work elsewhere. Time doesn't even flow for energy locally in this universe abi?

EDITED

Why do you say the bolded?

Ihedinobi:
To make this simple, you tell me: what is deity? What is God?

A deity would imply sentience, some supernatural properties as well.
If you want to define first cause as god, like I've said, I don't fully subscribe to the idea. But even if I did, no deities involved

Ihedinobi:
Is it possible for there to be CONFLICTING FIRST CAUSES? Just wanna make the question clearer.

Collectively no.
But like I've said, the individual elements, definitely yes, and collectively addressing it is simplifying the issue.

Ihedinobi:
Ok. Who is the question, "why", directed at?

No one.
Why is the sun shining? Dunno, do the science. Find out about energy, radiation, gravity, matter, stars forming etc

Ihedinobi:
Is that which is eternal subject to time?

Don't get you
Edit: do now, infinities are absurd, it's one of the, if not the main reason I don't jump head first on into the notion of an eternal self-existant object responsible for first cause. You are now venturing into the absurd though. And yes, it would be subject to some sort of time in order to support causation. It need not be intuitive, or similar to what we experience, though.
The paradox is fairly clear in my mind now. Even when programming he's future actions, he would have to know ahead of time what he was going to program. In essence he never had a new thought, ever.... He would have to have shown up pre-programmed. No free will here at all.

Ihedinobi:
Why do you say the bolded?

If you could magically turn massless and get yourself a clock, you could travel across the galaxy and not a second would have passed for you. And yes, you wouldn't notice it. Massless particles do not move through time.
Everything in the universe moves through spacetime at c. Mass is sometimes called frozen energy. Now, the aha! is that when a particle acquires mass, it starts moving through time as well. So you, good ser, are actually moving at c at the moment, just that most of that movement is through time. So with relativity, as you approach c, more of your momentum through time is transferred to your momentum through space, so your speed through space gets faster, your speed through time goes slower (see time dilation, this can be explained other ways as well). If you do manage to reach c (impossible to do with mass though), then you stop moving through time altogether. (The talk is if you go faster, you go back in time)

And some people need religion to be flabbergasted with how the universe works....

Hmm

wiegraf:
A deity would imply sentience, some supernatural properties as well.
If you want to define first cause as god, like I've said, I don't fully subscribe to the idea. But even if I did, no deities involved

You want to play linguistics? Sentience or not, God/deity is simply that which caused everything but is itself uncaused. It is a noun that describes the phrase, first cause, just some economy of language. Whether or not it needs to be sentient is not part of this discussion.

Collectively no.
But like I've said, the individual elements, definitely yes, and collectively addressing it is simplifying the issue.

So, NO, there can only be one first cause, however many entities or elements are involved.

No one.
Why is the sun shining? Dunno, do the science. Find out about energy, radiation, gravity, matter, stars forming etc

"Why" therefore is an absurd enquiry rendering all scholarship meaningless. That is, according to you, of course.

Don't get you
Edit: do now, infinities are absurd, it's one of the, if not the main reason I don't jump head first on into the notion of an eternal self-existant object responsible for first cause. You are now venturing into the absurd though. And yes, it would be subject to some sort of time in order to support causation. It need not be intuitive, or similar to what we experience, though.
The paradox is fairly clear in my mind now. Even when programming he's future actions, he would have to know ahead of time what he was going to program. In essence he never had a new thought, ever.... He would have to have shown up pre-programmed. No free will here at all.

If that which is eternal is subject to time, then it did not create time hence it is not eternal. Therefore, it is not God.

If God (read: first cause) exists, then it is eternal. If it is eternal, time is subordinate to it. If time is subordinate to it, then its activities cannot be described by the sequence of time. This means that it cannot be said to program its activities, then carry them out and then change its mind about the sequence etc. It must necessarily operate in an inscrutable manner.

If you could magically turn massless and get yourself a clock, you could travel across the galaxy and not a second would have passed for you. And yes, you wouldn't notice it. Massless particles do not move through time.
Everything in the universe moves through spacetime at c. Mass is sometimes called frozen energy. Now, the aha! is that when a particle acquires mass, it starts moving through time as well. So you, good ser, are actually moving at c at the moment, just that most of that movement is through time. So with relativity, as you approach c, more of your momentum through time is transferred to your momentum through space, so your speed through space gets faster, your speed through time goes slower (see time dilation, this can be explained other ways as well). If you do manage to reach c (impossible to do with mass though), then you stop moving through time altogether. (The talk is if you go faster, you go back in time)

And some people need religion to be flabbergasted with how the universe works....

Ok. Thanks for the lecture. Will look into it personally a little more.

Back to free will. Like you said, an absolutely free will is an absolutely arbitrary will. This means that its wielder does not operate choices. The owner of an absolutely free will does not choose between options because it recognizes none. The existence of options necessarily presupposes the existence of that which gives them. And the one who must choose from among the provided options must necessarily be subordinate to the one who provides them.

If God is the uncaused cause, there is nothing greater than it. Therefore there exists nothing that can give God options to choose from. So, what God has is purpose, that is, fiat. As such, exercise of free will for God cannot involve a change of mind.

Consider also that to change one's mind is to decide against one option in favor of another. This is not true of God. Being utterly arbitrary in decision, it cannot retract one cause of action to pursue another because there is no other.

Thus, your case against omniscience is thrown out as unfounded.

Ihedinobi:

You want to play linguistics? Sentience or not, God/deity is simply that which caused everything but is itself uncaused. It is a noun that describes the phrase, first cause, just some economy of language. Whether or not it needs to be sentient is not part of this discussion.

For crying out loud...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god

1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

Let me stress this here again, if I may...

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki),I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD OR GODS (except maybe Pikkiwoki)

I don't go around telling you that you are an atheist do I? Or that you don't believe in god... sheesh

Ihedinobi:
So, NO, there can only be one first cause, however many entities or elements are involved.

And you ignore the issue, over simplifying it...

Ihedinobi:
"Why" therefore is an absurd enquiry rendering all scholarship meaningless. That is, according to you, of course.

hahahah, no

Ihedinobi:
If that which is eternal is subject to time, then it did not create time hence it is not eternal. Therefore, it is not God.

If God (read: first cause) exists, then it is eternal. If it is eternal, time is subordinate to it. If time is subordinate to it, then its activities cannot be described by the sequence of time. This means that it cannot be said to program its activities, then carry them out and then change its mind about the sequence etc. It must necessarily operate in an inscrutable manner.

If first cause exists, that does not necessarily mean it is eternal. That also does not mean time is subordinate to it... the rest falls

Ihedinobi:
Ok. Thanks for the lecture. Will look into it personally a little more.


Back to free will. Like you said, an absolutely free will is an absolutely arbitrary will. This means that its wielder does not operate choices. The owner of an absolutely free will does not choose between options because it recognizes none. The existence of options necessarily presupposes the existence of that which gives them. And the one who must choose from among the provided options must necessarily be subordinate to the one who provides them.

If God is the uncaused cause, there is nothing greater than it. Therefore there exists nothing that can give God options to choose from. So, what God has is purpose, that is, fiat. As such, exercise of free will for God cannot involve a change of mind.

Consider also that to change one's mind is to decide against one option in favor of another. This is not true of God. Being utterly arbitrary in decision, it cannot retract one cause of action to pursue another because there is no other.

Thus, your case against omniscience is thrown out as unfounded.

Sophistry on steroids...
Same question I asked @anony, another form, you're more else saying god created choice? Before he created choice there was no choice? Then I would think the choice was never available to him to create choice.... Halting an already poor argument
Then all of this led to the bold. Where you admit that an omnipotent/omniscient being CANNOT do something... You understand what omniscient/omnipotent is, yes?

So tired, maybe sleep.