YA-YAR(eligon)T: A buncha stuff . . .. [LONG]

[Schadenfreude]

Alright, haven't had these in a while . . . thought I'd bring it up again . . ..

First of all, I'm an atheist. Well, I don't believe in the "traditional" view of a deity - I guss I'm a Buddhist. (Not a good one, mind you, since I enjoy the suffering of many things for my expense) And if you're a Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Mormon/Hindu/Whatever and think I'm singling you guys out and are attacking you, rest assured, I most certainly am (not really - it's for an intellectual discussion: remember, thesis+antithesis=synthesis). But if you're here and have nothing to contribute, well, NEF away, I suppose.

Oh, one more thing: This post is going to be hella long. It's going to be hella long for a reason. If you're such a dumbass that you don't want to bother reading all this, instead of bitching about how long this post is and "demanding" cliffnotes, don't fvcking read this and go somehere else, dolt.

Now, since all those unpleasentries are done with, let's move on, shall we?
---

Is it possible to be both omniscent and omnipotent?

Because if you're omniscent = all-knowing

And omniscent = all-powerful

If it is said that one if omniscent, it means that there's some kind of inevitability to the future ahead, including the one who is omniscent (this is usually the fatalistic position taken by religion). So if you're omniscent, you know of your own future/present/past, as well as others' futures. And there's nothing you could do to stop that, potentially.

Well, let's just say that "Chris" (Not a play on the "Jesus" kind, but rather a play on my roommate, who is named Chris) is omnipotent. Because he is omnipotent, he can will any occurances to happen - but at the same time, he has to follow the chain of events accordingly for it to happen in the first place.

If Chris is also omniscent, he knows what he will "will" into being and whatnot, so in effect, in knowing what he will do, he cannot change the inevitable future . . . because being omnipotent is in itself a factor to the predetermined/determined future. And in being chained to an inevitability, Chris is in fact non-omnipotent (because he knows what he will do, and even if he chaged the future to prove himself wrong, he knew he'd change the future).

For example: Chris, being omniscent (but omnipotent? We'll see . . ..) knows that on the fourth day of the week of his twenty-eighth year of his life, will have a burger. If this is predetermined, he cannot do anything but have a burger on that date. Well, if he decides on having the steak instead, that will mean that his prediction of the future is wrong, and while allowing Chris to be omnipotent, he will no longer be omniscent. If he has the burger as predicted, however, he can be omniscent but not be omnipotent (because he cannot change the fact without knowing about it previously).
---

Now, the previous post was a rehash, admittedly, but I brought it up for a good reason. A lot of religions believe in the linear view of time - the only real way for a being to be both "omniscent" and "omnipotent" is to be free of the contraints of time (which is actually entailed by being "omnipotent"). So I'm wrong.

So where does this lead us?

Well, I'd argue that in that Chris is free of the constraints of time, I'd argue that he no longer has any real importance in our daily lives - meaning, Chris cannot "will" anything to be because having "intent" entails a chronological implication ("willing" something implies that that certain event will be triggered in the future). Even if Chris did exist, Chris cannot possibly matter to us/vice versa because there is not a single particular "goal" that we're headed towards - that also implies a chronological viewpoint again.
---

On a side note, are religous people good because they are religious, or are they religious because thay are good? Now, there's a HUGE difference in the two, believe it or not.

(option #1)Being "good because they are religious" means that they are acting good because they believe certain actions will lead them to heaven/paradise/nirvana/etc. and are acting them out only so that they can go there.

(option #2)Being "religious beause they are good", however, just implies that people that are inherently good are attracted to the house of worship because they are good . . ..

In the first option, could those people even be called "good"? Would it even be possible for them to be good in any situation? Would they still be rewarded in the afterlife?

Well, the first option, I believe, only breeds in evil, just of a different kind. There's no "true" altruism there (but then again, "ture altruism" is impossible), but another transaction (good actions in exchange for a reward). Actually, I take that back. In doing this, it totally negates a concept of "good" or "evil", since it's only a simple transaction of one (good deeds) for another (paradise/heaven/nirvana/etc.).

From a different point of view, I'm a follower of the "if you're a good person, you will get (somehow) rewarded" type (but not a specific reward): this figures into option #2 = in this point of view, since people are inherently good anyways, and will get rewarded regarded . . . do you need religion?
---

Lastly, a silly topic - can god make a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it?

-if he can, he's not omnipotent because he can't lift it
-if he cannot, meaning that he can lift anything that he makes, he cannot be omnipotent because he couldn't make such a rock . . ..
---

Anyhoo, like I said, I'm not trying to bash religion - I thnk religion was a necessity in history as a rule of social mores - a set of implied (sometimes shoved down your throat) laws that everyone must follow . . . but now it's been contorted into something else.

Still, I can't fault all the good things religion has done for people - it's a social gathering for a community, it establishes a commonground where everyone can benefit from, etc. I just thought I'd type this to keep it fresh in my head after a discussion I had with Chris (he visited a bible study because a chick he's been after invited him).

Essentially, what I'm asking is, is religion really necessary in today's world?

Please, discuss.

 

[Gyrene]

I think it's a waste of time to discuss something we don't have the ability to comprehend. There, that's my two cents.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: dtyn
I think it's a waste of time to discuss something we don't have the ability to comprehend. There, that's my two cents.

But then again, a lot of religious leaders (Pope, Dhali Lama) say a lot of things that we, as a human collective, have no ability to comprehend. Yet people blindly follow. So are you saying that they're liars? Or just that they're wasting their time?

(edit: it sounds like I'm attacking you - I mean no offense in saying the above saying - but if you say what you've said, the second part logically entails, no? So you're saying that we have no business in having religion at all?)

 

[TheBDB]

The words omniscent and omnipotent are sorta worthless as you point out. The don't have any meaning in the real world.

Is religion necessary? Nope, plenty of people live great lives without it. My guess is we would all be better off without it too.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: dtyn
I think it's a waste of time to discuss something we don't have the ability to comprehend. There, that's my two cents.

But then again, a lot of religious leaders (Pope, Dhali Lama) say a lot of things that we, as a human collective, have no ability to comprehend. Yet people blindly follow. So are you saying that they're liars? Or just that they're wasting their time?

(edit: it sounds like I'm attacking you - I mean no offense in saying the above saying - but if you say what you've said, the second part logically entails, no? So you're saying that we have no business in having religion at all?)

People should believe what they feel they should believe. It is idiotic to blindly follow what others say. Create you own view of God, or lack there of, from how his has personally affected your life, not from what others tell you.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: dtyn
I think it's a waste of time to discuss something we don't have the ability to comprehend. There, that's my two cents.

But then again, a lot of religious leaders (Pope, Dhali Lama) say a lot of things that we, as a human collective, have no ability to comprehend. Yet people blindly follow. So are you saying that they're liars? Or just that they're wasting their time?

(edit: it sounds like I'm attacking you - I mean no offense in saying the above saying - but if you say what you've said, the second part logically entails, no? So you're saying that we have no business in having religion at all?)

People should believe what they feel they should believe. It is idiotic to blindly follow what others say. Create you own view of God, or lack there of, from how his has personally affected your life, not from what others tell you.

Then obviously you have your own perception of god, or lack thereof. According to your perception, does my logic work? I'm pretty sure there are holes in the arguments presented above - only through debate/examining our perceptions can we improve our senses - what is your opinion? So, was I right to assume that in having no ablity to comprehend "god" or whatever, you prefer not to think about it?

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: dtyn
I think it's a waste of time to discuss something we don't have the ability to comprehend. There, that's my two cents.

But then again, a lot of religious leaders (Pope, Dhali Lama) say a lot of things that we, as a human collective, have no ability to comprehend. Yet people blindly follow. So are you saying that they're liars? Or just that they're wasting their time?

(edit: it sounds like I'm attacking you - I mean no offense in saying the above saying - but if you say what you've said, the second part logically entails, no? So you're saying that we have no business in having religion at all?)

People should believe what they feel they should believe. It is idiotic to blindly follow what others say. Create you own view of God, or lack there of, from how his has personally affected your life, not from what others tell you.

Then obviously you have your own perception of god, or lack thereof. According to your perception, does my logic work? I'm pretty sure there are holes in the arguments presented above - only through debate/examining our perceptions can we improve our senses - what is your opinion? So, was I right to assume that in having no ablity to comprehend "god" or whatever, you prefer not to think about it?

I have a perception of God, how he plays into our lives, why he does what he does, and how everything works. That's my perception, and thus is right for me. It is not an arguable matter, and thus discussion into theories, historical works, etc, to prove who is right or wrong is futile. Since the real truth won't come until we die, it's pointless to debate. Create your truth, accept that it is right, and live by it.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: Jehovah

Originally posted by: dtyn
I think it's a waste of time to discuss something we don't have the ability to comprehend. There, that's my two cents.

But then again, a lot of religious leaders (Pope, Dhali Lama) say a lot of things that we, as a human collective, have no ability to comprehend. Yet people blindly follow. So are you saying that they're liars? Or just that they're wasting their time?

(edit: it sounds like I'm attacking you - I mean no offense in saying the above saying - but if you say what you've said, the second part logically entails, no? So you're saying that we have no business in having religion at all?)

People should believe what they feel they should believe. It is idiotic to blindly follow what others say. Create you own view of God, or lack there of, from how his has personally affected your life, not from what others tell you.

Then obviously you have your own perception of god, or lack thereof. According to your perception, does my logic work? I'm pretty sure there are holes in the arguments presented above - only through debate/examining our perceptions can we improve our senses - what is your opinion? So, was I right to assume that in having no ablity to comprehend "god" or whatever, you prefer not to think about it?

I have a perception of God, how he plays into our lives, why he does what he does, and how everything works. That's my perception, and thus is right for me. It is not an arguable matter, and thus discussion into theories, historical works, etc, to prove who is right or wrong is futile. Since the real truth won't come until we die, it's pointless to debate. Create your truth, accept that it is right, and live by it.

But how did you get that faith? I believe that having such a discussion, where you do have even the remote *possibility* of being proven wrong in religion can, either alter your views on your faith or improve it. Like you said, if you don't comprehend it, what's the point of believeing in it?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Regarding omnipotence vs omniscience:

You assume one thing in your post that I believe throws it all off. You assume a linearity in the timeline. If we assume that omniscience is knowing what will happen given a certain set of preconditions then omniscience ceases to become prescriptive of future actions because those preconditions are subject to change. I.e., omniscience, as I believe it, is the ability to see the infinite decision tree in its entirity.

Regarding the rock so big that He can't move it:

There is a Busshist saying that I'm going to paraphrase, "Do not ponder metaphysics, for if you do, you shall surely go mad."

ZV

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Regarding omnipotence vs omniscience:

You assume one thing in your post that I believe throws it all off. You assume a linearity in the timeline. If we assume that omniscience is knowing what will happen given a certain set of preconditions then omniscience ceases to become prescriptive of future actions because those preconditions are subject to change. I.e., omniscience, as I believe it, is the ability to see the infinite decision tree in its entirity.

Regarding the rock so big that He can't move it:

There is a Busshist saying that I'm going to paraphrase, "Do not ponder metaphysics, for if you do, you shall surely go mad."

ZV

Well, like I said - if Chris (or whomever) is detached from time, how cold it have "intent" since intent implies a chronological order? And if there is no "intent" on Chris' part, what does it matter if Chris exists or not?

 

[Schadenfreude]

No one else cares to add in their thoughts?

 

[SWScorch]

no. we're all confused.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Originally posted by: Jehovah
No one else cares to add in their thoughts?

If I didn't have a headache, then I'd give a response.