That does not satisfy me as a successful refutation. It attacks the specific form of the statement while dancing around the inherently illogical nature of omnipotence the statement conveys.

(April 10, 2013 at 11:47 am)ChadWooters Wrote: [quote='archangle' pid='430010' dateline='1365607119'What is this "non-physical" part of the universe you speak of? I think it just means interactions that we just don't understand yet.

There are many unknowns waiting to be discovered within physics. I have no problem with that. My concerns revolve around those things not explicable within physics.

Non-physical means things not explicable within physics. My view of physics is this. Physics is an internally consistent scientific model of naturally occurring interactions between observable objects. Physics itself works because it depends the operation of objects not describable within its internally consistent scientific model. Suppose the so-called Theory of Everything was finally created. Does the TOE truly contain ‘everything?’ Personally, I do not think so. Physics presupposes the existence of things without which physics would not be possible. To me that means an inherent order to reality, one of mathematical certainties, sensible qualities and logical coherence.

That makes me a realist. I believe that universal attributes exist in and of themselves and are not just names attached to observed common features. In essence, common features are identifiable precisely because there are universal attributes capable of being recognized as common.

[/quote]

yes, the universe knows how it works already, and we are finding out how. Yes, we see common threads because of the common threads that are at work. Like F=Ma. It is a function of the universe.

What you are saying is being an architect to deign a beautiful building is more than engineering. I agree to that, but they are not separate either. The theory of everything is just a piece of the puzzle. But a needed piece to be sure.

Physics will give us formulas. But those formulas will have trouble dealing with things like emotions. But if we don't think of the equations as having "a answer", but rather the answer will be another function, then emotions will be able to be addressed and understood as a dynamic interactions of particles. Not a single answer. Or in this case, a single event.

yes, for now, there is far more than we know. It is more of how these particles are inter acting to form the universe to me. what I am suggesting, is that the universe uses "particles" of some type to "be".

The common thread is the interactions that make up the universe. But the added complexity offers a seemingly unknown "thing". When in fact, that "thing" is precisely because of the interactions. "I and the father are one" so to speak.

(April 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Ryantology Wrote: That does not satisfy me as a successful refutation. It attacks the specific form of the statement while dancing around the inherently illogical nature of omnipotence the statement conveys.

It refutes any variation of the question begging fallacy, like the one above. Omnipotence remains untouched logically. Unless you can actually challenge it.

(April 10, 2013 at 5:22 pm)archangle Wrote: yes, the universe knows how it works already, and we are finding out how. Yes, we see common threads because of the common threads that are at work. Like F=Ma. It is a function of the universe.

I think you misunderstood. F=ma is not a function of the universe. It is a conceptual model that describes, approximately, a certain type of physical operation. Theoretical value produced by the formula never quite matches the result in practice.

In contrast, the formal properties of logical and mathematical thought-processes are truth-preserving and precise in a way that cannot be duplicated by any physical system. x+x+x=3x always produces a precise result, every single time, regardless of what value x is.

(April 10, 2013 at 5:22 pm)archangle Wrote: Physics will give us formulas. But those formulas will have trouble dealing with things like emotions. But if we don't think of the equations as having "a answer", but rather the answer will be another function, then emotions will be able to be addressed and understood as a dynamic interactions of particles. Not a single answer.

Please elaborate on this one.

(April 10, 2013 at 5:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It refutes any variation of the question begging fallacy, like the one above. Omnipotence remains untouched logically. Unless you can actually challenge it.

The logic has been challenged many times and no satisfactory answer has ever defended it. If a being is, by any imaginable definition or for any imaginable reason, incapable of doing even a single thing, that being is not omnipotent.

You can define omnipotence as "all which is logically possible" to avoid that quandary, but the "which is logically possible" is a limit itself. It does not assume the non-omnipotence of God because it doesn't define any characteristic of God. It merely asks a question of his capabilities, and the answer determines whether God is truly omnipotent.

What is really going on is what Christian apologists do every single time a flaw is discovered in their assertion. Like a fantasy writer, they simply redefine either the fictional character's characteristics, or they attempt to alter the rules, and it's because Christians are vicariously vain and narcissistic. It would be too big a defeat to admit that God is merely the most powerful being there is. He has to be omnipotent, even though omnipotence is not necessary to explain God. If the people who invented this nonsense, and the theologians who write the fan fiction, were a little more moderate in assigning traits to their God, there would be little for us to argue about regarding his powers, his personality, and his goals.

yes, it is an approximation. And yes again, it describes what is seen. But you are not taking into account that the approximation is off because of the measurements and interactions not accounted for. F=ma is not off.

Thought experiments work because they are not real. The logic is a step by step process on paper. You set the limits when you plug in numbers. Or ignore them totally when you state x+x=5.0. Where as in the "real world" there are far more interactions to contend with.

But you are right, because we don't know all, or don't account for all the interactions, it seems off. But if you made the up the measurements, like one does with thought logic, they would follow exactly how you set it up.
example f=ma a= 32.0 ft/s^2 m = 2.0 kg. It works perfectly when set up "logically" in a thought experiment.

I understand that it all starts with the mind. But we need to be careful letting the mind define these interactions. What is actually going on is that the interactions are defining the mind. The logic seems to be perfect because it is limited by the "fake" measurements. The "logic" of F=ma is based on real observations. The formulas you speak of are "rules of math". They are "ideal".

more on emotions when we settle the difference here.

(April 10, 2013 at 6:48 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

---

(April 10, 2013 at 5:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It refutes any variation of the question begging fallacy, like the one above. Omnipotence remains untouched logically. Unless you can actually challenge it.

The logic has been challenged many times and no satisfactory answer has ever defended it. If a being is, by any imaginable definition or for any imaginable reason, incapable of doing even a single thing, that being is not omnipotent.

You can define omnipotence as "all which is logically possible" to avoid that quandary, but the "which is logically possible" is a limit itself. It does not assume the non-omnipotence of God because it doesn't define any characteristic of God. It merely asks a question of his capabilities, and the answer determines whether God is truly omnipotent.

What is really going on is what Christian apologists do every single time a flaw is discovered in their assertion. Like a fantasy writer, they simply redefine either the fictional character's characteristics, or they attempt to alter the rules, and it's because Christians are vicariously vain and narcissistic. It would be too big a defeat to admit that God is merely the most powerful being there is. He has to be omnipotent, even though omnipotence is not necessary to explain God. If the people who invented this nonsense, and the theologians who write the fan fiction, were a little more moderate in assigning traits to their God, there would be little for us to argue about regarding his powers, his personality, and his goals.

---

The thing is Ryan, you say all of this without producing an actual challenge. You do realise you need that first right?

(April 10, 2013 at 11:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The thing is Ryan, you say all of this without producing an actual challenge. You do realise you need that first right?

If you insist on ignoring the post you quote, I would say that I don't have to challenge God's omnipotence until you demonstrate proof that God exists and that his powers are limitless.

Might you be the first Christian ever to do it?

Lmao

You funny Ryan.

Only an idiot makes that statement. Now you're begging the question of yourself: "how do I prove materially the immaterial?".

With some people you don't have to try to argue. They win against themselves.

(April 11, 2013 at 12:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Lmao

You funny Ryan.

Only an idiot makes that statement. Now you're begging the question of yourself: "how do I prove materially the immaterial?".

With some people you don't have to try to argue. They win against themselves.

you make it so easy for them. Please, stick to what you know. Love, compassion, understanding, sacrifice and things. Those things are good stuff.

leave the omni-anything fight to others.