| riseagainstrocks |
04-19-2007 10:27 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan
(Post 359152)
The problem is I didn't assume they applied to him, I just assumed that they exist. If there is "time" than there is a "next" and vice versa. Since we don't do everything at once it is apparent that there is a next meaning that things happen chronologically and that time very well exists. Now lets introduce a being into the structure that doesn't operate by these principles while the rest of things do. This being is all powerful, all knowing, and somehow exists in all periods of time and all moments at once. Since he has knowledge of all moments ever that means everything is predetermined. If it is predetermined than he can't change his mind because that would mean he lacks knowledge, and thus isn't all knowing. On the other hand he can't change his mind and therefore lacks a power and thus isn't all powerful.
It also means you can't choose to make an action that isn't the action of the current moment known to and existed in by "God." You can't make a decision about the next moment that is a different decision than the decision that you have decided to make about the next moment in this moment. This in and of itself isn't exactly a contradiction, however the Christian deity supposedly granted us free will, which makes no sense under these condition.
Contradiction number two is that to be perfect he has to be all powerful. However, there is no way for him to handle powers that are in direct contradiction with themselves rationally. Can God make an immovable object and lift it? If he can than he can't lift it and thus doesn't have a power. If he can't than he doesn't have a power. If he can make an immovable object and then later makes it movable to move it than it still doesn't prove that he can move an immovable object. Being all powerful simply makes no sense. There is no rational reason to believe anything can be all powerful, and thus there is no reason that anything is capable of being perfect.
Lastly, a perfect being would only encompass positive traits. He would have no negative traits and thus would have no rational reason to make the universe. He would never be unsatisfied, bored, or feeling needy and thus would never feel a reason to create the world. Of course he could have felt "love" for the universe and then made it, however this means he would have to imagine it first. God would never spend time imagining things because he would always feel satisfied and thus would never want to use his imagination. Think about it. When you're done with eating dinner and you're already full do you go get another plateful? Of course not, because you're full and don't feel the need or the want to. Likewise God would always be satisfied with what he has and never need to imagine new things. A perfect being wouldn't create the universe simply because he wouldn't feel the need or the want to.
So in conclusion: There is no logical reason to believe in a perfect being because it is silly. There is no logical reason to believe that a perfect being would create the universe. Lastly, if you still manage to uphold such silly beliefs than you have no reason to believe you have free will.
|
1. Time is infinite. Therefore you cannot measure time, due to there being nothing to compare it to. So the concept of "next" even for humans is faulty to begin with, as is the concept of time. Time exists soley as a means of control (read anything by Jeremy Rifkin)
2. Having no knowledge of the pre-ordained allows free will to exist. There is an important difference between a diety (one who by definition is supernatural) and a human. Our lack of future knowledge grants US the conditions of free will, not the diety.
3. This is the one question I can't wrap my head around. The moment I do I'll be sure to tell you :)
4. This is what I don't understand with atheist. We are debating the nature of the SUPERNATURAL. Our definition of perfect can only exist as a definition. To put perfection in practice would be supernatural. We can't concieve of it, nor define it. I'd refer to Kant's idea of the phenomenal and nomenal (i mispelled those) worlds. Ideas as we can concieve can exist in this world. But not the pure form of the idea.
I'm sorry I came in late on this, my internet has been down. I always miss the good discussions :(
AND METAL IS SERIOUS BUISNESS |
