UN Bias Hurts The World

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

FrostShard
level5
level5
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:37 pm
Location: Scotland. Och aye the noo, and all that.
Contact:

Postby FrostShard » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:09 am

In my humble opinion, it's pretty much the same principle as "What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?"

In other words, it's pseudo-science. It sounds great and deep and profound and revalatory when you first hear it, but once you stop to think, you realise how stupid it is. "Unstoppable force" and "Immovable object" are both relative terms, which is where that one falls apart.

As for the other one:

Being powerful enough to lift a rock shows that you have power.
Being powerful enough to create a heavy rock shows that you have power.
Being powerful enough to create a very heavy rock shows that you have more power.

The "power requirement" for creating a rock that's too heavy to lift is (wait for it... wait for it... :wink: ) being able to create the rock.
To be able to create a rock that weighs a hundred and fifty billion kilograms takes power.
To be able to create a rock that weighs a hundred and fifty billion and one kilograms takes more power.
God can create the first rock.
God can also create the second rock.
God can create a rock of any weight, no matter how heavy.
God can also lift any weight, no matter how heavy.

The create-a-rock-too-heavy-to-lift test is a test to show that God has no power. The fact that God can lift any rock does not show that he has no power, and if you've managed to convince yourself, or be convinced, that it does, then you need to work on your logic for a little while.

You might as well say "God is not omnipotent because there is no number greater than infinity.
Rkiver wrote:So as you see, the average person is a fucking idiot.
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:34 am

In the blackhole debate, Stews is correct, not Banker. How do I know this? Guess what I studied in university? Astrophysics, which includes blackholes.

Sorry Banker but you need to do a bit more research.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:01 pm

@ Banker...

Banker wrote:Density is only a mesure of mass but sure, if only infinite density was possible. But it's not. An unlimited mass cannot be squeesed into a limited size. That should go without saying.

You might need to study the term infinite a bit.



Oh, I understand the term infinite quite well thanks but perhaps you might want to read up on a few theories regarding gravitional singularities, such as black holes, because what you're saying just throws Einstein's, Hawking's and many other scientists' theories out the window.


Banker wrote:There is NO WAY out of this dilemma.. Geniuses have tried to escape it for decades but all have failed, it's quite arrogant to believe you could do it.



By definition being omnipotent would make God unable to fail at any task he sets out to do, so wouldn't it be logical to say that he could do it, even if the situation seems to defy human logic? But being arrogant I guess that makes my point invalid.


Banker wrote:Yes, and in another dimension, maybe I could be a god too.



I take it you haven't studied up on String Theory or understand the scientific definition of dimension rather than the sci-fi definition. When I used the term "higher subatomic dimensions" I was referring to the additional dimensions used to explain String Theory as opposed to parrallel universes/dimensions as seen in the Star Trek. I think String Theory currently states there are 11 dimensions, which include length, height, width and time, although that is always under review and dispute.


Banker wrote:Lets stick to the normal dimensions for now shall we?



What would you consider to be "normal" dimensions?


Banker wrote:And second, if he is omnipotent he could move it without using any other dimensions than the normal 3.



Ah, so you don't consider time to be a "normal" dimension? Just because we cannot control our direction of movement through it does not make it any less of a dimension.


Banker wrote:Once again you miss the whole point, Montypython.


1. I didn't miss the point but it would seem you fail to realise certain things. Like Stews said, you fail to understand that you and the geniuses you mention are using human logic. You also fail to realise that you are restricted by rules, laws and boundaries, in both a physical and mental sense, thus limiting your abilities to understand the problem and solution. God, however, has no boundaries, no rules, nor laws to which he must obey and this allows him to acheive things that are unconceivable to us.

2. It's Mr. Monty Python to you :P


Banker wrote:Quite untrue, if 2 objects are infinite in size, then they would be of the same "size".. Unlimited size. If something is of infinite size, there cannot be anything outside of it, thus all the "space" will be "inside" the object, not outside.. Get it?


It would seem you are the one that doesn't understand the term infinity. Perhaps this will help...

Imagine a standard pack of playing cards that consists of just one of each card but two jokers. Now imagine that we take an infinite number of these packs and combine them. We now have an infinite number of Aces, an infinite number of Twos, an infinite number of Threes, etc. Now, the question is do we have more jokers than any other card in total? You could reply that as the packs are infinite in number they can't be counted so it would be impossible to know. However, as the ratio of jokers to other cards in each pack is fixed, then at any number of packs there will always be more jokers. This would appear to indicate, that mathematically, we can have degrees of infinity and although it may sound odd it is a valid mathematical argument.


Taking that into account should make it easier to realise that it is possible to have an infinite volume of space with which to keep an infinite amount of matter in and still have an infinite volume of empty space.

Banker wrote:And to be honest, we know pretty much nothing about black holes, about all "knowledge" of them is pretty much only theory.

And they ARE NOT believe to be infineletly dense, they are believed to only be able to hold a certain, unknown, but very high, amount of mass before they explode, alot of scientists believe that's how the big bang started, black holes swallowing everything and finally each other til there was only one remaining, which couldnt support all its mass and thus expanded rapidly. (exploded)


Last time I did any reading on this subject Einstein and a few others were backing the infinite density idea. Thier line of thinking was that when a large enough object collapses on itself it collapses onto a point of zero volume and since:

Density = Mass/Volume

you get the equation:

Density = Mass/0

and bearing in mind that:

x/0 = ∞

you get:

Density = ∞

Thus, infinite density.
Last edited by Montyphy on Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:06 am, edited 5 times in total.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:57 pm

Yeah, sorry that "@ Monty.. " was a bit of Banker's post that ended up outside the quotes. It's sorted now. :)
User avatar
Jackmn
level5
level5
Posts: 1378
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 5:21 pm

Postby Jackmn » Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:54 pm

The create-a-rock-too-heavy-to-lift test is a test to show that God has no power. The fact that God can lift any rock does not show that he has no power, and if you've managed to convince yourself, or be convinced, that it does, then you need to work on your logic for a little while.
The point is, omnipotence requires the ability to do everything.

Being incapable of creating a rock that God himself cannot lift is a limitation, meaning God is not entirely omnipotent. Being capable of creating a rock that cannot be lifted also creates a limitation (not being able to lift that rock).

The fallacy lies with the concept of omnipotence on its own.

Of course, you could always state that omnipotence would require being above the rules of logic (which are in themselves limitations).

None of this is a problem if you don't believe in the omnipotentence/omniscience of whatever god you choose to believe in.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:47 pm

The problem of course arises that many would say there is no rock God cannot lift. That is he can make everything (ie a single atom to a rock that infinitely massive, but can lift them all), but a rock he cannot lift simply isn't included in "everything". Its sort of like asking someone to make an un-makable object or move an immovable object. These objects simply don't exist, so asking someone to make them is silly.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:16 pm

Human "logic" depends upon human perceptions. God is beyond such things. The concept of "lifting" a rock is a human one, as is the idea of "creating" a rock into instant existance, as indeed is the idea of a "rock". God is capable of creating and destroying the very laws of physics and logic that you are using to judge his power.

To sum up... you're being silly. Stop it. :wink:
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:27 pm

Can anyone recall the term used for when Jesus is said to be simultaneously 100% human and 100% god?
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:54 pm

Load of bullshit?

Particle-wave duality. Oh wait that's light.

Erm, I'll go with my first answer.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:03 pm

Rkiver wrote:Load of bullshit?

Particle-wave duality. Oh wait that's light.

Erm, I'll go with my first answer.


That was the general response my Religious Studies teacher received.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.

Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:30 pm

I see most of this has been covered and argued over to the point of sillyness, so I will only adress a few things.


Heh, silly rabbit, science is not for kids. . .

If you have a box that is 1 meter tall and 1 meter deep but is infinity long, its volume is infinite. If you then had another box that was 2 meters tall and 2 meters deep and infinitely long it would again have an infinite volume even though it would logically be 4 times as large as the previous box. In both cases however there are definite limits to each box in two of the three dimensions and thus things can certainly be outside their infinite volumes.


If you have ANY limits of size on an object, then the size of the object is not infinite.. It is not infinite as a whole if it is, only the depth (in your example) of said object is infinite, not the entire object, cause not all of the dimensions of the object is infinite.
I also wonder if any scientist would agree that there could exist such an object.. Cause the whole object is totally illogical.


It is not a measure of mass. It is a relation of mass to volume. Knowing the density of something alone gives no information about its mass (or its volume). Again it is you who need to do the reading. . .


Once again.. It is a mesaure of mass per unit of volume.
But allright, lets ask your beloved Wikipedia..

"Density (symbol: ρ - Greek: rho) is a measure of mass per unit of volume." :lol: I was right on, like I quoted it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

Now shut the fuck up and go read up.

That has nothing to do with my argument. I said that logic breaks down in many cases (quantum mechanics for instance) and that trying to apply logic (a product of man) to God is rather silly.


Your "god" and "his book" is more of a product of man than any logic ever is.. About every religion to date has been constructed to explain natural events and grant power to its respective church etc.. If you deny that then you are a fool.


As for the last, if you seriously believes I just made that contradiction up then you are also very silly.. It is an old, classical, contradiction of omnipotence..


I take it you haven't studied up on String Theory or understand the scientific definition of dimension rather than the sci-fi definition. When I used the term "higher subatomic dimensions" I was referring to the additional dimensions used to explain String Theory as opposed to parrallel universes/dimensions as seen in the Star Trek. I think String Theory currently states there are 11 dimensions, which include length, height, width and time, although that is always under review and dispute.


I take it you never heard about Chaos theory eh?
Where pretty much everything is possible cause of a small, insignificant thing.. Like if I shout over here, that could cause a tornado in Florida, or if I jump hard on the ground, there might be an earthquake in India.. Or whatever, pretty much anything could happen in it, and if we include several dimensions in it like the string theory suggests, then the result is.. well, chaos.
Anything would be possible, and seemingly random.

So to be honest, I dont pay either theory much mind, some to the string theory perhaps but little.. There has been many theories throughout time to explain whatever, back in the day, priests made all kinds of crazy ideas, today, a few mathematicans, use strange math to try to make the illogical logic and explain everything when they havent got enough knowledge of how it all works to explain even the most "basic" of things..

Remember, these are all theories, none of them are proven.
Nobody has to acknowledge the string theory as fact, infact, it is NOT regarded fact by anyone so far.. Except those that came up with it maybe.

What would you consider to be "normal" dimensions?


Uhm... the normal 3? :roll:


Ah, so you don't consider time to be a "normal" dimension? Just because we cannot control our direction of movement through it does not make it any less of a dimension.


Not when it comes to moving objects freely, no, then I do not consider it a "normal" dimension, simply because objects are "normally" not moved around in it.

And you were talking about sub-atomic demensions, and what not, not time.


1. I didn't miss the point but it would seem you fail to realise certain things. Like Stews said, you fail to understand that you and the geniuses you mention are using human logic. You also fail to realise that you are restricted by rules, laws and boundaries, in both a physical and mental sense, thus limiting your abilities to understand the problem and solution. God, however, has no boundaries, no rules, nor laws to which he must obey and this allows him to acheive things that are unconceivable to us.


If he is omnipotent, then he would be able to put himself under said laws, and still do it.. Cause if you are omnipotent you can do anything, so he would be able to do it without breaking any laws of logic.. Meaning your argument still falls flat or you just doesnt got the intelligence necessary to grasp that simple fact.


Imagine a standard pack of playing cards that consists of just one of each card but two jokers. Now imagine that we take an infinite number of these packs and combine them. We now have an infinite number of Aces, an infinite number of Twos, an infinite number of Threes, etc. Now, the question is do we have more jokers than any other card in total? You could reply that as the packs are infinite in number they can't be counted so it would be impossible to know. However, as the ratio of jokers to other cards in each pack is fixed, then at any number of packs there will always be more jokers. This would appear to indicate, that mathematically, we can have degrees of infinity and although it may sound odd it is a valid mathematical argument.

Taking that into account should make it easier to realise that it is possible to have an infinite volume of space with which to keep an infinite amount of matter in and still have an infinite volume of empty space.


Sure that makes some sense.. While it still doesnt.
And to be honest.. In my opinon, infinite is more of a mathemetical label for numbers that are so large that there wouldnt be enough space on earth to write all the numbers in said number, and not a real and not an actual size. I only accept it for now since the universe is believed to be infinite and endless..

And according to what you wrote here,
(which Ive seen somewhere else, or something similiar, I think)
then there could be empty space outside of the universe and thus the universe would have an end, and not be endless and infinite. Which contradicts itself.

Last time I did any reading on this subject Einstein and a few others were backing the infinite density idea. Thier line of thinking was that when a large enough object collapses on itself it collapses onto a point of zero volume and since:

Density = Mass/Volume

you get the equation:

Density = Mass/0

and bearing in mind that:

x/0 = ∞

you get:

Density = ∞

Thus, infinite density.


Right, but could you ever prove that theory right?
No. (well maybe you could, but atleast not for now)

And numbers and math are really no good since infinity in itself contradicts both logic and math. Im not saying all of this is wrong, but it cant be taken as fact either since we dont know anything about them FOR SURE. It is all theory, recognise that simple fact.
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:02 pm

God is omnipotent. That means he can do anything.

You're asking him to not be able to do something.

He can't not be able to do something, since there is nothing that he can not do.

Hence, he cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, but he can create a rock that is bigger than the universe squared and then lift it.

Therefore, his only 'limit' is that he is unlimited. I guess that makes him not omnipotent because he's omnipotent. Quite a paradox!

Infinity is all relative to what you're measuring with anyway, if you were an atom, you'd think the length of your finger was pretty infinate.

As for "If you have ANY limits of size on an object, then the size of the object is not infinite", of course it is, go and measure the size of that object... 1 meter this way... times 1 meter this way... times how many meters this way? it's Volume = 1x1xinfinty = ?. How can that volume not be infinate? 1 lot of infinity is infinity... You deal with objects like this all the time when assessing things about them with calculus and engineering models. Think about it, how much water could you put inside this object if it was hollow? Yes, that's right, an infinate amount of water!

"Density is only a mesure of mass" wasn't very spot on, now was it? Can you blame people for picking up on that? Let's think about this... Density = Mass/Volume... on a total side note, Volume = Length x Width x Height. Right, let's ignore the 2nd two like you ignored Volume, then Size is only a measure of length! Hence, since my Length if infinate, my size is infinate.

How coheasive of you. :P

Seriously though (ie, my above statement wasn't serious, it was poking fun), take a physics exam, and if you're asked 'what is density', see if you get marks for 'Desntiy is only a mesure of mass'. My Density is like, 1 kg/m^3, I guess that makes me overweight, right?

You're such a tool sometimes. You can bring alot of 'alternative' and quite credible arguements to stuff but this whole affair is just idiotic, and more importantlly, just going around in circles.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:09 pm

Banker wrote:If you have ANY limits of size on an object, then the size of the object is not infinite.. It is not infinite as a whole if it is, only the depth (in your example) of said object is infinite, not the entire object, cause not all of the dimensions of the object is infinite.
I also wonder if any scientist would agree that there could exist such an object.. Cause the whole object is totally illogical.


Obviously you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. . . You should really go to school or read some books or something. It is rather pathetic how little you seem to know about all this stuff. . .


Once again.. It is a mesaure of mass per unit of volume.
But allright, lets ask your beloved Wikipedia..

"Density (symbol: ρ - Greek: rho) is a measure of mass per unit of volume." :lol: I was right on, like I quoted it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

Now shut the fuck up and go read up.


I am the one who said that density was mass/volume. . .

You are the one who was arguing density was just a measure of mass. You are the one who doesn't have a clue. I, on the otherhand, have been perfectly correct about this particular bit all along.

Your "god" and "his book" is more of a product of man than any logic ever is.. About every religion to date has been constructed to explain natural events and grant power to its respective church etc.. If you deny that then you are a fool.


That may all be true, but it does not mean God does not exist. We have verifiable evidence that logic breaks down. There is however no way to disprove God. This may seem rather cheap and unfair, but that is the way it is. I don't particularly mind people not believing in God. I just expect them to have intelligent reasons for it.

I take it you never heard about Chaos theory eh?
Where pretty much everything is possible cause of a small, insignificant thing.. Like if I shout over here, that could cause a tornado in Florida, or if I jump hard on the ground, there might be an earthquake in India.. Or whatever, pretty much anything could happen in it, and if we include several dimensions in it like the string theory suggests, then the result is.. well, chaos.
Anything would be possible, and seemingly random.


Yes, that is true. Although such chaos is generally deterministic (and thus not really chaos at all).

Remember, these are all theories, none of them are proven.
Nobody has to acknowledge the string theory as fact, infact, it is NOT regarded fact by anyone so far.. Except those that came up with it maybe.


Gravity is a theory as well. In science a theory is the most definitive statement of "fact" there is. Although you are correct that String Theory is yet to be fully accepted.



Not when it comes to moving objects freely, no, then I do not consider it a "normal" dimension, simply because objects are "normally" not moved around in it.


Except of course that all objects are constantly moving through time. . .


And according to what you wrote here,
(which Ive seen somewhere else, or something similiar, I think)
then there could be empty space outside of the universe and thus the universe would have an end, and not be endless and infinite. Which contradicts itself.


The Universe is expanding, which means it is finite, but it is also unbounded. The Universe is generally considered to be expanding into itself and thus is finite and infinte at the same time. A contradiction perhaps, but then again infinity is not logical. Also the Universe is not well defined. Technically the Universe consists of everything, but people use the term in different ways.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:27 pm

@ Goldfish..

God is omnipotent. That means he can do anything. (1)

You're asking him to not be able to do something. (2)

He can't not be able to do something, since there is nothing that he can not do. (3)

Hence, he cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift (4), but he can create a rock that is bigger than the universe squared and then lift it.


1. If this is true (his omnipotence) then he is also able to fail, since failing is just as much an action as succeding in doing something, and he can do anything, including failing.

2. But if he fails (at succeding) then he doesnt succeed at doing something, and therefore cannot do it, which is a limit and thus he wouldn't qualify as omnipotent.
And if he fails (at succeding) on purpose then he has imposed a limit on himself, and is no longer an omnipotent being as per definition, since he cannot do everything.

3. Quite untrue, if he can do ANYTHING, then he can also succeed at failing. And if he can fail then he is not omnipotent.
Thus omnipotence contradicts itself and is an impossible state of being. See point 1 & 2

4. So this is the conclusion:
If he cannot do one of those things, then he is not omnipotent.
If he can do it however, he is still not omnipotent.
2 Things that has to be done, 1 outrules the other, making
it an impossibility. He can bend the rules of reason and logic
you might say but then I want him to do this without bending
said rules, cause if he cannot do so, he is not omnipotent, cause
as an omnipotent being he must be able to do so, since an omnipotent can do anything, under any circumstances.

Infinity is all relative to what you're measuring with anyway, if you were an atom, you'd think the length of your finger was pretty infinate.


Yet it wouldnt be infinite, just extremly much bigger..
And I already made it clear I dont believe that infinity really exists other than as an extremly large number that is so big (in relation to everything else you know) you just dont got a better label for it.

"Density is only a mesure of mass" wasn't very spot on, now was it? Can you blame people for picking up on that? Let's think about this... Density = Mass/Volume...


I also said this.. It is a mesaure of mass per unit of volume.
Note how it says A MEASURE OF MASS..
I never denied you used units of volume to measure it though.
If there is an issue here, then it is one of language barriers,
english not being my first language, I shouldn't be taken 100%
literal if there is something missing in a sentence, like in this
instance, fill in the blanks yourself. I thought density was such
an easy thing I didn't need to explain it or give a full definition of
it.. :?

Might want to remember I didn't learn the definiton of said words in english, since it isn't my first language. And still I got it that close from just translating it from my own language.


@ Stews..

That may all be true, but it does not mean God does not exist. We have verifiable evidence that logic breaks down. There is however no way to disprove God. This may seem rather cheap and unfair, but that is the way it is. I don't particularly mind people not believing in God. I just expect them to have intelligent reasons for it.


I believe in higher beings, though I do not believe in a single, omnipotent "God" (with a big G)
Especially not if this god is "all good"..
And why dont I, well:

1. Omnipotence is impossible.

2. The teachings of the very religions that preach this "god" generally dont have a clue about how simple things in nature work, how could they possibly have a single fuckin clue about something that would defy both science and logic like a god would?
(Like you are so quick to point out)

3. If this god is all good and omnipotent, then why is there "evil" (as defined by said religions) in the world? "His ("god's") ways are" (whats the term in english? well, you can fill in the blanks I suppose) is nothing but an excuse for the lack of intervention.
Thus, stuff like omnipotent, allmighty, perfect, is nothing but boasting about how great your own "god" is, it's a commercial
of said religion so to speak... :lol:

4. The teachings of said religions contradict themselfs almost everywhere in respective "holy book".

5. Most of the teachings are small parts of other, polytheistic religions, that have been simply taken and copied for respective religion. The name Lucifer for instance was taken from the Romans,
who in turn, took it from the Greeks, where he was named Eosphoros. Then it was taken and applied to a "fallen & evil angel" to slander those religions. If that isn't disrespect for other peoples
beliefs then I dont know what is. And that isn't the only example.. There are LOTS of them.

6. Most religions have been made for a purpose, and not a divine one, but a clearly human one, alot of people today stick to their respective religion for that small chance they might get
to live again in the afterlife (heaven or whatever you want to call it), so fear of death is one reason for such religions, or rather making them not afraid of dying for their "betters" that command the "word and will" of respective "god" is a reason (thus making the priests etc VERY powerful), explaining natural phenomena they didnt have a clue about when the religions was MADE UP is another.. And the list goes on.

I could go on forvever, but this is just to give you some idea of why..

Gravity is a theory as well. In science a theory is the most definitive statement of "fact" there is. Although you are correct that String Theory is yet to be fully accepted.


Gravity is not a theory, it's a force, and it was proven to exist before there was any theory as of how it worked. (Newton didnt discover Gravity, he gave it a name and a theory of how it worked.)
Everyone knew that "something" kept you on the ground and made objects fall to the ground when dropped, but what it was, or how it worked nobody knew, and nobody bothered to find out (or simply couldnt) since it was so natural.

Thus Gravity is not a theory, only how it works is.

You might need to read up, if you think gravity is nothing but a theory so here; its aimed at people like you. (Kids 8+) :wink:
http://www.hkshum.net/whatisgravity/

Except of course that all objects are constantly moving through time. . .


Yes, but I said freely..
Objects cant (atleast we believe so) move "back" (or to the sides, however that would work) in time so to speak, only "forward".

The Universe is expanding, which means it is finite, but it is also unbounded. The Universe is generally considered to be expanding into itself and thus is finite and infinte at the same time. A contradiction perhaps, but then again infinity is not logical. Also the Universe is not well defined. Technically the Universe consists of everything, but people use the term in different ways.


Yeah, I never believed in infinity when it comes to size and such anyways.

Anyways, this is just going round round.. And Im probably not going to be here during this weekend so I think Im going to drop this.
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Sat Jul 02, 2005 2:38 pm

Simply put:

Failure requires a LACK of power.

Hence, omnipotent beings are incapable of failure.

Omnipotence does NOT mean can do anything, and never has done. It means they have limitless/infinate power, and these are very different things. Specifically, being incapable of not having enough power to do something is what makes you omnipotent.

If you wish to believe that Omnipotent beings should be capable of not being omnipotent, then yes, of course, God isn't omnipotent, and nothing can be. The problem is that believing this is a trick of language, like with that view, he should be able to call into existance an object that can never exist. What's the point in even HAVING the word when nothing can be it, eh?

As I said, the only 'limit' the them is that they can't be limited, and that's what you're asking of him.

Regardless of that, he can still create a rock from nothingness. Which is, compared to us, really very omnipotent.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests