Religious Debate o.O

[Grakthis]

Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.

  I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.

There might be, but i've never heard it.  It sounds like a bad theory though.... sounds like another cop out by the Catholic Church's scholars.

[rosieposy87]

Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.

  I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.

There might be, but i've never heard it.  It sounds like a bad theory though.... sounds like another cop out by the Catholic Church's scholars.

I wish i could've written that better, because i cannot for the life of me remember what was said in my philosophy class! DAMN (i also just wrote 2 essays so forgive me)! The other day aswell when we were discussing the problem of evil i could've proved someone wrong by using one of your points about god being omnipotent but i couldn't remember then either! *shakes fist*

[Katia's Lover]

This Burrito convo reminds me of something we went over in Philosophy the other day.  You'll have to bear with me, because I wasn't paying much attention.

The philosopher (like I said, I wasn't paying attention that well, and since I don't have my notebook with me, that will have to do) said that the true definition of God was something that was omnipotent--with nothing stronger than God.  

He then said that people arguing against the existence of God said that God existed only in the understanding, not in reality.  He used Ruductio (sp?) Ad Absurdum to refute this claim.  RAA proves a theory by proving that theories opposite is false.

1. God exists only in the understanding.
2. A God in Reality is of course more powerful than a God in the understanding.
3. If God is omnipotent and there is nothing stronger than God, and a God of Reality is more powerful than a God in the understanding, a God in the understanding is not really a God.
4. God does not exist in the understanding, but in the reality.

Do I buy it?  No.  To me it commits circular reasoning.  For #3 or #4 to be true, a God in Reality has to exist--and I don't think you can prove that just by proving God doesn't exist in the understanding.  *shrug*.

What proof do I have?  None.  I have my faith.  Take it or leave it.

[Grakthis]

I wish i could've written that better, because i cannot for the life of me remember what was said in my philosophy class! DAMN (i also just wrote 2 essays so forgive me)! The other day aswell when we were discussing the problem of evil i could've proved someone wrong by using one of your points about god being omnipotent but i couldn't remember then either! *shakes fist*

lol

Never forget my points!  They will serve you well..... even the ones you disagree with can be used to anticipate what someone else might say in an argument.

You could always print out this thread and take it to school with you  :wink:

[Grakthis]

1. God exists only in the understanding.
2. A God in Reality is of course more powerful than a God in the understanding.
3. If God is omnipotent and there is nothing stronger than God, and a God of Reality is more powerful than a God in the understanding, a God in the understanding is not really a God.
4. God does not exist in the understanding, but in the reality.

Thank you Rene Descarte  :wink:

"existence is a perfection, and as God is described as the most perfect being. It follows that God must exist."

Yeah, that logic has long since been disproven and discounted.  Plus, Descarte was doing his thing long before science (namely, Darwin) came along with the theory of evolution... so he operated under some bad misconceptions.

[rosieposy87]

I wish i could've written that better, because i cannot for the life of me remember what was said in my philosophy class! DAMN (i also just wrote 2 essays so forgive me)! The other day aswell when we were discussing the problem of evil i could've proved someone wrong by using one of your points about god being omnipotent but i couldn't remember then either! *shakes fist*

lol

Never forget my points!  They will serve you well..... even the ones you disagree with can be used to anticipate what someone else might say in an argument.

You could always print out this thread and take it to school with you  :wink:

yeah, that would make me 'too cool for school' (oh dear, me and my chums are obsessed with that phrase at the moment- SO funny)

Oh and i was trying really hard to read that thread you linked too but i am beginning to doubt my own existence as a result of it. So i stopped. LOL

EDIT: After reading Todd's post i am beyond baffled, my philosophy teacher wants me to do pure philosophy at Oxford or Cambridge- not on your life it it involves that kinda stuff love!

[Katia's Lover]

My apologies to Descartes for fucking up his thesis.

[Grakthis]

My apologies to Descartes for fucking up his thesis.

Apology accepted Todd.  Just don't let it happen again!

Edit

Oh and i was trying really hard to read that thread you linked too but i am beginning to doubt my own existence as a result of it. So i stopped. LOL

Yeah... the conversation got pretty deep as it went.  Some really smart people over there.  Some really FUNNY people there too.....

[PIBby]

There might be, but i've never heard it.  It sounds like a bad theory though.... sounds like another cop out by the Catholic Church's scholars.

Lesbian!

I'm soooo joshin'. You know I'd never call you that.

No . . . It's just that . . . If you had a needle heated at the same temperature as the very middle (core? does the sun have a core?) of the sun, it would be hot enough to burn OUT everything within a 60-mile radius. So . . . If God wanted to make a burrito too hot for Him, if would definitely kill all of us so I don't think He exactly wants us to die. Being that it took, He knows how many years for there to be - How many people are on Earth - 2 billion? I'm such a psycho. Anyway, 'cause it took that long for the first hundred or whatever people He created to reproduce (or the apes to evolve or whatever you evolutionists say).

Back on the burritos!  :twisted:  

Sorry this is sooooo, like, not even relevent (vant?) anymore . . . I just had to . . . yeah.

You know, I think Andrew's brother told me that thing about the needle's heat killing everybody, one morning. Otherwise I'm just being the dillusion retard I normally am.

[Steveau]

How can some people be rich, smart, "cool", good looking, and all the good stuff, when there are mentally and physically ill people who live, but don't get to live life?
[D]

I can speak on this as I'm one of the physically ill. Just because I don't live your life the way you do doesn't mean I don't live life. It's just that this is my life.

People constantly say to me how they think I'm so strong for dealing with what I do but they don't understand that this is my reality. I'm not strong, I'm just living with what's been given me.

On the topic of religion, I'm a strange person because I believe in God but I'm totally against organized religion.

God obviously eats burritoes, what do you think caused the brush fires here in California? LMAO

[tylor2000]

No, the whole conversation didn't go over my head.  haha  My aurgument makes perfect sense.  My aurgument is I could even make a burrito to hot for God to eat, lol.  Because if I heated it enough it would not be a burrito anymore.  But before you go on and on about how I can't see the point of the conversation, I'd like to point out that my philosophy, now and in the past, seems to follow a pattern.  If you hadn't noticed.

My point is no burrito exists that god could not eat, because god is omnipotent.  Any burrito that god could not eat could not exist.  The physical laws of nature reflex this because a burrito after being heated to a certain point ceases to exist.  Everything in nature reflexes god's will, so don't go on with your nonsense about, "IF God wanted."  Everything in nature ceases to exist at some point or another.  So there is nothing god could not do within the realm of nature.

You contradict yourself multiple times in your own post.  God cannot be both omnipotent AND Limited by the realm of nature.  Pick on.  You sound terribly confused about your own beliefs.  If an omnipotent God wanted to make a burrito 8 billion degrees hot but have it STILL BE A BURRITO HE COULD.

So your God is weak and pathetic because he can't even break the rules of nature?  Then you don't belong in this dicussion because your "god" is not THE "God" that we are discussing.

Everything in nature doesn't HAVE to cease to exist at some point or another.  Not if God doesn't want it to.  Or are you making God weak again?

Tylor, you are too analytical minded for this conversation because you aren't following the philisophy behind it.  Leave while you still have some dignity intact.

*waits for you abusive rambling*

Masochist much?  If you knew the abuse was coming, why bring it on yourself?

No that is not what I was implying.  Your words are a contradiction.  Mine are not.

God is capable of undermining his own authority.  Untill he does he remains omnipotent.  Creating a burrito he could not eat or a stone he could not lift would be undermining his authority.  God would no longer be omnipotent.  But at anytime after that he could abolish the stone or burrito and be omnipotent again.  The fact that god could be omnipotent or not at will means he never lost his status in the first place, because he always had control of it.

Tylor, you are too analytical minded for this conversation because you aren't following the philisophy behind it.

You're catching on.

[Will]

No . . . It's just that . . . If you had a needle heated at the same temperature as the very middle (core? does the sun have a core?) of the sun, it would be hot enough to burn OUT everything within a 60-mile radius.

Yes, the sun does have a core. Care to provide some evidence for your claim? What you are telling me about the needle makes no sense according to the physics that I know.

[Alecs]

Isn't there a theory, that if we understood the way in which God works then we would be halfway to becoming him? In which case we can never understand him, because if we could- that would make us capable of doing the things he does. That would not require faith anymore- that would not make him God.

  I'm not saying this is my view at all, but it has been posed. Am i right? I know there are a LOT of flaws to it, just saying it might answer that question.

We will never fully understand God, but he wants us to understand him as much as possible. It's kinda hard to understand because we're only humans and he is God. It confuses me as well. It's too much for our simple minds to comprehend when it comes to how it all works. I believe we can never fully understand God because he is God. As mentioned above, "If we could understand God completely then we would be as the same" but we can't be...

can we? :?:

[Grakthis]

No that is not what I was implying.  Your words are a contradiction.  Mine are not.

God is capable of undermining his own authority.  Untill he does he remains omnipotent.  Creating a burrito he could not eat or a stone he could not lift would be undermining his authority.  God would no longer be omnipotent.  But at anytime after that he could abolish the stone or burrito and be omnipotent again.  The fact that god could be omnipotent or not at will means he never lost his status in the first place, because he always had control of it.

Where is the evidence for this POV?  If God makes a stone that is soooo heavy he cannot lift it, then he is limited and therefore not all powerful.  There is no logcal, scriptural or dogmatic basis for the idea that God can make his own omnipotence vanish at will.

Sure, he can make the stone vanish again..... but he still created an impossibility for himself.  He was unable to lift the stone.  Therefore, according to you, God IS limited in his ability.  If he wants to make a stone that is super heavy he MUST become less than omnipotent afterwards.  That is a limit on Gods powers.

Just because the object that demonstrated his weakness vanished doesn't make his weakness vanish.

If I willfully paint myself Red, and I have the power to change my self back to my normal color at will, does that mean I'm not actually red?

The God you are describing is not the western God as described in the bible and christian dogma.

[Grakthis]

Lesbian!

I might be.

When I went on Amazon last month it recomended the following Artists' CD's to me....(this is NOT a joke)

Tori Amos
Indigo Girls
Tatu
Fiona Apple

AND, I do like women  :wink:

You might have heard my brother say something about the core of the sun thingie.  I have no idea.  I can only listen to him from about 7:30 till 8:15 cause that's when I am getting ready for work.  So they say a lot of stuff I don't hear.....