OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 31, 2014, 04:39:42 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Should I continue to debate Jackal?
Definitely, it's educational - 3 (7.9%)
Sure, at least it is providing a little insight. - 7 (18.4%)
Probably not, it's a waste of time. - 12 (31.6%)
Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion. - 16 (42.1%)
Total Voters: 38

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should, I continue my debate with Jackal?  (Read 11489 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #135 on: February 21, 2011, 03:56:41 PM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #136 on: February 21, 2011, 04:07:12 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend)  

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

OK, You may feel free to continue believing that a GOD is made of nothing. I'm just being very direct in my approach, or blunt. Yes, you would be deluded if you actually think something can be made of nothing. However, that doesn't make you a bad person either. And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma  Roll Eyes Please prove anything I say is actually "blasphemous".. I don't see GOD coming down and backing up that assertion of yours, or giving me some friendly warning to watch what I have to say about this subject or discussion.  
Quote
childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which includes your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates, and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:23:23 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #137 on: February 21, 2011, 04:08:42 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

OK, You may feel free to continue believing that a GOD is made of nothing. I'm just being very direct in my approach, or blunt. Yes, you would be deluded if you actually think something can be made of nothing. However, that doesn't make you a bad person either. And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma  Roll Eyes Please prove anything I say is actually "blasphemous".. I don't see GOD coming down and backing up that assertion of yours, or giving me some friendly warning to watch what I have to say about this subject or discussion.  
Quote
childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates, and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.


Fr. George never said "Your face is a logical fallacy".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #138 on: February 21, 2011, 04:15:37 PM »

Quote from: TheJackel
And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma

Quote from: TheJackel
or start a moral dogmatic games.

You often get hung up on the way people use words, but you don't seem to be using the word "dogma" correctly. I realize it's something of an anti-Christian buzzword, but with your command of the English language I wouldn't have expected it from you...
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:17:13 PM by bogdan » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #139 on: February 21, 2011, 04:16:46 PM »

* Sorry the equations don't post here.

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #140 on: February 21, 2011, 04:21:05 PM »

Quote from: TheJackel
And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma

You often get hung up on the way people use words, but you don't seem to be using the word "dogma" correctly. I realize it's something of an anti-Christian buzzword, but with your command of the English language I wouldn't have expected it from you...

I do use the word correctly. Blasphemy is religiously dogmatic. Commonly used by theists to discount an opposing view.

Quote
The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political [3] and scientific [4] beliefs.
Quote
Fr. George never said "Your face is a logical fallacy".

Never stated he did.. I posted that as another example to which included his own example. The intention was never to imply that he had.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:22:31 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #141 on: February 21, 2011, 04:23:40 PM »


Never stated he did.. I posted that as another example to which included his own example. The intention was never to imply that he had.
The person who said this was moderated.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #142 on: February 21, 2011, 04:25:33 PM »


Never stated he did.. I posted that as another example to which included his own example. The intention was never to imply that he had.
The person who said this was moderated.

I understand that, and I am just showing why his own comment wasn't much better.. However, I would prefer to cease personal slap shots on either side of the fence here. Yes, that includes myself. We can begin that ... Now! Smiley
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:26:34 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,095


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #143 on: February 21, 2011, 04:28:10 PM »

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

I hardly see how my telling you that your tone is inappropriate is hypocritical.  No stone cast, by the way - I didn't use any ad hominems,, just noted an infantile quality to your proclamations.  I know which post you've brought up with your quote, but I have a feeling that you've taken it far too personally - the phrase "your face is a logical fallacy" is a joke widely seen around the 'net.

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates,

I sincerely doubt this, but I'll take your word at face-value for the moment.

and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

Again, you're off-base in your analysis of my post and/or my intentions.  There is no logical fallacy, dogmatic game, etc. when I inform you that your words are, by our definition (heck, by any reasonable definition), blasphemous.  I'm not calling you out for any logical fallacy - it's your opinion that, our "GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea;"  however, your assertion that it (and a number of your other statements) is not blasphemous is laughable.  Two non-Christian sources should suffice for now:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

You still haven't pointed out where I'm wrong or hypocritical in my assertions that:

- Your posts are rude and childish
- Your statements are blasphemous
- People here will not respect you (for being rude, childish, and/or blasphemous)

I'll not respond further in this thread, as I have indeed decided to change my vote to: "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion." from "Sure, at least it is providing a little insight."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #144 on: February 21, 2011, 04:51:01 PM »

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

I hardly see how my telling you that your tone is inappropriate is hypocritical.  No stone cast, by the way - I didn't use any ad hominems,, just noted an infantile quality to your proclamations.  I know which post you've brought up with your quote, but I have a feeling that you've taken it far too personally - the phrase "your face is a logical fallacy" is a joke widely seen around the 'net.

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates,

I sincerely doubt this, but I'll take your word at face-value for the moment.

and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

Again, you're off-base in your analysis of my post and/or my intentions.  There is no logical fallacy, dogmatic game, etc. when I inform you that your words are, by our definition (heck, by any reasonable definition), blasphemous.  I'm not calling you out for any logical fallacy - it's your opinion that, our "GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea;"  however, your assertion that it (and a number of your other statements) is not blasphemous is laughable.  Two non-Christian sources should suffice for now:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

You still haven't pointed out where I'm wrong or hypocritical in my assertions that:

- Your posts are rude and childish
- Your statements are blasphemous
- People here will not respect you (for being rude, childish, and/or blasphemous)

I'll not respond further in this thread, as I have indeed decided to change my vote to: "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion." from "Sure, at least it is providing a little insight."

You do realize that most of the stuff I posted here was never really addressed by any of you correct? Some yes, but the bulk of the arguments get simply ignored. Did anyone actually properly address the religious fallacy argument on Omniscience? Information theory? Most of what I have seen here have been deflective circular arguments that can best be said to state "God is beyond all that exists".. It's a tact that is used so one doesn't have to address contradiction in their beliefs, or positions.. It's one fallacy creation after another. It would be no different than me saying that "My God exist beyond your GOD and all that exists of all that is stated to exist".. That might be the source cause to why people are losing brain cells here today. The seemingly inability to properly address an argument.

So would anyone like to tackle the Omniscient argument properly? I would indeed appreciate the effort Smiley

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #145 on: February 21, 2011, 05:08:25 PM »

So Let's try this one more time while maintaining a civil discussion on both sides Smiley I will try to be less rudely direct.


So In regards to the Definition of Omniscience I have posted here, we need to pay special attention to the words "infinite" and "everything", and then go define "Solipsism" while holding ourselves to Information theory discussed earlier (especially when information is the core to this argument) Smiley

 
Quote

So lets look at Omniscience from a Designers Perspective (as if you are the Omniscient GOD about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being):

    1) I'm Omniscient

    2) I have an Idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent

    3) I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it or even thought of it (key note: This is a logical fallacy because you can't create things from a position of Omniscience).. But we will roll with it here for sake of argument.

    A) I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.

    B) I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way! (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)

    C) I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.

    D) This thing I designed would only be able to do what it's was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being me, and me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable, and literally.

    E) Even if we wanted to create the logical fallacy that this thing would not be me under Omniscience, The thing itself still could never freely stray from it's predetermined fate in every infinite detail to which includes every feeling, thought, idea, emotion, action, reaction, ect. all the way down to the quantum level and substance from which it was made. That includes every infinite piece of data in regards to it's relation to every atom it's comprised of vs every other atom in existence. And infinitely so!

    So, this is why Omniscience is a logical fallacy. And technically, something that is Omniscient can't actually do anything at all because it infinitely would know, experienced, or seen everything infinitely, and infinitely in the past, present, and future. Thus something to which is conscious can not design or create anything to which it does not already know IF it is Omniscient by definition! Existence would at that point just be an infinite Picture in an infinite picture frame.. And that's not even the worst part of it, the following is even worse than the above:

    Omniscience would translate to GOD being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way. This is in accordance with:

    *Article: Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation


So how does that relate to:

1.) Being boundless
2.) Individualism (see also "being boundless")
3.) Solipsism (see also "individualism", and "boundless")
4.) Free will
5.) Free agency
6.) Infinite vs finite
8.) Containment
9.) Omnipotence
10.) All loving "unconditional Love"
11.) Information
12.) Time
13.) Consciousness
14.) The ability to create that which one doesn't already know.
15.) Do anything to which hasn't already been done.
16.) The ability to design and Create.
17.) Evil
18.) Satan (should you believe one exists)
19.) Death


I would appreciate replies that don't regress to circular arguments, or simply just state "GOD is incomprehensible".. I'm not interested in self-collapsing arguments. So I would appreciate some honest debate that doesn't just ignore the argument, but rather makes a genuine attempt at trying to explore the argument. Smiley So please go by the 19 points listed when considering Omniscience, and explain how they apply to omniscience and the example I have posted  Cool

Cheers!,
TheJackel
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 05:25:19 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #146 on: February 21, 2011, 05:30:09 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #147 on: February 21, 2011, 05:39:03 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #148 on: February 21, 2011, 05:40:11 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.

Please address the argument Smiley
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,049


"My god is greater."


« Reply #149 on: February 21, 2011, 05:44:09 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.

Please address the argument Smiley

Have you ever been eaten by a giraffe? Why is your hair mischievous?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #150 on: February 21, 2011, 05:50:25 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.
Please address the argument Smiley
Have you ever been eaten by a giraffe? Why is your hair mischievous?

You like?  Cheesy


Why is this non-sensical?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #151 on: February 21, 2011, 05:55:29 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?

If you refuse to believe that nothing isn't anything, I can't convince you that nothing isn't anything. I know that seems confusing but I also had stated earlier that even if you thought information was immaterial you still can't deposit the logic of being made of nothing. being made of nothing would have no informational value, and thus wouldn't exist, it just remains a figment of your imagination or an ideological concept. Smiley If you wanted to say that it isn't made of nothing, it would start to put it in the realm of possibility. However, let's take these arguments one at a time and begin with the above argument that deals with omniscience. Smiley
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #152 on: February 21, 2011, 05:58:54 PM »

Quote
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.

Without a GOD's existence it's impossible to please one.. However, I see that as a servitude to power argument :/ .. So much for the purpose of free will. If your GOD did not want to be displeased, I would think it would have been wise to make displeasure to his will impossible. Smiley Now please, if you will, address the posted argument in regards to omniscience properly. Wink
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:01:28 PM by TheJackel » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #153 on: February 21, 2011, 06:12:14 PM »

From St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Chapter 12

In these things, then, have we been instructed by the
sacred sayings, as the divine Dionysius the Areopagite has
said, namely, that God is the Cause and Principle of all
things,
the Essence of things that are, the Life or the living,
the Reason of the rational, the Understanding of them that
have understanding, the Revival and the raising up of them
that fall away from Him, the Remaking and Reforming
of them that are by nature corruptible, the holy Support
of them that are tossed on an unholy sea, the sure Support
of them that stand, and the Way and the outstretched
guiding Hand to them that are drawn to Him. Moreover,
I shall add that He is the Father of them that have been
made by Him. For our God, who has brought us from nothing
into being, is more properly our Father than they who have
begotten us, but who have received from Him both their
being and their power to beget. He is the Shepherd of them
that follow after Him and are led by Him. He is the Illumina-
tion of the enlightened. He is the Initiation of the initiate. He
is the Godliness of the godly. He is the Reconciliation of them
that are at variance. He is the Simplicity of them that are
become simple. He is the Unity of them that seek unity. As
Principle of Principles He is the transcendent Principle of
every principle. He is the good Communication of His hidden
things, that is, of His knowledge, in so far as is allowable and
meets with the capacity of each individual.


Since the Divinity is incomprehensible, He must remain
absolutely nameless. Accordingly, since we do not know His
essence, let us not look for a name for His essence, for names
are indicative of what things are.
However, although God
is good and has brought us from nothing into being to share
His goodness and has given us knowledge, yet, since He did
not communicate His essence to us, so neither did He com-
municate the knowledge of His essence. It is impossible for
a nature to know a nature of a higher order perfectly;
but,
if knowledge is of things that are, then how will that which
is superessential be known? So, in His ineffable goodness He
sees fit to be named from things which are on the level of
our nature, that we may not be entirely bereft of knowledge
of Him but may have at least some dim understanding.
Therefore, in so far as He is incomprehensible, He is also
unnameable. But, since He is the cause of all things and
possesses beforehand in Himself the reasons and causes of all,

so He can be named after all things even after things which
are opposites, such as light and darkness, water and fire so
that we may know that He is not these things in essence, but
is superessential and unnameable. Thus, since He is the cause
of all beings, He is named after all things that are caused.


Wherefore, some of the divine names are said by negation
and show His superessentiality,
as when He is called 'Insub-
stantial, 'Timeless,' 'Without beginning,' 'Invisible' not
because He is inferior to anything or lacking in anything, for
all things are His and from Him and by Him were made
and in Him consist, but because He is pre-eminently set
apart from all beings.
The names that are given by negation
are predicated of Him as being the cause of all things. For,
in so far as He is the cause of all beings and of every essence,
He is called 'Being' and 'Essence.' As the cause of all reason
and wisdom, and as that of the reasoning and the wise, He
is called 'Wisdom' and 'Wise.' In the same way, He is called
'Mind' and 'Understanding', 'Life' and 'Living,' 'Might'
and 'Mighty,' and so on with all the rest. But especially may
He be named after those more noble things which approach
Him more closely. Immaterial things are more noble than
material, the pure more so than the sordid, the sacred more
so than the profane, and they approach Him more closely
because they participate in Him more.
Consequently, He may
be called sun and light much more suitably than darkness,
day more suitably than night, life more suitably than death,
and fire, air, and water (since these are life-giving) more
suitably than earth. And, above all, He may be called good-
ness rather than evil, which is the same thing as to say being
rather than non-being, because good is existence and the
cause of existence. These are all negations and affirmations,
but the most satisfactory is the combination of both, as, for
example, the 'superessential Essence,' 'the superdivine God-
head,' the 'Principle beyond all principles, and so on. There
are also some things which are affirmed of God positively, but
which have the force of extreme negation, as, for example,
darkness not because God is darkness, but because He is
light and more than light.

And so, God is called 'Mind, and 'Reason, and Spirit,'
and 'Wisdom, because He is the cause of these, and because
He is immaterial, and because He is all-working and all-
powerful.
And these names, both those given by negation
and those given by affirmation, are applied jointly to the
whole Godhead. They also apply in the same way, identically,
and without exception, to each one of the Persons of the
Holy Trinity. Thus, when I think of one of the Persons,
I know that He is perfect God, a perfect substance, but
when I put them together and combine them, I know one
perfect God. For the Godhead is not compounded, but is
one perfect, indivisible, and uncompounded being in three
perfect beings. However, whenever I think of the negation
of the Persons to one another, I know that the Father is
a supersubstantial sun, a well-spring of goodness, an abyss of
essence, reason, wisdom, power, light, and divinity, a beget-
ting and emitting well-spring of the good hidden in Himself.
Thus, He is 'Mind', 'Abyss of reason, 'Begetter of the Word',
and, through the Word, 'Emitter' of the revealing Spirit.
And, not to speak at too great length, the Father has no
reason, wisdom, power, or will other than the Son, who is
the only power of the Father and the primordial force of the
creation of all things. As a perfect hypostasis begotten of
a perfect hypostasis, in a manner which He alone knows,
is He who is the Son and is so called. Then there is the Holy
Ghost, a power of the Father revealing the hidden things
of the Godhead and proceeding from the Father through
the Son, not by begetting, but in a manner which He alone
knows. Wherefore the Holy Ghost is also perfecter of the
creation of all things. Consequently, whatsoever pertains to
the Father as cause, well-spring, and begetter must be attrib-
uted to the Father alone. Whatsoever pertains to the Son
as caused, begotten son, word, primordial force, will, and
wisdom must be attributed to the Son alone. And whatsoever
pertains to the caused, proceeding, revealing, and perfecting
power must be attributed to the Holy Ghost. The Father is
well-spring and cause of Son and Holy Ghost He is Father
of the only Son and Emitter of the Holy Ghost. The Son
is son, word, wisdom, power, image, radiance, and type of
the Father, and He is from the Father. And the Holy Ghost
is not a son of the Father, but He is the Spirit of the Father
as proceeding from the Father. For, without the Spirit, there
is no impulsion. And He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being
from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father
for the Father alone is Cause.



Chapter 13

Place is physical, being the limits of the thing containing
within which the thing contained is contained. The air, for
example, contains and the body is contained, but not all
of the containing air is the place of the contained body, but
only those limits of the containing air which are adjacent
to the contained body. And this is necessarily so, because the
thing containing is not in the thing contained.

However, there is also an intellectual place where the
intellectual and incorporeal nature is thought of as being
and where it actually is. There it is present and acts; and
it is not physically contained, but spiritually, because it has
no form to permit it to be physically contained. Now, God,
being immaterial and uncircumscribed, is not in a place.
For He, who fills all things and is over all things and Him-
self encompasses all things, is His own place. However, God
is also said to be in a place; and this place where God is said
to be is there where His operation is plainly visible. Now,
He does pervade all things without becoming mixed with
them, and to all things He communicates His operation in
accordance with the fitness and receptivity of each in accord-
ance with their purity of nature and will, I mean to say.
For
the immaterial things are purer than the material and the
virtuous more pure than such as are partisan to evil. Thus,
the place where God is said to be is that which experiences
His operation and grace to a greater extent. For this reason,
heaven is His Throne, because it is in heaven that the angels
are who do His will and glorify Him unceasingly. For heaven
is His resting place and the earth his footstool, because on
the earth He conversed in the flesh with men. And the
sacred flesh of God has been called His foot. The Church,
too, is called the place of God, because we have set it apart
for His glorification as a sort of hallowed spot in which we
also make our intercessions to Him. In the same way, those
places in which His operation is plainly visible to us, whether
it is realized in the flesh or out of the flesh, are called places
of God.

Moreover, one must know that the Divinity is without
parts and that He is wholly everywhere in His entirety, not
being physically distributed part for part, but wholly in all
things and wholly over the universe.


Although the angel is not contained physically in a place
so as to assume form and shape, he is said to be in a place
because of his being spiritually present there and acting
according to his nature, and because of his being nowhere
else but remaining spiritually circumscribed there where
he acts. For he cannot act in different places at the same time,
because only God can act everywhere at the same time. For
the angel acts in different places by virtue of a natural swift-
ness and his ability to pass without delay, that is, swiftly, from
place to place; but the Divinity being everywhere and beyond
all at the same time acts in different places by one simple
operation.


The soul is united with the body, the entire soul with
the entire body and not part for part. And it is not contained
by the body, but rather contains it, just as heat does iron,
and, although it is in the body, carries on its own proper
activities.

Now, to be circumscribed means to be determined by
place, time, or comprehension, while to be contained by none
of these is to be uncircumscribed. So the Divinity alone is
uncircumscribed, who is without beginning and without end,
who embraces all things and is grasped by no comprehension
at all. For He alone is incomprehensible, indefinable, and
known by no one; and He alone has a clear vision of Him-
self. The angel, however, is circumscribed by time, because
he had a beginning of being; and by place, even though it
be spiritually, as we have said before; and by comprehension,
because their natures are to some extent known to each
other and because they are completely defined by the Creator.
Bodies also are circumscribed by beginning, end, physical
place, and comprehension.


The Divinity, therefore, is absolutely unchangeable and
inalterable. For, all things which are not in our power He
predetermined by His foreknowledge, each one in its own
proper time and place. It is in this sense that it is said:
'Neither does the Father judge any man: but hath given
all judgment to the Son.' For, of course, the Father has
judged, and so has the Son of God, and so has the Holy Ghost.
But, as man, the Son Himself will come down in His body
and sit upon the throne of glory for both the coming down
and the sitting will be of His circumscribed body and
He will judge the whole world in equity.'

All things are far from God: not in place, but in nature.
With us, prudence and wisdom and counsel come and go
like habits, but that is certainly not the case with God. With
Him, nothing comes into being or ceases to be, and one
must not speak of accidents, because He is inalterable and
unchangeable. The good is concomitant to His essence. He
sees God who always longs for Him, for all things that are
are dependent upon Him who is, so that it is impossible for
anything to be, unless it have its being in Him who is. Indeed,
in so far as He sustains their nature, God is mixed in with all
things. God the Word, however, was united to His sacred
body hypostatically and was combined with our nature with-
out being mingled with it.

No one sees the Father, except the Son and the Spirit.

The Son is the counsel, the wisdom, and the power of the
Father. For we must not speak of quality in God, lest we
say that He is composed of substance and quality.

The Son is from the Father, and whatsoever He has He
has from Him. For that reason, He can do nothing of Him-
self. Thus, He has no operation that it is distinct from the
Father.

That God, although invisibile by nature, becomes visible
through His operations we know from the arrangement of
the world and from its governing.


The Son is image of the Father, and image of the Son is
the Spirit, through whom the Christ dwelling in man gives
it to him to be to the image of God.

The Holy Ghost is God. He is the median of the Unbegot-
ten and the Begotten and He is joined with the Father
through the Son. He is called Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ,
Mind of Christ, Spirit of the Lord, True Lord, Spirit of
adoption, freedom, and wisdom for He is the cause of all
these. He fills all things with His essence and sustains all
things. In His essence He fills the world, but in His power
the world does not contain Him.

God is substance eternal, unchangeable, creative of the
things that are, and to be adored with devout consideration.


The Father is also God. It is He who is ever-unbegotten,
because He was never begotten of anyone, but He has begot-
ten a co-eternal Son. The Son is also God. It is He who is
ever with the Father, having been begotten of Him time-
lessly, eternally, without change, without passion, and with-
out cease. The Holy Ghost is also God. He is a sanctifying
force that is subsistent, that proceeds unceasingly from the
Father and abides in the Son, and that is of the same sub-
stance as the Father and the Son.

The Word is He who is ever present with the Father sub-
stantially. In another sense, a word is the natural movement
of the mind, by which the rnind moves and thinks and
reasons, as if it were the light and radiance of the mind. And
again, a word is that internal thought which is spoken in
the heart. Still again, there is the spoken word which is
a messenger of the mind. Now, God the Word is both sub-
stantial and subsistent, while the other three kinds of word
are faculties of the soul and are not found to exist in their
own hypostases. The first of these is a product of the mind,
ever springing naturally from the mind. The second is called
internal, and the third called spoken.

The term 'spirit' is understood in several ways. There is
the Holy Spirit. And the powers of this Holy Spirit are also
called spirits. The good angel is likewise a spirit, and so is
the demon and the soul. There are times when even the
mind is called spirit. The wind is also a spirit, and so is the air.



Chapter 14

The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound-
less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the
just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the
uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi-
nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing,
the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the
almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com-
municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and
the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by
His nature. They are not received from any other source;
on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good
to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each.


The abiding and resting of the Persons in one another
is not in such a manner that they coalesce or become confused,
but, rather, so that they adhere to one another, for they are
without interval between them and inseparable and their
mutual indwelling is without confusion. For the Son is in
the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and
the Son, and the Father is in the Son and the Spirit, and
there is no merging or blending or confusion. And there is
one surge and one movement of the three Persons. It is
impossible for this to be found in any created nature.

Then there is the fact that the divine irradiation and
operation is one, simple, and undivided; and that, while it is
apparently diversely manifested in divisible things, dispensing
to all of them the components of their proper nature, it
remains simple. Indivisibly, it is multiplied in divisible things,
and, gathering them together, it reverts them to its own
simplicity. For, toward Him all things tend, and in Him
they have their existence, and to all things He communicates
their being in accordance with the nature of each. He is the
being of things that are, the life of the living, the reason
of the rational, and the intelligence of intelligent beings. He
surpasses intelligence, reason, life, and essence.


And then again, there is His pervading of all things with-
out Himself being contaminated, whereas nothing pervades
Him. And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by
a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing
with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things
at once, both present and past and future, before they come
to pass. And there is His sinlessness, His forgiving of sins
and saving. And, finally, there is the fact that all that He
wills He can do, even though He does not will all the things
that He can do for He can destroy the world, but He does
not will to do so.


...

We believe in Father and Son and Holy Spirit; one Godhead in three hypostases;one will, one operation, alike in three persons; wisdom incorporeal, uncreated, immortal, incomprehensible, without beginning, unmoved, unaffected, without quantity, without quality, ineffable, immutable, unchangeable, uncontained, equal in glory, equal in power, equal in majesty, equal in might, equal in nature, exceedingly substantial, exceedingly good, thrice radiant, thrice bright, thrice brilliant. Light is the Father, Light the Son, Light the Holy Spirit; Wisdom the Father, Wisdom the Son, Wisdom the Holy Spirit; one God and not three Gods; one Lord, the Holy Trinity, discovered in three hypostases. Father is the Father, and unbegotten; Son is the Son, begotten and not unbegotten, for He is from the Father; Holy Spirit, not begotten but proceeding, for He is from the Father. There is nothing created, nothing of the first and second order, nothing of lord and servant; but there is unity and trinity - there was, there is, and there shall be forever - which is perceived and adored by faith - by faith, not by inquiry, nor by searching out, nor by visible manifestation: for the more He is sought out, the more He is unknown, and the more He is investigated, the more He is hidden.



TheJackel, I think you should take a gander at this and get back to us later: http://www.archive.org/details/fathersofthechur009511mbp
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:29:10 PM by bogdan » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #154 on: February 21, 2011, 06:19:00 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?

If you refuse to believe that nothing isn't anything, I can't convince you that nothing isn't anything. I know that seems confusing but I also had stated earlier that even if you thought information was immaterial you still can't deposit the logic of being made of nothing. being made of nothing would have no informational value, and thus wouldn't exist, it just remains a figment of your imagination or an ideological concept. Smiley If you wanted to say that it isn't made of nothing, it would start to put it in the realm of possibility. However, let's take these arguments one at a time and begin with the above argument that deals with omniscience. Smiley

I refuse to believe it because the definition of "nothing" is one derived from observing the material world, not an abstract principle that has to logically apply to all reality. Yes, to be without information is nonsensical...to material things. Do you see the difference? The facts that you've assembled only apply to material things. This I'm okay with. But you need to convince me that materiality is the only possible way to exist, and you've not done that.

It's like your starting point is, "Well, we know things can only exist if they have information..." to which everyone here is replying, "Yes, when speaking about material things." See, material things, or informational things, or however you want to put it are all that we can observe. That's fine. What Christians are saying, however, is that we believe Jesus Christ to have been the manifestation of the immaterial God, who we otherwise never would've found. I know it sounds absurd to people who don't believe it, but we'd say we believe in God because of Divine Revelation, in its various forms.

It's almost as if you think Christians believe in God because we don't think certain things can be "explained" when really, we believe because of personal experience. Now, you can take issue with that, but nobody is saying, "You should believe in God because I have experienced him." That should be rightly scoffed at.

Anyway, I know I brought up a bunch of different things there, but everyone keeps talking past one another and it helps to understand what both sides are trying to say.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #155 on: February 21, 2011, 06:21:48 PM »

Before I get to that, should I explain why God requires faith?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #156 on: February 21, 2011, 06:29:51 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?

If you refuse to believe that nothing isn't anything, I can't convince you that nothing isn't anything. I know that seems confusing but I also had stated earlier that even if you thought information was immaterial you still can't deposit the logic of being made of nothing. being made of nothing would have no informational value, and thus wouldn't exist, it just remains a figment of your imagination or an ideological concept. Smiley If you wanted to say that it isn't made of nothing, it would start to put it in the realm of possibility. However, let's take these arguments one at a time and begin with the above argument that deals with omniscience. Smiley

I refuse to believe it because the definition of "nothing" is one derived from observing the material world, not an abstract principle that has to logically apply to all reality. Yes, to be without information is nonsensical...to material things. Do you see the difference? The facts that you've assembled only apply to material things. This I'm okay with. But you need to convince me that materiality is the only possible way to exist, and you've not done that.

It's like your starting point is, "Well, we know things can only exist if they have information..." to which everyone here is replying, "Yes, when speaking about material things." See, material things, or informational things, or however you want to put it are all that we can observe. That's fine. What Christians are saying, however, is that we believe Jesus Christ to have been the manifestation of the immaterial God, who we otherwise never would've found. I know it sounds absurd to people who don't believe it, but we'd say we believe in God because of Divine Revelation, in its various forms.

It's almost as if you think Christians believe in God because we don't think certain things can be "explained" when really, we believe because of personal experience. Now, you can take issue with that, but nobody is saying, "You should believe in God because I have experienced him." That should be rightly scoffed at.

Anyway, I know I brought up a bunch of different things there, but everyone keeps talking past one another and it helps to understand what both sides are trying to say.

My principles apply even if you think they were non-material. That includes information theory, and how that deals with complexity, consciousness ect. The only fundamental difference between my position and yours is that I consider information material and you would consider it non-material.. This however does nothing to address the issue because the state of information is in, is not relevant to the base of the argument Smiley It still doesn't address the omniscience problem either. :/

Quote
As
Principle of Principles He is the transcendent Principle of
every principle.

This is a self-contradiction.. it's equal to saying GOD creates existence and self so he himself can exist. I'm sorry, but that one bit collapses everything else in what you have posted Sad .. Or it's saying that principle created principle into existence so a principle can exist :/ .. This of course doesn't take the time to consider what consciousness requires to exist either, it assumes infinite regress can not be applied even though we know that the state of no consciousness exists, things we can measure and weigh into what they lack to be capable of consciousness. Thus no mind can be a principle of principles, or transcendent of every principle. It is slave to require informational complexity, value, and substance (whether or not you think it's immaterial or material) in order to have consciousness. Minds can not also exist without time, because without time there can be no ability to have a thought process in an absolute state of pure suspended animation. So, I disagree with the quoted statement because it's logically not possible.. The basic principle of all principles is information, and the base of all information to complex would still reside on the 3 fundamental laws to which are the base to all causation (positive, negative, and neutral). Even a GOD would require a complex finite structure capable of processing other information to support a consciousness as an individual apart from all other states of consciousness. Trying to state otherwise is what I consider making an argument for Solipsism.
Quote
And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by
a simple act of knowing.

This is self-admitting a cause to his own existence. And knowing is an action that requires a cause, and the cause is the information to which it is slave to require to even know itself would exist, or simply exist at all. The base principle is not that which is slave to require, but that which is the substance of all that has a requirement. Thus it is not the individual conscious entity that is the base principle. Consciousness thus requires far more complexity and cause to support than the state of unconsciousness or no consciousness simply because infinite regress shows that informational complexity exists in both states, or all states. Thus we can prove by example that Consciousness can not solve infinite regress or even be a base principle to all principles.
 
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:56:34 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #157 on: February 21, 2011, 07:09:29 PM »

Consciousness is an emerging property of information.. We all require these very basic laws and principles to exist regardless if you believe them to be material or not. Smiley

Information is like an infinite box of legos. Informational structure above it's ground state in any system or concept has and requires cause. Thus requires more Legos to support it's existence as a structure, object, entity or thing. Minds are highly complex, and will require more cause to support than those things without minds. Thus more legos are needed to support a mind, it's processes, and it's fundamental basics to which can support a state of awareness. However, I am still waiting for someone to respond to Omniscience and how even the argument presented here applies to it. Smiley

Chapter 14 is definitely arguing for solipsism.

Quote
Solipsism (pronounced /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified

Thus we are all conscious figments of GODS consciousness arguing on whether or not we exist..err I exist. :<

« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 07:17:21 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,291


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #158 on: February 21, 2011, 07:30:39 PM »

Consciousness is an emerging property of information.. We all require these very basic laws and principles to exist regardless if you believe them to be material or not. Smiley

Information is like an infinite box of legos. Informational structure above it's ground state in any system or concept has and requires cause. Thus requires more Legos to support it's existence as a structure, object, entity or thing. Minds are highly complex, and will require more cause to support than those things without minds. Thus more legos are needed to support a mind, it's processes, and it's fundamental basics to which can support a state of awareness. However, I am still waiting for someone to respond to Omniscience and how even the argument presented here applies to it. Smiley

Chapter 14 is definitely arguing for solipsism.

Quote
Solipsism (pronounced /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified

Thus we are all conscious figments of GODS consciousness arguing on whether or not we exist..err I exist. :<


You know... the only place that I have ever seen infromation come from is an intelligent mind. So if you want to suggest that information is the fundamental principal of everything in our universe, then ultimately you must deduce that the first cause of our universe is an intelligent being... Just saying.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #159 on: February 21, 2011, 08:09:46 PM »

Quote
You know... the only place that I have ever seen infromation come from is an intelligent mind. So if you want to suggest that information is the fundamental principal of everything in our universe, then ultimately you must deduce that the first cause of our universe is an intelligent being... Just saying.

I can understand your position there but I do have a major problem with that position. And I have myself thought a lot about that. However, the following is why I have ruled intelligence out as the source of information.  It still requires it as a base mechanism.. You can't intelligently do anything without first being information to apply to do anything with. :/
 
Quote
INTELLIGENCE:

1) Intelligence is only The ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment. Or the processing of knowledge to formulate a response to stimuli..

2) Wiki: "Intelligence (abbreviated int. or intel.) refers to discrete information with currency and relevance, and the abstraction, evaluation, and understanding of such information for its accuracy and value"

But you first must be aware before you can apply anything by means of an intelligent process.

Quote
AWARENESS:

“Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sensed data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. To receive and respond to input.” Without information, value, or material physical property there can be no base to support an awareness.

Ignoring for a moment the "physical material" in that, An awareness requires a base of inquiry (information), and the means to sense and process information in order to be aware. This means it would also require some informational structure capable of processing other information. Something like a brain or a computer processor connected to senses. Otherwise consciousness, awareness, or intelligence can not exist, function, or be of process. Minds are only observers and processors of information to which they themselves are a complex structure of. No mind can solve infinite regress, or be the base principle of principles. They are thus an emerging property to which requires a lot of cause and complexity in order to exist, function, or be in process.  Cool

So a good mind excecise is :

1) how am I aware?
2) What information do I require to be aware?
3) How do I do anything without information first to apply?
4) Can I make a Choice or decision without information on any choices or decisions to which I could choose or decide from?
5) Where am I.. I can't be no where literally! So why am I here? And where is Here?
6) Can I feel, respond or have emotion without information to process, feel, respond to, or understand?
7) Can I have an experience without information?
Cool what is information?
9) why do I require it?

This is why these two points in my article on information theory are very important to this discussion:
Quote
1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can seem to be no possible existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist under literal context.

So it's not really relevant if you want to state it as non-material or not (though it can't be non-material because information can't be made of nothing either). Information is made of itself, and is the substance and base principle to everything. It is the cause of all causation because not a single thing could exist without it. We are all slaves to require informational value.



  

 
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 08:20:00 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #160 on: February 21, 2011, 08:22:24 PM »

One of the options Papist should have been considering when setting up this poll is:

'Yes, continuing this debate gives me an opportunity to present Christ to The Jackel'

Many people (like TheJackal) think they know the Gospel... but they really don't.

He is rejecting the twisted Western version of it. Well... He should!

When I was younger, I too rejected what I thought was Christianity... I never understood back then that I really had no clue when it came to the TRUE Gospel and TRUE Christianity.

I thought I knew what I was talking about... but now I am forced to admit that I didn't.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Anyhow, for TheJackel,

I see you're still saying that 'nothingness' cannot exist.

I mentioned 'Dark Matter' and the 'God-Particle' to you (which you acknowledged but sorta skimmed over)... Your version of the Cosmos requires these things to exist... yet they are 'nothing'.

These things (if they exist) prove that not only can 'nothing' exist - but that 'nothing' is indeed 'something', that something/nothing is everywhere and is in fact what everything is made up of (in part).

So God may be physically 'nothing' (according to our limited comprehension) but He is actually everything and is the Light that holds everything together.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

You also never replied RE: the 'Orthodox Ireland' audio lecture I posted here above for you...

Did you listen to it?... It doesn't sound like you did!

You should.

I have a couple more questions for you too... I'll just start with this one:

1. Is the Universe expanding?


†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #161 on: February 21, 2011, 08:24:20 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Exactly Fr. George. I should have been wise enough not to enter into the fray.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #162 on: February 21, 2011, 08:31:42 PM »

One of the options Papist should have been considering when setting up this poll is:

'Yes, continuing this debate gives me an opportunity to present Christ to The Jackel'

Many people (like TheJackal) think they know the Gospel... but they really don't.

He is rejecting the twisted Western version of it. Well... He should!

When I was younger, I too rejected what I thought was Christianity... I never understood back then that I really had no clue when it came to the TRUE Gospel and TRUE Christianity.

I thought I knew what I was talking about... but now I am forced to admit that I didn't.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Anyhow, for TheJackel,

I see you're still saying that 'nothingness' cannot exist.

I mentioned 'Dark Matter' and the 'God-Particle' to you (which you acknowledged but sorta skimmed over)... Your version of the Cosmos requires these things to exist... yet they are 'nothing'.

These things (if they exist) prove that not only can 'nothing' exist - but that 'nothing' is indeed 'something', that something/nothing is everywhere and is in fact what everything is made up of (in part).

So God may be physically 'nothing' (according to our limited comprehension) but He is actually everything and is the Light that holds everything together.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

You also never replied RE: the 'Orthodox Ireland' audio lecture I posted here above for you...

Did you listen to it?... It doesn't sound like you did!

You should.

I have a couple more questions for you too... I'll just start with this one:

1. Is the Universe expanding?


†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Problem is, I conflict with that because I require information to know anything.. The Gospel doesn't address the problem, it's just more stuff that requires information to be stuff or even have meaning, even if it's fallacious, or a myth. :/ I can not equate anything to being GOD except the substance of existence itself! And that is to which we are all made of, and come from. Smiley It's the substance to which gives value and has value to which is the base principle of all principles, not that which requires it in order to do, breath, think, act, or exist. :/ There is no answer in religion that can grapple with this. But this doesn't mean a God of sorts doesn't exist, as there are many concepts of GOD and GODS. Human's can be considered GODS for creating synthetic life "/


Quote
I mentioned 'Dark Matter' and the 'God-Particle' to you (which you acknowledged but sorta skimmed over)... Your version of the Cosmos requires these things to exist... yet they are 'nothing'.
In Cosmology, they are not stating they are made of nothing, or are nothing Smiley.. They used to think empty space was nothing, but thanks to advancements in science "nothing isn't nothing anymore".. It's an inside joke, or phrase to say that they have figured out that space isn't made of nothing. Quantum physics (proven theory in such things as  quantum computing) has long kicked that horse to the curb to be left for dead Smiley
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 08:50:47 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #163 on: February 21, 2011, 08:42:43 PM »

double post delete
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 08:47:20 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #164 on: February 21, 2011, 08:48:13 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Exactly Fr. George. I should have been wise enough not to enter into the fray.
To be fair to Jackel, he did apologize and wanted to start over again.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #165 on: February 21, 2011, 09:01:27 PM »

Jackel there are too many topics in this thread to discuss in full individually, you want to start with divine omniesnce? What part do you have an issue with? The capability to know everything infinitely? The limitations of free will due to such knowledge?

Let's start with the basics. And you want to address orthonorm's thread?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #166 on: February 21, 2011, 09:13:12 PM »

Jackel there are too many topics in this thread to discuss in full individually, you want to start with divine omniesnce? What part do you have an issue with? The capability to know everything infinitely? The limitations of free will due to such knowledge?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33828.msg535748.html#msg535748

It's well outlined there. Smiley

There are several issues it addresses but one of the main ones is that Omniscience would include knowing me in every infinite detail to the point to which the supposed omniscient deity would have to literally be me in every infinite way possible. Omniscience would thus be arguing for pure solipsism. And oddly conveyed in Chapter 14 in the above post by bogdan.

But to further express problems with it,  it also means that said deity can not create anything without knowing everything it will ever do, think, feel, experience, or choose. There can be no free will under omniscience. I could never stray from a path to which it would not already know I would take regardless of what I think I could choose to take. All purpose becomes lost actually because one can not create from a position of infinitely knowing everything there infinitely is, or could be known. Thus omniscience is a self-collapsing paradox to which also defies omnipotence because one can't create new information to which it could not know from a position of infinitely knowing everything.

It gets worse if you claim the deity to be infinite itself, and boundless.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 09:36:52 PM by TheJackel » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,540



« Reply #167 on: February 21, 2011, 09:56:19 PM »

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

I hardly see how my telling you that your tone is inappropriate is hypocritical.  No stone cast, by the way - I didn't use any ad hominems,, just noted an infantile quality to your proclamations.  I know which post you've brought up with your quote, but I have a feeling that you've taken it far too personally - the phrase "your face is a logical fallacy" is a joke widely seen around the 'net.

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates,

I sincerely doubt this, but I'll take your word at face-value for the moment.

and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

Again, you're off-base in your analysis of my post and/or my intentions.  There is no logical fallacy, dogmatic game, etc. when I inform you that your words are, by our definition (heck, by any reasonable definition), blasphemous.  I'm not calling you out for any logical fallacy - it's your opinion that, our "GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea;"  however, your assertion that it (and a number of your other statements) is not blasphemous is laughable.  Two non-Christian sources should suffice for now:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

You still haven't pointed out where I'm wrong or hypocritical in my assertions that:

- Your posts are rude and childish
- Your statements are blasphemous
- People here will not respect you (for being rude, childish, and/or blasphemous)

I'll not respond further in this thread, as I have indeed decided to change my vote to: "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion." from "Sure, at least it is providing a little insight."

You do realize that most of the stuff I posted here was never really addressed by any of you correct? Some yes, but the bulk of the arguments get simply ignored. Did anyone actually properly address the religious fallacy argument on Omniscience? Information theory? Most of what I have seen here have been deflective circular arguments that can best be said to state "God is beyond all that exists".. It's a tact that is used so one doesn't have to address contradiction in their beliefs, or positions.. It's one fallacy creation after another. It would be no different than me saying that "My God exist beyond your GOD and all that exists of all that is stated to exist".. That might be the source cause to why people are losing brain cells here today. The seemingly inability to properly address an argument.

So would anyone like to tackle the Omniscient argument properly? I would indeed appreciate the effort Smiley



Come to my agora, Jackel.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #168 on: February 21, 2011, 10:44:57 PM »

The problem here is your definition of Omnescience. "Knowing all that can be known" is a horrible definition. Suppose, for instance, that skepticism of the strongest modal sort turns out to be true. Suppose that it is logically impossible for anyone to know anything. In that case, the above definition would entail that rocks are omniscient!

Omniscience simply means that God knows all things that are knowable. Philosophers agree that God doesn't know what a square circle looks like.

So, if my future decisions are unknowable, then omniscience doesn't violate if God doesn't know it.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 10:47:41 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #169 on: February 21, 2011, 10:51:47 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,540



« Reply #170 on: February 21, 2011, 10:56:42 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O

Learn to use the quote feature first. That shouldn't be to hard for someone who understands as much as you do.

The first quote is mine, the rest ain't

I am not getting into this thread in any serious manner as some don't seem to know what they are talking about and the rest are trying to have discussions without even the faintest of common beginnings.

Best of luck Jackel.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #171 on: February 21, 2011, 10:58:05 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O

Learn to use the quote feature first. That shouldn't be to hard for someone who understands as much as you do.

The first quote is mine, the rest ain't

I am not getting into this thread in any serious manner as some don't seem to know what they are talking about and the rest are trying to have discussions without even the faintest of common beginnings.

Best of luck Jackel.

Edify us O' knowledgable one.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,540



« Reply #172 on: February 21, 2011, 11:08:24 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O

Learn to use the quote feature first. That shouldn't be to hard for someone who understands as much as you do.

The first quote is mine, the rest ain't

I am not getting into this thread in any serious manner as some don't seem to know what they are talking about and the rest are trying to have discussions without even the faintest of common beginnings.

Best of luck Jackel.

Edify us O' knowledgable one.

You already got a bit of your treatment from me. It is I who would prefer to be edified.

Thus I read other threads.

This thread is classic extranets. Just stop by to see if the Jackel is still spinning folks.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 11:10:02 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #173 on: February 21, 2011, 11:10:20 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O

Learn to use the quote feature first. That shouldn't be to hard for someone who understands as much as you do.

The first quote is mine, the rest ain't

I am not getting into this thread in any serious manner as some don't seem to know what they are talking about and the rest are trying to have discussions without even the faintest of common beginnings.

Best of luck Jackel.

Edify us O' knowledgable one.

You already got a bit your treatment. It is I who would prefer to be edified.

This thread is classic extranets.
And what "treatment" is that?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,328


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #174 on: February 21, 2011, 11:14:32 PM »

How hard is it for you to understand basic English? The non-existence of no capacity, or no negative Capacity means no spatial boundaries that could possibly define a beginning or an end to positive capacity! It's not very difficult to understand.

Wow...you're asking me about understanding basic English?  How about you read what capacity means on the dictionary.

You've just proven by definition that the capacity is finite.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #175 on: February 21, 2011, 11:20:39 PM »

The problem here is your definition of Omnescience. "Knowing all that can be known" is a horrible definition. Suppose, for instance, that skepticism of the strongest modal sort turns out to be true. Suppose that it is logically impossible for anyone to know anything. In that case, the above definition would entail that rocks are omniscient!

Omniscience simply means that God knows all things that are knowable. Philosophers agree that God doesn't know what a square circle looks like.

So, if my future decisions are unknowable, then omniscience doesn't violate if God doesn't know it.



That is what Omniscience means though. Even if it meant all things that are knowable, that would still be an argument for solipsism. I think I stressed that point in the argument above because any information that does exist is by definition "knowable". That would still imply having to be the best case scenario of GOD being the entire sum total of existence itself to know the entire sum total that is at least knowable. However there are things that also contradict your argument.. Such as the argument of being boundless, or limitless ect as stated in Chapter 14 in the above post by bogdan..

Quote
The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound-
less
, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the
just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the
uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi-
nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing,
the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the
almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com-
municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and
the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by
His nature.

Never mind that there are obvious self-collapsing contradictions in there.. Such as the "unchangeable" vs "Omnipotence" ect. Which is why they probably added the "the inconceivable" argument knowing they were creating a boat load of contradictions. "/.. Regardless that is definitely an argument for pure solipsism. :<

Quote
square circle looks like.

To be omniscient it would have to know more than just what a square or circle looks like. It would have to know what it is to literally be any specific square circle in every infinite detail to which is knowable regardless if even duplicates exist. It would have to know the entire essence of all that is of essence. Know what it's like to actually be anything and everything knowable entirely throughout their entire existence, it's relation to everything else, it's entire essence even if it's a duplication of information. Smiley  


Quote
So, if my future decisions are unknowable, then omniscience doesn't violate if God doesn't know it.

Despite that this doesn't actually fully address the problem as stated above, This argument would then make it not Omnipotent, limitless, or boundless. And it would thus be bound to time as well.  
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #176 on: February 21, 2011, 11:35:23 PM »

How hard is it for you to understand basic English? The non-existence of no capacity, or no negative Capacity means no spatial boundaries that could possibly define a beginning or an end to positive capacity! It's not very difficult to understand.

Wow...you're asking me about understanding basic English?  How about you read what capacity means on the dictionary.

You've just proven by definition that the capacity is finite.



Spatial capacity is an indicator of "data intensity" in a transmission medium
this includes ground state energy of the medium.. More specifically:

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

Or:

The ability to contain and hold information to which is the he amount that can be contained Smiley

Which is also in relation to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume

However, I apologies for those remarks as there were unnecessary.. :/

« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 11:47:13 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,328


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #177 on: February 21, 2011, 11:49:58 PM »

How hard is it for you to understand basic English? The non-existence of no capacity, or no negative Capacity means no spatial boundaries that could possibly define a beginning or an end to positive capacity! It's not very difficult to understand.

Wow...you're asking me about understanding basic English?  How about you read what capacity means on the dictionary.

You've just proven by definition that the capacity is finite.



Spatial capacity is an indicator of "data intensity" in a transmission medium
this includes ground state energy of the medium.. More specifically:

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

Or:

The ability to contain and hold information to which is the he amount that can be contained Smiley

However, I apologies for those remarks as there were unnecessary.. :/

I apologize if I too caused you offense.

Continuing this discussion.  I just have a problem with the "proof" that there's an infinite number of universes, or an infinite capacity, when there's no way to measure or observe infinity.  How can we know something is boundless when we have no tools to detect anything boundless?

I understand there's mathematics involved.  But in these mathematics I am just wondering about the logic.  If the universe at some point began at a point in time, and then expanding, simply because of a capacity that aids in expanding it, well, while it's possible there are many universes, it seems to only prove that the multiverse is finite.  At a certain finite point of time, universes started to become formed, and at a finite point of time, universes continue to be formed.  It is finitely increasing and approaching infinity, but will never become infinite.  I think the number is so large is allows for the existence of a universe that promotes life, simply like evolution, where there's just enough amount of time for life to evolve, especially into today's human species.  This is a finite time of evolution, albeit a very large amount of time.

That's all I'm trying to understand.  I feel the scientific community is jumping the gun for just assuming infinity when they don't even have the tools to prove effectively such an idea.  It sounds like to me some scientists have created a deistic pantheistic God called infinite capacity (unless of course infinite capacity is not of the same substance as the universes it's creating).

And just to be clear, this doesn't in any way decrease my belief in God if there does in fact exist an infinite capacity.  I only am just trying to understand this idea of "infinite capacity."  If anything, you're the first one I am talking to that's actually addressing this point to me.  Others who tried to answer the question to me simply told me that infinity is a reference point, not literal, but I'm not sure if that's what scientists are actually teaching.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 11:53:22 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #178 on: February 22, 2011, 05:32:34 AM »

Jackel before I respond to what you have quoted me on, I wanted to take just a brief moment to describe some of the problems I have with debating with you. The first thing is that Science is neutral but in the debates I've seen your posts here and elsewhere you co opt it for atheism. So you slant your findings in order to bolster your worldview.

Secondly, because of your materialism, all of religion, all of ideology and all of thought is a byproduct, it doesn't cause anything. Material events are the only things that cause things. So that thoughts are like the puff of smoke that comes out of a tailpipe of the car, it doesn't make the car move its just a byproduct.

If you believe that there is no such thing as a transcendental mind, then, as a result, you would have to conclude that human action and behavior is strictly the result of physical stimuli acting upon pre-determined instincts. Choice would be an illusion in every sense, there would be no such thing as 'contrary instincts'. There would be only instinct. This is naturalism, reductionism, materialism ect, carried out to it's logical ends. Only the buzzing of atoms in our brain can account for our 'pre-defined' behavior under these outlooks.

The rules of society would be the product, themselves, of mere arbitrary happenstance.

In any case, I don't know if I'm really following your argument. Let me get this straight: There are these things called instincts, and then there are the rules of society which can be contrary to instinct, right? But how does this explanation add anything else to the equation of human activity beside instinct? The rules of society themselves would still be the by-product of our instincts, would they not? You haven't actually created a separation between the two. Is this your explanation for human behavior? Where did the 'rules of society' come from?

Now, I'm not really concerned with whether or not our discussion is off-topic. It's certainly related, is it not?

That is what Omniscience means though. Even if it meant all things that are knowable, that would still be an argument for solipsism.
No. Solipsism states as follows:

1. The theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

The solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds. Since personal experiences are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by analogy. Philosophers try to build knowledge on more than an inference or analogy. The failure of Descartes' epistemological enterprise brought to popularity the idea that all certain knowledge may go no further than "I think; therefore I exist" without providing any real details about the nature of the "I" that has been proven to exist.

Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat for example? Since the brain in a vat gives and receives exactly the same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat.

Quote
I think I stressed that point in the argument above because any information that does exist is by definition "knowable".
That's pretty reasonable to accept.

Quote
That would still imply having to be the best case scenario of GOD being the entire sum total of existence itself to know the entire sum total that is at least knowable.
I thought it was God who defined Himself? If God is omnipotent, then that simply means that God is capable of doing all things which God is capable of doing. We could certainly debate what God is capable of doing, which means your more than welcome to come up with more nonsense.

How does God thinking, or using reason, negate his omniscience? If God knows what He's logically capable of doing, and doing what he's logically capable of doing makes Him omniscient, how can that be illogical?

Infinity really has nothing to do with "all things," but is defined as being something without beginning, and, ultimately, without end. If ALL things, or "everything" fell within infinity, then you would be suggesting a limit within infinity, and thereby contradict the very notion of infinity. God is "ALL-POWERFUL," but He never describes Himself as "Infinitely powerful".


Quote
The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound-
less
, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the
just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the
uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi-
nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing,
the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the
almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com-
municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and
the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by
His nature.
What St. John of Damascus is pointing out is since God cannot be bounded He therefore must be boundless. Likewise with not being contained and limited; He's the opposite of this. That's the problem I have with your assertion that energy if infinite, if I understand you correctly, because we can contain energy and we can also limit it.

Quote
Regardless that is definitely an argument for pure solipsism. :<
Uhh not even close, do you know what solipsism is?

Quote
To be omniscient it would have to know more than just what a square or circle looks like.
That's not the argument I'm making, I was just giving an example.

Quote
It would have to know what it is to literally be any specific square circle in every infinite detail to which is knowable regardless if even duplicates exist. It would have to know the entire essence of all that is of essence. Know what it's like to actually be anything and everything knowable entirely throughout their entire existence, it's relation to everything else, it's entire essence even if it's a duplication of information.
You didn't really address what I said. It's like asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

Quote
Despite that this doesn't actually fully address the problem as stated above, This argument would then make it not Omnipotent, limitless, or boundless. And it would thus be bound to time as well.  

That premise doesn't follow it's conclusion. Remember that I defined that omniscience is all things that are knowable, so if my actions are unknowable it doesn't contradict the definition I give for omniscience.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #179 on: February 23, 2011, 01:01:41 AM »

Quote
Jackel before I respond to what you have quoted me on, I wanted to take just a brief moment to describe some of the problems I have with debating with you. The first thing is that Science is neutral but in the debates I've seen your posts here and elsewhere you co opt it for atheism. So you slant your findings in order to bolster your worldview.

Science has nothing to do with my world view, it only provides evidence to support it to which I choose to use. I haven't slanted my findings on anything however. I stated what is known in science, information theory, and how it relates to my view..

Quote
Secondly, because of your materialism, all of religion, all of ideology and all of thought is a byproduct, it doesn't cause anything. Material events are the only things that cause things. So that thoughts are like the puff of smoke that comes out of a tailpipe of the car, it doesn't make the car move its just a byproduct.

I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here.. How are thoughts like a puff of smoke? Thoughts are emerging properties.. If you don't think consciousness is a material event you can however do some research on time particle dilation, G-lock, Deep water black out, and the fact that scientists can extract images from your brain and have them displayed on screen (so far very basic on the last one). Or robots controlled by rat brain cells ect. I don't think anyone is stating that thoughts are just puffs of smoke. :/ They even got rat brain cells to develop individual personalities, and fly plane simulators. :/ Regardless, thoughts require information..

Quote
If you believe that there is no such thing as a transcendental mind, then, as a result, you would have to conclude that human action and behavior is strictly the result of physical stimuli acting upon pre-determined instincts. Choice would be an illusion in every sense, there would be no such thing as 'contrary instincts'. There would be only instinct. This is naturalism, reductionism, materialism ect, carried out to it's logical ends. Only the buzzing of atoms in our brain can account for our 'pre-defined' behavior under these outlooks.

I never said there couldn't be a transcending mind. I gave a perfect example earlier about such a thing without violating material-physicality, or information theory. Search the "Mute Argument" Smiley

Quote
The rules of society would be the product, themselves, of mere arbitrary happenstance.

Rules of society are developed through social networking, developing of social groups, or enforcing a code of conduct. Even animals like Dolphins and Orca's do these very same things.. No not the extent we do, but they do none-the-less. And yes, there are a perfect example of evolution noted under "behavioral evolution".


Quote
In any case, I don't know if I'm really following your argument. Let me get this straight: There are these things called instincts, and then there are the rules of society which can be contrary to instinct, right?

Instincts follow the natural evolution of self-preservation, anything with a brain has natural instinct. It's expected of something that has an awareness to be capable of instinctual behaviors, or the development of.

 
Quote
But how does this explanation add anything else to the equation of human activity beside instinct? The rules of society themselves would still be the by-product of our instincts, would they not? You haven't actually created a separation between the two. Is this your explanation for human behavior? Where did the 'rules of society' come from?

Why would there be a separation of the two.. they fundamentally go hand and hand and effect each other. Rules of society come from the evolution of the rules to which include the evolution of our natural instincts. They are deeply interwoven.. Even ants have rules, can count, have behaviors, and have instincts that can dictate their behavior, or even the rules they develop and follow.


Quote
No. Solipsism states as follows:

1. The theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

Solipsism:
Quote
Solipsism (pronounced /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified.

Here are the key points that make your argument for GOD as a Solipsistic State:

1) Omniscient
2) Boundless
3) Without limits
4) Unlimited
5) Uncontained
6) the containing and sustaining all things

These six things is without question stating pure solipsism.. Even if you think your GOD would deny the existence of other minds or not, it would be irrelevant.. Under this argument, me just stating there isn't would equal GOD saying there are no other minds, and that all minds that exist are of his own mind. So you arguing with me would be like me as "GOD" arguing with myself for just the sake of doings so, or for the amusement of doing so.. Regardless of what reply you might have to this, the 6 things on that list can only mean pure Solipsism. And even then it would still be bound to information theory whether or not you would like to think it's material or immaterial. :/

 
Quote
The solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds.


Not required to be in a solipsistic state. It doesn't have to deny them, it only has to be them regardless if it knows it or not.

Quote
Since personal experiences are private and ineffable, another being's experience can be known only by analogy.

Not under omniscience. It would all be known to the infinite detail. You can't start placing limits to your GOD or Omniscience for that matter without collapsing the entire argument. :/ I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this argument. It is either limitless, boundless, omniscient ect or not. Thus you need to decide if I am GOD or not. If I am not, then all of those 6 things self-collapse.


Quote
Philosophers try to build knowledge on more than an inference or analogy. The failure of Descartes' epistemological enterprise brought to popularity the idea that all certain knowledge may go no further than "I think; therefore I exist" without providing any real details about the nature of the "I" that has been proven to exist.

And thinking is an action that can not occur without informational value, substance, and structure. Yes I agree with the premise "I think there for I am".. However:
Quote
1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can seem to be no possible existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist under literal context.

I am can not be I without an Identity, or object to which is I.. I can not also exist without a place to exist -->in<--. Thus where I am is fundamentally important in regards to awareness.. We can't exist no where, we have to exist somewhere. Thus mind containment is equally required.

Quote
Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat for example? Since the brain in a vat gives and receives exactly the same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat.

I actually agree with Occam's razor.. Regardless, the brain needs a place to exist as equally as it needs information to exist. Whether or not we are in VAT, the Matrix, or in this reality to which could be said to be just an atom of another reality, it would matter little to me. These things I am not arguing against because we can not possibly determine them. However, they all would be bound to the same principle rules I had discussed earlier Smiley

Quote
I think I stressed that point in the argument above because any information that does exist is by definition "knowable".
That's pretty reasonable to accept.

And that includes all the information that makes us who we are right to the infinite detail of literally being who we are. It's all "knowable", and anything of existence or in existence would be "knowable" in every infinite way one could possibly argue.. This is the problem with Omniscience, and especially the claim to something being boundless and limitless at the same time.  If we truly exist as individuals, all of those things listen in Chapter 14 would self-collapse. :/

1) what boundaries or limits are there between me and GOD as individuals? What makes me my own consciousness?
2) If there are individuals, all minds would have containment, and be contained apart as actual individuals.
3) If we all exist in one mind, then we are all just figments of the imagination, or just multiple personalities of the same mind.
4) Accepting individualism would be accepting that all minds are not boundless, not Omniscient, not limitless, not without containment, and surely not containing and sustaining all things.

Only the substance of existence itself can manage such an argument. Information itself.

 
Quote
I thought it was God who defined Himself? If God is omnipotent, then that simply means that God is capable of doing all things which God is capable of doing. We could certainly debate what God is capable of doing, which means your more than welcome to come up with more nonsense.

How does one create himself from a position of non-existence? No, I will simply refuse this circular argument because it assumes a literal impossible as being possible while ignoring why it's literally impossible. :/

Quote
How does God thinking, or using reason, negate his omniscience? If God knows what He's logically capable of doing, and doing what he's logically capable of doing makes Him omniscient, how can that be illogical?

You can't think or reason if all things to which have infinitely been reasoned or to which have already been thought of already infinitely exist in every infinite way. It would be like you eternally starring at the same image to to which no further information could be added to, acted upon, or processed. It would make him capable of doing nothing.


Quote
Infinity really has nothing to do with "all things," but is defined as being something without beginning, and, ultimately, without end. If ALL things, or "everything" fell within infinity, then you would be suggesting a limit within infinity, and thereby contradict the very notion of infinity. God is "ALL-POWERFUL," but He never describes Himself as "Infinitely powerful".

Really doesn't matter, it's used as a place holder to at least cover that which is all things. All things isn't any better than "infinite" in this discussion.  Smiley

Quote
What St. John of Damascus is pointing out is since God cannot be bounded He therefore must be boundless. Likewise with not being contained and limited; He's the opposite of this. That's the problem I have with your assertion that energy if infinite, if I understand you correctly, because we can contain energy and we can also limit it.

If I am to exist as an individual, I surely can bound him..

Energy is an infinite volume that can have finite higher excited states that can give rise to such things as our Universe and ourselves. We are all made of energy, we are apart of the volume itself. Thus we are two unique glasses made from the same pile of sand. Whether or not we can transcend reality is not an issue because I can demonstrate how that can work via realistic examples.. Examples such as dreaming, or my mute argument. Could there be a spirit world? Possibly, but It would have to follow the basic principle rules just like everything else does.
Quote
Uhh not even close, do you know what solipsism is?

Actually it is, and yes I know what it is. Smiley


Quote
That's not the argument I'm making, I was just giving an example.

I know, I was further elaborating on it Smiley
Quote
You didn't really address what I said. It's like asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it.

It's not meaningless actually.. It's proving that Omnipotence isn't possible in the literal context to which also defies "boundless", "limit less", "uncontained". It's the same argument to say:

Quote
Can an Omniscient, Omnipotent, eternal, time less, boundless, limit less, and uncontained GOD create that which he doesn't already know?


It's a completely valid paradox because such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given.. They are simply fallacies that are not possible.

Quote
That premise doesn't follow it's conclusion. Remember that I defined that omniscience is all things that are knowable, so if my actions are unknowable it doesn't contradict the definition I give for omniscience.

It does, read the above paradox  Cool  And what is knowable would still include myself as being knowable, and thus GOD.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 01:22:04 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.241 seconds with 74 queries.