punta

[1] Omniscient
[2] Omnipotent
[3] Ineffable
[4] Omnibenevolent
[5] Omnipresent
[6] Perfect
[7] Invisible (immaterial, supernatural)
[8] Creator of the universe
[9] Outside of time
[10] Desires communion with humans
[11] Has free will

just put these together for easier reference. i'm wearing my scrolling finger out. and my short- term memory is sabotaging me.

[code]did i mention i'm lazy?</pre>[/quote]

that's better.

Draygomb

[1] Omniscient [2] Omnipotent
[1] Omniscient [4] Omnibenevolent
[1] Omniscient [10] Desires communion with humans
[1] Omniscient [11] Has free will
[2] Omnipotent <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
[3] Ineffable <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
[4] Omnibenevolent [8] creator of universe
[4] Omnibenevolent [11] Has free will
[5] Omnipresent [9] Outside of time
[5] Omnipresent [10] Desires communion with humans
[6] Perfect [9] Outside of time
[6] Perfect [10] Desires communion with humans
[8] creator of universe [9] Outside of time
[8] creator of universe [11] Has free will
[9] Outside of time [10] Desires communion with humans
[9] Outside of time [11] Has free will
[10] Desires communion with humans <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
[10] Desires communion with humans [11] Has free will

Blu

Draygomb,

It seems like you are distressed by the look of your replies. What were you trying to "say"?

Blu

Draygomb

Merely that they are head banging, no brainers.

nixon

Detached9 wrote:

"Ah yes, I forgot one of the attributes was outside of time. What is "outside of time", what does that mean? Can a being that doesn't exist in the dimension of time interact with beings that do exist in time?"

nixon: I don't think a being outside of time could interact meaningfully in our time "bubble". Read the link to see why I think this:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000096&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000096&p=2</a>

Detached9 wrote:

nixon quote: "If God is "[1] Omniscient" and "[2] Omnipotent", due to evil on Earth (Self declared in God's own book), He cannot be "[4] Omnibenevolent"

Standard Problem of Evil argument. This usually is countered with God gave humans free will. It is better to be able to choose good over bad then to not be able to have the choice at all (or so the argument goes)."

nixon: Just because man has free will doesn't resolve this paradox in areas where man's freewill doesn't apply: like natural disasters.

I also don't believe that the bible says that man has free will. I have before, and could again show by using the bibles own verses that the bible says otherwise.

YHWH666

Detached9 wrote:
"Ah yes, I forgot one of the attributes was outside of time. What is "outside of time", what does that mean? Can a being that doesn't exist in the dimension of time interact with beings that do exist in time?"

nixon: I don't think a being outside of time could interact meaningfully in our time "bubble".
__________________________________________________ _____________


Er, photons any one? LOL!


anywho, how about god has freewill and god is omniscient?
if god KNOWS the future then he is powerless to change it. irregardless of what he does he has no ability to influence the future.

you should add "perfectly just" and "condems people to hell for eternity." clearly a FINITE transgression, such as a lifetime of sin, does not warant INFINITE punishment. this would be INFINITLY unjust

goody2shoes

This is just a homespun analogy of mine. Sometimes I take it seriously and sometimes not. It does, however, allow one to think about such "paradoxes" I start as follows:

Consider a situation wherein, I (a programmer) have decided to "create" robots and I start by generating programs to construct Artificial Intelligence (AIs) to eventually place into the robots. I let them exist in an artificially constructed environment and interact with one another. Eventually I will select the "satisfactory" ones to become part of my robot force. Satisfactory means that they within their own free will 100% reflect my desires and that they will not do any harm to one another.

To these AIs then, the programmer has the following characteristics - with respect to the AIs and their environment:


1] Omniscient: The programmer has access to all the steps and results of the program
2] Omnipotent: The programmer can indeed modify the program at any time and for any reason.
3] Ineffable: There is no way that the AIs can describe the Programmer. They are simply limited to what they have been allowed to understand.
4] Omnibenevolent: The programmer just happens to be a nice guy and will ultimately do what is "good" for his creations
5] Omnipresent: There is nowhere in the simulated environment that the AIs can "hide". The programmer can access whatever information he needs whenever he needs it.
6] Perfect: By definition, the Programmer represents perfection to the AIs. He may not be with respect to other Programmers, but this simulation is his ball game.
7] Invisible (immaterial, supernatural): is not part of the program itself
8] Creator of the universe: Obvious
9] Outside of time: The AIs do not know of time, They know program steps. They keep trying to think of the Programmer in terms of program steps. The programmer is "outside of program steps"
10] Desires communion with humans: He does because of the ultimate purpose for these AIs.
11] Has free will: And has given it to the AIs as well in that they are free to make a decision based upon the possible outcomes of their actions.

So it is something to play with but it does the opposite of the request. It shows a situation where there are no paradoxes.

Goody

Draygomb

1] Omniscient: Except he doesn't know the future steps or where it will end.
2] Omnipotent: There are some things even The programmer won't be able to modify.
3] Ineffable: They will be able to deduce that there is no god.
4] Omnibenevolent: What will the programmer do with the ones that don't do what he wants?
9] Outside of time: Program steps occur in time

goody2shoes

All very good points. However, they do not result in a paradox. Rather they are valid objections. It's just a game and I would respond as follows:

Artificial Intelligence in Robots is already on the drawing board and there is at least one major activity at MIT. If we fast-forward a hundred years, this "simulation" is possible. The analogy to God is as follows.

GOD ==========&gt; The Programmer
Humans ====== &gt; AIs
Time ======= &gt; Program Steps
Universe or World ===== &gt; Simulated Environment
Body ======= &gt; AI Container in simulated environment
Intelligence (Brain) === AI Program

1.) Omniscient: Insofar it relates to any given AI, the Programmer is aware of all that it does. In fact, the simulation only took 3 milliseconds to run. It is already history and all the AI essences have been saved in individual disks. The Programmer may have modified the simulation several times in the process. I believe this one is called AISIM 6.0.
2.) Omnipotent: In what respect would the programmer be powerless to modify his own program?
3.) Ineffable: There is, in fact, a Programmer but the AIs may not be aware of it. That would be at the Programmer's discretion as to how much he wants them (or any individual AI) to know.
4.) Omnibenevolent: the programmer puts nearly all AIs to some use - no matter how small. In any case, it is thousands of times more joyful than anything they had experienced in the simulation. You should hear the songs of praise that they sing. It gives the Programmer Goosebumps. If there are any really bad ones, the programmer is inclined to never reactivate them in "the real world"
9.) It is true that the program steps run in time but AIs are not aware of that and do not understand time. It makes no difference to them if a program step lasts a femtosecond or a day. They can only conceptualize the programmer in terms of "program steps" which of course makes no sense in the "real world".

Anyhow, it is just a game and may not make any sense.


Goody

Olorin

As mentioned in the God in time thread, I have attempted to construct some arguments in favour of the Christian God's non-existence.

Please be gentle - I am new to the world of critical thinking. In fact, I don't even know what non-sequitor means...

Even though I ask you all to be gentle, if my arguments are rubbish, tell me, and perhaps show why.


================


Omniscience and Free-will

A being cannot be all-knowledgeable and also have the ability to exercise choice. It is impossible for a being to exist where there is nothing that this being does not know, and at the same time, there is the situation where choice can be exercised:

Argument (1)

(1) An omniscient being is all-knowledgeable and there is nothing that this being does not know.
(2) An omniscient being knows the future with perfect accuracy [from 1].
(3) If there is perfectly accurate knowledge of the future, it is impossible to change the future [see Explanations]
(4) Choice is the ability to select one or more alternatives.
(5) A being with free will has the ability to exercise choice.
(6) A being with free-will cannot exist in a situation where choice cannot be exercised [from 5].
(7) There is a situation where choice cannot be exercised [see Explanations].
(8) An omniscient being with free-will cannot exist [from 6 and 7]

Explanations:

(3) Being (b) knows that at a certain time in the future (t), event (x) takes place. If the future is changed so that in place of event (x), event (y) takes place, (b)’s knowledge was incorrect, because event (x) did not take place. If there is an accurately known sequence of events (x), (y) and (z), the sequence cannot change order, and no changes can be made to it (by deletion, insertion, or addition). Otherwise the sequence of events was not accurately known.

(7) If being (b) reaches a forked road, there are three possible directions to continue: left, right, and backwards. According to (b)’s knowledge of the future, in the sequence of events, (b) arrived at the street corner, and then continued in one direction (let us say left). With perfectly accurate knowledge of the future, (b) would know the direction that was taken on arrival at the forked road. If (b) continued right, (b)’s knowledge would be incorrect, since the knowledge stipulated that (b) would continue left. If (b) continued left, (b)’s knowledge would be correct, since the knowledge stipulated that (b) continue left. Here, (b) does not have the ability to select one or more alternatives. Therefore, in this situation, choice cannot be exercised, because choice is the ability to select one or more alternatives.

Omnibenevolent, Omniscient and Creator

A being cannot be all-good, all knowledgeable and the creator of everything. It is impossible for a being to exist when that being has only good motivations and intentions, and does only good, and at the same time be the cause to existence of everything that has ever existed, currently exists, and will exist, as well as know everything.

Argument (5)

(1) An omnibenevolent being cannot perform an evil act.
(2) An omniscient being would know whether good, evil or neutrality would result from any act.
(3) An omniscient being would therefore know whether the existence of at least one being would bring about evil implications [from 2].
(4) The wilful act of the creation of at least one evil being was evil [from 3].
(5) A creator that is omnibenevolent and omniscient cannot exist [from 1, 2 and 4].

Explanations:

(4) Take for instance, Hitler, as an evil being. Being (b) knew before creating Hitler that Hitler would turn out to be evil, and evil implications would arise from the existence of Hitler. Thus, if (b) intentionally created Hitler, (b) intended on the evil implications arising. If (b) did not intend on the evil implications arising, (b) would not have created Hitler. Therefore, to intentionally perform the creation of an evil being (Hitler), is an evil act in itself.

Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent

A being cannot be all-powerful and all-good. It is impossible for a being to exist when that being has the ability to perform any logical action and at the same time has only good motivations and intentions, and does only good.

Argument (4)

(1) An omnipotent being can perform any logical action.
(2) An omnipotent being can intentionally perform evil actions.
(2) An omnibenevolent being cannot intentionally perform evil actions.
(3) A being cannot exist if it can intentionally perform evil actions and also cannot intentionally perform evil actions.
(4) A being that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent cannot exist.

Omnipotent and Perfect

A being cannot be all-powerful and perfect at the same time. It is logically impossible for a being to exist when that being has the ability to perform any logical action, and at the same time is complete, faultless, absolutely precise, and unequalled.

Argument

(1) An omnipotent being can perform any logical action.
(2) An omnipotent being can intentionally perform imperfect actions.
(3) A perfect being can perform only perfect actions.
(4) A perfect being that can perform only perfect actions cannot be an omnipotent being that can perform imperfect actions.
(5) A perfect being that is omnipotent cannot exist.

Explanations:

(3) If a being performs an action that is imperfect, that being was not able to perform that same action perfectly. Being (b) takes a test and gets a total of 99% of the answers correct. This shows that (b) was not able to get 100% of the answers correct. In this case, if (b) was indeed perfect, (b) would have achieved a perfect score, that is, 100%.

(4) If (b) was perfect, (b) would take the test and get 100% of the answers correct. If (b) was omnipotent, (b) would have the ability to get any percentage of the answers correct. It is impossible to get both 100% and less than 100% of the answers correct on the same test.


Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent and Creator

A being cannot be all-good, all-powerful and the creator of everything. It is logically impossible for a being to exist that has only good motivations and intentions, does only good, and at the same time has the ability to perform any logical action, as well as be the cause to existence of everything that has ever existed, currently exists, and will exist.

Argument

(1) An omnibenevolent being has only good motivations and intentions, and cannot perform evil acts.
(2) An omnibenevolent being does not want unnecessary harm to befall humans [from 1].
(3) An omnipotent being can perform any logical action.
(4) A being cannot exist if that being had the ability to create Earth in such a way that unnecessary harm does not befall humans, and also desires it, and the Earth has been created in such a way that unnecessary harm does befall humans [from 2 and 3].
(5) Earth has been created in such a way that unnecessary harm befall humans.
(6) A being that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and creator cannot exist [from 4 and 5].

Explanations :

(2) The motivation and intention to harming humans unnecessarily is evil. Therefore, an omnibenevolent being, which is good, and cannot perform evil acts, cannot have the motivation or intention to harm humans unnecessarily.

(4) If unnecessary harm does befall humans, either omnipotence, or omnibenevolence are not attributes of a creator. An omnipotent creator that is not omnibenevolent does have the ability to create Earth in such a way that unnecessary harm does not befall humans, but does not want it. Similarly, an omnibenevolent creator that is not omnipotent does desire that no unnecessary harm befall humans, but does not have the ability to create Earth in such a way that no unnecessary harm befall humans.

(5) Natural disaster is one source of unnecessary harm that befalls humans.



Omnipotent and desires communion with all humans

A being cannot be all-powerful and desire communion with all humans. It is impossible for a being to exist that has the ability to perform any logical action, and at the same time have a desire for communion with all humans

Argument

(1) An omnipotent being is all-powerful.
(2) An omnipotent being, therefore, has the ability to achieve communion with humans [from 1].
(3) A divine being that desires communion with humans, might not have the ability to achieve this communion.
(4) If all humans do not experience communion with a certain divine being, that being is either not omnipotent, in that it does not have the ability to achieve this communion, or does not desire this communion, or both.
(5) All humans do not experience communion with a divine being.
(6) A being that is omnipotent and has the desire for communion with all humans cannot exist [from 4 and 5].

Explanations:

(5) Humans claim to have experienced communion with many different divine beings, and some claim to have not experienced communion with any divine beings.

Perfect and Creator

A being cannot be perfect and at the same time be creator. A being cannot be complete, faultless, absolutely precise, unequalled, and at the same time be the cause to existence of everything that has ever existed, currently exists, and will exist.

Argument (2)

(1) Any intended action necessitates want or desire, prior to the action.
(2) Any action intentionally performed is an indication of want or desire. [from 1]
(3) Creation took place as a result of the want or desire for creation to take place. [from 1 and 2]
(4) A perfect being is complete.
(5) Being complete implies having no wants or desires.
(6) A perfect being has no wants or desires. [from 4 and 5]
(7) A creator that is perfect cannot exist. [from 3 and 6]

Explanations:

(1) Being (b) has the intention to perform action (a). Before (b) has performed (a), (b) wants, or desires, to perform (a). After (a) is performed, (b) no longer wants, or desires, to perform (a).

(2) If (b) does not want, or desire, to perform (a), then if (a) is performed, the action was not intentional.

(3) The creator intentionally performed the creation, thus the creator wanted or desired to perform creation.

(5) Wants and desires are feelings that indicate incompleteness. If being (b) wants or desires (a), (b) does not have (a), thus (b) is incomplete. Similarly, (b) will want or desire (a) until (b) has (a). If (b) already has (a), (b) is complete, and no longer wants or desires (a).

Perfect and desires communion with humans

A being cannot be perfect, that is, complete, faultless, absolutely precise, unequalled, and at the same time have the desire for communion with humans.

Argument (3)

(1) A perfect being is complete.
(2) Being complete implies having no wants or desires.
(3) A perfect being has no wants or desires [from 1 and 2].
(4) A perfect being that has any wants or desires cannot exist [from 3]
(4) A perfect being that desires communion with humans cannot exist [from 4].

Explanations:

(2) Wants and desires are feelings that indicate incompleteness. If being (b) wants or desires (a), (b) does not have (a), thus (b) is incomplete. Similarly, (b) will want or desire (a) until (b) has (a). If (b) already has (a), (b) is complete, and no longer wants or desires (a).