0
   

Omnipotence impossible?

 
 
QuinticNon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 12:28 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;112697 wrote:
...you cannot break the limits of possibility.


Sure you can. Possible is one thing, that which is known to be possible.

Potential is entirely different. Potential is that which drives us to know more of what's possible. All we know is that Unicorns are not possible. But that does not affect the Potential of a Unicorn. If the Potential becomes manifest in physical reality, then it becomes Possible.

May we consider that "possible" is usually attributed to the realm of materialism, and that "potential" is therefor attributed to realms of thought and mind? In this sense, an immaterial "potential" for thought and mind would not even be "possible" to prove materialistically. Thus, thought and mind in and of themselves are not to be considered "possible".Smile
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 12:40 pm
@QuinticNon,
If you would like to define possibility as empirical, who am I to say that you can't, any definition is possible.
QuinticNon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 12:46 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;112700 wrote:
...any definition is possible.


Yes, a prime example of free will. And all because "definition" comes from the "potential" realm of consciousness.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 12:57 pm
@QuinticNon,
Quint:
So for curiosity's sake, when you close your eyes does the world cease to be possible and become only probable? i would like to know if I blink out of existence every now and again.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 01:35 pm
@manored,
manored;112670 wrote:
I dont think that solves the problem at hand... If god is everything, then he is also unexistent, and, winhout a god, we cant solve the problem. We need a god in the classical sense: A separate being.

If light is everwhere, is there light?
I don't think the people who use the term think it's their job to bring God into subjection to human reasoning.

Even though I think it started with a particular outlook on why things happen.

But yea, if God is infinite, we have all the positive numbers being added to all their negative counterparts, and it equals 0.
0 Replies
 
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 02:44 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;112704 wrote:
Quint:
So for curiosity's sake, when you close your eyes does the world cease to be possible and become only probable? i would like to know if I blink out of existence every now and again.


We have evidence that the world is here. We live in it. If you want to get into whether the world is real or not, that's a whole different discussion, that are in various different threads. But things that we can not see, like God, are considered "probable" because we have never seen him before. We have no proof. If you close your eyes, and you don't know that the world is still "possible", then you must be under the age of one. Sometimes one-year olds think that when their mothers leave a room, that they cease to exist, when really, they're just out of sight.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 02:59 pm
@Quinn phil,
I figured that since we were making categorical boundaries of defenition I would clarify where they lie. Where the boundary of empirical lies. You know because if it must be empirical to be possible we must have already witnessed, documented, and written about everything possible in a journal somewhere or another. Obviously 400 years ago oxygen was only potentially oxygen and people were asphixiating regularly. Obviously 100 years ago Quasars were only potential quasars, you know even though according to physics law just the time it took for the light to make many of them empirically possible was only potentially travelling longer than the Earth's potential existence.
0 Replies
 
QuinticNon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:10 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;112704 wrote:
...blink out of existence...


I'm not following you. We "think" into existence. I see no evidence to suppose an agent can "blink" out of existence.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:11 pm
@Emil,
Emil;112267 wrote:
Logical omnipotence = the ability to do everything that is logically possible.

That wasn't so hard, was it?


Nice try. No cigar? You compare logic at a current understanding to that of god..................................wow! Logically wrong! People find it logical to do all kinds of vile crap to satisfy themselves. Logic is a rationalization we invented apart from that we know as god to make that which is not right to appear right. That's when what we call "the conscience" appears and we rationalize a reason that implores it to keep it's mouth shut. Ha!

William
0 Replies
 
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:12 pm
@hadad,
That's the thing. Oxegyn wasn't oxegyn, before someone had named it that. Of course, it still had all the same functions as oxegyn today does. But part of what makes something is how it's known.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:29 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quote:
That's the thing. Oxegyn wasn't oxegyn, before someone had named it that. Yeah, it still had all the saame functions as oxegyn today does. But part of what makes something is how it's known.


What of it? it wasn't possible if it wasn't consciously evident. To be empirical one must be able to percieve it and abstract it. Who is to say that the evidence of God and/or God's omnipotence is not unlike the evidence for oxygen? Isn't semantic categorization fun?

Oxygen not being oxygen before it was named is not the same as saying Oxegen did not exist before it was named, or rather it is not the same as saying oxygen existed only as a potential before it was named. If it serves a function it, according to most empirical theories I've heard of, must exist regardless of its name. I would infer that there are many as yet to be named things in this universe that serve vital functions for my continued existence. However if they are only potential, because they have not been empirically proven, they must not be serving their function and I am existing miraculously despite them.
0 Replies
 
QuinticNon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:30 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;112723 wrote:
That's the thing. Oxegyn wasn't oxegyn, before someone had named it that.


It's still not Oxygen even after we name it. We've named our observation of a particular phenomenon. We call our observation "Oxygen" to describe that phenomenon. But our naming of a thing... does not affect the thing. The thing, the observable phenomenon, the that... is what it is and nothing more. A simple accumulation of specific molecules that we can actually observe... let's call it O.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:49 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;112723 wrote:
That's the thing. Oxegyn wasn't oxegyn, before someone had named it that. Of course, it still had all the same functions as oxegyn today does. But part of what makes something is how it's known.


Hello Quinn. Oxygen is ok for the time being until something better comes along. There are limits as to what we can know about anything. A half a trillion dollars has just been spent on searching for the smallest particle in the universe and we keep finding more, ha!

If someone were to present you with a block of stone and ask that you sculpt a statue of god; where do you start? Well that's easy just chip away all that is not god. Good luck! Many are not as smart and "logical" as they think we are. And that my friend is the problem.

Take a child for instance. No problem chewing on his fingers to satisfy an urge. Then the teeth appear.........opps! Not such a good idea anymore. Oxygen is a good thing when use properly, but it can cause a lot of damage too. It's hell on iron. Eats it up. Discovery is a good thing, it's how we apply what we learn is what matters. For self or others or both. Enter philosophy. Care to argue.......................? Ha!:bigsmile:

William
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 03:59 pm
@manored,
manored;112443 wrote:

It just struck me that this is the solution. One being that can do anything can also give up its power. So if this being creates a rock it cannot lift, it gave up its omnipotence.

Aka: Not being omnipotent after an act doesnt means you werent omnipotent before.


That is the wittiest answer I've heard on this old question. Well done.

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 05:03 PM ----------

William;112721 wrote:
Nice try. No cigar? You compare logic at a current understanding to that of god..................................wow! Logically wrong! People find it logical to do all kinds of vile crap to satisfy themselves. Logic is a rationalization we invented apart from that we know as god to make that which is not right to appear right. That's when what we call "the conscience" appears and we rationalize a reason that implores it to keep it's mouth shut. Ha!

William



Well said,William. How often do we flatter our rationalizations with the name "logic" in order to increase their efficiency. And how superstitious it is to think that there is no superstition in what many call logic.:sarcastic:
0 Replies
 
Quinn phil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 04:06 pm
@William,
William;112739 wrote:
Hello Quinn. Oxygen is ok for the time being until something better comes along. There are limits as to what we can know about anything. A half a trillion dollars has just been spent on searching for the smallest particle in the universe and we keep finding more, ha!

If someone were to present you with a block of stone and ask that you sculpt a statue of god; where do you start? Well that's easy just chip away all that is not god. Good luck! Many are not as smart and "logical" as they think we are. And that my friend is the problem.

Take a child for instance. No problem chewing on his fingers to satisfy an urge. Then the teeth appear.........opps! Not such a good idea anymore. Oxygen is a good thing when use properly, but it can cause a lot of damage too. It's hell on iron. Eats it up. Discovery is a good thing, it's how we apply what we learn is what matters. For self or others or both. Enter philosophy. Care to argue.......................? Ha!:bigsmile:

William


Err, no. I completely agree. What I meant by that post was that things wouldn't be what they were without their names. Humans, for instance, need names for sake of recognition. Oxygen needs the same.
William
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2009 05:00 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;112745 wrote:
Err, no. I completely agree. What I meant by that post was that things wouldn't be what they were without their names. Humans, for instance, need names for sake of recognition. Oxygen needs the same.


I know my friend. I didn't mean to argue literally, Ha, sorry. I know what you meant. You are right, but what's in a name? You are right, we do have to communicate and we do have a way with words too. We have entirely too many of them, as a matter of a fact. We could do better with less and that includes the many words we use. Just complicates matters. It's hilarious, the smaller we get in or discovery the longer the words get, Ha! :whistling:

William

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 06:42 PM ----------

William;112766 wrote:
I know my friend. I didn't mean to argue literally, Ha, sorry. I know what you meant. You are right, but what's in a name? You are right, we do have to communicate and we do have a way with words too. We have entirely too many of them, as a matter of a fact. We could do better with less and that includes the many words we use. Just complicates matters. It's hilarious, the smaller we get in or discovery the longer the words get, Ha! :whistling:

William


When I first started exploring these forums I lived in dictionaries and ordered out, ha! Since then I have learned it is much easier to express ones thoughts using words that everyone can know and understand. When I am faced with a subject that I would like to comment on I do go back in and try to understand what he hell is they are saying, ha! It seems it was not long ago that vocabulary was a right of passage if you wanted to converse with a "so called scholar" on any subject. It has lessened sum what and now I can eat my own cooking again. I have the time, ha!

William

---------- Post added 12-19-2009 at 06:49 PM ----------

Reconstructo;112742 wrote:
That is the wittiest answer I've heard on this old question. Well done.


I will have to agree, Bravo Manored, my friend. You do have your days, ha! Just kidding. Damn, I wish I had said that!! Ha!

Your friend,
William
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 12:31 pm
@William,
William;112739 wrote:
Hello Quinn. Oxygen is ok for the time being until something better comes along. There are limits as to what we can know about anything. A half a trillion dollars has just been spent on searching for the smallest particle in the universe and we keep finding more, ha!
I think thats a good thing, we dont want all our lovely scientists and atom smashers to suddently become useless, do we? =)

William;112739 wrote:

If someone were to present you with a block of stone and ask that you sculpt a statue of god; where do you start? Well that's easy just chip away all that is not god. Good luck! Many are not as smart and "logical" as they think we are. And that my friend is the problem.
You dont start =)

Reconstructo;112742 wrote:
That is the wittiest answer I've heard on this old question. Well done.
Well, thank you! =)

I guess I just kept focused on the matter of hand, while other posters strayed off in all sorts of directions. Why everthing has to be so interesting? =)

William;112766 wrote:
I know my friend. I didn't mean to argue literally, Ha, sorry. I know what you meant. You are right, but what's in a name? You are right, we do have to communicate and we do have a way with words too. We have entirely too many of them, as a matter of a fact. We could do better with less and that includes the many words we use. Just complicates matters. It's hilarious, the smaller we get in or discovery the longer the words get, Ha! :whistling:
You should see portuguese, we have different verb forms for ever person! A huge pain in the back, I tell you. I love english because its so simple and easy compared to my mother language.

William;112766 wrote:

When I first started exploring these forums I lived in dictionaries and ordered out, ha! Since then I have learned it is much easier to express ones thoughts using words that everyone can know and understand. When I am faced with a subject that I would like to comment on I do go back in and try to understand what he hell is they are saying, ha! It seems it was not long ago that vocabulary was a right of passage if you wanted to converse with a "so called scholar" on any subject. It has lessened sum what and now I can eat my own cooking again. I have the time, ha!
I think people give too much value to that whole vocabulary thing. While its true that people with rich vocabularies are usually smart, that doesnt means vocabulary is the absolute measure of one's mental capabilities =)

William;112766 wrote:

I will have to agree, Bravo Manored, my friend. You do have your days, ha! Just kidding. Damn, I wish I had said that!! Ha!
Thank you. Im impressed that so many (2 is many in this case) people are impressed with my answer =)
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 08:53 pm
@manored,
manored;113040 wrote:
While its true that people with rich vocabularies are usually smart, that doesnt means vocabulary is the absolute measure of one's mental capabilities =)

So true. Some of the deepest people I know have the smaller vocabularies. They just see life with different eyes, are tuned in to certain energies, for lack of a better word or for a useful-in-this-case vagueness.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 02:57 am
@hadad,
When I examine the title of this thread, those two words are a bit oxy-moronic and I assume that is why the (?). We have no idea of what omnipotence is, so in that regard, anything IS possible. If those who are living such a fast pace could only slow down, I am sure they would see much more clearly. I, because of health reasons, have done just that and it is amazing what I am able to observe others just don't see.

Let me give you an example. Over the holidays my daughter came to visit me and brought my 22 month old granddaughter with her. A most remarkable little girl. My daughter suffers from back problems and is dependent on pain medications for relief. I am naturally concerned about this and have told her so. She's takes them at night mostly and has a hard time arising in the morning.

She doesn't sleep in the same room with the Munchkin (my pet name for my grandchild) and doesn't need too. I prepared a bed for my daughter in my room and that is were she slept while they were here and the Munchkin slept in the spare room by herself.

One morning when he Munchkin arose, she as always let it be known that the day had begun, ha! I went and got her out of bed, changed her diaper (she's not quite "housebroke" yet, ha!) and she came into my room where her mother was still asleep. This was about 6:00 in the morning. I thought to myself "my daughter is not going to like this" and considered taking my granddaughter out of the room and going to another one so my daughter could sleep a little longer. I thought the Munchkin would try and wake her up.

When I brought her into the room, she did call out to her and said "Mommy" and when my daughter did no respond, not a whimper did she utter; she just crawled up into her bed and put her arm around her and sat there quietly alert to everything going on in the room. She knew of her Mother's state and was protecting her until she did wake up. Unbelievable.

She knew how so very dependent she was on her Mother and wanted to make sure nothing happened to her while she slept. That hit me like a ton of bricks. Damn! What a connection there must be between Mother and child.

My daughter, because of her back is unable to work and because of this she has spent all her time with her new daughter and has given her the attention she needs; a situation so many mothers today don't get to do because they do work outside the home and just do not have the time or the patience to spend with their children.

When we speak of omnipotence and the awesome connections of what a "God" is, I saw that, that morning and the link a mother has with her child. That told me volumes. I was so grateful that I had the time to observe it for what it truly was.

My daughter carried this child for nine months and they are a part of each other. They are so close it's difficult to imaging how close they actually are. They are still that way and of course they will separate as time goes on but now they are still one. If only all Mothers could have observed this, I am sure it would have creatied a sentiment such as it did with me and perhaps even a negative one for they don't have the time to notice how close that connection is and why when they do not spend the time they need to spend with the little ones, the rebel as they do to get the attention they so desperately need.

Those of you who have been here for a while have observed my referral to a "divine connection". I see it all the time. We are connected and when we slow down and notice what we have never noticed before one becomes aware of the unity and the awesome power of it as it relates to the synergy of complimentary action. "ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE" so to speak. It is real and it does exist in ways that are difficult to describe and I hope this helped a little. It may be just a small thing that I have described here or is it?

I created a thread call Sibling Rivalry and as of yet no one has responded to it that I know of and I think it has a major bearing on what the child is capable of when they do not receive the necessary care they need and deserve as a child. Our most notorious were indeed children once. So it does matter how we attend to them. Big Time.

My daughter has made her mistakes and there is no positive male influences in my grand daughters life but me and I regret not being there more for her but I do all I can when I can. Not in a patronizing way but an attentive way. When I am there, she KNOWS I am there. Just as my daughter is.

I know many parents are not there when they need to be and frankly we all pay a price for that in the many ways as they grow and what a person will do to get the attention they never got as a child.

I do hope many will agree with what I am saying as we come to understand the universal dynamic of man/woman/child and what that represents and how much respect we must give it.

William
manored
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2009 12:41 pm
@William,
Nice post, kinda off topic though =)

So you mean we cant understand what omnipotence is winhout understanding the bonds between humans?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/13/2024 at 09:16:25