Hello all,
I’m new to this site. Nice to meet you all. 
My two cents on this discussion so far: I think it would be good to define omniscience as “the ability to know all things that are possible to know.” Then we can move from there. Is that fair?
Connect
Edited to fix wrong word.
lol… no… we can’t… because if we accept that definition we’re all omnipotent… We can all do everything that can be done.
Oh and also… can you define human limits to me ?
Is flying possible ? Could we walk on the moon ? Could we split the atom ? Could we walk on Mars ? etc…
I’m with Nietzsche… No limits… only will power.
Hello Carpathian,
We can do all things? I question the the veracity of that assertion Sir. Can you do ALL things that can be done?
Thanks,
Connect
Yes, very much so.
I can do anything i wish within the range of my current possibilities.
Hey Carpathian,
Are you saying that you have the liberty to do them or the actual capacity to carry them out? Can you bench press 500 pounds, for example? Me too. See, all people cannot do all things that are possible to be done. Your assertion is not accurate.
Connect
500 pounds… how much is that in kilos ?
And no… your conception is incorrect; not mine.
Will a third party here take a stand on this matter ?
Hi Carpatian,
Please educate me on how my “conception is incorrect”.
Thanks,
Connect
It is possible to run a mile in 2 seconds. God, theoretically, could do it.
I cannot run a mile in 2 seconds. Do you see, Carpathian? It is possible to run a mile in 2 seconds, yet we cannot do it.
I think that Connections’ definition is a fair one.
Is it possible for me to run a mile in 2 seconds ? No.
Is it possible for me to run a mile in less than 15 minutes ? Yes…
I am within the range of my possibilities… i can do everything that’s possible for me to do… am i omnipotent ?
The fact that god “could do it” doesn’t mean anything as long as we’re referring to what god can do acording to his possiblities.
We’re either all omnipotent within the range of our possibilities or nobody is because nobody (not even god) can make a triangle in Euclidic geometry with the sum of its angles more or less than 180 degrees.
Its a matter of defineing the word omnipotent.
The fact that there are things which are impossible to do should be enough argument to refute the omnipotence of any being.
So either we’re all omnipotent or nobody is.
And if someone simply has more power does that mean he should be worshiped ? i don’t think so.
We’re either all omnipotent within the range of our possibilities or nobody is because nobody (not even god) can make a triangle in Euclidic geometry with the sum of its angles more or less than 180 degrees.
So its a matter of definition really… but nevertheless the argument against omnipotence stands its ground.
Hello all/Carpatian,
My def. was not relative to ones abilities necessarily. When I talk about Omnipotence I would say it is the “power to do ALL things that are possible to do.” ALL possible things. We are not being relative here. For example, “the ability to know within Carpathian’s abilities/boundaries†is not what I mean.
Same with Omniscience: “to know ALL things that are possible to know.” As others have said, Carpatian, when we hold an absurdity as the standard of power and knowledge, it is just that, absurd.
Connect
Indeed, Connections is correct in my view.
God can do all things which are not impossible. Humans cannot.
hmm anyone else with a different opinion maybe ?
Connections does have the best descriptive and explainatory meaning to Omniscience and Omnipotence.
If you really wish to include every last thing in Omniscience that one would have to also know ever abstract thought every being has ever had, not to mention action, the future, alternate dimensions, and anything that can be, could be, and that which may never be conceived!
The point of God’s Omniscience is the fact that it should be in God power to know such things if He wanted! Not that God makes it a point to actually KNOW them! As part and parcel of humans having free will means that God has relenquished absolute control of our destiny allowing us to make choices for ourself. But He could if He so desired to know our hearts, minds,and dreams every moment of every second thusly knowing all about us!
Omnipotence works just the same way. A paradox is proof of this. Can God with all His power create a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot lift?
Such a question is an intended paradox and is meant only to marginalize or minimize Gods power to somehow make it to appear insignificant! After all… We have the power to create a rock we could not lift… but we are also limited in power whereas God is not!
Agreement upon what a defining term means is very important to instructive and learning debate. Otherwise the debaters might as compare apples to oranges!
here goes:
where did i come from? my parents
where did my parents come from? from my grandparents
…insert similar line of questioning of the family tree until the first species of sapiens came to be…
where did the first person come from? evolved from planktons and stuff like that.
where did planktons and stuff like that come from? from the earth
where did earth come from? from the big bang
how is the big bang possible? collision of matter.
where did matter come from? from nothing? but physics say matter can never be created nor destroyed
but i am existing, am i not?
so where did i come from?
and so on… it’s a loop. some questions are not meant to be answered… well… at least, not right now. the way i see it, we are still at a primitive stage where we limit thinking to cognition. next step would have to be the mixture of cognition and imagination… something like alchemy… which may never happen in my lifetime…
so the point is… why bother asking this question when it just brings more questions? there are two types of people: those who get what they want and those who are satisfied with what they got. only the wisest get to be the latter.
Wrong.
Ah…
Timespace rules only apply to our own energy fields and orders.
You can either call it the chaosphere or the exverse, but out there, cause-and-effect, or even time – they don’t mean jack-shit…
If the universe came out of the chaosphere, then it is less then what it was, because it usedto be anything and everything, therefor it was “not real” [by human definition].
The closer you get to omnipotents – the closer you get to a form of quantum “white-noise”; of laws and behavior/potential which are too many all at the same “time” or without “time”.
…which makes me realize that God may actually be a literally insane chaospherial “life form”…
A reminder: You won’t see me very often, or for very long, on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. 
EDIT: Oh, crap, I stuck up that little reply so I could go back and check out Carpathian’s reply to me, only to find out there isn’t one- at least, not one that requires a response. Well, that’s one master-debater down, I guess, lemme see what someone else has to say.
Kriswest
My response to the ‘Who Created God’ question is ‘nobody’, and the reason for my answer is this: God isn’t the sort of thing that requires a Creator. The whole point of the cosmological argument is to say not
that ‘Everything requires a Cause’. That is a misreading of the argument. What is does is observe that the things we see have causes. It further observes that either there must be an infinite chain of causes going back forever in time, or else there must be one Thing that caused everything that came after.
I personally have seen all of these approaches, and that’s just to the Christian God. I have seen people who pray to God like He’s a human friend, or a scary super-Being who should only be approached with fear and trembling. I’ve seen people talk to God like they were talking to their Mom or Dad, or perhaps to the President (a president they respected, to be clear), and a few other options.
Carpathian:
EDIT: I didn’t state that ‘my personal god’ wasn’t above logic, I stated that the ‘personal gods’ of nearly every theologian and theistic philosopher of religion held these beliefs as well. If you want to make this seem like ‘Ucci’s private concept of deity doesn’t matter, because Carpathian is trying to argue against what most theists believe,’ it’s certainly your perogative to attempt that subterfuge, but you should know that it won’t fool anybody who’s read a book or two on the matter. I can give you some references of good places to start, if you’d like.
Oh, but I can refute. I can rip whatever version of the Problem of Evil or the Problem of Evidence apart that you could possibly construct, I feel quite confident of that. Two things, though-
1.) My strength in debating doesn’t make me right, so I don’t always do something because I can.
2.) Someone who has no interest in listening to a refutation, or capability of believing they exist, wouldn’t be fit to hear what I have to say anyway. I’m assuming, from past experience with you, that if I did refute your version of the Problem of Evil, you’d give me a 6-10 word response and move on to some completely different argument, yes? This is why I insisted you stick to the omnipotence thing- to help your own credibility. But I see you’re interested in moving on to other things.
Connections
Yes, absolutely. God can only know things that are possible to know- that’s completely tied to the word ‘possible’. Carpathian just doesn’t grasp the difference between logical possibility, scientific possibility, the immediate possibilities of the individual, and so on. I assume you would take Omniscience to mean that God can know everything logically possible to know, yes?
CARPATHIAN:
Logical possibility is completely different than one's own 'range of possibilities'. For example, it's logically possible to throw a rock from here to the moon. Why? Because the concept of doing so doesn't violate any logical axioms, or commit any logical fallacies. While possible, you still can't do it. God can. That's an example of something scientifically impossible, impossible based on human limitations, but not LOGICALLY impossible, and therefore within God's capabilities.
On the other hand, take 'drawing a square circle'. This is logically impossible. Why? Because the definition of 'circle' and the definition of 'square' directly exclude each other, so therefore no drawn object can be both. You and I can't do it, and neither can God. it's debatable where the object of the sentence (square circle) has any meaning at all. It may be that 'square circle' is the functional equivalent to 'goobley gree'. Define either term in a way that actually makes sense, (that is, tell me what exactly a 'square circle is', in a way I can understand), and then you'd have a real thing, and God could make one.
Sorry to dig back so deep:
Sorry you weren’t satisfied, but I answered your question. I do not believe in an anthropomorphic God, which undermines the validity of any empathy you might be able to provide on an omnipotent perspective. God may or may not have consciousness in a way in which we understand it; I do not know or care to guess whether He does, because it’s irrelevant to faith. A relationship with God is much more like a relationship with the world around one and oneself (which answers your worship question, I think); whether God is a consciousness doesn’t matter from a religious point of view. The only important article from a religious perspective about God is that He is.
Lol, you were right: I wasn’t the last one.
Omnipotent for me means “being the totality of existance”; God has power over the universe in the way that you have power over your consciousness, or something like that. The range of His possiblities equates to the range of what is possible in existance.
When I refer to a god I refer to a creature that is just more evolved then us. Was this creature responsible for this earth and us? Its possible. Did this creature create our universe, its possible. Where did this creature come from? Subatomic particles and time.
Is it possible to lose your physical body and evolve to pure energy. Yes, given time.
Can this creature transcend time and space and matter. Damn that would be so cool, I would hope so, Because I really want to learn how to do that too.
Will I ever worship this creature? No, I will talk to it in my mind as a student or a child. but worship? No. If this creature truly wanted just followers and worshipers, then it surely would have created creatures that were not so aggressive.
Since we are aggressive that can lead to to a belief it wants us to fight for it eventually and this is boot camp. Well I refuse to be cannon fodder for a creature that won’t talk to me personally.
If this creature did not want us to evolve and learn new thoughts and new ideas, then it would not have created a universe full of mysteries to be solved. Or problems to overcome.
Since it is thought that this creature created this universe then it must have intended for us to learn and grow and overcome these mysteries and problems.
Why would it want us to learn and grow? To become its peers or superior to it as any parent would want.
Why create just worshippers when you can have comradesand equal family.
to be worshipped only would get pretty boring and lonely
Yes I attribute human thoughts and emotions to this creature. Why? because if it did give us these things it surely intended us to use them to think and resolve. To say that only human thoughts and emotions count would be wrong, but if I am only given a hammer to build a house, well I will use that hammer to the best of my ability and not say, Hmm I will finish this part when I get a screwdriver. I will work to finish it with the hammer and my hands, and with the knowledge: even a hammer can make other tools.
