The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Views.
Page:
Blank wrote:
>
> Your pomposity makes me laugh.
Im glad I managed to bring some humour into your miserable self opinionated life.
> Firstly, of course we can comprehend omnipotency because it is a term
> and a concept that we have created.
Omnipotency is a term that we have created to enable us to try and understand.
Omnipotent : One having unlimited power or authority
Unlimited. having no limits. When did the universe begin, when did time begin and what was there before time - when will it end and what will there be after it ends.
We created the term to describe something that is indescribable - we cannot truly comprehend unlimited power - power with no limits, no restrictions that we can understand.
> Secondly, what would you suggest in order to discuss it? Why is a
> boulder somehow worse than anything else.
Because basically it has no credibility - what relevance is there to wether or not an omnipotent being could produce a boulder of that magnitude ? Lets assume that God is omnipotent - forget about the boulder - he could create a pebble that weighs more than the total mass of every planet in our known universe - but what would be the point behind that - just to prove that he could to us ? He could then flick it to the edge of the universe if he so wished - but again to what end ? Talk of boulder mass does not prove or disprove omnipotency - it is a hypothetical argument with no grounding within our comprehension.
> My argument has no grounding scientifically?
See above - no it does not have any scientific grounding.
Well, I suppose
> everything mentioned in the Bible has a scientific grounding, yes?
No - but what the bible is accepted as by scholars - Religious scholars and Historians alike - is a true account of historical events that have occurred. To date no archealogical evidence that has been and is still being discovered has disproved anything that is written in the bible, plenty of evidence has been and is still being discovered that proves the historicity of the biblical writings.
It
> isn't about grounding anything in science, and if it was believe me
> Christianity wouldn't last a second.
Maybe you should start to do some research into the subject before you make these statements. There are plenty of writings in the bible that have a scienticfic foundation and show that people in biblical times had a scientific understanding. From simple things like hygiene and disease control to the fact that in Issiah it mentions that the earth is a sphere, something that is also supported by the understanding of the Ancient Greeks which flies in the face of our scientific understanding that only in recent times we believed the earth to be flat.
> The classic argument of religious types when they have little left is
> to say "How could we possibly comprehend...?". Surely you
> can think of something better.
You obvioulsy know little about me and have not followed recent discussions and debates in this forum.
> I can't believe I'm even talking to someone who used "God has
> better things to do" as an actual argument...
I did not use that as an argument - I used it as a statement to show the futility of the original post.
>
> Your pomposity makes me laugh.
Im glad I managed to bring some humour into your miserable self opinionated life.
> Firstly, of course we can comprehend omnipotency because it is a term
> and a concept that we have created.
Omnipotency is a term that we have created to enable us to try and understand.
Omnipotent : One having unlimited power or authority
Unlimited. having no limits. When did the universe begin, when did time begin and what was there before time - when will it end and what will there be after it ends.
We created the term to describe something that is indescribable - we cannot truly comprehend unlimited power - power with no limits, no restrictions that we can understand.
> Secondly, what would you suggest in order to discuss it? Why is a
> boulder somehow worse than anything else.
Because basically it has no credibility - what relevance is there to wether or not an omnipotent being could produce a boulder of that magnitude ? Lets assume that God is omnipotent - forget about the boulder - he could create a pebble that weighs more than the total mass of every planet in our known universe - but what would be the point behind that - just to prove that he could to us ? He could then flick it to the edge of the universe if he so wished - but again to what end ? Talk of boulder mass does not prove or disprove omnipotency - it is a hypothetical argument with no grounding within our comprehension.
> My argument has no grounding scientifically?
See above - no it does not have any scientific grounding.
Well, I suppose
> everything mentioned in the Bible has a scientific grounding, yes?
No - but what the bible is accepted as by scholars - Religious scholars and Historians alike - is a true account of historical events that have occurred. To date no archealogical evidence that has been and is still being discovered has disproved anything that is written in the bible, plenty of evidence has been and is still being discovered that proves the historicity of the biblical writings.
It
> isn't about grounding anything in science, and if it was believe me
> Christianity wouldn't last a second.
Maybe you should start to do some research into the subject before you make these statements. There are plenty of writings in the bible that have a scienticfic foundation and show that people in biblical times had a scientific understanding. From simple things like hygiene and disease control to the fact that in Issiah it mentions that the earth is a sphere, something that is also supported by the understanding of the Ancient Greeks which flies in the face of our scientific understanding that only in recent times we believed the earth to be flat.
> The classic argument of religious types when they have little left is
> to say "How could we possibly comprehend...?". Surely you
> can think of something better.
You obvioulsy know little about me and have not followed recent discussions and debates in this forum.
> I can't believe I'm even talking to someone who used "God has
> better things to do" as an actual argument...
I did not use that as an argument - I used it as a statement to show the futility of the original post.
Once again, it was hypothetical...
...but where is god to make and move the boulder?
Flanders wrote:
> There was actually nothing moronic about my reply.
>
> I was merely pointing out to you the futility of the concept that you
> used in your original argument.
>
> Omnipotency is basically a concept that we cannot truly comprehend and
> you try to argue against it by discussing boulders and their relative
> size.
>
> Your argument is basically pointless and has no grounding either
> scientifically or theologically so therefore warrants no further
> debate.
Your pomposity makes me laugh.
Firstly, of course we can comprehend omnipotency because it is a term and a concept that we have created.
Secondly, what would you suggest in order to discuss it? Why is a boulder somehow worse than anything else.
My argument has no grounding scientifically? Well, I suppose everything mentioned in the Bible has a scientific grounding, yes? It isn't about grounding anything in science, and if it was believe me Christianity wouldn't last a second.
The classic argument of religious types when they have little left is to say "How could we possibly comprehend...?". Surely you can think of something better.
I can't believe I'm even talking to someone who used "God has better things to do" as an actual argument...
> There was actually nothing moronic about my reply.
>
> I was merely pointing out to you the futility of the concept that you
> used in your original argument.
>
> Omnipotency is basically a concept that we cannot truly comprehend and
> you try to argue against it by discussing boulders and their relative
> size.
>
> Your argument is basically pointless and has no grounding either
> scientifically or theologically so therefore warrants no further
> debate.
Your pomposity makes me laugh.
Firstly, of course we can comprehend omnipotency because it is a term and a concept that we have created.
Secondly, what would you suggest in order to discuss it? Why is a boulder somehow worse than anything else.
My argument has no grounding scientifically? Well, I suppose everything mentioned in the Bible has a scientific grounding, yes? It isn't about grounding anything in science, and if it was believe me Christianity wouldn't last a second.
The classic argument of religious types when they have little left is to say "How could we possibly comprehend...?". Surely you can think of something better.
I can't believe I'm even talking to someone who used "God has better things to do" as an actual argument...
Simon Says wrote:
> My view on theology is that
> it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. Just live right,
> don't be naughty and it's all gravy.
True :)
> My view on theology is that
> it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. Just live right,
> don't be naughty and it's all gravy.
True :)
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Simon Says wrote:
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to
> understand
> how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic
> scale.
>
>
> not sure that I understand this statement.
>
> Soz, I meant proven as in 'mathematical proof' as distinct from the
> dictionary definition.
>
> e.g. Pythagoras Theory has a sound mathematical proof behind it
Pythagorus = mathematics.
It doesn't tell us anything about the real world. It tells us about a mathematical system. That's why there is a mathematical proof for it.
> Quantum Theory doesn't, yet, simply because we haven't developed the
> mathematical tools to deal with what we see happening at the quantum
> level at this time.
Quantum Theory is about the way the world works. The mathematical tools we have now can explain quantum theory to a certain extent, but you have to accept the random factor involved.
> As with apples going up, for all we know
> mathematics as we know it might not even be the right discipline to
> use to describe Quantum Theory, but it's the best tool we have for
> universally describing everything else so far, so I put a lot of store
> in it.
>
True,
>
> With regards to 'God requires no proof', as an aetheist personally I
> constantly 'seek proof' regarding whether or not he exists, even
> though I know that the proof probably won't arrive in my lifetime, if
> ever. But as someone interested in the question of his existence I
> keep looking, rather than just dismiss the possibility of his
> existence altogether.
Personally I don't see any sense in actively seeking proof of the existence of God. As with a lot of things it's easier to proof a positive i.e God exists, than a negative. My view on theology is that it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. Just live right, don't be naughty and it's all gravy.
Which brings me to another point. I heard people saying it's all gravy as in it's good, but if I bought anything, ever (with the possible exception of gravy), that was all gravy I'd be pretty p!ssed. Say a meat and potato pie, but when you bit into it, it's all gravy.
That would suck a5s
> Simon Says wrote:
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to
> understand
> how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic
> scale.
>
>
> not sure that I understand this statement.
>
> Soz, I meant proven as in 'mathematical proof' as distinct from the
> dictionary definition.
>
> e.g. Pythagoras Theory has a sound mathematical proof behind it
Pythagorus = mathematics.
It doesn't tell us anything about the real world. It tells us about a mathematical system. That's why there is a mathematical proof for it.
> Quantum Theory doesn't, yet, simply because we haven't developed the
> mathematical tools to deal with what we see happening at the quantum
> level at this time.
Quantum Theory is about the way the world works. The mathematical tools we have now can explain quantum theory to a certain extent, but you have to accept the random factor involved.
> As with apples going up, for all we know
> mathematics as we know it might not even be the right discipline to
> use to describe Quantum Theory, but it's the best tool we have for
> universally describing everything else so far, so I put a lot of store
> in it.
>
True,
>
> With regards to 'God requires no proof', as an aetheist personally I
> constantly 'seek proof' regarding whether or not he exists, even
> though I know that the proof probably won't arrive in my lifetime, if
> ever. But as someone interested in the question of his existence I
> keep looking, rather than just dismiss the possibility of his
> existence altogether.
Personally I don't see any sense in actively seeking proof of the existence of God. As with a lot of things it's easier to proof a positive i.e God exists, than a negative. My view on theology is that it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. Just live right, don't be naughty and it's all gravy.
Which brings me to another point. I heard people saying it's all gravy as in it's good, but if I bought anything, ever (with the possible exception of gravy), that was all gravy I'd be pretty p!ssed. Say a meat and potato pie, but when you bit into it, it's all gravy.
That would suck a5s
Simon Says wrote:
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to
> understand
> how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic
> scale.
>
>
> not sure that I understand this statement.
Soz, I meant proven as in 'mathematical proof' as distinct from the dictionary definition.
e.g. Pythagoras Theory has a sound mathematical proof behind it
Quantum Theory doesn't, yet, simply because we haven't developed the mathematical tools to deal with what we see happening at the quantum level at this time. As with apples going up, for all we know mathematics as we know it might not even be the right discipline to use to describe Quantum Theory, but it's the best tool we have for universally describing everything else so far, so I put a lot of store in it.
With regards to 'God requires no proof', as an aetheist personally I constantly 'seek proof' regarding whether or not he exists, even though I know that the proof probably won't arrive in my lifetime, if ever. But as someone interested in the question of his existence I keep looking, rather than just dismiss the possibility of his existence altogether.
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to
> understand
> how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic
> scale.
>
>
> not sure that I understand this statement.
Soz, I meant proven as in 'mathematical proof' as distinct from the dictionary definition.
e.g. Pythagoras Theory has a sound mathematical proof behind it
Quantum Theory doesn't, yet, simply because we haven't developed the mathematical tools to deal with what we see happening at the quantum level at this time. As with apples going up, for all we know mathematics as we know it might not even be the right discipline to use to describe Quantum Theory, but it's the best tool we have for universally describing everything else so far, so I put a lot of store in it.
With regards to 'God requires no proof', as an aetheist personally I constantly 'seek proof' regarding whether or not he exists, even though I know that the proof probably won't arrive in my lifetime, if ever. But as someone interested in the question of his existence I keep looking, rather than just dismiss the possibility of his existence altogether.
Maybe I'm looking to start a new, and far more tangible argument, but anyways.
Please understand that for the most part of this post, I'll be playing devil's advocate.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> I found this topic quite interesting as a mathematician. The title
> involves a paradox along the lines of what happens if an irresistable
> force collides with an immovable object.
>
truth
>
> As with all such paradoxes (paradoxae?) when you try to describe them
> mathematically, the mathematics collapses, mainly because whenever
> infinity gets involved mathematics tends to go haywire and implodes in
> a puff of logic.
>
truth
>
> As a scientist, this is interesting, but not a problem that can't be
> explained eventually by further investigation into quantum physics.
> There's a whole branch of mathematics invented specifically to help us
> describe what goes on in the quantum world, but it's very
> experimental.
>
I firmly believe that maths is not a science. Maths is a tool, but it doesn't tell you anything about the world. You cannot do experiments in maths, and I have encountered highly irritating mathematicians who would rell out "thought experiments" and consider them proof. That isn't to say that maths is not complex, or valuable, but it's not a science.
>
> Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to understand
> how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic
> scale.
>
not sure that I understand this statement. Proof is a funny thing. As far as I am aware all theories are proven via and inductive method, which means that one day even the lowest level theories may fall down. Maybe one day some guy will sit under and apple tree and the apple will fall up, and not down. That's why nothing will ever be conclusively proven.
Having said that, to me, maths is something that doesn't need to be proven because it created by man. The decimal system is only base ten because we have ten fingers. If we only have four on each hand we'd be counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10.
>
> So to answer the initial question, we'd have to first decide whether
> God actually exists, and then we can do the Math. The Math hasn't
> been invented yet that can work out whether or not God exists, which
> is another sticky problem.
>
There is no proof. Possibly because there doesn't need to be. In my version of the world, like maths, god is also invented by man, and is also a tool to help out with life. However like maths, god requires no proof.
>
> I'll work on it...
Please understand that for the most part of this post, I'll be playing devil's advocate.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> I found this topic quite interesting as a mathematician. The title
> involves a paradox along the lines of what happens if an irresistable
> force collides with an immovable object.
>
truth
>
> As with all such paradoxes (paradoxae?) when you try to describe them
> mathematically, the mathematics collapses, mainly because whenever
> infinity gets involved mathematics tends to go haywire and implodes in
> a puff of logic.
>
truth
>
> As a scientist, this is interesting, but not a problem that can't be
> explained eventually by further investigation into quantum physics.
> There's a whole branch of mathematics invented specifically to help us
> describe what goes on in the quantum world, but it's very
> experimental.
>
I firmly believe that maths is not a science. Maths is a tool, but it doesn't tell you anything about the world. You cannot do experiments in maths, and I have encountered highly irritating mathematicians who would rell out "thought experiments" and consider them proof. That isn't to say that maths is not complex, or valuable, but it's not a science.
>
> Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to understand
> how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic
> scale.
>
not sure that I understand this statement. Proof is a funny thing. As far as I am aware all theories are proven via and inductive method, which means that one day even the lowest level theories may fall down. Maybe one day some guy will sit under and apple tree and the apple will fall up, and not down. That's why nothing will ever be conclusively proven.
Having said that, to me, maths is something that doesn't need to be proven because it created by man. The decimal system is only base ten because we have ten fingers. If we only have four on each hand we'd be counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10.
>
> So to answer the initial question, we'd have to first decide whether
> God actually exists, and then we can do the Math. The Math hasn't
> been invented yet that can work out whether or not God exists, which
> is another sticky problem.
>
There is no proof. Possibly because there doesn't need to be. In my version of the world, like maths, god is also invented by man, and is also a tool to help out with life. However like maths, god requires no proof.
>
> I'll work on it...
I haven't read the replies in this post.
I've read the original post, which seems that it was intended to inspire contraversy and start and argument, which it has, and I am surprised at the number of replies.
This is my view.
I think that religion is very valuable, because it helps people. Religion to me is an intagible tool that actively helps tangible people and things. Personally I don't believe in god, that's my opinion. Less than that though, I don't believe in any value in arguing about god, because it's an irrefutable subject.
You can't prove anything. You can't reach a conclusive result because of the nature of the subject, so what is the point in arguing it. It can't teach you anything, so why bother?
However, having said that I am now adding to the replies.
can anyone say "Hypocrisy"?
I've read the original post, which seems that it was intended to inspire contraversy and start and argument, which it has, and I am surprised at the number of replies.
This is my view.
I think that religion is very valuable, because it helps people. Religion to me is an intagible tool that actively helps tangible people and things. Personally I don't believe in god, that's my opinion. Less than that though, I don't believe in any value in arguing about god, because it's an irrefutable subject.
You can't prove anything. You can't reach a conclusive result because of the nature of the subject, so what is the point in arguing it. It can't teach you anything, so why bother?
However, having said that I am now adding to the replies.
can anyone say "Hypocrisy"?
I found this topic quite interesting as a mathematician. The title involves a paradox along the lines of what happens if an irresistable force collides with an immovable object.
As with all such paradoxes (paradoxae?) when you try to describe them mathematically, the mathematics collapses, mainly because whenever infinity gets involved mathematics tends to go haywire and implodes in a puff of logic.
As a scientist, this is interesting, but not a problem that can't be explained eventually by further investigation into quantum physics. There's a whole branch of mathematics invented specifically to help us describe what goes on in the quantum world, but it's very experimental.
Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to understand how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic scale.
So to answer the initial question, we'd have to first decide whether God actually exists, and then we can do the Math. The Math hasn't been invented yet that can work out whether or not God exists, which is another sticky problem.
I'll work on it...
As with all such paradoxes (paradoxae?) when you try to describe them mathematically, the mathematics collapses, mainly because whenever infinity gets involved mathematics tends to go haywire and implodes in a puff of logic.
As a scientist, this is interesting, but not a problem that can't be explained eventually by further investigation into quantum physics. There's a whole branch of mathematics invented specifically to help us describe what goes on in the quantum world, but it's very experimental.
Until that mathematics is proven to work we can't begin to understand how our universe works, either on the macrocosmic or microcosmic scale.
So to answer the initial question, we'd have to first decide whether God actually exists, and then we can do the Math. The Math hasn't been invented yet that can work out whether or not God exists, which is another sticky problem.
I'll work on it...
Page: