The omnipotence paradox doesnt. There is no rock. The only thing god creates is the experience of there being a rock, and the experience of not being able to move it. Can God do this? Yes, God gathers experiences of limtation through us.

So god didn't create earth, just the experience of it for us?

If you assume that for any positive integer n, God can create a rock that has mass greater than or equal to n pounds, then what's the problem? That doesn't sound like a limitation on God's power.

The phrase "so heavy that God cannot lift it" may simply fail to describe any range of masses. It also suspiciously relies upon God being unable to do something.

If Fermat actually didn't have a proof of his so-called "Last Theorem", then does that support the claim that Fermat had great mathematical power, or fail to support it? He stated a conjecture that he could neither prove nor disprove, just as God is supposed to be able to create a rock that he cannot lift.

I'm not following your train of thought here...

Are you saying god is not all powerful?

have a clear concept of power before you try to demonstrate that some entity lacks power.

If you state some goal and some rules, and it is logically impossible for the goal to be achieved given the rules, then challenging a being to achieve the goal while respecting the rules isn't a way to test that being's power.

and are your god(s) omnipotent and/or omniscient?


Simple question-

God needs to have all kinds of experiences of limitation to be truly infinite. So veiling awareness through divine force of maya, God has experiences of being a mortal as a drop separates from the sea. God then runs around experiencing phyicality, lack of existence og God etc., even going so far as to post videos about it online

So in your definition god has experineced the heat inside a supernova?

The massive forces at play within the center of a black hole?

laws of physics don't apply, or even what we know about quantum mechanics?

experiences other than your experiences, or human experiences, or subjective experiences? If you admit the possibility, then where do you draw the line, and why?

My cat falls off the fence sometimes, I'm sure he remembers that...

What's that got to do with Jesus or Allah?

OK, so you expand theory of mind (projection) also at least to your cat.

Consciousness, to my understanding, means a relation of "aboutness", but I cannot really define consciousness. Or 'mind' or 'awareness'. And I don't see any rational base to limit the "relation of aboutness" to... err... any thing.

You asked about experiencing supernova or inside of a black hole.
Now you say that experiencing happens with consciousness. What kind of consciousness could experience those, and what kind of experience is imagination?

than yes. Otherwise, there may ultimately be no supernovas, no black holes, or rather the reality of these things is part of a physical world experienced only by those in a certain state of consciousness.

Its like The Matrix kind of, but the historical name of it is Maya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

If you are in the state of consciousness that results in experiences of the physical world, than you will experience the laws of physics and all the other elements of this universe. But these are the set of limitations placed on You, the infinite, by You, so that you can manifest infinite knowledge by having knowledge of what its like not to know, and manifest infinite power by having the power to be powerless, i.e., to experience mortality and limitation.

So to somebody like me, I see you denying the existence of an all powerful God by asking whether he's powerful to enough to limit His own power or Her own knowledge. And its really very humorous. My answer is "Yes God, you're doing it right now!"

LOL,

Gotcha..

We are working with mainstream religion and it's teachings for now which billions of people follow. The Matrix makes for cool movies but I prefer science myself

hee hee.

Religion is diverse. What I'm talking is mostly echoed in Hindu scripture, also in Buddhism, over a billion people practice these. Of course my take is unique, and these faiths are more diverse in beliefs than say, Islam. (They say jokingly "the definition of Hinduism? Its what a Hindu does&quot But what I'm saying is not as out there from a global view as you may think.

I like science too, but we have to be careful of getting to the point where we say "the definition of science? Its what a scientist does." We have to remember the scientific method, scrutinize it, and recognize possible situations where it is too limited to produce effective truth.

she thinks that we have full knowledge of everything right now.

She tries to discount the idea of 'god' existing because that existance cannot be 'proven' by the tools we have available to us. Neither can the existance of 'god' be disproven.

Humankind is constantly learning and understanding new things every day. Einstein was a pretty logical man- and he said it better than anyone imo when he said:


"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html#ixzz1nEf6qjh2

Take pictuers of our planet from the moon...

I think we have a pretty good grasp of what is out there LOL

All holy books were written when humans were in all reality pretty ignorant, that's why the stories make no sense.



Do believe in Monotheism? Have a preferred choice? Also, you can't take Einstein's interpretation of what "religiousness" meant to him an apply it across the board to everyone else. Last time I checked some folks were still going to afternoon prayer a bit ago walking past my cube LOL

when i was born no human had ever orbited the earth- now we have people occupying space stations.

We can observe black holes, 'see' gallaxies millions of light years away, but there is much we do not understand.

It wasn't 'religiousness' in Einstein's quote that I find to be valuable, as much as his pointing out the need for us to remember how much we still do not yet know, and the importance of continuing to search for answers.

Those who are certian that they know there is no 'god' or whatever name you want to put on the mystery of 'why' we exist- try to apply their conclusion across the board to everyone else do they not? Why should it bother you if your co-workers go to their afternoon prayer, any more than it should bother them that everyone doesn't pray along with them?

We don't know everything about what we know.

Religion actually "knows" nothing.

have little grasp of the discipline of scientific inquiry or scientific facts and their close ties to a religious belief in a magic guy in the sky to feel in the gaps?

not really, but this discussion is very interesting.

always do enjoy her videos.

Evidently all the god believers here on DU don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god guy/gal who punishes and condemns people. Evidently DU'ers here who believe in a god don't subscribe much to the heaven and hell lessons they were taught, along with everything else they were taught in their religion about their god. They pick and choose what to believe from what they were taught, just as atheist pick and choose NOT to believe a single word of what was taught. What's the difference?

They believe in what all of human experience, history, and science can find no evidence of, they believe in only who or what someone wrote about a few thousand years ago, and marvel at their own imaginations of something no one can find any evidence for.

Then they insist that there must be some other way of knowing that we humans haven't figured out yet, but what MUST comport with their own imaginings of the sky guy. Then they insist that the lessons the sky guy and his supposed son taught us are better than someone else's sky guy or some other way of looking at the world.

When someone posts that the OP's video "fails because she thinks we have full knowledge of everything we know", well, DUH !!!! So does religion and belief in a god, then! And for the same reason! Evidently, faithful god-believing DU'ers don't accept all they were taught from their religious training, the REJECT some of it as mistaken, misinformed, primitive, or perhaps outright lies!. If we allow fairy tales and 2000+ year old thinking to cloud our quest for knowledge, (as some insisted the Earth was flat, some insisted the sun and moon and stars revolved around the Earth, as some insisted that contraception is a sin against the god, etc., etc.) where is the real "knowledge" without the questions?

the person in the video was trying to prove (beyond all question or doubt) that 'god' does not exist based on her ability to pose challenges that she claims cannot be met-

Your 'duh' reply is something I don't get. Was the person in the video not saying much the same as those who claim that their religion is completely true? That she can prove there is no god? An 'absolute' if you will? If she was, then I believe she is as wrong as those who make the claim that the bible is the inerrant, inspired, word of god.

Science and logic are not without their skeptics even among those who understand far more than most of us ever will about it, who have been instrumental in developing much of the 'science' we all accept.

There can exist absolutes in certain frameworks, and the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God is a self-contradictory non-entity.

if humans are not around to label them as such?

The earth can exist without humans- and circles and triangles or squares or light-years or any number of human constructs have no value outside of us-

200 yrs ago people would have said that the idea of sending our voice or image around the world to other humans without any wires or other visible means was absurd. Now we have cell phones and skype and all kinds of technology that to earlier generations would seem pretty silly.

Yet here we are. There is far more to this world than any of us know or can 'prove'.

we don't live in a M.C. Escher painting, and just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing. I'm not saying a God or gods don't exist, just that if such beings do exist, they certainly don't have the traits of the Abrahamic God, which is an impossibility that contradicts itself.

And it is exactly what religious believers fail to grasp when they criticize the OP's video-maker who is simply pointing out the obvious about the absurdity of believer's beliefs in their god of their Bible.

And like wanting to re-define a triangle as something with four sides, if their god from their Bible is self-contradictory, they choose to redefine that god as simply something magic and beyond any comprehension using logical thinking and beyond any scientific methods of discovery.

it cannot exist. Got it, thanks.

was to say that the bible is not 'the inspired, inerrant, literal word of god'- then I don't disagree with her.

But my 'take-away' from what she said was that there is no 'god'- (much broader application) based on applying her own set of challenges using our present understandings and scientific methods.

You cannot demonstrate all aspects of human experience- 'love' for example in logical or scientific ways. Does that inability to 'prove' it make it not exist?

Can we take it further? What are the logical limits for the "world of possible worlds"? And then, world as we know it (ie. anthropic principle as self-evident logical principle)?

Also, what is the meaning of "to exist", in relation to world of possible worlds and worlds as we know them?