Logician

I didn't really intend on getting into such a discussion when I came here, but people started asking how I came to atheism. So, I told them, and it basically took off from there. Anyway, I ended up making my case. Anybody who wishes to read it is free to.

Here: The Sombrero Galaxy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL. Ok, then. I stand corrected. Actually, nothing can travel faster than light. (There may be exceptions, but for the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore them for now.) However, if something could go faster than light, it would actually depend on who was trying to see if the plane was outrunning the light. To the people onboard the plane, the light would be going ahead of them. (In other words, they would not be outrunning the light.) To the people on the ground watching the plane, the plane would be outrunning the light. I could go into the details of why this is so, but I don't have time now.

Yup. Actually, I need to spend less time here too. I've got several projects I should be working on, so this'll probably be about the last you guys'll hear of me. Anyway, the only thing I feel this conversation has left is this: You say that the definition of "perfect" used in the Bible actually means morally upstanding rather than "complete," and that's why my argument is invalid. However, my argument is still valid if God is both perfect (as in morally upstanding) and complete. So, the only question I really have left is: Do you think God is not complete? This would invalidate my argument, but I'm wondering if you're prepared to agree that God is not complete to invalidate my argument. And, you don't have to back up your answer with anything (in fact, you don't have to answer). A simple yes or no will do.

Then are you saying God isn't omniscient and we just made that assumption based on the inferrences made in the Bible?

It's funny, really. In the other thread, you refuse to nail down the concepts of "mathematics' and "time" the way you've nailed down the term "omniscient"! Well, there's really only 1 definition of omniscient. I've assumed we all agreed on what it means as I can't really think of another definition. Is that definition acceptable to you? And, would you agree that "all-knowing" is synonymous with "omniscient?" Actually no. The fact that he knows what the current status of the planets being formed in the Orion nebula as well as what star just exploded inside the Sombrero galaxy (BTW... I don't believe there is a galaxy by that name... I don't know. It's possible one exists.) and knows "when a sparrow falls" etc... does not in any way affirm that God is all-knowing. Math really doesn't work that way. If the math you have is insufficient to solve a problem, you'll know it at some point along trying to solve it. Usually, if you don't have the math required to solve a problem, the problem isn't getting the right answer, but knowing where to start. And, calculus generally only goes up to calculus 3. But, anyway, it seems like the argument you're making is that we're not smart/wise enough to use logic effectively on a God who is infinitely wiser than us? I don't see how that would invalidate the logic. In fact, the logic works precisely because of the omniscience.

Yeah I kind of thought you would take this route. That moral absolute question pretty well tells the story of where you come from and where you are going. You a-theist guys always have problems with that one. The supporting evidence for your ignorance is found throughout your long posts and they are represented by unorganized, irrational thought. Probably the most irrational being statements such as,

From what I've seen, a literal interpretation of the Bible demands that God is wantless. Take Matthew 5:48 The Greek word for "perfect" here is "telios," whose definition is "Brought to an end, finished, wanting nothing necessary to completeness, perfect" according to Thayer's Greek Lixicon. I was thinking this might also be an argument of definition, but the Bible is quite clear on the definition of "perfect" and the fact that perfection implies completeness. You are building your own conclusions here - or the conclusions of what someone else told you that you decided to agree with. The definition states: "wanting nothing necessary to completeness" There is a difference between "wanting nothing" and wanting nothing that is necessary for something else.

39.gif Interesting. If I understand this correctly, to be "complete" then is at best an impossibility, perhaps even an illusion. Humans can never be complete because we will always need food and water in order to survive. Even Bhudda couldn't deny that. laugh.gif No machine can be "complete" either, because machines need a power source or an operator in order to function, and most machines need to be fixed from time to time. Dang. I've started an argument of definitions by not precisely defining my terms. When a person is not lacking anything essential to him/herself (food, water, essential psychological needs, etc...), he/she is complete in that he/she's not lacking something essential to his/her being. If a machine is lacking electricity, it's lacking something essential to it's being a functioning machine. The fact that God created the universe showed that he was lacking something essential to his being "God" "before" he did so. Hmm. Perhaps this argument is better directly from the definition of "perfect." Can you cite your source here? I've seen such studies showing that the children were never to love as a child who was loved could, but never any info on children dying from a lack of affection. If you can't find the source, perhaps you could find the court case where the founders of the study were thrown in the clink for killing babies? No, if this need is satiated, then we can be complete in the sense that we lack nothing essential to being a human. Heck yes. Oh. You mean without an internet connection. Then, no. I've always thought of "alone" as a matter of degree. Though, I've never felt too significantly alone. Unless you're going on a different definition of "alone." Do you disagree? Then what definition of "complete" allows for this? Or are you stating that the logic itself is invalid?

Why does the existance of change necessitate the existance of "time"? Amount of change is measured as something like {measurement of a certain property}/{time} For instance, speed (which is a change in position) is measured as {position}/{time}. Without time, change would be meaningless. <wink>

Actually, I just finished taking college calculus 3. I haven't gotten my grades back yet, but I'm pretty sure I got an A. Some definitions of "invention" apply, and some definition of "discovery" apply. What you're asking me to do is make a subjective claim, and if I answered that it was a "discovery" or an "invention," you'd be free to use whatever definition of either one you wished, as well as whatever definition of the terms contained within the definitions, etc... This, undoubtedly, would simply lead to an argument of definitions, which always turns out in the end to be meaningless. For instance, let's say I make a claim that... I don't know... half of the population of the U.S. is illiterate, and let's say you make a claim that 3/4 of the population of the U.S. is illiterate. We could end up arguing and giving supporting claims for hours as to why each of us is right. However, let's say that the reason the discrepancy occurred is because you define "illiterate" as "unable to read or write above an 8th grade level," and I define "illiterate" as "unable to read or write above a preschool level." It turns out that we don't actually disagree at all. We're simply using different terms. The point I've been hinting at for the last several posts is that classifying it as one or the other does not in any way change what mathematics or calculus is. You can see how the definition of "invention" applies to mathematics, and you can see how the definition of "discovery" applies to mathematics. So, some definitions of one fit, and some definitions of the other fit. Classifying it as one or the other would serve no logical purpose.

Really. Hmm. That changes things. The way you are talking about your parents, I am wondering - were they controlling? (And please don't give me a philosophical analysis of what I mean by "controlling" - think Psychology 101 - authoritarian vs. authoritative vs. permissive vs. uninvolved) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. I wouldn't consider them overly controlling. Perhaps a bit, but not significantly.

I wish there was an easy way to explain to you just how absurd this reasoning is! How about this - Can you find the terms "omniscient" or "all-knowing" anywhere in the Bible? I sure can't! The closest thing I've found is Psalms 147:5. There certainly may be something closer to stating that God is "all-knowing" or "omniscent," though. I'll see if I can't find something better. So, are you saying God isn't omniscent? Are you willing to accept that there's something God doesn't know? Whatever the case, every Christian I've ever encountered would say that God is omniscent. So, even if the Bible does not explicitly state that God is omniscent, I'd say it's a core belief to Christianity. Alright. Based on that and Ezekial, chapter 18, the Bible contradicts itself. You might claim that things changed between the two passages, but the Bible also states that God is unchanging. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states that God "breathed" or "spoke" the scriptures. If God's word contradicts itself, then he lied in either the first one or the second one. So, if God exists, then he is a charlitan. Ok, so what you (or, at least the scripture above) are saying is that he knows everything about the universe because he created it, but there's no way for even God to know whether or not there are things outside of his knowledge? Ok.... then he doesn't need to prove anything because he already knows everything including the fact that he knows everything. However, he may only think he knows everything because a greater being is making him think he knows everything. So, he can't know whether or not he actually knows everything. Therefore there's something he doesn't know, which means that he doesn't know everything.

In other words, God cannot exist because He doesn't fit into your realm of logic reasoning. Then give me logic by which I can conclude that God is not a contradction. Actually, you'd be doing me a favor. Because if he was omniscent, he'd know that he can't know for sure that he's omniscent unless he can prove it. He could be being "tricked" into thinking he's omniscent. Of course, if he's not truely omniscent, he might not know that he could be being tricked into thinking he is omniscent. Actually, the argument can be worded without the need for contemplation, but I think this way is clearer.

Actually, Gates has been giving away quite a bit of money to charity lately. Certainly not anything like 46 billion, but quite a sum. http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html However, I'd vote for Gates. His crimes against humanity include Windows, breaking of antitrust laws, monopolizing to the point of trying to extinguish competition (do you know that Sony recently turned down an $83 billion offer from Microsoft to buy Sony?!?!?!?!?!?!?!), and the X-Box, as well as many many many others. And, soon, the X-Box 2 will be released.