Speaking in 'toungues'
-
Very true... Omniscience: Knowing the past and present can be internally consistent, but knowing the future is not. If you work on the "fate" hypothesis, where everything is preordained, then you can know your future actions and thus act differently. If you work on the "butterfly effect" hypothesis, then merely knowing the future makes that knowledge mostly invalid (The act of learning about it changes it). Omnipotence: Easy... The old saying... "Can you make a stone so heavy that you yourself can't lift it?" So either one leads to paradox.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Omniscience: Knowing the past and present can be internally consistent, but knowing the future is not. If you work on the "fate" hypothesis, where everything is preordained, then you can know your future actions and thus act differently. If you work on the "butterfly effect" hypothesis, then merely knowing the future makes that knowledge mostly invalid (The act of learning about it changes it).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Omnipotence: Easy... The old saying... "Can you make a stone so heavy that you yourself can't lift it?"
Time and Weight are constructs of our perception, as is Logic. Past, Present, Future, Heavy, Paradox, are terms meaningless when used in relation to God. God is not Omniscient, God is not Omnipotent, these definitions are used by the religious as approximations to the nature of God, which itself is beyond the comprehension of mankind. BTW: I do not believe in God, I am merely playing the Devil's Advocate. :confused:
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
They are not Christians at all. A Christian, at the point of conversion, speaks in tongues. That's what the Bible says. They are not deliberately fake, they are simply religious without being Christians.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
They are not Christians at all. A Christian, at the point of conversion, speaks in tongues. That's what the Bible says. They are not deliberately fake, they are simply religious without being Christians.
That's the most fucked-up-est thing I've heard in a while. :) So I have been a Catholic for over 40 years and just a few years ago I met a priest who spoke in tongues. So every person I know who is a Catholic who hasn't spoken in tongues is not a Christian? My wife dragged me to some wacky churches before she decided to become Catholic and I saw and heard quite a few strange things! Spinning, tongue speaking, keeling over strangeness. ;)
-
*grin* as I keep saying, I didn't invent it, God did. I'm merely explaining it, and the core point is always that just because God doesn't do things our way, does not mean He is wrong.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ah, so you think the speaker doesnt actually know what he is saying? Hmm, that is bizare. What is the point then? As you say, surely thinking, or saying it in ones normal language is more meaningful. They could just be reciting his shopping list. They would never know. Is that devout worship?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Totally with you on this one, F_B. I'm always stunned when otherwise seemingly intelligent people reveal some aspect of their beliefs that is so completely at odds with a reasoned view of the world. People really are amazing critters. :wtf:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
omniscience and omnipotence
A small difficulty for most gods here - omniscience and omnipotence are actually mutually exclusive. If you know everything that will happen, ever, then your ability to change things means that you didn't really know in the first place... Sorry, did I just mess with your head? :laugh:
Chris C-B wrote:
A small difficulty for most gods here - omniscience and omnipotence are actually mutually exclusive. If you know everything that will happen, ever, then your ability to change things means that you didn't really know in the first place... Sorry, did I just mess with your head? Laugh
You are mistaken. If I create a 3D model, for which I know the entire thing, than to a flat lander whose world is a 2 brane sliding through the 3 space object I created, I appear omniscient. Since I made it the way I wanted, with an understanding of how everything interrelates, it all goes exactly as I wanted it to, no matter how convoluted it looks to the flat lander, I am omnipotent to them. We are stuck in a three brane moving through higher dimensional space - a minimum of 4 space, 11 space I think is the most popular string theory. Something in a 5 or higher space could sculpt a 4 space object that is our space time. It is as they want it, and they know the whole thing - omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris C-B wrote:
A small difficulty for most gods here - omniscience and omnipotence are actually mutually exclusive. If you know everything that will happen, ever, then your ability to change things means that you didn't really know in the first place... Sorry, did I just mess with your head? Laugh
You are mistaken. If I create a 3D model, for which I know the entire thing, than to a flat lander whose world is a 2 brane sliding through the 3 space object I created, I appear omniscient. Since I made it the way I wanted, with an understanding of how everything interrelates, it all goes exactly as I wanted it to, no matter how convoluted it looks to the flat lander, I am omnipotent to them. We are stuck in a three brane moving through higher dimensional space - a minimum of 4 space, 11 space I think is the most popular string theory. Something in a 5 or higher space could sculpt a 4 space object that is our space time. It is as they want it, and they know the whole thing - omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same
A most interesting response. My post was made as a rather light-hearted philosophical comment. However, without challenging the validity of your post, it raises a couple of interesting points. Firstly, the 3D+T universe you have created exhibits random quantum events, which have driven the evolution of the universe since its origin. Your postulate requires that when viewed from a higher set of dimensions, the randomness disappears, and becomes predictable. This would, at the very least, move the creator into a sufficiently higher space for the predictability to occur. The second point is purely personal speculation, but interesting, none the less, and was the result of learning something of 5D tensor calculus, in order to better understand general relativity (just a hobby). The surface of a sphere is two dimensional, but requires a three dimensional space in which to exist. Our 3D+T space is curved by mass, and therefore it must exist in 4D+T space, thus moving any potential creator into a yet higher space. Of course, from a philosophical point of view, none of this helps, as it just keeps the 'ultimate creator' moving into higher and higher spaces, in order to create the previous creator. To borrow an overused expression: "We don't know sh!t!". :)
-
From the Bible, it was done in languages the orator did not know, but that at least some of the audience did. It was not 'worship', in the sense I think you think :rolleyes: means, it was sermons, preaching the Gospel.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ah, and you are a Christian too arent you? I got all this from Christian Grauss, he told me that the language in tongues was given by god in order to pray and ia incomprehensible by anyone except god. You say it is given in order to preach and IS comprehensible by some. Interesting difference, and implies aquite a lot. Have to get you and Christian to battle this one out, it wil be interesting.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same
A most interesting response. My post was made as a rather light-hearted philosophical comment. However, without challenging the validity of your post, it raises a couple of interesting points. Firstly, the 3D+T universe you have created exhibits random quantum events, which have driven the evolution of the universe since its origin. Your postulate requires that when viewed from a higher set of dimensions, the randomness disappears, and becomes predictable. This would, at the very least, move the creator into a sufficiently higher space for the predictability to occur. The second point is purely personal speculation, but interesting, none the less, and was the result of learning something of 5D tensor calculus, in order to better understand general relativity (just a hobby). The surface of a sphere is two dimensional, but requires a three dimensional space in which to exist. Our 3D+T space is curved by mass, and therefore it must exist in 4D+T space, thus moving any potential creator into a yet higher space. Of course, from a philosophical point of view, none of this helps, as it just keeps the 'ultimate creator' moving into higher and higher spaces, in order to create the previous creator. To borrow an overused expression: "We don't know sh!t!". :)
Chris C-B wrote:
the 3D+T universe you have created exhibits random quantum events
Random at our level of understanding, like you said, creator is in a higher order space.
Chris C-B wrote:
Our 3D+T space is curved by mass, and therefore it must exist in 4D+T space, thus moving any potential creator into a yet higher space.
We live in 3+T, but can create 3+T objects. I'm don't understand GR all that well, but I recall someone (Albert?) being adamant that the curvature of space-time was a property, not a dimension. A 2-d array can be filled with 'curvature' values, but is not 3-D.
Chris C-B wrote:
Of course, from a philosophical point of view, none of this helps, as it just keeps the 'ultimate creator' moving into higher and higher spaces, in order to create the previous creator.
Or, you cut to the chase... :)
Chris C-B wrote:
To borrow an overused technical expression: "We don't know sh!t!".
Yeah, that's part of what makes arguing it so much fun. It gives insight into how the brain creates patterns.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ah, and you are a Christian too arent you? I got all this from Christian Grauss, he told me that the language in tongues was given by god in order to pray and ia incomprehensible by anyone except god. You say it is given in order to preach and IS comprehensible by some. Interesting difference, and implies aquite a lot. Have to get you and Christian to battle this one out, it wil be interesting.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
He has made other doctrinal assertions about tongues whose basis I do not understand, but that just means I don't understand them (until after he explains, then I can say if he is wrong or not ;P )
fat_boy wrote:
You say it is given in order to preach and IS comprehensible by some.
I say it, but I am trying to describe what the Bible literally says, not interpreting it, about Pentecost.
fat_boy wrote:
Interesting difference, and implies aquite a lot.
There are differences that matter, and differences that don't. The Bible, as far as I know, doesn't require us to agree on the "don't" category. You say I have to speak in tongues if I'm saved, I'll argue about what the Bible says. You tell me works are required to be saved, you might as well be talking about Zeus, because that is not what the Biblical God says.
fat_boy wrote:
Have to get you and Christian to battle this one out, it wil be interesting.
I don't think I'm up for doing that in public. I'll crush someone's argument (or get mine crushed) in public, but that is just arguing. This is a little more delicate on both sides. It won't get either of us sent to Hell, but could really piss someone off. As you are quick to point out, this isn't always rational. Sorry.
Opacity, the new Transparency.