I can't get Radio 4 on the magnificent audio system in our new car. Where is your omnipotent god when I need him? And she's not in CY - I've done the sums and this is still in space-time. Free wheel? This car doesn't even come with a spare, just a puncture repair kit. What kind of god would allow this! Lee and I might end up wrapping his turban round the drive shaft should we get a puncture in a curry delivery crisis.
I suspect some logic-chopping here Pat. An omnipotent being might just tolerate and even congratulate herself on our free-will. Deductive logic works within limits, I do not see a deductive system in place here. On 27 Jan, 12:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 Jan, 18:17, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I, for one, don't feel particularly motivated to engage with Pat's > > arguments at the moment. Like others who've been around here for a > > while, I've already done that. This has nothing to do with the > > discussability of Pat's theses, it has a lot more to do with me and > > where I am at the moment. > > > Quite a while ago, I had a pretty intense discussion with Pottsie > > about similar issues, which helped me to develop my position on monism/ > > panentheism, into which category I place Pat's arguments. > > > I stress this is my personal position: Monism is irrefutable, but I > > can't see how it brings us a whit farther. To give one example; for > > monists, free will is an illusion. But it is a perfect illusion. Ok, > > but how is a perfect illusion distinguishable from the reality? > > Since the advent of the concept of a space-time continuum (empirically > demonstrated through time-dilation!), we can finally distinguish the > appearance of free will AS an illusion. Until that point, it would > have been impossible. But people haven't taken that subtle > implication of the continuum on-board. So people tend to believe what > they prefer...and most people prefer to think they have free will. > Even those who would admit an omnipotent being. But, is there any > room for us to have freedom from God's omnipotent will? No, as that > would contradict His omnipotence. For, if I can act against God's > will, that is proof that God is NOT omnipotent. But the continuum > supports God's omnipotence and, with it, falls our free will. > > > > >God is > > in Pat's theory, God is in my rejection of his theory. God is the > > belief of the theist and the non-belief of the atheist. God is the > > mover, the moving and the moved. Ultimately God is everything, and God > > is nothing. > > > "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together... > > Semolina pilchard climbing up the Eiffel tower ... > > I am the walrus" > > > Francis > > > On 26 Jan., 14:11, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 25 Jan, 21:43, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pat's an old mate. Ian's an old mate. Better add Molly or I'll have > > > > to come out as gay. We all need 'pulling up' from time to time. Not > > > > easy to do and often falls flat, especially here when someone says > > > > something sensible about me. Pat's been boring me of late, but then > > > > like Ian I'm a pretty atheist, empirical 'the world is real' kind of > > > > guy. These things happen. Questions about extending dialogue rather > > > > than just getting it on ground we like are difficult. We might be > > > > better taking some time off with the Brazilian community in Gort, > > > > Ireland, for a real change. We may just be getting to used to each > > > > other. > > > > Sorry to hear I'm boring you. I think you hit the nail on the head > > > with your last line. I'm not really saying anything NEW. And > > > repeating it in front of newcomers, I can understand could well be > > > boring those who 'have heard it all before'. Perhaps it's time for me > > > to spend more time writing my book and leave you all to discuss > > > everything and solve nothing, as that's what seems to be happening, in > > > my opinion. We each seem to hold our own opinions and no one is > > > convincing anyone else of much of anything. Is that dialogue? Is it > > > even interesting? No wonder you're bored. ;-) > > > > > On 25 Jan, 16:17, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2010/1/25 Molly <[email protected]> > > > > > > > I, for one, welcome Pat's ideas and knowledge - all extensive. > > > > > > Like a > > > > > > breath of fresh air in this group, as he extends the boundaries of > > > > > > thinking with his kind treatment. > > > > > > I welcome Pat's ideas and knowledge too, which I hope was clear. That > > > > > wasn't > > > > > my issue. > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
