On 27 Jan, 12:45, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't get Radio 4 on the magnificent audio system in our new car. > Where is your omnipotent god when I need him?
What makes you think Radio-4 is required. Did our caveman ancestors have it? I don't have a land-line telephone or TV at home and I survive. And it's no surprise; they aren't required for life. >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! So, you're telling me you can't allow an omnipotent entity irony? Isn't THAT ironic. Therefore proving against your theory. >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. Oh I've no doubt that God thinks it hilarious that some people are so stupid as to think they have some power over God. If our will is free, then we can go against the will of God. Which, if God is omnipotent, simply couldn't be the case. No logic chopping, just plain and simple. > Deductive logic works within limits, I do not see a deductive system > in place here. > Nor do you see the air you breathe. Not seeing and/or not understanding something does not mean it isn't there or visible and/or understandable to someone else. That's the whole point of having us as multi-processors. We serve different functions. If we were all the same, how far do you think mankind would have got? The answer is: we wouldn't have got past one generation, as there had to be male and female. Plus, most of the logic I use is inductive rather than deductive. I look beyond in order to make sense of all the 'seemingly' disparate parts. Any TOE must do that. > 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 -- 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.
