Hah the last laught Pat I think is largely overated, myself, I much prefer the first one. ;¬)
On 27 Jan, 17:23, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 Jan, 17:05, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hahahahhahhahh ohhh deary me. Yes indeed Pat realises all of that and > > can live happily with it. I say fair fucks to the old chap. > > Ahhh, the truth shall set you free. I will have the last laugh...as > much as I've ever had the first one. ;-) > > > > > On 27 Jan, 15:50, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Now you've isolated another great reason why worshipping a god is > > > pointless, he must have built you knowing everything you would do. if > > > he is omnipotent, he makes the rapist and the nun knowing full well > > > where each will go. Anything you say or do is pointless and already > > > decided. And that also means that your actions will not affect where > > > any soul you might have will end up. > > > > On Jan 27, 5:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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 -- 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.
