On 11 Mar, 00:06, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe that I don't believe in any belief or at least I don't > believe that I do believe and I believe that is what I truly believe; > believe it or not. >
After reading this, I've come to the conclusion that omniscience confers perfect immunity against all beliefs; therefore, an omniscient God cannot hold any belief. And there's one more limitation on such a deity. God cannot believe; He can only know via omniscience. > On Mar 10, 12:36 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would not aspire to convince anyone or otherwise try to prove > > my beliefs at all. Not by means of explaination for the fact that no > > one believes as I do. Likewise one could not properly relate to an > > explanation from me as none but myself fully understands the > > explaination biased or not. As I read through this disscussion I have > > found one certain proof; All have beliefs (disbeliefs) based upon > > their individual experiences. I think that it would be difficult for > > one to rightly prove a belief (system) by means of science as science > > deals mainly with the material rather than the etheral. Beside this, > > science can not maintain that which is fact due to it's own advances. > > The more science moves towards micros and away from the macros the > > further it is from seeing the big picture and there will be more > > theories and differences. This is within the same diciplines as well > > as across. Look at the differences between Ben Franklin's and Sir > > Nikoli Tesla's electrical theories and the contovrsy it wrought. And > > is it not a shame that Tesla's theories oppressed and all but > > completly lost. Had it not been for greed's sake...!!! Gain adversely > > influences science, religion and politics on all levels. > > > On Mar 10, 11:47 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10 Mar, 15:58, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > " We understand > > > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He > > > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal > > > > > I can see how this fits in with your monistic view of God, Pat, but it > > > > shows up one of the major conceptual weaknesses of the conventional > > > > Abrahamic views of the all-loving, all-caring, at the same time > > > > judging-to-heaven-and-hell God. It's the basic problem of > > > > predestination, stated in all of its horrific unavoidable logic by > > > > John Calvin: > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism) > > > > > Personally, even if I tended towards belief, I'd want nothing to do > > > > with such a God. > > > > > Francis > > > > {snickers} If there is such a God, you can't escape it by disbelief > > > or wishes. God is NOT all-loving, as that goes against omnipotence. > > > "Caring" is a difficult word due to its ambiguity. He is intimately > > > involved and cares (by virtue of force!) that those who disbelieve > > > remain in their disbelief and that believers remain in their belief > > > and is perfectly capable to enforce that. Cherishing, is a better > > > term. But it still comes with the concept that He cherishes the > > > atheist to remain an atheist in order to do that which only atheists > > > can do. Thus my "willingly or unwillingly" comment to Slip. > > > > > On 10 Mrz., 15:31, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 10 Mar, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I guess this swings over to Fidd's thread (very busy but..) on > > > > > > Pascal's Wager. > > > > > > To a degree, it does...yes. No one will be able to prove it to > > > > > others, but rare experiences serve as proof to a few. > > > > > > > "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I > > > > > > saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in > > > > > > faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure > > > > > > me, I > > > > > > am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a > > > > > > God > > > > > > sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity. We > > > > > > understand > > > > > > nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He > > > > > > wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."......Pascal > > > > > > That last line of 'blind(ing) some...' is very true. But that is > > > > > necessary in order to test the faith of the faithful. Thus the VERY > > > > > important role of atheists. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/fbeaab7... > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:01 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > "WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?" > > > > > > > That is the question Pat.. and I have no intention of trying to > > > > > > > prove it. > > > > > > > nor will I attempt to. > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Pat > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 20:21, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > > I have no need to ask for proof of what i know to be true. > > > > > > > > > Nor do I need > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > create strange arguments.. even science knows that a > > > > > > > > > perfectly straight > > > > > > > > > line will end at its starting point. enjoy your physics and > > > > > > > > > geometry I > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > enjoy my God. > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > My arguments aren't strange, they're logical. And, of course, > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > aren't the only reader here. So, when I address your > > > > > > > > statements, I > > > > > > > > address them (your statements) for a larger audience with you > > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > primary audience. Whilst you may have no need of proof or even > > > > > > > > examples, others might, so I proffer them. In my opinion, God > > > > > > > > must > > > > > > > > work within a framework of His design and I view my 'job' as > > > > > > > > being to > > > > > > > > discover and reveal as much of that framework and design as I > > > > > > > > can. > > > > > > > > The doctor needn't treat the healthy but not all are healthy > > > > > > > > and some, > > > > > > > > whilst believing thay are healthy, aren't; and some whilst > > > > > > > > believing > > > > > > > > they are ill, aren't. And I have to address them all or I'm > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > unfair. > > > > > > > > > BTW, your example of a perfectly straight line ending at its > > > > > > > > starting > > > > > > > > point is only true in the case of a line that extends > > > > > > > > throughout all > > > > > > > > of space-time (and THAT assumes a curvature TO space-time, which > > > > > > > > contradicts the 'straightness' of the line). And, since you > > > > > > > > didn't > > > > > > > > specify the length of the line, your example is incorrect, for a > > > > > > > > straight line that is one inch long will prove your example > > > > > > > > false. > > > > > > > > Yet, if the one inch line is drawn around a sphere that has a > > > > > > > > circumference of one inch, your statement is still false, as > > > > > > > > the line > > > > > > > > is curved and not straight. I value geometry and there is much > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > learned from it. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Pat > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 15:32, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Whoa Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > > That One is beyond gender, which is why He > > > > > > > > > > > > can't have children. Although all creatures are, in a > > > > > > > > > > > > metaphorical > > > > > > > > > > > > sense, His children, none are, in reality, because they > > > > > > > > > > > > do not grow > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. If any > > > > > > > > > > > > did, there'd > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > chaos, as how can you have two omnipotent entities? > > > > > > > > > > > > Logic doesn't > > > > > > > > > > > > allow for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > With your statement you just separated God from the rest > > > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > > universe! > > > > > > > > > > > To me that is one of greatest mistakes made by the > > > > > > > > > > > religions of the > > > > > > > > > > world. > > > > > > > > > > > I do not want to separate God as I understand him from > > > > > > > > > > > from his > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > > ,, > > > > > > > > > > > I only want to be part of it although it is only the > > > > > > > > > > > tinest part.. > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > > > as I am part that. That is my dream > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay if you read your statement carefully Or better yet > > > > > > > > > > > as I read it > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > are saying God can not have children, there is nothing > > > > > > > > > > > metaphorical > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > Gods children. When you have a child Pat both you and > > > > > > > > > > > the woman that > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > involved are nothing more than the tool the Father > > > > > > > > > > > Creator uses to > > > > > > > > bring > > > > > > > > > > > about the new child's life into the universe. As I watch > > > > > > > > > > > new life > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > born > > > > > > > > > > > into the universe whether it is a baby an ant or > > > > > > > > > > > insect, or even > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > entire galaxy I can only sit in awe at the skill and > > > > > > > > > > > abilities of > > > > > > > > God. > > > > > > > > > > > > His children, none are, in reality, because they do not > > > > > > > > > > > grow up > > > > > > > > > > > to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. > > > > > > > > > > > > When you start making statements like this you are in my > > > > > > > > > > > mind > > > > > > > > separating > > > > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > > > > > from his universe. Though it is suttle like placing God > > > > > > > > > > > else where l > > > > > > > > (he > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > in heaven) in reality you are separating yourself from > > > > > > > > > > > God. or > > > > > > > > placing > > > > > > > > > > > limits like (because they do not grow up to be...) > > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > I have no problems with limiting God. He cannot produce a > > > > > > > > > > spherical > > > > > > > > > > cube, for example. Or, more simply put, God cannot NOT be > > > > > > > > > > God. There > > > > > > > > > > are other limits as well, and they are all logical. In > > > > > > > > > > fact, all of > > > > > > > > > > the negative commandments in the 10 commandments can be > > > > > > > > > > derived as > > > > > > > > > > being based on things that God cannot do, therefore we > > > > > > > > > > SHOULD not do. > > > > > > > > > > For example, God cannot create, in any single object, a > > > > > > > > > > thing which > > > > > > > > > > fairly represents the entirety of God, therefore, we should > > > > > > > > > > not create > > ... > > read more »- 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.
