If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Vendetta » Fri May 19, 2017 4:59 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
It is certainly true that it is not often possible for us to validate the experience of another. But frequently enough it is possible for us to
get strong warrant for believing the account they provide even if they are the only one
But you cannot apply this to the scientific method. The more exacting it is the less room for error. Hence why it has to be as brutal and uncompromising as possible. No single person perspective is scientifically valid. It has to be inter subjective to keep bias to an absolute
minimum. Even where the single person has evidence that will categorically demonstrate the truth claim they are making it still has to
be examined inter subjectively. It is the only way to know if it is true or not. Believing some one on the basis of plausibility is not good
enough for there has to be evidence and inter subjectivity. They are essential components of the scientific method not optional extras
In order to formally prove it without reasonable doubt, then yes, it does require evidence beyond the perspective of a singular person. Unintentional bias can result. But for one to be reasonable and even rational in believing in something, all that is required is strong evidence for the belief, even if it does only come from a singular individual.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 3313
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri May 19, 2017 5:07 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
It is certainly true that it is not often possible for us to validate the experience of another. But frequently enough it is possible for us to
get strong warrant for believing the account they provide even if they are the only one
But you cannot apply this to the scientific method.
I was merely applying it to the question of whether or not the phenomenon was "real." Whether or not the scientific method can help us know if it's real or not is a different issue.
The more exacting it is the less room for error
.
"Exacting" methods are not always better. It depends what they "exact." You can "exact" and reduce error by specifying that maths will only be performed with numbers between 1 and 100; but nobody would say that was a better kind of maths.
Hence why it has to be as brutal and uncompromising as possible. No single person perspective is scientifically valid. It has to be inter subjective to keep bias to an absolute
minimum. Even where the single person has evidence that will categorically demonstrate the truth claim they are making it still has to
be examined inter subjectively. It is the only way to know if it is true or not.
Intersubjective evidence is better, as a rule. But groups of scientists have also erred -- sometimes for centuries -- and their entrenched "orthodoxy" or the rigidness of their assumed codes have actually sometimes prevented truth from getting out. So even groups of scientists do not guarantee us truth. We have to estimate the probability of their information being good.
Believing some one on the basis of plausibility is not good enough for there has to be evidence and inter subjectivity. They are essential components of the scientific method not optional extras
Of the scientific method, yes: but not of something being real. For that, one observer would be sufficient.

Meanwhile, we need to remember that even "intersubjectivity" is "subjectivity." It's only the intersection of interpretations that may reduce the level of error. But ALL human empirical knowledge (and we recall that science is empirical) is only based on plausibility and probability...not on certainty. So even when groups of scientists agree, we are no more than probabilistically confident they could be right.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 3313
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri May 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Vendetta wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 4:59 pm
without reasonable doubt,
Notice that phrase. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," it goes. It's used in courts and in judging of scientific matters.

But notice the word "reasonable." All it implies is that at present, no sufficient reasons for doubt can be found. But it stops well short of saying, "Beyond ALL possibility of doubt," or "Beyond doubt." It simply means we've come as far as we can with the evidence in hand: it does not guarantee us that that is as far as we could go -- especially if we had to consider new evidence.

surreptitious57
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri May 19, 2017 5:23 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
To this day man fears death and both Christianity and Islam promise life after death
Fear of death is completely irrational because you cannot experience it. You can experience dying but not death. I am both an atheist and
a nihilist and I have no fear of it at all. I do not need religion and I do not want to live for ever either. I have one life and when that ends I
will from that point on be in a state of non consciousness free from all pain for the rest of time. And that does not bother me one bit. The
only people who worry about being dead are the living. The dead never worry about being dead. And neither do I. Nor should any one else

User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Vendetta » Fri May 19, 2017 10:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 5:10 pm
Vendetta wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 4:59 pm
without reasonable doubt,
Notice that phrase. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," it goes. It's used in courts and in judging of scientific matters.

But notice the word "reasonable." All it implies is that at present, no sufficient reasons for doubt can be found. But it stops well short of saying, "Beyond ALL possibility of doubt," or "Beyond doubt." It simply means we've come as far as we can with the evidence in hand: it does not guarantee us that that is as far as we could go -- especially if we had to consider new evidence.
Yes, I suppose what I intended to say was without any doubt whatsoever then. My sincerest apologies.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 3313
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 20, 2017 12:41 am

Vendetta wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 10:39 pm

Yes, I suppose what I intended to say was without any doubt whatsoever then. My sincerest apologies.
Why? Did you do something bad? :D

I was just observing that there's really no such thing as "beyond all possible doubt," if someone were ever to wish for such a kind of certainty. The objectors to Theism for example, sometimes claim that because Theists are not giving them proofs that cannot be doubted, they aren't giving them any evidence at all. And that's clearly imposing an unrealistic standard of evidence, a standard which no genuinely scientific theory could itself meet.

Even General and Special Relativity Theories -- as truly "scientific" as we may say they are -- have not turned out to be beyond the possibility of being doubted. Perhaps some new paradigm will overturn Einstein completely. We just don't know. But Relativity Theory seems, at least temporarily, a plausible sort of explanation for phenomena that defeated earlier theories: so for now, perhaps we go with it as the most plausible -- not as the infallible truth, though. It's all plausibility, not certainty.

Since nothing is ever beyond the possibility of doubt, we have to decide what is reasonable doubt -- and what is actually unreasonable to demand. For nothing is beyond doubt, save perhaps mathematical formulae, which can be confirmed within their own closed system. In the empirical, scientific world, no similar level of certainty exists. There, all we have are high-probability and low-probability theories: but all are probability theories.

thedoc
Posts: 5368
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by thedoc » Sat May 20, 2017 4:28 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 5:23 pm
The only people who worry about being dead are the living. The dead never worry about being dead. And neither do I. Nor should any one else.
Do you realize that you just implied that you are already dead?

surreptitious57
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat May 20, 2017 6:14 am


The only people who worry about being dead are the living [ some of the living not all of them ]


User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: A Yorkshire Lass

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Dontaskme » Sat May 20, 2017 12:39 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 4:25 pm

To this day man fears death, and both Christianity and Islam promise life after death. It's easy to see why these people are still stuck in the past, unable to let go of their belief in an all powerful being, that they believe shall save them from death, even from themselves.
Does man fear being born? ..the answer is no. There is no one home prior to or at moment of life...and certainly not at the end of life.

Same in life...there is no one home. Same at death, there is no one home.

There is no one to enter home - there is no one to leave home...there is only home...welcome home.


So what's actually going on ...?

Energy=intangible
Spirit=intangible
Mind=intangible
Consciousness=intangible
Awareness=intangible
Self=intangible
Seeing = intangible
Smell = intangible
Sound= intangible
Taste= intangible
Feeling/touch = intangible
Emotion=intangible
Fear=intangible
Pain = intangible
Compassion= intangible
Love =intangible
Pleasure=intangible
Thoughts=intangible
Ideas=intangible
Concepts=intangible
Knowledge=intangible
Language=intangible
Beliefs=intangible
Non-beliefs=intangible
Truth=intangible
Time=intangible
Space=intangible
Objects=intangible images
Evil=intangible
Devil=intangible
Happiness=intangible
Moods=intangible
Health=intangible
Weight=intangible
Gravity=intangible
Air=intangible
Oxygen=intangible
Light=intangible
Darkness=intangible
Death=intangible
Life=intangible
Perception=intangible
Interpretation=intangible
Dreams=intangible
Densely packed information in DNA= intangible



All the above is what constitutes you.. welcome home.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 3313
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 20, 2017 2:58 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 5:23 pm
The only people who worry about being dead are the living.
Well, the vexed question has been begged...how long is "life" really? Does it begin and end with the physical body?

Before we reassure people not to worry, shouldn't be be completely confident of that answer? That seems reasonable...after all, if we were wrong, we'd be counselling a terrible kind of false-confidence. We would be telling people to go into eternity unprepared for what it may demand. In some thought, we'd be sending people to an unnecessary soul-extinction, or depriving them in a future life cycle; in others, we'd be sending them to Hell.

So before we counsel people to be casual about this, we'd want to know for sure, right?

But we're reasonable people. We wouldn't say anything without knowing, and certainly wouldn't cavalierly precipitate people blind into eternity. So we can answer, no?

The question, then, is what gives us warrant for concluding that life ends with physical death?

User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Vendetta » Sat May 20, 2017 4:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 2:58 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 5:23 pm
The only people who worry about being dead are the living.
Well, the vexed question has been begged...how long is "life" really? Does it begin and end with the physical body?

Before we reassure people not to worry, shouldn't be be completely confident of that answer? That seems reasonable...after all, if we were wrong, we'd be counselling a terrible kind of false-confidence. We would be telling people to go into eternity unprepared for what it may demand. In some thought, we'd be sending people to an unnecessary soul-extinction, or depriving them in a future life cycle; in others, we'd be sending them to Hell.

So before we counsel people to be casual about this, we'd want to know for sure, right?

But we're reasonable people. We wouldn't say anything without knowing, and certainly wouldn't cavalierly precipitate people blind into eternity. So we can answer, no?

The question, then, is what gives us warrant for concluding that life ends with physical death?
Shall we remind people that while uncertain, there is still the possibility that life does not end at death? In that scenario we wouldn't be held accountable for promoting false-confidence, as we are allowing them to decide as to whether they believe in that or not.
Another direction may be the reminder that if one does believe that life ends at death, one is certainly wasting a lot of one's then limited existence worrying about the inevitable.

The thing that gives us the warrant for that conclusion is similar in relation to that against the existence of God: because we cannot prove otherwise, it must be so.
Evidently invalid.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 3313
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat May 20, 2017 6:08 pm

Vendetta wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 4:13 pm

Shall we remind people that while uncertain, there is still the possibility that life does not end at death? In that scenario we wouldn't be held accountable for promoting false-confidence, as we are allowing them to decide as to whether they believe in that or not.
An excellent and balanced suggestion.
Another direction may be the reminder that if one does believe that life ends at death, one is certainly wasting a lot of one's then limited existence worrying about the inevitable.
True. And I think the reply would be, "Well, I don't want to waste my life worrying about an eternity that is not going to come." That would be a fair retort. Pascal said his life was still better for the belief that God exists, even if He didn't. That might be true for Pascal. It might even be true for many people. I don't know if all would agree.

But it's certainly safer.
The thing that gives us the warrant for that conclusion is similar in relation to that against the existence of God: because we cannot prove otherwise, it must be so.
Evidently invalid.
Yes. Both are a form of the argument ad ignorantiam, the argument that if we can't prove something, or don't know something, then it cannot exist, or can safely be assumed not to exist.

And yes, that's manifestly illogical. For by that logic, germs cannot exist. They could not exist, because at one time, nobody knew they did. So it would have seemed quite absurd to believe in them. And yet, they did exist. When we found out they existed, that was a very good day for the human race.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 4957
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat May 20, 2017 10:27 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 12:39 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 4:25 pm

To this day man fears death, and both Christianity and Islam promise life after death. It's easy to see why these people are still stuck in the past, unable to let go of their belief in an all powerful being, that they believe shall save them from death, even from themselves.
Does man fear being born? ..the answer is no.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say in an argument on gods! No man can fear being born as they have no consciousness so as to fear anything!


There is no one home prior to or at moment of life...and certainly not at the end of life.
Exactly!


Same in life...there is no one home. Same at death, there is no one home.
Not at all, but then it surely seems that you're not home.


There is no one to enter home - there is no one to leave home...there is only home...welcome home.
Stop speaking nonsense please! No it doesn't cause you to appear smart. Quite the contrary!




So what's actually going on ...?

Energy=intangible
Spirit=intangible
Mind=intangible
Consciousness=intangible
Awareness=intangible
Self=intangible
Seeing = intangible
Smell = intangible
Sound= intangible
Taste= intangible
Feeling/touch = intangible
Emotion=intangible
Fear=intangible
Pain = intangible
Compassion= intangible
Love =intangible
Pleasure=intangible
Thoughts=intangible
Ideas=intangible
Concepts=intangible
Knowledge=intangible
Language=intangible
Beliefs=intangible
Non-beliefs=intangible
Truth=intangible
Time=intangible
Space=intangible
Objects=intangible images
Evil=intangible
Devil=intangible
Happiness=intangible
Moods=intangible
Health=intangible
Weight=intangible
Gravity=intangible
Air=intangible
Oxygen=intangible
Light=intangible
Darkness=intangible
Death=intangible
Life=intangible
Perception=intangible
Interpretation=intangible
Dreams=intangible
Densely packed information in DNA= intangible



All the above is what constitutes you.. welcome home.
You're so screwy it's not funny.


intangible [in-tan-juh-buh l]
adjective
1. not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things; impalpable.
2. not definite or clear to the mind: intangible arguments.
3. (of an asset) existing only in connection with something else, as the goodwill of a business.
noun
4. something intangible, especially an intangible asset: Intangibles are hard to value.


Since you say it's intangible, douse yourself completely in gasoline, now light yourself, now jump off a 100 story building completely naked without anything to control your descent, now use an ax to complete sever all your appendages except the one holding the ax, now shoot yourself in the head with a .44 magnum. Now tell me all that was intangible! Nope, sorry you can't, as after the very first thing I asked you to do, you died. And a very painful death it was. And I guarantee that while you did it, it was very tangible indeed, specifically defs 1 and 2 above certainly didn't apply!

Now how much do you want to bet that you'll never do it? Of course not, and for the reason I mentioned above, up there where you quoted me. ;-)



User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 4957
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sat May 20, 2017 11:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 2:58 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 5:23 pm
The only people who worry about being dead are the living.
Well, the vexed question has been begged...how long is "life" really? Does it begin and end with the physical body?
And it's a stupid question at that!

Before we reassure people not to worry,
It's innate!

shouldn't be be completely confident of that answer?
No way you can be!

That seems reasonable...after all, if we were wrong, we'd be counselling a terrible kind of false-confidence.
Too late, you've already done that!

We would be telling people to go into eternity unprepared for what it may demand.
There's no such thing, so no demand and one can't prepare!

In some thought, we'd be sending people to an unnecessary soul-extinction,
No such thing as a soul, and your life simply ends!

or depriving them in a future life cycle; in others,
No such thing!

we'd be sending them to Hell.
There is no such place!

So before we counsel people to be casual about this, we'd want to know for sure, right?
It's a figment of your imagination!

But we're reasonable people.
Not at all!

We wouldn't say anything without knowing,
Not you two, as you two are nothing but liars!

and certainly wouldn't cavalierly precipitate people blind into eternity.
Why not? That's what you've always done.

So we can answer, no?
Yet another lie!

The question, then, is what gives us warrant for concluding that life ends with physical death?
Well I worked in a cemetery as a very young man, and I can tell you that we rot, worm food! And since consciousness comes at birth, with the body, it's only logical that it goes with death. It's counterintuitive to believe otherwise. It's just the wishful thinking of those that cannot 'know' and want it to be true, for fear!

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 4957
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun May 21, 2017 12:22 am

Vendetta wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 4:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 2:58 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 5:23 pm
The only people who worry about being dead are the living.
Well, the vexed question has been begged...how long is "life" really? Does it begin and end with the physical body?

Before we reassure people not to worry, shouldn't be be completely confident of that answer? That seems reasonable...after all, if we were wrong, we'd be counselling a terrible kind of false-confidence. We would be telling people to go into eternity unprepared for what it may demand. In some thought, we'd be sending people to an unnecessary soul-extinction, or depriving them in a future life cycle; in others, we'd be sending them to Hell.

So before we counsel people to be casual about this, we'd want to know for sure, right?

But we're reasonable people. We wouldn't say anything without knowing, and certainly wouldn't cavalierly precipitate people blind into eternity. So we can answer, no?

The question, then, is what gives us warrant for concluding that life ends with physical death?
Shall we remind people that while uncertain, there is still the possibility that life does not end at death?
Yet that's what death is, the end of life!

In that scenario we wouldn't be held accountable for promoting false-confidence,
The scenario is logically false.

as we are allowing them to decide as to whether they believe in that or not.
Nope, you are selling them swamp land and saying it can be built upon without sinking! It's not true!

Another direction may be the reminder that if one does believe that life ends at death, one is certainly wasting a lot of one's then limited existence worrying about the inevitable.
Good point! And one shouldn't dwell on death thus wasting life in the process, unless of course one prefers it, but FEAR is innate. And the fear of death is the number one fear, despite any kind of thinking to the contrary, it still looms over each of our heads. It's like saying you're going to forget to breath, you can't, it's automatic!


The thing that gives us the warrant for that conclusion is similar in relation to that against the existence of God: because we cannot prove otherwise, it must be so.
That one can't prove there is or is not a god absolutely does not mean that the opposite of either one of those is necessarily true. To believe otherwise is a falsehood!

Evidently invalid.
It's certainly evident that your logic is invalid!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests