Who- why- where are we ?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by attofishpi »

Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: I can claim that no bachelor is married, without requiring to search the entire universe to attest that there's actually no married bachelor. There is no god because the idea of god is absurd.
A ridiculous analogy. Your short-sightedness is all that is absurd.
Well, that particular analogy right there is one of the classics of analytic philosophy. If you're going to be daring and challenge it, at least show some wit in doing it by presenting the logical counterargument. It was a logical statement, if you think it's false, you should be able to prove it easily.
I stated the ANALOGY was ridiculous.

Your statement:-
"I can claim that no bachelor is married, without requiring to search the entire universe to attest that there's actually no married bachelor." CANNOT BE FALSIFIED, it is tautologically accurate.

Stating that God does not exist is not a tautological statement.

I may not have formally studied philosophy - but i am fairly well versed in logic, thanks to programming.
You do not know everything in the universe, ergo, you cannot claim to KNOW God does not exist.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Londoner wrote: Surely God would not live in the past, present or future. These may be the ways we humans think about time, and our own lives, but even we know that ultimately they don't make sense.
What you say is logically incorrect. You are making an error of definition since living is defined by time, and so living is entails time.

To say God is not restricted by time dimensions is not to say that he can move freely within them, rather that God does not suffer from our own confused ideas! This isn't special to God, when we do physics we recognise time as a way we measure particular things, not a thing in itself.
One again you make a logical error. Movement is distance/ time, so in saying god is not restricted by movement is a logical error. Your idea of god is the only thing that is confused here.

We bring in the notion of time if we want to describe a sequence of particular events, but by selecting out particular events we are again imposing our own subjective view on the universe. Seen holistically, the universe simply is always what it is. No event is really discrete, rather it is integrated with the whole state of the universe, so to separate it out into 'events' is to misrepresent it.
You are contradicting yourself. Need I tell you how?

God does not have that problem.
[/quote} ha, ha. How convenient for you. Anything invconvenient like time, or reality and you just ignore it to imagine god. I wish you could see ow funny that it.
He can know the universe as a whole, so for God it isn't necessary for him to break it down into 'events' in order to understand it.
absurd.
So the state of God cannot be understood in itself, but only in contrast with our own.
I think you love contradicting yourself.
We humans are trapped in our subjectivity, obliged to use certain concepts and techniques to get by, while being aware that these must also be misrepresentations of what is. God is not restrained in that way. So to understand the omniscience of God as if that meant he 'knows things' in the same sense we understand 'knowledge', except that he has more of it, would be a misleading.

Since the name 'God' is so loaded with cultural baggage, I think we could try making the same argument but leaving out the word 'God'. If we did that, we would be questioning whether the way we humans understand the universe is the only possible way. We would then be reconnecting these rather acrimonious discussions of God back into the mainstream of philosophy.
Leave out god, and things start to make sense, true!
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Londoner »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Me: Surely God would not live in the past, present or future.

And the logical support for that statement is?
Because none of those words describe locations, so nobody lives there. To talk of 'living in the past' or 'it is in the future' are metaphors!
Me: God does not have that problem. He can know the universe as a whole, so for God it isn't necessary for him to break it down into 'events' in order to understand it.

And other than your wishes to believe so, is there any support to that statement from empirical evidence or logic? You say that "he can know", but assuming such a deity existed, how do you know it has consciousness?
God is understood as not being an object within the universe, so he would have no location within it. Likewise, God created the universe, and thus time (which measures things inside the universe). An event is something we see as distinct from the universe as a whole; that object A changed to object B in time T. But God would be outside that system.

This isn't something special to God; we would come up with a similar answer if people ask 'what happened before the Big Bang?'

As to God's consciousness, then certainly his consciousness would not resemble our own.
Me: So the state of God cannot be understood in itself, but only in contrast with our own. We humans are trapped in our subjectivity, obliged to use certain concepts and techniques to get by, while being aware that these must also be misrepresentations of what is.

If we can't accurately represent the deity because human understanding is limited, how do you get to know all these things about god? According to you, they are most likely misrepresentations and that should make us ask also if that misrepresented idea exists as a concrete being at all.
'exists as a concrete being'? No, plainly he wouldn't, not in the sense that we might describe anything else using those words

But although we may not be able to get our heads round what 'exist' means when talking about God, we also know that our notions of what 'exist' means in that 'concrete being' sense are inadequate. I gave the example of the Big Bang; as a theory it fits with what we observe, but it also describes a state of affairs entirely unlike that observed universe. I think the same is true at the quantum level; we can understand it mathematically, but if we try to think of it using metaphors drawn from the world in which we live then we will go wrong.

The same is true of any example we might pick of a something that we would describe as a 'concrete being'. When we look hard at it, it turns out not to be concrete at all, but an unstable mixture of sense impressions, logical relations, conventions of language...such ideas still serve our purpose in the practical sense, but we also know they are our creations, not 'concrete' in the sense of being nailed to something external and fixed.

So it is not enough to criticise the concept of God because it does not make sense using our ordinary concepts; first because God is not meant to be an ordinary concept, and second because our ordinary concepts are not entirely satisfactory anyway.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Londoner wrote:
Because none of those words describe locations, so nobody lives there. To talk of 'living in the past' or 'it is in the future' are metaphors!
In other words not even humans are restricted by time; same as god.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Londoner »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
What you say is logically incorrect. You are making an error of definition since living is defined by time, and so living is entails time.
I do not think that living is defined by time. It might be measured using time, just the living object might be measured by weight, or height. If living was defined by time, then the two would be synonyms; 'living' and 'x years' would be interchangeable in a sentence.
Me: To say God is not restricted by time dimensions is not to say that he can move freely within them, rather that God does not suffer from our own confused ideas! This isn't special to God, when we do physics we recognise time as a way we measure particular things, not a thing in itself.

One again you make a logical error. Movement is distance/ time, so in saying god is not restricted by movement is a logical error. Your idea of god is the only thing that is confused here.
But if God is not an object, nor in any location, then in what sense could he move? Therefore where would time come in? The time between what and what?

But why did you need to introduce the personal abuse? It continues:
You are contradicting yourself. Need I tell you how?
.
ha, ha. How convenient for you. Anything invconvenient like time, or reality and you just ignore it to imagine god. I wish you could see ow funny that it.

absurd.

I think you love contradicting yourself.
Surely we are on these boards because we enjoy finding arguments. If you do not feel like discussing the points I make, then why not just find a more interesting thread? I do not see the point of getting so excited about it.

I think this happens just because of that word 'God'. If someone raised the same points in a discussion of Kant, or Wittgenstein I do not think the discussion would take that tone (at least not so quickly). Maybe it is because we have a reluctance dismiss famous philosophers as stupid or illogical, since we have a nagging worry they might have been cleverer than us. But we pride ourselves on our intellectual superiority to all those fools who go to church, so any argument that involves God threatens our ego and must be instantly crushed.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Londoner »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Londoner wrote:
Because none of those words describe locations, so nobody lives there. To talk of 'living in the past' or 'it is in the future' are metaphors!
In other words not even humans are restricted by time; same as god.
Yes; I'm saying that the notion of time as if it was itself a thing, a railway line on which we are moving, the past existing behind us and the future in front of us, does not make sense. It is not what time means in physics. So it is not that the notion of God as being 'outside time' that is weird and needs a special explanation. It is our ordinary notion of being in time, or travelling through time, that is confused.

There are many ways in which the idea of God is difficult to reconcile with our other ideas, but I'm saying that time is not one of them.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Londoner wrote: But if God is not an object, nor in any location, then in what sense could he move? Therefore where would time come in? The time between what and what?.
In other words, if god does not exist then in what sense could god move. Well Dah, fucking dah.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

attofishpi wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:
attofishpi wrote: A ridiculous analogy. Your short-sightedness is all that is absurd.
Well, that particular analogy right there is one of the classics of analytic philosophy. If you're going to be daring and challenge it, at least show some wit in doing it by presenting the logical counterargument. It was a logical statement, if you think it's false, you should be able to prove it easily.
I stated the ANALOGY was ridiculous.

Your statement:-
"I can claim that no bachelor is married, without requiring to search the entire universe to attest that there's actually no married bachelor." CANNOT BE FALSIFIED, it is tautologically accurate.

Stating that God does not exist is not a tautological statement.

I may not have formally studied philosophy - but i am fairly well versed in logic, thanks to programming.
You do not know everything in the universe, ergo, you cannot claim to KNOW God does not exist.
OK, let me explain it to you again:
Your statement "you do not know everything in the universe, ergo, you cannot claim to KNOW God does not exist" is a classic statement from lockean empiricism: knowledge is only acquired through experience. Rephrased: you observe objects in the world and you infer properties from them. From things outside the reach of perception, properties cannot be inferred.

But philosophers have shown that there other types of truths, not relying on experience, such as a priori propositions or analytic statements, which are logically true by their own meaning. The predicate is contained within the subject. There are many examples of this, such as "a triangle has 3 sides" or "all bachelors are unmarried".

So, while I cannot claim that experience has taken me to the inevitable conclusion that a particular entity does not exist anywhere in the universe, I can certainly claim, by means of analytic propositions (such as "all bachelors are unmarried"), that I have reached the inevitable conclusion that a particular entity does not exist anywhere in the universe. I say you can't have a round triangle, or a married bachelor, the same way I say you can't have an omnipotent, omniscient god. Don't need to look into every corner of the universe to be true.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Londoner wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote: Me: Surely God would not live in the past, present or future.

And the logical support for that statement is?
Because none of those words describe locations, so nobody lives there. To talk of 'living in the past' or 'it is in the future' are metaphors!
You are missing the present now. Is it also a metaphor? But if the past and the future are only metaphors, that would apply then to all beings, who would not live in the past or the future, either. But objects known in the present have had previous states and will have future states, in other words, we observe in them movement and change. If your god lives in an eternal present, then it does not move, it does not change, therefore it cannot have will, thought, and it's not involved whatsoever in anything else in the universe. No power, no knowledge, no nothing. The moment (a place in time) it does something, a before and after are revealed.
Londoner wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:Me: God does not have that problem. He can know the universe as a whole, so for God it isn't necessary for him to break it down into 'events' in order to understand it.

And other than your wishes to believe so, is there any support to that statement from empirical evidence or logic? You say that "he can know", but assuming such a deity existed, how do you know it has consciousness?
God is understood as not being an object within the universe, so he would have no location within it. Likewise, God created the universe, and thus time (which measures things inside the universe). An event is something we see as distinct from the universe as a whole; that object A changed to object B in time T. But God would be outside that system.
Saying that god is outside a system is the same as saying that god has a location outside a system. You are then contradicting yourself, first saying god has no location and then stating what its location is. But if god is in a given place, why shouldn't we consider that place as part of a larger system that contains your system and god? Wouldn't that be the universe? Wouldn't you need to explain how your god came to existence in that universe?
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Londoner »

Conde Lucanor wrote: You are missing the present now. Is it also a metaphor? But if the past and the future are only metaphors, that would apply then to all beings, who would not live in the past or the future, either. But objects known in the present have had previous states and will have future states, in other words, we observe in them movement and change.


I do not understand 'You are missing the present now', but yes, there is no place or object that corresponds to 'the present', such that I can miss it. Similarly, objects do not literally 'have' previous states or future states. An object is just what it is - it is not simultaneously what it is not, which would be the case if it also somehow 'had' its past a future states (which would presumably be infinite).

To say 'we observe them (objects) in movement and change' is not strictly true. To say an object has changed would be self-contradictory; if it has changed then it is not the same object. The change we observe and measure using time will only be of another measurable attribute. For example, the water was X degrees and is now Y degrees and the time between those two states was T. This observation relates degrees to seconds, it is not a description of the meaning of 'water'.

Whether both temperature states would still count as 'water' is a question of how we use language. Is 'ice' water? In one sense it is 'changed water' but we might want to say that the change is so significant it has become a different 'object'. Or we might go the other way and say that everything that involves H2O counts as 'water'. There is no right answer. So what counts as an 'object' is a social construction, so likewise would be the notion of change as it applies to 'objects'.
If your god lives in an eternal present, then it does not move, it does not change, therefore it cannot have will, thought, and it's not involved whatsoever in anything else in the universe. No power, no knowledge, no nothing. The moment (a place in time) it does something, a before and after are revealed.
Absolutely; all these words describe the way we humans comprehend the material universe. If used about God they would be only figurative. As I suggested earlier, to say God has 'power' would not mean he has very big muscles! It would be saying that God is outside the universe in which such terms have a meaning.

Regarding 'your god', he is mine in the sense that this is my understanding of what follows from the description given by those who use that word. So, given that God (capital 'G', as I assume we are talking about monotheistic religions) is understood as the creator of the universe, thus creating all the power relationships in the universe, I do not see how God could be thought to himself have only a finite (i.e.quantifiable) amount of that power.
And other than your wishes to believe so, is there any support to that statement from empirical evidence or logic? You say that "he can know", but assuming such a deity existed, how do you know it has consciousness?
The same answer as above; God is plainly not going to be conscious in the sense that humans are conscious.
Saying that god is outside a system is the same as saying that god has a location outside a system. You are then contradicting yourself, first saying god has no location and then stating what its location is. But if god is in a given place, why shouldn't we consider that place as part of a larger system that contains your system and god? Wouldn't that be the universe? Wouldn't you need to explain how your god came to existence in that universe?
I do not agree that 'Saying that god is outside a system is the same as saying that god has a location outside a system'. Again, that would only be the case if God was supposed to be a physical object, understandable using the same mental concepts that we humans use to understand physical objects.

You could indeed say that both the universe and God was part of a larger system, but if you used the word 'universe' to describe it, then what would that word mean? If you expand a word to include everything then it becomes meaningless. You would then need to invent a different word to distinguish the system that includes God to the system that includes us. If you didn't, then what would the word 'is'(exist) mean, if it also covered things outside all possible human experience?

In these discussions I think the analogy is with the word 'infinity'. If we say something is 'infinite' we do not mean it is a very big number since, if it was, you could always have 'infinity plus one'. We rather mean 'it is outside the system of numbers'. Is there such a thing? We could argue that to talk about any subject which is unquantifiable is a sign that the subject described is meaningless, in the sense that talking about God in the way I am doing above might be called meaningless.

But, on the other hand, we cannot quite do without the notion of 'infinity'; it comes up in maths, it comes up in physics and nor are certain aspects of our own experience easily quantifiable (because they are subjective). So my point here is not to preach the existence of God, my point is that it is not a simple matter to define and distinguish only those funny ideas that pertain to the nature of God and chuck those in the philosophical dustbin. The problem is that the same funny ideas crop up all over the place.
Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Reflex »

waechter418 wrote:It seems that since we are aware of ourselves we have been trying to find out who, why & where we are and that many of our religions, cosmologies, philosophies and sciences developed around this quest.

The answers differ widely, see for example neurologists, Buddha, Hegel, astrophysicists, Lao Tse or Christian fundamentalists - yet each insists to have found the right answer, which is understandable, after all, it is not easy to admit that the quest has been in vain and increases our confusion.

What went wrong?
We've been looking in all the wrong places.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by attofishpi »

waechter418 wrote:It seems that since we are aware of ourselves we have been trying to find out who, why & where we are and that many of our religions, cosmologies, philosophies and sciences developed around this quest.

The answers differ widely, see for example neurologists, Buddha, Hegel, astrophysicists, Lao Tse or Christian fundamentalists - yet each insists to have found the right answer, which is understandable, after all, it is not easy to admit that the quest has been in vain and increases our confusion.

What went wrong?
The various religions may think they have the right answer - but if you talk to individual theists you will usually find they have many doubts in the scripture offered to them, thus ultimately its an individual quest for those points - who, why, where.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by attofishpi »

Conde Lucanor wrote:Your statement "you do not know everything in the universe, ergo, you cannot claim to KNOW God does not exist" is a classic statement from lockean empiricism: knowledge is only acquired through experience. Rephrased: you observe objects in the world and you infer properties from them. From things outside the reach of perception, properties cannot be inferred.
Yes. I have had 20yrs of direct interaction with this 'God' - i have knowledge of its existence through experience.

Conde Lucanor wrote:But philosophers have shown that there other types of truths, not relying on experience, such as a priori propositions or analytic statements, which are logically true by their own meaning. The predicate is contained within the subject. There are many examples of this, such as "a triangle has 3 sides" or "all bachelors are unmarried".
Even your statement ""all bachelors are unmarried" - even though i agreed that this to be a tautological statement, i am now going to retract from this!
You claimed you do not have to search the entire universe to know that the statement is true. Well, there is the chance that somewhere else in the cosmos there is a race of intelligent beings, that also have the term "bachelor", and with this chance, however miniscule remains the possibility that bachelor means, to be married.
Conde Lucanor wrote:So, while I cannot claim that experience has taken me to the inevitable conclusion that a particular entity does not exist anywhere in the universe, I can certainly claim, by means of analytic propositions (such as "all bachelors are unmarried"), that I have reached the inevitable conclusion that a particular entity does not exist anywhere in the universe. I say you can't have a round triangle, or a married bachelor, the same way I say you can't have an omnipotent, omniscient god. Don't need to look into every corner of the universe to be true.
Experience trumps any analytic philosophical twaddle that you think you can muster - there is NO such philosophical argument that can prove the non-existence of God. Only a physicist that knows everything about the universe can make such a claim - but i assure you, since i know from experience that it exists, such a physicist will know that God does exist.

We never even defined 'God' and you continued to insist that for it to be God - it must have both omnipotence and omniscience. You have not made any valid argument that ruled out omnipotence, or omniscience, all you threw at me was a repetitive list of statements with inaccurate irrational conclusions...and i find it tedious dealing with over educated minds of such ineptitude when it comes to logic.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

Londoner wrote:
I do not understand 'You are missing the present now',
I meant that you did not mention the present tense as being a metaphor, but you did mention it in your original response about god not being constrained to time frames.
Londoner wrote: but yes, there is no place or object that corresponds to 'the present', such that I can miss it. Similarly, objects do not literally 'have' previous states or future states. An object is just what it is - it is not simultaneously what it is not, which would be the case if it also somehow 'had' its past a future states (which would presumably be infinite).
As you can see, you inevitably use time dimensions to describe properties of an object. You use the word "simultaneously", which conveys time and a relative position of the object in it. The being of an object is inevitably displayed in a sequence of time, otherwise things would be eternally static and nothing would ever change. We know that is not what actually happens and we define the previous states of objects as the past and their potential states as the future.
Londoner wrote: To say 'we observe them (objects) in movement and change' is not strictly true. To say an object has changed would be self-contradictory; if it has changed then it is not the same object.
That is truly absurd. Were you born just exactly as you are now? Is it a completely different being the "Londoner" that grows hair and nails? How about the one that just blinked and the one that will blink in a second? Are they all different beings?
Londoner wrote: So what counts as an 'object' is a social construction, so likewise would be the notion of change as it applies to 'objects'.
So you would agree that what counts as 'god' is a social construction, an idea, too. The real question is: do any of our ideas represent objects that have objective existence, that is, objects that are real?
Londoner wrote:
If your god lives in an eternal present, then it does not move, it does not change, therefore it cannot have will, thought, and it's not involved whatsoever in anything else in the universe. No power, no knowledge, no nothing. The moment (a place in time) it does something, a before and after are revealed.
Absolutely; all these words describe the way we humans comprehend the material universe. If used about God they would be only figurative. As I suggested earlier, to say God has 'power' would not mean he has very big muscles! It would be saying that God is outside the universe in which such terms have a meaning.
What you are saying implies that humans can never even know about god. How would they know if it belongs to another dimension that is not part of the universe, but outside of it (according to you) and where not even logic can dwell, because it can't have any meaning. It's not that it's hard to know, but that it's impossible to know. Therefore you couldn't be here talking about that god you say you know.
Londoner wrote:
I do not agree that 'Saying that god is outside a system is the same as saying that god has a location outside a system'. Again, that would only be the case if God was supposed to be a physical object,
Note that you are the one referring to god as having a physical location ("outside a system"), so you are treating it as a physical object. If you don't think of it as having the physical properties of occupying space, then you cannot say it's outside the system. You will have to come up with something else that describes the states of being god without referring to physical properties. And after you do that, you will have to explain how, from the physical world that you live in, can have any contact and knowledge of that other godly world with no relation to ours.

Londoner wrote: You could indeed say that both the universe and God was part of a larger system, but if you used the word 'universe' to describe it, then what would that word mean? If you expand a word to include everything then it becomes meaningless.
Isn't that what you do with the word god? You take the word universe and then expand it and call it god. Meaningless indeed.
Londoner wrote:In these discussions I think the analogy is with the word 'infinity'. If we say something is 'infinite' we do not mean it is a very big number since, if it was, you could always have 'infinity plus one'. We rather mean 'it is outside the system of numbers'.
No. Infinity means "without ends" (from latin finire, which means to finalize), without limits, borders, frontiers. There is no outside to infinity, because it would imply an end, a border, after which we would find the thing that is outside.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Who- why- where are we ?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

attofishpi wrote:
Yes. I have had 20yrs of direct interaction with this 'God' - i have knowledge of its existence through experience.
You have every right to believe so, as anyone else has the right to believe he/she has experienced archangel Gabriel, Fatima Virgin, almighty Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, etc. The question is: are those beliefs related to something real?
attofishpi wrote: You claimed you do not have to search the entire universe to know that the statement is true. Well, there is the chance that somewhere else in the cosmos there is a race of intelligent beings, that also have the term "bachelor", and with this chance, however miniscule remains the possibility that bachelor means, to be married.
And to be married could mean to be single. That's just playing with conventions, not dealing with the concepts, whether they are synthetic or analytic propositions. In that somewhere else in the cosmos, the proposition "all bachelors are married" is an analytic proposition, where the subject includes the predicate. And they would not need to come to our part of the cosmos to validate that truth.

attofishpi wrote:Experience trumps any analytic philosophical twaddle that you think you can muster - there is NO such philosophical argument that can prove the non-existence of God.
There are indeed philosophical arguments to prove the non-existence of a particular god said to have will and thought, and being all powerful and all knowing. The most obvious one: all powerful and all knowing contradict each other and restrict any possible will and thought.

attofishpi wrote:We never even defined 'God' and you continued to insist that for it to be God - it must have both omnipotence and omniscience.
No, that's just how a particular god is portrayed and defined in the theology of monotheistic religions. It's obvious that a different conception of god will belong to any other religion not related to Christianity, Judaism, or Islamism. I'm not in the business of proving that Zeus does not exist. If your god is Zeus, well, go along with that. I don't think he is portrayed as omniscient and omnipotent. But if your god, whatever it is, pretends to be omniscient and omnipotent like the Christian god, you're in for trouble.
Post Reply