| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2005 01:09:52 PM · #676 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Ergo, God is infinite, limitless, and timeless. ( Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent ) |
If God is omnipotent, then by definition we have no free will because we have no power to make choices. |
Not so. Just because I am bigger, and stronger than my four year old child, doesn't mean that he has no free will.
God GIVES us free will. Including the will to deny Him - for a while. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:17:43 PM · #677 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Ergo, God is infinite, limitless, and timeless. ( Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent ) |
If God is omnipotent, then by definition we have no free will because we have no power to make choices. |
omnipotent - almighty: having unlimited power
Just because God has unlimited power does not mean we do not have the freewill to do what we wish. God creates all and gives life, but does not limit our ability to operate with in his creation.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:25:29 PM · #678 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I don't remember using exceprts from a book to prove that the book is valid, but rather to show why God is an absolute infinite. |
The god (one flavor of it) is described in the bible, and you must have learned all about it from the bible. Therefore, you have used the bible to prove that everything that is written in it is valid. Unless god has spoken to you, and you did not have to read the bible to know what you know.
Originally posted by res0m50r:
If I break the laws of man then I will be held accountable for it. I will also be held accountable before God based on His Word and promise. |
This is what this thread was all about when it started. Let's keep the laws of man separate from the laws of god. We just mixed them up with this amendment. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:31:16 PM · #679 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
...my conclusion came after reading it and not being able to find error. This is based soley on my research and understanding and have yet to have anyone prove it false. |
Oh, so many choices... where to start? We've already covered a bunch of them. How about this one: "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
Show me ANY point in time that Christianity was the only (or even majority) world religion. Oops. We further have to reconcile people who lived to be 600+ years old and that dinosaurs (or at least "giants") still roamed the earth. The argument goes that this happened a LONG time ago, but it obviously had to occur since the development of tools and shipbuilding technology. We have pretty good records of history since those times.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 13:40:32. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:51:35 PM · #680 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Not so. Just because I am bigger, and stronger than my four year old child, doesn't mean that he has no free will. |
But you're not omnipotent. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:56:06 PM · #681 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We don't yet know how the first living organisms developed, but that doesn't mean we won't figure it out eventually. In the past, we didn't know how lightning or stars formed either. |
A recent NOVA: Science Now program covered two of these subjects ... scientists already have the capability to whip up genes in the lab out of precursor chemicals, with a goal of creating a self-sustaining life form. The latest theory is that lightning is triggered by cosmic radiation in the form of high-energy electrons hitting the clouds. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 01:56:20 PM · #682 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
omnipotent - almighty: having unlimited power
Just because God has unlimited power does not mean we do not have the freewill to do what we wish. God creates all and gives life, but does not limit our ability to operate with in his creation. |
Omni = all
Either God is omnipotent and we have no power of freewill or God is not omnipotent and we do have power of freewill ... definition of what constitutes "freewill" at a later date.
Edited to add: Have you or have you not read the entire Bible?
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 13:58:02. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 02:22:01 PM · #683 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Not so. Just because I am bigger, and stronger than my four year old child, doesn't mean that he has no free will. |
But you're not omnipotent. |
No.
But you erroneously assume ( imply ) that BEING omnipotent means that the omnipotent one must EXERCISE that power at all times, and in every circumstance. That is a false assumption.
One who HAS such power ALSO has the incontestable power to CHOOSE when, and if, to USE the power. Fortunate we are, that God chooses to grant us the privilege of free will.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 14:23:04. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 02:26:54 PM · #684 |
"Equality" and and "justice" for all, hooray USA :(
I would move to a state where they did something horrible like that, so that next time my vote against such a proposition might make a difference.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 14:28:21. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 02:36:06 PM · #685 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Not so. Just because I am bigger, and stronger than my four year old child, doesn't mean that he has no free will. |
But you're not omnipotent. |
No.
But you erroneously assume ( imply ) that BEING omnipotent means that the omnipotent one must EXERCISE that power at all times, and in every circumstance. That is a false assumption.
One who HAS such power ALSO has the incontestable power to CHOOSE when, and if, to USE the power. Fortunate we are, that God chooses to grant us the privilege of free will. |
So you̢۪re saying that God is omnipotent except when he chooses not to be omnipotent? God is all powerful except when he chooses not to be all powerful? In that same vein, is he also then omniscient except when he chooses not be omniscient and omnipresent except when he chooses not be omnipresent? Could God know that he doesn̢۪t know something if he doesn̢۪t know it? Could God be someplace that he isn̢۪t? You quickly run into problems when you try to apply that kind of logic.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 02:36:18 PM · #686 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
"Equality" and and "justice" for all, hooray USA :(
I would move to a state where they did something horrible like that, so that next time my vote against such a proposition might make a difference. |
Thanks for that excellent point.
Hopefully, because of this result, folks will finally realize that if they don't vote, the results may not be what they wanted. ( Of course, even if they DO vote, the results may not be what they wanted, but if they DON'T vote ( assuming that they are entitled to ), they really have no legitimate basis for complaining ). |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 02:38:40 PM · #687 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
"Equality" and and "justice" for all, hooray USA :(
I would move to a state where they did something horrible like that, so that next time my vote against such a proposition might make a difference. |
Thanks for that excellent point.
Hopefully, because of this result, folks will finally realize that if they don't vote, the results may not be what they wanted. ( Of course, even if they DO vote, the results may not be what they wanted, but if they DON'T vote ( assuming that they are entitled to ), they really have no legitimate basis for complaining ). |
It's nice when we can find a point to agree on : ) |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 02:43:24 PM · #688 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
I believe the founding fathers would be rolling their eyes and pounding their fists if they were to see the "state of the Union" these days. |
This is probably the one statement that everyone would agree with. However, we would be quite polarized as to why. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:06:35 PM · #689 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Not so. Just because I am bigger, and stronger than my four year old child, doesn't mean that he has no free will. |
But you're not omnipotent. |
No.
But you erroneously assume ( imply ) that BEING omnipotent means that the omnipotent one must EXERCISE that power at all times, and in every circumstance. That is a false assumption.
One who HAS such power ALSO has the incontestable power to CHOOSE when, and if, to USE the power. Fortunate we are, that God chooses to grant us the privilege of free will. |
So you̢۪re saying that God is omnipotent except when he chooses not to be omnipotent? God is all powerful except when he chooses not to be all powerful? In that same vein, is he also then omniscient except when he chooses not be omniscient and omnipresent except when he chooses not be omnipresent? Could God know that he doesn̢۪t know something if he doesn̢۪t know it? Could God be someplace that he isn̢۪t? You quickly run into problems when you try to apply that kind of logic. |
No. It does appear, however, that you run into problems when you try to twist that logic into something that isn't ( logical, that is ).
Granting free will in no way diminishes the power of God.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omniscient.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipresent.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipotent - he just chooses to not EXERCISE power at all times, and in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that he suspends power for even a moment.
Let's take a rather simple real world example.
The Power Plant generates electrical POWER, and puts it into the power grid. That power comes to your house. The POWER Company intends to generate POWER at all times, but they have decided to give YOU control over which appliances you want to have in your house, what size light bulbs, etc. And, what's more, they choose to let YOU decide which ones you want ON and OFF at any time. Namely, even though they do NOT suspend generating power, they give YOU the free will to choose to either use it, or NOT. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:17:10 PM · #690 |
Originally posted by RonB:
No. It does appear, however, that you run into problems when you try to twist that logic into something that isn't ( logical, that is ).
Granting free will in no way diminishes the power of God.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omniscient.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipresent.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipotent - he just chooses to not EXERCISE power at all times, and in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that he suspends power for even a moment.
Let's take a rather simple real world example.
The Power Plant generates electrical POWER, and puts it into the power grid. That power comes to your house. The POWER Company intends to generate POWER at all times, but they have decided to give YOU control over which appliances you want to have in your house, what size light bulbs, etc. And, what's more, they choose to let YOU decide which ones you want ON and OFF at any time. Namely, even though they do NOT suspend generating power, they give YOU the free will to choose to either use it, or NOT. |
The electric company hopes to make a profit by selling us power in order that might run electrical appliances which are made to run on electricity. Are you saying God gives us the power in order that we might choose to commit sin?
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 15:18:47. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:17:38 PM · #691 |
Originally posted by RonB:
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omniscient.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipresent.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipotent - he just chooses to not EXERCISE power at all times, and in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that he suspends power for even a moment.
|
How do you know?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:20:00 PM · #692 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
No. It does appear, however, that you run into problems when you try to twist that logic into something that isn't ( logical, that is ).
Granting free will in no way diminishes the power of God.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omniscient.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipresent.
God NEVER chooses to NOT be omnipotent - he just chooses to not EXERCISE power at all times, and in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that he suspends power for even a moment.
Let's take a rather simple real world example.
The Power Plant generates electrical POWER, and puts it into the power grid. That power comes to your house. The POWER Company intends to generate POWER at all times, but they have decided to give YOU control over which appliances you want to have in your house, what size light bulbs, etc. And, what's more, they choose to let YOU decide which ones you want ON and OFF at any time. Namely, even though they do NOT suspend generating power, they give YOU the free will to choose to either use it, or NOT. |
The electric company hopes to make a profit by selling us power in order that might run electrical appliances which are made to run on electricity. Are you saying God gives us the power in order that we might commit sin? |
How you got God wants us to commit sin out of his analogy I don't know. I think its pretty clear the point made and no God doesn't want us to sin, but we have the free will to make that choice for ourselves.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:23:07 PM · #693 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
How you got God wants us to commit sin out of his analogy I don't know. I think its pretty clear the point made and no God doesn't want us to sin, but we have the free will to make that choice for ourselves. |
I edited my last post quickly after posting for clarity. Please address that one as well. Thank you. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:26:30 PM · #694 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...you run into problems when you try to twist that logic into something that isn't ( logical, that is ). |
pot>kettle>black
Omnipotent, by definition, means ALL powerful. By granting the power of free will, you have assigned SOME power to the people. If somebody else has SOME power, then you don't have ALL power. If you do retain ALL power, then nobody else has SOME power. You can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:36:41 PM · #695 |
When do we get to the part with the dancing angels? : )
The Dalai Lama recently wrote something related to this ... I'm pasting in the whole thing so people won't have to register with the NY Times to check if I'm taking things out of context ... : )
=========
November 12, 2005
Op-Ed Contributor
Our Faith in Science
By TENZIN GYATSO
Washington
SCIENCE has always fascinated me. As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious about how things worked. When I got a toy I would play with it a bit, then take it apart to see how it was put together. As I became older, I applied the same scrutiny to a movie projector and an antique automobile.
At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light.
But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
For many years now, on my own and through the Mind and Life Institute, which I helped found, I have had the opportunity to meet with scientists to discuss their work. World-class scientists have generously coached me in subatomic physics, cosmology, psychology, biology.
It is our discussions of neuroscience, however, that have proved particularly important. From these exchanges a vigorous research initiative has emerged, a collaboration between monks and neuroscientists, to explore how meditation might alter brain function.
The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong - or even to bring people to Buddhism - but rather to take these methods out of the traditional context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone who might find them helpful.
After all, if practices from my own tradition can be brought together with scientific methods, then we may be able to take another small step toward alleviating human suffering.
Already this collaboration has borne fruit. Dr. Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin, has published results from brain imaging studies of lamas meditating. He found that during meditation the regions of the brain thought to be related to happiness increase in activity. He also found that the longer a person has been a meditator, the greater the activity increase will be.
Other studies are under way. At Princeton University, Dr. Jonathan Cohen, a neuroscientist, is studying the effects of meditation on attention. At the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, Dr. Margaret Kemeny has been studying how meditation helps develop empathy in school teachers.
Whatever the results of this work, I am encouraged that it is taking place. You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our interconnected world.
One of my first teachers of science was the German physicist Carl von Weizsäcker, who had been an apprentice to the quantum theorist Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Weizsäcker was kind enough to give me some formal tutorials on scientific topics. (I confess that while listening to him I would feel I could grasp the intricacies of the full argument, but when the sessions were over there was often not a great deal of his explanation left behind.)
What impressed me most deeply was how Dr. Weizsäcker worried about both the philosophical implications of quantum physics and the ethical consequences of science generally. He felt that science could benefit from exploring issues usually left to the humanities.
I believe that we must find a way to bring ethical considerations to bear upon the direction of scientific development, especially in the life sciences. By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry.
Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics," which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and non-believers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths.
Today, our knowledge of the human brain and body at the cellular and genetic level has reached a new level of sophistication. Advances in genetic manipulation, for example, mean scientists can create new genetic entities - like hybrid animal and plant species - whose long-term consequences are unknown.
Sometimes when scientists concentrate on their own narrow fields, their keen focus obscures the larger effect their work might have. In my conversations with scientists I try to remind them of the larger goal behind what they do in their daily work.
This is more important than ever. It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement. Yet the ramifications of this progress are such that it is no longer adequate to say that the choice of what to do with this knowledge should be left in the hands of individuals.
This is a point I intend to make when I speak at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience today in Washington. I will suggest that how science relates to wider humanity is no longer of academic interest alone. This question must assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned about the fate of human existence.
A deeper dialogue between neuroscience and society - indeed between all scientific fields and society - could help deepen our understanding of what it means to be human and our responsibilities for the natural world we share with other sentient beings.
Just as the world of business has been paying renewed attention to ethics, the world of science would benefit from more deeply considering the implications of its own work. Scientists should be more than merely technically adept; they should be mindful of their own motivation and the larger goal of what they do: the betterment of humanity.
Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is the author of "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality."
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 15:40:11. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:38:35 PM · #696 |
For those who can read and comprehend, I offer this:
From www.dictionary.com
om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
in·fi·nite
adj.
1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
Nothing in the dictionary about omnipotence being negated just because someone else has a smidgen of power. Nothing in there about omnipotence being defined as having all OF the Power, only as having unlimited or infinite power.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 15:39:47. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:41:58 PM · #697 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For those who can read and comprehend, I offer this:
From www.dictionary.com
om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
in·fi·nite
adj.
1. [/b]Having no boundaries or limits[/b].
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
Nothing in the dictionary about omnipotence being negated just because someone else has a smidgen of power. Nothing in there about omnipotence being defined as having all OF the Power, only as having unlimited or infinite power. |
Nonsense. God's power is limited by us having the power to choose. Power that is ours is not his, unless, as you seem to be suggesting, we are given power by God in order that we might choose to sin. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:42:51 PM · #698 |
| What some people question is whether "Free Will" is really free when it's known that one's actions are always subject to a Divine veto ... |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:43:32 PM · #699 |
General E thank you for posting such an interesting and thought provoking article.
P
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 03:56:44 PM · #700 |
Ron is caught in his own argument (again). If we have free will, then our choices are our own, independent decisions. In that aspect, God is limited. If he's NOT limited in that aspect (instead wielding infinite ability to direct our choices), then we don't have free will.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 15:57:16. |
|
