Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, panther said: Can god go from being all powerful, to non powerful? your argument is similar to this, you are arguing for an impossibility. How is it impossible ? If i am all-powerful, then i have the choice to do whatever i want. This includes the choice to give up power to become non-powerful. And that is not my argument. My argument is simple- you have not shown a single reason why there cannot be more than 1 infinitely powerful & all-knowing being, since IF this being has infinite powers, it has the power to clone itself.
panther Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 Convergence does put a limit on god, the fact that they can't disagree with each other is a limit, this is simply impossible for an all powerful God. His power is with respect to what is possible, God can not stop being God that is simply logically impossible. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Deucalion 1
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, panther said: Convergence does put a limit on god, the fact that they can't disagree with each other is a limit, this is simply impossible for an all powerful God. His power is with respect to what is possible, God can not stop being God that is simply logically impossible. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk They can disagree. They just won't. Its like saying you can disagree that 1+1 =2, but you won't. If his power is with respect to what is possible, then it is also possible for God to stop being God if he was infinitely powerful. Or else he cannot do something (which is stop being God), which means there is a limit to his power. You can't say God is all-powerful and then say its impossible for him to do something (which is stop being God, which is also doing something). You are also saying that God cannot clone himself, thus he isn't all powerful. The moment you say 'God cannot...' then God isn't all powerful. Because all-powerful means he can do whatever conceivable. Its sad that such questions are found abundantly discussed in Christianity but not its less intellectual cousin, Islam. Edited October 10, 2016 by Muloghonto
Adi_91 Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 7 hours ago, Deucalion said: munnay, are you trying to talk to me ? Yes, ofc, you are the keyboardwarrior from Pakistan. Nobody can be you, come on.
Vilander Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, panther said: Convergence does put a limit on god, the fact that they can't disagree with each other is a limit, this is simply impossible for an all powerful God. His power is with respect to what is possible, God can not stop being God that is simply logically impossible. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk All that you say is because you think one religion preaches one god and the other preaches multiple. But the truth that is said in the high philosophy of vedic hinduism is that God is perfect and is the uncaused cause of all that exists and that God is beyond the realm of being and does not define thyself as being one or many, there is nothing that you can say or think or read out of a text that can controvert this very truth. Religion minus the texts and their interpretation is spirituality, the esoteric. thats what a true seeker should be after. Edited October 11, 2016 by Vilander
Muloghonto Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Vilander said: All that you say is because you think one religion preaches one god and the other preaches multiple. But the truth that is said in the high philosophy of vedic hinduism is that God is perfect and is the uncaused cause of all that exists and that God is beyond the realm of being and does not define thyself as being one or many, there is nothing that you can say or think or read out of a text that can controvert this very truth. Religion minus the texts and their interpretation is spirituality, the esoteric. thats what a true seeker should be after. He says these things, not because Islam says these things. No holy book truly explores 'infinity', which is what 'almighty/all-knowing' means. He says these things because Islam has a poor understanding and exploring the concept of infinity, mostly because they are not allowed to 'question' what is God/attributes of God. They cannot think, for example, that if God is 'all-powerful', then he can also create an all-powerful being. Therefore, something all-powerful can be created. In such discourse (what is all-powerful, what is omniscient and how it relates to sin, salvation,etc) Christianity is far superior and nuanced than Islam. Vilander 1
panther Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 He says these things, not because Islam says these things. No holy book truly explores 'infinity', which is what 'almighty/all-knowing' means. He says these things because Islam has a poor understanding and exploring the concept of infinity, mostly because they are not allowed to 'question' what is God/attributes of God. They cannot think, for example, that if God is 'all-powerful', then he can also create an all-powerful being. Therefore, something all-powerful can be created. In such discourse (what is all-powerful, what is omniscient and how it relates to sin, salvation,etc) Christianity is far superior and nuanced than Islam. I have read about the attributes of God by Muslim scholars and they list those attributes which God must have by necessity otherwise he would not be God. A created being can not be all powerful, anything created can not be all powerful that is pretty easy to understand. Because creating an all powerful is impossible it does not mean God is not all powerful, it is simply logic that anything created can not be all powerful. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Deucalion 1
Muloghonto Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, panther said: I have read about the attributes of God by Muslim scholars and they list those attributes which God must have by necessity otherwise he would not be God. A created being can not be all powerful, anything created can not be all powerful that is pretty easy to understand. Because creating an all powerful is impossible it does not mean God is not all powerful, it is simply logic that anything created can not be all powerful. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Their list is flawed if they consider God cannot do something, because then God is not all-powerful. I have just proven to you how a created being can be all-powerful. If God cloned himself, the clone would be created AND all-powerful. Otherwise, God cannot clone himself and therefore, he is not God, coz he can't do something. if creating an all-powerful being is impossible, then God cannot create an all-powerful being. Therefore, God cannot do something, therefore, he isn't all-powerful. That should be pretty simple to understand. This is straight-progression logic, not a circular logic of 'Can God build something so heavy that he himself cannot lift it', which is a logical conundrum argument.
panther Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 All that you say is because you think one religion preaches one god and the other preaches multiple. But the truth that is said in the high philosophy of vedic hinduism is that God is perfect and is the uncaused cause of all that exists and that God is beyond the realm of being and does not define thyself as being one or many, there is nothing that you can say or think or read out of a text that can controvert this very truth. Religion minus the texts and their interpretation is spirituality, the esoteric. thats what a true seeker should be after. I don't know about Hinduism but The Quran constantly mentions about God being one with no partners, and that making partners with God is the greatest sin. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Deucalion 1
Vilander Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 9 hours ago, Muloghonto said: He says these things, not because Islam says these things. No holy book truly explores 'infinity', which is what 'almighty/all-knowing' means. He says these things because Islam has a poor understanding and exploring the concept of infinity, mostly because they are not allowed to 'question' what is God/attributes of God. They cannot think, for example, that if God is 'all-powerful', then he can also create an all-powerful being. Therefore, something all-powerful can be created. In such discourse (what is all-powerful, what is omniscient and how it relates to sin, salvation,etc) Christianity is far superior and nuanced than Islam. understood. And hence the less evolved honor shame scale vs the sin redemption one.
Vilander Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, panther said: I don't know about Hinduism but The Quran constantly mentions about God being one with no partners, and that making partners with God is the greatest sin. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk In Vedic Hinduism God is mentioned as omnipresent and perfect. Meaning you before you your dad before him his granddad and before everyone God who is perfect enough that it was created without a cause so inessence God is the uncaused cause of all that exists. The pantheon of Hindu gods of Sanatana Dharma are observed as positions served by several beings. I dont find much difference between the esoteric side of Islam and Hinduism. Saying all that it also feels world is beyond reconciliation from the bad effects of religion though.
panther Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 In Vedic Hinduism God is mentioned as omnipresent and perfect. Meaning you before you your dad before him his granddad and before everyone God who is perfect enough that it was created without a cause so inessence God is the uncaused cause of all that exists. The pantheon of Hindu gods of Sanatana Dharma are observed as positions served by several beings. I dont find much difference between the esoteric side of Islam and Hinduism. Saying all that it also feels world is beyond reconciliation from the bad effects of religion though. That is not problamtic In Islam we belive there have been more than 1 lakh prophets who all were monotheist, and Adam religion was monotheism. However Islam rejects the pantheon of God's that Hindus belive in. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
zen Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 20 minutes ago, panther said: However Islam rejects the pantheon of God's that Hindus belive in. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Islam can reject wharever it wants but pls dont expect others to see that as truth as well
panther Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 Islam can reject wharever it wants but pls dont expect others to see that as truth as well Of course not otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk zen 1
vayuu1 Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 That is not problamtic In Islam we belive there have been more than 1 lakh prophets who all were monotheist, and Adam religion was monotheism. However Islam rejects the pantheon of God's that Hindus belive in. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk The problem is, not many Hindus know that there are 3 principles of Hinduism That is Monotheism (one god parabrahman) Polytheism (five principle god (trinity +devi and ganesha ) Atheism (non believers) Also the no of devas is not 330 million but rather there are 33 types of demigod or devas 12 Adityas 11 rudras 8 vasus 2 ashwini kumaras Then there is lokpala and digpala ,so@panther Hinduism has place for all 3 sections unlike Abrahamic religions. Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk
Vilander Posted October 11, 2016 Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, panther said: That is not problamtic In Islam we belive there have been more than 1 lakh prophets who all were monotheist, and Adam religion was monotheism. However Islam rejects the pantheon of God's that Hindus belive in. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk At the cost of derailing the thread further, i would indulge a bit more. Its semantics. What you call prophets we call avatars. The basic problem is Abrahamic religions need reassurance in conformance, Vedic Hinduism does not seek it. The fact that many modern reformists and their samaj' who have adopted vedic hinduism also do not profess the myriad gods of Sanatanis if i can use that term to describe (not that anything is wrong with it), they preach to each his/her own, that is the marked difference. Tolerance,is is the fundamental essence of Dharmic religions.
Muloghonto Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Finer said: God can and God cannot clone doesn't change that it is still God. Even if God does clone which God can by the way, but the clone God is not God at all. It is not real as God. It is cloned God that copied the real God down to the last details. At the end, it boils down to 1+1=1; not 2 concerning the matter of clone. Therefore, it defeats the purpose of having clone God to begin with. Even Bhagvad Gita agrees with the popular opinion that there is only ONE ALL-POWERFUL GOD in the worlds. If God clones himself, then his clone and him have identical powers. And once the cloning process is complete, the clone is just as real as God. Bhagavad Gita, along with all other religious books, were written by stone-age/iron-age men with very little actual knowledge. This is why as Nietzche (a 19th century philosopher) shows us, 'all powerful' is impossible. Because there are certain phenomenal relationships that are linked by 'either/or' relations. Ie, control over one gives up control over another and control over both is impossible, because they are inverse relations. A perfect example is, 'can God make a mountain so heavy he himself cannot lift it'. This is an 'OR' relationship between the two phenomena and you cannot exert control over both aspects. This is why 'all powerful' is just wishful and ignorant thinking. Nothing can be all-powerful. The idea of 'one God' exists simply as a simplification process. Because if you acknowledge multiple omniscient beings, then you have to describe the relationship between them (their interaction) and it quickly shows us that 'all powerful/uncreated' is just straight-up logical nonsense. Because as i've demonstrated through this thread and our Islamist friend here has bowed out without providing a counter (for a counter doesnt exist logically), there is nothing in the definition of 'all powerful/all knowing' that makes it applicable to only ONE being. The same way the bible/Koran/Gita describes 'all powerful/all knowing' can be applied to dozens of entities simultaneously, without violating the principle of all-powerful and all-knowing as defined by these religions.
Muloghonto Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 2 hours ago, Finer said: Except it is still clone. Its source is same; singular source. What is the use of having clone when you have real God....:--D What use of a clone, it depends on God. Read the whole thread. My point in bringing in the 'Gods clone' idea, was to prove to your muslim buddy that 'all powerful and all knowing' can be created. It can be created because if God just cloned himself, his clone would be all-knowing/all-powerful and created. Quote The religious books explains the beyond the wonder of miracles which has been historically witnessed throughout the history of mankind whereas for the understanding of philosopher is based on what he has observed which is pretty much ended with small scope of observant into account. We are talking about multiverses. All the signs and explanations have been mentioned in the great deals in Holy Scriptures by illiterate people with very little knowledge to none suggest it couldn't have been from them which also strengthens the point that indeed all those knowledge are from ALL-POWERFUL GOD ALONE. None of that has been 'witnessed'. it has been 'claimed'. There is zero difference between claiming God and claiming the tooth fairy. Both are claims of people, both have 0% empiric evidence to support itself. The entire reason the Koran/Bible/Gita are creations of illiterate people is because they state illogical & inconsistent concepts in it, something only illiterate people can do. because if the Koran/Bible were indeed divinely inspired, i wouldn't be able to find numerous flaws and multiple interpretations in it. Like i said, think logically. There are many things that are related to each other by an 'OR' relationship. ( i am assuming you have some basic understanding of boolean algebra, otherwise this is going to be lost on you). Eg: Can you make an object so shiny that you go blind looking at it. This supposition has a fundamental 'or' relationship in it: you can either keep your eyesight and not make something shiny enough to make you blind. Or you can make something shiny enough and go blind. This is an 'or' relationship. You cannot 'make a thing so shiny that you go blind but not go blind'. That is logically IMPOSSIBLE. The same logic, applies to God. Can he make a rock so heavy he cant lift it himself ? The answer is either 'yes, he can make a rock so heavy he cant lift it' or 'he cannot make a rock so heavy that he cant lift it'. There is a fundamental 'can't' in either solution, so therefore, God cannot be 'all-powerful'. This is basic inductive logic. Since these illiterates like Mohammed or John/Peter/Paul/Whoever wrote the Gita basically had the same level of understanding of science, math and the universe as a 7 year old today, they make illogical and impossible claims, such as an 'all-powerful God'. You cannot be all-powerful, because the presence of 'or relations phenomena' makes it so that you MUST be able to do either one or the other, but not both. Quote Why should i acknowledge multiple omniscient beings where there is only ONE OMNISCIENT BEING. As historically proved documented by every religions including the documented report on the space suggest it couldn't have been more than ONE MULTIPLE OMNISCIENT BEING. Otherwise, the multiverses will be in same conditions as the earth which is boiled down with litter kings, presidents, governments fighting over the same resources, influences and whatnot. You have no proof that there is only one omniscient being. You just have a claim, from a book or two. FYI, there are plenty of hindu books, Roman books, Greek books, Egyptian books who claim more than one omniscient being. And like i said, read the bloody thread before repeating de-bunked points. If you and I are both all-knowing, it means we know all possible permutations and combinations for a given process. If we are all-powerful (or rather, as powerful as possible), then we have no desires, we have everything we want. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing being is extremely likely to agree with another all-knowing, all-powerful being. Therefore, there is no 'fighting over the same resources/influence/whatnot' because these are all-knowing/all-powerful beings, not beings who are competing with each other for something they want (which is what all our presidents and politicians are). The only reason two (or more) all-knowing, all-powerful beings would fight,is if they disagree. And there is no logical reason why they would EVER disagree, so there is no 'infighting' either. And even if there is, they are perfectly neutralized by each other because they all know the same stuff and have the same power. My point is simple- there is NOTHING in the definition of all-knowing, all-powerful that logically says 'it can be only one entity and not multiple entities with the said attribute'. i also proved how you can have such multiple 'all-knowing, all-powerful' entities: God just has to clone himself to get multiple all knowing, all powerful entities.
Muloghonto Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Finer said: No, ALL-POWERFUL GOD cannot be created. Only ALL-POWERFUL GOD can clone ITSELF. No one can clone ALL-POWERFUL GOD. Hence singularity source. It boils down to the original source eventually. That's why there is ONLY ONE ORIGINAL ALL-POWERFUL GOD. Clone is clone which is possible if ALL-POWERFUL GOD clones ITSELF. That means the power is still with ALL-POWERFUL GOD only. No one else can. In fact, ALL-POWERFUL GOD doesn't need to. Why? ALL-POWERFUL GOD has to do is command "Be and It is". Just like we use the command 'Enter' on keyboard to enter the destination. Again, the source tracks back to ALL-POWERFUL GOD ALONE. You are wrong. As i said, if Powerful God is represented by 'x', cloning 'x' = 'x'. All-powerful God can clone itself, since that would be 'required ability' for an 'allpowerful god'. And by definition of the word 'clone', the moment a clone of 'god' is created, it is exactly equal to power, ability and knowledge as God. Or else it is not a 'clone'. The point of the clone argument, is to prove that 'all-powerful and all knowing' can be 'created entities', since they can be created by the first 'all powerful, all knowing' entity in the first place. What/why/how (motivations) of the all-powerful entity is irrelevant to this point. It is simple. Do you agree or disagree that God has the power to create an identical copy of itself with all its own power and knowledge.
Muloghonto Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Finer said: That's why we rely on the understanding we have observed so far. We have to stick with the consistent narrative to make it easier to understand. Loophole is found only if there is no consistency here. Like for examples, every religious scriptures promotes Monotheism meaning WORSHIP TO ONE GOD ONLY. Every religions say that, even Bhagvad Gita too. You will pardon me, if i trust the 'understanding of observable phenomena' of people who thought having a seizure was symptomatic of messages of God or a burning bush speaking to it is a sign of God. Its not a coincidence that these evidence of 'miracles' have crashed to ZERO the moment we've discovered recordable video system. What those stone-age men observed was natural phenomena of some type or another - physiological in the case of Mo and ran to incorrect and unscientific conclusions based on 'God delusion'. Quote Go ahead and find some flaws in Holy Quran and then we can have debate to continue. By the way, how did illiterate man know there was moon split into half which was later confirmed with evidence 1400 years later with the help of technology? That question the mankind is still yet to be answered though. There are plenty of flaws in the Koran. it implies that the sun is driven around, that it 'settles in a muddy place' and several other stuff that is 'fairytale style unicorns and demons' stuff. Your Koran also calls stars are missiles shot at the devil for example. This is the same level of tomfoolery as 'comets are signs of God' type of mumbo-jumbo. Oh as for the moon being formed from the earth- that is an obvious guess. incase you didnt notice, the moon is close enough to look like 'something like earth' and there are plenty of blasted places on this planet that look like the moon - pock marked, cratered, scarred, etc. Not a massive 'divine idea' that moon was formed from the same material as the earth. On the other and, if God could've told us the value of Pi via Mohammed, accurate to the 100th decimal place, or told us anything freaking mathematical that is completely out of the place, it'd have been the most bloody obvious proof of divine glory. Like, math is the universal language of science and saying effusive 'palmistry type nonsense' double-talk that is Koran and other holy books is a charlatan's game. Couldn't God just have saved himself 30 pages worth of 'look how the Koran is divine' by giving us a math equation for Chaos theory or partial differential equations with negative numbers or something ? As far as i am concerned, i am more inclined to believe in God by something like the Fermat's last theorem than your stone-age mumbo-jumbo about divinity.
Recommended Posts