(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists must necessarily be pieces of omniscient omnipotent creator

[LOGICZOMBIE]

(IFF) OOC is considered "perfect" (THEN) the created must necessarily be "perfect"​

 

[Puffy]

Personally I agree with both the thread title and the OP. My understanding is that it’s quite a traditional take reflected in a lot of culture's spirituality.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Personally I agree with both the thread title and the OP. My understanding is that it’s quite a traditional take reflected in a lot of culture's spirituality.

it seems ridiculously obvious

i'm not sure why there seems to be so much resistance to the claim

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

if he omnipotent creator= exists(then) he can create everything from nothing without using his pieces

not exactly - - even ex nihilo - - the created is necessarily 100% powered and controlled by OOC - - making it de facto "pieces of OOC"

the created is necessarily (100%) the manifest will of OOC

 

[Black Rose]

In my view "motion" requires a place to move into.

Voids must be somewhere for particles to go and leave.

I also think that everything can feel.

There is no such thing as dualism in my view.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

There is no such thing as dualism in my view.

MONISM 4 EVAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Old Things]

Clearly, things are not perfect. And I think it is necessary for God to exist. Why? It can simply be stated as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" And it is not necessary for God's creation to be "part" of God. Otherwise, it defeats the idea that God is all-powerful.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

And it is not necessary for God's creation to be "part" of God.

the created is necessarily (100%) the manifest will of OOC

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Clearly, things are not perfect.

are humans truly qualified to determine the quality of OOC's craftsmanship ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

And I think it is necessary for God to exist.

there may be an argument for "necessary creator" (if improperly framed)

but suggesting any sort of "mind" and or "personality" to this "necessary creator"

is an astronomical leap

 

[dr froyd]

why does it matter what qualifiers you put on the creator? isn't this just saying "if x creates y then y is piece of x"

 

[Black Rose]

why does it matter what qualifiers you put on the creator? isn't this just saying "if x creates y then y is piece of x"

If there is a void and something pops into the void, what separates the void from the thing created?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

why does it matter what qualifiers you put on the creator? isn't this just saying "if x creates y then y is piece of x"

basically


(iff) only x exists (and) x creates y (then) y is a piece of x

 

[Black Rose]

why does it matter what qualifiers you put on the creator? isn't this just saying "if x creates y then y is piece of x"

basically


(iff) only x exists (and) x creates y (then) y is a piece of x

can voids be made into pieces?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If there is a void and something pops into the void, what separates the void from the thing created?

there is no "void"

"nothingness" can only exist "nowhere" at "no time" and have "no shape" and "no size"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

can voids be made into pieces?

a "void" cannot exist

 

[Black Rose]

can voids be made into pieces?

a "void" cannot exist

Then where do things move into for motion to happen?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Then where do things move into for motion to happen?

the higgs field

 

[Black Rose]

Then where do things move into for motion to happen?

the higgs field

so space exists for objects to move into,

I'd call that space a void because otherwise everything just stops

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

so space exists for objects to move into,

ok, does "space" have a size ?

because if it has a size, then it can't be "nothingness"


when you talk about something "popping into the void"


are you referring to "creatio ex nihilo" ?

 

[Black Rose]

so space exists for objects to move into,

ok, does "space" have a size ?

because if it has a size, then it can't be "nothingness"


when you talk about something "popping into the void"


are you referring to "creatio ex nihilo" ?

If we have objects that are around us,

and those objects are moving,

then relative to their finite existence,

the space around them is endless.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

the space around them is endless.

this is demonstrably false

any object that demarcates the "edge of empty space"

is demonstration of a BOUNDARY

and

"infinite"

literally means "without boundary"


in other words


any "thing" truly "infinite" would necessarily obliterate everything else in existence

 

[Black Rose]

the space around them is endless.

this is demonstrably false

any object that demarcates the "edge of empty space"

is demonstration of a BOUNDARY

and

"infinite"

literally means "without boundary"


in other words


any "thing" truly "infinite" would necessarily obliterate everything else in existence

so you get destroyed if you go past the edge of the universe?

I have thought of this and the reason things exist in the first place is because of boundaries. Without boundaries, we cannot say where one thing begins and another thing ends. Motion happens because of boundary shifts. It may be possible to define this mathematically.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

so you get destroyed if you go past the edge of the universe?

outside of the higgs field, matter ceases to have mass and loses coherence

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I have thought of this and the reason things exist in the first place is because of boundaries. Without boundaries, we cannot say where one thing begins and another thing ends. Motion happens because of boundary shifts. It may be possible to define this mathematically.

everyTHING is finite

 

[Black Rose]

@LOGICZOMBIE

is there a reason things can move,

why is it they don't just stop?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

is there a reason things can move,

energy transfer

every movement has a cause

but a cause is not the same as a "reason"

 

[ZenRaiden]

I do not subscribe to any creation myth.

I leave the question of GOD and his nature open ended.

 

[Black Rose]

is there a reason things can move,

energy transfer

every movement has a cause

but a cause is not the same as a "reason"

transfer is what Leibniz called transposition

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I do not subscribe to any creation myth.

no big bang ?

 

[ZenRaiden]

no big bang ?

No I don't subscribe to Big Bang yet. Not enough science behind it imo.

 

[Old Things]

the created is necessarily (100%) the manifest will of OOC

Will is not the same thing as being. I can control what I do with my air conditioner; the air conditioner is not of the same essence as myself.

are humans truly qualified to determine the quality of OOC's craftsmanship ?

You seem to complain about "The Jews" a lot. So you are contradicting yourself.

 

[Old Things]

no big bang ?

No I don't subscribe to Big Bang yet. Not enough science behind it imo.

I find you to be a generally peaceable person. But man, you've got some really weird views.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I just want to add that from a language perspective, saying omniscient and omnipotent is redundant.

Omnipotent implies omniscience, omniscient implies mere knowledge, not the power.

I'm not sure I understand whats the hubbub though.

If there is a God, are they hard coded into the Universe? I would say unlikely?

That said, we are all made of the same matter and from the same point of space and time, so it really doesn't matter what you think, we are all made of the same shit.

 

[scorpiomover]

Omnipresence = "it is everywhere" => "everything that is anywhere is in it"

 

[scorpiomover]

the space around them is endless.

this is demonstrably false

any object that demarcates the "edge of empty space"

is demonstration of a BOUNDARY

and

"infinite"

literally means "without boundary"


in other words


any "thing" truly "infinite" would necessarily obliterate everything else in existence

Almost.

Anything that is totally infinite, without any boundaries, would also be without boundaries in space, and thus would exist either everywhere or nowhere. If nowhere, the object would not exist in the first place to be totally infinite. So if a totally infinite being exists, it would exist everywhere, and thus be omnipresent.

However, matter excludes other matter due to the Pauli exclusion principle, but energy does not exclude other energy. So there's no strict rule that 2 objects cannot exist in the same place.

E. G. If one of the objects is much bigger than the other, e.g. a cell in a human body, then it is correct to say that the human fills the entire space inside his skin, while the cells in his body also exist inside the human.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No I don't subscribe to Big Bang yet. Not enough science behind it imo.

skeptical spectacles

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

However, matter excludes other matter due to the Pauli exclusion principle, but energy does not exclude other energy. So there's no strict rule that 2 objects cannot exist in the same place.

unless you stipulate that one of those objects is "infinite"

which would inevitably lead to the obliteration of all other "non-infinite" objects

not bounded by time

not bounded by space

not bounded by mass

not bounded by energy

not bounded by concept


funny enough i watched an interview with alex oconnor and william lane craig last night and they both agreed that an "actual infinite" of anything is fully incompatible with what we observe and experience