Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Noah Roberts (nroberts_at_dontemailme.com)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:54:12 -0800

Kevin Aylward wrote:

> That isn't the claim. The universe couldn't have been created by an all
> powerful god, as as already proved, such an all-powerful god can't
> logically exist. A lesser god, theoretically, could have, but so what?

I do realize you like to believe that your reasoning is unfallable.
However, there are numerous responses to the "proof" you put forth.
This includes my *valid* response that logic cannot apply to something
that won't be limited by the results of any logical argument...and many
more I am just learning about, it is rather fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

There are of course many more. A few hours research and an open mind do
wonders. Also it pays to go ask people who actually /know the subject/.

Finally, a "lesser" god is no less important. Do you love your parents?
  Are the omnipotent? So what is your point?

You have studied more than I in a few very specific areas. This does
not make you more intelligent for I could say the same about myself. For
instance, how long have you been studying martial arts? Computer
programming? Guitar playing you seem to have also learned more than
I... The point is that we are the same, and we are different and neither
one of us is better than the other. So I really wish you would stop
saying otherwise for it is an insult to both of our intelligences.

There are also those that seem to know more than you about your specific
area that don't agree with you about this particular question, and there
are those that do. In fact, us arguing about this is like a 1st grader
and a second grader arguing about the meaning of life.

The answer is not as cut and dry as you keep saying and your saying so
doesn't make it any more so. So I really wish you would stop saying it
because it is an insult to both of our intelligences.

There are MANY logicians that believe(d) in God. Some even believe(d)
in an omnipotent God. The omnipotence paradox is VERY old and is still
debated TO THIS DAY. You have not solved it; I have not solved it; it
is not likely to be solved for it is one of the problems that questions
our very method of thought.

That doesn't even bring into account the numerous different philosophies
of logic of which you are only applying one. In some forms of logic,
intuitive logic for example, "(P V ~P) = true" is not necissarily true
unless it is first proven so there would be no paradox. I have also had
it explained to me pretty adamantly that Godel's Completeness Theorem
doesn't apply the way it has been here; it was at least used
incorrectly. (I assume Godel, if I am wrong please point out another
'Completeness Theorem' so that I may go investigate - I think it was
Parse Tree that used it).

Yes, I have caught on to you guys. You are "logical bullies". You
smack logic into the middle of an argument that doesn't really have
anything to do with it and play it as a trump card, but when anyone
actually looks it's just a lowball club.

Do the research yourself if you don't believe me...and I challenge
everyone here to do the same. The things Kevin is saying are half
truths only (Parse Tree even less), please use google and read what you
find before taking anything said by face value, including what I say.

And my argument is not infallable either (though I am not sure it is
'invalid') yet it amazes me that none of you found the promlem, it was
me instead that did. It is totally logical, non-reationary, and has
nothing to do with me saing an unlimited being is unlimited by the rules
of logic. I am right, by definition it is not, and the more you rebel
against that the longer it will take you.

I think I will leave it for you to find on your own. Since you are so
smart and logical I think you can handle something this easy. And since
it was so hard for me, and you called me ignorant, I don't see why I
should just hand you more ammo to assault me with.

In the end it's just a stalemate, like always. I'm fine with
that...hopefully you can learn to be. Otherwise the only thing I can
say is, "Well, it sucks to be you."

http://www.soundclick.com/noahroberts/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Whos Who? Sock Puppet Summary??
    ... >>> Jesus was God in human body. ... saying it over and over doesn't make it true. ... > that you are reality challenged. ... > Go to groups.google.com and search for the thread "OT Onward Christian ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... Kevin Aylward wrote: ... > powerful god, as as already proved, such an all-powerful god can't ... saying otherwise for it is an insult to both of our intelligences. ... The answer is not as cut and dry as you keep saying and your saying so ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Philosophical Differences (Was Re: Conservative Patrilineal Descent)
    ... When Joel posted his reaction, that he thinks you're saying he's not ... Jewish, you responded by saying "goodbye" in 20 languages! ... terms of answering fundamental questions like: Why did God create us? ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Chez Watt Ballot August 4, 2008
    ... But to create a gland that secretes aspirin, ... to say, she is saying what I am saying, and we are all saying that, ... this eventuality in the history of Satan points to a fundamental flaw ... Did God check Satan's credentials thoroughly before hiring ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A crisis in prayer
    ... I guess I'm not being clear - I'm saying that, ... single contradiction in logic itself, then all of logic must be discarded ... we're not even applying logic to God - we're ... The logic of theodicy exists inside our universe. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading