View Single Post
Old 2nd June 2010, 05:21 PM
Lion IRC Lion IRC is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 129
Default Re: An Omnipotent and Omniscient god is logical : Lion IRC vs Davo

Post # 3

Oh dear. The water is getting deeper in this debate.

Yesterday I introduced details of the first of three themes I will be taking up in this debate – The inseparable relatedness of omnipotence and omniscience. I have also already stated the fundamental points which lead us to this point.

1. The wiki page is just is a point of view. There could be 10,000 people who agree with it or just 1 – its author. There are certainly more than 10,000 who disagree as well. (God exists therefore the paradox must not be real)

2. You do not have to be a theist or an atheist to address the topic. It does not have to be an AvT agenda. We are talking about a concept.

3. The side of the argument I support can be won just as easily as the side Davo supports can be lost. I don’t need to (but I can) prove that my position is logical simply by showing that his is illogical. Someone who claims this is not so does not regard logical and illogical as opposites.

Now, in phase two, I am going to wade into the murky depths of what knowledge actually is. The grey areas. The subjective areas.

But first a couple of asides. (Yes, Davo and I are entitled to a little banter and good natured jibes sprinkled in amongst the substance of the debate.)

Never proof read AFTER you have already posted. You will always see things you want to change. I flick myself on the cheek for proof reading while at work and rushing to post but I expect that the eyes of intelligent reader probably edited the obvious mistakes and other people probably didn’t even notice. (eg Dave/Davo) Its OK. I make similar errors in live debates. With oral debates sometimes people at the back can’t hear what you say anyway. The last thing I would want is for people to think “he’s cutting and pasting from somewhere else”. No this is me – warts and all.

Nonetheless, since there was an unsolicited request from the audience along the lines of …”I can’t hear you” I WILL make my paragraphs shorter.

After this debate I will ask Davo if he would like to re-submit to me via PM any or all his posts with the ability to make any final edits and airbrush out any parts deemed imperfect or faulty with the benefit of hindsight. And me likewise to him. Not to add items we forgot but to polish what we did and fix up the few instances where we may have felt….”beg” was better than “implore” or “might be” was better than “must be” etc.

Now, my reference to Davo as Puzzle was not a personal attack. Puzzle is a sympathetic character in the book and the nasty Shift preys on Puzzles misguided loyalty. When the reader finds out that the deception (sham paradox) perpetrated by that ugly Ape (Iron Chariot Wiki) amounts to cruelty against a kind and innocent animal (a Donkey named Puzzle) I hope this will be accepted in good faith. (Do atheists use words like bona fide and con fide?)

At the very least, readers might appreciate that I am trying to help Davo save face by demonstrating that we are about arguing someone else’s dubious wiki claim for which he should not be held responsible.

Cynics might also contemplate that I am using the …”its just a wiki” approach as a gambit tactic to tempt him into claiming… “no it isn’t, most people – most really smart people – most really smart Scottish people all agree with that wiki”.

The final house keeping point I must make is that when I want to address a claim made by Davo I make a point to state his name as the originator of the claim.

If, in the course of an argument I say for example, “it may be claimed that Omnipotence is….blah blah blah” that is simply a rhetorical device.

So onwards we go.

Into the “quantum weirdness” of knowledge.

Into the Zen of knowledge.

Into the world…nay, the universe…nay, the multiverse of awareness of enlightenment - information - consciousness – sentience – satori.

And I would like to begin with a Zen-like challenge to you, the reader and Davo to ask yourselves…”how full is your cup of knowledge?”

You may have been like the novice Zen monk whose mouth began to move before they even fully comprehended the question. Did you answer quickly and instinctively to try and impress your Zen master with your “knowledge? – poor you! Beware of Master Huang-po’s bamboo cane*. Did you answer without even drawing from your overflowing cup of knowledge? Perhaps you answered by saying nothing because you are more greatly enlightened than the person asking you the question and you “pursue not the outer entanglements” nor “dwell on the inner voids” but are “serene in the oneness of things.”*
*SeeThe Golden Age of Zen: Zen Masters of the T'Ang Dynasty By John C. H. Wu, Jingxiong Wu
* See the writings of 6th century Zen patriarch Seng-ts'an

The Zen Koans show in a very lovely way, that attempting to define “all knowledge” in an empirical way is as slippery a task as trying to define matter. And so we leave the Zen Masters and move on to the Dreamers of Physics.

Who here, knowing (thinking we know) about Werner Heisenberg, could possibly argue that “alternative choices” equals a LACK of knowledge? Knowledge that a “thing” is not as predictable as first thought is STILL knowledge.

The HUP was hailed as a discovery. An omniscient being must surely “know” about Quantum “weirdness”. Is the HUP a “paradox”? No. If it represents Truth - even though it appears “Gonzo” it is automatically a part of the T.O.E. which God calls the Unified Knowledge of Everything.

In order to assert something “scientific” about Omniscience we must, of course, as scientific and rational empiricists be able to demonstrate some facts about Omniscience. But what are the facts about “knowledge”. Is it a tree from which we pick fruit that we can’t properly digest and can never fill our “cups”?

Are there 2 cups full of knowledge from which the Omniscient Being can choose? One cup being the knowledge about math’s and science and the other cup being full of the knowledge of ethics and morality? Does the internal dialogue in our heads about which cup of “knowledge” we will and won’t use in any particular case detract from our 2 cup omniscience?

I asserted in my last post that Omniscience is linked to the dynamism manifest in Omnipotence. That the two are joined as mechanism and agent are joined. I stated that. ”We observe dynamic omniscience in the ability of the actual Being which possesses that knowledge DIRECTLY from the related and corresponding dynamic omnipotence of that Being”