I have always asserted god can exist (Except for logically contradicting definitions of god) So, yes, it would be circular if he attempted to use that as an argument for the existence of god, and not the mere possibility of existence. peace axeman
bearing in mind that you don't actually have a clear idea of what it is you are asserting has the possibility of existing... what a garbled creature this "god" is after 300 pages, we've agreed that SOMETHING, that we don't currently have a clear knowledge of, COULD exist! Progress!
Now back to important matters. How 'bout dem Yankees? _____________________ I No Longer Trade; Therefore I Am Solvent
I didn't say that because a being exists beyond our rational facutlies that it MUST be infinite. I have said that if there were an infinite and omnipotent being it could and would lie beyond our rational faculties.
Yes, if a God exists, it would be largely incomprehensible, or a "garbled creature" as you put it. You're starting to get it! I'm sorry if this is the first that you've considered that the universe, whether or not there is even a God, is for the most part vastly beyond our comprehension (we can only measure the objective universe with the limited and faulty logic and science that we have, which are based on unprovable assumptions, during the relatively short times that we exist (as a species and as individuals).
come off it 'Boat! i thought it was obvious i was being sarcastic. do you serioulsy think that i haven't considered all angles a milion times over? sheesh, what kind of idiot do you take me for! i think YOU are the one that is yet to "get it". stating that it is possible for "god" (that garbled creature) to exist is pretty much the same as me stating that it is possible for BLAHU to exist. what is BLAHU? i have no idea. exactly the same as you with your "god". btw, i love your choice of words: "largely incomprehensible". dude, do you have any conception of the need to maintain logical consistency when it comes to conveying meaning/knowledge? your "god" would be either incompehensible or it wouldn't. no middle ground there. again, if infinite, ipso facto, incomprehensible. not "largely" impcomprehensible, totally incomprehensible. why? because to understand something we need some kind of definition of what is we are talking about. but the moment you try to describe an infinite god, you limit him in some way, because if he is A, it means he doesn't possess the property of being NOT A, which, to be infinite, he would have to. therefore, totally incomprehensible. another thing you keep coming back to is Russells paradox. you obviously think this totally discredits mathematical logic. i could get into a very lengthy discussion of the flaws in that paradox, but for the moment i'll just say this. our rational faculty, our reliance upon reason, is inextricably linked with our brain's inherent quality of being a self-organizing system. without reason, we would not have been able to survive in this world. reason is our only method of understanding the world. from an epistemilogical point of view, reason is ALL that is required for the human organism to survive (and thrive). we have no NEED to look any further for information other than that which can be provided by reason (it doesn't even qualify as "information" if it cannot be logically grasped).
It is likely, as you suggest, that NO attribute of God would be comprehensible. However, it could be that some attributes (however small) are comprehensible, while others are not. You are seeing a contradiction where there isn't any. Most of the objective universe is incomprehensible to us, but we can comprehend (if any of what we know is accurate) some attributes of our universe. I didn't say that Russel's Paradox, discredits math. Not at all. I have said that Goedell's Theorema nd Russel's Paradox (along with other evidence from math and science itself) demonstrates that our logic systems are based upon unprovable assumptions, and that there are even fundamental contradictions. True, we don't NEED to look any further, but astronomists do so anyhow, as do some religious people (some look analytically and some don't). Considering what is possible and what is impossible about our universe, what we can know and what we can't, these do qualify as "information" in my view!!!
Ok I agree with the bulk of your assessment in this post axe, as well as your next one. I'm only going to go around on this a few more times. Essentially I'm taking the David Hume view of free will which paraphrasing is if I have the ability to choose or not choose then I have free will. So even if an omniscient god is (or isn't) able to see into my future I have free will if I am able to make my own choices. I don't believe this free will is an illusion, but that it is actual free will. Philosophers have argued about this for hundreds of years so I doubt we will come to a consensus any time soon. I would say that whether we really have free will or we think we have free will, the result is essentially the same: we have responsibility for our actions and our actions lead us on to the next event in our lives. The part that the scientific free will followers tend to minimilize is the fact that whether it is illusion or not, the actor is able to freely make his own choices. We may never know for sure if an omniscient being is actually watching us but we have to live as if we have free will even if we are rats in a maze. Let me ask those who think omniscience and free will are contradictory the following questions dealing with foreknowledge: If I know my son will always answer "pancakes" when I ask him what he wants for breakfast, do I remove his free will in this matter by asking him what he wants for breakfast? Is he indeed more free if I hadn't asked him at all? If you play a "choose your own adventure" game, are you exerting your free will or because the game's designer knows all the possible outcomes has he limited your free will in some way? (Ignore the fact that he doesn't know each choice you will make along the way but only the outcomes of each decision). If you are at a restaurant with your wife and she tells you she wants the salmon, has she limited her free will by telling you what she will order before the server takes your order? If she hadn't told you what she wanted in advance of placing the order would she have then retained her free will? Does this strike anyone but me as more than bit absurd?
tripack, i'm not at all sure what your examples are intended to prove. in all of those cases the possibility that the one "knowing" what the outcome is going to be COULD BE WRONG is inconsequential. the mother "knew" what the child wanted for breakfast, but, drat, the kid changed his mind, so the mother was wrong. and that's ok. what is not ok, is for GOD to be wrong. if he says he knows exactly what i will do in the future, and he is NEVER WRONG - pay attention, cos this is the major point - then i have no choice at all but to take the kinds of actions that would result in that future. god can't be wrong. that is the crux of this issue. (mind you, to ME it would certain appear that i am exercising free choices, but in reality i would be just going through predetermined motions.) if he knows what is going to be, then it MUST be. in that case free will is indeed an illusion. this is really elementary stuff. i think the only reason that you are failing to grasp it is because of your need to maintain consistency with wanting free will, and an infallible god.
In the context that you are describing this, and ONLY that context, this is not a true comparison. You made an educated guess on what your child would say. No, your wife still made a decision, and your wife can still change her mind. These are not the same as a creator KNOWING what will happen in the future with the beings that it created. If it knows the future (in the very human like context we are putting this God, which is the same flaw as the bible), then this God must've pre-programmed its creations this way. The future was pre-determined if it MUST happen a certain way. Thus there is no choice. However, I do not believe that free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive because if there is an omniscient God, it's omniscience could exist through a separate space and time, and in a realm outside our comprehension.