Log in

Discussion fodder. - Atheists United [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Atheist Nation: Enter the Realm of Logic

[ Community Profile | livejournal userinfo ]
[ Real Records | journal archive ]

Discussion fodder. [Jan. 14th, 2007|01:16 pm]
Atheist Nation: Enter the Realm of Logic
[Tags|, ]

Hello to all,
Mavin here aka Dash

There's been some talk (over on YouTube anyway) about the logicality of an omnipotent being and this being's ability to limit itself because it has 'all-abilities'.

Some people argue that it can limit itself but there's no way back once it does that.

Some say it can't and that contradicts its title as 'omnipotent' or 'all-powerful'.

Basically, the topic here is this: The ability of the omnipotent to do the impossible. And how the 'impossible' fails to remain impossible after that.

Discussion is now open.

Note: The 'christian' god is not only defined as omnipotent, but omniscient and omnipresent. Some other terms used to describe the christian god include: all-merciful, all-benevolent, everlasting, almighty, all-knowing, unchanging, ever-present, etc

The issue I have with these 'definitions' is that they are contradictory in many more ways than one. And even more so when used in terms of the christian god's relationship to humans and the human condition in general.

I know this community has other members besides myself and I'd really like to observe your take on this.

If you have no experience with christianity and the bible, it is understandable. However, please do share what you know. I am aware that many other religions don't try to compact their 'beings and deities' into one body. But the majority of the world population isn't hindu or whatever. The two larest are christianity and islam so bear with me if these discussions tend to veer in those directions. :)

Okay folks...begin the yakfest.


[User Picture]From: mpierce6117
2009-06-22 02:20 am (UTC)


Hey Mavin,

I'd honestly like to hear more of your perspective. I'm definately interested in knowing the "why" of some of your statements. I certaintly am not here to debate you but to simply dialogue with you my friend.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: linkgotham
2009-07-28 06:22 pm (UTC)

Re: Okay

Hello mpierce6117, sorry for the later reply. It would help this new discourse if you would be so kind as to specify for which of my statements you would like clarification.

For the most general aspect of my perspective, this is intended to be a purely logical type of examination. Granted, humans are feeling creatures in which logic is more often the aftertaste of emotion, or logic is the attempt to ascribe meaning, intent or shape to emotions.

So I don't primarily aim to rile up emotions, but to consider the logic of certain social belief systems which are indeed rooted in emotions.

My curiosity stems away from certain belief systems that historically might have been initiated to aid humanity, but have been over time, corrupted so as to be used as tools for control, power etc and thus are now a hampering agent on social progress because they are still perpetuated via archaic law-molding. Perhaps there is also some account to be taken for the social shift of perspective on the dynamics of the being human in relation to all things.

Further more, being that religion in the most simplistic and purest of forms, is based in emotion, and sciences for the most part are founded in logical derivations of emotions and experience, the important questions ceases to be about 'right' and 'wrong' as these terms are highly subjective to context and any variety of factors.

Thus, if right and wrong are subjective anyway, then the focus can be about 'what'. So along the same vein, I am intending to explore what the purpose of being human is. Where humans are feeling creatures by default, many socio-political and religious community constructs in one way or another work to stymie rather than encourage this aspect of humanity. Many social rules are designed to essentially force people to live only by presumed logic, when logic is as I have mentioned, the aftereffects of feelings, sensations...the very aspects of life and experience that defines a person.

So, if I have not lost you, this is the context by which I'm presenting my prior statements. It would seem that there wants to be no bridge between logical analysis (or post analysis) and emotional experience. It is my general stance that the emotional state is an amalgamation of thoughts which are generated based on sensations felt constantly.

As such, a human being is constantly feeling, thoughts are constantly being generated and the logical processes necessary to make habitual sense of it all are important in considering the meaning to life. Meaning, which varies from individual to individual.

In this context, then a different criteria can be appreciated for what exactly is a 'good' human.

It would seem then that the saying ought to be "Feel good, so you can do good", rather than "Do good so you can feel good." Because then, what feels good is naturally obvious (but it's not all cut and dry, quite frankly, the possibilities are endless). What is good however depends on the individual and requires some other predetermined context when the individual is meshed into a group. Though the individual doesn't cease to be an individual. Just like an apple in a barrel is still an apple onto itself.

Historically, humans have the social habit of grouping up, only to become closed or exclusive of others. Whatever the context of such grouping is, the pros/cons of some kinds of groups are thereafter in competition with others. In any group the spirit of the individual (or what makes one tick) may be curtailed to fit more neatly with the groups ideals. Sometimes this is progressive, other times, it is problematic.

Still, the subjectivity of right and wrong or any logical dichotomy for that matter prevails simply because the possible feelings that can be associated with such dichotomies are endless and fundamentally unique to the individual.

I'll pause here in case you'd like to get a word in.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)