From: Walter Watts (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Jun 12 2002 - 11:29:26 MDT
Kinda reminds me of an old Joe Dees post!(below)
To which Joe Dees responded:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only are they logically flawed (for instance,)
1) it is impossible for both omniscience (all-knowingness) and omnipotence (all- powerfulness) to inhere in the same being, since a being that knew the future would be powerless to change it, and a being that could change the future could not know it in advance, and
2) an omnipresent being could not perceive, for one perceives from a perspective that is not identical with the object of perception, and such a viewpoint would be lacking for an omnipresent being, and
3) it is even impossible for a perfect being to think, for perfection is singular, and thought is the movement of mind between multiple concepts), but they are also violations of Occam's Razor, in that there is no necessity for the concept to explain the perceptions we have, and it is not either verifiable nor falsifiable, and therefore is an article of belief, not knowledge, and...well, there's lots more, but that should be enough.
>James wrote:
><snip>
>Yet to say the universe is unknown and unknowable raises a curious
>question: What would complete knowledge of the universe really be?
><snap>
>[Blunderov]
>Einstein showed us that the truth depends on where you are standing. In
>order to have complete knowledge of the universe you would have to be
>able to stand in all parts of it at the same time. Tricky.
>Oh, and that's just to deal with the four dimensions that we can cognit!
>Cosy in my little corner.
>Warm regards
>Blunderov
---- This message was posted by Walter Watts to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25551>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:47 MDT