secularmerlin

Perhaps they do. Perhaps it is a god that hides people's car keys but I have never spoken with anyone who claimed a being they knew was a god did something as fundamentalmy physical as that within their observation.

Do you believe God can lie? How aboit commit suicide? Make a mistake? I can do all those things if god cannot do all or even one of them then god has limits.

Back to the movement question forget about weight or size, hell forget about rocks. Can the god you propose create an object of any kind that can never be moved from where he placed it by any force in any way? 

So an "all powerful" being can do anything accept those things an "all powerful" being cannot do?

All powerful is a self contradictory term. Nothing can be all powerful without creating an apparent logical contradiction.

Feel free too. I created this tgread at the request of another poster who said they wanted to debate against the idea that our universe may not really exist. 

In that case I don't think any god(s) necessarily involved.

I agree that the concept of omnipotence is contradictory.

We won't get a definitive answer. Ever.

That is acceptance for convenience sake. I do endorse that but it doesn't make the question go away.

It is advantageous in the context of our perceived reality to accept reality as percieved. It allows us to avoid perceived pain and maximize perceived happiness and of course it allows us to have this conversation. Also if we do accept that our observable physical universe is real certain other inferences about the universe can be made by application of the scientific method.

That doesn't change the fact that objective certainty seems a practical impossibility for us as humans.

The lightbulb is just a placeholder for any discernable physical effect whatever. Many things have observable physical effects that are not for my benefit.

So far as I can tell I have never observed any god(s) doing anything. Certainly nothing that I could not think of another perfectly reasonable explanation for.

How do we identify the difference between those things which exist and those which do not if not by the physical effect it has on our universe?

Honestly even then our universe could simply be an illussion.

It is necessary in order to care how or why humans live.

The are both limits and any being that has limits such as this is not unlimited. It's fine if you believe your god (whatever that is) has limits in fact that makes more logical sense than believing in an unlimited being but it then becomes logically contradictory to claim this being has power without limits.

Is it do hard to just admit that you believe in a god who has very definite limits?

There is nothing in your statement that I can disagree with (possibly the necessary part depending on what it is necessary for).

What sort at experience? 

You mean you presume that's the difference. I have no idea how to test that hypothesis without first making the presupposition that there is some correspondence between your senses and actual conditions.

I would love to play

Didn't someone suggest that some god has unlimited power? For that to be a true statement the being in question could not have logical limits because those are limits. Limitless power is self contradictory in and of itself. Am I to understand that you propose that a being we can consider omnipotent would be a being of finite/limited power?

So we know that we don't really "see" the base ball as picture it and we know that dreams and hallucinations exist and also that they can seem indistinguishable from "reality" to the person experiencing them.

So how do you know that this is not a dream or hallucination?

When you are in a dream don't you tend to go with the flow of dream events no matter how surreal? What makes "realkeith" accepting "reality" different from "dreamkieth" accepting the dream as reality?

All I know is I think.

You are merely spreading the paradox around.

I don't know which position is true. I tend to behave as if one is true over the others as a convenience in the absence of further information. My stance is one skepticism not belief.

I'm not asking you for a definition I'm asking for an opinion. Should pedophiles be afforded human rights or have they forfeited them?

What does functional use have to do with reality? Is reality under some special obligation to afford you utility?

The whole point is that we don't really know.

There is no particular reason to believe that anything does exist besides my perceptions themselves. If you prefer I could say that the universe may consist of nothingbut my illusory perceptions. Would that satisfy the semantics problem we seem to be having?

Yeah that's philosophy. A lot of it is useless crap. It doesn't actually make a functional difference from my perspective whether or not the universe as I perceive it is real or not. It doesn't inform my descision making process in the least. It is however beyond my epistemological limits to say with certainty that it is or isn't real.

There is no perceiving anything directly. Ever. Not for us as humans. There are only the brain states.

If what we perceive reflects reality in any meaningful way you are correct and it is convenient to behave as though they do but we must start with a presupposition in order to do so.

I behave as though everything I perceive is reality because even if it is not necessarily real it is the only "reality" I know. This does not mean however that I must be correct.

In any case you are never really directly experiencing anything. You don't see a base ball yourbrain constructs an image of the base ball based on the amount, frequency and direction of light rays striking the cones and rods in the retina. This image would seem to be emergent from chemical reactions and electrical patterns within the brain itself.

These brain states are all you ever really perceive. Ever.

It still just amounts to the fact that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory. Math does not bring you any closer to knowing if your experience is genuine or illusory. I don't care if you do realize that you realize that you realize that you realize that you realize that you realize that it might be illusory.

There is only one thing I am certain of. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory. I didn't claim to be uncertain about all things only all things besides that.

I'm not putting a probability on this just acknowledging the impossibility of ever being certain. It is convenient to accept reality at face value, but even if we do we still are not experiencing reality directly but instead experiencing the mental picture our brains form of it.

Aren't you faced with the same existential quandry?

Perhaps logically impossible paradoxes are possible but I have no idea how to discuss that possibility logically. I am skeptical of the idea in any case.

Guess who (covers castins eyes)!

Did it though? How can you be objectively certain that time is actually passing? You can only ever experience the moment you are actually occupying and this one moment may be infinite, whichever moment you are experiencing as you think about this.

How can you be sure that your experience isn't just an infinite loop replaying your "life" like a metaphysical TiVo over and over for eternity (or whatever passes for it if nothing exists)?

The problem with objective certainty is that it may not exist.

You are perfectly welcome my friend. 

Hello ethang5, glad you are enjoying the thread.

Hello ethang5, glad you are enjoying the thread.

I assume that what we commonly refer to as reality is more or less real (mostly as a convenience) but if it is not then language also is not and creating designations for things becomes nonsensical.

And how have you determined that?

I'm  not even sure that our universe really exists but if we assume that it does then we can also assume that gravity is real. We can assume this because objects fall at a constant and uniform rate of acceleration whether I believe in gravity or not. Is your evidence independently verifiable whether I begin with the presupposition that some god(s) exist in the way that gravity is?

And how does one go about this measuring? 

I'm just curious how you have verified something that cannot be perceived or measured.

This is not a joke. I have never seen or heard of any god(s) that have accomplished this feet. To be clear I am not talking about acting through or influencing a mortal agency. I mean physically screwing in a lightbulb for themselves.

Especially if you consider your god maximally powerful or as a creator of the universe. Such a being should find any task I can accomplish child's play and yet no god(s) seem to ever have such a simple, direct and above all physical effect on any observable part of our world.

Do you believe that any god(s) are capable of screwing in a lightbulb and if so what keeps them from doing so?

Unlimited power is logically impossible. It creates paradoxes. I cannot conceive of or accept the existence of such a being. The best you could hope for is maximally powerful.

And how have you determined that?

Why would I accept anything without sufficient evidence?

We can have a hypothetical discussion but that isn't quite the same thing.

I suppose but I certainly wouldn't mind dying in my bed quite old even if it means not necessarily changing anything with my death or having it mean anything.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that if god is unable to make such a rock he is (by virtue of being unable to do something) not omnipotent.