GENIUS FORUMS

A few comments on section 1; mostly typos, a few bits that could use some clarifying. In the first table (in section 1.1), the last three entries in the last column are reversed. They should be T instead of F. You define four functions on page 2. The last two functions have an "a" which s...

I'm going to post a reply to your email here just because the quoting feature on this forum is better. It will be clearer to us who is writing what and what is a quote. If you are someone else and want to read the paper then get it here: http://home.comcast.net/~morlai/universal.pdf . Thanks again D...

Is anyone here familiar with models and the axioms of set theory and nonclassical logic and would also like to help me find faults with my paper? If so, I can post a link to it or pm you if no one else cares. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Can you advise me of any existence that you are not aware of in some fashion? No, so therefore we all can say: I am the totality of all that exists. My fleeting existence is my totality. The only possible form of god that can exist is whatever the current me is, and when what is currently me change...

Actually, it wasn't an interruption. I was done. On some level, I know what Sapius knows but I didn't bother to point it out; I saw no point in doing so nor a point in continuing after DQ just doged the fact that he is self-contradictory on at least one count. DQ thinks he knows everything about God...

Well, strictly speaking, God neither exists, nor not exists. Both categories are inapplicable when it comes to God. I disagree. We'll just have to agree to disagree. :) Obviously, God is clearly not nothing whatsoever, as we can see from the world around us. So we can dismiss that possibility altog...

You're not really tuning into what I am saying. These shapes, these empirical details, these endless forms of God - none of them have any objective or inherent existence. They are fundamentally illusions. No different to mirages. Ultimately, there is nothing to know. When you understand this, you s...

One could allow that identification with or being something is to have knowledge of that something. I'm pretty sure that I have a brain, and I know a few things about it. However, it's impossible for me to have complete knowledge of everything about my brain. Omniscience implies complete knowledge....

I agree that is the case for omnipotence but not omniscience. One could allow that identification with or being something is to have knowledge of that something. This naturally implies that God would be omniscient. And also, it's pretty clear that God is omnipresent. Those properties can only be pro...

That's nice, but I was asking why I see words under "unknown" if "unknown" is an illusion.

I'm not dismissing them, just placing them in their proper context. Mapping and describing the empirical details of the world is the job of scientists, not philosophers - although philosophers do like to map and describe human psychology from a spiritual perspective. Their main task, however, is to...

Oh, they're unimportant details. They're nothing. Once you know the nature of God, which is timeless and is everywhere, all those little empirical details suddenly pale into insignificance. Sure, they're unimportant and insignificant. In the grand scheme of things. When a person understands the nat...

DQ: In other words, your puzzle is incoherent because it wants God to be both the totality and not the totality at the same time. It only exists by virtue of this sloppy contradiction. BT: How does the puzzle "want" God to not be the totality? DQ: Because it needs to seperate Him from the...

You're right, it's not undefined any more than "square" or "circle" are undefined. No, the definition is very specific. It means "all-powerful". The paradox you are highlighting doesn't arise from its supposed lack of definition, but from the conflicting strands of info...

Meh. Maybe I'm too curious. ???

Why do I see words "posted" "under" a "name" "called" "unknown?"

I see it differently. As we have seen in this thread, language is perfectly able to expose the limitations of certain concepts, such as omnipotence. The limitations exist within the concept itself, not the language probing the concept. If the language (in particular the word omnitpotent) is unlimit...

I think Berkeley fosters genius. Even the homeless people there are incredible.

I bet that if this hit India there'd be tens of thousands.

BrianT wrote: English is not limited? It has its limitations, but these limitations are the same regardless of whether we talking about God, clouds or trees. It doesn't mysteriously become more limited simply by addressing the concept of God. Predominantly, it is the intellectual ignorance of the p...

English is not limited? Then yes or no, can God create a rock (being omnipotent) that it cannot lift? Now, dismissing that question by calling me a fool would just be... a kind of language called *fallacy* (ad hominem to be specific). If you can't answer that yes/no question (and you probably can't ...

I'm quite fond of that definition of God. After reading a bit about paradoxes like Russell and Liar, my conclusion is that the statements about God that are paradoxical do not show there is a problem with God or its existence: there is a problem with the language we use to make statements about God.

Buddha , jesus , muhammed all prophets are con artists. All of them evil. Anyone try to help anyone is evil. LOL You can't help others with words. Its a evil act to power over you. Only people can help themselves, but words can teach someone how to do this. This has nothing to do with my post, anyw...

[4.]Greater cannot come from lesser. This seems vague to me. What about Buddha coming from his parents, or Jesus from Mary and Joseph, or any "great" person coming from his or her parents? Or is this not the domain of discourse or the definition of "come from"? Also, consider em...

Except that this was an argument that puts limits on omniscience, not omnipotence, but yeah... It also appears that an omniscient being has no free will; it knows 5 minutes in advance that it will choose door number 1 and it cannot change that choice when 5 minutes expire and it comes time to choose...

If the Bible contains codes and forecasts (which aren't apparently realized as such until after the fact), then that isn't conclusive proof of an omnipotent deity having inspired men to write them. There are infinitely many "greater" feats that the "divine" force has not demonstr...