Omnipotence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hahahahahahahahahahauahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............

Phew......assurance that no antitheist comedians are around.

[Stranger]

Again the science of what you are saying is sound but as it is not relevant to some of the points I am making i.e. not all my questions have received answers. it is as they say ''showing off on the beach''.

Have you thought that it might be you not being very clear about what you are asking? The problem is that you keep on saying stuff like "the science of what you are saying is sound" or something else that implies that you get what I'm saying and then you ask something that suggests that you don't get it at all.

It seems convenient that you seem to have wrapped up past, present and future indistinguishably in the space time manifold which itself must be the mother and father of mysteries wrapped up in an enigma...

It's somewhat counter-intuitive is all - it's the epitome of clarity compared to QM/QFT. It's a perfectly self-consistent mathematical construct that predicts the results of experiments and observation with incredible accuracy.

...having said that I think we are leaning towards futureS.....since there is no ''the'' future....... being theoretical at present.

Futures is a bit more like it.

I found this diagram that illustrates what I was saying in #317:-

Space-time Event

Obviously 'space' has been reduced to one dimension in order to fit space-time on a 2d diagram.

It depicts a space-time event O (a single point in space at a single instant in time), and its relationship with space and time. The fixed points of reference are the paths that light takes (marked "light-like"), not fixed space and time axes (which are always relative to an observer). The upper time-like region is O's unambiguous future, the lower time-like region is its past. Any events in the space-like region are not unambiguously in O's past or future, it depends on the observer's reference frame. So E₁ is in O's future, whereas E₃ can be in its future or its past depending on the observer.

As you can see, the further into O's future you go, the more 'space' is included - its unambiguous future spreads out at the speed of light. Likewise, the further away from the event you go, the more 'time' the space-like region incorporates.

[ippy]

Have you thought that it might be you not being very clear about what you are asking? The problem is that you keep on saying stuff like "the science of what you are saying is sound" or something else that implies that you get what I'm saying and then you ask something that suggests that you don't get it at all.

It's somewhat counter-intuitive is all - it's the epitome of clarity compared to QM/QFT. It's a perfectly self-consistent mathematical construct that predicts the results of experiments and observation with incredible accuracy.

Futures is a bit more like it.

I found this diagram that illustrates what I was saying in #317:-

Space-time Event

Obviously 'space' has been reduced to one dimension in order to fit space-time on a 2d diagram.

It depicts a space-time event O (a single point in space at a single instant in time), and its relationship with space and time. The fixed points of reference are the paths that light takes (marked "light-like"), not fixed space and time axes (which are always relative to an observer). The upper time-like region is O's unambiguous future, the lower time-like region is its past. Any events in the space-like region are not unambiguously in O's past or future, it depends on the observer's reference frame. So E₁ is in O's future, whereas E₃ can be in its future or its past depending on the observer.

As you can see, the further into O's future you go, the more 'space' is included - its unambiguous future spreads out at the speed of light. Likewise, the further away from the event you go, the more 'time' the space-like region incorporates.

Stranger, he can't even get his head around secularism and now you're trying to explain relativity to Vlad, I wish you the very best of luck with that one.

If you do manage to give him a basic understanding of relativity, it might be a good idea for you to set yourself up as a deity of some kind, I'd certainly think about joining.

Kind regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you thought that it might be you not being very clear about what you are asking? The problem is that you keep on saying stuff like "the science of what you are saying is sound" or something else that implies that you get what I'm saying and then you ask something that suggests that you don't get it at all.

It's somewhat counter-intuitive is all - it's the epitome of clarity compared to QM/QFT. It's a perfectly self-consistent mathematical construct that predicts the results of experiments and observation with incredible accuracy.

Futures is a bit more like it.

I found this diagram that illustrates what I was saying in #317:-

Space-time Event

Obviously 'space' has been reduced to one dimension in order to fit space-time on a 2d diagram.

It depicts a space-time event O (a single point in space at a single instant in time), and its relationship with space and time. The fixed points of reference are the paths that light takes (marked "light-like"), not fixed space and time axes (which are always relative to an observer). The upper time-like region is O's unambiguous future, the lower time-like region is its past. Any events in the space-like region are not unambiguously in O's past or future, it depends on the observer's reference frame. So E₁ is in O's future, whereas E₃ can be in its future or its past depending on the observer.

As you can see, the further into O's future you go, the more 'space' is included - its unambiguous future spreads out at the speed of light. Likewise, the further away from the event you go, the more 'time' the space-like region incorporates.

Who doesn't get it when you talk about no real universal future and unambiguous futures?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Hahahahahahahahahahauahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............

Actually Vlad’s post was something of a collector’s piece in that he actually got something right – not all his posts have been replied to. I’d guesstimate that about 95% are though (as opposed to the 0% of question that he answers) which he then either ignores or misrepresents so as to attack his own straw men. That’s what trolls rely on – replies – while never, ever contributing anything themselves.

[Dicky Underpants]

He was SteveH.

Who elsewhere started a thread on "Non-realist Christianity", stating that "this was where he was nowadays".  So WTF he's arguing about 'omnipotence' seems to say the least, surprising. Okay for a thought experiment or a bit of nerdy intellectualism, but if you're not actually arguing for something you believe in yourself, a bit onanistic.
This thread has at least generated some interesting comments.

Just to remind you:

Let's face it - in this scientific age, the arguments for the existence of God don't bear much scrutiny, and the arguments against are hard to counter, in particular the existence of suffering: not all suffering, which is probably inevitable in a material universe, but the built-in suffering, such as parasitic worms, some of which cause hideous suffering to their hosts, but have to do so in order to live themselves; also horrendous genetic diseases such as spinal muscular atrophy, epidermolysis bullosa, and proteus syndrome.
However, human beings have a religious capacity and need (not every single human, before some smart-arse says "I dont!", but humans in general), so why not practice religion - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever - without pretending that it is a true account of the world: treat it, as it were, as artrather than science? That, essentially, is the non-realist position, espoused by Don Cupitt and others, and foreshadowed by Paul Tillich, and is where I am nowadays.
Thoughts? Come on, traditionalists - try to argue me back into belief in an objectively-existing God!

(A L'Eau c'est l'heure)

[SteveH]

Who elsewhere started a thread on "Non-realist Christianity", stating that "this was where he was nowadays".  So WTF he's arguing about 'omnipotence' seems to say the least, surprising. Okay for a thought experiment or a bit of nerdy intellectualism, but if you're not actually arguing for something you believe in yourself, a bit onanistic.
This thread has at least generated some interesting comments.

Just to remind you:

(A L'Eau c'est l'heure)

I started this thread to ponder what omnipotence might mean. I don't think I said that I actually believed in the objective existence of an omnipotent (in any sense) God. However, I tend to drift between non-realism and process theology - sometimes one, sometimes the other.