Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:07:05 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.COMihatespam
|
Viewed:
|
1181 times
|
| |
|
|
"William A. Swanberg" wrote:
>
> I've been steadily wading through this thread for several days now (you have
> a lot of catching up to do when you go to the field for a week), and have
> promised myself to stay out of the debate, and I will continue to do so
> (although the temptation is great!). However, Lar, I believe that your
> mathematical reasoning is flawed, see comments below:
Reasoning is OK, nomenclature was wrong (I was rushed, and I JUST made
the flight, they closed the door just after I boarded). See below...
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
> news:38C5A25C.6BA832E3@voyager.net...
> > Briefly, my flight boards soon.
> (major snippage)
>
> > Having said that, what are the possible mathematical permutations of
> > universes around most perfect/most evil?
Most perfect is an INCORRECT label for what I meant, an entity that is
omnipotent (which carries with it omniscient) and omnibenevolent. Ditto
for most imperfect or most evil.
> > We could have a universe in which there is no most perfect being and no
> > most evil being. Just lots of strivers on both sides of the battle line.
> If there are "strivers" on both sides of the battle line, then one of them
> on each side *must* be the most evil/good. I am speaking mathematically
> here, of course. Using mathematics implies that you can somehow quantify
> the *amount* of good/evil in a being. So the amount of "morality" (for lack
> of a better term) in a person can be assigned a number, for purposes of
> explanation, a number less than 0 for evil, and a number greater than 0 for
> good. Using the set of integers for this purpose, then that being with the
> lowest "morality value" would be the most evil, conversely the being with
> the highest morality value would be the most good. If you wish to go into a
> more refined valuation system, you could expand your number set to the
> rational numbers (although there are exactly as many rational numbers as
> integers, even though the integers are a subset of the rational numbers, I
> could explain by proof if needed, but infinity mathematics makes my head
> hurt). You could even expand further to the set of irrational numbers or
> the set of imaginary numbers, but with the latter things could get
> complicated :).
Right. Technically if you could run an eval function on everyone, even
in a universe without a supreme "Most perfect" omni P/B/O guy, some
lucky striver at any given moment comes out on top. and on the bottom.
But see the most perfect island argument. it doesn't dilute. Being more
good than everyone else doesn't make you god, just leader in a good race
to be in. to be god, or at least to be the christian god, you need the
omni stuff too. Being more evil than everyone else doesn't make you the
devil, just leader in a not good race to be in. However I don't think
the christian devil is omnipotent.
> >
> > We could have a universe in which there is both a most perfect and most
> > imperfect.
> Actually this is the only possible situation, from a mathematical standpoint
> of course.
Technically correct, because I was using the wrong shorthand. When I
said "most perfect" i was shorthanding for an
omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent. But that's not what I meant.
Again, restating, all 4 possibilities will have "some" being who is most
good (assuming a way to evaluate that gives a number or comparable
metric) and most bad.
I assert that because of the nature of omniX you can't have both an omni
P/B/S and an omni P/M/S in the same universe at the same time, due to
deadlock, they can't both get their way at the same time, hence one is
not omnipotent... ruling the 4th possibility out.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| So, more a terminology thing than anything else. Although, I do think you need to watch some of your abbreviations, omni PMS conjures up mental images I don't want to deal with, ever! -- William A. Swanberg CPT, SC Commander, 229th Signal Company (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| I've been steadily wading through this thread for several days now (you have a lot of catching up to do when you go to the field for a week), and have promised myself to stay out of the debate, and I will continue to do so (although the temptation (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
