Infinity and God!

  • Thread starter Thread starter wittgenstein
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wittgenstein said:
And yes an omniscient being does know all possible s just a outcomes. That is why an omniscient being will always lose at chicken.
Click to expand...
But he s not really losing anything is he. It’s just a ridiculous game in which you would never find God as a willing opponent.

This just sounds like a different take on “can God make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it.”
 
One can also claim that chess is a pointless game. However, if I proved that a mortal would always beat God at chess, I would think that was saying something very important.
Note, that I am not saying that humans can beat God at chess. I am sure God would be very good at chess. My point is ( by using analogy ) that even if a game is pointless, it can reveal theological insights.
What the chicken paradox proves is that omniscience makes one consistently lose in at least one game!
PS: That was not an exact quote of my post 8.
 
If you think the point behind the paradox is superfluous see post 38!
 
wittgenstein said:
One can also claim that chess is a pointless game. However, if I proved that a mortal would always beat God at chess, I would think that was saying something very important.
Click to expand...
The rules and meaning of the game and its win or lose victory standards is purely imaginary. In the real objective world God has simply moved out the way. He has lost nothing. What you are imagining in your head is irrelevant.
 
We will just have to agree to disagree. I would say that if I proved that every human could beat God at chess, I would be making a very significant statement about God’s nature. You would say that that would be insignificant because God would simply refuse to play. I find that to be a superfluous and irrelevant argument.
 
wittgenstein said:
We will just have to agree to disagree. I would say that if I proved that every human could beat God at chess, I would be making a very significant statement about God’s nature. You would say that that would be insignificant because God would simply refuse to play. I find that to be a superfluous and irrelevant argument.
Click to expand...
No, I am saying that the standards of the game has no objectivity. Therefore whether God wins or loses in your head has no objective relevance. If God moves out the way (which is meaningless given that God is non-physical), then this only means that God has moved out the way because he doesn’t want you to die. The idea that he has therefore lost something as such that it has an objective impact on his nature is superfluous and imaginary.
 
Chess has no impact ( in the sense you are using). If one loses a game of chess (unless one is a professional chess player) one does not lose money or health. If you are consistent in your reasoning you will have to say that if all humans can beat God at chess reveals nothing about God’s nature ( to be clear, I am not saying that humans can beat God at chess. Only that if we could it would be a very significant statement about God’s nature.).
That a crash ( even if non-fatal) is the worst possible outcome is a rule of the chicken game just as knights move in an “L” shape in chess. Of course one can say that God doesnt have to play by the rules. He could move a knight diagonally, for example. But that means that he is not beating you at chess.
 
wittgenstein said:
Chess has no impact ( in the sense you are using). If one loses a game of chess (unless one is a professional chess player) one does not lose money or health. If you are consistent in your reasoning you will have to say that if all humans can beat God at chess reveals nothing about God’s nature ( to be clear, I am not saying that humans can beat God at chess. Only that if we could it would be a very significant statement about God’s nature.).
That a crash ( even if non-fatal) is the worst possible outcome is a rule of the chicken game just as knights move in an “L” shape in chess. Of course one can say that God doesnt have to play by the rules. He could move a knight diagonally, for example. But that means that he is not beating you at chess.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what it is that we would be winning by imaginary standards? What could that possibly mean accept that God loses by our imaginary standards? That will say something about the human imagination, but that does not say anything about the objective nature of God.
 
Chess is a game that was imagined by humans. Humans made up the rules of the game. However, and this is where we disagree, if I proved that every human can beat God at chess, I would believe that I revealed something significant about God’s nature. You would say that I have not because humans invented chess.
Similarly, the game of chicken was invented by humans. However, I have proven that if God played by the rules of the game “chicken” he would always lose (ironically ) because of his omniscience!
 
wittgenstein said:
Chess is a game that was imagined by humans. Humans made up the rules of the game. However, and this is where we disagree, if I proved that every human can beat God at chess, I would believe that I revealed something significant about God’s nature. You would say that I have not because humans invented chess.
Similarly, the game of chicken was invented by humans. However, I have proven that if God played by the rules of the game “chicken” he would always lose (ironically ) because of his omniscience!
Click to expand...
Not really. If I ask God to help me win and God helps me, God wins. If I forget to pray but God still helps me, God still wins. I think all you’ve proved is you can’t put God in a test tube. God says who he is, not us.
 
Are you saying that rational arguments cannot apply to God? Considering that God is infinite that makes sense. However, does that mean that you dismiss Aquinas? He made rational arguments that did not exclusively rely on scripture.
 
wittgenstein said:
Are you saying that rational arguments cannot apply to God? Considering that God is infinite that makes sense. However, does that mean that you dismiss Aquinas? He made rational arguments that did not exclusively rely on scripture.
Click to expand...
He’s reported to have said “All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me”, but as a humble Baptist I know little of Thomas and his ways. 😃

God said to Moses, “I am who I am". - Ex 3:14
 
First see post 38
I am attempting to understand the crucifixion. I am honesty confused by the idea that Christ died for our sins. It makes no sense to me. For example, suppose my Dad robbed a bank. How would me going to prison absolve him of his crime?
 
inocente said:
He’s reported to have said “All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me”, but as a humble Baptist I know little of Thomas and his ways. 😃

God said to Moses, “I am who I am". - Ex 3:14
Click to expand...
He won’t bite you know. There is very little of it with which you would disagree. He quotes Scripture quite a bit and St. Augustine and others and where he relies on the Catholic Church that was before the Reformation. So he should seem pretty orthdox to you. 👍
 
wittgenstein said:
First see post 38
I am attempting to understand the crucifixion. I am honesty confused by the idea that Christ died for our sins. It makes no sense to me. For example, suppose my Dad robbed a bank. How would me going to prison absolve him of his crime?
Click to expand...
As the first Adam sinned and passed his sin to his descendents. Christ, the second Adam, did not sin, and since he was God and Man his sacrafice had universal effect for the attonement of man’s sin and to make salvation possible for him. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a better explanation.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top