The omnipotent paradox. [Archive] - Werewolf.com Discussion Boards

blueeyes

07-08-2007, 07:38 PM

Not Christian, or religious, but I might be able to propose a simple if imperfect answer.

If individual Y is capable of doing anything, even those thing largely deemed impossible, within a limited set universe X. Y is considered 'omnipotent' -- anything that there is to do, Y can achieve.

If individual Y either expands set X, or has set X expanded by an outside force, into set X+1, the state omnipotent may or may not be the same -- the biggest rock may suddenly go from six billion tons to six billion billion tons, for example. The being is no longer omnipotent for set X+1, but that does not logically mean that the being was non-omnipotent for the X set.

The result is that :

"1. If god is omnipotent, then god can create a stone he himself cannot lift.
2. If said stone is created, then there would be something god cannot lift and therefore god is <i>no longer</i> omnipotent.
3. If said stone cannot be created, then there is something god cannot do and therefore god is not omnipotent.
4. Therefore, god is either incapable of producing things which limit that god or capable of becoming non-omnipotent."

Think state systems, or the Dogma plot in reverse.

Alternatively, you can define 'omnipotent' such that the individual Y is capable of a state where both Y is omnipotent for X+1 and not omnipotent for X+1 at the same time.

Call that the quantum mechanics solution. Admittedly, this one violates causality and some other logic... but we're talking an omnipotent being, so it's kinda a given that'll happen.

Aeolus

07-08-2007, 07:39 PM

_Grey_

07-08-2007, 07:49 PM

If you really feel that way.

But I'm glad you got out of your system that you hate me. Don't it feel good?

Actually, I was really trying to get a response from you... see how well you actually stacked up logically, rather than simply using the age old "because the bible said it" expression. I guess that is your only defense. Personally, seeing as you obviously are very Christian, I thought you would do more to back up your Lord.

Look, if god suddenly got strong enough to lift a rock he can't lift, then he cannot create a rock he cannot lift. That defeats the purpose, and makes him non-omnipotent.

However, it is interesting that you noted the first one. That one I've seen before... somewhere else noted that there is a view on this situation: that god could only be omnipotent if he didn't create such a rock, but he is omnipotent because he can. Pretty much what blueeyes said... kinda...

Huh.

Also, I will state here and now: no "aggravated responses". Just state your opinion. That's it.

But obviously you really don't know me. I like to learn why people believe certain things, not mock people for believing in them. Sorry if it came off that way.

However, I do believe I can post anything about any religion I want. So long as I back myself up.

_Grey_

Aeolus

07-08-2007, 10:16 PM

If you really feel that way.

I dont feel. I'm a ChRiStIaN robot.

But I'm glad you got out of your system that you hate me. Don't it feel good?

'Feel good' is not a pair of words I'd use when I am online. 'It was a part of my computer screen-induced acomba' would sum it up much more accurately.

Anyway, STOP weaseling things into my post for dramatic effect. I dont hate anyone, and definitely not you. There is nothing in my post that states I hate you. I just get real sick of all the pointed questions and the hate and the slander. Put yourself in that situation for long and you would be on edge, as well as being plagued by a couple of other issues.

Actually, I was really trying to get a response from you... see how well you actually stacked up logically, rather than simply using the age old "because the bible said it" expression.

Well, I think I gave a logical explanation. Throw me a dog-treat for jumping through the hoop, now please.

I guess that is your only defense. Personally, seeing as you obviously are very Christian, I thought you would do more to back up your Lord.

Look I played your little game, and don't ever try to patronize me like that again. I will stand up for my God, which is a concept clearly out of our reach.

Look, if god suddenly got strong enough to lift a rock he can't lift, then he cannot create a rock he cannot lift. That defeats the purpose, and makes him non-omnipotent.

What if that statement were true for a given period of time, but his infinite nature allowed him to grow stronger after time?

However, it is interesting that you noted the first one. That one I've seen before... somewhere else noted that there is a view on this situation: that god could only be omnipotent if he didn't create such a rock, but he is omnipotent because he can. Pretty much what blueeyes said... kinda...

Huh.

But obviously you really don't know me. I like to learn why people believe certain things, not mock people for believing in them. Sorry if it came off that way.

No, I dont know you. But I have gotten used to the massive amount of man-children here that fulfill the behavioral patterns I am constantly describing and criticising here, and I kinda have to cope with them somehow.

My appollogies to you, but I think that had been coming for a long time and whatever sting it had was definitely deserved by a few particulars.

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 05:57 AM

Anyway, STOP weaseling things into my post for dramatic effect. I dont hate anyone, and definitely not you. There is nothing in my post that states I hate you. I just get real sick of all the pointed questions and the hate and the slander. Put yourself in that situation for long and you would be on edge, as well as being plagued by a couple of other issues.

Well, you successfully weaseled something into my post, so I couldn't resist.

Like the hate and slander... and me trying to get "aggravated responses"... right.

I really don't feel the need to quote any of your "weaseled" statements... they are all above my previous post: just look under the actual on-topic answer and you have your "weaseled" statements.

Look I played your little game, and don't ever try to patronize me like that again. I will stand up for my God, which is a concept clearly out of our reach.

Do you mean "your" or "our"? Because if you meant "your", let me tell you something: I have stood up for your god in more ways than you have ever stood up for Him. And I'm atheist. Figure that out.

...

If you actually meant "our", why is it out of your reach? That makes no sense. Not to mention contradictory.

Listen. Just drop it. I don't hate Christians, I just want them to know their reasons. If the only reason they are what they are is because everyone else said so, then they obviously don't belong where they are. That is the only reason I wanted anyone to find a solution. Note that I said "wanted". I "wanted" someone to disprove it. Understand?

What if that statement were true for a given period of time, but his infinite nature allowed him to grow stronger after time?

No. That beats the purpose.

It would only prove that he's still weaker than he's made out to be: otherwise, how could he get stronger? Try again, if you must.

_Grey_

LV426

07-09-2007, 10:41 AM

Yes I do.

God is omnipotent because he knows better than to create a rock that is too large for him to lift. Furthermore, if he did, he could outgrow his old lifting capacity for a new one, and thus lift the rock he created.

Look, let's cut the crap. Everyone knows you are trying to get an aggravated response or just mock Christians, Grey, but it's ok, we're very used to it. Just don't lie and make it out to be something innocent.

On a personal note, it's really disgusting that you can come here and speak about any religion or any belief you wish, and yet Christians can't come to a place clearly designated for spiritual beliefs (it's called the 'religion' forums for a reason I once thought) start a simple thread to speak with eachother without someone starting a flame war or a huge critical debate.

The religion forum is there for all religions not just Christianity. Christianity is one of many religions. Also I don't see where anyone is flaming you for being a christian. In fact that isn't allowed. But what is allowed is for topics to be discussed and this means that non-christians can use facts and information to disprove the beliefs of christians or any other religions in a non-flammatory manner. You know, using logic.

Aeolus

07-09-2007, 11:54 AM

[QUOTE]The religion forum is there for all religions not just Christianity.

I am well aware of that.

Also I don't see where anyone is flaming you for being a christian.

They weren't in this thread, but in plenty of others across the religion forums there seems to be a lot of flaming.

In fact that isn't allowed. But what is allowed is for topics to be discussed and this means that non-christians can use facts and information to disprove the beliefs of christians or any other religions in a non-flammatory manner. You know, using logic.

See that's really arrogant. I dont think any of you have been offering enough information to disprove/prove anything. If that is your objective, then indeed you are being somewhat pernicious and bothersome. The whole crusade to disprove belief systems you obviously don't care for and looking oh so prog and while doing so gets really old fast.

@grey- I didn't say that you specifically were doing any of those things, but that other people had and I was just getting aggravated. Again, sorry, that wasn't necessarilly directed at you, but I did want to call to attention, in my earlier post, the fact that it wasn't just an honest question, it was a pretentious attack of sorts.

Now back to the charade of defending my beliefs from people convinced they are wrong.

Look, if God is omnipotent and spiritual, I dont see how the 'giant rock' paradox could possibly hold him down. As humans, our mind is so limited in thinking that such a being would indeed have to literally lift a massive stone. That actually seems quite childish to say 'he can not be omnipotent because he can't make a lump of rock too large to lift,' or because 'the created material could not be lifted.'

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 12:03 PM

... A pretentious attack?

So you apologize to me, and then you (again) tell me that I'm obviously a horrible person. Wonderful Tact, Friend. Or, as it's better known, WTF?

Anyway, your last bit made no sense to me.

He can do anything. That is contradictory of itself, because He cannot limit himself if he can do anything... but if He can't do that, then He can't do everything.

Has nothing to do with "simple minds". You could use that to explain anything to do with Him. And nobody would be the wiser.

It's like the classic: "God answers prayers in yes, no, or wait". How else could things happen?

_Grey_

Aeolus

07-09-2007, 12:23 PM

... A pretentious attack?

That was aimed at LV's little comment.

So you apologize to me, and then you (again) tell me that I'm obviously a horrible person. Wonderful Tact, Friend. Or, as it's better known, WTF?

Your NOT a horrible person. I give up, go ahead and think I hate you if it helps you cope. I was saying that what you were doing, (though you are a good person) was not just a simple question, which it seemed to be presented as, but an attack on Christianity. Nothing more than that.

He can do anything. That is contradictory of itself, because He cannot limit himself if he can do anything... but if He can't do that, then He can't do everything.

He can do anything we request if it is in His will, and as I have stated before, why would He want to create a rock that is impossible for Him to lift? Another thing: you never answered what I said about the statement temporally speaking: what if He was able to grow stronger than He was previously, and then lift that rock? So the statement would be true for a few moments, but then the reallity would change.

It's like the classic: "God answers prayers in yes, no, or wait". How else could things happen?

If you're asking the Christian, he would reply that the Bible gives him this information in regards to how the God he worships answers prayers.

Ask someone (like, uh, me) who is trying to defend Christianity and give a respectable answer to non-Christians, he would say that these three answers are very similar to how humans respond to questions upon the logical assessing of a situation. An infinite being communicating to humans would probably use those three answers.

_Grey_[/QUOTE]

DarkWolf

07-09-2007, 01:29 PM

what if He was able to grow stronger than He was previously, and then lift that rock?Then he was not omnipotent before the creation of the rock since omnipotence ("all powerful") means he'd have nothing to "grow" to as he'd already be at limitlessly ultimate. Any strength or power that there is to grow to he already possesses. He'd possess infinite power. To have a level of something to "grow" to therefore means he wasn't at limitless infinite maximum before the growth and in that moment (before creation of the rock) he'd not be omnipotent.

Also this isn't necessarily an "attack" against religion but a collaboration of logical ideas to understand and determine the validity in a term used in a religion. It's also not specific to that religion since the same logic applies to anything labelled "omnipotent".

This is really a discussion on omnipotence, not religion, and merely uses God as an example since He is the most widely known wielder of omnipotence.

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 01:51 PM

Another thing: you never answered what I said about the statement temporally speaking: what if He was able to grow stronger than He was previously, and then lift that rock? So the statement would be true for a few moments, but then the reallity would change.

Oh?

No. That beats the purpose.

It would only prove that he's still weaker than he's made out to be: otherwise, how could he get stronger? Try again, if you must.
_Grey_

:rolleyes:

Darkwolf hit the Jackpot on that one: Omnipotence means "all powerful". He can't be omnipotent and be able to get stronger.

_Grey_

Aeolus

07-09-2007, 01:59 PM

Oh?

:rolleyes:

Darkwolf hit the Jackpot on that one: Omnipotence means "all powerful". He can't be omnipotent and be able to get stronger.

_Grey_

Read his, sorry I missed your's though.

I still stand by my first statement, why would He do that?

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 02:06 PM

Wait... what are you referring to? The rock thing? If so...

It doesn't matter why. It matters if he can.

You don't even have to use the rock paradox. Use another one, if you find one.

_Grey_

(also, might I add, I wanted you to logically find a solution. Not evade the question. When a teacher asks you to do an algebra equation, you wouldn't say "when am I going to do this in life", would you?)

Aeolus

07-09-2007, 02:23 PM

It doesn't matter why. It matters if he can.

I bet he could, but I think that he will not do such a thing because he is also an intelligant being, (omniscient, actually) and I don't think he would find it necessary to do such a thing.

_Grey_

(also, might I add, I wanted you to logically find a solution. Not evade the question. When a teacher asks you to do an algebra equation, you wouldn't say "when am I going to do this in life", are you?)
No, but that is an entirely different situation.

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 02:31 PM

Is it?

...

Because it seems to me that you would be expecting the teacher to believe that you can do the problem without answering it... which is the same as what you are doing to me.

_Grey_

Aeolus

07-09-2007, 04:47 PM

Is it?

...

Because it seems to me that you would be expecting the teacher to believe that you can do the problem without answering it... which is the same as what you are doing to me.

_Grey_

Well, I'm not trying to. I am just trying to point out that it is a little childish to expect God, an omni-being, to do a series of outlandish tasks to prove something to you.

The universe is infinite, supposedly, but it is also expanding. I think that part of that word 'infinity' is being able to continue to grow and change and percieve more. Therefore, I think it may be possible that, if He did something that would limit Him in His previous state, He could do what was impossible before.

To that extent, it sounds that He would not be able to make such an object, or perform the limiting task. However, what if He did perform said task and create said rock, then created something that could lift the said rock or perfrom the said task?

Also, if God is omnipotent, then isn't there a possibillity that He both can, and can't lift or create such a stone?

potent means possible in this sense (potent/potential), and if there are two or more options and all of them are possible, then we head into an alternate-reallity axiom, where both things are possible and yet not possible at the same time.

Again, you make a major assumption thinking that he is bound by the physical laws of logic in your statement, as I tried to tell you earlier.

There are other interesting views into the nature of infinity, some of them done by Pythagoras (correct me if I am wrong, I get some of them confused), among other philosophers from around the time of the Acadame.

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 05:39 PM

...

If He is not bound by the laws of logic, why did He make us so? Is that what makes Him omnipotent? That he doesn't have to follow logic...?

...

However, there is no possibility of not being able to lift something and being able to lift something at the same time... no matter how omnipotent.

And, if He made someone else to lift the rock, wouldn't that make that thing stronger than god... meaning that god wouldn't any longer be omnipotent.

Also, the universe expanding and infinity is irrelevant: if god is real, He created the universe. And everything in it. So He would be the one to expand it, if He is real. And if he were omnipotent. You can't use omnipotence to prove omnipotence.

Heck, when the bible was written nobody knew much about space (why do you think they thought they could build a building leading into heaven?).

_Grey_

Aeolus

07-09-2007, 06:00 PM

...

[QUOTE]If He is not bound by the laws of logic, why did He make us so? Is that what makes Him omnipotent? That he doesn't have to follow logic...?

To an extent. Human logic doesn't apply to Him. For example, he is everywhere, and we dont understand that in terms of logic.

However, there is no possibility of not being able to lift something and being able to lift something at the same time... no matter how omnipotent.

That sounds like an underestimation of what that very word implies. If it is omnipotent, endless, infinite, not constricted by the sense of singular possibillities.

And, if He made someone else to lift the rock, wouldn't that make that thing stronger than god... meaning that god wouldn't any longer be omnipotent.

That's true, I was just playing with the idea.

Also, the universe expanding and infinity is irrelevant: if god is real, He created the universe. And everything in it. So He would be the one to expand it, if He is real.

No, it is very relevant, it is a first hand example of something apparently infinite, and it shows us expansion.

Heck, when the bible was written nobody knew much about space (why do you think they thought they could build a building leading into heaven?).

It was probably a figure of speech or an analogy. The Babylonian or Canaanite empire at the time thought that they could build something that reached up forever.

Also, when the Bible was written, humans were already learning to observe the lunar cycle and other stellar motions in the sky. They were very watchful, and they gave later empires a much greater understanding of astronomy. (the semitic tribes of the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent, that is)

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 06:15 PM

No, it is very relevant, it is a first hand example of something apparently infinite, and it shows us expansion.

No, it is irrelevant because it doesn't answer the question. Even if the universe expands and He does as well, it only proves that no matter how hard He tries he either can't create a rock He can't lift or He can't lift the rock that He creates that He can't lift.

That sounds like an underestimation of what that very word implies. If it is omnipotent, endless, infinite, not constricted by the sense of singular possibillities.

No. Then it would make god both Non-Omnipotent and Omnipotent. If that is so, he can both do everything and not do everything. If that is so, then...

No. It doesn't work. Humans made the word, so perhaps that is why it will never work. I suppose.

It was probably a figure of speech or an analogy. The Babylonian or Canaanite empire at the time thought that they could build something that reached up forever.

Ah. So the reason god destroyed the building and made everyone speak different languages wasn't because they were going to reach heaven?

_Grey_

wyrm-takes-last

07-09-2007, 08:34 PM

_Grey_

07-09-2007, 09:40 PM

It doesn't assume that he's a physical being.

If he's omnipotent, then he can lift a rock, right? That is all that it assumes. Then it takes the rest from there.

And admittedly, if he lifts a rock then he would be bound by at least logic: He can't both not be able to lift it and be able to lift it.

And yes, I agree. You cannot actually prove or disprove anything about god. It's impossible. Well, at least until you die. My only point is that I wanted someone to say something about it.

_Grey_

william_wraithe

07-09-2007, 11:28 PM

Locksmyth

07-10-2007, 12:12 AM

All it proves is that if there is a god he can't be omnipotent, unless you buy the "he is because he would never make such a rock".

I developed a similar question in high school.

"If God is both omnipotent and Omnicognisant then He knows every possible outcome of every action he makes, even more so, he knows the exact outcome of every action he takes (or does not take). Thus knew from before he even created the universe, every action of every subatomic particle in the universe from it's creation to it's demise. That's what Omnicognisence is.

Thus every time he interacts with the universe (even the act of creation (even, strictly speaking, planning before creation)) he decides every thing that is going to happen from that moment forward. He can choose to have anything happen that he desires from his action. The very way he placed every atom had to be consciously done by him (otherwise he is not omnipotent and didn't create anything, part of the act of creation is determining location, along with every other property).

He therefore knows every choice you will ever make as these are a result of your personality (which he chose and created) and your history (which he chose and created). Thus he knows exactly how the universe would need to have been created to make you make a specific choice. He knew this before he even created the earth, he knew that making it exactly as it is you would choose to wear a red shirt instead of a blue one next Thursday. He made that choice before the world was created. If this is the case then where is there room for free-will? If he is all-knowing then we don't have free-will and worst yet, everyone that goes to hell is there because that is what he chose would happen to them. If he had put one extra pineapple tree in eden some of these people might not be in hell. He knows exactly how to create the universe to have everyone get into heaven.

An all-powerful all-knowing God cannot create a universe with free-will.

This does not mean that we do not have free-will only that either we do or he is all-knowing (or he is not all powerful and has little control over the universe and it's creation).

Some people will definitely disagree with me here, but this is indisputable logic. The only answer is that God is 'beyond' logic. For me that response is unsatisfactory, but other people can believe what they wish.

No, it is very relevant, it is a first hand example of something apparently infinite, and it shows us expansion.
The universe is not infinite, it has a very definite size (about 156 Billion LYs at the latest theory).
Infinites do not exist outside mathematics and logic (and possibly God(s) depending on beliefs).
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_04052 4.html

Unrelated to the topic on hand but:
See that's really arrogant. I dont think any of you have been offering enough information to disprove/prove anything.

Then why abandon discussion about experiments to create the building blocks of life when your position is completely refuted? I think that's not only arrogant but cowardly, either admit defeat or provide evidence that refutes a claim that is rooted in fact. It doesn't require you denouncing your faith, only admit that you cannot provide an answer that protect that faith.

_Grey_

07-10-2007, 10:05 AM

First of all, who gives a crap if God can lift a stone or not that he did or did not create ... one way or another people have to say something stupid thinking that they are trying to be all 'zen-master' breathe in breathe out ... my opinion is, question whatever you want. In the end you will find your truth .. and if I were you, I would be scared about where you are going. That is something to talk about and "DISCUSS" ....

... Well. I find it odd that all the people who "know god exists" are the only ones who won't adequately answer the question.

Also: please note that being Atheist I really don't think I'll be going anywhere. And honestly, do you think you'll be going to heaven?

And perhaps someday you will learn the truth. (See what I did there? I used your logic against you. See how it gets us nowhere to use it on someone of completely different opinions? Until we die, of course. Then it won't matter)

And lastly, it doesn't have to be the damned stone paradox. Use your imagination: the idea has numerous flaws, I'm sure you'll find some contradictions.

An all-powerful all-knowing God cannot create a universe with free-will.

This does not mean that we do not have free-will only that either we do or he is all-knowing (or he is not all powerful and has little control over the universe and it's creation).

I've noticed that too...

Everything that ever happens is affected by something else... and if god is real, and he created the conditions, we don't actually have free will.

... and I don't think he sat down at the beginning of time and said "Oh that John Smith that I'll let into the world in 1974 will go to hell..."

_Grey_

Aeolus

07-10-2007, 12:07 PM

All it proves is that if there is a god he can't be omnipotent, unless you buy the "he is because he would never make such a rock".

Here is what I am trying to get at: you can't assume he is indeed not omnipotent when you force Him to do something to take that away from Himself. That is asking Him to defeat Himself, and just because He can't, or won't, doesn't negate His omnipotence.

"If God is both omnipotent and Omnicognisant then He knows every possible outcome of every action he makes, even more so, he knows the exact outcome of every action he takes (or does not take). Thus knew from before he even created the universe, every action of every subatomic particle in the universe from it's creation to it's demise. That's what Omnicognisence is.

Thus every time he interacts with the universe (even the act of creation (even, strictly speaking, planning before creation)) he decides every thing that is going to happen from that moment forward. He can choose to have anything happen that he desires from his action. The very way he placed every atom had to be consciously done by him (otherwise he is not omnipotent and didn't create anything, part of the act of creation is determining location, along with every other property).

He therefore knows every choice you will ever make as these are a result of your personality (which he chose and created) and your history (which he chose and created). Thus he knows exactly how the universe would need to have been created to make you make a specific choice. He knew this before he even created the earth, he knew that making it exactly as it is you would choose to wear a red shirt instead of a blue one next Thursday. He made that choice before the world was created. If this is the case then where is there room for free-will? If he is all-knowing then we don't have free-will and worst yet, everyone that goes to hell is there because that is what he chose would happen to them. If he had put one extra pineapple tree in eden some of these people might not be in hell. He knows exactly how to create the universe to have everyone get into heaven.

An all-powerful all-knowing God cannot create a universe with free-will.

That depends on how you look at free will, I suppose. I'll get to this later.

This does not mean that we do not have free-will only that either we do or he is all-knowing (or he is not all powerful and has little control over the universe and it's creation).

Some people will definitely disagree with me here, but this is indisputable logic. The only answer is that God is 'beyond' logic. For me that response is unsatisfactory, but other people can believe what they wish.

I believe in free will to this extent: who we are and our fate is determined by simple decisions. There are the proverbial, red pill, and blue pill. You pay the consequences for these decisions and must bear their outcomes. God, knowing what type of people we are and how we will react, places us in the situation where we provide the cause of the event, and make the decision to open up what he had planned.

I do agree with your conclusions, for the most part.

The universe is not infinite, it has a very definite size (about 156 Billion LYs at the latest theory).
Infinites do not exist outside mathematics and logic (and possibly God(s) depending on beliefs).
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_04052 4.html

But the universe is expanding, according to the drift theory, and there is a lot of open space beyond the known cosmic bodies, yes? I don't know, honestly, but thank you for the information.

Then why abandon discussion about experiments to create the building blocks of life when your position is completely refuted? I think that's not only arrogant but cowardly, either admit defeat or provide evidence that refutes a claim that is rooted in fact. It doesn't require you denouncing your faith, only admit that you cannot provide an answer that protect that faith.

I haven't seen that topic in a while, and I am active elsewhere. I was speaking specifically about this thread. I'll get back to you on this when I return to that thread. ;)

wyrm-takes-last

07-10-2007, 09:09 PM

I think that if there is a god, he is so complex and different from us (or from any physical matter really) that we can't assume anything about him. Assuming that he could make something that he could not defeat is moronic, first off, why? Second, once again, him being god and all, he would imediatly become more powerful that the rock after its creating, therefore making the initial creating pointless. And I still stand what I said, laws of physics (such as gravity) are not applied to, but dictated by some sort of omni-present... thing, but even thats not correct, he would not be dictated by a single entity, but perhaps appart of all matter in a way, thus making him omnipotent. So yes, I think if there is a god, he is indeed omnipptent. To say that god still uses logic does have some truth to it, He may use logic, but he definetly would not use any sort of human logic, for such a simple logic being applied to the supreme force in the universe would be the most illogical thing ever.

Human minds cannot possibly comprehend the vast knowledge and power of a supreme being, We can't even comprehend the size and force of our own universe, hell, most of us can't even comprehend the force of our own earth! Which is subatomic when compared to the size of the universe.

Maybe god is dark matter???

Aeolus

07-10-2007, 09:20 PM

Look, it's really stupid once you think about it:

The sentence defeats itself. God cannot do something He cannot do. That is essentially what is being stated. Now, logically, that would mean He can do anything. If He cannot do what He cannot do, then what He cannot do is irrelevant, He can do everything, other than something that would make Him non-omnipotent, which is really quite a simple matter. He is omnipotent, cannot change this, which is unnecessary because we are making a rash assumption that He must do this to be omnipotent. It's not that God isn't omnipotent, it's that your logic is failing and aimed at disproving Him.

As wyrm has said, logic that we carry is not applicable here.

Tux

07-10-2007, 09:49 PM

Wait a minute; aren’t paradoxes illogical to begin with? How can you have a logical discussion about something that defies logic?

Aeolus

07-10-2007, 10:29 PM

Wait a minute; aren’t paradoxes illogical to begin with? How can you have a logical discussion about something that defies logic?

We won't go into that. It could never be possible that our deeds have little to do with logic and more with an unobjective, religious need to attack the religious for what they think.

wyrm-takes-last

07-10-2007, 11:35 PM

Wait a minute; aren’t paradoxes illogical to begin with? How can you have a logical discussion about something that defies logic?

You can't, its a pointless discussion and should be removed but thats up to the moderator. You can't compare something that humans assume to be logical, to something like a supreme being to whom paradoxed might make some sort of sense, if sense could even be applied to a "creator"

J.L.R.

07-11-2007, 07:41 AM

Okay...

So I stumbled upon a site yesterday that used logic to "prove" that god cannot be omnipotent.

It said the following:

1. If god is omnipotent, then god can create a stone he himself cannot lift.
2. If said stone is created, then there would be something god cannot lift and therefore god is not omnipotent.
3. If said stone cannot be created, then there is something god cannot do and therefore god is not omnipotent.
4. Therefore, god is not omnipotent.

... So, discuss if you want.

_Grey_

Ooo... this sounds like fun...

If God is Omnipotent (as defined in Webster's Dictionary as Almighty) Then God is also Omnipresent (As defined in Webster's dictionary as Present at all times) If God is Omnipresent, then God would also be, Omniscient (as Defined in Webster's dictionary as All Understanding)

So if God is Almighty, God is Always Present, and God has All Understanding, as a being would have to be all three in order to be the one.

The three go hand in hand. Having "power" doesn't make one powerful. We have the ability to make things much more powerful than ourselves and at the cost of millions of lives... ergo, Atomic weapons, biological weapons, messages of hate. We can demonstrate almost unlimited power, and yet we lack many times forsight and true understanding.

God does have the power to do anything, even create something more powerful than Himself, however, when you apply the other two aspects of His character (since the statement is directed to the Christian God)Omnipresence and Omnicience, God not only knows what would happen, He already understands the gravity of what would happen.

So to answer your paradox...

It isn't the fact that God couldn't create something more powerful than Himself, but that God simply wouldn't thus proving that He is indeed Omnipotent.

Only a fool would create something that he could not master.

_Grey_

07-11-2007, 07:54 AM

Thank god (Expression).

That actually made sense.

And as for the whole statement about paradoxes not making sense to talk about... well, then that pretty much throws all the good discussions on the internet away.

My opinion.

_Grey_

wyrm-takes-last

07-11-2007, 10:12 AM

And as for the whole statement about paradoxes not making sense to talk about... well, then that pretty much throws all the good discussions on the internet away.
_Grey_

And yet people keep trying...

Locksmyth

07-11-2007, 11:16 AM

Wait a minute; aren’t paradoxes illogical to begin with? How can you have a logical discussion about something that defies logic?

Yes they are so when a paradox arises in a theory or a belief system then it means there is a fundamental flaw with the theory/belief as it currently stands. Unless the paradox can be shown to logically be resolved.
The Omni paradox shows the basic fact that infinites cannot exist.
Infinites are a useful tool for maths when numbers get too high or small to be of practical use.

This paradox, as with most theological paradoxes, cannot be used to prove that god does not exist. It only proves that the bible is not literal. God can appear to be omnipotent, (create the universe, maintain absolute control over said universe) with out being infinitely powerful. The problem is unlike DBZ we can't say Gods power level is above 9000. The primitives who wrote the bible choose to state that their God has infinite power. He cannot, it's a representation. They merely mean he is the most powerful being of which they can conceive. This is similar to how some scientists will say the universe is infinite in size, it's not (they know it's not) but for getting the point across it's a useful tool.

So, can a God have infinite power? No. Can he be the most powerful entity inside and outside the multiverse? Sure why not. Can he create a being even more powerful then himself maybe but then that being would earn the 'title' Omnipotent.

If God is Omnipotent (as defined in Webster's Dictionary as Almighty) Then God is also Omnipresent (As defined in Webster's dictionary as Present at all times) If God is Omnipresent, then God would also be, Omniscient (as Defined in Webster's dictionary as All Understanding)

So if God is Almighty, God is Always Present, and God has All Understanding, as a being would have to be all three in order to be the one.Explain that again. While there is certainly a highly probably relationship between all three there is nothing to in their definitions that mandates having one gives you all three.
Almightly - you can do anything. A being that can do anything can do anything with out being present.
All Present - doesn't mean you can do anything nor does it mean you have the ability to understand anything. Have a location (even one such as all present) does not generate understanding. I have 3 cats in my house I don't think they understand everything about the house, nor do they understand every thing they witness.
All understanding - does not mean you are present to witness events only that you understand them, also it does not give you the ability to manipulate things.

In fact I don't understand how that is important to the question in any regard, so for now I'll accept the argument that the being in question has all three properties.

It isn't the fact that God couldn't create something more powerful than Himself, but that God simply wouldn't thus proving that He is indeed Omnipotent.

Only a fool would create something that he could not master.
If god has the ability to create something more powerful then him then he is not all powerful as there is a capacity for something more powerful. Choosing not to create such a being, while a very wise decision, is not an indicator of ability. The simple fact is that either he can create something more powerful then him, which means that by definition, there must be something he cannot do which this other being would be able to, or he cannot in which case there is something he cannot do.

It is also the fact that infinites cannot exist that I personally don't believe in omni-anything.

Aeolus

07-11-2007, 12:12 PM

[QUOTE]Yes they are so when a paradox arises in a theory or a belief system then it means there is a fundamental flaw with the theory/belief as it currently stands. Unless the paradox can be shown to logically be resolved.
The Omni paradox shows the basic fact that infinites cannot exist.

This paradox, as with most theological paradoxes, cannot be used to prove that god does not exist.

Can he create a being even more powerful then himself maybe but then that being would earn the 'title' Omnipotent.

To the last part, 'no,' (because you said it yourself that omnipotents cannot exist. But wait, that leads us to an infinite on its own: Gods trying to create Gods more powerful than themselves that are each thought to be omnipotent) and to your statement about infinites, that is a very odd view. I see what you are saying about God, and it is definitely much more intellectually mature than the other rock-paradoxian views I've seen elsewhere, where the folks believe that it does prove God's inexistence, just because they think it changes the understanding of His nature entirely. However it is entirely possible that infinites do exist, and that it is beyond reason when we take the concept out of mathematics. I full-heartedly believe that the word does have meaning here, we just have to search beyond our current logical reasoning, instead of merely shrugging the notion off as impossible. It would seem, that, rather than simply taking the current paradox and assuming it to be a flaw, it may be very well resolvable and we must try to find out how, to gain a higher understanding of the concepts of infinity and omnipotence. This is especially true if we hold that there are intelligances beyond our logic.

I would also like to state again that I believe that if God cannot make something more powerful than Himself, that does not negate His omnipotence, because to do so would be to make Himself un-omnipotent, and that is not a requirement of omnipotence; to take away one's own omnipotence.

Locksmyth

07-11-2007, 01:08 PM

To the last part, 'no,' (because you said it yourself that omnipotents cannot exist. But wait, that leads us to an infinite on its own: Gods trying to create Gods more powerful than themselves that are each thought to be omnipotent) and to your statement about infinites, that is a very odd view.Hence the quote word title, the fact is that there is always an 'infinite' higher then the one put forward now. If a God that is the most powerful being that exists can creates a being more powerful then himself then that being earns the title omnipotent and the god loses that tile, because neither are truly omnipotent, the titlebelongs to the most powerful being. Thus creating a being more powerful removes the omnipotent title from the creator and bestows it on the created because there are no infinites.

This is especially true if we hold that there are intelligances beyond our logic.This is impossible and a cheap way to escape the paradox.

I would also like to state again that I believe that if God cannot make something more powerful than Himself, that does not negate His omnipotence, because to do so would be to make Himself un-omnipotent, and that is not a requirement of omnipotence; to take away one's own omnipotence.
Omnipotent is infinite ability, or more realistically the greatest ability. Creating anything greater then yourself removes your omnipotence simply because there is a being with greater ability. That is a being that can do something you cannot. In either definition of the word omnipotence (infinite ability or greatest ability) the creator has lost that title.

wyrm-takes-last

07-11-2007, 02:58 PM

Omnipotent is infinite ability, or more realistically the greatest ability. Creating anything greater then yourself removes your omnipotence simply because there is a being with greater ability. That is a being that can do something you cannot. In either definition of the word omnipotence (infinite ability or greatest ability) the creator has lost that title.

You keep saying "being" thats the problem, you CAN'T think of a supreme being as some sort of physical entity, or even multiple entities, or even as a force. Perhaps the closest you could get to having human words that describe him is a outer-dimensional layer that lies within all matter and space. I Don't think if there is a creator that he cannot lose his title as omni-present omnipotent, omnicent, or whatever, because that is perhaps the one thing he is unable to create a more powerful force, Even if he did create something more powerful than him, it would only be an off-set clone, duplicate, and ultimately the same entity as himself.

Let me delve into the strange world of science for a moment here. There were once two major theories that suposedly answered every question in the universe, (uber theories, whatever), one was string theory, the other was super gravity (nothing super about it). Once an eleventh dimension was added to string theory, they found they were exactly the same, so the theories merged to form a new theory alltogether, called M theory. According to M theory there are different universe membranes attached to different spacial universes, (parallel universes, but there not exactly the same), it also states that laws of physics that apply in our universe may not exactly apply in other universes, or an entirely new set of laws may occur. There fore, if there is indeed a creator, he would be responsible for the creation of all of these universes (correctly, "multiverses" for universe means just one) and if different physics and laws apply in these different universes, then the supreme being was the applier of these laws, therefore it is only logical to state that an entirely different laws apply to him, or possibly no laws at all.

Locksmyth

07-11-2007, 05:19 PM

You keep saying "being" thats the problem, you CAN'T think of a supreme being as some sort of physical entity, or even multiple entities, or even as a force. I say being because it is a conscious being that is presupposed. Otherwise there is no conscious act and 'god' is just the process by which the universe operates. Don't insult my intelligence by accusing me of thinking of god as anything other then a supreme consciousness that is the creator of the universe and it's 'controller'. Any further abstraction means it is not a god but a natural force.

Perhaps the closest you could get to having human words that describe him is a outer-dimensional layer that lies within all matter and space.That would be a natural force not a god. A force or natural law cannot be omnipotent as it lacks the requirement of intent.

I Don't think if there is a creator that he cannot lose his title as omni-present omnipotent, omnicent, or whatever, because that is perhaps the one thing he is unable to create a more powerful force,So then you agree that he can only remain omnipotent as long as he doesn't create a being more powerful then himself? I have to confess this sentence makes little sense to me, can you reword it?

Even if he did create something more powerful than him, it would only be an off-set clone, duplicate, and ultimately the same entity as himself.Then he didn't create anything. True omnipotence cannot exist, thus it is a title bestowed upon the most powerful conscious in the multiverse. If that 'being' creates a more powerful force (assuming it is even capable of doing that) then it loses it's status of omnipotent and the newly created conscious gains it. This all assumes the existence of a willing and knowing creator. What you describe is not.

-sniped 10th grade science- then the supreme being was the applier of these laws, therefore it is only logical to state that an entirely different laws apply to him, or possibly no laws at all.
Yes the physical laws of each universe is difference, however maths is outside the physical laws of the universe (In fact there are new mathematic models are starting to predict what existed 'before' the big bang big surprise it was a universe with difference physical laws to our own.) Logic is an extension of mathematics and likewise extends beyond universal laws
thus if something is not logically consistent it cannot be.

2 + 2 = 4 in every universe, even if in some the pencil decays before you finish writing the sum down.

Aeolus

07-11-2007, 05:53 PM

This is impossible and a cheap way to escape the paradox.

Not really, it's a request for further consideration, and only someone leaning against God would be so comfortable with waving it off as such. There have been numerous metaphysical forays made by ancient philosophers meant to explain certain paradoxical ideas without resorting to calling them 'flawed'.

Omnipotent is infinite ability, or more realistically the greatest ability.

Precisely, but I think, based upon the definition of the word, God fills those expectations easilly, and I dont think this conversation is going to prove anything other than your stance on omnipotence being an innaccurate word. I dont think it proves anything about God, other than you believe there can be a being higher than He is. Personally, I'll stick to the idea He is perhaps capable of filling the place of these infinite numbers of deities you suggest, or that His omnipotence does not rely on the abillity to create a greater being than Himself.

wyrm-takes-last

07-11-2007, 06:26 PM

I say being because it is a conscious being that is presupposed. Otherwise there is no conscious act and 'god' is just the process by which the universe operates. Don't insult my intelligence by accusing me of thinking of god as anything other then a supreme consciousness that is the creator of the universe and it's 'controller'. Any further abstraction means it is not a god but a natural force.
But he IS a natural force, do you really think that a singular intelligence or being could create, and control every multiverse in existence, do you even realize that no human can comprehend the size and power of our OWN universe?
That would be a natural force not a god. A force or natural law cannot be omnipotent as it lacks the requirement of intent.
intent is a human feeling and cannot be implied to a supreme being/force.
So then you agree that he can only remain omnipotent as long as he doesn't create a being more powerful then himself? I have to confess this sentence makes little sense to me, can you reword it?
Let me try and use an example, it would kind of be like a tree moss or a fungus, it doesn't really procreate, but simply grows himself.
Then he didn't create anything.
Yes and no, he didn't create anything equal to himself, but instead creates something that can be physically seen or sensed in some way, like people!

Yes the physical laws of each universe is difference, however maths is outside the physical laws of the universe (In fact there are new mathematic models are starting to predict what existed 'before' the big bang big surprise it was a universe with difference physical laws to our own.) Logic is an extension of mathematics and likewise extends beyond universal laws
thus if something is not logically consistent it cannot be.

2 + 2 = 4 in every universe, even if in some the pencil decays before you finish writing the sum down.
You reallize of course that this means that there is no creator, because logically that cannot happen, because matter can neither be created nor destroyed

Locksmyth

07-11-2007, 08:31 PM

But he IS a natural force, do you really think that a singular intelligence or being could create, and control every multiverse in existence Then it is not a god and thus not a part of this paradox. It is either a thinking or not thinking. If it is thinking then it is a god and being is perfectly acceptable notation. If it is not thinking then it is not a god but a simple process like gravity and this debate is about thinking 'beings'.

do you even realize that no human can comprehend the size and power of our OWN universe?I would make that most humans can't comprehend the size and power of our own universe. I have no trouble with it. I have no trouble with comprehending the size and power of multiple universes, many people don't they usually enter the more extreme end of the physic and mathematic fields.

intent is a human feeling and cannot be implied to a supreme being/force.Fail, intent merely requires intelligent action. It is not solely an aspect of humanity. It is a mandatory requirement of anything that is able to make decisions. Again if God does not have intent then he is not a god but a simple natural force not any more mystical then gravity or magnetism.

Let me try and use an example, it would kind of be like a tree moss or a fungus, it doesn't really procreate, but simply grows himself.So is that how he created the rest of the universe too? It still doesn't change anything how he does it. Getting right down to it even these examples you gave don't grow themselves but simply produce other cells. Evolutionary processes allow these species to eventually produce species more complex then them selves that are capable of more but which aren't the original fungus.

You reallize of course that this means that there is no creator, because logically that cannot happen, because matter can neither be created nor destroyedThat's not a logical law it's a physical law of our universe and cannot reliably be applied before the first one hundred billion billionth of a second after the 'big bang'. Regardless that is a false law taught to high schoolers to help them understand some principles in physics, matter is being created and destroyed all the time in a pure vacuum. This matter is referred to as virtual particles. These particles are what make quantum computing possible. They make black holes evaporate. These particles mean that even traveling in a pure vacuum a space craft would encounter resistance as it collides with the particles being created and destroyed.

Lots of what you get taught in science is in fact only true in specific circumstances and is taught to aid understanding of something very complex.

Locksmyth

07-11-2007, 08:47 PM

Not really, it's a request for further consideration, and only someone leaning against God would be so comfortable with waving it off as such. There have been numerous metaphysical forays made by ancient philosophers meant to explain certain paradoxical ideas without resorting to calling them 'flawed'.Saying it is beyond logical explanation (true logical explanation not Scully logical explanation) is a cop-out. Very one of those ancient philosophers attempts to solve a paradox using logic or create a paradox using logic. Saying God is beyond logic is giving up on trying to resolve the paradox. There is nothing to consider because it is an argument that says thinking and discussion are of no point as an answer cannot be obtained. That is why scientist reject any explanation that says god did it, it is also why theists cannot use he is beyond logic to escape answering a question. It does not work that way and it doesn't come from an anti-god stance simply an pro-logic stance.

I ask you what consideration can possibly be given to it's beyond logic in a logical debate? A paradox that cannot be resolved using logic is a paradox that can not be resolved.

Precisely, but I think, based upon the definition of the word, God fills those expectations easilly, and I dont think this conversation is going to prove anything other than your stance on omnipotence being an innaccurate word. I dont think it proves anything about God, other than you believe there can be a being higher than He is. Personally, I'll stick to the idea He is perhaps capable of filling the place of these infinite numbers of deities you suggest, or that His omnipotence does not rely on the abillity to create a greater being than Himself.I don't argue that he can create a being higher then himself merely that if he ever does he is no longer omnipotent using the lax meaning of the word. The strict meaning being outside logical possibility. Further more my argument is not that he doesn't exist merely that as God cannot be omnipotent in the literal sense of the world the bible cannot be taken as literal truth and can be at best symbolic truth.

Aeolus

07-11-2007, 11:26 PM

Saying it is beyond logical explanation (true logical explanation not Scully logical explanation) is a cop-out. Very one of those ancient philosophers attempts to solve a paradox using logic or create a paradox using logic. Saying God is beyond logic is giving up on trying to resolve the paradox. There is nothing to consider because it is an argument that says thinking and discussion are of no point as an answer cannot be obtained. That is why scientist reject any explanation that says god did it, it is also why theists cannot use he is beyond logic to escape answering a question. It does not work that way and it doesn't come from an anti-god stance simply an pro-logic stance.

I am just saying that there is indeed a chance that He is omnipotent, maybe I'm just failing to find a legitimate explanation. I would much rather try to search for further logical inquiry into the subject before assuming He is not. I'm researching more about it right now. I think it is possible that there is something beyond logic, but that is a metaphysical debate for another thread, I suppose.

I ask you what consideration can possibly be given to it's beyond logic in a logical debate? A paradox that cannot be resolved using logic is a paradox that can not be resolved.

That's true for us in our physical existence.

I don't argue that he can create a being higher then himself merely that if he ever does he is no longer omnipotent using the lax meaning of the word. The strict meaning being outside logical possibility. Further more my argument is not that he doesn't exist merely that as God cannot be omnipotent in the literal sense of the world the bible cannot be taken as literal truth and can be at best symbolic truth.

I think it can be interpreted in any way people want, which they seem to do, anyway.

wyrm-takes-last

07-11-2007, 11:49 PM

Then it is not a god and thus not a part of this paradox. It is either a thinking or not thinking. If it is thinking then it is a god and being is perfectly acceptable notation. If it is not thinking then it is not a god but a simple process like gravity and this debate is about thinking 'beings'.Once again, you keep applying humanoid concepts, like thinking to something that is capable of creating. Something like "thinking" cannot be applied to a supreme being, something so mudane and simple, so basic such as human thought is minute when compared to the thought process of something that can create and destroy with mere thought!I would make that most humans can't comprehend the size and power of our own universe. I have no trouble with it. I have no trouble with comprehending the size and power of multiple universes, many people don't they usually enter the more extreme end of the physic and mathematic fields.Yes, well, I'm sure you've witness hundreds of super-novas and quasars and super-massive black holes in your life haven't you? I'm sure you can count to the number of subatomic particles that were present at the moment of the big bang, or exactly what type of dimensional collision will produce exactly what type of matter and physical properties, and I'm sure you can comprehend the size and raw power of a black hole, or our own star...

No, I'm afraid you haven't neither have I, neither has anyone, the only difference is that I'm not ignorant to claim that I have.Fail, intent merely requires intelligent action. It is not solely an aspect of humanity. It is a mandatory requirement of anything that is able to make decisions. Again if God does not have intent then he is not a god but a simple natural force not any more mystical then gravity or magnetism.
What then, other than animals, have intent? if you know please tell me.

So is that how he created the rest of the universe too? It still doesn't change anything how he does it. Getting right down to it even these examples you gave don't grow themselves but simply produce other cells. Evolutionary processes allow these species to eventually produce species more complex then them selves that are capable of more but which aren't the original fungus.
Pardon my medaphor, think BIGGER than the actuall moss, but the large picture of the moss simple GROWING, and not the microscopic detail, yes, I know that moss produces my cell-division and what-not, but thats not what I was getting at.
That's not a logical law it's a physical law of our universe and cannot reliably be applied before the first one hundred billion billionth of a second after the 'big bang'. Regardless that is a false law taught to high schoolers to help them understand some principles in physics, matter is being created and destroyed all the time in a pure vacuum. This matter is referred to as virtual particles. These particles are what make quantum computing possible. They make black holes evaporate. These particles mean that even traveling in a pure vacuum a space craft would encounter resistance as it collides with the particles being created and destroyed.
These particles are often thought to be leaked from other multiverses, it is also thought that gravity could actually be leaked into our universe from another universe, this was thought when wondering why gravity was relatively weak, think about how with the entire millions of tons of mass of the earth pulling on the 2-300 pounds of human, a human can still resist the force of gravity (jumping). This could explain these particles, thus making the multiverses logical again. So, that doesn't really contradict what I said about a creator being illogical, but then again, humans aren't very logical creatures.

Locksmyth

07-12-2007, 04:26 PM

Once again, you keep applying humanoid concepts, like thinking to something that is capable of creating. Something like "thinking" cannot be applied to a supreme being, something so mudane and simple, so basic such as human thought is minute when compared to the thought process of something that can create and destroy with mere thought!As you say 'the thought process of something that can create and destroy with a mere thought" it doesn't matter if you are talking about a rain drop or the ocean it's still water.

Yes, well, I'm sure you've witness hundreds of super-novas and quasars and super-massive black holes in your life haven't you? I'm sure you can count to the number of subatomic particles that were present at the moment of the big bang, or exactly what type of dimensional collision will produce exactly what type of matter and physical properties, and I'm sure you can comprehend the size and raw power of a black hole, or our own star...

No, I'm afraid you haven't neither have I, neither has anyone, the only difference is that I'm not ignorant to claim that I have.I don't have to have witnessed it first hand to understand it. I am in awe of the universe, but can understand its power. Don't assume everyone has a mind that with the same restrictions as yours. Some people cannot think in any form other the pictures, but I would hardly claim that no one can think in terms of language. Different people have different abilities, I do happen to be able to understand the size and power of the universe. That is not a outrageous claim. If no one can comprehend these things then no one could study them. Don't be so arrogant to believe that you are the pinnacle of human intellect and everyone else is like you or lower. I know what I am capable of mentally and I know there are probably millions of people that are far more capable mentally then I.

What then, other than animals, have intent? if you know please tell me.They can either have intent or instinct. Intent means you know what you are doing, that is all. If the supreme being does not know what it is doing then it's not very supreme if it does then it has intent.

Pardon my medaphor, think BIGGER than the actuall moss, but the large picture of the moss simple GROWING, and not the microscopic detail, yes, I know that moss produces my cell-division and what-not, but thats not what I was getting at.Yes you claim that the supreme being is capable of creating the universe, but to create an other supreme being it would be creating more of itself. You say this like you know the exact properties of the supreme being and dismiss the possibility that it can create anything of substancial power in the same manner that it has created the universe, and indeed that you claim to know the manner in which it created the universe, so while I claim to be capable of understanding the universe and make no assumptions about the abilities of the 'supreme being' other then the fact that there is no such thing as infinites only values that near or approaching infinites.

You claim that I am ignorant to claim that it is possible to understand the functioning, (size and power) of the universe and then proclaim knowledge of the process by which the supreme being creates it? I'm thinking one of us is ignorant and it's not the one that makes his claims based on observable and experimental data. It's also not the one that makes no claims about the 'supreme beings' abilities, other then the simple fact that there is no infinity.

These particles are often thought to be leaked from other multiverses, it is also thought that gravity could actually be leaked into our universe from another universe, this was thought when wondering why gravity was relatively weak, think about how with the entire millions of tons of mass of the earth pulling on the 2-300 pounds of human, a human can still resist the force of gravity (jumping). This could explain these particles, thus making the multiverses logical again. So, that doesn't really contradict what I said about a creator being illogical,It matters not where the particles come from although there are big problems with the leaking theory, these particle are formed and destroyed in couples (matter and anti-matter). If they leaked though as you say then they leak from a universe that is made of equal parts matter and anti-matter.

Regardless that still doesn't change the fact that conservation of matter and energy is a 'law' of our universe and cannot be applied to anything external to it. You claim that because maths still works in other universes and indeed outside the multiverse (in order to describe it) that the law of conservation of matter would as well and thus there can be no creator.

As I stated the law of conservation is not a law of logic, it cannot be applied to anything outside our universe reliably. There is no logical argument against a creator, just as there is no logical argument for one.

but then again, humans aren't very logical creatures.Humans are not logical creatures, but the rules of logic apply to them as with everything else. You may act irrational and with out thinking about a problem logically but what happens as a result of that action will follow logical laws. You cannot jump off a bridge and both live and die, you either die or live. That's a logic junction. XOR. Even quantum mechanics follow logical sequences, despite how complex logic becomes at that level, as it has more functions then 'macro' logic.
Regardless logic and maths works in every situation not just our universe. If they didn't then we could not use maths to predict other universes or this protective film you spoke about and implied was the supreme being. If maths broken down outside our universe we would have no multiverse theory. Therefore maths works outside our universe and multiverse. Logic is maths.

Locksmyth

07-12-2007, 04:30 PM

I am just saying that there is indeed a chance that He is omnipotent, maybe I'm just failing to find a legitimate explanation. I would much rather try to search for further logical inquiry into the subject before assuming He is not. I'm researching more about it right now. I think it is possible that there is something beyond logic, but that is a metaphysical debate for another thread, I suppose.There is nothing beyond logic, logic is math and the very core of everything. Maths transcends our universe and can explain other universes. It is not a simple human construct, it is the language of universes. It is how we now probe into the universe that birthed ours.

That's true for us in our physical existence.And meta-physical existence and multiverseal existence it is true of existence period.

I think it can be interpreted in any way people want, which they seem to do, anyway.That's completely true..

wyrm-takes-last

07-12-2007, 06:38 PM

I don't have to have witnessed it first hand to understand it. I am in awe of the universe, but can understand its power. Don't assume everyone has a mind that with the same restrictions as yours. Some people cannot think in any form other the pictures, but I would hardly claim that no one can think in terms of language. Different people have different abilities, I do happen to be able to understand the size and power of the universe. That is not a outrageous claim. If no one can comprehend these things then no one could study them. Don't be so arrogant to believe that you are the pinnacle of human intellect and everyone else is like you or lower. I know what I am capable of mentally and I know there are probably millions of people that are far more capable mentally then I.

You do realize that the worlds top physicists still havent answered every question about quasars and black holes, you do realize, that even those top physicists theories about astronomical events are just that, theories, not facts. And yet you CLAIM to know about these things. No, Even if I WAS a renowned physicists I wouldn't claim to fully understand the workings and power of these things. Claiming to know everything is the pinnacle of foolishness.

They can either have intent or instinct. Intent means you know what you are doing, that is all. If the supreme being does not know what it is doing then it's not very supreme if it does then it has intent.
you didn't tell me what, other than animals has intent.
Yes you claim that the supreme being is capable of creating the universe, but to create an other supreme being it would be creating more of itself. You say this like you know the exact properties of the supreme being and dismiss the possibility that it can create anything of substancial power in the same manner that it has created the universe, and indeed that you claim to know the manner in which it created the universe, so while I claim to be capable of understanding the universe and make no assumptions about the abilities of the 'supreme being' other then the fact that there is no such thing as infinites only values that near or approaching infinites.
I never claimed that there was a creator, I was only talking about IF there was.

You claim that I am ignorant to claim that it is possible to understand the functioning, (size and power) of the universe and then proclaim knowledge of the process by which the supreme being creates it? I'm thinking one of us is ignorant and it's not the one that makes his claims based on observable and experimental data. It's also not the one that makes no claims about the 'supreme beings' abilities, other then the simple fact that there is no infinity.
I don't even believe that there is a creator, just like I don't believe there is infinity either, but if there was a creator, then there sure as hell can be infinity.

It matters not where the particles come from although there are big problems with the leaking theory, these particle are formed and destroyed in couples (matter and anti-matter). If they leaked though as you say then they leak from a universe that is made of equal parts matter and anti-matter.

Regardless that still doesn't change the fact that conservation of matter and energy is a 'law' of our universe and cannot be applied to anything external to it. You claim that because maths still works in other universes and indeed outside the multiverse (in order to describe it) that the law of conservation of matter would as well and thus there can be no creator.

As I stated the law of conservation is not a law of logic, it cannot be applied to anything outside our universe reliably. There is no logical argument against a creator, just as there is no logical argument for one.
There is plenty of evidence against a creator, Creation of matter, desctruction of matter, omni-potence, omnipresence and violation of time, as once stated that god is the past, present, and future.
Humans are not logical creatures, but the rules of logic apply to them as with everything else. You may act irrational and with out thinking about a problem logically but what happens as a result of that action will follow logical laws. You cannot jump off a bridge and both live and die, you either die or live. That's a logic junction. XOR. Even quantum mechanics follow logical sequences, despite how complex logic becomes at that level, as it has more functions then 'macro' logic.Regardless logic and maths works in every situation not just our universe. If they didn't then we could not use maths to predict other universes or this protective film you spoke about and implied was the supreme being. If maths broken down outside our universe we would have no multiverse theory. Therefore maths works outside our universe and multiverse. Logic is maths.

Logic and math may itself be, logical, however, when applied by an illogical being (us), the result may appear illogical.

wyrm-takes-last

07-13-2007, 11:59 AM

Because I have had the final word, we'll assume that I win!

Locksmyth

07-13-2007, 12:22 PM

You do realize that the worlds top physicists still havent answered every question about quasars and black holes, you do realize, that even those top physicists theories about astronomical events are just that, theories, not facts. And yet you CLAIM to know about these things. No, Even if I WAS a renowned physicists I wouldn't claim to fully understand the workings and power of these things. Claiming to know everything is the pinnacle of foolishness.Stop moving the goal! I never claimed to know everything, just to be able to understand it and grasp the concept of that much power and size (what you originally proposed).

you didn't tell me what, other than animals has intent.Any animal capable of making a decision based on conscious though and not instinct. Dolphins are highly cognitive creatures and almost certainly act with intent, as are chimps and other great apes most notably the orangutan. I'm not sure what this is meant to prove in any case? Surely a creator would be is capable higher cognitive function then humans and especially animals.

I never claimed that there was a creator, I was only talking about IF there was.Regardless you make the claim that if there is then he creates thing is a specific manner, that is arrogance. My only claim is that if it exists the only law it would have to be held accountable to is logic.

I don't even believe that there is a creator, just like I don't believe there is infinity either, but if there was a creator, then there sure as hell can be infinity.Nope because there doesn't have to be infinity for there to be a creator. One is possible and the other is nothing but a human mathematic tool for quantifying extremely large numbers.

There is plenty of evidence against a creator, Creation of matter, desctruction of matter, omni-potence, omnipresence and violation of time, as once stated that god is the past, present, and future.Time is a physical property of our universe and unlike logic and math it cannot be applied to anything outside our universe.
And repeating what I said before creation and destruction of matter are properties of our universe, as is matter for that fact. Other universes may not contain matter at all, as it is possible for a universe to not contain time.

Because I have had the final word, we'll assume that I win!I have an idea wait until your 'opponent' has logged in again and actually read your post, before grandiose-ing yourself. Especially claiming last-word as some type of victory.

There are a number of facts you haven't addressed yet.

Logic/maths is the only thing that can be applied from your universe to anything external to it, including multiverses and any creators. This is proven by mathematical models of other universes and how they are interrelated. Why then, do you insist that the physical properties and laws of this universe 'prove' there is no creator. Only logic and math function in the realm of creators.

Why does the existence of a creator mean that infinites exist? That's a very large conclusion to jump to.

How do you know how a creator would create things? What basis do you use for your assumption about how a theoretical creator being functions. My basis is that mathematics never brakes down and logic is a function of maths.

Once you can provide the questions with a satisfactory answer you might provide yourself a 'victory'. The fact is that you cannot you confuse logic with physical laws and invent properties without justification.

Aeolus

07-13-2007, 01:39 PM

Stop moving the goal! I never claimed to know everything, just to be able to understand it and grasp the concept of that much power and size (what you originally proposed).

Wyrm is taking the classic stance that the truth is essentially unknowable and that logic, along with human emotions, is just a creation of the human mind, outside of which there is no truth.

Regardless you make the claim that if there is then he creates thing is a specific manner, that is arrogance. My only claim is that if it exists the only law it would have to be held accountable to is logic.

I don't see how believing that a creator creates with intent is illogical, humans do it all the time.

Nope because there doesn't have to be infinity for there to be a creator. One is possible and the other is nothing but a human mathematic tool for quantifying extremely large numbers.

It's true a creator has to be nothing but one who creates, however, the God I worship is omnipotent. It is possible that He is capable of creating a stone which is larger than Himself, or a being stronger, but what if, as a part of His infinity, He is that being, that rock, constantly filling up the place of what once would have been greater than the previous? Also, I think that a being such as God is beyond our universe and thus does not need apply our universal logical terms to Himself. He is not bound by action, an illogical position in our terms, but if it is true, then we cannot apply logic, and God's essential properties are unknowable to man. Maybe that bothers you as an answer, but it is suffice based on biblical description.

Why does the existence of a creator mean that infinites exist? That's a very large conclusion to jump to.

Well, it is possible that something that can do anything is capable of creating (obviously) many things, so I say yes.

How do you know how a creator would create things?

Excuse me, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think that very word implies that it creates.

What basis do you use for your assumption about how a theoretical creator being functions. My basis is that mathematics never brakes down and logic is a function of maths.

Simple. He can do all things, things outside of logic.

Pathos

07-13-2007, 01:54 PM

(Hey guys. Just now caught up, been a busy week.)

"So, Christians are bad, blahblahblah. I hate god. Blahblahblah." Thanks Grey.

This stupid Rock theory is irrelevent. Not to mention entirely pointless in regards to making a dent in Christian philosophy or proving/disproving God's existence.

Omnipotence is not something we can grasp. If God tried to lift said rock, then the infinite would be grasping the finite, and that would successfully destroy finite reality as we know it.

I mean, you damn idiots, if God made a rock so big he couldn't lift, it would have to be BIGGER than the UNIVERSE. And we'd all be dead.

Catch 22. So quitting half-ass flaming Aero and Christianity. You're boring.

Locksmyth

07-13-2007, 01:55 PM

Wyrm is taking the classic stance that the truth is essentially unknowable and that logic, along with human emotions, is just a creation of the human mind, outside of which there is no truth.No he just said that humans are incapable of understanding the size and power of your universe and further still even our own sun. That's a BS statement. Then he moves the goal back further and further, till it reaches the current expectation that one would have to know the absolute truth about everything in order to understand the size and power of the universe.

I don't see how believing that a creator creates with intent is illogical, humans do it all the time.That's what I'm saying he's the one saying the creator cannot have intent.

It's true a creator has to be nothing but one who creates, however, the God I worship is omnipotent. It is possible that He is capable of creating a stone which is larger than Himself, or a being stronger, but what if, as a part of His infinity, He is that being, that rock, constantly filling up the place of what once would have been greater than the previous? Also, I think that a being such as God is beyond our universe and thus does not need apply our universal logical terms to Himself. He is not bound by action, an illogical position in our terms, but if it is true, then we cannot apply logic, and God's essential properties are unknowable to man. Maybe that bothers you as an answer, but it is suffice based on biblical description.That's an answer to escape the inevitable conclusion that God is not infinitely powerful. That does not take away from anything, one does not have to be infinitely powerful to create and maintain the multiverse. Merely near infinitely powerful. A small objection sure, but that gap between near infinite and infinite is by definition infinite.

Well, it is possible that something that can do anything is capable of creating (obviously) many things, so I say yes.It does not have to be infinitely powerful to be able to create many things.There is no justification for the statement that if god exists then so do infinites. One is possible and the other isn't simple fact.

Excuse me, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think that very word implies that it creates.You are misunderstanding possibly because you either have read the entire conversation or you have forgotten it. Wyrms claims that if god created a being that was more powerful then it self that that would be either a clone or just itself, like a fungus. I want to know what justification he has to claim that that is how a supreme being would create anything let alone a being with more power.

Simple. He can do all things, things outside of logic.There is nothing outside logic.

_Grey_

07-13-2007, 02:00 PM

Pathos

07-13-2007, 02:10 PM

Wow.

Hahahahahahaha.

Unless you don't see, I hardly made any contribution at all to the conversation (not because I can't, just because I see no point).

But thanks for making me laugh. You're humor is outstanding.

...

_Grey_

You started this post. And then you don't respond to it because you see no point, unless someone calls you out on your stupidity.

Sorry, kid. There's nothing funny about you.

Aeolus

07-13-2007, 03:08 PM

Ah, sorry, I got really confused about where this was going a while back, so if I mistook some of what you said for what Wyrm said, my appollogies.

That's an answer to escape the inevitable conclusion that God is not infinitely powerful. That does not take away from anything, one does not have to be infinitely powerful to create and maintain the multiverse. Merely near infinitely powerful. A small objection sure, but that gap between near infinite and infinite is by definition infinite.

But if the word infinite is used to describe an infinite series of possibillities, is it not possible that He can do something outside of logic?

There is nothing outside logic.

A sweeping metaphysical supposition. Ahah!

_Grey_

07-13-2007, 03:39 PM

You started this post. And then you don't respond to it because you see no point, unless someone calls you out on your stupidity.

Sorry, kid. There's nothing funny about you.

Right. Or unless some dumbass tries something funny.

I don't see your point in saying that. It only points out that I defend myself. Which is what I did. See?

Unfortunately, I don't care what you think. If you think I am stupid, that's grand. Just be sure that you tell me yourself. Understood? Don't you #@%# around with everyone else by "quoting" me. I can do that too. Doesn't take a genius.

And it only proves that you really have nothing to actually use against me. Admit it. You just wanted to get someone mad. Specifically me.

So let's break down what you said above, just to prove you weren't actually following the thread one bit:

"So, Christians are bad, blahblahblah. I hate god. Blahblahblah." Thanks Grey.

Nice "quotes".

This stupid Rock theory is irrelevent. Not to mention entirely pointless in regards to making a dent in Christian philosophy or proving/disproving God's existence.

Who said I was trying to disprove god? Heck, I wasn't even trying to disprove anything. I wanted someone to disprove the paradox.

Omnipotence is not something we can grasp. If God tried to lift said rock, then the infinite would be grasping the finite, and that would successfully destroy finite reality as we know it.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Think about it: if all you said was true, there is no such thing as omnipotence. Because god couldn't do anything to the universe.

I mean, you damn idiots, if God made a rock so big he couldn't lift, it would have to be BIGGER than the UNIVERSE. And we'd all be dead.

That's highly irrelevant. If he killed us all to prove he couldn't do everything... it still proves he couldn't do everything.

Catch 22. So quitting half-ass flaming Aero and Christianity. You're boring.

Who said I was flaming anything? You are the only one flaming anyone in this thread.

...

And I didn't want this thread to be funny. Nor did I want to be funny. Notice I didn't place it in the "Humor" section.

Do you think I'm laughing at anything but you?

_Grey_

Aeolus

07-13-2007, 04:08 PM

Sorry, Grey, I hope I wasn't being like that.

philodox

07-13-2007, 05:09 PM

What can I say, this is amusing. Of course, most theological debates are relatively amusing.

wyrm-takes-last

07-13-2007, 05:09 PM

There is nothing outside logic.

What's that SPOCK?! Then how do you explain human beings!

Aeolus

07-13-2007, 05:13 PM

What can I say, this is amusing. Of course, most theological debates are relatively amusing.

Thank you for your input. It's always much appreciated.

We'll send the complimentary chocolates within a few hours for your gracious testing of our product.

Pathos

07-13-2007, 05:32 PM

I don't see your point in saying that. It only points out that I defend myself. Which is what I did. See?

Unfortunately, I don't care what you think. If you think I am stupid, that's grand. Just be sure that you tell me yourself. Understood? Don't you #@%# around with everyone else by "quoting" me. I can do that too. Doesn't take a genius.

And it only proves that you really have nothing to actually use against me. Admit it. You just wanted to get someone mad. Specifically me.

Who said I was flaming anything? You are the only one flaming anyone in this thread.

...

And I didn't want this thread to be funny. Nor did I want to be funny. Notice I didn't place it in the "Humor" section.

Do you think I'm laughing at anything but you?

_Grey_

What annoys me most here: You missed the entire point.

1.) If you didn't care, you wouldn't respond.

2.) I don't understand how I failed to implicate you of your own stupidity.

3.) My whole point was to defend Aero from idiots. An equally pointless endeavor as talking sense with you.

By your request, let me spell that out. Your stupid topics are self-defeating. Taking snipes at Christianity after you told me in another post that you believed in God, but not the Bible makes you a hypocrite. And a terrible Christian.

Again, we're not debating your moral decisions. So, just put this in the humor section so people can see it for the truth it is.

I'm not flaming. I'm calling you a hypocrite.

Feel free to respond.

_Grey_

07-13-2007, 05:34 PM

Sure.

Hey, Aereolus. Could you send some chocolates my way too, since obviously I'm not attacking you... And don't forget to send an extra special package to Pathos. [/Obviously not actually telling you to do this]

_Grey_ <- The person who never said he was christian, btw. You took that entirely out of context. Go read your own damn thread.

Aeolus

07-13-2007, 05:46 PM

Hey, Aereolus. Could you send some chocolates my way too, since obviously I'm not attacking you... And don't forget to send an extra special package to Pathos. [/Obviously not actually telling you to do this]

You got it! :)

It'll cost you 50 cents extra for speedy delivery. Possibly much more, if we can update our calculators. ;)

Pathos

07-13-2007, 05:50 PM

Locksmyth

07-13-2007, 06:10 PM

What's that SPOCK?! Then how do you explain human beings!

Humans are irrational, that's a different matter altogether logic is AND OR XOR NOT. Nothing about a human is illogical, but humans do act irrational.

Sometimes words are applied to a meaning which is not strictly accurate. Being irrational is not the same as being illogical. While rationality is often referred to as logic it is not mathematical logic.

Locksmyth

07-13-2007, 06:13 PM

...if the word infinite is used to describe an infinite series of possibillities, is it not possible that He can do something outside of logic?No because there is no such thing as an infinite series of possibilities, merely a near infinite sseries, which is still infinitely far from being infinite, by the very definition of infinte.

A sweeping metaphysical supposition. Ahah!A fact.

Aeolus

07-13-2007, 06:17 PM

No because there is no such thing as an infinite series of possibilities, merely a near infinite series, which is still infinitely far from being infinite, by the very definition of infinte.

Axiomically, but if there is in math, and what the pythagoreans said was true, that math can be applied to physical world understanding, then there is an existant infinite. We must find it.

wyrm-takes-last

07-13-2007, 07:35 PM

Humans are irrational, that's a different matter altogether logic is AND OR XOR NOT. Nothing about a human is illogical, but humans do act irrational.

Sometimes words are applied to a meaning which is not strictly accurate. Being irrational is not the same as being illogical. While rationality is often referred to as logic it is not mathematical logic.

I was half kidding, the point is you said that there was nothing outside of logic, this however, as can be proven, is not true. EVERYTHING about humans is illogical, besides the way they act, their very existence is illogical, perhaps if we were VULCANS, we would be a little bit more logical and understand a little bit more about the universe.

Logic may tell us how the multiverses work, but it doesn't tell us why. Just by telling me that you can comprehend the size and power of our sun is proof enought that your very statements are "illogical" and slurred based on your ignorance. Do you know that scientists don't even know everything about the sun, hell, scientists don't know everything about our own planet!

Locksmyth

07-13-2007, 08:25 PM

wyrm-takes-last

07-13-2007, 10:58 PM

Again you mistake logic and rationality. When the word illogical is used to describe human emotions and actions it actually should be the word irrational. Logic (in the scope of mathematics) is very different to 'logic' (as referring to an irrational act.) You don't even know what you are arguing about.

Understanding power and size (two qualities) does not mean knowing every aspect. Also knowledge and the ability to understand knowledge are two different things as well.

Ok, I bought your comments at first, but now your just making stuff up, when did you ever mention anything about rationality? Start making sense unless you want everything you say to become null and void!

Locksmyth

07-14-2007, 09:01 AM

How about I quote the text you just quoted before when you asked for an explanation of 'illogical' humans.
I previously I had assumed that you knew the difference between mathematic logic (what is being discussed) and logic being used to describe rationality (a different context and meaning of the word then is being discussed.) When I realized you actually believed them to be the same thing I wrote the following which you replied to so I have to assume you read.
Humans are irrational, that's a different matter altogether logic is AND OR XOR NOT. Nothing about a human is illogical, but humans do act irrational.

Sometimes words are applied to a meaning which is not strictly accurate. Being irrational is not the same as being illogical. While rationality is often referred to as logic it is not mathematical logic.

wyrm-takes-last

07-14-2007, 09:41 PM

Tiamot

07-14-2007, 10:38 PM

Nah, he didn't say, "Nee!" ^_^

Anyhoo....

Logic and reasoning are similar concepts but do bear distinct differences. Logic is largely a process whereas one amasses facts in order to come to a realistic conclusion or reason. A reason is therefore a justified belief, cause, etc. that one came to through the process of logic. Rationality, being possessive of rational, infers an exercising of reason whereas reasoning infers a stringing together of reasons that have previously been formed through logic. Therefore, one who acts unreasonably is acting in a manner that is unjustified by the process of logic.

Locksmyth

07-14-2007, 10:39 PM

That sounds like text out of a monty python movie.

Rubbish, Monty Python has much better writing then that.

wyrm-takes-last

07-15-2007, 12:43 PM

Rubbish, Monty Python has much better writing then that.

So then its poorly written python text. The point is, no one can logically say anything about creators, simply because we are human and our feeble minds aren't vast enough. So yes, you can say whatever the hell you want to about supreme beings, but don't expect any of it to be true, or logical, or resonable, or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Locksmyth

07-15-2007, 06:50 PM

That is a defeatist statement, an attitude that taken to it's ultimate conclusion means that we should not bother with any learning. If we currently do not understand it humans are incapable of understanding it. Worst yet, I don't understand therefore no-one can.

Sorry but I don't see anything feeble about human minds, except for the few that are incapable of applying logic.
The universe and a creator are not beyond 'mere mortal' comprehension.

Aeolus

07-15-2007, 07:49 PM

That is a defeatist statement, an attitude that taken to it's ultimate conclusion means that we should not bother with any learning. If we currently do not understand it humans are incapable of understanding it.

Sorry but I don't see anything feeble about human minds, except for the few that are incapable of applying logic.
The universe and a creator are not beyond 'mere mortal' comprehension.

The physical universe isn't, but depending upon what deity you believe in, that could be part of the major contributing factor to that being as a deity.

I have come to the conclusion recently that God is incapable of creating a deity greater than Himself, because that implies that there had to have been a potentiallity for something greater in the first place, and as an infinite, He already was (hence, He 'fills the space of that greater deity already'). However, this does not negate His omnipotence, it actually strengthens it, because if He could, that would mean he was not infinite, and was not capable of all things. The inabillity to be lesser than He is does not make Him non-omnipotent, because, as I have brought forth before, it is a self-defeating statement.

Locksmyth

07-15-2007, 08:23 PM

it is a self-defeating statement.

That is the point, it cannot be answered with a logically sound solution. Infinites do not exist, your god as you describe him cannot exist, what is wrong with him simply being powerful enough to create and control the universe and everything it in (that does not take infinite power), does he need to be more powerful then that? Why pump your god up to an impossibility, when logically feasible works so much better?

Aeolus

07-15-2007, 09:24 PM

That is the point, it cannot be answered with a logically sound solution.
Infinites do not exist, your god as you describe him cannot exist, what is wrong with him simply being powerful enough to create and control the universe and everything it in (that does not take infinite power), does he need to be more powerful then that? Why pump your god up to an impossibility, when logically feasible works so much better?

I think He is infinite, and infinites do very much exist. Why do my beliefs have to be 'logically sound'?

As a being worthy of my faith, I think with God all things are possible, and, that can mean doing things outside of logic.

Also, I don't see what your beef is with Him not having the will to negate His own omnipotence would be. If He could create something larger or stronger than Himself, He could possibly decrease His own size/power first, but otherwise, I don't think He could, and that doesn't negate His infinity. It only affirms it.

Here is Rene Descartes' work on the subject, as well as a few others:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Can-an-Omnipotent-God-Embody-a-Contradiction?&id=592682

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-modal/

I can understand why you think God is not totally omnipotent, but close enough, because of obvious logical problems therein being able to do all things. However, the very nature of a deity that is supposed to be infinite and omnipotent seem to indeed mean what they say: He can do all things, including violate logic. We as humans have little premise to say what He can and can't do, and as Wyrm has tried to get at, your concerns are largely perception-based. Can you imagine the concept of infinity? If not, does that necessarilly mean you can put limitations on the word? No, that is largely an assumption. Infinite gravity exists in black holes, are you aware of this? There are infinites, you just lack the abillity to understand a concept that is largely irrelevant to us humans in our situation of finite objects and numbers. The key component of matter is measurabillity, and God is not measurable, nor is He necessarilly matter unless you are a pantheist of sorts, but He cannot be measured by logic, a system we use to understand the finite world around us. He is beyond your abillity to rationalize, or mine.

wyrm-takes-last

07-15-2007, 11:13 PM

Sorry but I don't see anything feeble about human minds, except for the few that are incapable of applying logic.
The universe and a creator are not beyond 'mere mortal' comprehension.

Sorry to say, but your not as high and mighty as you might think, just because we are intellectually superior on our planet, doesn't mean we're superior through out the universe. Our domination over the animal kingdome has led us to believe that we are the superior beings in the universe, well, the vastness of our minds are nothing compared with the vastness of space.

J.L.R.

07-16-2007, 04:39 PM

The ultimate problem with trying to explain God whether logically or rationally, is that God does not reside in the physical world. Biblically speaking God's "home" is Heaven. The Bible mentions 3 heavens. Heaven in regards to the sky. Heaven in regards to the Universe. Finally there is Heaven, the spiritual plain, and it is this Heaven, by which God exits and resides.

Our logic; our understanding can only be applied to this uniserve. Locksmyth is quite correct in stating that our universe and its surroundings are not infinits. While in this world, whether on Earth or across the great expanses of space and time, we can only calculate, speculate, and study what is in this present physical world.

While some psuedo-scientists and just plain kooks have tried to scientifically rationalize the spiritual realm, it still remainds a closed mystery to us.

While we can surmize that infinits can not mathematically exist in this world, we can not even come close to proposing that the same would work in a plain, presently closed off to us.

The Bible records God as the Author of Life. After all He would be the Creator. God exists outside of the physical world, but His handycraft manefests itself in the physical world.

This may seem like a vast concept to truly comprehend, I think it is easier to grasp if you think of it as J.K. Rowlings and her Harry Potter universe.

As the author of the Potterverse, J.K. has god-like control over the entire world. She knows how the story goes from beginning to end, and during this entire time, her characters have fundamentally know real knowledge of her existence. Of course this differs slightly from the method God uses, as Mrs. Rowlings has not allowed herself to be manefested in their world. So to the Potterverse, J.K. is god.

On the same note, their are scientists who argue that the events surrounding the creation of the Universe as well as the complex evolution of animal species specific to this world (as we know of) was the manifestation of a devine act. Not every agrees, and more often than not, some of these so-called scientist practice below standard methods or worse, cheat science. Same old tricks practiced by early Darwinists... where "faith" takes the lead, while real science falls into the background.

The only really good book that I've read that dealt with scientifically plausability of God's Creative Act, is "The Science of God," by Gerald S. Schreoder. I like this book, because Mr. Schroeder does not flaunt faith or "How to become a Christian" tracks through out his book, and in truth, I don't think he is a Christian in the first place, so non-believers can feel relieved to read a book that doesn't sound like a "Convert" book. It is an excellent read. His mathematical constructs are simply stunning.

Even during the maricles of the Bible, those who were there simply witnessed the manifestations of God's power, but not God Himself. The only time God as God the Father, made Himself, "phsycially" known was revealing a glimpse of his back parts to Moses. However, it is uncertain if that was really what God would look like, or simply a physical representation of God allowing Himself to be comprehended in this world...

This unfortunately leads us back to faith. There are people who are going to believe in God, and then there are people who aren't.

God can not be proved to exist or not exist. That is simple.

Again, it is a matter of faith.

J.L.R.

07-16-2007, 08:39 PM

Yes this is a seconed reply in a role, but my first was rather long anyway, so I thought I would just add another post as it doesn't spefically deal with the information, nor elaborate more on the information that I have just given.

During my reading of the post, I saw commits in the grounds of, "People do not have the right to question the Bible and its authority." Or that those who make these types of "Proving God does not exist" riddles are stupid for doing so.

It isn't wrong to "question" the Bible or God, as genuin questions are asked in order to obtain answers. Through out the Old Testament God persuaded His followers to search for the truth, or as in Psalms, "Speak to the earth and she shall teach thee." In the New Tastament Paul tells Timothy, to "Study to show thyself approved."

It is important, as always, to not just follow everything a pastor says without question. If you don't know the Bible, a you'll never know if the person in front of you is telling you the truth or lies. Look at Jim Jones or David Koresh, both who manipulated scripture and used ignorant people, who didn't know the Bible as tools for their own wicked desires.

It is also important, with that said, to know the Bible's real origins as well as the histories behind it. More often than not, despite skeptic rationale, it proves that the Bible is pretty close historically, to the various events subscribed. (A good book, written by a Newsweekly columnist, who takes a fair and (thus far) the most unbiased approach to the Bible vs. History debate,