Is God Limited by His Own Power?

[Lacy33]

I have had a vision two years ago towards the goal of proving something scientifically. It will be accepted by all and it will happen. To change it there is only one hope and one hope alone. They must know there is more. Maybe the time is now.

One tends not to believe a person who says they have a vision if they are mean or otherwise full of themselves.
But for the benefit of those of us who have not heard, would YOU in particular be willing to share your vision again. I for one am VERY interested in what you have to say.
Shoshana

 

[Burnsys]

If god really exists (Which i Don't believe), then if he wanted to make a universe with inteligent life on it... then even him has to submit to some fundamental constants... What if god creted the universe with another Gravitational Constant, may bee. planets would never form.. or may be the universe would be fill of black holes.. no live... or another speed of ligth. What i am trying to say is that god (if there is one) is not fundamental. he is not in the top of the piramid...

(Sorry my english.. i am from argentina)

 

[A_I_]

what is it in the top of the pyramid?

(no te peocupes)

 

[Enos]

Pick a spot on a sphere and that's where god is. the rest is the universe. No pyramid.

 

[Lacy33]

what is it in the top of the pyramid?

(no te peocupes)

Are you referring to the possibility of concentrated energy within the upper sections of a pyramid?

 

[Lacy33]

Pick a spot on a sphere and that's where god is. the rest is the universe. No pyramid.

Hi Enos,
What you lead into here is interesting, but could you continue with this thought?
Why do you pick a sphere, why only one point of that sphere, would a higher energy source or (as some refer to that as G-d) be feeding into or animating the universe (the rest of the sphere), at all points.
Cheers
S

 

[Burnsys]

No, i mean the top most rules.. the most fundamental rules... the rules even god have to follow..

 

[magus niche]

sorry in advance for my speil that is occurring

maybe there are no rules in the infiniverse. by this i mean infinitely beyond and infinitely within our universe there are many things that are chaotic and non-ruled. things that seem to rely on chance, or things that rely on free will, both exist in the world right now.

if our universe (the one presumably created by big bang) was constructed or developed according to rules, then as far as i can tell, mutations occur within the system. mutations which can have a positive or negative (or both) outcome for the individual units that inhabit the system. mutations and changes to the very rules and constants that may have once been in harmony.

but maybe there was never absolute harmony, but rather a constant interplay between energies etc. this is the system that seems evident at the moment.

any imaginative constructions we place upon the system we call the universe, we need to accept as our own.

theories can be invented (in fact i have a good one of my own using binary code combined with the concept of infinity), but i accept that this is a personal, (subjective,) theory that i have made up using information i have gathered throughout my own life combined with any genetic information that has been passed on to me from past generations.

ie. it is 'A' truth but not 'THE' truth. read 'The Prophet' by Kahlil Gibran

hopefully i can set an example by accepting my own limitations, while keeping an integrity by constructing a theory that includes both my own perceived observations, and others' as well. infact i wish to understand reality so that even totally new and profound observations can be built into my theory that would be current at the time.

i am in constant change. there are some things that in general stay the same, but i accept that there are many influences that act upon me that are out of my control. i aim to be able to understand more throughout my life, but never be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about anything.

as for universality, maths comes close. have a read about http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...binsky.pdf+"types+of+infinity"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 , chaos, etc. as these incorperate concepts that are seemingly incomprehensible.

at the moment i am attempting to synthesise mathematical theories on matter, with philosophical/belief-based theories on the mind/self. if anyone is interested or wants to question me, keep posting

some other sources in no order: j. dunne, gurdjieff, buddha, jesus, jung, wittgenstien, derrida, a. versluis, ...

 

[arildno]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite.

Do you think this attribute of "infinite power" makes the concept of God an intellectually acceptable notion?
It does not; in fact, it makes the concept even more silly and worthless.

 

[Lacy33]

sorry in advance for my speil that is occurring

maybe there are no rules in the infiniverse. by this i mean infinitely beyond and infinitely within our universe there are many things that are chaotic and non-ruled. things that seem to rely on chance, or things that rely on free will, both exist in the world right now.

if our universe (the one presumably created by big bang) was constructed or developed according to rules, then as far as i can tell, mutations occur within the system. mutations which can have a positive or negative (or both) outcome for the individual units that inhabit the system. mutations and changes to the very rules and constants that may have once been in harmony.

but maybe there was never absolute harmony, but rather a constant interplay between energies etc. this is the system that seems evident at the moment.

any imaginative constructions we place upon the system we call the universe, we need to accept as our own.

theories can be invented (in fact i have a good one of my own using binary code combined with the concept of infinity), but i accept that this is a personal, (subjective,) theory that i have made up using information i have gathered throughout my own life combined with any genetic information that has been passed on to me from past generations.

ie. it is 'A' truth but not 'THE' truth. read 'The Prophet' by Kahlil Gibran

hopefully i can set an example by accepting my own limitations, while keeping an integrity by constructing a theory that includes both my own perceived observations, and others' as well. infact i wish to understand reality so that even totally new and profound observations can be built into my theory that would be current at the time.

i am in constant change. there are some things that in general stay the same, but i accept that there are many influences that act upon me that are out of my control. i aim to be able to understand more throughout my life, but never be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about anything.

as for universality, maths comes close. have a read about http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...binsky.pdf+"types+of+infinity"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 , chaos, etc. as these incorperate concepts that are seemingly incomprehensible.

at the moment i am attempting to synthesise mathematical theories on matter, with philosophical/belief-based theories on the mind/self. if anyone is interested or wants to question me, keep posting

some other sources in no order: j. dunne, gurdjieff, buddha, jesus, jung, wittgenstien, derrida, a. versluis, ...

Thank you for this post as it give me an opportunity to state the it is this kind patching together and lack of focusing that makes attempts to begin to define such difficult, if not impossible concepts of nothingness or higher definitions of vacuum all the more challenging to get scientists to take those willing to give the subject a scholarly treatment seriously.
You wanted to set an example. Thank you I feel you have made an impressive point.
Suzanne

 

[olde drunk]

Do you think this attribute of "infinite power" makes the concept of God an intellectually acceptable notion?
It does not; in fact, it makes the concept even more silly and worthless.

What if god is nothing more than "everything", but, greater than the sum of all it's parts?

1+1=3 [you can do x amount of work, i can do x BUT together we can do 3x]

please do not confuse religious use of the word -god- with the philosophical. god may be the collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds which in turn mature and spawn new gods and worlds. it is an infinite idea that can never end.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[arildno]

Well, you have of course the freedom to redefine concepts into any particular shape you want..

 

[Lacy33]

Well, you have of course the freedom to redefine concepts into any particular shape you want..

However if we want to progress towards uniting the different schools of understanding ie. physics, mathematics, philosophy, religion, we do need a common vocabulary. That's what I think OD was trying to point out in short.
Suzanne

 

[arildno]

"collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds"
All terms in this phrase except "that" and "all" are terribly ill-defined.

 

[Lacy33]

"collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds"
All terms in this phrase except "that" and "all" are terribly ill-defined.

So working together, how would you gently redefine what you think he meant so that we might genuinely work towards building a common language?
Suzanne

 

[Deeviant]

Deeviant, who would I be without belief? I would be me, for that is what I am now, without belief. Jesus was once challanged about gods law or weather it applies to him. This gist of the comment was he came in accordance with the law, one with it. Jesus understood the very nature of reality less he could not have spoken those words from himself. You see truth is not about belief. You may not believe it exists, but isn't that the paradox for you. "believe that it exists". Belief sometimes takes you to a path to the left and sometimes to the right but what is encompasses all things. To a true searcher the path will disappear into the is.

Are you really interested in truth?

Your quite wrong in this matter. Perception is our direct analog to reality and belief is the willing modification of perception. But the hard thing is, believing in something does not make it real. If reality were not subjective as well as objective, then it would be an easier concept to understand. You are defined by your belief as it guides your perception and thus your reality.

I do seek truth, but it is certainly not the "truth" that you seek. I do not need to know the will of god, or of his plans, in fact I don't even need a god to make my existence meaningful. I seek a physical truth, based on the universe around me, as far away from the subjective as my human nature allows. What I seek, in fact, is truth, as in actual real truth, as in what is, not what I believe.

 

[magus niche]

arildno: "collective unconscious energy that creates all worlds"
All terms in this phrase except "that" and "all" are terribly ill-defined

i do not think 'that' and 'all' are terribly well 'defined' either... and this conceptual entity called a universal 'definition' is an extremely hard one to speak of. shoshana is right, we need to start speaking in terms which account for ALL people/things/concepts. as hard as it seems, all these posts on these forums are helping to form common grounds, even if these common grounds are only perceived by those who are engaged in them. ie. those who read and/or write them.

maybe: collective UC = human objectivity
maybe: creates = constructs/synthesises
maybe: worlds = infiniverse (universe + anything else that could possibly exist)

Deeviant good response to tenyears. but do you think 'universal truths' may be our own constructions? yes, the physical world is perceived by all living beings, and therefore common, but how or why we percieve what we percieve, seems to me to be humanly subjective (objective?). this does not diminish the power of the intellect, but it does put us into perspective.

ie. we as a human race think we are 'discovering truths'. any other living entity also has equal right to its own truths though, surely. for example, survival is an animal truth that seems to be universal, but as humans it is a choice(?) to survive: suicide, martydom, kamikazee etc...

we may have a grand intellect, able to find patterns/commonalities in nature and project meaning upon them, but when it comes down to it, they simply exist anyway (according to Einstein an observer is needed for reality to exist, on our planet alone we can find many many observers...). so we must not believe we are the end in its self, but rather, we are an infinite part of an infinite means/way/process constantly in flux.

do not get me wrong, i am always searching for truths, but i also acknowledge that somebody/thing may not see these truths the way i see them. which is what i think you were hitting upon nicely with your last message about subjectivity/objectivity. you are right, they both exist.

quest:ION---> is objectivity more a unification of many subjectivities?

 

[arildno]

I said the other terms were terribly ill-defined, I didn't say the other two were impeccably well-defined..

 

[BoulderHead]

God has never made anything, but everything is made out of God. Do you understand?

I believe so, but don't necessarily agree. Do you understand?

 

[Lacy33]

I said the other terms were terribly ill-defined, I didn't say the other two were impeccably well-defined..

How would you "well define" ANY OF IT...That hasn't been said before?

 

[Les Sleeth]

If there is a god I'm positive that everyone out there would agree that his power is infinite.

You are wrong to say everyone would agree that God’s power is infinite.

The only clues we have access to that might guide us about what the creator force(s) can do are here in our universe. There is not one factor known about creation from which we can inductively project infinity into a God model. Whatever God is, whether it is some consciousness that evolved as part of the cosmos or if it is just the name we give to physical processes needed to produce creation, logically “God” only needs to be power enough to have created this universe. Same with omniscience. God only needs to be knowing enough to have created this universe.

Also, getting back to your orignial question, as with most so-called paradoxes, a bit of fuzziness (i.e., insufficient facts or sloppy definitions, both of which are present into the God-rock question) is usually built into the puzzle, and that is why it leads to a logic conundrum. After adding facts and/or sorting out the issues involved more carefully, usually the answer flushes out. I originally posted the following over in the Logic Forum. I hope no one minds if I repost it here:

To be omnipotent means to be in possession of all the power there is. However, it doesn't tell us if there is a finite or an infinite amount of power to be in possession of; also, all-powerful doesn't mean “omni-capable,” i.e., that the omnipotent being can do anything it wants (analogously, a powerful weightlifter isn't necessarily intelligent).

We know a lot of "power" is packed into matter, so it follows that the omnipotent being uses power to create the rock. If the pool of power being drawn from is finite, then the rock could get so big at some point that the power used up creating the rock doesn't leave enough for lifting, and so an omnipotent being in a finite power pool could create a rock that was not liftable. If, on the other hand, the pool of power being drawn from is infinite, then the rock could never get so big that there wasn't enough power left to lift the rock, and in that case the omnipotent being could not create a rock that was not liftable.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Could God destroy himself?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Could God destroy himself?

Here's the thing. Is this question to be based on fact or is it going to be a logic exercise? When it is a logic exercise, we outfit God with whatever qualities we can dream up, and then see how it makes sense or is contraditory. Believers speak from faith, unbelievers take potshots, and nobody decides anything worthwhile.

You might say we have no facts. I would answer that the nature of creation gives us facts about its creator. If we can say the creator is whatever it is that created creation--whether that is physical processes alone, some type of consciousness that developed over eons of time, a combination of both, or something we've not yet imagined--then we have a basis for discussion.

If creation is the result of a greater creationary environment, then all the traits found here in creation must have been derived from the creator's potential (i.e., nothing can exist in time which the potential for it to exist didn't preceed its existence). Thus we can inductively project a creator model from what creation is like. For example, everything in creation, without exception, oscillates. Is part of the creator some type of oscillatory dynamic which our universe's relentless vibrations reflect?

Back to your question of if God can destroy himself (is it a "him"?). If we don't even understand what God is, then how can anyone know if that potential out of which creation arose could be damaged or destroyed? That's the realistic answer. But if we want to guess just for the sake debating, and embue God with omnipotence or supernatural abilities or whatever, then the question becomes another unproductive discussion.

 

[Lacy33]

Could God destroy himself?

Assuming I don't understand what we mean by G-d, I wonder to what degree of destruction you might be refereing to if G-d extends way into unimaginalbe concepts of greater and greater nothingness. Where would you define a line where G-d begins and ends to destroy Itself?

 

[selfAdjoint]

If I am not mistaken, the original Kabbalists saw the Creation as an act of great pain to the Creator. Previously the Creator had been in a state of fullness and completion, everything together and harmonious in the Creator's own self. To produce the Other, the Universe, this being had to "perform surgery" on himself, shrink away to provide a place for the Other and deny harmony to embody the Other.

 

[Lacy33]

If I am not mistaken, the original Kabbalists saw the Creation as an act of great pain to the Creator. Previously the Creator had been in a state of fullness and completion, everything together and harmonious in the Creator's own self. To produce the Other, the Universe, this being had to "perform surgery" on himself, shrink away to provide a place for the Other and deny harmony to embody the Other.

"Go on..What interests me most is that there was aproxamatly 18 hours of it...So do we give her a medal?...I say at least a healthy grant!" in other words Doctor Arroway, in the movie CONTACT, came back with proof that was kept a secret. She ended up giving tours to Children at the VLA.

I don't know many people who can fully appreaceate what you have written. Like Doctor Arroway, people with that kind of understanding unfortunately might need to go back to the children and ask them to ask the questions themselves.
Doctor Arroway herself struggled with the experience.
Based on the lessons learned from CONTACT, what questions would we ask WE the children?
"Baby steps Ellie, baby steps"
Thank you for this powerful post.
OH! How I wish I wasn't me right now!
"So beautiful, they should have sent a poet", or in this case a Kabbalist to respond to your explosive post!
"Know before WHAT you stand"
Hatzlacha Rabba!
S

 

[olde drunk]

Could God destroy himself?

How? within my definition, god is the total collective consciousness; it is not a single unit, anymore than the U.S. of A. is capable of destroying itself.

If arildno doesn't like my choice of words, perhaps he could provide us with a usable glossary of terms and definitions for us to use. I know, that sentence is redundant.

in short, seeing that the universe or omniverse as being our source doesn't violate any accepted definitions. it simply expands what has been understood.

the kabbala idea ain't bad. god musta got bored, so here we are. now when this Other reaches fulfillment will there be anOther birth?

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Lacy33]

How? within my definition, god is the total collective consciousness; it is not a single unit, anymore than the U.S. of A. is capable of destroying itself.

If arildno doesn't like my choice of words, perhaps he could provide us with a usable glossary of terms and definitions for us to use. I know, that sentence is redundant.

in short, seeing that the universe or omniverse as being our source doesn't violate any accepted definitions. it simply expands what has been understood.

the kabbala idea ain't bad. god musta got bored, so here we are. now when this Other reaches fulfillment will there be anOther birth?

love&peace,
olde drunk

This is beautiful!
G-d ain't bored NOW with all this Shenanagins going on!

 

[magus niche]

all i can say, is get ready for changes. BIG changes. creation is an energy construction/synthesis... i can think of so many parallels it is not funny.

in fact, ethically, i think in this time we live, we have some rather large decisions to make regarding our future, and the future of our planet.

i honestly am coming to the conclusion that we are all going to need a bit of faith. let's actually CARE about ourselves and one another (and life in general) for a change, it'll make things a hell of a lot easier!

also: find out about yourselves, everyone! who are you? where do you come from? and importantly, where do you you want to go?

i speak from the heart,
instead of the head,
without the heart and its ticking,
the head would be dead.

 

[TENYEARS]

I believe so, but don't necessarily agree. Do you understand?

I understand that you are asleep with the rest of the cattle. My purpose is only the truth, I have no hope of changing the world for it cannot be changed. The course is set and the future is inevietable as the rain.

 

[magus niche]

can anyone here define truth? can anyone here define knowledge? no, because it comes from within/without and it is not an intellectuality. but the representation of it is, and the representaion is physical at the same time: all language is subjective to the users.

tenyears, you say you 'know' you do not believe, what exactly do you mean?

all i can say is i 'know' i don't 'know'.
i accept i do not 'know' anything.
but by saying this paradoxically i do 'know' something.

stop searching for certainty. make it clear that belief and knowledge are interchangeable.

truth is not the representation but what it represents.

 

[Lacy33]

can anyone here define truth? can anyone here define knowledge? no, because it comes from within/without and it is not an intellectuality. but the representation of it is, and the representaion is physical at the same time: all language is subjective to the users.

tenyears, you say you 'know' you do not believe, what exactly do you mean?

all i can say is i 'know' i don't 'know'.
i accept i do not 'know' anything.
but by saying this paradoxically i do 'know' something.

stop searching for certainty. make it clear that belief and knowledge are interchangeable.

truth is not the representation but what it represents.

I am not really awake enough to think this through in a more dignified way, but then perhaps this is more appropriate anyway.
What would be if we, in our intellectual development once looked at a tree and said I know, I believe, I don't know, I accept I will never know...What of the sun, lumber, wheat, lightening, an atomic particle?
We can map out this universe AND its still unknown underpinnings. We just have to all go to some kind of class to learn the basic rule of progressing in this direction .
Why can't we humble ourselves enough to use the basic rules of investigainon that have led us this far and only slightly adjust or techniques as needed instead of tossing out the baby with the bath water?
Why do we think that in regard to investigations of abstract, seemingly non-physical phenomenology we need to come into it sideways with no regard to established rules of investigation. It is still the same universe GREAT minds have been asking questions about since our beginning.

 

[arildno]

"Why do we think that in regard to investigations of abstract, seemingly non-physical phenomenology we need to come into it sideways with no regard to established rules of investigation. It is still the same universe GREAT minds have been asking questions about since our beginning."

This is an excellent comment, Shoshana!
In my opinion, the main reason why the natural sciences have been so successful, is that the appropriate tools we need to conduct proper research in these areas have, as yet, shown themselves to be within our intellectual&physical capacity to produce
(the tools, that is: close observation&mathematical theories).

One might ask, for example:
1)What would be the proper tools to investigate into the phenomenon of consciousness in a fruitful, scientific manner?
a)What sort of experiments?
b)What sort of predictive theories?
2) Are humans at all capable to devise the proper tools to conduct a research into consciousness along the lines in 1)?

Personally, I would say that, as yet, we are certainly not in possession of such tools, and I am rather doubtful if 2) may ever be answered in the affirmative.

Should that stop us from trying?
I don't think so; perhaps philosophy as a discipline has its own value in leaving no stones unturned, seeking to devise new ways of thinking that one day might be developed into science.
While the "scientist"-mentalities will shy away from areas where there is not yet science, it is perhaps crucial to have a segment of "philosopher"-mentalities who have the patience&perseverance to do their best to open up new areas for scientific research.

That such minds ought to familiarize themselves with (and understand) already established scientific techniques is, IMO, vital; otherwise, they leave themselves bare-handed with nothing they can build upon, or tweak into an effective tool for some new science.

To discard out of hand established techniques of investigation simply because one has the OPINION that they are surely worthless in one's own area of interest, is, IMO, a rather arrogant attitude.

 

[Lacy33]

"Why do we think that in regard to investigations of abstract, seemingly non-physical phenomenology we need to come into it sideways with no regard to established rules of investigation. It is still the same universe GREAT minds have been asking questions about since our beginning."

This is an excellent comment, Shoshana!
In my opinion, the main reason why the natural sciences have been so successful, is that the appropriate tools we need to conduct proper research in these areas have, as yet, shown themselves to be within our intellectual&physical capacity to produce
(the tools, that is: close observation&mathematical theories).

One might ask, for example:
1)What would be the proper tools to investigate into the phenomenon of consciousness in a fruitful, scientific manner?
a)What sort of experiments?
b)What sort of predictive theories?
2) Are humans at all capable to devise the proper tools to conduct a research into consciousness along the lines in 1)?

Personally, I would say that, as yet, we are certainly not in possession of such tools, and I am rather doubtful if 2) may ever be answered in the affirmative.

Should that stop us from trying?
I don't think so; perhaps philosophy as a discipline has its own value in leaving no stones unturned, seeking to devise new ways of thinking that one day might be developed into science.
While the "scientist"-mentalities will shy away from areas where there is not yet science, it is perhaps crucial to have a segment of "philosopher"-mentalities who have the patience&perseverance to do their best to open up new areas for scientific research.

That such minds ought to familiarize themselves with (and understand) already established scientific techniques is, IMO, vital; otherwise, they leave themselves bare-handed with nothing they can build upon, or tweak into an effective tool for some new science.

To discard out of hand established techniques of investigation simply because one has the OPINION that they are surely worthless in one's own area of interest, is, IMO, a rather arrogant attitude.

Personal opinion: "THANK YOU" would be one of the first commonly used terms that would benefit from a serious mathematical application in expansion!
S

 

[arildno]

Eeh..I was inspired from your comment to jot down a few thoughts of my own along the line of thinking you so effectively summarized.
Perhaps I should have limited myself to say "thank you"..