Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anything is possible

  1. Jan 7, 2008 #1
    we know that anything is possible and there is a chance that a being with complete power exists, but isnt the idea of complete power against itself (god cannot creat a stone...)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 7, 2008 #2
    We don't know that anything is possible. We don't know that a square can be a round, or that up can be down, or that true can be false, or that absolute power can create something more powerful than itself. We apparently know that anything is NOT possible.
     
  4. Feb 3, 2008 #3
    any thing is possible is only to certain limits.
    because you cant predict the future that going to happen the next moment.........
     
  5. Feb 4, 2008 #4
    there is no god ... spiritual skeleton ... maybe
     
  6. Feb 28, 2008 #5
    first we don't 'know' that anything is possible. in fact the only thing we can know as a fact is that we as individuals exist (i think therefore i am). we perceive the universe acting in order and assume that it will continue to do so (drop a ball and see if it goes up). thats why all of our math and sciences work.

    second the idea that 'god' is all powerful but ever he can't make something more powerful them himself is what makes people think that god may not exist. there are many other examples.

    i'm not sure if you are talking about God and his powers or the facts of what we 'know'
     
  7. Feb 28, 2008 #6
    Maybe something is just tricking us into thinking that we're thinking, and we're really not. Did you ever think of that?
     
  8. Feb 28, 2008 #7
    if you can think that something is 'out there' tricking us into thinking that were thinking there there is something to trick. you can't trick something that doesn't think. so ever if there is an evil demon tricking us in to thinking the fact that we can be tricked is proof that we had the ability to think before that.
     
  9. Mar 6, 2008 #8
    WTF (f as in frick!!)

    Yeah, wanna run that by an atheist? By saying "god cannot creat a stone..." you are assuming the concept of a 'god' exists.

    Anything is NOT possible.. If anything were possible, I'd be able to fly, run 100,000 mph, and crap out of my hands. You'd be able to do it too...

    Sure, a hell of a lot of things are possible but to say anything is possible i think is a careless and ignorant statement.. Of course you could counter by saying the same about my statement of Anything is NOT possible, but more often than not things that deny something are less ignorant than things that assume things.

    I would use religion as an example, but I've talked about religion too much for today, probably enough for me to avoid using it for the next couple years or so. o_O

    ZOMG!! I just crapped out of my hands onto my keyboard!!!
    lol Im just kidding--sorry i'm gonna stop typing because i just took a rocket shot and feel hyperasf-rick
     
  10. Mar 7, 2008 #9
    you have the answer to your own question embedded in your initial set of propositions. The completeness theorem, will implicate a solution such that p4 -> p1&p3 ->p1. The only difficulty I see is the superposition of both states at the same time!
     
  11. Mar 7, 2008 #10
    Tricked who exactly into thinking that? :wink:
     
  12. Mar 10, 2008 #11
    I think he is saying "us" as in us as a society, and tricked "us" as in him. He's probably second guessing his existence right about now. lol
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2008
  13. Mar 10, 2008 #12
    Yes, it's self contradictory. He CANNOT make a stone so heavy he can't lift it. Since there is something he can't do, he's not omnipotent. God as described in the bible is omnipotent. Omnipotence creates contradictions and cannot exist, therefore God cannot exist as described.
     
  14. Mar 12, 2008 #13
    The idea that "anything is possible" does not imply that everything exists. Technically it can be possible for a circle to be a square, even if such a thing does not exist.

    Of course, if you go down that road then all logic is out the window and you will not be able to come to any conclusion about anything. So it is not a really meaningful hypothesis. I guess that is why those who choose to believe it call it faith.

    k
     
  15. Mar 12, 2008 #14
    The flaw here is in anthropomorphizing, a category error, its not really a problem with omnipotence.

    God could make himself physically weak, then create a heavy rock. Then make himself stronger, then lift it. He is still omnipotent, because he can always change his strength. It is always within his 'power' to lift the rock, even if he can't lift it with his current physical strength. The rock could be minuscule.
     
  16. Mar 12, 2008 #15
    Since circle and square are true by definition, it is of course possible for one to simply rename a square. However, the two definitions are conflicting. The are not the same.

    That phrase is generally used to refer to the fact that individual knowledge is limited.
    It basically means: I don't know what is possible.
    People don't generally use it to mean that everything can exist.

    Its the difference between epistemology(knowledge) and ontology(things).
     
  17. Mar 12, 2008 #16
    Good point, you are correct, however in that case he is renouncing his omnipotence and then my observation no longer applies. Mine only applies to currently omnipotent beings who have not limited themselves. He would have to limit himself in order to do what you say. Then he is potentially omnipotent but not omnipotent.

    In any case, if he was omnipotent, he could make himself omniscient, which would mean that he has no free will. However the bible shows him as having free will.
     
  18. Mar 12, 2008 #17
    This is hocus pocus. No matter what steps he goes through, he is still able to lift the rock and thus unable to create one he cannot lift. If he has to lift weights or walk over to the stone first or "make himself stronger", it doesn't matter: He eventually lifts the stone which means the first task failed.
     
  19. Mar 12, 2008 #18
    Exactly. The only way he can't lift it is if he chooses not to be able to. But that's not what the question is about. It's about whether some external factor not related to his decision-making process can prevent him from doing something. The weight alone would not prevent him from lifting it.

    All I have to do is rephrase the question and you are stuck. "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it without limiting his omnipotence?"
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2008
  20. Mar 12, 2008 #19
    Let me put it this way.
    Physical strength and overall ability are not equivalent.
    The question presupposes an anthropomorphic existence for a being that is clearly not 'limited' by one.
    I don't see why Omniscience would imply a lack of free will.
     
  21. Mar 12, 2008 #20
    In what other way can you exist and still have an impact on the universe?

    If he is omniscient, he knows what he will think or do in the future. He can't choose to do other than what he forsees himself doing. He can't change his mind about anything. That means no free will. If he could change his mind, then he would be wrong when he thought he knew what he would do. If he's wrong then he must not be omniscient. You are actually in a tighter spot here because he can't limit his omniscience in order to change his mind unless he already knows he will. If he doesn't forsee himself limiting his omniscience, then he can never have free will.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2008
  22. Mar 12, 2008 #21
    An omnipotent god can exist any way it likes... your imagination or lack thereof is not an objective standard.
    By that same logic he will see what he chooses to do. An all-knowing god is not limited by time. What it thinks.... simply is. You are creating a chicken and egg paradox by trying to separate an omniscient god into two parts. By definition, which doesn't mean the definition isn't nonsense to us, it knows everything.

    In effect, the future for an omniscient god is no different from the past. There is no progress. All 'choices' are made the moment it exists. He can't change his mind later because there is no later, but not because it lacks the ability to choose. All that happens is by definition, the will of god.

    Fun stuff.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2008
  23. Mar 12, 2008 #22
    Actually it can't exist at all in anything other than a conceptual context, because omnipotence leads to logical contradictions.

    Which means he can't change his mind when it comes time to make the choice. If you KNOW you will decide to have pizza tonight, can you decide not to have pizza? No, you can't.

    The problem is that by knowing everything, you are locked into a set path. He cannot deviate from that, which means he's not omnipotent.

    You are saying God came into existence at some point, and at that point his choices were made instantly and locked into a static universe from his point of view. Are you saying he voluntarily locked himself into a static situation that cannot change? Also, if you are saying he came into existence, what caused him? Plus, If his choices are made instantly and locked in, then he had zero time to think about what they would be. Does God know the feeling of deciding how best to lock himself in? There's no time to have that feeling.
     
  24. Mar 12, 2008 #23
    Human logic is based on human observation of the way our universe works. I see no reason a god that created the universe would have such limits.
    The choice was already made. Does the fact you can't go back and time and change what you did yesterday mean you don't have freewill? You are 'locked in' to your path.
    You are getting caught up in the assumption an omnipotent god is bound within time like we are. I see no reason to believe that. Our universe seems to progress and have a beginning. The whole point of having a creator is that, it doesn't. I said nothing about a static universe.
    No.
    I'm saying that if an omniscience god exists, its choices are part of its existence.
    Its not limited by time in the way we are, so when you starting talking as if it is, you're making a logical error.

    Our entire universe, which is space/time, is open to its inspection, so saying that this god is limited by time makes no sense.
     
  25. Mar 12, 2008 #24
    You are contradicting yourself. You are trying to use human logic on "God" to argue that "God" is beyond human logic.

    Prove it. What evidence do you have to support your assertions of such an exclusion?
     
  26. Mar 13, 2008 #25
    I don't think that is a contradiction in itself. We cannot argue without logic, yet as bound by it as we are, we can still describe things outside this logical system. Sort of like you can use English to describe a French word which has no English counterpart.

    But the thing about formal logic and god is this: You cannot prove or disprove his existence with reason, it is like trying to catch a dream with a butterfly net. The two things simply do not unify, so you pick one or the other.

    And the arguments in this thread are mostly semantics. You need to define "omnipotence" and "omniscience" ahead of time, then decide if those definitions can reside in a world of formal logic. If they cannot, the the discussion is moot.

    k
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook