- #1
Arkarian
- 9
- 0
we know that anything is possible and there is a chance that a being with complete power exists, but isn't the idea of complete power against itself (god cannot creat a stone...)?
Arkarian said:we know that anything is possible
Arkarian said:we know that anything is possible and there is a chance that a being with complete power exists, but isn't the idea of complete power against itself (god cannot creat a stone...)?
t014y said:(i think therefore i am)
NeoDevin said:Maybe something is just tricking us into thinking that we're thinking, and we're really not. Did you ever think of that?
Arkarian said:we know that anything is possible and there is a chance that a being with complete power exists, but isn't the idea of complete power against itself (god cannot creat a stone...)?
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!Arkarian said:(p1)we know that anything is possible and there is a (p2) chance that a being with (p3) complete power exists, but isn't the idea of complete power against itself (p4) (god cannot creat a stone...)?
NeoDevin said:Maybe something is just tricking us into thinking that we're thinking, and we're really not. Did you ever think of that?
Moridin said:Tricked who exactly into thinking that?
Arkarian said:but isn't the idea of complete power against itself (god cannot creat a stone...)?
Meatbot said: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.
kenewbie said: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.
JoeDawg said: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.
JoeDawg said: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.
kenewbie said: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.
Let me put it this way.Meatbot said: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.
I don't see why Omniscience would imply a lack of free will.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.
In what other way can you exist and still have an impact on the universe?JoeDawg said: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.
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.JoeDawg said:I don't see why Omniscience would imply a lack of free will.
An omnipotent god can exist any way it likes... your imagination or lack thereof is not an objective standard.Meatbot said: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.
Actually it can't exist at all in anything other than a conceptual context, because omnipotence leads to logical contradictions.JoeDawg said:An omnipotent god can exist any way it likes... your imagination or lack thereof is not an objective standard.
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.JoeDawg said:By that same logic he will see what he chooses to do.
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.JoeDawg said:An all-knowing god is not limited by time. What it thinks 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.
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.JoeDawg said: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.
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.Meatbot said:Actually it can't exist at all in anything other than a conceptual context, because omnipotence leads to logical contradictions.
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.Which means he can't change his mind when it comes time to make the choice.
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.
No.Are you saying he voluntarily locked himself into a static situation that cannot change?
I'm saying that if an omniscience god exists, its choices are part of its existence.Also, if you are saying he came into existence, what caused him?
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.
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.
Moridin said:You are contradicting yourself. You are trying to use human logic on "God" to argue that "God" is beyond human logic.
No. We don't have free will for other reasons.JoeDawg said:Does the fact you can't go back and time and change what you did yesterday mean you don't have freewill?
So what came first, the choices or the existence? If they were simultaneous, then what caused those decisions to be made? There would have been zero time for thought to take place. The choices would have to be determined by whatever caused the existence to take place.JoeDawg said: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.
I respectfully disagree with that. If your definition of God is self-contradictory then it can be logically proven that that particular god cannot exist. The bible's definition is self-contradictory. If your definition is not self-contradictory, then it cannot be disproven.kenewbie said: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.
Ok. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Omniscience is the state of knowing everything. By anything and everything I mean exactly that. With those definitions, a being cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously.kenewbie said: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.
Your opinion.Meatbot said:No. We don't have free will for other reasons.
If a creator god exists, it created space/time... by definition.So what came first, the choices or the existence?
JoeDawg said:If a creator god exists, it created space/time... by definition.
If it created space/time, it is reasonable to conclude it has no such limitation.
It means its quite reasonable to be an atheist, because that sort of thing is completely alien to our way of thinking... way of existing. Its also an easy claim to make, which is why theologians like to make it.Meatbot said:What does it mean to live outside space and time?
Can god make a choice in zero time?
JoeDawg said:Can the universe come from nothing?
All kinds of unintuitive stuff, even in science. The fact its unintuitive or seems contradictory doesn't prove it either way.
If a god exists, and if it is omniscient, it would not be limited by time since it created time. What that means about the nature of such a god, is certainly a question. Not an easy one either.
Moridin said:You are simply presupposing God as ad hoc rationalization.
I would argue that the premise that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists is logically impossible, so that any conclusions drawn by assuming it exists will not be sound. If you want to suppose that God is "almost omnipotent" and "almost omniscient", then I can't disprove his existence. However, "creating" is a process and requires a change in state. How you can get a change in state in one system without any time passing is beyond me and I would suspect it's impossible.JoeDawg said:If a god exists, and if it is omniscient, it would not be limited by time since it created time. What that means about the nature of such a god, is certainly a question. Not an easy one either.
Meatbot said:I would argue that the premise that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists is logically impossible, so that any conclusions drawn by assuming it exists will not be sound. If you want to suppose that God is "almost omnipotent" and "almost omniscient", then I can't disprove his existence. However, "creating" is a process and requires a change in state. How you can get a change in state in one system without any time passing is beyond me and I would suspect it's impossible.
JoeDawg said:Once again, you have not read what I wrote. Whether a god actually exists is not something I was addressing.
You're nothing but a randian fanatic, I'm done with you.