Can A Being with Complete Power Exist?

[Arkarian]

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...)?

 

[out of whack]

we know that anything is possible

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.

 

[grafica]

any thing is possible is only to certain limits.
because you can't predict the future that going to happen the next moment...

 

[sulymani]

there is no god ... spiritual skeleton ... maybe

 

[t014y]

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...)?

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). that's 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'

 

[NeoDevin]

(i think therefore i am)

Maybe something is just tricking us into thinking that we're thinking, and we're really not. Did you ever think of that?

 

[t014y]

Maybe something is just tricking us into thinking that we're thinking, and we're really not. Did you ever think of that?

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 into thinking the fact that we can be tricked is proof that we had the ability to think before that.

 

[a2tha3]

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...)?

WTF (f as in frick!)

Yeah, want to 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.

ZOMG! I just crapped out of my hands onto my keyboard!
lol I am just kidding--sorry I'm going to stop typing because i just took a rocket shot and feel hyperasf-rick

 

[basePARTICLE]

(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...)?

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!

 

[Moridin]

Maybe something is just tricking us into thinking that we're thinking, and we're really not. Did you ever think of that?

Tricked who exactly into thinking that?

 

[a2tha3]

Tricked who exactly into thinking that?

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

 

[Meatbot]

but isn't the idea of complete power against itself (god cannot creat a stone...)?

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]

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

 

[JoeDawg]

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.

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.

 

[JoeDawg]

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.

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).

 

[Meatbot]

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.

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.

 

[kenewbie]

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.

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.

 

[Meatbot]

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.

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?"

 

[JoeDawg]

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.

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.

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.

I don't see why Omniscience would imply a lack of free will.

 

[Meatbot]

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.

In what other way can you exist and still have an impact on the universe?

I don't see why Omniscience would imply a lack of free will.

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]

In what other way can you exist and still have an impact on the universe?

An omnipotent god can exist any way it likes... your imagination or lack thereof is not an objective standard.

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.

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.

 

[Meatbot]

An omnipotent god can exist any way it likes... your imagination or lack thereof is not an objective standard.

Actually it can't exist at all in anything other than a conceptual context, because omnipotence leads to logical contradictions.

By that same logic he will see what he chooses to do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Actually it can't exist at all in anything other than a conceptual context, because omnipotence leads to logical contradictions.

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.

Which means he can't change his mind when it comes time to make the choice.

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 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.

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.

Are you saying he voluntarily locked himself into a static situation that cannot change?

No.

Also, if you are saying he came into existence, what caused him?

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.

 

[Moridin]

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.

You are contradicting yourself. You are trying to use human logic on "God" to argue that "God" is beyond human logic.

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.

Prove it. What evidence do you have to support your assertions of such an exclusion?

 

[kenewbie]

You are contradicting yourself. You are trying to use human logic on "God" to argue that "God" is beyond human logic.

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

 

[Meatbot]

Does the fact you can't go back and time and change what you did yesterday mean you don't have freewill?

No. We don't have free will for other reasons.

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.

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.

 

[Meatbot]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[JoeDawg]

No. We don't have free will for other reasons.

Your opinion.

So what came first, the choices or the existence?

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.

 

[Meatbot]

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.

What does it mean to live outside space and time?

Can god make a choice in zero time? Making a choice is a process involving change. The brain is at one state and then at another. You can't change without time passing. If god has a thought, then time must have passed. That or there are two copies of god, one for each thought state. Are you saying God can act without time passing?

 

[JoeDawg]

What does it mean to live outside space and time?

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.

Can god make a choice in zero time?

Can the universe come from nothing?
Do photons, which travel at the speed of light, and therefore are frozen in time, have a beginning?
Black holes?

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]

Can the universe come from nothing?

Can God come from nothing? If you claim that this "God" is eternal or needs no explanation, then we might as well say the same thing about the natural world.

"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy." (Hawking, "Brief History of Time", pp. 134-135)

Your argument holds no weight.

All kinds of unintuitive stuff, even in science. The fact its unintuitive or seems contradictory doesn't prove it either way.

We can explain photons and black holes, yet no scientific data or explanation exists for this "God".

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.

Circular. You are simply presupposing God as ad hoc rationalization.

 

[JoeDawg]

You are simply presupposing God as ad hoc rationalization.

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.

 

[Meatbot]

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.

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]

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.

A premise is a premise. Logic is about what follows based on premises. So saying that a premise isn't logical means you are appealing to another premise and the logic that flows from that premise.

Our logic, is based on our experience in the world. If a god exists outside of our world, and indeed if a creator god exists, then there is no reason to believe the 'rules' for that god are the same as the rules for us. The premises for god may be different from the premises for our universe.

Whether that or any god actually exists, is a different matter.

 

[Moridin]

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.

(1) Failure to address my argument
(2) ferocious ad hominem

Those are two signs of fear and the irrational inability for argument. Answer or concede.

 

[Moridin]

Our logic, is based on our experience in the world. If a god exists outside of our world, and indeed if a creator god exists, then there is no reason to believe the 'rules' for that god are the same as the rules for us. The premises for god may be different from the premises for our universe.

Contradiction. You are trying to apply human logic to god in saying that human logic cannot be applied to god.

 

[Holocene]

An omnipotent god should NOT need to exist in order to create the universe. If a god first must exist in order to create, he's not omnipotnent. A truly omnipotent god is a god that can create the universe without even existing.

Therfore, it stands to reason, that god does not exist.

 

[Moridin]

One can say a god exists, but he seems do have nothing at all to do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10^-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.

What reason for existential import can possibly exist for such an entity?

 

[kenewbie]

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.

Like I said, you pick one or the other. You are clearly picking formal logic, which cannot unify with a god. So do I. People that pick god are free to do so, but rationally they have to give up logic as a consequence. You can only "disprove god" as illogical if you actually choose to believe in formal logic before god. You do NOT, on the other hand, HAVE to choose logic above god. I'm not sure I'm coming off as clear as I want to be.

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.

That definition of omnipotence and omniscience makes no sense in formal logic. But if you do not care about formal logic, then you can believe in a god, and he can be omnipotent and omniscient, because he is not bound by any rules of logic.

k

 

[JoeDawg]

That definition of omnipotence and omniscience makes no sense in formal logic. But if you do not care about formal logic, then you can believe in a god, and he can be omnipotent and omniscient, because he is not bound by any rules of logic.

That about covers it.

Its a similar kind of thing to when the laws of physics break down as you get closer to the big bang. The rules no longer apply. Other rules may emerge, but when discussing a 'creator god', human logic may simply break down. Or, of course, that god could simply be poorly defined and not exist.

 

[ciorion tae]

I can answer the rock question easily by saying that god already created somthing he cannot influence, the human soul. It's also the answer to the question of can he create a being like himself. But that's exactly why he created mankind. It's like he created a rock he cannot lift but that is able to lift itself. And maybe if he asks nice enough it will lift itself for him.

Of course there's the argument about the omni stuff. But you have to realize that if we have free will, then logicaly he has free will, this means that even if he can see the future then he sees all possible choices, thus all possible futures. And if quantum physics holds true then there are multiple universes out there, one for every choice that was ever made by anything that can make a choice.

But perhapse there's one universe that's not affected by that, or maybe in between all those universes is the realm you could call heaven where GOD resides. But you know I'm a philosophical christian and thus try to use what I know to prove that god exists.

 

[octelcogopod]

I can answer the rock question easily by saying that god already created somthing he cannot influence, the human soul. It's also the answer to the question of can he create a being like himself. But that's exactly why he created mankind. It's like he created a rock he cannot lift but that is able to lift itself. And maybe if he asks nice enough it will lift itself for him.

Of course there's the argument about the omni stuff. But you have to realize that if we have free will, then logicaly he has free will, this means that even if he can see the future then he sees all possible choices, thus all possible futures. And if quantum physics holds true then there are multiple universes out there, one for every choice that was ever made by anything that can make a choice.

But perhapse there's one universe that's not affected by that, or maybe in between all those universes is the realm you could call heaven where GOD resides. But you know I'm a philosophical christian and thus try to use what I know to prove that god exists.

I would propose that you can never prove that god exists..
Any proof will need at least an observation, anyone can make a logical argument about something (invisible pink elephant) but the /proof/ part comes in at observation.
No offense but making some pink elephant like argument on a message board is never going to be enough to prove something as substantial as a god.

I also feel your whole argument is based on a lot of assumptions, for instance that there exists a separate universe for every choice or that quantum physics implies multiple universes.

 

[ciorion tae]

I also feel your whole argument is based on a lot of assumptions, for instance that there exists a separate universe for every choice or that quantum physics implies multiple universes.

Many fields of science are based on assumptions, that's why half of science consists of theories. In religion there's a simular thing, it's called faith, which is the evidence of things unseen.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

In men it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.

 

[JoeDawg]

Many fields of science are based on assumptions, that's why half of science consists of theories. In religion there's a simular thing, it's called faith, which is the evidence of things unseen.

The 'assumptions' of science are based on observables.

The assumptions of religions are based on revelation, and are generally at odds with observables. Comparing the two is disingenuous and is usually just an attempt to somehow legitimize fantastical beliefs.

 

[JoeDawg]

In men it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.

God is impossible then.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

God is impossible then.

?

 

[a2tha3]

In men it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.

You are applying your human logic (assuming you are human) to a higher entity in which case does not apply.

God is impossible then.

Impossible to be impossible? As moridin would say--contradictory

But I agree with you, because I think you are essentially saying that since it is impossible to be proven it is impossible to have nothing be impossible.

But (I think) you are also apply human logic concepts to a (in theory) higher entity in which they may not apply, in which case if they don't apply, then nothing might apply to the higher entity. (But if you are doing something else let me know, don't let me try to put words in your mouth.)

For example, the concept of existence applies to us, but it doesn't really apply to a higher entity given that it is a human logic concept.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that god doesn't exist, and I am certainly not trying to say he exists but In our terms he does or doesn't exist.(which don't apply because they are human logic concepts)

I don't even know where I'm going with this post, I'm just trying to make everyone think. Maybe nothing applies to anything. Well think about it.

 

[JoeDawg]

Impossible to be impossible?

I was applying human sarcasm.
Nothing is impossible
God is nothing.

For example, the concept of existence applies to us, but it doesn't really apply to a higher entity given that it is a human logic concept.

As someone once said, on that we cannot speak of, we should remain silent.

But I tend to agree, 'God' doesn't exist in any human sense, so for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist. Claiming he exists in some 'alien' fashion is equivalent to claiming he is nothing.

 

[Noone]

Anything can be done, But that doesn't mean it will be done :)

But in are phyiscal state we are in, there are some thing's that we cannot create with are mind, and one of them is creating a new geometric shape, or making a new color

LOL what would they even look like? well we can't think of what a new color or a new shape would look like because there one of the things that we can't think of or phyicaly create or manipulate in any way shape or form, in any given point of perceptable time... So the answer is NO we can't do everything, but anything can be done just doesn't mean it will be done within are known world that we are bound in...

Only a fixed amount of things to think and see , do, and play... why waste it in such a way :) OooO i know! because i say :)