Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

  • Thread starter Icebreaker
  • Start date
  • #51
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Jameson said:
I like a lot of the discussion in this thread, but what bothers me the most is when people make their point, and then say they are not interested in anyone else's. It's just not worth their time. The whole mentality of "I'm right and I'll tell you how it is" just doesn't seem productive.

I find omnipotence impossible to fully understand for myself because I just cannot grasp the infinte natures of it. I feel that it falls into the category of faith, as I believe it is beyond human comprehension. What do you guys think? Can we fully grasp the concept of omnipotence?
I think we can grasp it conceptually, but I believe the more important issue is why do we want to propose it at all? Trace the source of the concept, and I don't believe you can find it advocated by anyone we can be sure knew what they were talking about. Let's say you believe Jesus would know this, and as someone given the status of an expert on God, then if we had a reliable report of Jesus claiming God is omnipotent, that would be at least some basis for faith. But Jesus did not say it. If the reports in the Bible are correct, then Jesus said God is powerful, but not infinitely powerful.

It seems clear that the concept was developed by church theologians in subsequent centuries. Why should we think they knew what they were talking about? Plus, as my earlier post states, neither does logic indicate God (if there is one) is all powerful. If God produced creation, then all logic tells us is that God was powerful enough to produce creation, and not that God is all powerful.

So I don't see the slightest reason for "faith" in the omnipotence concept. But if you feel you have one, I'd be interested in hearing it.
 
  • #52
789
4
Les Sleeth said:
I think we can grasp it conceptually, but I believe the more important issue is why do we want to propose it at all? Trace the source of the concept, and I don't believe you can find it advocated by anyone we can be sure knew what they were talking about. Let's say you believe Jesus would know this, and as someone given the status of an expert on God, then if we had a reliable report of Jesus claiming God is omnipotent, that would be at least some basis for faith. But Jesus did not say it. If the reports in the Bible are correct, then Jesus said God is powerful, but not infinitely powerful.

It seems clear that the concept was developed by church theologians in subsequent centuries. Why should we think they knew what they were talking about? Plus, as my earlier post states, neither does logic indicate God (if there is one) is all powerful. If God produced creation, then all logic tells us is that God was powerful enough to produce creation, and not that God is all powerful.

So I don't see the slightest reason for "faith" in the omnipotence concept. But if you feel you have one, I'd be interested in hearing it.
I agree with most of your post. I'm not implying at all that Christianity specifically has a valid reason to believe their God to be omnipotent. You've made good points on the biased origin of the concept and how believing God created the universe does not lead to the conclusion that He is all powerful.

However, my previous post wasn't really discussing whether the history and logic with respect to Christianity of omnipotence is valid or not, I was more just discussing the concept of omnipotence in general.

Other posts have discussed paradoxes that go along with the notion of being all powerful, examples being God making a rock so heavy He cannot lift it and God making another God. There are countless situations which I believe do not have a clear answer. This could be for several reasons. Perhaps our concept of omnipotence is not full, we cannot grasp it completely. The concept could be flawed itself. Or our logic system may not allow us to show that it is valid through reason.

So when I've reached the conclusion that omnipotence cannot be understood by myself through reason, I find that the only other way I can claim to know that it is valid is through faith, that is "belief without reason".

And for this reason, I do not believe in omnipotence, nor God.
 
  • #53
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,076
0
I didn't have time to read through all the messages here but has any kind of agreement been reached regarding the precise meaning of "omnipotence?"
 
  • #54
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Tide said:
I didn't have time to read through all the messages here but has any kind of agreement been reached regarding the precise meaning of "omnipotence?"
It means unlimited, infinite power. The other similar trait commonly attributed to God is omniscience (all knowing).

The results of my studies are that both traits are attempts at glorification on the one hand, and theologians trying to communicate a basis for faith on the other.

Just because someone makes up a concept and starts preaching it to the masses doesn't mean we have to sit around for centuries pondering it once we discover there is not a logical, evidential, or authoritative basis for it. The only reasons I can see for the omni- concepts are their association with Church dogma and their ancient age, neither of which justify taking them seriously.
 
  • #55
99
0
According to Wikipedia omnipotence is only mentioned in Revelations. Thus the Biblical justification for a belief in omnipotence is very weak.

The same source argues that the conception of God entails something like the perfection of all predicates or all good predicates. Since one of those predicates is "powerful", God is all powerful. This idea is basically taken from Greek thought and fused with a monotheistic God.

So Les Sleeth, you would be correct that the idea comes from theologians, not from the gates of heaven.
 
  • #56
16
0
What about the following in Mathew:
Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible

That seems to be another source for Christian omnipotence claims.

Sorry if that breaks forum rules but I'm just showing it as a source for the claims.
 
  • #57
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
luxv66 said:
What about the following in Mathew:
Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible

That seems to be another source for Christian omnipotence claims.

Sorry if that breaks forum rules but I'm just showing it as a source for the claims.
There are problems with relying on that quote. Who was Matthew? Is he a witness? If he is, then why did he rely on Mark's gospel so much (as well as Q) to tell his story? The author also never identifies himself as the disciple Matthew, and the tradition that he is the author wasn't begun until many decades after his account was published. Few scholars believe Matthew was either a witness or the disciple Matthew, but rather he wrote, as was the Jewish tradition, in the name of someone famous to assemble word-of-mouth stories for congregations longing to know something about Jesus.

But let's say whomever Matthew was, he somehow accurately reported what Jesus said (and we are assuming Jesus is an authority on God). If Jesus said "with God all things are possible" it was in the context of being "saved." I don't see how we can interpret Jesus' statement outside its context to propose that God can do absolutely anything.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,076
0
Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?
Would omnipotence have the power to not exist?
 
  • #59
16
0
Les Sleeth said:
But let's say whomever Matthew was, he somehow accurately reported what Jesus said (and we are assuming Jesus is an authority on God). If Jesus said "with God all things are possible" it was in the context of being "saved." I don't see how we can interpret Jesus' statement outside its context to propose that God can do absolutely anything.
That's a good point.
 
  • #60
2,225
0
So, if God (if He exists) is not omnipotent, then who or what rules God? ... Happenstance?
 
  • #61
16
0
Iacchus32 said:
So, if God (if He exists) is not omnipotent, then who or what rules God? ... Happenstance?
Then we'd just have to argue about that thing's omnipotence.
 
  • #62
2,225
0
Well, if God didn't create everything, then it just begs the question. Who created God? ... At what point does God begin or, end?
 
  • #63
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Iacchus32 said:
Well, if God didn't create everything, then it just begs the question. Who created God? ... At what point does God begin or, end?
Yes, infinite regress and lack of a first cause are big problems, but not only for the God concept . . . for any creation theory, even a scientific one.

I don't know if you've seen my "monism" thread over in metaphysics, but it is the idea that some sort of uncreated substance makes up everything there is. If you are interested, I'll offer a little essay on how I would rely on monism to answer your question. You'll have to be patient since it takes setting up a bit of groundwork before I can answer.

I believe infinite regress, the lack of a first cause, and a slew of other modeling issues can be resolved by adding an absolute uncaused foundational substance that exists in basic foundational conditions; the foundational substance is generally unevolved, but has the potential to be made to spontaneously evolve by the basic foundational conditions.

“Absolute” in the foundational context refers to the most deep-seated level of existence possible, the bottom line, that from which all things arise and return, and of which all existence is composed; and “uncaused” simply means it was never created, has always existed, and forever will exist. Necessary too is that this most foundational level of existence is some kind of “stuff,” a substance.

An important aspect of the ground state substance is that it must exist as an infinite ocean; we might call it the Ground State Ocean or GS Ocean. It must also be homogeneous. Homogeneity means there are no spaces (not anywhere) because to avoid duality the ground state substance has to exist uninterrupted in every possible direction, from the infinite smallest to the infinite largest measurement in its oceanic abode (the GS Ocean).

Some people find the simplicity of a ground state substance difficult to envision because creation seems so complex. How can everything come from and be the same substance? To try to make sense of the counterintuitive idea that a huge variety of things could all, without exception, start out as and still most essentially be exactly the same stuff, try this analogy.

Imagine our universe exists in an ocean of fluid called wawa. It’s sort of like water but it is a very finely translucent fluid and far more pliable than water. Just like if you were a fish in a water ocean, everywhere you go is wawa. There aren’t any spaces or gaps or holes in the ocean, it’s just wawa wawa everywhere. But the wawa ocean is different from a water ocean in several important ways.

The planet over there spinning around in the wawa ocean? Well that planet is made out of wawa, and so is the sun the planet is orbiting, and so are the life forms on the planet plus whatever consciousness/awareness is associated with life forms; and when any of the “forms” of wawa fully disintegrate, they become wawa again.

If you start traveling in the wawa ocean, you can rest assured you will never reach an end, it goes infinitely on and on beyond our finite universe no matter what direction you try. If you invent a shrinking machine and attempt to shrink yourself so tiny you will see some kind of structure in wawa, and maybe space between the structure, you won’t find either structure or space. It is absolutely homogeneous as infinely large as you look and as infinitely small as you look.

Anyone smart enough to invent a shrinking machine could invent a time machine too (you’d have to be really smart since wawa is timeless), so when yours is ready, and you travel back in time, no matter how far you go there is wawa in its infinite ocean. It’s eternal and uncaused. You can’t destroy it because it is existence and cannot not exist, and you can’t create it because there is no room for it (since it already exists everywhere). It just is.

Now, the tricky part is understanding how everything we see is made out of wawa. Let’s say we lived in a wholly wawa world so that the atmosphere was pure wawa vapor, solid ground was wawa ice, and the oceans were liquid wawa; you yourself are a complex ice sculpture breathing wawa vapor and with wawa flowing through your icy veins. In this case, the “forms” wawa have taken are dependent on two key things.

First, wawa must be flexible/pliable/malleable/mutable enough to exist in an assortment of states; and second, there must be a variety of conditions present which can cause the different states. In our analogy, a main condition is temperature which determines the state of the wawa, and there must also be conditions such as pressure, movement, ordering potential, etc. which can lead to complex structure.

Yet if wawa couldn’t become ice or a vapor or shaped into complex strutures, then the potentials for conditions to create a diversity of forms would be restricted; following that concept, we can see that the more flexible/pliable/malleable/mutable the ground state stuff is, the greater the range of shapes and states it will be able to assume. That, in fact, is a huge clue for modeling because if we assume there is a single substance at the foundation of creation, and since we know for certain that a vast array of things exist, then that tells us the ground state substance must be amazingly supple.

As important as suppleness is, for our understanding of a ground state substance it is GS Ocean conditions that tell us the most, because they must be such that they can cause the ground state substance to appear as an atom, or gravity, or consciousness, or . . . God?

Let's say we define God as consciousness, period. Then let's say that like eveything else, the consciousness which was to become God somehow spontaneously and naturally developed in the GS Ocean. That means, some set of natural conditions must prevail there which can form consciousness.

Of course, since we don't really know what consciousness is (even our own), it is difficult to imagine what sort of conditions exist in the GS Ocean which would produce consciousness. But let's just say that a trait of consciousness is that it is inherently evolutive. Sinc we know the ground state substance is uncreated, indestructible (eternally existent), and that if consciousness originated and began evolving in the GS Ocean it has an infinite amount of room to grow, we have the basis for this "God" consciousness to evolve to a vast degree.

And really, what sort of NATURAL skills and abilities might consciousness develop if it had eternity in which to evolve? Look at what a human consciousness can learn in a few decades, but imagine if you had zillions of eons of evolution under your belt. You might be able to concentrate, for example, so powerfully that you could compress a bunch of ground state substance to the point of a Big Bang, and then participate in the development a solar system, help shape a big blue planet, guide the formation of life, and maybe even cause a little bit of yourself to emerge through a nervous system as an "individual" little consciousness. :wink:
 
  • #64
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Iacchus32 said:
So, if God (if He exists) is not omnipotent, then who or what rules God? ... Happenstance?
Why does a non-omnipotent being need to be ruled by something? In order to be God, he must only be the most powerful being. He doesn't have to be all-powerful.

It seems that Aquinas, et al saw this as a contradiction, as it entailed the possibility of some being arising that is more powerful than God, which simply could not be allowed. Therefore, they mistranslated some Hebrew words to find biblical backing for the idea of an omnipotent, a being so powerful that it is not possible to be any more powerful. However, there is an alternative that still avoids the possibility of a being arising that is greater than God. You simply have to posit that God has the most power that any being can have. If it is impossible for any being to be omnipotent because it entails certain contradictions, fine, so be it. Then God is not omnipotent. He simply has the most power that any being could possibly have. There is, of course, still no evidential basis for such a belief, but at least it is true to the spirit of what Aquinas, et al were trying to accomplish.
 
  • #65
2,225
0
loseyourname said:
Why does a non-omnipotent being need to be ruled by something? In order to be God, he must only be the most powerful being. He doesn't have to be all-powerful.
If He draws his power from outside of himself, then obviously he must be "subject to" whatever that power source may be.

Then God is not omnipotent. He simply has the most power that any being could possibly have. There is, of course, still no evidential basis for such a belief, but at least it is true to the spirit of what Aquinas, et al were trying to accomplish.
Regardless, how does one establish the ground rules for anything to exist in the first place? How does something come from nothing ... unless that something (the proclivity for all things to exist) has always existed? Look at all the "potential" hidden within a single seed. Is it possible that a very similar scenario existed when the Universe sprang forth? Obviously we would have no Universe without any potential for it to exist prior to its inception.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
2,225
0
Les Sleeth said:
Yes, infinite regress and lack of a first cause are big problems, but not only for the God concept . . . for any creation theory, even a scientific one.
Yes.

Let's say we define God as consciousness, period.
To the extent that it was intelligent and articulate I would say yes.

Then let's say that like eveything else, the consciousness which was to become God somehow spontaneously and naturally developed in the GS Ocean. That means, some set of natural conditions must prevail there which can form consciousness.
Unfortunately you're still stuck with trying to explain how something can come from nothing. It doesn't explain how something intelligent and articulate can arise out of the lack thereof. Does structure beget stucture? Yes it does. Does nothing beget nothing? Again, that would be yes.

And really, what sort of NATURAL skills and abilities might consciousness develop if it had eternity in which to evolve? Look at what a human consciousness can learn in a few decades, but imagine if you had zillions of eons of evolution under your belt. You might be able to concentrate, for example, so powerfully that you could compress a bunch of ground state substance to the point of a Big Bang, and then participate in the development a solar system, help shape a big blue planet, guide the formation of life, and maybe even cause a little bit of yourself to emerge through a nervous system as an "individual" little consciousness. :wink:
I personally don't believe things evolve in-as-much-as they unfold. So, what we may deem as evolutionary change, is merely a matter of things unfolding according to their design. Which is to say, structure begets structure which, has always existed (at least in potential), in the mind of God. Hence the notion of God being omniscient.
 
  • #67
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Iacchus32 said:
Unfortunately you're still stuck with trying to explain how something can come from nothing.
Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. An eternally-existing ground state substance, in an infinite ground state ocean is not "nothing." :cool:
 
  • #68
2,225
0
Les Sleeth said:
Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. An eternally-existing ground state substance, in an infinite ground state ocean is not "nothing." :cool:
That still doesn't explain how it got here, especially when in its supposed to evolve into something we can recognize. Does that mean it's always been evolving then? So yes, you are still stuck with the notion of infinite regression. Whereas if things merely unfold as part of the overall plan, as I suggest, then who (or what) put the design into God ... i.e., if it wasn't already there?
 
  • #69
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Iacchus32 said:
That still doesn't explain how it got here, especially when in its supposed to evolve into something we can recognize.
I have to say again that it seems you didn't read what I wrote very carefully or I can't see why you would ask how it "got here."

I said, "I believe infinite regress, the lack of a first cause, and a slew of other modeling issues can be resolved by adding an absolute uncaused foundational substance . . . . 'uncaused' simply means it was never created, has always existed, and forever will exist."


Iacchus32 said:
Does that mean it's always been evolving then? So yes, you are still stuck with the notion of infinite regression.
To this I proposed "the foundational substance is generally unevolved, but has the potential to be made to spontaneously evolve by the basic foundational conditions."

That means the hypothetical ground state substance is on the whole unevolved and unevolving, but at one spot (at least) in the infinitely vast "ocean" of ground state substance, the GS ocean's natural dynamics accidentally caused that spot to begin to evolve. If the ground state substance can be made spontaneously evolve in one place in the GS ocean, then it seems likely there are other places where that has occured as well. With this model, our "God" is just one spot where evolution of the ground state substance spontaneously began and kept going.


Iacchus32 said:
Whereas if things merely unfold as part of the overall plan, as I suggest, then who (or what) put the design into God ... i.e., if it wasn't already there?
But you haven't solved infinite regress at all! How did the "plan" get there? (By the way, the term "evolve" is derived from a Latin word that means to unfold.)

If some sort of creator consciousness has been part of the development of our universe, then according to the substance monism model, that consciousness began as an accidental event in the GS ocean. The idea is that those chaotic dynamics (such as, say, random compression-decompression dynamics) might have "accidentally" generated some sort of evolutive process in the GS ocean.

For that to happen, there must be 1) such ongoing dynamics, and 2) the ground state substance itself must be capable of being sent into an evolutive mode by those GS ocean dynamics. That model does away with infinite regress because 1) we are working with an uncaused high-potential substance, and 2) we know for a fact that generally chaotic dynamics can occasionally behave in an ordered way.

I don't see any possible way around infinite regress without a ground state substance and an accidental dynamic that eternally occurs (in the GS ocean), but which only rarely acts in some ordered way that generates the evolutive process that gave us our "God."
 
  • #70
2,225
0
Do you believe God exists as a spirit, in that He is not bound by time and space and subject to the laws thereof? That would pretty much make Him omnipotent over everything which is "physical" don't you think?

Sorry, but I've gotta go.
 
  • #71
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Iacchus32 said:
Do you believe God exists as a spirit, in that He is not bound by time and space and subject to the laws thereof? That would pretty much make Him omnipotent over everything which is "physical" don't you think?
Well, what is "spirit"? Might spirit be thought of as the ground state substance? What is time? How can anyone answer if something is bound by time when nobody yet agrees what time is?

But let's say your hypothetical God is going to exist eternally from here on . . . does that mean he/she/it always existed? It might be that NOW God is eternal, but looking backward there could have been a point where God had a beginning.

If God is "over everything which is physical" as you suggest, that still doesn't mean God is omnipotent. Since the physical is finite, then all it logically indicates is that God is more powerful than however powerful physicalness is, which isn't infinite.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't find a single reason for the belief that God is all powerful. Somebody appears to have dreamt it up a long time ago, made it Church dogma, and people have been taken with the idea ever since.

If God is responsible for creation and life and me, what difference does it make if God is infinitely powerful? However powerful God is, God was powerful enough to bring creation about, and gracious enough to bring about my existence. I would love such creator no matter how powerful, or not, he/she/it is.

Can you explain why it is so important to you that God is omnipotent? I haven't seen the logic or evidence of your belief yet, but maybe there is something you haven't communicated.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
2,225
0
Les Sleeth said:
Well, what is "spirit"? Might spirit be thought of as the ground state substance?
I believe that reason predates everything, including what you refer to as this ground state substance. Indeed, how do we describe any of these so-called events (suggesting that there must be a way everything is put together) without reason? ... Unless of course you're willing to suggest that this ground state substance existed and/or came about for no reason?

What is time? How can anyone answer if something is bound by time when nobody yet agrees what time is?
The rate of change, with respect to all things that are physical?

But let's say your hypothetical God is going to exist eternally from here on . . . does that mean he/she/it always existed?
Would you be willing to assess that the knowledge of God has always existed, including the knowledge of everything God entails, including us? In other words do you believe that reason has always exist and, can only be maintained via omniscience? I do.

It might be that NOW God is eternal, but looking backward there could have been a point where God had a beginning.
But who is willing to admit to Eternity, when all we have is the Big Bang, and apparently nothing beyond that?

If God is "over everything which is physical" as you suggest, that still doesn't mean God is omnipotent.
If you believe "the physical" is all there is, then that's exactly what it means. In which case there's really no need to take it beyond that. At the very least this ground state substance would have to exist ... which, isn't to say it isn't a direct manifestation of God.

Since the physical is finite, then all it logically indicates is that God is more powerful than however powerful physicalness is, which isn't infinite.
Yet who wants to admit to the existence of a spiritual world? It's enough just to try and grapple with Eternity and all-knowing don't you think?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I honestly can't find a single reason for the belief that God is all powerful. Somebody appears to have dreamt it up a long time ago, made it Church dogma, and people have been taken with the idea ever since.
I understand your prejudice against formalized religion.

If God is responsible for creation and life and me, what difference does it make if God is infinitely powerful? However powerful God is, God was powerful enough to bring creation about, and gracious enough to bring about my existence. I would love such creator no matter how powerful, or not, he/she/it is.
Does this mean it's possible for us to become like God some day? Sorry, I couldn't resist ... :wink: And yes, I do believe we are all the progeny of God, regardless.

If God has infinity and Eternity at His disposal, why shouldn't that make Him all-powerful?

Can you explain why it is so important to you that God is omnipotent? I haven't seen the logic or evidence of your belief yet, but maybe there is something you haven't communicated.
I believe it's important to believe that there's something greater than this physical Universe.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Iacchus32 said:
If He draws his power from outside of himself, then obviously he must be "subject to" whatever that power source may be.
I think you may an unwarranted leap of reasoning in there somewhere, Iacchus. A non-omnipotent being also does not have to draw his power from an external source. In fact, if this being is non-physical, it's "power" would not even be the kind of power studied in physics, that operates according to conservation and exchange laws.

And how exactly would making the hypothetical being omnipotent solve any issues that you brought up? Does the being that can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, and still lift it, draw power from within itself, whereas the being that can only create the rock but not lift it must draw power from somewhere else? Why?

Regardless, how does one establish the ground rules for anything to exist in the first place?
No system or postulate or axiom or anything else can establish the ground rule that says something will exist in the first place. No matter what you propose, you will always have that problem.

How does something come from nothing ... unless that something (the proclivity for all things to exist) has always existed? Look at all the "potential" hidden within a single seed. Is it possible that a very similar scenario existed when the Universe sprang forth? Obviously we would have no Universe without any potential for it to exist prior to its inception.
You're going to have to explain to me how this has anything to do with omnipotence, or anything else that was discussed in this thread before you entered.
 
  • #74
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,166
2
Iacchus32 said:
I understand your prejudice against formalized religion.
In the past I've said that the ideal seeker of truth has no biases or a priori assumptions firmly in place when contemplating things. He is instead fully open to accepting the truth no matter what that turns out to be.

I strive to achieve that sort of objectivity, but I have to admit you are probably right about my prejudice. I have, however, studied religion more than most people trying to understand it and its history (my undergrad degree was religious studies).

What upsets me about religion is how many atheists it's created. Most atheists I know are pretty smart, but their atheism usually hasn't stemmed from contemplating the possibility of some sort of creationary consciousness being part of creation, but rather is usually almost entirely a reaction to religious concepts and the behavior, beliefs, and logic of religious devotees.

As someone interested in stimulating discussion about the possibility of a plausible creationary consciousness, religion has been the biggest thorn in my . . . oops, er obstacle. :smile: I do believe, however, that someone can be religious and also make sense. One could be a follower of Jesus for example, put one's faith totally in him and that's it. One needn't "believe" anything at all to do that. With total faith, questions about heaven, hell, omipotence, etc., or if Jesus rose from the dead or did miracles . . . all that is irrelevant because one's aim is to wholly trust the inner experience Jesus has to offer as sufficient.

Anyway, I can't honestly justify my prejudice, I wish I could get it out of my head. But I can say that my prejudice is against religion, and not against the religious who I judge on an individual by individual basis.
 
  • #75
2,225
0
loseyourname said:
No system or postulate or axiom or anything else can establish the ground rule that says something will exist in the first place. No matter what you propose, you will always have that problem.
Not even cause-and-effect?
 

Related Threads on Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
15K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
Top