Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

[Zantra]

I suspect that is because you didn't read the 4th paragraph. Which is fine, I usually stop reading when the BS flag goes off, which the 3rd paragraph may have done for you. And, as always, there's the possibility I didn't make myself clear enough; if that is the case, I apologize.

Ok I said you "lost me", meaning philosophically, but not that I lost interest or didn't read the entire post. I think response Les gave summed up my general feelings. When you ask me to just accept somethign based on your premise that since they (we haven't yet established exactly who "they" are) studied the topic so thouroughly, they must know what they are talking about. I'm sorry but present me with some proof.

The analogy doesn't hold. Most people can't program a VCR because they never read the manual, or never take the thing apart, as you said.

I can't explain the concept of omnipotence to you, it's not as simple as learning to program a VCR. All I can say is that, if God exists, he must be omnipotent, otherwise he is not a God. That is the central issue, the only issue that matters.

My point is that I don't accept things at face value, I look deeper. As you pointed out, most people just accept what's in front of them because it's easier. That's why subliminal advertising works.

as far as the central issue, you've got it right. It's a contradiction in terms. If God is omnipotent he can do anything. If he can create a rock he cannot lift, that negates his omnipotence because he should be able to lift it- which implies limits. So If God were to make this rock it would prove him fallible. It almsot makes one wonder about putting such an absolute value to "omnipotence". That or you have to concede that God is not omnipotent.

I do get the feeling that you are not concerned with God's supposed omnipotence as much as you are about God's existence. You may be thinking that if God cannot be omnipotent, then he cannot exist, which is in fact very close to what I just said above. In other words, if that is your argument, then yes, you are absolutely right. But if you are trying to argue that God can exist and not be omnipotent, I can warn you that countless people tried to follow that path of reasoning before, and they were all proved wrong.

I won't argue for or against his existence. That's a separate topic i won't delve into. However his omnipotence or lack thereof has implications on the other topic. For purposes here I'm only concerned with omnipotence. I say he cannot posesss it because that rock cannot exist.

 

[luxv66]

One thing I always notice is the assumption that if he can, he necessarily will do whatever can be done. Why does that have to be the case? Perhaps God could very well create a rock too heavy to lift or destroy himself/itself but simply chooses not to.

In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, God is also morally perfect. Coming from that perspective, God would understand that his existence is the best possible state of affairs and never choose to do such things even though they may be possible.

You could actually reverse the problem back to the skeptic by asking why a god of perfect knowledge and morality would choose to will himself out of existence.
That seems to be a paradox on the other side of the coin.

That’s the simple answer. Another would that God himself is the source of all concepts or universals. Concepts like “heavy”, “too”, etc. So if God created a rock too heavy for him to lift then what would really be happening are just various concepts being expressed by God. That fallacy of the question is that it assumes that God is also subject to concepts and relations/interactions with those concepts. If that were the case then there would be a source above God where those concepts originated and we wouldn’t really be talking about God but some other being.
In other words, if God willed himself out of existence, it would be described as "God became God" because non-existence is just another subjective concept.
I know that's a controversial statement but in this context it would be subjective. God's sudden non-exsitence could only be understood if he previously existed and God was there to percieve both the existence and non-existence. So God could cease to exist and still exist* at the same time.
*I say "exist" because of a need to speak of it but in reality it would transcend existence somehow because existence itself is a product of God.
Personally I prefer to think of God as the "something" that universals originate from and refer back to when they relate to each other.

Sorry, I know that's a huge rambling paragraph but I've been up all night. :zzz:

 

[Hector]

Ok I said you "lost me", meaning philosophically, but not that I lost interest or didn't read the entire post. I think response Les gave summed up my general feelings. When you ask me to just accept somethign based on your premise that since they (we haven't yet established exactly who "they" are) studied the topic so thouroughly, they must know what they are talking about. I'm sorry but present me with some proof.

I have not asked you to accept it without thinking. Please re-read my post carefully and you will see it.

To be fair, no one reads anything with much attention on computer screens. Most discussions on this, or any other forum, centers around misunderstanding.

My point is that I don't accept things at face value, I look deeper. As you pointed out, most people just accept what's in front of them because it's easier

That's exactly what I said. People accept dogma because they don't want to think about things. And that's perfectly fine, because if we are to think about every single piece of knowleldge we're given, we'd get nowhere. We have to accept that the people we trust have done the best they can.

Notice that one doesn't have to accept Church dogma if one doesn't trust the Church. And at no point I said the Church must be trusted, all I said was, if you trust it, then you must accept its dogmas.

as far as the central issue, you've got it right. It's a contradiction in terms. If God is omnipotent he can do anything. If he can create a rock he cannot lift, that negates his omnipotence because he should be able to lift it- which implies limits. So If God were to make this rock it would prove him fallible. It almsot makes one wonder about putting such an absolute value to "omnipotence". That or you have to concede that God is not omnipotent.

I don't know if God exists, so it would not make sense for me to argue if he is or is not omnipotent. I was just talking about Christian theology as an independent subject, interesting in its own way. And all I said was that omnipotence is a fundamental concept in Christian theology. I didn't say it was a necessary attribute of God. I could just as well have said that unicorns must have one horn on top of their head, otherwise they are not unicorns.

This is where both you and Les lost me. You think I'm proselytizing but I'm not, I'm just trying to make a point about Christian theology apart from Christian faith, which to me is perfectly possible.

The problem you don't realize is that you are also talking about Christian theology without realizing it. You are not talking about "the great spirit in the sky", or "some form of consciousness behind creation", you are talking about "God", which is a Christian concept. Had you been born in Alaska or India, I doubt you would be worrying about omnipotence.

I won't argue for or against his existence. That's a separate topic i won't delve into. However his omnipotence or lack thereof has implications on the other topic. For purposes here I'm only concerned with omnipotence. I say he cannot posesss it because that rock cannot exist.

All you are saying is that Christian theology is logically inconsistent. Which is no news to anyone, including Christians themselves. Exactly what is your point?

 

[Smurf]

Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

The example used before is imprecise and inefficient because 'lifting' implies a corporeal body, while omnipotence implies that one does not require a corporeal body (otherwise your note omnipotent are you?). So this can be answered by stating that 'God' can create a stone his corporeal body is incapable of lifting, but this corporeal body is simply an extension of God it's 'self', so 'God' is still omnipotent.

We have to assume that an omnipotent being can transcend the physical reality to apply this paradox to a context. This example does not do that.

Also, I hate examples and prefer to work in pure logical terms.
Also 2, the idea god is just too confusing for a philosophical discussion.

--

The paradox states that something which is unlimited in power, cannot be limited in power, and is therefor not unlimited in power. This implies that in order for an omnipotent being to be omnipotent it must also be limited at the same time (and I use 'time' loosely, let's not get into that). This is faulty reasoning, asking "What if omnipotence isn't omnipotent" is like asking "What if black was white" (yes I know they're not precise 'opposites'). Something can't be two opposites at the same time, this is not a rule of existence, but a rule of logic and reasoning.

It is not a paradox at all, but a fallacy and rhetoric.

 

[Icebreaker]

What?

Ever heard of "proof by contradiction"?

I prefer to think of Christian theology as the result of 2,000 years of serious thinking

"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -- Asimov

 

[Skomatth]

This question vividly reminds me of Godel's sentence G. Would it be fruitful to apply the same method to omnipotence?

Call the act X 'the act which cannot be performed by God'. God either can or cannot perform this act. If he can't perform act X, then he's not all powerful. If he can then logic seems to break down. Perhaps there is no actual act X.

 

[arildno]

All you are saying is that Christian theology is logically inconsistent. Which is no news to anyone, including Christians themselves. Exactly what is your point?

By which it follows that Christians are doing a grave injustice to their intellect by clinging to their irrational beliefs.

 

[Smurf]

What?

Ever heard of "proof by contradiction"?

Yes, I don't see how it applies.

 

[quantumdude]

OK folks, I've just pruned this thread a little. Let's stick to addressing statements, and not personalities.

 

[Icebreaker]

Yes, I don't see how it applies.

Assume something to be omnipotent and you will run into a contradiction, therefore the assumption is false.

 

[Smurf]

ah. My point was that the contradiction was false, so the assumption is not necessarily untrue... i think.

 

[Iacchus32]

If God is the guy who creates the software which runs the computer, then yes, it is possible to remain omnipotent and logically consistent at the same time.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If God is the guy who creates the software which runs the computer, then yes, it is possible to remain omnipotent and logically consistent at the same time.

I thought it was the computer that runs the software?

 

[Iacchus32]

I thought it was the computer that runs the software?

Perhaps. But what is a computer simulation without the software which generates it? This is closer to my point. If, in fact we live in some sort of Matrix, why should the guy who created that Matrix be bound by the same rules?

 

[Jameson]

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 infinite 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?

 

[Les Sleeth]

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 infinite 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.

 

[Jameson]

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.

 

[Tide]

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?"

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[Skomatth]

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.

 

[luxv66]

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[Tide]

Is omnipotence intrinsically paradoxical?

Would omnipotence have the power to not exist?

 

[luxv66]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

So, if God (if He exists) is not omnipotent, then who or what rules God? ... Happenstance?

 

[luxv66]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

Well, if God didn't create everything, then it just begs the question. Who created God? ... At what point does God begin or, end?

 

[Les Sleeth]

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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."

 

[Iacchus32]

Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. An eternally-existing ground state substance, in an infinite ground state ocean is not "nothing."

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?

 

[Les Sleeth]

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."

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 occurred as well. With this model, our "God" is just one spot where evolution of the ground state substance spontaneously began and kept going.

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."

 

[Iacchus32]

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 got to go.