That's the problem. If you ignore logic, then your conceptions of omnipotence and omniscience will be flawed. For example, an omnipotent God could presumably bring about anything that he wanted. But could he make 2 and 2 equal 5, or make a triangle with two right angles? It's inconceivable that these things are possible if we assume that he has to operate within the bounds of logic (if he doesn't, then the debate becomes rather fruitless), so already we've had to impose a restriction on his abilities. Let's try defining omnipotence as being able to do anything logically possible. Although it seems pretty reasonable, I myself am quite capable of making an object that God did not make. But can God? Clearly not. It is also logically possible to cough or go for a walk, but neither of these things are accessible to a transcendent being such as God.
I'm not trying to find out if god exists, I'm already very strongly in the athiest camp. I just like to play with stuff like this in my head Hitman, good point dude. Even if we limit god to whats logically possible though, he should be able to calculate what's going to happen in the future. Assuming that is that cause leads to effect. I think I need pocketmonkey to come back and explain why it doesn't.
Because there's no rational system with which to justify an inductive argument. If I say: This cause created this effect at time 1; This cause created this effect at time 2; This cause created this effect at time 3; then there's nothing contained in that from which it logically follows that it'll happen a fourth time. If you try to justify the assumption that there will always be cause and effect by saying "well, it worked on these occasions, so it'll work in the future" then you're effectively using an inductive argument to justify an inductive argument. I think it was David Hume that asked us to imagine a chicken. Every morning, the chicken wakes up and is fed, then it pecks around for a bit and goes to sleep. Naturally, it assumes that this'll happen every day because it has for as long as it remembers. However, a year later, it wakes up to find that it's about to have its head cut off. It's an interesting illustration of the fallacy of induction
Easy enough to do. Simply rewrite the definition of how a triangle is made. Failing that, change the laws of physics. We are talking about something that can control anything (obviously forgoing anything with freewill), so how would it not be able to change something as simple (on a scale for something that is omnipotent) as physics? Presuming it created physics, why would it not be able to change them?
The rules of logic and physics are not the same. I'm sure that if God wanted to, he could change the boiling point of water or the form of an atom, but abstract logic wouldn't care. Logic is a construct that transcends human and Godly understanding. If the universe were to cease to exist and there was nothing physical left, the laws of logic would still hold, whereas the laws of physics would not. If we're talking semantically, it's easy to get around it by changing the definition of the word. But it's not the language that matters - it's the concept. You know what a triangle is without having to express it in words; try and imagine one with two right angles and you will come into some difficulty. Put it this way: you could imagine a world where water boils at -50 degrees or gravity is a repulsive force (different laws of physics), but you can't even begin to think of a triangle with two right angles or a world where 2 plus 2 does not equal 4 (different logic). Philosophers call things like these "necessary" truths because it is inconceivable that they are false.
Yes, he can. I believe that God exists outside our sphere of thinking. He understands the very things that boggle our minds, because he just steps back and looks at them from another angle. Exactly where (or when) that angle is is pretty much up to him. What God should - or should not have - told Adam and Eve brings up another big assumption: that the story ever happened in the first place. I think that the story of Adam and Eve, the apple and original sin, is an allegory. From what I've learned, the Jews wrote Genesis to more easily explain three basic principles of their religion: 1. There is only one God; 2. He created everything; 3. We are fundamentally good. The children better understood the foundations of their religion when it was told in story form. As for the original question, I think KayinBlack did a great job in explaining his answer. Truly a pint-worthy post. When I read the question, the first thing I thought of was Bender's dialogue with God in an episode of Futurama: Bender: So, you know everything I'm going to do? God: Yes. Bender: But what if I do something else? God: Then I don't know that. He's funny that way, that's why we chalk it up to faith that he knows what he's doing. -monkey
My arguments for limitations of God's powers have been based on the premise that he operates within the bounds of logic - an assumption that can obviously never be proven - so I guess that conclusions drawn from that aren't entirely justified. However, if the rules of logic present no obstacle to him then trying to rationalize his actions becomes fruitless; it can simply be asserted that he is functioning on a level beyond our understanding (which is not a falsifiable argument). This would make it entirely possible for him to resolve the conflict between free will and omniscience, but at the cost of us being able to understand it. In any case, it's certainly interesting to think about Using a non-Euclidean geometry is cheating
You know, there's more to it than that. On the subject of the placing of blame on God, think of overclocking. Remember the Striker Extreme issues we've been having? God made a human (bought a motherboard) and walked with it and talked with it (set it up properly) and put it in a paradise on earth (in a nice case, with good airflow, and left it stock.) Now if said human (motherboard) blows a mosfet, is he to blame? Even if he flowed the solder himself, he could not be held liable as it was the component itself that failed, and not him as maker. If anything, we are a failed creation. We just keep shifting the blame to God to keep ourselves from having to think that we did anything wrong. We do it every day in other things. We keep on with attempting to limit God, but it might do well to take a better look at His attributes. Breaking them down lends new light to these old words. Omni-potence. To be potent means to have the ability to do something. It does not mean that you do it, only that you can. That handles a lot of our argument right there-people have a screwed up idea of omnipotence from the get go. Omni-science-omni-scientiae All-knowledge, all-learning. Viewed in concert with the word above, God CAN do anything, and He knows everything that has ever happened. No nous, no doxasta, no eidolon-God knows the truth of everything as it happens-Theo eikon apotheosis gnosis. The one that ties them together is the kicker. Omni-presence. Yes, God knows exactly how much porn is on your hard drive, and He saw you download it. He was there for that. In actuality, it is a necessity for the previous one, and a functionality of the first. It's all correlative. You can't have one without them all. So, this basically can define the power of God in simple human (if you speak Greek) terms, but the point about God superseding human understanding needs to be remade. A sufficiently advanced society will appear to use magic to outsiders. What we cannot explain is the supernatural, but to God it's all part of daily business, fathoming the unfathomable. One of my philosophy teachers called God the "final end of all logic, the perfection in excess." One of my other professors called God a "spoiled brat with the world's coolest universal remote." Call it what you will, but he does not supersede the system, he masters it. If he appears to defy physics, we need to learn more physics. If he defies logic... well, most of us are pretty bloody illogical to begin with. We need to learn. As the imperfect creation, we are the ones who have to strive-we are the incomplete ones, not God. There is a lot of incomplete logic here. And for His own sake, throw inductive out the window in this discussion. There are places for it, but it's already proven it's not here.
Spec - interesting question If I may be so bold as to recommend some reading I suggest picking up "The problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis (I hope that's the right one - got to dig it out of a box sometime soon) Hmm, some really good posts here. KayinBlack, I think I agree with most of what you have stated so far with the exception of whether or not angels have free will - I think they do But it's a one shot deal - they can currently see Much more of God than we but they can not experience redemption as we can - however, that's another topic. That is somewhat like my own (admittedly limited) understanding of God's existence. For me the fourth / fifth / whatever dimensions are as much are part of God's creation as the three we are familiar with. If that is the case then God can exist outside of the confines of those as well. This would make omniscience and omnipresence possible. Thank you for that. It is frustrating to see people take an inherently illogical argument and apply it to their concept of God then claim it is "proof" that "God can't exist". I think the use of non-Euclidean geometry is a perfect example - what may be beyond our personal understanding at one point in time may not always be so. ===================== Anyway, after all that, here is the basis for my understanding of this question: Romans 9:14-23 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory... (taken from the NIV translation) I take three things from this: 1) This is not "what is" but a "what if" (either that or I become a Calvinist - which I am not.) 2) If God exists and not only made the rules but also made all the pieces - Why could he not do this? 3) I don't fully understand how God works or thinks but that doesn't have to stop me from believing in God. To me what most of us believe is like what most of us drive (or the computers we use) - we know enough of how it works for it to be useful in our daily lives but we won't necessarily Ever understand every detail of every part. Admittedly, for some, this topic could be like not being able to use the clutch on a manual transmission. For me though, there are enough other things that overshadow this question. ok, that's a lot just to say I can't give you exactly the answer you seek but I'm off now to pray about that. May all your choices be in the light of Truth.
No it's not. It is redefining your frame of reference. God would be meta-dimensional, remember? Our logic is implicit to our three-dimensional, time linear experience of existence. lf we were non-time-linear beings, different logic would apply to us. Our inductive reasoning would be different, for one. Take the chicken again. It would not induce that every day would be: wake up, get feed, scratch around a bit, go to sleep again, because it would know (by being non-time-linear) that one day it would get its head cut of. It was there when it happened before, as it is happening today, as it will happen, and happen again. But is the chicken bothered? Not really. Because although it has happened and is happening and will happen, at the same time it has/does/will not do so yet. In fact, if the chicken is five-dimensional it can even side-step into a parallel universe where it will never happen. We're not in Kansas anymore. Logic is different here.
Nice. You could argue that even if there is a god (or many), would having faith in it (them) change anything anyway?
Presumably so. But for a truly omnipotent being, being limited by different frames of reference should not be a problem. If it is asserted that he isn't troubled by our logic, then creating a triangle with two right angles in a mere two dimensions must be easy. But if it is two-dimensional, should we be able to see it?
A two-right-angled triangle is created in two dimensions. It is just that the two-dimensional plane is curved. A two-dimensional being however sees a triangle with two right angles.
The point I'm trying to make is that, ignoring all other frames of reference and non-Euclidean geometries, an omnipotent being who can operate on such a level should be able to make a closed figure comprised of three lines, but one whose interior angles do not equal 180 degrees. Stepping back the issue into hyperbolic or spherical geometries shouldn't be necessary. If that isn't acceptable, it imposes a necessary restriction on his power, i.e. to do that which is logically possible. A fundamental property about God would be whether he operated within the bounds of what we defined to be logic or not, because if you assume that he doesn't then applying logical arguments to his behaviour becomes meaningless.
The trouble with that is consistency: This universe operates on rules, and one of them is that all two-dimensional, Euclidean triangles have interior angles that add up to 180 degrees. While I have no doubts that God could break those rules and build a triangle whose interior angles add up to 90 degrees, or whatever you choose, that would be very inconsistent with the world as it is: The real question is, would we be able to understand what we were looking at? God does have restrictions on his power: He can't go against his nature. He can't damn people he's forgiven. He can't forgive those who won't accept it. Where the point where "can't" becomes "won't" is, I don't know, but for all practical purposes, they're the same. While in a physical, tossing-mountains-into-oceans sense, he is omnipotent, there are things he can't, or won't do.
Finally, a decent post. The question isn't non-Euclidean geometry. The question is, is God responsible for human damnation. That's a topic that most people seem to say yes to, but have little to back up. But, your statement above kinda finished the arguments for it. A discussion of the nature of God would have gotten us further, but this works too. spec, if you got any more deep questions, feel free to PM me. I basically DO have a theology degree.
On a similar note I was thinking the other day. In the beginning god was a real ******* but then he 'mellowed' as someone put it. Surely being god he is everywhere all the time at everytime in history and thus cant as such mellow over time. edit: Free will is a fallacy, by definition of god if there is free will for humans then there is no omnipitent god - if god set up a rule by which he cannot decide what we do them he demotes himself from god. Also doesn't that make religious people cultists as there following en masses a person who is controlling them through will of mind or something ? (im [almost] joking with that last bit, please dont get offended ). edit2:In my eyes theres not much of a way god can be god and not be a ******* - there is either a powerful all knowing being who created us and we are bastards or there is a god who is a bit of an evil guy really. edit3: goddamn I should think about my posts before posting Imagine a being that unlike us 3d beings can exist in 4 dimensions - the 4th being time. This could be represented by you standing (or whatever!) and looking at time as you might a lamppost, being able to walk to any side of it, manipulate any part of it, stick things on it and whatnot. Now imagine a race of beings who lived in 4 dimensions and learnt how to place things onto a lesser plane. Could this be god? As a scientist myself theres no better discussion than one about god
It's the difference in perspective. As for the whole future thing, think quantum physics. To observe a particle is to affect it. The only way to not affect it is to not know it's there. The only way a good God could not alter the future would be for Himself to block its seeing. This is OUR story, truly, and not His. As for the whole concept of God responsible for damnation, check into the theories of John Calvin. Calvinism if taken to its logical end points the finger there. However, it hasn't the Biblical support. In attempting to define God in terms of logic, we can only address those attributes we can grasp, for one, and as well we must realize that compared to him, our greatest logic breaks down. That's not meant to be a cop-out answer. It's deference to the fact that He created logic, he knows the rules better than us. It's just a challenge to develop our logic, as the world is a challenge to develop our science. And yeah, Nexxo, there is the reverse psychology bit, but it takes the events of the fall into account already. It implies disobedience. His original command did not.
