philosophy about god - Page 3

Dis · January 26, 2004, 05:44

I never could believe in an "active" god. I probably never will. Is it possible something created the universe- yes. But something that controls events on 1 itty bitty planet, I will never believe.

**** happens. Hey that saying always applies.

So why is there evil? What is there to say what evil really is? Humans have defined evil- and that definition varies. Perhaps a god does not consider human evil- evil.

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
UR and Sky, I think the question about the rock should be put this way: can an infinitely powerful being lift a rock with an infinite weight?

Then again, I guess an omnipotent being could just change the laws of gravity to lift anything he likes.

Even then, I suspect we might get to a Kant-like argument: if reason is in itself its own goal, we could argue that omnipotence similarly is: omnipotence is not stronger than itself. It is in this paradox that we find the idea that true understanding of omnipotence would be unaccesible to the human mind. Just like the result of 28/0 could be (well, I'm not so good in math, so I might be wrong here).

I don't see any paradox. Say you have two omnipotent beings. One can hurt the other, certainly, unless the other prevents it. There is no paradox because in binding the actions of the other omnipotent being, you remove the omnipotence of it. I can comprehend "all-powerful" pretty easily, so the argument that I can't doesn't really work...

Jon Miller · January 26, 2004, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Thriller

So if the universe is all that exists, what is a "parallel universe"?

And what about anti-matter? In what type of universe does this exist (or should I say, not-exist?)?

you don't know what anti-matter is

it exists just fine in our universe

Jon Miller

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 12:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Thriller

So if the universe is all that exists, what is a "parallel universe"?

And what about anti-matter? In what type of universe does this exist (or should I say, not-exist?)?

"Parallel universe" is merely bad terminology; what it means is a contiguous region of spacetime that is not our own.

What does anti-matter have to do with this?

Snowflake · January 26, 2004, 12:29

Ok so he is omnipotent. Can he create something that nothing/nobody can destroy it? If he can then can he destroy it?

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I never could believe in an "active" god. I probably never will. Is it possible something created the universe- yes. But something that controls events on 1 itty bitty planet, I will never believe.

**** happens. Hey that saying always applies.

So why is there evil? What is there to say what evil really is? Humans have defined evil- and that definition varies. Perhaps a god does not consider human evil- evil.

I agree wholeheartedly - I can accept scientifically a "first mover", though I see no reason to assume one, but a "supernatural" being participating in our universe is scientifically impossible.

wrt evil, I personally think that there IS no answer, because to answer "why is there evil" you have to presuppose that someon created evil. I think "evil" is merely a coincidence of the universe.

I still say, however, that without both "good" AND "evil" the universe would be a pretty dull place

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by HongHu
Ok so he is omnipotent. Can he create something that nothing/nobody can destroy it? If he can then can he destroy it?

If he creates an object that is by its nature indistructible, then no, he can't destroy it. HOWEVER, this does not result in a paradox, because in the creation of that object he has removed his own omnipotence - he has removed his ability to destroy the object.

Ned · January 26, 2004, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Again, about God- if God is perfect, then he must be omnipotent. So yes, if the Bible says that God is perfect, or you believe him to be, then logically he is omnipotent.

I do not recall God being described as "perfect" in the Bible. I believe this a Greek idea.

However, the concept that God is perfect leads inevitably that God is the Universe since the sum total of the Universe is perfect. It is the only thing that is perfect.

Btw, this is essentially Einsteins view. This man was no dummy.

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 12:41

How do you come to the conclusion that the Universe is "perfect"?

In fact, perfect is a purely subjective term - I don't see how it implies omnipotence.

Ned · January 26, 2004, 12:54

Are the laws of nature ever wrong?

Snowflake · January 26, 2004, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

If he creates an object that is by its nature indistructible, then no, he can't destroy it. HOWEVER, this does not result in a paradox, because in the creation of that object he has removed his own omnipotence - he has removed his ability to destroy the object.

Exactly. The paradox is that nobody/nothing can be omnipotence. Because there has to be one choice between these two options: either he cannot create something that cannot be destroyed by anything, or he cannot destroy something that he created. In both cases he is not omnipotent. In other words, an omnipotent unit is not possible.

Snowflake · January 26, 2004, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Are the laws of nature ever wrong?

It is like asking: "Are truth ever not true?"

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Are the laws of nature ever wrong?

So? You have yet to provide an OBJECTIVE definition of "perfect". I don't see how perfect necessarily equals infallibility.

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 13:14

Quote:

Originally posted by HongHu

Exactly. The paradox is that nobody/nothing can be omnipotence. Because there has to be one choice between these two options: either he cannot create something that cannot be destroyed by anything, or he cannot destroy something that he created. In both cases he is not omnipotent. In other words, an omnipotent unit is not possible.

NO! There is no paradox! He is omnipotent BEFORE he makes the decision, and is either omnipotent or not omnipotent AFTER the decision. That's like saying that a car can't be green, because you could paint it red.

curtsibling · January 26, 2004, 13:16

The whole idea of a god is leftover from a time when we were scared at the cause of lightning storms and volcanoes.

It's time for man to accept and assume his mantle as the earthly motivator!

Enough of this primitive dogma!

Ned · January 26, 2004, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

So? You have yet to provide an OBJECTIVE definition of "perfect". I don't see how perfect necessarily equals infallibility.

Perfect implies no change is necessary, ever.

The laws of nature fit that definition.

Snowflake · January 26, 2004, 13:27

Perfect: Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature of kind.
Second College Edition
The American Heritage Dictionary

Snowflake · January 26, 2004, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

NO! There is no paradox! He is omnipotent BEFORE he makes the decision, and is either omnipotent or not omnipotent AFTER the decision. That's like saying that a car can't be green, because you could paint it red.

No it is not a desicion he has to make, it is a state he has to be in. He has to be in one of the two states (can make it, or cannot make it) and neither means that he is omnipotent. That's like saying a traffic light has three states, red, green or yellow. But no matter which state it is in, it cannot be blue.

Ben Kenobi · January 26, 2004, 19:00

Quote:

In fact, "all-powerful" pretty much covers it.

A reference point is something we use to explain what something means. For example, if I were to explain what a dog was, to someone who had never seen a dog, I would have to use a variety of reference points to help him understand.

The same is with this concept of Omnipotence. What does it mean to be all-powerful?

Ben Kenobi · January 26, 2004, 19:01

Quote:

Perfect implies no change is necessary, ever.

The laws of nature fit that definition.

And scientific theories do not. Science throws out a theory when it does not work, and accepts the label that none of our theories are perfect.

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Perfect implies no change is necessary, ever.

The laws of nature fit that definition.

I would say wrong on both counts (perfection in one situation is not perfection in another), but it is sufficient to show that the second claim is purely subjective. How is it that the laws of nature don't "need" any change?

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

A reference point is something we use to explain what something means. For example, if I were to explain what a dog was, to someone who had never seen a dog, I would have to use a variety of reference points to help him understand.

The same is with this concept of Omnipotence. What does it mean to be all-powerful?

To have all powers

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 19:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And scientific theories do not. Science throws out a theory when it does not work, and accepts the label that none of our theories are perfect.

He's talking about the actual natural laws, not the theorized natural laws.

Kuciwalker · January 26, 2004, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by HongHu
No it is not a desicion he has to make, it is a state he has to be in. He has to be in one of the two states (can make it, or cannot make it) and neither means that he is omnipotent. That's like saying a traffic light has three states, red, green or yellow. But no matter which state it is in, it cannot be blue.

So? Wait... are you trying to argue that determinism invalidates free will? Because that's the only context in which your argument seems to make sense...

Ben Kenobi · January 26, 2004, 19:23

Quote:

Why? I cannot recall anywhere in the bible that hints about this.

UR:

Good question, what does the bible say about the omnipotence of God?

Genesis 17:1

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless."

Numbers 11:21-3

But Moses said, "Here I am among six hundred thousand men on foot, and you say, 'I will give them meat to eat for a whole month!' Would they have enough if flocks and herds were slaughtered for them? Would they have enough if all the fish in the sea were caught for them?"

The LORD answered Moses, "Is the LORD's arm too short? You will now see whether or not what I say will come true for you."

Matthew 11:25-6

"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Heck, you have my old sig from just before MLK day.

Luke 1:36-7

"Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. For nothing is impossible with God."

Regarding God's self-sufficiency:

Where does the name, YWHW come from?

In Hebrew, it means, I am who I am.

(Ex. 3:14-15).

"and He said, thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you... this is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations."

What does this reveal about God? That he is eternal, for sure. He always is, he is never was, and never to come.

It also reveals that God is self-existent. No one created God, God alone is self-existent. He always existed. There was never one instant when He did not exist. He has no beginning and no end, in contrast to all other created things who originated somewhere at sometime.

Also, from John 5:26

"For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. "

What does Jesus mean when he says that the Father has life in himself? By this life, men do not have by themselves, they require the gift from God. God, does not need such a gift, instead, it is just as much a part of him, as any other quality.

Now, I am not a theologian, or a priest, and I am sure they will be able to answer your questions much better than I. However, the bible does proclaim both the self-sufficiency and omnipotence of God.

Ben Kenobi · January 26, 2004, 19:26

Quote:

To have all powers

Cross off theologian on your list of careers.

curtsibling · January 26, 2004, 19:28

Theology is just that.

What bearing does it have on the real state of humanity, Ben?

Ben Kenobi · January 26, 2004, 19:29

Quote:

Wait... are you trying to argue that determinism invalidates free will?

Getting to that, young skywalker.

If you can chop something into little pieces that can be precisely defined, or if you can predict how everything works, you have no free will whatsover. All that you do would then be the result of your genes, or factors outside of your own control.

Quote:

He's talking about the actual natural laws, not the theorized natural laws.

Distinction needs to be clarified.

Ben Kenobi · January 26, 2004, 19:33

Quote:

Well the truth is that we might not need him in our lives at all, but it is better for the peace of mind to believe in him anyway, for this way we could be a little bit more sure about that unpredicatable fate.

HongHu:

People have tried, and continue to try to fill this gap. If we do not need him at all, why do we need to believe in him?

Quote:

What bearing does it have on the real state of humanity, Ben?

Curtsibling:

In a deterministic universe, you would see man as a machine. Now, would it not be in the best interests of the world to figure out how to run these machines as efficiently as possible? Now, what theology does, is that it asks one question. If we are machines, where is the manual?

And that, is how theology, applies to the real world.

Ben Kenobi · January 26, 2004, 19:36

Quote:

Then again, I guess an omnipotent being could just change the laws of gravity to lift anything he likes.

Saves me the trouble of writing.