Can God Think?

[greylorn]

Dear Dchsknight,

Nothing is impossible to God.

The Biblical miracles that you mention (including the miracle of Joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still so that the battle against the five kings of the Amorites could continue) are no trouble at all to the God who spoke all things into existence and sustains them in existence. They are exercises of His power over creation.

The wonders of nature (like your example of the octopus changing its coloring) are not, strictly speaking, miracles at all though I agree that they do display God’s glory as creator.

You don’t mention it, but God performs a much greater miracle than any of these when He turns a sinner into a saint. Inanimate matter does not resist. We do.

But your conclusion that God can make 2+2=5 does not follow. That would not be an exercise of God’s power. It is simply an exercise in incoherence. It is literally nothing. And nothing is impossible with God.

Let me add another category of things that are impossible for God. He cannot contradict His word or change His mind, nominalists and Muslims to the contrary notwithstanding.

All blessings,
Rob

What gives you the bizarre notion that inanimate matter does not resist? There is an instructive exercise you could perform. Find a large boulder or slab of concrete and repetitively slam your head into it. Because that inanimate matter does not resist, you won’t feel a thing.

If God actually turns sinners into saints, this means that the sinners He changes are bereft of free will.

If God does not change His mind, explain how after the battle of Jericho he orders the murder of all male children and the enslavement of female children, while in the alleged form of Jesus Christ He says things like, “Suffer the little children to come onto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

When you’ve finished that simple assignment, explain why God created human beings, knowing in advance that they would behave poorly enough to anger him sufficiently to arrange their mass termination, then murder all but 8 of them in Noah’s flood.

Then explain why God would create any beings who angered Him, knowing in advance that they would do so. Even human beings know enough not to deliberately do things which they know will anger them.

 

[Aslieas]

Gerry,
Your reply makes sense. Given His omniscience, he cannot invent a new idea or have a creative thought.

It follows that He never could. That pretty much makes God just a magnificent supercomputer at the core of the universe. Do you find that a satisfying concept?

Well, hold on now. God has all of our thoughts within his knowledge, past-present-and-future. I accept that, and I see how you came to the conclusion that “he cannot invent a new idea or have a creative thought.” I don’t accept your conclusion.

God is known to be much greater than we, indeed being so great that none other could achieve equal or higher greatness. This is a concept expressed by the prefix “omni” in our descriptions of God, especially “omnipotence.” Since God is so great, He must be able to have original and creative thoughts that are outside of our perceptions.

Knowing all that we think and invent does not limit what He can think and invent.

 

[greylorn]

Well, hold on now. God has all of our thoughts within his knowledge, past-present-and-future. I accept that, and I see how you came to the conclusion that “he cannot invent a new idea or have a creative thought.” I don’t accept your conclusion.

God is known to be much greater than we, indeed being so great that none other could achieve equal or higher greatness. This is a concept expressed by the prefix “omni” in our descriptions of God, especially “omnipotence.” Since God is so great, He must be able to have original and creative thoughts that are outside of our perceptions.

Knowing all that we think and invent does not limit what He can think and invent.

You are invited to peruse the entire thread before posting a reply. That will increase the likelihood that your reply will include something which has not already been noted and is potentially relevant to the topic. You can do this.

Thank you.

 

[taylor007]

With respect, I’m not sure that I’d be happy leaving it at that. The interpretation of a consensus amongst half a dozen respondents that God cannot think is a misinterpretation of what I in particular and others by inference mean by our replies. God has no need to think for the reason that he already has all knowledge therefore obviously He also has no need of any as you call “spontaneous information generation” as He already has that information.
I would object to the notion that there is something I can do which God cannot.
Gerry

exactly gerry!!! god already has all the information that u or i can possibly generate through SIC that he himself has no need for SIC.the fact that we have SIC should be viewed as our weakness in not posessing the ultimate knowledge, rather than seein it as something that only humans are capable of doing while god isnt.its like saying ’ we humans can sin while god cant’.its nothin to be proud about

 

[Lux_Caelum]

Can Greylorn Think?

 

[taylor007]

i should have added something.there are some questions that are too big for the human brain to churn out an answer.we humans never want to accept our limitations,so we always try to come up with a seemingly logical answer for all questions.what i feel is whatever we say on this topic isnt even remotely close to an answer.god is all powerful ,so maybe he is capable of creative thinking.it may just be that our definition of creative thinking cant reach gods level.
that god is all powerful and that we are incapable of coming up with a logical answer for all questions is the answer for this question.

 

[yppop]

To One and All

Of course God can think. He need only to incarnate Himself and become human; then He could do anything a human could, not that He would. Since God organized Himself as a Trinity, He’d have no problem having a “creative thought”. So much for omnipotence.

I merely scanned this thread and spotted one Greylorn-post that admonished someone for introducing a subject previously posted. Let me apologize in advance if I repeated that mistake; I don’t have time to read the entire thread. However in scanning, I found two items by Greylorn that I couldn’t pass without comment.

1. Greylorn: There is a reason for the ascendancy of atheism. It is because the more we learn about science, the less sense religion makes. You may deny that, but then, you’re not a scientist.

He almost got it right, but it should read: …the more we learn about science, the less sense SCIENCE makes. It’s nearly a century since anything as fundamental as Relativity and quantum mechanics was introduced and science still hasn’t resolved several lingering questions. And the science that was derived as the result of Relativity and QM, theories such as the big bang, parallel worlds, and the standard model of matter, are nearly fifty years old. String theory, the last great hope, is mired in a mathematical morass. Instead of explaining observed phenomena such as gravity simply and directly science has confounded its explanations to describe gravity as: an action at a distance, a field, the curvature of space, or an exchange of a particle called a graviton. But don’t worry; if these various explanations don’t described an observaation such as the rotational velocity of distant galaxies, science just creates another concept and calls it dark matter. I am not worried about religion making less sense because of science; in fact, one can use scientific theories such as the big bang and the parallel worlds to make more sense out of religion.

Greylorn: I worked for and with scientists and engineers for 20 years. Good, dedicated, and mostly intelligent and first-rate people. I never met a single one who believed in God. Not even one! And that was not because I don’t talk, argue, and engage in discussions about religious beliefs. During those 20 years I learned that the reason why very intelligent technical people do not believe in God is because the God-concept is illogical, and cannot be reasonably related to the world He allegedly created.

I am a scientist by training (B.S. and M.S. in Physics) and an engineer by profession (35 years in the Semiconductor industry – IC’s) and I never met an atheist, but I know many scientists and engineers who practice religion. Just in my own family, beside myself I have three sons all engineering trained and all devout Catholics. My middle son was a chemical engineer before entering the seminary and is now a Monsignor and a Canon lawyer. I have a daughter with a master degree in Food Science (very heavy in inorganic chemistry) who is married to a PhD. in Physics and they are both devout Catholics. Another daughter is married to a Mechanical Engineer who converted to Catholicism and practices the faith. Also, two of my grandsons and two of my granddaughters are majoring in or have graduated in science or mathematics and they all are practicing Catholics. I realize my anecdotal observations is not an iron-clad refutation of Greylorn’s observation, but in my experience it is hard to believe that all the scientific people he knows are irreligious. I will say this about engineers: they don’t have much interest in any subject besides the usual male topics (sports, politics, and women) and their own disiplne, so maybe when Greylorn broached his scientific acquaintences with a religious subject they feigned disbelief just to get rid of him or maybe Greylorn lives in a heathen land like California or most probably he just playing a devil’s advocate with us.

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

Can Greylorn Think?

If he can, how would you know?

 

[greylorn]

To One and All

1. Greylorn: There is a reason for the ascendancy of atheism. It is because the more we learn about science, the less sense religion makes. You may deny that, but then, you’re not a scientist.

He almost got it right, but it should read: …the more we learn about science, the less sense SCIENCE makes. It’s nearly a century since anything as fundamental as Relativity and quantum mechanics was introduced and science still hasn’t resolved several lingering questions. And the science that was derived as the result of Relativity and QM, theories such as the big bang, parallel worlds, and the standard model of matter, are nearly fifty years old. String theory, the last great hope, is mired in a mathematical morass. Instead of explaining observed phenomena such as gravity simply and directly science has confounded its explanations to describe gravity as: an action at a distance, a field, the curvature of space, or an exchange of a particle called a graviton. But don’t worry; if these various explanations don’t described an observaation such as the rotational velocity of distant galaxies, science just creates another concept and calls it dark matter. I am not worried about religion making less sense because of science; in fact, one can use scientific theories such as the big bang and the parallel worlds to make more sense out of religion.

You are so correct.

The inclusion of four distinct theories of gravity in a single sentence must impress the rubes.

I’d appreciate learning exactly how you have used big-bang theory and parallel-world concepts to make more sense of religion. Which religion, by the way?

Greylorn: I worked for and with scientists and engineers for 20 years. Good, dedicated, and mostly intelligent and first-rate people. I never met a single one who believed in God. Not even one! And that was not because I don’t talk, argue, and engage in discussions about religious beliefs. During those 20 years I learned that the reason why very intelligent technical people do not believe in God is because the God-concept is illogical, and cannot be reasonably related to the world He allegedly created.

I am a scientist by training (B.S. and M.S. in Physics) and an engineer by profession (35 years in the Semiconductor industry – IC’s) and I never met an atheist, but I know many scientists and engineers who practice religion. Just in my own family, beside myself I have three sons all engineering trained and all devout Catholics. My middle son was a chemical engineer before entering the seminary and is now a Monsignor and a Canon lawyer. I have a daughter with a master degree in Food Science (very heavy in inorganic chemistry) who is married to a PhD. in Physics and they are both devout Catholics. Another daughter is married to a Mechanical Engineer who converted to Catholicism and practices the faith. Also, two of my grandsons and two of my granddaughters are majoring in or have graduated in science or mathematics and they all are practicing Catholics. I realize my anecdotal observations is not an iron-clad refutation of Greylorn’s observation, but in my experience it is hard to believe that all the scientific people he knows are irreligious. I will say this about engineers: they don’t have much interest in any subject besides the usual male topics (sports, politics, and women) and their own disiplne, so maybe when Greylorn broached his scientific acquaintences with a religious subject they feigned disbelief just to get rid of him or maybe Greylorn lives in a heathen land like California or most probably he just playing a devil’s advocate with us.

Yppop

I met a number of individuals with degrees who worked essentially as technicians, like you. Me too. A technician with a physics degree. I worked in small organizations and got to know a few serious scientists.

Although I’ve never met a Catholic scientist, I know that they exist. Michael Behe, my favorite microbiologist, for example.

You are generally correct about engineers. They have little interest in esoteric concepts. I’ve been privileged to work closely with many of them, even started a few businesses together. I’ve never understood their unwillingness to engage subjects outside their area of specialization.

I did encounter one young engineer willing to engage the subject of the origin of the universe, and he was extremely helpful. I modified ideas at his suggestion.

I enjoyed a number of intense conversations with serious scientists, guys with doctorates in physics, astronomy, and even EE. We shared dinner and wine, and discussed everything from metaphysics to the value of kuatimundis as house pets. Religious discussions were not about Catholicism, for by then I had realized that, on the subject of the beginnings of the universe and life, both science and religion were not only conflicted— they were equally incorrect. Our discussions revolved around my attempt to devise an explanation for the origin of the universe which satisfied the scientific data but also incorporated the concept of a Creator, and which explained the survival of human consciousness after death.

They attempted to convince me that it is impossible to explain the universe and life otherwise than by scientific theory. On this site, I find people like you who might, but obviously do not, know better, claiming that an almighty God did it.

I got it that you have an education and a couple of degrees. I appreciate the mental work required to obtain your diplomas, and I appreciate your relationships with Catholics with degrees. I am saddened that none of you realize the importance of devising a theory which incorporates the knowledge of science with belief in a Creator.

I would never live in California, and I detest people with “devil’s advocate” mentalities.

 

[taylor007]

.

1. Greylorn: There is a reason for the ascendancy of atheism. It is because the more we learn about science, the less sense religion makes. You may deny that, but then, you’re not a scientist.

Greylorn: I worked for and with scientists and engineers for 20 years. Good, dedicated, and mostly intelligent and first-rate people. I never met a single one who believed in God. Not even one! And that was not because I don’t talk, argue, and engage in discussions about religious beliefs. During those 20 years I learned that the reason why very intelligent technical people do not believe in God is because the God-concept is illogical, and cannot be reasonably related to the world He allegedly created.

the more u work with science,the more confident u become of urself .u start thinking that u have a superior intellect than the ones living around u.compared to others u have a better knowledge of scientific facts and that makes u believe that at some point of time science will be able to answer all the questions.u start loosing ur humility and when u research abt the advanced science u fail to find answers to basic questions.

u r right in pointing out that most of the intellectual kind were atheists.yes they were,but once they were done with their research lives and retired into their quiet private lives ,many of them started thinking without help from science and got converted into theists.many received baptism a few days b4 their death.i think here lies the difference between intelligence and wisdom.in order to understand the concept of god u need to come down to ur knees.its not that god concept is illogical,its just that we ,mere humans ,are incapable of understanding the logic.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**It is so sad to find in CAF such thoughtless question like “CAN GOD THINK”

There is nothing God can not! God is the Almighty and Omniscient Himself - beyond all thinkable degrees so.

God - the Holy Spirit, is “Thought” itself. The one and only Might who created all and gave humans the gift to think.
How on earth can we ask CAN GOD THINK ?
and why is such question not deleted right away?**

 

[po18guy]

You cannot give what you do not have. We received the gift of thought. From Whom?

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

God said: “I Am Who Am” (Exodus 3:14)

Anything else is conjecture and finite attempts to grasp the infinite.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Anything else is conjecture and finite attempts to grasp the infinite.

Not quite so, as Jesus revealed us God to the extend we ara able to understand.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

That is God’s grace and mercy. Yet, we still have Mysteries.

 

[LindaSK]

Sorry, Ghosty, but I disagree…

God HAS changed His mind. For example, I refer to Jonah 3:10, “When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, He repented of the evil that He had threatened to do to them; He did not carry it out.”

As I understand, ‘repent’ means to have a change of mind. This may seem simplistic, but if God could change His mind, He must have had an initial thought.

This suggests to me that God is capable of reassessing His thinking (as well as His actions) depending upon how we choose to use the free will we are given. I believe that is a fruit of His mercy.

 

[greylorn]

Not quite so, as Jesus revealed us God to the extend we ara able to understand.

The limitations of some human beings are not necessarily shared by all.

 

[yppop]

I’d appreciate learning exactly how you have used big-bang theory and parallel-world concepts to make more sense of religion. Which religion, by the way?

Greylorn,
I haven’t forgotten your request, I have been on another thread (Suffering) commenting on Parallel Worlds. To honor your request, however, would deviate from the original theme of this thread. I briefly explained how I think the Big Bang Theory relates to God’s existence on some posts I sent to other threads. I am seriously thinking about starting another thread that would concentrate on a discussion of science and religion, but I have to weigh the time spent on such a venture against time spent with my family. I will include here, a short synopsis of my thesis:

The Big Bang Theory establishes a beginning for the universe and hence the existence of a Creator. The BB also strongly demonstrates that the universe is finite. A finite universe must have a border. Since it is space that determines the dimensionality of the universe, the boundary must be spatial. This implies that universal space is discrete and what came before and lies beyond the universe has the mathematical nature of continuous space. I refer to the space of the before/beyond as “infinite nothingness”.

Discrete space has gaps. The gaps are filled with infinite nothingness. This defines the basis for a physical structure that has a dual nature: discrete space = material; infinite nothingness = spiritual. Only the discrete points are involved in creating objective reality, but the rules by which the discrete points are organized is govern by pure information that exists in the infinite nothingness. Try to imagine a universal and static matrix of a great number of discrete points imbedded in an infinite expanse of nothingness (a dark nighttime sky is a good analog).

With such a universal configuration of dual space (I call such, a cosmic s-frame); I describe a basic particle of matter as a distortion in the otherwise homogeneous configuration of discrete space. Space and matter define the static elements of reality. We could freeze them without changing their basic nature. Time is a manifestation of the incrementation of the cosmic s-frame. Energy is the manifestation of the motion of matter (ponderable) or the motion of discrete space (radiant). In other words, time and energy are manifested only as the sequential incrementation of the cosmic s-frame. The impetus that induces the incrementation is information that resides in the infinite nothingness. The information for the location of each discrete point in each subsequent s-frame is supplied by an algorithm (the mind of God). Objective reality is nothing more than a sequential incrementation of a lot of discrete spatial points.

I have a lot of arguments and supporting evidence for a finite universe, discrete space, and the holographic nature of the universe, but it took 125 pages to get to this point.

From there I go on to describe life, mind, and soul and their relationship to subjective, rational, and transcendental reality. But that is another story. Sounds like a lot of hooey to a lot of people, but I put a lot of study and thought into it and I would be interested in what other people think including what they think God thinks. (There I got back on track with the theme of this thread.)

Incidently,I am a Roman Catholic.

Yppop

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,
I haven’t forgotten your request, To honor your request, however, would deviate from the original theme of this thread. I briefly explained how I think the Big Bang Theory relates to God’s existence on some posts I sent to other threads. I am seriously thinking about starting another thread that would concentrate on a discussion of science and religion, but I have to weigh the time spent on such a venture against time spent with my family. I will include here, a short synopsis of my thesis:

The Big Bang Theory establishes a beginning for the universe and hence the existence of a Creator. The BB also strongly demonstrates that the universe is finite. A finite universe must have a border. Since it is space that determines the dimensionality of the universe, the boundary must be spatial. This implies that universal space is discrete and what came before and lies beyond the universe has the mathematical nature of continuous space. I refer to the space of the before/beyond as “infinite nothingness”.

Discrete space has gaps. The gaps are filled with infinite nothingness. This defines the basis for a physical structure that has a dual nature: discrete space = material; infinite nothingness = spiritual. Only the discrete points are involved in creating objective reality, but the rules by which the discrete points are organized is govern by pure information that exists in the infinite nothingness. Try to imagine a universal and static matrix of a great number of discrete points imbedded in an infinite expanse of nothingness (a dark nighttime sky is a good analog).

I’ve cut a paragraph of yours so that I could get in my 2cents worth and remain within post limits. Your full post appears above, of course. --greylorn

YP,

You are right that your post will come across as hooey to most thread participants. I’m on the verge, but since I’ve written thousands of pages of “hooey,” I appreciate anyone willing to consider ideas outside of the norm and who has the courage to express them, even under an internet pseudo-identity. Guess what your next step is.

I did not peruse your entire post because of the error in your first statement, " The Big Bang Theory establishes a beginning for the universe and hence the existence of a Creator." There is no apparent connection between the primary clause in this sentence and its conclusion.

There is certainly a connection in your mind, but when putting your thoughts out to others, it is best to express the ideas behind your connection. Readers are not mind-readers.

I did review your post, which sounds like ideas taken from “Our Undiscovered Universe” If you also got sucked into paying $70 for this book, you can experience your loss by drilling a quarter-inch hole through it, threading a rope, and using the book as a rowboat anchor.

“Gaps in space,” has potential, but not if the best you can do is present it as an unsubstantiated assertion. (On your own thread, please.) You’ve taken a course or two in quantum mechanics, yes?

You will find that it is easy to have ideas. Doing so is the inherent property of soul. Ideas are just a step removed from opinions, which, like dorsal orifices, we all have. What is difficult is the translation of ideas into concepts which others (never everyone) can understand. That is very difficult, as you will learn if you have the courage to continue.

Your synopsis doesn’t make sense to me, but that does not make your ideas incorrect. It could be a reflection of my personal ignorance, or an incomplete presentation on your part. Be prepared for the possibility that your ideas are not yet ready for primetime.

I appreciate that you’ve written 125 pages about your ideas. That is a good start. I began while you were in your previous lifetime, with a prospective book cranked out on a typewriter built in 1927, 107 pages. I submitted it to publishers and have the rejection slips to prove it.

Since then I’ve written 70,000 pages describing my brilliant insights into the nature and purpose of the universe, subsequently discarding 99%l of the words and most of my ideas. Of the words, about 200 pages were actually published. 20 can be found on the internet, and some fewer appear in films.

Inventing ideas about the origin and purpose of the universe is a worthy challenge, but given your hastily composed synopsis of ideas, don’t expect a whole lot of admiration from someone who’s been there and done that.

Continue your efforts to understand the universe, but get your first sentences right. Initiate a science vs. religion thread when you are qualified to do so, The prerequisites are clear. The first is that, as a father and husband, you understand the minds of your children and teach them what they need to learn, not what you have been taught. The second is that you cherish your wife. If she is ever alone in bed while you are expressing your opinions on the internet, one of you is in the wrong place.

As a model for the expression of complex ideas, I recommend Michael Behe, also a Roman Catholic.

Since we are both well off-thread here, replies are best directed to PM.

 

[greylorn]

God said: “I Am Who Am” (Exodus 3:14)

Anything else is conjecture and finite attempts to grasp the infinite.

Does the “anything else” include the subsequent teachings of philosophers such as Augustine and Aquinas?