If God is light, can a black hole's gravity suck him in?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility, and therefore the omnipotent being is not required to do such a thing. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so.
Click to expand...
This was essentially the position taken by Augustine of Hippo in his The City of God:
Click to expand...
“ For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.[19] ”
Click to expand...
Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.
Click to expand...
From Wikipedia - omnipotence paradox
 
The light that gets sucked into a black hole travels at a finite speed until, we might assume it gets sucked in… God is everywhere simultaneously, omnipotent and omniscient. God does not travel; God is.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that these concepts are a repitition of some read in another post. If they are my thanks to the OP.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Since not even light can escape the gravity of the black hole, and God is light, does it mean that God cannot escape the gravity of the black hole?

Of course God is outside nature and he could cease gravity from acting on itself.

If anyone is offended by this, I didn’t mean it to offend. It is something I was pondering about.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
This type of paradox question is worth considering, as it helps point out some of our own limitations. As we use words to describe something, we generally limit or exclude some part of reality. Language would be far too cumbersome to use if we had to be rigidly precise in our descriptions of things. We generalize and get by. For example, if I want my Fisher Space Pen and ask you for a pen, and you hand me a Bic disposable, well, I really don’t care if I am just going to jot a note. But, if I am missing my pen, I want My Pen. And I can go to varying lengths to describe my pen such that you could give me my pen if you knew where it was.

God is far beyond a pen, of course, and so we lack the words to describe the full reality. I think most (if not all) apparent paradoxes are a result of having insufficient information about whatever the apparent paradox is. We cannot properly describe the reality. It is quite easy to propose paradoxes about God precisely because we understand so little. It’s not so easy to propose paradoxes about Fisher Space Pens.

Oh, I linked to the online etymology entry on paradox as I liked that the greek root means “contrary to opinion.” That seemed like a fair definition of Jesus!
  • Frater Bovious
 
If God is light, then is Satan heavy? Perhaps that’s why he fell.

Sorry, couldn’t resist.🙂
 
Sideline said:
I think the confusion here is between “The Light” and light.

God is The Light in the sense that He makes known the unknown, brings life to the world, and is the eternal wellspring of creation.
It doesn’t mean that God is a collection of photons.

In the same way, when they say Jesus is “The Word” they don’t mean that he is made of letters and lives in a dictionary.
Click to expand...
Whew! Thank Goodness, I was about to go into pain from laughing at some of these!
 
kepha1 said:
One of the sophisticated concepts used by great Christian theologians is that of “The Ground of Being.” This concept indicates not that God is the fact of things existing, but that God is the basis for the existence of all things. God is more fundamental to existing things than anything else. So fundamental to the existence of all things is God, that God can be thought of as the basis upon which things exist, the ground their being. To say that God is The ground of being or being itself, is to say that there is something we can sense that is so special about the nature of being that it hints at this fundamental reality upon which all else is based.

The phrases “Ground of Being” and “Being itself” are basically the same concept. Tillich used both at different times, and other theologians such as John McQuarrey prefer “Being Itself,” but they really speak to the same concept. Now skeptics are always asking “how can god be being?” I think this question comes from the fact that the term is misleading. The term “Being itself” gives one the impression that God is the actual fact of “my existence,” or the existence of my flowerbed, or any object one might care to name. Paul Tillich, on the other hand, said explicitly (in Systematic Theology Vol. I) that this does not refer to an existential fact but to an ontological status.

What is being said is not that God is the fact of the being of some particular object, but, that he is the basis upon which being proceeds and upon which objects participate in being. In other words, since God exists forever, nothing else can come to be without God’s will or thought; and since there can’t even be a potential for any being without God’s thought, all potentialities for being arise in the “mind of God” then in that sense God is actually “Being Itself.” I think “Ground of Being” is a less confusing term. God is the ground upon which all being is based and from which all being proceeds. (including black holes)

The concept of the Ground of Being.
Click to expand...
This is well said. It is a matter similar in misunderstanding to the use of the word “Self” refering to God. Instantly most people go to the common definition of self as person, or personality. Not so. Self can mean other things, as in archery, the shaft of the arrow is the “self” as it is the “substance” of the arrow. Selfas used in referring to God is similar yet more inclusive than Being, but includes and puts Being first as Ground. The term has caused a lot of controversy on here in threads about and reference to Eastern thought.
 
jimmy said:
God is also defined as Truth though. He has called Himself Yahweh as well which basically means ‘I am near’ according to Pope Benedict’s interpretation of Exodus4 in Introduction to Christianity. Love is not the only term that can be used in reference to God. God is Love, God is Truth, God is Light.
Click to expand...
In Christian Science, Light, truth, Love, Soul, Spirit, Mind, and Principle are synonyms for God.
 
The first post in this threads poses the dumbest question I’ve ever seen.

It’s not even worth discussing.
 
It made me laugh when I first read it! I needed a laugh today - thanks.
 
No.

Maybe God is a different light that gravity can’t overcome :p.
 
I read the title and started laughing.

I dont have an answer but this is funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top