Quantum Physics and Free Will, Omniscience, and Determinism

[aquohn]

Aquohn:

It is fascinating how many of us really do not know what we’re talking about as regards the subject you bring up. The following except is from The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol. I, Chap. III, p. 103, 1962. (Bolding is mine.)

"Truth is eternal because it is identical with eternal Deity. Finite minds participate in truth in the same manner in which they participate in being. God is necessary truth, envisaging finite beings within an infinite unity of conscious meaning, in which alone lies their original possibility.

“God’s knowledge, therefore, is for ever complete and changeless. Being eternal he knows, in unalterable vision, as actually existent, all the beings of the universe according to their proper and individual natures, together with every series of changes in matter and living things, as well as all acts of freewill in angels and men. We ourselves cannot even predict our own free acts, because the whole meaning of our natures never appears in our finite consciousness at any one time. But the whole reality of all free spirits is completely obvious to God in his creative act. The acts of a man are not creative or new being, but utilise powers which are the immediate product of the devine life itself; they are thus fully comprehended in God their primary Cause. In this perfect and changeless meaning of God things are not observed as past or future, or viewed as from afar. All states of being, all events, conditions, intentions, rights, duties, merits, demerits, joys, sorrows, hopes and fears, are “present” in an eternal and comprehensive awareness.”

Does this change any of the propositions herein?

God bless,
jd

Ummm…No. To be honest, one problem I’ve found with certain Church literature is that thgey are phrased in a nebulous and evasive manner, as though written by poor philosophy or literature students. This falls into that category.

And besides, I think this definition of omniscience fails to add any authoritative points to the argument. Yeah, eternity at an instant is a nice idea, but how is He supposed to react to ‘eternity at an instant’? It’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it kind of thing: if God perceives eternity instatnaneously, He cannot react to it, since the instant, and our eternity, would evaporate before He could do anything. And once again, why would He do this? Why would He create such a hairfine universe only to have evaporate literally in an instant?

And again, does this ‘eternity at an instant’ encompass God? Does He perceive all his actions in an instant? What does this mean about his free will?

The Church has been dodging such assaults for far too long. I’ve taken too much fire from atheists for this problem, and we need to solve it once and for all. Hence my proposal.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Ummm…No. To be honest, one problem I’ve found with certain Church literature is that thgey are phrased in a nebulous and evasive manner, as though written by poor philosophy or literature students. This falls into that category.

And besides, I think this definition of omniscience fails to add any authoritative points to the argument. Yeah, eternity at an instant is a nice idea, but how is He supposed to react to ‘eternity at an instant’? It’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it kind of thing: if God perceives eternity instatnaneously, He cannot react to it, since the instant, and our eternity, would evaporate before He could do anything. And once again, why would He do this? Why would He create such a hairfine universe only to have evaporate literally in an instant?

And again, does this ‘eternity at an instant’ encompass God? Does He perceive all his actions in an instant? What does this mean about his free will?

The Church has been dodging such assaults for far too long. I’ve taken too much fire from atheists for this problem, and we need to solve it once and for all. Hence my proposal.

You took too much fire so Church is wrong. I see the logic now.
Does it really make sense to you?

 

[JDaniel]

Ummm…No. To be honest, one problem I’ve found with certain Church literature is that they are phrased in a nebulous and evasive manner, as though written by poor philosophy or literature students. This falls into that category.

Aquohn:

Well, it certainly isn’t science babble, or, maybe it is. I think that God is not us, and we are not God. I think that the finite cannot create the infinite. But, I think the infinite can create the finite. I think that that with limited thought cannot create that with unlimited thought, but, that with unlimited thought can create limited thought. Either God is beyond anything we can conceive, or he’s just a stronger man.

And besides, I think this definition of omniscience fails to add any authoritative points to the argument. Yeah, eternity at an instant is a nice idea, but how is He supposed to react to ‘eternity at an instant’? It’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it kind of thing: if God perceives eternity instantaneously, He cannot react to it, since the instant, and our eternity, would evaporate before He could do anything. And once again, why would He do this? Why would He create such a hairfine universe only to have evaporate literally in an instant?

But, your conception of omniscience is almost exclusively anthropomorphic. In your definition, God is a soothsayer. He can, from the past, tell the future. I guess that his front-end can enter a tunnel in the past, and shortly thereafter, his rear end can finally enter the tunnel. If you think this is facetious, it is exactly how you view His thought processes. Besides, we can only conjecture - we cannot know the answers to the questions you ask. I see it one way, you see it another, Greylorn sees it yet another way. Not even consensus, which might give some support to truth.

Sports figures report that the longer they play their sport, i.e., the more they practice, the slower it all becomes to them. To us, what a basketball player does seems physically impossible. To them, it’s not much more than taking a nice, big, leisurely swallow of Gatorade.

And again, does this ‘eternity at an instant’ encompass God? Does He perceive all his actions in an instant? What does this mean about his free will?

That it’s faster than ours? And, what’s the problem with that? He creates the universe and the laws that guide its roll-out, but can only think as a human being thinks - in time? Either He’s Infinite, or He’s finite. Or, maybe just a bit transfinite.

The Church has been dodging such assaults for far too long. I’ve taken too much fire from atheists for this problem, and we need to solve it once and for all. Hence my proposal.

There will always be assaults from atheists. (That’s what Satan does.) You think you can solve this problem perfectly? Do you think that once and for all the atheists will slink back into their little corners and know they’ve been beaten? That might be possible - as soon as you get me complete consensus among physicists.

BTW, I’m not a physicist, though I’ve studied some; I’m an old biologist.

God bless,
jd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Thats lol.

What level are you, first year physics? Tell me: what is the velocity/speed, radius, and mass of an alpha particle? And what is the velocity/speed, radius, and mass of an asteroid? Even just the order of magnitude of them should do. Now tell me, what do you know about the conservation of momentum? Now utilizing the conservation of momentum, tell me how much an asteroid would be deflected by an alpha particle?

Read the lengthy quote of wiki by aquohn, it cleary shows, that the idea the universe could be indeterministic to some extent due to QM is far from being incompatible with physics.

I read it, and it does not show conclusively anything. It actually says in multiple locations that the determinism issue is still debated.

And where on earth did you get that I ever insinuated that QM is incompatible with physics? It is a large branch of physics, so I have no clue how it can be incompatible with itself. What I have suggested is that quantum effects do not have an effect in the classical regime. One is the study of single particles while the other is the study of a vast multitude of particles.

If i would be wrong and if you could read, you could show where i am wrong.

I actually started doing this, but I would have had to break up the essay into 2 or 3 different posts. Rather than waste my time, I will leave it at: the quantum regime bears no impact on the classical regime. You are asserting that there is an impact between quantum and classical regimes, something every physicist would disagree with.

Learn reading please.

Learn physics please.

I argued that the endpoint of the trajectory of an asteroid after 100 million years can depend on a quantum event now.

No it cannot. What does the conservation of momentum tell you about a collision between a massive object and a sub-atomic particle?

Now i am lost, I can get the idea, how sloppy reading skills lead to the comment about missles, but this?

Can you point out the post, in which i argued that there is no free will?

For someone promoting aquohn’s copying of Wikipedia, you did not read it fully, did you? The whole concept of determinism versus indeterminism is directly related to not-free-will versus free-will, as is mentioned in multiple locations in aquohn’s posts. You seem to be arguing for determinism, which means you are arguing against free will.

Because what you called a flaw in my definition of omniscience is not a flaw and shows up in similar way in omnipotence. I hoped you noticed this, but if you do not read carefully.

It absolutely is a flaw, and it is a bigger flaw that you do not recognize it as a flaw. Something cannot be omniscient (knowing everything) and not know something, it is a clear contradiction. Similarly, your definition of an omnipotent being is flawed because an omnipotent being cannot be restricted in its ability to do anything. As I said in another thread, you are describing magniscience and magnipotence.
Also, your thought of omnipotence being compatible with “being able to create a stone so heavy that being cannot lift it” is a paradox because the question supposes that an all-powerful being cannot do something, a clear contradiction–very much the same as your all-knowing being not knowing something.

 

[carn]

Similarly, your definition of an omnipotent being is flawed because an omnipotent being cannot be restricted in its ability to do anything.

At least i can claim to be misguided by people more holy than myself:

The claim that God cannot create a circle with some points having a different distance from the centre than other points is not my idea, its from a guy called Thomas.
According to the usual wikipedia babble
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
the Church thinks he was somehow clever.

But fortunately thats not dogmatic, so the Church is saved from the shame to hold someone making such a blunder in high regard.

 

[JDaniel]

The claim that God cannot create a circle with some points having a different distance from the centre than other points is not my idea, its from a guy called Thomas.

Carn:

Can you provide a link to this?

God bless,
jd

 

[carn]

Carn:

Can you provide a link to this?

God bless,
jd

I should remeber not to trust in anyone but God. When i said that, i trusted wiki to help me find the quote i am certain to have once read.

But wiki at least gives this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Types_of_omnipotence
““Y is omnipotent” means “Y can do X” is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas.”
The reference leading to “^ Aquinas, Thomas Summa Theologica Book 1 Question 25 article 3”

which is
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q25_A3.html

“Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.”

At least about circles i can rely on wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle
“A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry consisting of those points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre.”

So if something has a center, is within a plane and all of its points are at an equal distance from the center its a circle. If not, its not a circle.

Therefore a circle with points with varying distance from the center implies a contradiction. Hence according to Thomas quote, God cannot create it and it doesn’t matter.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Creation is a dynamic process because it causes

“think” is the key word!

Would you kindly dispel my negative judgment by providing an example illustrating “dynamic omniscience?”

I have done so in #2 and #3.

Your reply to AQ is entirely unsatisfactory. You address creation as a dynamic process, for example, but not omniscience. Likewise knowledge, etc. etc. etc. You need to address omniscience per se, which was the term you used.

All human terms applied to God are analogical. Divine activity is not subject to human categories. Creation and omniscience are aspects of the Supreme Being.

If you can make a legitimate concept out of this, you could write your own theology book, in which you can acknowledge me for the catchy buzz-phrase.

I don’t claim to have privileged insight into the nature of God…

 

[tonyrey]

%between%
“A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry consisting of those points in a plane that are a given distance from a given point, the centre.”

So if something has a center, is within a plane and all of its points are at an equal distance from the center its a circle. If not, its not a circle.

Therefore a circle with points with varying distance from the center implies a contradiction. Hence according to Thomas quote, God cannot create it and it doesn’t matter.

It is more accurate to state that a circle with points with varying distance from the center implies a contradiction and therefore cannot be created.

“God cannot…” begs the question.

 

[aquohn]

You took too much fire so Church is wrong. I see the logic now.
Does it really make sense to you?

The focus here is not on me. The focus is on the apologetics. And I don’t mean the people who sit here and man the cannons, waiting for annoying atheists to pop up and playing whack-a-mole with them. I mean the field apologetics, who actually go to the front lines and engage in hand to hand combat, so to speak. The people who dive into nests of atheists and try to tear them down. It’s on those forums where we actually have a problem, where we can hide our weak spots with careful manoeuvre and prayer for only so long. The point is, we’re not going to be convincing anyone or defending the faith from anyone with nebulous arguments like that. That has got to change. I’m not sayign the Churhc is wrong. All I said was that they need to make their arguments more clear-cut so that we can fight better out on the front lines.

 

[aquohn]

What level are you, first year physics? Tell me: what is the velocity/speed, radius, and mass of an alpha particle? And what is the velocity/speed, radius, and mass of an asteroid? Even just the order of magnitude of them should do. Now tell me, what do you know about the conservation of momentum? Now utilizing the conservation of momentum, tell me how much an asteroid would be deflected by an alpha particle?

I read it, and it does not show conclusively anything. It actually says in multiple locations that the determinism issue is still debated.

And where on earth did you get that I ever insinuated that QM is incompatible with physics? It is a large branch of physics, so I have no clue how it can be incompatible with itself. What I have suggested is that quantum effects do not have an effect in the classical regime. One is the study of single particles while the other is the study of a vast multitude of particles.

I actually started doing this, but I would have had to break up the essay into 2 or 3 different posts. Rather than waste my time, I will leave it at: the quantum regime bears no impact on the classical regime. You are asserting that there is an impact between quantum and classical regimes, something every physicist would disagree with.

Learn physics please.

No it cannot. What does the conservation of momentum tell you about a collision between a massive object and a sub-atomic particle?

For someone promoting aquohn’s copying of Wikipedia, you did not read it fully, did you? The whole concept of determinism versus indeterminism is directly related to not-free-will versus free-will, as is mentioned in multiple locations in aquohn’s posts. You seem to be arguing for determinism, which means you are arguing against free will.

It absolutely is a flaw, and it is a bigger flaw that you do not recognize it as a flaw. Something cannot be omniscient (knowing everything) and not know something, it is a clear contradiction. Similarly, your definition of an omnipotent being is flawed because an omnipotent being cannot be restricted in its ability to do anything. As I said in another thread, you are describing magniscience and magnipotence.
Also, your thought of omnipotence being compatible with “being able to create a stone so heavy that being cannot lift it” is a paradox because the question supposes that an all-powerful being cannot do something, a clear contradiction–very much the same as your all-knowing being not knowing something.

Guys, please, can we, for the love of Christ, just stop arguing about the damn asteroid? We’re focusing too much on the examples here! The examples are flawed, OK, pick a better one! How bout we go back to fundementals. The issue here is the Butterfly Effect: when a butterfly flaps its wings, it might create a tiny bit of turbulence which causes a tornado to form, slow down, speed up, or not form. This is a central concept of chaos theory (speaking of which, there exists a branch of quantum theory known as quantum chaos: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chaos). Analogously, an indeterministic event, through a chain of domino-like causes-and-effects, can amplify that indeterminism into something as large as the destruction of a planet. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect for more.

As for omniscience/omnipotence, I think that there is a good deal of misconstruing and misunderstanding going on. Carn clearly raised omnipotence as an analogy: “which slit did the particle go through/what is the definite momentum and position of a particle” is to omniscience as “can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it (or, more generally, can God create a problem he cannot resolve)” is to omnipotence. They both fall outside their respective jurisdictions, because they do not exist. They cannot exist. If you’re going to bust out semiclassicality on quantum information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_measurement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%27s_paradox
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction-free_measurement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_measurement#What_physical_interaction_constitutes_a_measurement.3F
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-testing_problem
That settles that, too.

As for the determinism issue, the quote does not encompass the full scope of the issue. Let’s put it this way. Anyone who uses deterministic models of quantum physics looks like a dumbass. Seriously. Local hidden variable theories have been debunked enough times that seeing them confirmed is like seeing a cup of water spontaneously rise up and freeze into a mini-ice sculpture of yourself. And non-local hidden variables like the de Broglie-Bohm theory involve non-local exchange of classical information, i.e. relativity is being violated, or causality is being violated. So the ‘no-consensus’ comes from people like Gerard t’Hooft who believe in theories like superdeterminism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism, and other people who are diehard determinists, ignoring all the evidence in favour of that infinitesimal chance that something could have screwed up.

 

[carn]

It is more accurate to state that a circle with points with varying distance from the center implies a contradiction and therefore cannot be created.

“God cannot…” begs the question.

I know and Summa Theologica states that in the next sentence:
“Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.”

But as Alberti seems to think that omnipotence includes the ability to do things that cannot be done and that omniscient includes the ability to know things that cannot be known, its pretty irrelevant.

@aquohn

Asteroids seem to work fine according to my calculations yesterday. Just need a smaller body on collision course with a larger body, which again is on collision course with dear earth and will hit it if the smaller body does not hit it, and suddenly a single high energetic proton can be very important for mankinds well being.
Add just one layer (small object on collision course with larger on collision course with realy huge) and the intial proton hit or non-hit could determine the fate of life on earth.

 

[tonyrey]

I know and Summa Theologica states that in the next sentence:
“Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.”

But as Alberti seems to think that omnipotence includes the ability to do things that cannot be done and that omniscient includes the ability to know things that cannot be known, its pretty irrelevant.

Does Alberti have privileged insight into the nature of omnipotence?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I know and Summa Theologica states that in the next sentence:
“Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.”

But as Alberti seems to think that omnipotence includes the ability to do things that cannot be done and that omniscient includes the ability to know things that cannot be known, its pretty irrelevant.

Where on earth do you get that idea? I know I have never said it, I have only stated that omniscience literally means “all-knowing” and omnipotence literally means “all powerful,” which is contrary to your position of magniscience and magnipotence.

@aquohn

Asteroids seem to work fine according to my calculations yesterday. Just need a smaller body on collision course with a larger body, which again is on collision course with dear earth and will hit it if the smaller body does not hit it, and suddenly a single high energetic proton can be very important for mankinds well being.
Add just one layer (small object on collision course with larger on collision course with realy huge) and the intial proton hit or non-hit could determine the fate of life on earth.

You really do not know the conservation of momentum, do you? So I will do the calculation for you:
Asteroid:

• mass ~ 10[sup]15[/sup] kg
• radius ~ 10[sup]3[/sup] m
• velocity ~ 25 km/s

which gives a momentum on the order of 10[sup]19[/sup] kg m/s.
Alpha particle:

• mass ~ 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
• radius ~ 10[sup]-11[/sup] m
• velocity ~ 10[sup]4[/sup] km/s

which gives a momentum on the order of 10[sup]-19[/sup] kg m/s.
Proton:

• mass ~ 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
• radius ~ 10[sup]-15[/sup] m
• velocity ~ 10[sup]2[/sup] km/s

which gives a momentum on the order of 10[sup]-25[/sup] kg m/s.

So tell me, can an alpha particle of momentum 10[sup]-19[/sup] kg m/s deflect an asteroid of momentum 10[sup]19[/sup] kg m/s? No. No it cannot. It is far too small with 14 orders of magnitude difference between the radii and 38 orders of magnitude difference between the momenta. Similarly, the proton cannot deflect the asteroid due to the even larger order of magnitude difference.

I sincerely hope you do not make such absurd statements to colleagues of yours, assuming you are some sort of early-learning physicist.

 

[tonyrey]

Where on earth do you get that idea? I know I have never said it, I have only stated that omniscience literally means “all-knowing” and omnipotence literally means “all powerful,” which is contrary to your position of magniscience and magnipotence.

My apologies. I unwisely took it for granted he was not misrepresenting you…

 

[carn]

Where on earth do you get that idea? I know I have never said it, I have only stated that omniscience literally means “all-knowing” and omnipotence literally means “all powerful,” which is contrary to your position of magniscience and magnipotence.

You remeber the omnipotence statement i made and that you critized?

“Omnipotence is well compatible with “being unable to create a stone so heavy one cannot lift it” and “being unable to create a circle with some points having a different distance from center than others”.”

If you say that this is wrong, the logical conclusion is that you consider Thomas also wrong, because its just a conclusion derived from his position.

But maybe its just misunderstanding:

Do you think an omnipotent being can create a circle with some points having a different distance from the center than others?
Do you think an omnipotent being is able to create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?

You really do not know the conservation of momentum, do you? So I will do the calculation for you:
Asteroid:

• mass ~ 10[sup]15[/sup] kg
• radius ~ 10[sup]3[/sup] m
• velocity ~ 25 km/s

which gives a momentum on the order of 10[sup]19[/sup] kg m/s.
Alpha particle:

• mass ~ 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
• radius ~ 10[sup]-11[/sup] m
• velocity ~ 10[sup]4[/sup] km/s

which gives a momentum on the order of 10[sup]-19[/sup] kg m/s.
Proton:

• mass ~ 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
• radius ~ 10[sup]-15[/sup] m
• velocity ~ 10[sup]2[/sup] km/s

which gives a momentum on the order of 10[sup]-25[/sup] kg m/s.

Nice numbers, which prove that a alpha/proton cannot stop an asteroid in a head on collision. In case someone ever claims that, i will refer him here.
Two side questions:
Your asteroid has 2.5 the density of lead? Maybe i miscalculated, but it seems to be pretty dense.
Of what importance is the radius of alpha/proton?
Edit: And why is alpha so much larger than proton?

I sincerely hope you do not make such absurd statements to colleagues of yours, assuming you are some sort of early-learning physicist.

And i hope when you listened to colleagues of yours that you understand what they actually claim.

I suggest that for any future discussion, we two follow the rule to always first restate the other position and ask for confirmation that it is stated correctly. Otherwise we both will constantly arguing against positions the other did not claim to be true.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

You remeber the omnipotence statement i made and that you critized?

“Omnipotence is well compatible with “being unable to create a stone so heavy one cannot lift it” and “being unable to create a circle with some points having a different distance from center than others”.”

If you say that this is wrong, the logical conclusion is that you consider Thomas also wrong, because its just a conclusion derived from his position.

But maybe its just misunderstanding:

Do you think an omnipotent being can create a circle with some points having a different distance from the center than others?
Do you think an omnipotent being is able to create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?

Several things I note with this:
(a) If anything, the quotes are not compatible with omnipotence. Your quotes are asserting that there is something an all-powerful being cannot do, that is a logical contradiction.
(b) Thomas is not always right. He may be a Doctor of the Church, but he is not perfect; no human is, we can all make mistakes.
(c) No, an omnipotent being cannot create a circle with some points at different radii because a line with varying radii is not a circle, a clear contradiction if you think about it.
(d) Your last sentence there is a logical contradiction, thus making it an impossible question: either answer, affirming or negating, leads to the same contradiction that an all powerful being is limited in power. Since the question forces a contradiction, it is hardly a question and hardly a valid logical proposition.

Nice numbers, which prove that a alpha/proton cannot stop an asteroid in a head on collision. In case someone ever claims that, i will refer him here.

Consider them at any angle you wish. The cosine involved will only reduce the numbers up to 1 in magnitude.

Two side questions:
Your asteroid has 2.5 the density of lead? Maybe i miscalculated, but it seems to be pretty dense.
Of what importance is the radius of alpha/proton?
Edit: And why is alpha so much larger than proton?

Sounds about right. The density of earth is how much? And that compares to lead how? Density of the core of the sun is how much? Lead is not actually the most dense material, you might want to investigate the densities of black holes or neutron stars.

The only importance is to judge the massive size difference between the alpha particle & proton and the asteroid. And if you really need to ask why an alpha particle is larger than a proton, you have had very little training in physics. An alpha particle is very much the same a helium atom: 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons; because the alpha particle has a pair of electrons that orbit it, its radius is significantly larger, despite it weighing on the same order of magnitude as the proton.

And i hope when you listened to colleagues of yours that you understand what they actually claim.

I suggest that for any future discussion, we two follow the rule to always first restate the other position and ask for confirmation that it is stated correctly. Otherwise we both will constantly arguing against positions the other did not claim to be true.

If you want.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Alberti

No, an omnipotent being cannot create a circle with some points at different radii because a line with varying radii is not a circle, a clear contradiction if you think about it.

You are a trifle confused here. It is not that an omnipotent being cannot make a circle with some points at different radii; it is that God has designed and willed creation to make such a thing impossible. His will be done.

An omnipotent God can will to design and create a universe, even though we cannot begin to fathom how it was done. An omnipotent God can do things we cannot do. We should not impose our limitations on Him … that is arrogance.

 

[JDaniel]

Alberti

No, an omnipotent being cannot create a circle with some points at different radii because a line with varying radii is not a circle, a clear contradiction if you think about it.

You are a trifle confused here. It is not that an omnipotent being cannot make a circle with some points at different radii; it is that God has designed and willed creation to make such a thing impossible. His will be done.

An omnipotent God can will to design and create a universe, even though we cannot begin to fathom how it was done. An omnipotent God can do things we cannot do. We should not impose our limitations on Him … that is arrogance.

 

[aquohn]

The only importance is to judge the massive size difference between the alpha particle & proton and the asteroid. And if you really need to ask why an alpha particle is larger than a proton, you have had very little training in physics. An alpha particle is very much the same a helium atom: 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons; because the alpha particle has a pair of electrons that orbit it, its radius is significantly larger, despite it weighing on the same order of magnitude as the proton.

If you want.

Just a minor technicality: it seems that neither of you have very much training in physics. That’s OK, neither do I, I just read widely. An alpha particle is not Helium, it is a helium nucleus, i.e. He2+ i.e. 2 protons and 2 neutrons. It is a very serious misconception to think that the alpha particle is neutral.

An carn is right: the two of you keep attacking strawmen. Please identify the poistion prior to assaulting them, preferably with quotes.

a) If anything, the quotes are not compatible with omnipotence. Your quotes are asserting that there is something an all-powerful being cannot do, that is a logical contradiction.
(b) Thomas is not always right. He may be a Doctor of the Church, but he is not perfect; no human is, we can all make mistakes.
(c) No, an omnipotent being cannot create a circle with some points at different radii because a line with varying radii is not a circle, a clear contradiction if you think about it.
(d) Your last sentence there is a logical contradiction, thus making it an impossible question: either answer, affirming or negating, leads to the same contradiction that an all powerful being is limited in power. Since the question forces a contradiction, it is hardly a question and hardly a valid logical proposition.

Either you’re contradicting yourself here, or you misunderstand what carn means by “God cannot”. Points b and c conclusively prove that God cannot, at least in the sense that carn is using the word, create a circle with some points at different radii or create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it.

As a side note, carn mentioned he had calculations for deflection. Do you mind posting them?

As another side note, I ALREADY SAID TO SHUT UP ABOUT THE ASTEROID! How bout you actually examine some of the links?