The Omnipotency Contradiction

[Pro_Domina]

God exists. God thinks of everything possible, which is infinite, yet because He is God, He is capable of thinking of infinite things. There are no more new things to think about because anything new is already is in that infinte possibilities, which God already thought of, since all eternity. When He creates the Universe, He made what was already in His mind. Part of this Creation is called Time, though if the Universe was created in eternity or in time already or at the sametime is up in the air. We live confined in time. God does not. He sees everything as a singular event. How does this fit in our brains? It doesn’t, man is not capable of it. We can conceice an eternity towards the future, but not towards the past. No begginings.
I try to envision looking at a marble. We live outside the marble. I don’t affect the atoms inside. Yet I see the marble.

Argh! Who am I kidding?! You can’t explain that.

That is where reason must yield to faith, because while they are not contradictory, they don’t both reach all conclusions alone.
Neither extreme is right. They both need to reach their limits together.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There could be some value in this thread, if only by encouraging contributors to it to spell correctly. Correct spelling, made easy by the excellent software this site provides to facilitate comments, does not insure the quality of comments. Incorrect spelling suggests that if the author of the comment didn’t care enough to put his thoughts into grammatically correct English, perhaps he didn’t give any more thought to his thoughts.

Weakness and deception in ones character is always exposed eventually by how they choose to act.

You can read i suppose.

I could argue that you really don’t have any reasonable arguement, and that the only way you could deal with my post is by pointing out grammatical errors and misrepresenting Gods nature with straw men arguements.
I was not aware that this forum tested reason by grammer. And i don’t think that my spelling is as such that it is unreadable. So instead of avoiding my refutation, it would be good of you to meet it with reason rather then insult.

Peace be with you.

 

[grannymh]

A sincere thank you to all who are on this thread. You have tested my thinking ability. Thus, before I leave this thread, allow me to share my thoughts about the subject of so many interesting posts.

At the end of the day, the key to this thread is the concept of the mysterious contradiction. These closing remarks are directed to the heart of the opening post–the contradiction which appears to be a mystery needing an answer. The word mystery simply means that which is really there but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood.

The problem is that some of us are lulled into thinking that all mysteries are to be solved by human reason or by human science. The idea that God, Himself, has the solution to the mystery of this thread’s contradiction is an extremely difficult idea to understand on the human level. The idea that there is another solution – that is really there but cannot be
easily seen nor readily understood – is hard to accept because it means that God is the One Who defines Himself – not us with our elegant minds.

Isn’t there a famous person who said that we should be like children in regard to spiritual matters? Perhaps the reason is that children naturally know that there is so much that they don’t know; yet, they still believe.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[jfoges]

The outcome of a previous thread titled, “Can God Think?” resulted in the overwhelming conclusion (all respondents) that God does not spontaneously create information— i.e. God cannot think.

However, it is clear that human beings can have creative thoughts. Since we can do something which God cannot, God is not omnipotent.

By creative, I mean creative in the context of one’s own mind. It does not matter that Newton and Leibnitz both invented the mathematical system known as “calculus” at pretty much the same time, for neither know of the other’s work. It was a creative work for each.

Nor does it matter for the sake of this argument that God knows calculus, so long as He did not reveal it in the Bible, which would have allowed Newton and Leibnitz to crib it therefrom. The point of the argument is simply that human minds can have what passes in them for creative thought. God cannot, because He knows everything.

This means that we can do something which God cannot. Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.

What are your thoughts about this?

This is not about a deficiency in God but a deficiency in man. All possible ideas exist in God’s mind, so God cannot create a new idea. However, only a limited amount of ideas exist in man’s mind, and imperfect degrees. So it is possible for man to become aware of some idea that is already in God’s mind.

 

[greylorn]

Gallileo got in trouble for other reasons.

And those reasons are…?

Second, got is capable of creative thought. Just that there are no “new” ideas because God thought of all of them, which are infinite, since all eternity.
How is that is mystery. But the concept of a “new” thought means God is not perfect and absolute because He had to think of something He never thought before, therefore again, not absolutely perfect.

How do you know that the number of ideas is infinite? (Never mind that I think you are probably right.)

I’m trying to reconcile religion with science, and part of that process involves devising beliefs which minimize the number of “mysteries.” Science has its own, such as the precursor to the Big Bang and the efficacy of Darwinism as an explanation for life.

The ideas about the attributes of God which you parrot are all ideas which were invented by man. That doesn’t mean that they are wrong, just that they are suspect. Suppose that God is neither absolute nor perfect? What does it matter? These are words in which Catholics have been taught to believe.

It seems to me that what matters is that God created the universe. Does he need to be perfect, absolute, to have done so? I think not. What say you?

 

[greylorn]

A sincere thank you to all who are on this thread. You have tested my thinking ability. Thus, before I leave this thread, allow me to share my thoughts about the subject of so many interesting posts.

At the end of the day, the key to this thread is the concept of the mysterious contradiction. These closing remarks are directed to the heart of the opening post–the contradiction which appears to be a mystery needing an answer. The word mystery simply means that which is really there but cannot be easily seen nor readily understood.

The problem is that some of us are lulled into thinking that all mysteries are to be solved by human reason or by human science. The idea that God, Himself, has the solution to the mystery of this thread’s contradiction is an extremely difficult idea to understand on the human level. The idea that there is another solution – that is really there but cannot be
easily seen nor readily understood – is hard to accept because it means that God is the One Who defines Himself – not us with our elegant minds.

Isn’t there a famous person who said that we should be like children in regard to spiritual matters? Perhaps the reason is that children naturally know that there is so much that they don’t know; yet, they still believe.

Blessings,
grannymh

Thank you for having the wisdom to acknowledge the contradiction.

While you may be correct that it cannot be resolved by human minds, that is not an interesting opinion. It denies the value of thought and sets up limitations which may not be legitimate. To accept your opinion would be to give up thinking about some interesting and challenging concepts. You really don’t want to set such limitations upon your own mind, do you?

Religions have been applying thumbscrews to human thinking since the dawn of man, for no purpose other than to perpetuate their own existence. Remember the Inquisition. It was born of the desire to perpetuate dogma.

Once a handful of men found themselves beyond the political and punitive reach of the Church, thought in the form of science prospered. Science has its flaws, and its own set of incorrect beliefs, but these will go away in time because science is capable of correcting its opinions, even those of a fundamental nature. The key to making science work is the lack of any limitations upon human thought.

For example, the speed of light has been regarded as an absolute physical constraint upon the velocity of matter for nearly a century. Yet no one has been persecuted, or tortured for inventing theories which propose that the speed of light can be exceeded. (Admittedly, anyone seeking a professorship in a physics department had best keep such ideas in cold storage until after being granted tenure. That seems a fair way to weed out the incidental crackpots. I do not hold a professorship.)

So, if you grant that the omnipotency contradiction might be a legitimate observation, I invite you to participate in its resolution. I do not take the approach that to acknowledge contradictions in religious beliefs about the nature of God is to deny the reality of God. These will simply mean that certain attributes which human beings chose to apply to God might need to be unapplied. That doesn’t mean that God is not.

 

[greylorn]

You try to define everything with reason.

Yes, I do. “Try” is the operative word. Every idea I generate is subject to correction. I share them on this site for that purpose.

Reason is not a stable thing to base anything. Reason in pagan times said killing for demons is ok. Reason in the Middle Ages said that the Church is master of the World. In the Ren., man was the center of everything. Yesterday the world was flat and today it is round. Reason changes.

Are you sure that these statements were based upon reason? I do not think so. I believe that they were based upon popular beliefs, then justified using spurious logic to manipulate faulty hypotheses.

As you know, logic is just a tool. It is not truth, but is a method for discerning falsehoods. Perfect logic applied to a silly hypothesis will produce a silly conclusion.

Logic changes.

No, it does not.

So what can we found any principle on if everything is mutable.

If everything is mutable, you are correct in that that leaves us with a soft and shaky foundation for any beliefs. Fortunately, science has discovered three immutable principles known as the Laws of Thermodynamics. (Actually, scientists were not involved in the discovery of these laws, because they were too steeped in their inane beliefs. The laws were discovered independently by seven non-scientists, in different forms, and subsequently ratified by scientists.)

I already know that you don’t care about these laws, may not be aware of them, and will declare that God created them, so you don’t need to reply.

An eternal God.

Another thing is that God created the world because of His munificence. I’ll expand later.

I wish to expand upon my curt statement about logic. Logic does not change. Aristotle laid down the basic principles about 3 milennia ago. Mathematics uses these basic principles, unchanged.

Okay, a few hundred years ago uneducated people thought that the world was flat. This seemed a reasonable opinion for those incapable of making sensible conclusions from basic observations (such as the earth’s curved shadow upon the moon). Today, more people are educated, so fewer people believe that the world is flat. Luckily, human beliefs did not affect the actual shape of the planet.

Likewise, years ago, men who thought that the earth was flat decided that God was omniscient and omnipotent, despite Old Testament tales which show otherwise. Perhaps the rift between science and religious beliefs is telling us that a correction to those primitive ideas is due.

I’d appreciate your help in healing that rift. I’ve had plenty of hindrance already.

 

[greylorn]

Okay, once more into the breach. Dear Greylorn: the reason I was offput by the tone of some of your answers is that five or six people have tried to explain, as carefully as possible, why “the omnipotency contradiction” is not a contradiction. It appears you have brushed off their answers and continued telling them (us) to think some more about it.

Let me offer a parallel argument. Let’s say I started a thread and said something like this:

“God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot eliminate Himself from existence. God cannot learn something He does not already know. God cannot diminish in capacities. On the other hand, God cannot increase in capacities either. Etc., etc., etc. We, on the other hand, can do all these things. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, because we can do what God cannot.”

If I posted such a thread, people would write in and carefully explain to me that all these “abilities” God seemingly “lacks” do not in fact take anything away from God’s omnipotence, properly understood, because all of them in fact imply a LACK, a potential which does not exist in actuality. Since God is pure Act or actuality, God’s lack of potential is not a lack of omnipotence.

In the case of this thread, the major difference is that we are discussing omniscience or God’s knowledge, not omnipotence (despite the thread’s title).

Now let’s suppose I ignored what all these people wrote and kept repeating what I said in the third paragraph, the part in quotation marks above. Let’s suppose I kept telling people they just weren’t thinking enough about it.

Yes, after a while, I imagine people would begin thinking maybe they were wasting time on the thread.

This is where I arrived a while back, when I said farewell. This is my explanation of why I said farewell, and why I’m leaving (again) now. If others want to argue the exact same material over again, they are welcome to do so. I hope the understanding that you desire comes to you in a way you will accept. God bless you, see you around, bye-bye everybody. :coolinoff:

C.P.
Don’t be such a payne. I need your (name removed by moderator)ut, so kindly return to this thread. You know that the holidays are a poor time to get things done, and a computer crash doesn’t help. Any failures on my part to reply to a conscientious post on my own thread must not be forgiven. Thank you for calling me out.

I’ve dealt with some brief postings today, and will finish by replying to JDaniels thoughts from a few weeks back. I’m counting on you to tell me where I went wrong.

I’m at a disadvantage in trying to reply directly to the first section of your comments here, in that I do not argue from religious beliefs very well. If you still want me to do so, I’ll give it a shot.

The hypothetical thread you defined above seems a good idea. Rather than declare how people would respond to it, why not put it out there and see what people actually say? That would be a scientific approach to a subject, as opposed to a religious approach.

Appreciation and regards…

 

[greylorn]

Originally Posted by JDaniel

I have bolded the part of your argument that gives me a problem. But, perhaps, you could refine it in furtherance of our discussion. You have used the word “create” so I can, with some validity, assume you meant just that. But, the statement does not touch on the holding of an abstraction. We have not discussed whether of not God can “hold” an abstraction.

Since we mortals can “create” abstractions, and since God knows our thoughts, it would seem reasonable that He would be able to hold our abstractions. Thus, what God knows is more than just what is real. Now, is there any conceivable real need for God to create abstractions?

I believe that there is such a need, but that is because my concept of God differs from yours.

But then, God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, which is the slippery slope you traverse next.

That is correct. While I acknowledge that omniscience and omnipotency are beliefs inherent to Catholicism, I’m an ex-Catholic trying to reconcile the fundamental belief in a Creator with scientific data. Not an atheist, and no longer dependent upon dogma, I’m up for any God concept that cancels the objections of atheists.

Another way to put my opinions into perspective is this:

Science has discovered that the universe is about 13 billion years old, and that our planet is about 4 billion years old. Ordinary non-intellectual farmers have dug up dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs lived way back when and aren’t around anymore. The entire evolutionary history of life shows simple beginnings, expanding into complex forms. It shows sudden eradications and subsequent renewals.

I believe that life is created. The history of life is not indicative of an omnipotent/omniscient God who created it in a figurative finger-snap or two. It looks more like an engineering process, the creation of an entity (or possibly a number of entities) who took 3.5 billion years to do it because at the outset He , She, It, or They had no idea how to go about it.

“Having found what appear to me to be contradictions between the concept of an unlimited God and physical reality,”

Please extrapolate on these, if you would.

Here’s a quickie. Suppose that the omnipotent God gets hold of a stray electron and applies an infinite force to it. This would cause the electron to instantly accelerate to an infinite velocity. However, upon reaching the velocity of light, the electron will acquire infinite mass.

Infinite mass produces an infinitely large gravitational force, which will attract all mass in the universe to it, with infinite acceleration. This will cause all mass to reach infinite velocity, and acquire infinite mass.

God’s simple acceleration of a single electron would collapse the entire universe into the gread grandma of all black holes.

So, even if God might be capable of exerting an infinite amount of power, He cannot productively do so. Therefore He did not do so at the inception of the universe.

Thus, infinite power is unnecessary to create the universe. What is the point of declaring that God has a property which He does not need to get the job done? Is this a case of “my daddy’s bigger than yours?”

:
plus a few logical glitches
(I hate to ask you again, but,) could you extrapolate on these as well?

May I wait to see how you deal with the electron acceleration problem first? One thing at a time on this site seems to work best. .

I long ago devised a concept of a Creator Who I would characterize as, sufficiently powerful and intelligent enough to create the universe, perhaps with assistance.

“Assistance” from whom?

From any entity capable of creative thought and willing to transform thought into action. The first group of co-workers might be those minions which the Church calls angels.

But what about ourselves? I know a number of competent engineers who are not going to be content strumming harps and basking in the glory of God. They aren’t going to be any happier returning to a planet full of reincarnations of the fools they spent lifetimes struggling against, just to get a few good ideas accepted.

Suppose God gathers a handful of really good engineers, recently deceased, points to an incipient planet just warming up in a galaxy far, far away, and says, “Get to work. I want to see functional life forms capable of interacting with an unborn soul in two billion earth years or less.”

Continued…

 

[greylorn]

JDaniel

My life and work experience have taught me the value of practical theories over those which cannot be translated into action.

Rhetoric without meaning to me.

Sorry about that. I love theories, especially my own. But I’ve found that to be of any potential value, a theory must be verifiable. Even better, can we put it to work?

For example, Einstein’s special relativity theory was scientifically verified by astronomical observations. It was put to work at Hiroshima, in submarines, and in nuclear power plants.

A theory which cannot be verified is a religious theory.

I propose a theory about the nature and purpose of God which can be verified, and is therefore non-religious.

So from my perspective, God is an extraordinary entity Who does not know all things. This allows us to have free will, which is a concept I like.

I believe, as does the Catholic Church, that God is a “lover” and that the return of love can ONLY instantiate from “free will”.

Okay. I understand Church teachings, having once been a good little altar boy.

I find it strange that people believe that an entity of infinite intelligence will knowingly create a number of entities of nearly zero intelligence, then terminate thousands of them for misbehavior resulting from their low intelligence. Why God would “love” such a menagerie of incompetent, disobedient fools, myself included atop that list, I cannot understand.

“Whereas the God in Whom you believe does not, by definition need to do anything (the infinitely powerful couch potato)”

A tad disrespectful, however, I have no objections with Him doing whatever He wishes to do, whenever He wishes to do it, however He wishes to do it, and, whereever He wishes to do it.

I appreciate that you did not get off on the disrespectful notion, for none was intended to God Himself— a measure was pointed in the direction of popular ideas about God.

“the Creator in Whom I believe will find {creating} abstractions quite useful.”

Well, this is the “subject” of the debate, isn’t it? The word “creating” was added by me because, for some reason, you forgot to include it.

I understand why you felt that I inadvertently omitted the word, “creating.” Because you clearly stated that you added it, you are forgiven for doing so. I like a straight-up guy.

In this case, I’ll stand by my original wording.

There are some abstractions which cannot be created, but only discovered. For example, 2+2=4. (And the entire range of mathematics.) 2+2=4 is a mathematical abstraction which is true even if there is no universe in which to apply it. God cannot create this statement; He can only discover it, like us. He cannot change it. For example, He cannot declare that 2+2=5.

Sometimes I get sloppy with words, but not this time.

:
“He’ll have devised systems of mathematics which allowed him to precisely adjust the parameters of the 20 essential constants necessary to make the universe work, before undertaking its creation.”

Completely unnecessary as He already knows beforehand what is necessary to create the universe.

That is the Church’s dogma. I am questioning that dogma. After all, it was devised by guys who believed in Aristotelian physics.

Continued…

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for having the wisdom to acknowledge the contradiction.

While you may be correct that it cannot be resolved by human minds, that is not an interesting opinion. It denies the value of thought and sets up limitations which may not be legitimate. To accept your opinion would be to give up thinking about some interesting and challenging concepts. You really don’t want to set such limitations upon your own mind, do you?

So, if you grant that the omnipotency contradiction might be a legitimate observation, I invite you to participate in its resolution. I do not take the approach that to acknowledge contradictions in religious beliefs about the nature of God is to deny the reality of God. These will simply mean that certain attributes which human beings chose to apply to God might need to be unapplied. That doesn’t mean that God is not.

Dear Greylorn,

Welcome back.

Re: the original Post 61 and your reply post 64

I’ve chosen your beginning and ending paragraph to respond to–with the goal of working toward a resolution.

Let’s make my post a more interesting opinion by adding a human touch to “mystery.” For example, the ending of a good “whodunit” will have us wondering how we missed the clues that were there all along. Scientists also experience the same feelings of amazement when a “discovery” is longer mysterious. Instead of denying the value of thought, these two examples affirm the value of creative thought. In the first example, the author had more creative thought than the reader who missed the clues. Obviously, scientists use a lot of creative thought in order to solve the puzzles of the universe.

Can the human level examples be transferred to a mystery dealing with God? Yes, because I never did set any limitations in my post. I was careful when I expressed the problem to say some of us which does leave the rest of us to keep thinking about interesting and challenging concepts. The human level of missing clues can be applied to the mystery of God. And what do both readers and scientists do when that happens? They reevaluate the evidence. Or they look for evidence in other places. I better point out quickly that I accept subjective thinking so the clues and evidence that I find may not be the provable kind. But it works for me.

The ideas [or mysteries] about God are described as extremely difficult or hard to accept; yet the door remains open to continually explore for answers. Maybe we will accept that God is the One Who defines Himself and will end the conversation. Or maybe we will accept that God defines Himself and we continue to ask questions. Most likely, you and I will never say that the mystery of the omnipotency contradiction cannot be solved by human minds, but we will hedge a bit when it comes to when.
For myself, since I have a firm belief in the existence of a personal God, I can wait until I see Him face to face in eternity.
Believe me, omnipotency is not the only question I intend to ask.
Practically speaking, n my mind, I have already left this question and moved on.

Regarding the last paragraph. I grant that the omnipotency contradiction is a legitimate observation on the human level. I’m glad you do not take the approach that to acknowledge contradictions in religious beliefs about the nature of God is to deny the reality of God. I would say that you understand the concept of mysteries as I tried to explain it. Personally, I’m comfortable with divine mysteries, because I am comfortable in the Catholic Church. It answers my questions about life itself, i, e, its purpose which is to be with God in heaven.

Now I have a whole list of attributes that human beings have applied to God which definitely need to be unapplied. Omnipotency is not one of them. God is – and that is what is really important.

What I offer to the resolution of the Omnipotency Contraction is that it may or not be resolved immediately on the human level. If people wish to continue discussion that is their decision. People have the freedom to opt out. To me, it is ultimately a mystery in the Catholic sense of God. I encourage people to think about the possibilities of the mystery of God. I hope
that people would not choose the approach that to acknowledge contradictions in religious beliefs about the nature of God is to deny the reality of God. And I thank God that He has given us the ability to think…about Him

Regarding broad statements like religions have been applying thumbscrews to human thinking… People are welcomed to their own opinions and how they express them. My opinion is that these statements are partially true and that they miss the point of the most religions. (I do not say all because I don’t know enough about all the religions.)

Regarding the Inquisition, I’ve seen two documentaries or maybe it was two parts of one documentary on PBS which presented a whole different view of them.

I should add that the Catholic Church is seen as Holy because it witnesses with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, Whose Holy Presence continues within the Church. Christ calls all to a holy life. Nonetheless in each era, some members of the Church have been everything but holy. The Church calls these people to conversion, penance, and renewal. Some have responded, others have not. One thing to remember is that God did not make junk. Each of us is valuable and unconditionally loved by God Who respects the choices that we make.

Regarding science, there are a lot of threads on its various aspects. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. I do see a damaged relationship between science and faith which, in my opinion, is not good for society.

Amen.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[greylorn]

… continued

:
As for “holding” an abstraction, your God and mine must be able to do so. Else every interesting idea would be like those you’ve gotten upon awakening in the middle of the night, but didn’t write down.

As for your first sentence, I would, with some reservation, agree.

As to your second sentence, it is a statement that smacks loudly of anthropomorphism and pantheism.

I don’t know where you get the “pantheism” notion from, but come on, you are Catholic, are you not? Three Gods, yes? I’m among confederates who don’t recognize the implications of their own beliefs.

As for anthropomorphism, of course. Again, I thought that I was talking to a kindred spirit. Or are you one of the neuvo-Catholics who does not believe that God made man in His own image?

If the “in His image” concept is legitimate, we’d better be looking for some common ground between God and man.

Since Catholics believe that God does not have a body, what can we have in common (in His image) with God other than mind? Or is that another “mystery?”

Generally, except for the creation of abstract monsters for science fiction, the majority of our meaningful abstractions deal with our need to “universalize” into such things as classes (or large sets) and species (or simple sets), for example - those things that are required determinates of real and conceptual things - for our limited minds. What need would God have for universalizing things?

Again, the same as ours. Since God has assembled a coherent universe, we might assume that His own internal arrangements of information and concepts are equally coherent. The coherent mind puts things into categories. The competent mechanic does not store spare parts in buckets of drain oil. Scientists don’t interpose their grocery lists with their lab notes. That’s common sense organizational strategy, which is a useful and practical abstraction.

I have a better answer for this than the above paragraph. Categorizing things is a low level of abstraction, if it is an abstraction at all. You sucked me into a straw man kind of argument, and I fell for it. Ants, cockroaches, and mice know how to categorize. Computers are expert at it. Humans with minds generally find “sorting” a boring process. Therefore we train chickens to sort things.

But, He does all of that - except without having to create an abstraction each time He regards something.

I did not realize that I was talking to the other authority on God’s precise thought processes.

Real abstractions are the more complex levels of thought, such as General Relativity, and its translation into experiments capable of verifying it. Newtonian mechanics, and its translation into moon rockets. Etc.

Categorization is the work of people who put things on store shelves. Abstraction is when those people go home and study physics or math or whatever because they don’t want to spend their lives in a store.

CONTINUED

I"m awaiting your continuation. Did I miss it?

 

[Pro_Domina]

Yes, I do. “Try” is the operative word. Every idea I generate is subject to correction. I share them on this site for that purpose.

Are you sure that these statements were based upon reason? I do not think so. I believe that they were based upon popular beliefs, then justified using spurious logic to manipulate faulty hypotheses.

As you know, logic is just a tool. It is not truth, but is a method for discerning falsehoods. Perfect logic applied to a silly hypothesis will produce a silly conclusion.

No, it does not.

If everything is mutable, you are correct in that that leaves us with a soft and shaky foundation for any beliefs. Fortunately, science has discovered three immutable principles known as the Laws of Thermodynamics. (Actually, scientists were not involved in the discovery of these laws, because they were too steeped in their inane beliefs. The laws were discovered independently by seven non-scientists, in different forms, and subsequently ratified by scientists.)

I already know that you don’t care about these laws, may not be aware of them, and will declare that God created them, so you don’t need to reply.

I wish to expand upon my curt statement about logic. Logic does not change. Aristotle laid down the basic principles about 3 milennia ago. Mathematics uses these basic principles, unchanged.

Okay, a few hundred years ago uneducated people thought that the world was flat. This seemed a reasonable opinion for those incapable of making sensible conclusions from basic observations (such as the earth’s curved shadow upon the moon). Today, more people are educated, so fewer people believe that the world is flat. Luckily, human beliefs did not affect the actual shape of the planet.

Likewise, years ago, men who thought that the earth was flat decided that God was omniscient and omnipotent, despite Old Testament tales which show otherwise. Perhaps the rift between science and religious beliefs is telling us that a correction to those primitive ideas is due.

I’d appreciate your help in healing that rift. I’ve had plenty of hindrance already.

First of all, mathematics is not really an exact science anymore. A couple decades ago I forgot who declared very little was left to know it entirely.

Then some really wierd things came along, like quantum physics and the sort.

Second, if the Law of Thermodynamics was so venerated, then evolutionists (which logically they are ) are stupid for ignoring the fact that things could only degenerate or “calm down” according to those principles.

But the over all thing is that science is becoming a tool to fight religion instead of a means to elevate man more and more.

And again, logic does change, because for something to be logical it requires a consensus. Because crazy people believe what they do is quite logical. Man is incapable of doing something against his reason, though his reason could be dead wrong. Now if the consensus changes opinion, where do we found immutable principles? In an immutable God, because without, everything is subject to the caprice of even the most intelligent men ever.

Descartes said this as well for another reason, because logic has very little merit when dealing with an omnipotent being, since omnipotency goes above logic.

Even a simple creature like light could not be understood by a person born in a cave and never came out. Now immagine a being capable of making 0 = something.

 

[Pro_Domina]

stoqproject.it/

Read into it.

I think this year there is a big conference.

 

[williamric]

Second, if the Law of Thermodynamics was so venerated, then evolutionists (which logically they are ) are stupid for ignoring the fact that things could only degenerate or “calm down” according to those principles.

The law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution since the law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems (ie the universe) and not open systems (ie the earth)

 

[James22]

Hello all. Very interesting topic.

I did my best to read the whole thread, so I hope I am not simply restating what others have argued. I only saw, I believe, one comment which started to address the real issue at hand, and that was the poster who commented the God exists outside of time. To me, that’s a start.

Greylorn: I tend to think that this whole exercise is a problem of attempting to apply human categories to something. that is pretty beyond “transcends” those categories.

Yahweh. “I AM.” I read your post on how uninteresting an existence must be wherein “new thoughts” were impossible. And I didn’t finish it, however, because I got bored. And I find it easy to dismiss the notion that “God” is watching us like movie. That image is about as convincing and rational as the idea of an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, throwing out lightning bolts when the fancy strikes him.

Yes, Stephen Hawking’s “Brief History of time” graces my coffee table. And no, I do not claim the ability to fully grasp the concept of time, or the subtleties of the meaning of “spacetime.” My point, if I have one, must be that the whole notion of “creating new thoughts” is inherently tied to a human concept of time. One thing happens, then another, then another, inexorably. Past, present, future. As Augustine noted, time is only experienced in this manner by beings that are coming to be - have “potential” in the philosophical sense. God has no potential – he is eternal, in the sense that there isn’t any past or future. He IS. (Whatever that means to us).

Additionally, all our acts of creation are contingent upon Creation. I might shift focus to invoke Ecclesiastes 1:9: “There is nothing new under the sun.” I see no reason to believe that any thing that any human being has ever thought or conceived was a “new abstract thought.” Call me a pawn of Aristotle, but I believe that if one “creates” an idea, it must necessarily have been first born in the “mind” of God: the ground of existence, foundation of reality, the Prime Mover, the first principle, Reason (incarnate!), the Logos (“In the beginning was the Word” Jn 1:1). Not to be excessively rhetorical, but the nomenclature serves to remind us how much more pervasive our ideas of God should be. Calculus was not “thought up,” it is a method of describing the reality that is.

Basically, to me, this omnipotency “contradiction” is the product of sophistry. To sum up I present two arguments:

1. The concept of “new” as in “new thoughts” is contingent upon our human perspective. Something new was not in the past, and is now. Past, present, and future are human categories, not divine ones. Therefore, we can’t speak of things being “new” to God.
2. We don’t “create” what was not already created. Our minds, thoughts, and existence are contingent on the universe as creation. Our ideas merely reflect the reality that is already, filtered through the human mind (seeing through the glass darkly), and therefore aren’t creations in themselves.

(I apologize if I use quotation marks excessively, but I tend to find it necessary to highlight words and categories which strike me has inherently human, with unfortunately human connotations limitations. In other words, words fail, when it comes to attempting to speak of Being itself.)

 

[grannymh]

And again, logic does change, because for something to be logical it requires a consensus.
.

Dear Pro Domina,

I agree with greylorn in a preceding post that logic does not change.

Granted that its use may be faulty. Putting one’s foot on the gas pedal instead of the brakes when trying to stop the car does not change the basic mechanism of the car.

Furthermore, logic does not require a consensus for it to be logical. What does require a consensus is a society that wishes to establish some kind of order without reference to basic truths. This is called relativism. Principles decided by relativism are subject to change as society and individuals change their goals. Logic, as a discipline, does not operate from a relativist position.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[ethereality]

Therefore if God cannot generate a new idea, He is not omnipotent.

Hm. So you’re saying that since God already knows everything, he can’t think of something he didn’t already know. The same argument, “Can God create a rock so big that he can’t lift it?” which I think would be parsed as, “IF A, THEN NOT A,” logical nonsense.

Really, I disagree with your definition of “thinking”. None of us can think something we didn’t already know – how could it enter our minds to be thought? Every scientific theory and mathematical proof is a result of learning, of being shown something external to ourselves. This includes guesses, like Max Planck’s constant, and even art. (A guess is something you assert without being able to logically deduce it, perhaps utilizing ideas in the back of your mind of which you’re not fully cognizant.)

It may sound a little odd, that I’m saying we are not creating new ideas out of thin air with art, that even art is a result of learning from our environment, or maybe you see what I mean: Art is the result of mulling things over in your mind, stirring things around like a pot of soup (some call this “brainstorming”), and regurgitating ideas in different combinations.

So, actually, God has one above us in this situation, not the other way around – we can only function with information given to us, while God is the source of this information, with which he also functions.

Perhaps this is what is meant by the terms “omnipotent” and “almighty” – he does not depend on an something external to provide information like we do.

If God is the source of all information, and we have this dependence on things external to provide us with information, then perhaps this consideration of the nature of thought is a sort of ontological proof of our need for God and purpose of existence – to be with God.

 

[williamric]

I’d just like to point out something:

The argument cited then seems to contradict itself by giving the alleged reason God can’t create ideas: i.e. If He already knows all (is omniscient), then He can’t create new ideas. But in this case, His omnipotence is challenged on the grounds of His omniscience–in which case, obviously God must think, if He is omniscient.

Notice the end of the first fragment in the OP says God can’t have “spontaneous information–i.e. God can’t think.” But if God knows everything, He obviously is thinking.

 

[grannymh]

Hello all. Very interesting topic.

I did my best to read the whole thread, so I hope I am not simply restating what others have argued. I only saw, I believe, one comment which started to address the real issue at hand, and that was the poster who commented the God exists outside of time. To me, that’s a start.

Greylorn: I tend to think that this whole exercise is a problem of attempting to apply human categories to something. that is pretty beyond “transcends” those categories.

Yahweh. “I AM.” I read your post on how uninteresting an existence must be wherein “new thoughts” were impossible. And I didn’t finish it, however, because I got bored. And I find it easy to dismiss the notion that “God” is watching us like movie. That image is about as convincing and rational as the idea of an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, throwing out lightning bolts when the fancy strikes him.

Yes, Stephen Hawking’s “Brief History of time” graces my coffee table. And no, I do not claim the ability to fully grasp the concept of time, or the subtleties of the meaning of “spacetime.” My point, if I have one, must be that the whole notion of “creating new thoughts” is inherently tied to a human concept of time. One thing happens, then another, then another, inexorably. Past, present, future. As Augustine noted, time is only experienced in this manner by beings that are coming to be - have “potential” in the philosophical sense. God has no potential – he is eternal, in the sense that there isn’t any past or future. He IS. (Whatever that means to us).

Additionally, all our acts of creation are contingent upon Creation. I might shift focus to invoke Ecclesiastes 1:9: “There is nothing new under the sun.” I see no reason to believe that any thing that any human being has ever thought or conceived was a “new abstract thought.” Call me a pawn of Aristotle, but I believe that if one “creates” an idea, it must necessarily have been first born in the “mind” of God: the ground of existence, foundation of reality, the Prime Mover, the first principle, Reason (incarnate!), the Logos (“In the beginning was the Word” Jn 1:1). Not to be excessively rhetorical, but the nomenclature serves to remind us how much more pervasive our ideas of God should be. Calculus was not “thought up,” it is a method of describing the reality that is.

Basically, to me, this omnipotency “contradiction” is the product of sophistry. To sum up I present two arguments:

1. The concept of “new” as in “new thoughts” is contingent upon our human perspective. Something new was not in the past, and is now. Past, present, and future are human categories, not divine ones. Therefore, we can’t speak of things being “new” to God.
2. We don’t “create” what was not already created. Our minds, thoughts, and existence are contingent on the universe as creation. Our ideas merely reflect the reality that is already, filtered through the human mind (seeing through the glass darkly), and therefore aren’t creations in themselves.

(I apologize if I use quotation marks excessively, but I tend to find it necessary to highlight words and categories which strike me has inherently human, with unfortunately human connotations limitations. In other words, words fail, when it comes to attempting to speak of Being itself.)

Dear James22,

Was the comment about God existing outside of time this one?

“As a Transcendent Being, God is outside of time. He is beyond any process which requires time as we perceive it. He is beyond instant and spontaneous because these are words connected with time in our material universe. He is beyond actions because these are connected with time and so on.” If so, it was my post 37. God being a Transcendent Being is key. Sidenote: I would say that the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas is definitely alive and well.

Blessings,
grannymh