Three questions in terms of science

[Pag_Hingowa]

GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .

In terms of SCIENCE :

Who/What is omnipotent ?

Who/What is omniscient ?

Who/What is omnipresent ?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I hope that you are not trying to dismiss science with these thoughts, in favor of theism. This thread also seems to suggest that you can either choose science or God, but not both, a very faulty suggestion. I am quite comfortable as a scientist and a Catholic.

Also, you should note that science cannot prove the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent Being because to do so would mean we would have more knowledge, more power, and more space than the Being in question. Quite the conundrum, if you stop and think about it.

 

[davidv]

GOD is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent .

In terms of SCIENCE :

Who/What is omnipotent ?

Who/What is omniscient ?

Who/What is omnipresent ?

According all the scientific findings and theories of which I am aware, the answer to all three questions are, no one/nothing.

This indicates that science’s ability to explore the true is limited to the physical/material world.

 

[empther]

Omnipotence is needed to create something that has nothing in common with the nature of the creature.

Since nothing in the natural order of things can have this omnipotence,
the creator had to be something in the supernatural order of things, that is, God.

Omnipotence implies infinity since that which is not infinite cannot be omnipotent. To be limited in what one can do is not to be omnipotent.
Infinity implies omniscience and omnipresence, because such a being is not limited.

It’s a package deal, everything or nothing. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

 

[Stumblesalot]

Science, as we define it, is simply the study of the universe as WE perceive it in terms of physical, biological and chemical phenomena etc. Our perceptions, however, are limited to the four dimensional components that constitute space-time. This would decree a somewhat limited knowledge and perception of the ‘bigger picture.’ God is not subject to such restrictions and, consequently, examination by such methods would prove fruitless. An example of our restricted insight, for me, was demonstrated by Professor Stephen Hawking in his latest publication, one of the greatest thinkers of our time appears to be incapable of envisaging a dimension which exists ‘independently’ of space-time. To reiterate the comments proffered by Alberti, you cannot use science to prove omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence. However, science and faith in God are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

God bless

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

Science, as we define it, is simply the study of the universe as WE perceive it in terms of physical, biological and chemical phenomena etc. Our perceptions, however, are limited to the four dimensional components that constitute space-time. This would decree a somewhat limited knowledge and perception of the ‘bigger picture.’ God is not subject to such restrictions and, consequently, examination by such methods would prove fruitless. An example of our restricted insight, for me, was demonstrated by Professor Stephen Hawking in his latest publication, one of the greatest thinkers of our time appears to be incapable of envisaging a dimension which exists ‘independently’ of space-time. To reiterate the comments proffered by Alberti, you cannot use science to prove omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence. However, science and faith in God are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

God bless

I can… very easily. I can see all particles from the first to the last, and time, and space, and the Universe, and the Muti-verse. I can even see nothing. I can see the electrons, the photons, the photon holes, colour, reflection, refraction, Gravity, Magnetism. The only things I cannot see are DNA reconstruction, and how the periodic table works. But I can write a computer program for the periodic table. And I have some idea how DNA uses pressure to create shapes. Oh yeah, and I can see Dark Matter as well. I can see quantum experiments as well, like the two slit experiment, and action at a distance.

 

[Stumblesalot]

Hi,

Sorry, I didn’t explain the term ‘independently’ very well in my post. What I meant was: Professor Hawking is of the opinion that space-time, and therefore time itself, was created at the point of the theoretical ‘big bang’. Consequently, he feels that the question of there being a divine entity initiating the big bang is a null and void question. He concludes that such a ‘creation’ would imply causality, where causality is not a valid concept since time has not yet been created. This is what I meant when I stated he could not conceive of a dimension which exists ‘outside of’/’independently’ of space-time. All of the phenomena mentioned in your quote are constrained by the material/energy based time-space universe. Even questions of whether the universe is/is not infinite, the possibility of parallel universes or multi-verses etc. are constrained by the time-space continuum. I hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make (and that is as much as I am saying as I am contemplating writing a book on the subject ha ha).

Yours in Christ and God bless

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

Science, as we define it, is simply the study of the universe as WE perceive it in terms of physical, biological and chemical phenomena etc.

I think that science strives for objectivity. It tries to penetrate through to an understanding of the universe as it is in itself, independent of the personal ideosyncrasies of any single observer. But that’s kind of a cognitive ideal more than it’s a reality. Not only is there the problem that experiments interfere with what might have happened had no experiment occurred (which can totally change things on the microscale), there’s also the problem that we inevitably find ourselves conceptualizing things in terms of our existing conceptual vocabulary.

Our perceptions, however, are limited to the four dimensional components that constitute space-time.

It’s true. Not only that, there’s a question of cognitive processing-power. A cockroach can tell when I’ve turned on the light and it runs for cover. But a cockroach will never comprehend Maxwell’s equations. The physics of light kind of overflow the cockroach’s limited ability to uniderstand.

So scaling the analogy up, what confidence can we have that human beings possess the unique ability to understand whatever principles underlie reality itself?

I’m skeptical about whether we do. So our scientific quest for understanding might turn out to be kind of an endless quest into the unknown, in search of a hypothetical destination (a true ‘theory of everything’) that human beings like ourselves can never attain.

This would decree a somewhat limited knowledge and perception of the ‘bigger picture.’ God is not subject to such restrictions and, consequently, examination by such methods would prove fruitless.

I’m inclined to agree. The thing is, that kind of makes ‘God’ synonymous with ‘the unknown’. That’s an argument for agnosticism more than for theism.

To reiterate the comments proffered by Alberti, you cannot use science to prove omnipotence, omniscience or omnipresence. However, science and faith in God are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

God bless

Probably most scientists in history have entertained some kind of transcendental religious ideas.

 

[Pag_Hingowa]

Hi,

Sorry, I didn’t explain the term ‘independently’ very well in my post. What I meant was: Professor Hawking is of the opinion that space-time, and therefore time itself, was created at the point of the theoretical ‘big bang’. Consequently, he feels that the question of there being a divine entity initiating the big bang is a null and void question. He concludes that such a ‘creation’ would imply causality, where causality is not a valid concept since time has not yet been created. This is what I meant when I stated he could not conceive of a dimension which exists ‘outside of’/’independently’ of space-time. All of the phenomena mentioned in your quote are constrained by the material/energy based time-space universe. Even questions of whether the universe is/is not infinite, the possibility of parallel universes or multi-verses etc. are constrained by the time-space continuum. I hope that clarifies the point I was trying to make (and that is as much as I am saying as I am contemplating writing a book on the subject ha ha).

Yours in Christ and God bless

The particles that I needed to create space time had to equal zero to work. There is nothing less than zero. On a computer monitor you just see black. What I can do is give them a fake colour in a computer simulation, and you could see them. Because I can make zero visible, I can see before time. Now you might think that I could just put a sphere on the screen, and make it black. But zero has a strict pattern to it which must obey all of newtons laws, and that pattern is what I would make visible. If it breaks one of Newton’s laws, it breaks its zero energy state, and is no longer zero.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Who/What is omnipotent ? Who/What is omniscient ? Who/What is omnipresent ?

Why must such things exist?

 

[Stumblesalot]

Hi Pag Hingowa,

Thank you for the points you have made. I have had similar discussions with colleagues that have gone on for hours/days without much being resolved. Not to digress from your original question, science cannot prove that God is omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient. Ultimately, it is a question of faith.

God bless

 

[cho_pilo]

According all the scientific findings and theories of which I am aware, the answer to all three questions are, no one/nothing.

This indicates that science’s ability to explore the true is limited to the physical/material world.

Science seems to largely be a matter of observing things in detail, classifying them in various ways, reducing systems to component parts, and then elucidating causal interactions in terms of inductively derived causal regularities.

I’m not sure how science could apply to a hypothetical being that doesn’t behave in accordance with causal regularities, that supposedly isn’t present in our space-time universe at all, and hence isn’t observable by any extensions of our human senses.

 

[Serious]

All those questions presuppose that the concepts of “omnipotence”, “omniscience” and “omnipresence” can be meaningfully defined. Are there meaningful definitions for them?

1. Because the literal meanings, omnipotence would mean the ability of “being able to do anything and everything” would imply the ability of being able to do even nonsensical. logically contradictory “things”.
2. Omniscience would literally mean to know “everything”, which leads to the nonsense of knowing the contents of a book, which has never been written and will never be written, because the author was / will be never born.
3. Omnipresence is simply nonsense. If an object is present at location “x” then a different object cannot occupy the same space at the same time. And it would be present at the position which is to the north from the North Pole.
   These “abilities” are simply the exaggerations of certain human attributes to the extreme. To bring “God” into the discussion is premature. If the concepts are undefined, they will stay undefined even if applied to God, or Joe Shmoe. Are there meaningful definitions for these concepts?

Even if they could be defined meaningfully, they would be mutually exclusive. If a being would know its own future, then it would be unable to do anything different from what it already knows, and as such would not be omnipotent… Why not contemplate something truly important and useful, like “how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?”.

 

[davidv]

All those questions presuppose that the concepts of “omnipotence”, “omniscience” and “omnipresence” can be meaningfully defined. Are there meaningful definitions for them?

1. Because the literal meanings, omnipotence would mean the ability of “being able to do anything and everything” would imply the ability of being able to do even nonsensical. logically contradictory “things”.
2. Omniscience would literally mean to know “everything”, which leads to the nonsense of knowing the contents of a book, which has never been written and will never be written, because the author was / will be never born.
3. Omnipresence is simply nonsense. If an object is present at location “x” then a different object cannot occupy the same space at the same time. And it would be present at the position which is to the north from the North Pole.
   These “abilities” are simply the exaggerations of certain human attributes to the extreme. To bring “God” into the discussion is premature. If the concepts are undefined, they will stay undefined even if applied to God, or Joe Shmoe. Are there meaningful definitions for these concepts?

Even if they could be defined meaningfully, they would be mutually exclusive. If a being would know its own future, then it would be unable to do anything different from what it already knows, and as such would not be omnipotent… Why not contemplate something truly important and useful, like “how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?”.

Why do you call them exaggerations, rather that perfections?

Check out this article on omnipotence. Is it meaningful?

What is your support for your claim that they are mutually exclusive? Are you confusing knowledge with cause?

Why not refrain from innane jabs?

 

[Serious]

Check out this article on omnipotence. Is it meaningful?

No, it is not meaningful, because it does not deal with the pure concept of “omnipotence”. It is not meaningful to talk about omnipotence in relation to God, as long the concept itself is not defined.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No, it is not meaningful, because it does not deal with the pure concept of “omnipotence”. It is not meaningful to talk about omnipotence in relation to God, as long the concept itself is not defined.

Since omnipotence is attributed to God when it is invoked, why does it not make sense to discuss omnipotence in relation to God?

And if you stopped and thought about it for a moment, rather than continuing to be smug, you could easily take the very first sentence of the link, remove the phrase “of God” and have a very meaningful, and generally accepted, definition of the concept of omnipotence:

Omnipotence is the power to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness.

 

[Serious]

Since omnipotence is attributed to God when it is invoked, why does it not make sense to discuss omnipotence in relation to God?

And if you stopped and thought about it for a moment, rather than continuing to be smug, you could easily take the very first sentence of the link, remove the phrase “of God” and have a very meaningful, and generally accepted, definition of the concept of omnipotence:

Omnipotence is the power to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness.

Actually I did, and it does not resolve the problem. To say that “intrinsically impossible” == “logically contradictory” assumes that anything that is not logically contradictory is intrinsically possible.

Look at these physical impossibilities: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher_Waterfall.jpg or

Akron Art Museum, One of Only Two Venues in the U.S., to Host M.C. Escher: Impossible Realities | All Art News

AKRON, OH.- You’ve seen the posters, now see the originals. As the last of only two venues in the United States to show this once-in-a-lifetime loan from

www.allartnews.com

No omnipotent being can create such realities. So you are back to square one… what are the “intrinsically impossible” states of affairs? Would omnipotence be able to create a minus one Kelvin temperature? Or move an object faster than the speed of light?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Actually I did, and it does not resolve the problem. To say that “intrinsically impossible” == “logically contradictory” assumes that anything that is not logically contradictory is intrinsically possible.

Look at these physical impossibilities: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher_Waterfall.jpg or

Akron Art Museum, One of Only Two Venues in the U.S., to Host M.C. Escher: Impossible Realities | All Art News

AKRON, OH.- You’ve seen the posters, now see the originals. As the last of only two venues in the United States to show this once-in-a-lifetime loan from

www.allartnews.com

No omnipotent being can create such realities. So you are back to square one… what are the “intrinsically impossible” states of affairs? Would omnipotence be able to create a minus one Kelvin temperature? Or move an object faster than the speed of light?

You seem to be completely forgetting that a physical impossibility is also a logical contradictory.

Negative Kelvin temperatures are physically & logically impossible because you cannot have a less-than-zero energy in the system.

You should also spend some time Googling “Cherenkov radiation.” In this case, particles can and do move faster than the local speed of light; just not the global speed of light. You should also do a Google search of “tachyons.”

 

[Serious]

You seem to be completely forgetting that a physical impossibility is also a logical contradictory.

Not true. Look at those pictures I linked to. They are simple physical impossibilities.

Negative Kelvin temperatures are physically & logically impossible because you cannot have a less-than-zero energy in the system.

Logically it is possible to have “negative” matter, with negative mass, negative energy.

 

[davidv]

Not true. Look at those pictures I linked to. They are simple physical impossibilities.

Logically it is possible to have “negative” matter, with negative mass, negative energy.

How so? If you have no matter, how can you have less? Just because you can write an negative number if front of a quantity does not mean it represents a real thing.