What kind of physical impossibilities can God create?

[Katrina5]

If you do not care to answer my questions, that is fine with me. I will answer yours: “I do not believe in God”. As far as I am concerned, God is on the same level of believability as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy - and no insult is intended in this remark. It is merely a statement of fact.

If God is Santa Claus, tooth fairy, whatever, then why are you writing on this forum? If you think this is all a joke, why don’t you write and ask your unanswerable questions on a forum where others think like you?

I hope the answer to my questions is that you are seeking Truth, told in a loving way, because that is what we all need at some level.

If you are just trying to get people who you see as Santa Claus believers (about three years old mentally) riled up for no reason, I see no purpose in that.

I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for.

 

[Katrina5]

Simply stated, you with a finite mind, cannot fathom the infinite. God is infinite. Because of this, he is able to accomplish all things. God does not contradict himself. He is infinite good. As being infinite good, anything disordered, bad, evil, is not from God. We can come up with logic for our finite minds, but God knows all intuitively as all is of his creation.

I do not intend to spend my entire time on this thread answering questions such can God create a square circle, etc, as this would be a waste of time. If you are wanting to discuss truth, in a substantive manner, I will do so.

Answer me one question. Do you believe in God? If you do not, maybe I could give you an example that would convince you, maybe not. Do you believe in him?

Thank you for this Deacon Ed. This was making me depressed, but you are logical and faithful.

 

[geometer]

The easiest way to think of this and to answer this is to remember that all that is, is created by God. Creation is of Him. As such creation is subject to God’s laws. God is not bound by the laws of his own creation. It is because of this that he established the Eucharist, whereby bread and wine, things of his creation, are transformed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ through the miracle of transubstantiation. This is how he rose from the dead. This is how he ascended into heaven. Simply because he is GOD.

I note in your post, you say you have no religion. These things I have said we see and believe through the eyes of faith. I will pray for you that you receive the gift of faith, which will lead you to truth.

God brought him back from the dead. He ascended to heaven because he was being sent by the father, just like any angel.

There is no way to prove that a man is God. There simply no way to make such a demonstration. Saying that a man can be God simply makes men happy, as if they could be gods.

You have been called to become a child of God, knowning God as your father. But you don’t know him that way, do you?

 

[Contarini]

When asked if God can create logical impossibilities, the answer is uniformly: “no”. On the other hand, it is also uniformly asserted that God can create physical impossibilities. The laws of nature are not an obstacle for God.

So, let’s see a few examples:

1. 
   *]There is an absolute zero, which is the “coldest” possible temperature, there the Brownian motion of molecules stops. To achieve minus one degree Kelvin is only a physical impossibility. Can God do it?
   *] There is an absolute maximum speed, the speed of light in a vacuum. No physical object with a resting mass of more than zero can achieve, much less surpass it. This is just a physical limit, so it should not hinder God. Can God move anything faster than the speed of light?
   *] There is also a maximum of heat, where the molecules would move with the speed of light. Can God make anything “hotter” than this maximum?
   *] Time is unidirectional, it goes from the fast to the future. Theoretically, it could go in the other direction. Can God reverse the direction of time? Can God make time travel possible? Can God change the past?
   *] Opposite electromagnetically charged objects attract each other, like electromagentically charged ojects repel each other. Can God create the opposite, where like charges repel and opposite charges attract? Or something else, where all charges repel each other? Or all charges attract each other?
   
   Think about it.

1. 
   I’m not a physicist, and no. 4 at least is something on which scientists seem to disagree. (However, the question of whether God can change the past has traditionally been answered in the negative by most theologians–St. Peter Damian argued that he could but he is hardly the greatest thinker in the history of the Church and is in the minority on this one.) I’m inclined to give a deliberately weaselly answer and say “depends on which category they fall into!” In other words, you seem to think that posing these cases somehow challenges the basic distinction. I can’t see that it does. The fact that we may not always know into which category a given example falls doesn’t call the categories into question.
   
   But because I don’t like being weaselly, and because I’m very long-winded, I’ll say a little more. Nos. 1-3 seem to be predicated on the specific properties of the physical objects we know about in this universe. Since “cold” simply means “molecules not moving around” as I understand it, obviously it would be logically impossible for God to make something colder than absolute zero. But a universe with different physical properties might have a different absolute zero. I may not understand how absolute zero works. But the principle is that if what you are saying is logically nonsensical (“molecules moving more slowly than complete rest”) God can’t do it. If it is limited by the specific properties which God has created in this universe, then God can. It’s not really that difficult a question. No. 5 I really don’t know–I don’t think I understand the nature of electromagnetism well enough to formulate even a guess.
   
   All these questions are limited by the fact that we cannot imagine anything outside of our universe. So I wouldn’t say without qualification that these things are impossible. Again, I don’t think this threatens the basic distinction at all. We do know that certain things are logically impossible–i.e., they are simple nonsense and it is no limitation of God’s power to say that He “can’t” do them. We also know that certain things are logically possible even though they may be physically impossible to specific creatures (or even all creatures that we know about) due to their limitations. We know that God can do those things and cause creatures to do them (God could, for instance, transport a person through the air or cause a virgin to conceive without sexual intercourse). We also believe as Christians (and generally as Biblical monotheists) that God can do certain things (the most obvious being creation ex nihilo) which by definition are impossible for creatures.
   
   Edwin

 

[Contarini]

God cannot die. But Jesus is/was God and he died.

How can that be?

Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift? Jesus worked as a carpenter; probably there were things too heavy for Jesus to lift.

'Splain that.

Well, the traditional, Chalcedonian answer would be that these things are possible to the one divine/human Person of Christ, but that Christ died according to His human nature, not His divine, and that Christ created according to His divine nature the rock that He could not (without miracle) lift according to His human nature. Some modern theologians have challenged this as downplaying the full paradox of the Incarnation, and in the end it’s admittedly a verbal formula that doesn’t explain anything. But it does, in my opnion, avoid logical contradiction.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Are the laws of logic also created by God?

No. I don’t know how often we need to tell you this before you will believe that this is the traditional, orthodox Christian position!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t want to derail my own thread. So just one remark, and I don’t want to follow it up: Jesus’ divine nature was proclaimed a long time after his death. He himself never asserted it.

As others have noted, that presupposes certain positions on the historicity of the Gospels, especially John, that may not be shared by everyone on this forum
However, more to the point your remark is irrelevant, because whether Jesus asserted His divinity (in words that have come down to us at least) does not decide the question of whether He *was *divine.

Christians came to believe that Jesus was divine primarily because of what He did and of the kind of relationship to the Father, to the rest of humanity, and to God’s saving purposes that He claimed and enacted. (And Christians today believe this first of all because of the historic witness of the Church.) It is not enough to determine whether the few and cryptic statements claiming divinity in the Gospel of John (and the fewer, more cryptic, and far more dubious such examples in the other Gospels) were actually spoken by Jesus.

Edwin

 

[WinterWH]

And how do we define “time”.

Is not all time in the present to God?

[How can that be?]

[But then God is Infinite [capital “i”] …

Then perhaps time does not merely “bend”, but perhaps time is just a bunch of grains of “sand” that all, somehow, touch one another. If we had the gift of infinite small “i” ]
“partial, non-mathematical infinity”] time and distance travel … then we could “step” from one grain of time to another.

How can we finite limited creatURES understand the Infinite Unlimited CreatOR?

 

[tonyrey]

If God is Santa Claus, tooth fairy, whatever, then why are you writing on this forum? If you think this is all a joke, why don’t you write and ask your unanswerable questions on a forum where others think like you?
I hope the answer to my questions is that you are seeking Truth, told in a loving way, because that is what we all need at some level.
If you are just trying to get people who you see as Santa Claus believers (about three years old mentally) riled up for no reason, I see no purpose in that.
I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for.

Katrina, I’m sure Spock is genuinely interested in discovering whether our belief in God has a rational basis. If he really thought Christianity is a complete load of nonsense why would he bother to discuss it in great detail? He knows many eminent scientists and thinkers have been and are theists. His style is often provocative but there are ways of dealing with that… It adds to the fun!

 

[geometer]

Then perhaps time does not merely “bend”, but perhaps time is just a bunch of grains of “sand” that all, somehow, touch one another.

There is a minster, who was educated as a physicist and keeps up to date on physical theories. He says that time is quantized that there are no durations which are less than about 10^-43 seconds. He also says that space is also quantized there are no distances less than 1.6x10^-36 meters.

So he is in the habbit of saying that we are digital elements of a digital simulation.

It seems a little spooky but he might be right. Why this is important, I am not quite sure, but it is an interesting thought.

 

[Langdell]

No. I don’t know how often we need to tell you this before you will believe that this is the traditional, orthodox Christian position!

Edwin

Edwin – Is the orthodox Christian position that logic was created by God or was not created by God? (I can’t quite tell from your post.) If it’s the latter, would you be able to point me to any authority? Thanks.

.

 

[Image_of_God]

No. I don’t know how often we need to tell you this before you will believe that this is the traditional, orthodox Christian position!

Edwin

As Langdell has mentioned, I am also confused by your post. I think what you meant to say was yes. At least, that’s what I’ve always thought the Traditional, Orthodox Christian view was. If it’s no, then I must wrong.

 

[Image_of_God]

If you do not care to answer my questions, that is fine with me. I will answer yours: “I do not believe in God”. As far as I am concerned, God is on the same level of believability as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy - and no insult is intended in this remark.** It is merely a statement of fact.**

How does your opinion become a statement of “fact”. To believe that God does not exist is somewhat an act of faith (not a supernatural kind of course). You have no absolute evidence that he does not exist, only your opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The term “laws of logic” is deceptive. These are not laws, such as “objects must behave in such and such fashion” or “people must stop at red lights”. They are preconditions for anything. They do not “exist”, but they must be predicated in order to understand anything that does exist.

All laws of logic are built on “A=A”, the identity property. If this were not true, then nothing could exist (not even God), because it could not be what it was. Thus, the “laws” of logic are independent of God and uncreated. Christians have been saying this for millenia.

 

[geometer]

All laws of logic are built on “A=A”, the identity property. If this were not true, then nothing could exist (not even God), because it could not be what it was. Thus, the “laws” of logic are independent of God and uncreated. Christians have been saying this for millenia.

A=A is not universally true. It works most of the time. Light can be measured as a wave, and with another measuring technique reveals itself to be particles.

It has a dual nature. And please don’t go on about non-contradiction and identity not being contradicted by the true nature of light.

We really do not know how reliable non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle are. There are philosophers who disagree that these are absolute, and rightly so.

Padre Pio, was observed to have bi-located more than once in his life. This is the reality, logic has no reality. There are many kinds of logic. They are very satisfying to the mind, but should not be used like drugs, or crystal balls.

 

[Katrina5]

Katrina, I’m sure Spock is genuinely interested in discovering whether our belief in God has a rational basis. If he really thought Christianity is a complete load of nonsense why would he bother to discuss it in great detail? He knows many eminent scientists and thinkers have been and are theists. His style is often provocative but there are ways of dealing with that… It adds to the fun!

Thank you, what a kind response.
I agree that challenges to thought make life interesting…keeps us on our toes.
And I don’t think anyone who really wants to challenge believers does it without some part of him ‘seeking’ for Truth.
That is where prayer comes in. I pray for all who are missing what we know to be truth. I have been there, so I know what it is like-- a big hole in one’s life.
Our priest always concludes mass by telling us to spread the Truth, and do so in a loving way.
One of the things I love about the Catholic faith is there is something for everyone.

 

[Image_of_God]

The term “laws of logic” is deceptive. These are not laws, such as “objects must behave in such and such fashion” or “people must stop at red lights”. They are preconditions for anything. They do not “exist”, but they must be predicated in order to understand anything that does exist.

All laws of logic are built on “A=A”, the identity property. If this were not true, then nothing could exist (not even God), because it could not be what it was. Thus, the “laws” of logic are independent of God and uncreated. Christians have been saying this for millenia.

Sorry, I still don’t understand. Is it possible for you to go a little further.

 

[Image_of_God]

A=A is not universally true. It works most of the time. Light can be measured as a wave, and with another measuring technique reveals itself to be particles.

It has a dual nature. And please don’t go on about non-contradiction and identity not being contradicted by the true nature of light.

We really do not know how reliable non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle are. There are philosophers who disagree that these are absolute, and rightly so.

Padre Pio, was observed to have bi-located more than once in his life. This is the reality, logic has no reality. There are many kinds of logic. They are very satisfying to the mind, but should not be used like drugs, or crystal balls.

Identity is not universally true you say and I presume you use light as an example. However, I want to say that you’re incorrect. Even though light might be particles in another measuring technique, the fact that it is still a wave does not change. It is only perceived as a particle do to the mechanism used.

An analogy: A person is on one side of a building. You look on the side that the person is on and you see him. He stays in the same place and you then go to the opposite side of the building and you can no longer see the person. Does that mean the person is no longer there? No. In the same manner, the reality of light as a wave does not cease to be true simply because a different mechanism shows it to be particles. Light is always a wave and many particles. It is all a matter of our limited perception of things.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

If you do not care to answer my questions, that is fine with me. I will answer yours: “I do not believe in God”. As far as I am concerned, God is on the same level of believability as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy - and no insult is intended in this remark. It is merely a statement of fact.

Do you believe something as complex as the Trident Submarine, with over 1 billion parts could just happen out of nothing or would it have to be made?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry, I still don’t understand. Is it possible for you to go a little further.

Take the question: Can an omnipotent being (God) make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it? The answer is no. Why? Because the question is meaningless. It refers to two terms:

Term #1: God
Term #2: A rock that God cannot lift.

The second term cannot have any reference. There is no object, nor can there be any object, in any possible world, that fits the description “a rock that God cannot lift”. You might as well ask the question: “Can God waffle fires twenty knots?” The phrase “waffle fires twenty knots” contains exactly as much meaning as the phrase “a rock God cannot lift”.

All logical contradictions create sentences without reference, sentences that cannot be understood in the context of any actual state of affairs. We do not know how these sentences could have meaning, and we have excellent reasons for believing they cannot possibly have any meaning.

God can do anything logically possible. He cannot, however, define the conditions that must inhere to anything that exists (the laws of logic), because He would have to first exist to do so – and therefore those conditions would already have to be satisfied in Him.

Does this help?