How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?
A question for all you monotheists.
Well, most monotheists that I know have often had a personal experience with the god they believe in that has helped convince them she/he is the only god. I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with that.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real? |
i have a lots of proof.
http://www.kemalyavuz.frih.net/books/belief.htm
check this book.
| Quote: |
|
Understanding and Belief - The Essentials of Islamic Faith SOME OF THE DOORS TO GOD'S EXISTENCE The overwhelming of majority of humankind have believed in the existence of God from the very beginning Some of the ‘doors’ to God’s existence Contingent nature of the creation Finite nature of things Life Orderliness in creation Artistry in creation Finality in creation Mercy and providence Mutual helping in the universe Cleanliness in the universe Countenances Divine teaching and directing The spirit and the conscience Man’s innate dispositions and history of mankind Human intuition Consensus The Holy Qur’an and other Scriptures The prophets |
You both did not answer the question. If you god exists, how can you say other gods don't? If you god exists than other gods can exists.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real? |
I believe that the very nature of God precludes the possibility of there being more than one. The attributes of God include omnipitence, which means He is in total control of everything. There could not be more than one who is all-powerful, obviously.
Of course there are more than one supernatural being. To us, with our limitations, any being who could demonstrate the ability to do things that contradict the normal laws of science could appear to be God. My belief is that the one-and-only God existed before any other being, and that He created angelic beings, some of which later tried to be independent of God.
Based on logic alone, I would say that the possibilities for God or gods existing are:
1. There is no God, and all reality ultimately is explainable by natural laws.
The human soul seems to dislike that idea, seeking some power or purpose beyond itself. To strongly believe that there is no God requires an incredible amount of faith.
2. There are more than one God.
In this case, none of the gods have the full power most people think of when they use the term "God". In effect, this solution implies that there is a supernatural realm that is beyond the natural realm, but that realm must be governed by laws which the gods only partially understand and do not control. I see this solution as little different than the first.
3. There is one God who is in control of and is responsible for everything.
This choice gives us an explanation of everything other than God, and immediately tells us that we can never fully understand God himself. Belief in this God seems to agree with our highest human nature, but from a logical perspective, we could just be kidding ourselves because of a "need to believe". No amount of evidence will be sufficient to "prove" God's existance, but a belief in God is "reasonable" if there is significant evidence. Ultimately, it is necessary to make a leap of faith in order to believe in God. If you do not, then all of the three possibilities remain open.
Because our God tells us that the other Gods either don't exist or are not really Gods.
So, if you start out with the premise of a perfect God that communicates with you and tells you that all other gods are false or fake, the logical conclusion would be to accept this. (Yes, I know you won't accept the original premise, but that's not the point.)
So, if you start out with the premise of a perfect God that communicates with you and tells you that all other gods are false or fake, the logical conclusion would be to accept this. (Yes, I know you won't accept the original premise, but that's not the point.)
| SonLight wrote: |
| 2. There are more than one God.
In this case, none of the gods have the full power most people think of when they use the term "God". In effect, this solution implies that there is a supernatural realm that is beyond the natural realm, but that realm must be governed by laws which the gods only partially understand and do not control. I see this solution as little different than the first. |
Thats assuming that a god would be omniscient, pagan religions didn't really believe this, nor dose Shintoism and Hinduism.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Because our God tells us that the other Gods either don't exist or are not really Gods.
So, if you start out with the premise of a perfect God that communicates with you and tells you that all other gods are false or fake, the logical conclusion would be to accept this. (Yes, I know you won't accept the original premise, but that's not the point.) |
That assumes God is perfect (which being a human idea can not be) and dose not lie. In the bible God says hes a jealous god. Wouldn't a jealous god lie about the other gods?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
|
That assumes God is perfect (which being a human idea can not be) |
There are those of us who think God created humans, not the other way around.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
There are those of us who think God created humans, not the other way around. |
I didn't say he didn't, I said that assumes God is perfect (which being a human idea can not be, we made up the concept of perfect).
We also came up with the concept of noodles, and they exist...
Really, why cannot God be perfect? Because we determined what perfect means? Is that it? If so, suppose the meaning of perfect changed drastically; in that case, it would no longer apply to God, but God would not have changed.
Really, why cannot God be perfect? Because we determined what perfect means? Is that it? If so, suppose the meaning of perfect changed drastically; in that case, it would no longer apply to God, but God would not have changed.
Ok think about it this way, if one god exists than logically other gods can. You assume God told the truth, but he could have lied. The bible says God is a jealous god, that motive to lie about the existence of other gods.
The question is, if one god exits how can you say with certainty that other gods are just myths.
The question is, if one god exits how can you say with certainty that other gods are just myths.
^How can you know with certainty that they do?
In the absence of other trustworthy evidence, I'll believe God.
In the absence of other trustworthy evidence, I'll believe God.
By accepting the God of Abraham, that is the god of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, you acknowledge him as the creator of everything. So unless he created other gods, there are none, and judging from him being a jealous god, he probably wouldn't make any. By believing in him, you accept his word as infallible and absolute. Essentially then, in the mind of a true believer, there isn't even a possibility that other "gods" even exist, only false idols.
As far as proof, well "proof" is a subjective thing. My grandmother had cancer, had her tyroid gland taken out, and never went back to the doctor. She never even took hormone pills, yet she feels perfectly fine. For her, that was proof.
As far as proof, well "proof" is a subjective thing. My grandmother had cancer, had her tyroid gland taken out, and never went back to the doctor. She never even took hormone pills, yet she feels perfectly fine. For her, that was proof.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Ok think about it this way, if one god exists than logically other gods can. You assume God told the truth, but he could have lied. The bible says God is a jealous god, that motive to lie about the existence of other gods.
The question is, if one god exits how can you say with certainty that other gods are just myths. |
I certainly do not claim that it is unreasonable to assume the existance of more than one god, which was the second case I listed in my previous post. But only _one_ God can be all-powerful. If there are more than one god, then there is a spiritual world, perhaps in a dimension or plane of existance superior to ours, where the laws of their "supernatural" world are different but perhaps comparable to the laws of our "natural" world.
If there is a God of the kind I believe in and can understand a little bit about, even though His idea of perfection is vastly superior to my imperfect idea, then there is only one. The only God I find worthy of the name is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing, as He claims to be in our Bible. If lesser "gods" exist, they would be subordinate to Him and only have what power He allows them.
An omnipotent creature would not be bound by rules. If there is one than logically there can be another.
It doesn't make sense that God would omnipotent and omniscient, the story's in the bible make him seem not to be omnipotent and omniscient.
It doesn't make sense that God would omnipotent and omniscient, the story's in the bible make him seem not to be omnipotent and omniscient.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| An omnipotent creature would not be bound by rules. If there is one than logically there can be another.
It doesn't make sense that God would omnipotent and omniscient, the story's in the bible make him seem not to be omnipotent and omniscient. |
but there in no a law that bounds God.
i think how a puppet cannot understand the man who created it.we also cannot understand God.
dimension is different.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Ok think about it this way, if one god exists than logically other gods can. You assume God told the truth, but he could have lied. The bible says God is a jealous god, that motive to lie about the existence of other gods.
The question is, if one god exits how can you say with certainty that other gods are just myths. |
I believe in one God and know that many gods are in existence. The reason that my God is jealous is because I create other "gods" by placing other things (computer, myself, car, money, anything) before him. I make other gods, even though I believe in one God.
Yes, you could say that I make my God, but I prefer to have a perfect God (one that cannot lie, nor needs to) to serve rather than live my life for this detestable imperfect humanity.
One a side note, I think your logic is a little too specific. Perhaps better stated that if one being/object for humanity to worship exists, then others can (and do) exist...
| palavera wrote: |
| but there in no a law that bounds God.
i think how a puppet cannot understand the man who created it.we also cannot understand God. dimension is different. |
Reminds me of a quote from An Essay On Man:
| Alexander Pope wrote: |
| Presumptuous Man! the reason wouldst thou find
Why formed so weak, so little, and so blind? First, if thou canst, the harder reason guess, Why formed no weaker, blinder and no less! Ask of thy mother earth, why oaks are made Taller or stronger than the weeds they shade? Or ask of yonder argent fields above, Why Jove's satellites are less than Jove? |
Great question Conspirator.
100% honesty, I don't, at least not all the time. Since I'm being honest, I'll admit there times where I wonder if God really exists. But one thing I've not doubted, at least not in a long long time, is that Jesus existed, and I've found that living life the way he talks about (and lived) is the best way to live.
A possibly interesting sidenote to add some depth to this whole thing. Back in the bible times it was widely believed that each nation/land had its own god, which is why the bible sometimes refers to the God of Israel or God of Abraham (the father of Israel) or God of Jacob (descendant of Abraham). When you entered into a new land, you would then worship/pray to that god, since he was "in charge" of what happened in that land. Then there was also smaller household gods per family. Judaism was the first to claim there was one God (if I remember correctly).
Theres a really cool story (imho) in the Old Testament about a foreign leader who seeks out a follower of the God of Israel, is amazed by the power of that God, and asks to take as much dirt as his donkey could carry so when he returned home and would kneel next to the king in the temple for the God of his land, he could kneel in worship to the God of Israel.
100% honesty, I don't, at least not all the time. Since I'm being honest, I'll admit there times where I wonder if God really exists. But one thing I've not doubted, at least not in a long long time, is that Jesus existed, and I've found that living life the way he talks about (and lived) is the best way to live.
A possibly interesting sidenote to add some depth to this whole thing. Back in the bible times it was widely believed that each nation/land had its own god, which is why the bible sometimes refers to the God of Israel or God of Abraham (the father of Israel) or God of Jacob (descendant of Abraham). When you entered into a new land, you would then worship/pray to that god, since he was "in charge" of what happened in that land. Then there was also smaller household gods per family. Judaism was the first to claim there was one God (if I remember correctly).
Theres a really cool story (imho) in the Old Testament about a foreign leader who seeks out a follower of the God of Israel, is amazed by the power of that God, and asks to take as much dirt as his donkey could carry so when he returned home and would kneel next to the king in the temple for the God of his land, he could kneel in worship to the God of Israel.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| An omnipotent creature would not be bound by rules. If there is one than logically there can be another.
|
No, it would not be logically possible for two (or more) omnipotent beings to co-exist unless they agreed on absolutely everything. What if the two should disagree, and it came to the point where they were both trying to change something in different ways? Either it would be a tie, and nothing changes (in which case they are both not omnipotent), or one would win (in which case one of them is not omnipotent).
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| No, it would not be logically possible for two (or more) omnipotent beings to co-exist unless they agreed on absolutely everything. What if the two should disagree, and it came to the point where they were both trying to change something in different ways? Either it would be a tie, and nothing changes (in which case they are both not omnipotent), or one would win (in which case one of them is not omnipotent). |
Actually it is possible for two omnipotent beings to coexist, as long as one submits to the other. Being human, we cannot imagine being all-powerful and serving as the meekest, but that is exactly what the Jesus I believe in did. So yes, it is not logically possible (by human logic) for two or more omnipotent beings to coexist, but if you take into account that those omnipotent beings aren't/wouldn't be human, I don't see it as an impossibility.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| co-exist unless they agreed on absolutely everything. |
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
|
They wouldn't have to actually agree on absolutely everything (the fact that they may, notwithstanding), one has to be willing to submit to the other. Having power doesn't necessarily mean that you have to use that power to obtain your desires and wants.
| Montressor wrote: |
| one has to be willing to submit to the other. |
Which would be a form of agreement.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real? |
peace be upon you.
It is no difficulty for any monotheist to say their god exists. No problem at all.
Lots of monotheist religions worship the SAME God. Judasim worships Elohim/Yahweh. Christianity worships Yahweh. Islam worships Elohim (Allah in arabic), Sikhs believe all paths lead to the same one God, Bahais believe in Allah, and so on.
may God bless you all.
ocalhoun: It is possible for two omnipotent creators to exist, if one exists than logically two can. If two omnipotent creatures exists they would have to get along cause, just imagine if two people with equal strength and endurance fighting, it would get no where.
But that assuming God in omnipotent.
Logically if there is one god than there can be others. And there are ancient story's of miracles that come from pagan gods and story's are pretty much the source for every religion. So logically there is more than one if one exists.
But that assuming God in omnipotent.
Logically if there is one god than there can be others. And there are ancient story's of miracles that come from pagan gods and story's are pretty much the source for every religion. So logically there is more than one if one exists.
there's an argument out there that if an all-powerful hammer tries to break an unbreakable rock, this is obviously impossible and therefore either one exists or neither exists.
this is my i'm sure somewhat fallible argument for philosophically tearing down polytheism (or at least the idea that there can only be one or none omnipotent being).
this is my i'm sure somewhat fallible argument for philosophically tearing down polytheism (or at least the idea that there can only be one or none omnipotent being).
| peaceninja wrote: |
| there's an argument out there that if an all-powerful hammer tries to break an unbreakable rock, this is obviously impossible and therefore either one exists or neither exists.
this is my i'm sure somewhat fallible argument for philosophically tearing down polytheism (or at least the idea that there can only be one or none omnipotent being). |
Using that argument, a single all-powerful being is as illogical as two. The classic "rock he can't lift" argument is what you'd use for a single omnipotent being.
If you allow one illogical entity - one god - there's no good reason for not allowing two.
Indi, i dont see how you are saying that one omnipotent entity is illogical.
In the "rock he cannot" lift argument, there are still two equal, supreme entities. There cannot be two supremes, only one or none.
In the "rock he cannot" lift argument, there are still two equal, supreme entities. There cannot be two supremes, only one or none.
^No, that refers to a paradox I've seen in another form, but similar. I'll try to translate the one I do know to the one that is being referred to here (which I've never heard).
If God can do anything, can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift up?
Personally, I don't think this makes any sense at all. Anything remotely close to being too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift would be the largest thing in the universe, and would also need something even bigger to be gravitationally attracted towards. Supposing the one huge object was in contact with the other huge object, being both so immensely heavy, their weight would crush each other until they were smashed into one big object.
If God can do anything, can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift up?
Personally, I don't think this makes any sense at all. Anything remotely close to being too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift would be the largest thing in the universe, and would also need something even bigger to be gravitationally attracted towards. Supposing the one huge object was in contact with the other huge object, being both so immensely heavy, their weight would crush each other until they were smashed into one big object.
ocalhoun your not getting the paradox.
An omnipotent creature can do even the logically imposable. Make 1+1=5, make a circle that is also a square.
If God can make a rock too heavy fro him too lift that Gods power has limits thus God is not omnipotent.
If God can't make a rock too heavy from him to lift than his power has limits and there are limits to what he can create or there is something God logically can't do thus God is not omnipotent.
An omnipotent creature can do even the logically imposable. Make 1+1=5, make a circle that is also a square.
If God can make a rock too heavy fro him too lift that Gods power has limits thus God is not omnipotent.
If God can't make a rock too heavy from him to lift than his power has limits and there are limits to what he can create or there is something God logically can't do thus God is not omnipotent.
Omnipotence should still be logical.
Make 1+1=5? No, not without changing the meaning of one of the symbols or numbers.
Make a circle that is also a square? Sure, just add a few more spatial dimensions.
The rock paradox, being a paradox, is beyond our ability to logically work out, but I would blame this inadequacy on ourselves, not logic itself.
Make 1+1=5? No, not without changing the meaning of one of the symbols or numbers.
Make a circle that is also a square? Sure, just add a few more spatial dimensions.
The rock paradox, being a paradox, is beyond our ability to logically work out, but I would blame this inadequacy on ourselves, not logic itself.
| Quote: |
| Make 1+1=5? No, not without changing the meaning of one of the symbols or numbers.
Make a circle that is also a square? Sure, just add a few more spatial dimensions. |
An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent. |
if god does these things , we can not understand.
real questions here "what is God"
| Quote: |
| This point may be clarified through the following analogy: Imagine a large palace with 1,000 entrances, 999 of which are open and one of which appears to be closed. How can you claim that the palace cannot be entered? This is what unbelievers do by confining their (and others') attention only to the door which appears to be closed. The doors to God's existence are open to everybody, provided that they sincerely intend to enter through them.
|
http://en.fgulen.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1114
And you missed the point, the point is omnipotents is logically imposable. And the over question of the topic is, if one god exists how can you say other gods don't?
from a christian standpoint, i suppose we don't 'know' whether other gods do exist. God instructs us that he's a jealous god, so maybe other gods do exist. i think even somewhere in the bible, satan is referred to as a 'god' of this world. i personally don't think its possible for more than one omnipotent entity to exist in a single universe, should you define a God as omnipotent.
| peaceninja wrote: |
| from a christian standpoint, i suppose we don't 'know' whether other gods do exist. God instructs us that he's a jealous god, so maybe other gods do exist. i think even somewhere in the bible, satan is referred to as a 'god' of this world. i personally don't think its possible for more than one omnipotent entity to exist in a single universe, should you define a God as omnipotent. |
By what logic do you arrive at that statement ? Why should it be impossible for two or more omnipotent beings to exist ? I'm prompting here, not criticising, because it should be possible to come up with a logical answer to this question....see if you can.
Regards
Chris
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| And you missed the point, the point is omnipotents is logically imposable. And the over question of the topic is, if one god exists how can you say other gods don't? |
How do you figure? An omnipotent being of some sort isn't that hard to imagine; after all, we know that any given species just get more and more powerful. After all, a modern bear is far nastier than his ancestors were, especially if you allow for the square-cube law. It merely follows that there is going to eventually be something that is more powerful than all others.
As for just one, that makes a certain degree of sense as well. After all, if there were two, then neither is omnipotent; after all, "omnipotent" means being all-powerful. How omnipotent are you if you need to agree not to do something in order to do another? Would you truly be omnipotent if you had to ask someone else if you could do something?
Ergo, one omnipotent god isn't that hard to imagine. Especially when you realize that the pantheonic gods were hardly omnipotent; they had spheres of influence where they were powerful, sure, but were rather weak outside of that sphere...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: | ||
How do you figure? An omnipotent being of some sort isn't that hard to imagine; after all, we know that any given species just get more and more powerful. After all, a modern bear is far nastier than his ancestors were, especially if you allow for the square-cube law. It merely follows that there is going to eventually be something that is more powerful than all others. |
| what I said before wrote: |
| An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent. |
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| As for just one, that makes a certain degree of sense as well. After all, if there were two, then neither is omnipotent; after all, "omnipotent" means being all-powerful. How omnipotent are you if you need to agree not to do something in order to do another? Would you truly be omnipotent if you had to ask someone else if you could do something?
Ergo, one omnipotent god isn't that hard to imagine. Especially when you realize that the pantheonic gods were hardly omnipotent; they had spheres of influence where they were powerful, sure, but were rather weak outside of that sphere... HM |
If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists. |
No...it is possible to construct a perfectly logical argument to show that it is not possible...that was my challenge....
C
| Quote: | ||||||
[quote="The Conspirator"]
|
That's a misinterpretation, actually. Being able to be omnipotent means able to do anything, literally. Even setting a limit; all an omnipotent being would need to do is set a specific strength, and then create something greater than it could lift. It could then remove the limitation.
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
|
If one exists than logically another can exist, so to say only one exists. Thus is is illogical to say that another doesn't exist when when one exists. |
How? Just saying something is illogical doesn't make it illogical; the chain of logic needs to be shown. It's easy to show that you can't have more than one omnipotent being; any more than would need limitations set by some sort of agreement, making them less than omnipotent...
HM
| HereticMonkey wrote: |
| That's a misinterpretation, actually. Being able to be omnipotent means able to do anything, literally. Even setting a limit; all an omnipotent being would need to do is set a specific strength, and then create something greater than it could lift. It could then remove the limitation. |
You don't understand the paradox. An omnipotent bing can do anything, it has no limits, its power is infinite. But having infinite power limits it. it can not create anything grater than itself (the rock it can not lift) thus it is not omnipotent cause there is something it can not do. It has limits and omnipotence would mean having no limits.
| Quote: | ||
How? Just saying something is illogical doesn't make it illogical; the chain of logic needs to be shown. It's easy to show that you can't have more than one omnipotent being; any more than would need limitations set by some sort of agreement, making them less than omnipotent... HM |
You messed up your quote tags, I said that.
If one can exist than another can exists, having two omnipotent beings would not diminish the omnipotents of ether of them, they would be equal in all thing.
And that assuming God is omnipotent, thats an assumption. Omnipotence is not needed for a god to be a god. There are many who believe in God but dose not believe God to be omnipotent.
OK...a suggestion...
An omnipotent being could clearly choose to hide his existence from anyone/thing at will
An omnipotent being, however, could not be hidden from.
Therefore two omnipotent beings cannot exist.
Thats a very simple and slightly tacky type of the sort of logic I was trying to prompt. There are , I am sure, more elegant examples
Chris
An omnipotent being could clearly choose to hide his existence from anyone/thing at will
An omnipotent being, however, could not be hidden from.
Therefore two omnipotent beings cannot exist.
Thats a very simple and slightly tacky type of the sort of logic I was trying to prompt. There are , I am sure, more elegant examples
Chris
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| You don't understand the paradox. An omnipotent bing can do anything, it has no limits, its power is infinite. But having infinite power limits it. it can not create anything grater than itself (the rock it can not lift) thus it is not omnipotent cause there is something it can not do. It has limits and omnipotence would mean having no limits. |
Note: At no point have I disagreed with this. You, on the other hand, have limited an omnipotent being by not allowing it to be able to set limits. Now, if it can truly do something, why could it not temporarily set up a limit? I acknowledge that it has an infinite amount of power; but must it constantly tap that power?
| Quote: |
|
You messed up your quote tags, I said that. If one can exist than another can exists, having two omnipotent beings would not diminish the omnipotents of ether of them, they would be equal in all thing. |
That's sort of the problem, actually. Being omnipotent implies that you can do whatever you want whenever you want to; if there are two of you running around, then you need limit what you can do. Thus, making you less than omnipotent...
| Quote: |
| And that assuming God is omnipotent, thats an assumption. Omnipotence is not needed for a god to be a god. There are many who believe in God but dose not believe God to be omnipotent. |
Admittedly; but if He isn't, then a lot of the argument dissipates, does it not?
HM
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| [You don't understand the paradox. An omnipotent bing can do anything, it has no limits, its power is infinite. But having infinite power limits it. it can not create anything grater than itself (the rock it can not lift) thus it is not omnipotent cause there is something it can not do. It has limits and omnipotence would mean having no limits.
|
"The capacity of the intellect is limited, therefore something limited cannot judge the infinite"
| Indi wrote: |
| If you allow one illogical entity - one god - there's no good reason for not allowing two. |
God is nothing more than simply the consciounsess of infinity. There are not multiple infinites.
Those familiar with Poincare may object that there are, but when getting so specfic the precise wording is, God is nothing more the than the ultimate infinity, and there is only one Poincarian ultimate infinity.
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| God is nothing more than simply the consciounsess of infinity. There are not multiple infinites.
Those familiar with Poincare may object that there are, but when getting so specfic the precise wording is, God is nothing more the than the ultimate infinity, and there is only one Poincarian ultimate infinity. |
Hmm....as far as I can see there are three separate spheres which would need to be considered in this context.
1) Topological infinity
2) Numerical infinity
3) Set theory infinities
I agree that topologically speaking infinity can be defined as solitary and all inclusive - it is fairly trivial to prove it - simply assign a number set to a topological space and it is apparent
if we call the two ends +infinity and -infinity then the set a1..a2..a3..a4 converges to infinity where the numbers drawn converge to the right-hand endpoint.
2) Numerical infinity
Not possible as we know.
œ-1=œ (infinity-1=infinity - extended ascii codes are wrong on this machine...sorry) and this obviously screws up our rules of arithmetic.
3) Set theory infinity.
A single infinity is not possible, but multiple infinities are.
Basically there are an infinity of infinite cardinal number sets : thus one infinity would be the set {1..2..3..4) but we can also describe the transfinite cardinal and ordinal sets (Aleph-null and omega) which are infinite in themselves...
(really difficult to explain without the correct symbols..)
Regards
Chris
It was Cantor who first introduced the idea of an Absolute Infinity. In your vague and rambling reply it looks like you are attempting to refute the existence of a Cantorian Absolute Infinity. You didn’t even address the subject of lesser transfinite infinities vs. the Absolute Infinity.
| Cantor's Concept of Infinity: Implications of Infinity for Contingence wrote: |
| Transfinite Numbers in Contrast to Absolute Infinity
Note that Cantor built up transfinite numbers from below, by constructing a larger ordinal out of a smaller. From the beginning of his work he realized that infinity cannot be approached from above. Cantor was keenly aware of the paradoxes inherent in such constructions as the set of everything, the set of all sets, and even Taw. Such totality Cantor called Absolute Infinity; it is beyond all mathematical determination, and can be comprehended only in the mind of God. Cantor's distinction between transfinite numbers and Absolute Infinity had a profound impact on our modern contingent world view, which I will examine under Ontology below. http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Hedman.html |
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| It was Cantor who first introduced the idea of an Absolute Infinity. You’re vague, rambling and totally fatuous attempt to refute the existence of a Cantorian Absolute Infinity only makes yourself look foolish. You didn’t even address the subject of lesser transfinite infinities vs. the Absolute Infinity. |
That is a bit harsh I feel - I wasn't trying to refute Cartesian infinity - in fact I started by saying that topological infinity was agreed which I think means pretty much the same thing doesn't it ?
Vague I might have been - I'm no mathematician, as I freely admit, but I don't understand why you took offence since I was simply trying to broaden the subject of infinity out to further discussion, not refute your posting.
The problems I had with the end of the posting are down to the fact that I was frantically typing alt-236 and so on, but getting no infinity sign, and then I couldn't get omega or the other extended ascii characters to work either, which was frustrating me, and, as you point out, made me ramble a bit more than usual.
I didn't address Cantor because his concept of an absolute infinity was (I think) an attempt to reconcile his faith with his work and is only a small part of his contribution to math - his real contribution was in set theory and correspondence. His 'absolute infinity is still aq bone of contention with many mathematicians as you probably know but his famous theorem says what I tried to say - that there are an infinite number of infinite sets. His assertion that there is an infinite set which has a yet greater number of elements that the other infinite sets is not mathematically rigorous and, as Weyl put it :
| Quote: |
| .classical logic was abstracted from the mathematics of finite sets and their subsets...Forgetful of this limited origin, one afterwards mistook that logic for something above and prior to all mathematics, and finally applied it, without justification, to the mathematics of infinite sets. This is the Fall and original sin of [Cantor's] set theory ..." (Weyl, 1946) |
Regardless, my point, I think, was valid - there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity, since we then end up back at the same arithmetic problem as exists in classical number theory - infinity plus or minus 1..
Anyway - perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what parts of my post were fatuous, (I agree with the rambling criticism, for the reasons already explained) but I would hate to think that I posted something which is misleading or delusional since I try to avoid doing so.
Regards
Chris
| HereticMonkey wrote: | ||
Note: At no point have I disagreed with this. You, on the other hand, have limited an omnipotent being by not allowing it to be able to set limits. Now, if it can truly do something, why could it not temporarily set up a limit? I acknowledge that it has an infinite amount of power; but must it constantly tap that power? |
A omnipotant bing who chooses not to use its power is still omnipotant.
| Quote: | ||
That's sort of the problem, actually. Being omnipotent implies that you can do whatever you want whenever you want to; if there are two of you running around, then you need limit what you can do. Thus, making you less than omnipotent... |
But it doesn't take away from its omnipotences. Omnipotents is basically, having infinite power and not being bound by the rules of physics and logic. If there is two or more they are still beings of infinite power who are not bound by the rules of physics and logic. They still have omnipotents.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Regardless, my point, I think, was valid - there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity, since we then end up back at the same arithmetic problem as exists in classical number theory - infinity plus or minus 1..
Anyway - perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what parts of my post were fatuous, (I agree with the rambling criticism, for the reasons already explained) but I would hate to think that I posted something which is misleading or delusional since I try to avoid doing so. Regards Chris |
Obviously you are not familiar with the work of Ernst Zemelo, who was the first person to axiomatize set theory:
More generally, as noted by A.W. Moore, there can be no end to the process of set formation, and thus no such thing as the totality of all sets, or the set hierarchy. Any such totality would itself have to be a set, thus lying somewhere within the hierarchy and thus failing to contain every set.
A standard solution to this problem is found in Zermelo's set theory, which does not allow the unrestricted formation of sets from arbitrary properties. Rather, we may form the set of all objects that have a given property and lie in some given set (Zermelo's Axiom of Separation). This allows for the formation of sets based on properties, in a limited sense, while (hopefully) preserving the consistency of the theory.
However, while this neatly solves the logical problem, the philosophical problem remains. It seems natural that a set of individuals ought to exist, so long as the individuals exist. Indeed in a naïve sense, set theory might be said to be based on this notion. Zermelo's fix would seem to commit us to the rather mysterious notion of a proper class: a class of objects that does not have any formal existence, as an object (set), within our theory. For example, the class of all sets would be such a proper class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinity
| Bikerman wrote: |
| That is a bit harsh I feel - I wasn't trying to refute Cartesian infinity - in fact I started by saying that topological infinity was agreed which I think means pretty much the same thing doesn't it ? |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Vague I might have been - I'm no mathematician, as I freely admit, but I don't understand why you took offence since I was simply trying to broaden the subject of infinity out to further discussion, not refute your posting. |
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:43 am; edited 1 time in total
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
|
Obviously you are not familiar with the work of Ernst Zemelo, who was the first person to axiomatize set theory: .......etc etc snip |
Hmm...so I look foolish for, what I still maintain, was a perfectly reasonable post which you misinterpreted as trying to refute Cartesian symmetry ?
And then your answer to my follishness is this...3 paragraphs copied wholesale from Wikki ?
Chris.
Three paragraphs which leave nothing left of your false assertion that set theory will not allow for an Absolute Infinity.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:47 am; edited 2 times in total
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:47 am; edited 2 times in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Hmm...so I look foolish for, what I still maintain, was a perfectly reasonable post which you misinterpreted as trying to refute Cartesian symmetry ? |
| mike1reynolds wrote: |
| Three paragraphs which leave nothing left of your false assertion that set theory will not allow for an Absolute Infinity. |
I made no such assertion. My words were
there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity.
Chris
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||
|
Cartesian cords refer to a topographical space/reality as opposed to a mathematical construct which is the distinction I started with.
Chris.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I made no such assertion. My words were
there is no single infinity in set theory, regardless of the validity of otherwise of the Absolute infinity. Chris |
Absolute Infinity is, by definition, a singular infinity.
Last edited by mike1reynolds on Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:19 am; edited 3 times in total
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
|
| mike1reynolds wrote: | ||||||
|
No...simply a temporary misreading on my part due probably to the lateness of the hour.
Your miscasting of my argument was nothing to do with that - it was your statement that I denied that a greater infinity exists in set theory which not only did I not do, I was actually clear to mention the possibility that it might.
I also fail to see any substantive rebuttal of my basic starting position that plural infinities exist in two realms at least - set theory and simple number theory (or, in the latter case no infinitty exists - the distinction is actually very fine).
The Cantor debate is largely a side issue since Cantor and Poincare very publicly disagreed about the Cantor's work - Poincare took a much 'harder' stance on the issue of infinity than Cantor and actually blamed him for a lot of the problems with that issue.
In his 'The Future of Mathematics' he writes :
| Quote: |
| IX. CANTORISM.
I have already spoken of the need we have of continually going back to the first principles of our science and the profit we may thus obtain in the study of the human mind. It is this need which has inspired two attempts which hold an important place in the more recent part of mathematical history. The first is Cantorism, whose services to science we will know. One of the characteristic traits of Cantorism is that in place of generalizing and building theorems more and more complicated on top of each other and defining by means of these constructions themselves, it starts out from the genus supremum and defines, as the scholastics would have said, per genus proximum et differential specific am. What horror would have been brought to certain minds-that of hermit, for instance, whose favourite idea was comparing the mathematical to the natural sciences! With the most of us these prejudices have passed away, but it still happens that we come across certain paradoxes, certain apparent contradictions which would have overwhelmed Zenon d'Elee and the school of Megore with joy. I think, and I am not the only one who does, that it is important never to introduce any conception which may not be completely defined by a finite number of words. Whatever may be the remedy adopted, we can promise ourselves the joy of the physician called in to follow a beautiful pathological case. |
Therefore though I was neither attacking nor defending Cantor, it would not be strictly relevant to the central point, which you define as 'Poincare ultimate infinity'.
Poincare on infinity is actually quite ambivalent. My limited knowledge of Poincare leads me to believe he was a mathematician in the tradition of modern physicists much more than in that of modern mathematicians. He wanted p[practical application and purpose. Modern mathematicians (certainly when I was at Uni) were deeply suspicious of such 'grubby' motives and were in a constant battle with the physics department since they insisted that Math was not for solving real problems but for making beautiful structures and formulae. Sitting down to solve problems mathematically was grubby and demeaning and missed the whole point.
Therefore it would follow that he supported the idea of a single infinity in the real world, and indeed he did. He was also a mathematician however and boih recognised and accepted the use of infinity(ies) in his formal work without dissent or even much comment.
That, in long terms, is the point I started by sketching - math has multiple or no infinities whereas euclidean and Cartesian geometrical space would appear to support the concept of a single infinity.
I thought I was making a reasonable and fairly obvious point but it seems not.
Chris
The 19th century reservations about proper sets are extremely passé in modern mathematics where Chaos Theory and dynamical systems theory make use of parameter spaces that are proper sets all the time. There is no lack of real world examples of proper sets in mathematics today.
To give others an example of what a parameter space is, take the set of all possible time streams, the entire universe. Not all of these possibilities actually exist, but quantum physics guarantees that many more than just one exists. In the Schrodinger’s Cat example, for a period of time two time streams must co-exist, one in which the cat is alive and one in which it is dead, for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to really be true. This physical universe is actually a bundle of infinite timestreams, with vast numbers being stripped away every moment. The physical substance of the future is a morphing shifting probability flux that has a blurry but tangible existence in the now.
What is more, time is not just one dimensional, it is multidimensional. If time travel is possible, even if only by the pattern of reincarnation of spirits and not physically, then time wars are real and in fact you can travel from one pocket of timestreams to other entirely different pockets of timestreams. In other words, timestreams can invade each other.
So God is a vast parameter space of all of these timestreams in the infinite future, throughout an infinite number of dimensions of time. That is not just the infinite future, but also the infinite progression of all timestreams through all timewars, the concluding sequel of Back to the Future.
To give others an example of what a parameter space is, take the set of all possible time streams, the entire universe. Not all of these possibilities actually exist, but quantum physics guarantees that many more than just one exists. In the Schrodinger’s Cat example, for a period of time two time streams must co-exist, one in which the cat is alive and one in which it is dead, for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to really be true. This physical universe is actually a bundle of infinite timestreams, with vast numbers being stripped away every moment. The physical substance of the future is a morphing shifting probability flux that has a blurry but tangible existence in the now.
What is more, time is not just one dimensional, it is multidimensional. If time travel is possible, even if only by the pattern of reincarnation of spirits and not physically, then time wars are real and in fact you can travel from one pocket of timestreams to other entirely different pockets of timestreams. In other words, timestreams can invade each other.
So God is a vast parameter space of all of these timestreams in the infinite future, throughout an infinite number of dimensions of time. That is not just the infinite future, but also the infinite progression of all timestreams through all timewars, the concluding sequel of Back to the Future.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real? |
Since it is impossible to prove that any one god exists using empirical evidence or logic, it is impossible to say that multiple gods exist using empirical evidence or logic.
The question is merely one of faith.
Respectfully,
M
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
An omnipotent bing can do even the logically imposable, it could make 1+2=3 or 5 pr even ∞. It wouldn't need to change any values or use multiple dimensions. The omniscient paradox means that nothing can be omnipotent cause even if its power is infinite, there is something it can not do thus it is not omnipotent. |
No passage in the Bible that I know of claims God to be omnipotent by your definition. In fact, I doubt many theists (certainly no rational one) would define any god’s “omnipotence” as the ability to perform even irrational and illogical tasks.
Your argument is an absurdity. The purpose is to trap a theist because any answer will be held as proof against omnipotence. The answers are paradoxical. However it is flawed in that it only works if the theist defines omnipotence as the ability to do that which is not only logically possible, but that which is logically impossible.
This argument is not unlike the argument of “What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?” An irresistible force precludes the existence of an immovable object and vice versa. Thus the argument is absurd.
Likewise, the notion that an omnipotent being can move any object, no matter how large, precludes the existence of an object this being cannot move. To argue that He can create something that His abilities preclude from existing is also absurd. You are asking God to create that which cannot be created. God does not lack the ability. The ability itself does not exist.
I do not consider tasks which are impossible (whether making an immovable stone, a square circle, or 1+1=5) to be real tasks. They are not real tasks for any entity to perform because the tasks themselves do not and cannot exist.
You’re judging God to not be omnipotent because He can’t work contradictory nonsense?
Respectfully,
M
Its not my definition, the omnipotence paradox has been around for a long time.
An omnipotent bing world not be bound by the rules of logic so if its illogical or self contradictory its with in its power.
If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.
An omnipotent bing world not be bound by the rules of logic so if its illogical or self contradictory its with in its power.
If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass.
Great posts Moonspider!
If God is simply all of us, as a single being, in the infinite future, then there is nothing in the least bit paradoxical about God knowing absolutely everything about us and everything around us. It would all be in His recollection of the past.
If God is simply all of us, as a single being, in the infinite future, then there is nothing in the least bit paradoxical about God knowing absolutely everything about us and everything around us. It would all be in His recollection of the past.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
|
If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass. |
and how would this force meet itself? and what would happen afterwards? I bet God could make it happen, he is omnipotent, he can do anything.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Its not my definition, the omnipotence paradox has been around for a long time.
An omnipotent bing world not be bound by the rules of logic so if its illogical or self contradictory its with in its power. If you think about it, you can have an irritable force and an immovable object in the same universe, they would both be the same thing, objects with infinite mass. |
Yes it has been around for a long time and is basically a modus tollens. However, it fails if "omnipotence" is defined as it is by Thomas Aquinas in the article you referenced from the Wikipedia.
I believe along the lines of C. S. Lewis' quote in your second reference to the Wikipedia, the article on omnipotence. This is also in line with Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject.
| C.S. Lewis wrote: |
| His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. |
Respectfully,
M
| NemoySpruce wrote: | ||
and how would this force meet itself? and what would happen afterwards? I bet God could make it happen, he is omnipotent, he can do anything. |
Dude, it's an "irritable" force; I'm thinking if it met itself, it berate itself...
(Oh....oops, up meant "irresistible"...Heh...)
HM
| NemoySpruce wrote: | ||
and how would this force meet itself? and what would happen afterwards? I bet God could make it happen, he is omnipotent, he can do anything. |
Not a single force, two objects of infinite mass. Given infinite mass would mean infinite gravity they would merge into one object.
Your assuming God is omnipotent.
| Moonspider wrote: | ||||
Yes it has been around for a long time and is basically a modus tollens. However, it fails if "omnipotence" is defined as it is by Thomas Aquinas in the article you referenced from the Wikipedia. I believe along the lines of C. S. Lewis' quote in your second reference to the Wikipedia, the article on omnipotence. This is also in line with Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject.
Respectfully, M |
But if an omnipotent bing has limitations, is it still omnipotent? No. An omnipotent bing would not be bound by any limitations.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| But if an omnipotent bing has limitations... |
And would an omnipotent Bing still want to sing White Christmas?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
|
But if an omnipotent bing has limitations, is it still omnipotent? No. An omnipotent bing would not be bound by any limitations. |
And yet, haven't expressed the opinion that there wouldn't be a problem with two omnipotent beings? How could you have two omnipotent beings without either or both having limitations on their actions?
HM
Its power would have no limitations, that dose not limit to one omnipotent bing. Omnipotents is having infinite power and not being limited by the laws of physics and logic. That dose not negate the possibility of another one.
Except that two omnipotent beings would have their powers limited by logic; one or both would need to curtail the complete use of power. After all, they couldn't do everything that they wanted to; they would eventually conflict over something.
Look at this way: Sooner or later one would want to try something that would interfere with what the other was doing. After all, we know that sometime experiments even on the opposite sides of the earth can interfere with each other (a nuclear test and a seismic test, for example), and can do even without meaning to. Now, if those experiments were on a universal scale, which the level of power would facilitate, the odds of two experiments conflicting would be likely.
In order to limit the interference, one or both would need to limit their power. In order to avoid conflict, fair use of the universe would need to be established, like lab time at a university. Without accepting the limits of power, conflict would be likelier, and could you imagine the effects of that conflict?
Note: I am allowing that you could have one omnipotent being per universe; that would make logical sense as well. But...that logic wouldn't apply here...
HM
Look at this way: Sooner or later one would want to try something that would interfere with what the other was doing. After all, we know that sometime experiments even on the opposite sides of the earth can interfere with each other (a nuclear test and a seismic test, for example), and can do even without meaning to. Now, if those experiments were on a universal scale, which the level of power would facilitate, the odds of two experiments conflicting would be likely.
In order to limit the interference, one or both would need to limit their power. In order to avoid conflict, fair use of the universe would need to be established, like lab time at a university. Without accepting the limits of power, conflict would be likelier, and could you imagine the effects of that conflict?
Note: I am allowing that you could have one omnipotent being per universe; that would make logical sense as well. But...that logic wouldn't apply here...
HM
But two omnipotent beings (even in the same universe) could have both have there way, there omnipotent. What makes you think an omnipotent bing would be limited to one universe? Or even bound by the rules of causality (if there are)? They wouldn't. By being omnipotent they can both have there way even if what they won't contradicts what the other one wants.
| Moonspider wrote: | ||||
Yes it has been around for a long time and is basically a modus tollens. However, it fails if "omnipotence" is defined as it is by Thomas Aquinas in the article you referenced from the Wikipedia. I believe along the lines of C. S. Lewis' quote in your second reference to the Wikipedia, the article on omnipotence. This is also in line with Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject.
|
Defining omnipotence in this way is all fine and good... but for one not-so-small problem.
That definition means that God would be subject to a higher power. Think for a second on what makes something impossible. Something can only be impossible if there exists a higher law - a force or thing (concrete or not) with greater power - that prevents that thing from being possible. i can never square a real number and get a negative number because the laws of mathematics prevent that, and no matter how much i might want to, i cannot change the laws of mathematics. In other words, i am a slave to the laws of mathematics, subordinate to them. In fact, i am slave to many higher powers that i cannot overrule. That's just nature.
So if God is defined as being unable to do anything, logical or no, that means that there is a power greater than him.
And that contradicts tons of statements in the bible. Therefore, unless you want to almost completely write off the biblical description of God, you cannot posit a higher power, and thus you cannot say that God is limited by logic.
Therefore, if there is no power higher than God, then God can do anything, even things that would seem illogical to us, because there would be nothing to stop him. So God could create a rock he cannot lift - because there's nothing that can stop him from doing it. But that's an illogical proposition, which makes God an illogical concept.
----------------
There's another aspect to the discussion here i've found disturbing. Several people have argued that a single omnipotent being is logical, but more than one is not, based on the idea that two omnipotent beings would eventually come into a conflict that neither could win. i don't agree that a single god is logical - and i showed why above - but setting that aside for the moment, let's work with the assumption that a single omnipotent being is logical, and analyze whether multiple omnipotent beings are logical or not.
There have been two arguments so far that i have identified. The first is that if there were two omnipotent beings, their actions would have to be restrained by the fact that two omnipotent beings cannot both exercise omnipotence without stepping on each others' toes. The second is that if two omnipotent beings were to fight, the battle would be endless and never have a victor.
Both arguments are flawed because they both ignore the problem of omnipotence of a single god, so they both have to be analyzed under the two types of omnipotence: true omnipotence, and Lewisian/Aquinan pseudo-omnipotence.
Assuming true omnipotence, all the arguments against two gods fall apart, because if both beings are omnipotent, then neither is restricted by anything. Yes, that leads to logical inconsistencies (such as that both gods can destroy the other and yet both can never be destroyed by the other), but that can't be helped simply because the definition of true omnipotence is illogical period - even for a single omnipotent being. One true omnipotent being is illogical. Two are illogical. *shrug* If you accept one, you can't argue against two.
Assuming Lewisian/Aquinan pseudo-omnipotence, you are assuming the existence of a higher power that limits the power of the god(s). So why can't that higher power also prevent the two gods from fighting each other or otherwise stepping on each others' toes?
Even without that, if you argue that two omnipotent deities cannot exist because they would cancel each other out... that doesn't rule out the existence of three omnipotent deities. If any two should come into conflict, the third would have the advantage over all of them. Thus it is in everyone's best interest to never come into conflict. Even if two of the gods form an alliance to overthrow the third, the remaining two gods would then be making themselves vulnerable. A system of three pseudo-omnipotent deities would thus be stable.
So there are no real arguments against having more than one god... once you first allow for the existence of one.
OK, there seems to be some difficulty about what the word "omnipotent" means. If you don't want to accept Lewis's definition of the word as valid, then perhaps I need to be more specific about what the minimum standard for the God I worship is.
No being, no matter how powerful, is worthy (in my opinion) to be worshipped as God, unless He is powerful enough to limit all other beings in the universe to only those things which He allows them to do.
This is sufficient to insure that there can be only one such being. The standard is less than what I would define as omnipitence, and less than what I am sure God can really do, but it is sufficient for my argument. I do believe that God can do much more than this, but I agree that it would be pointless for Him to do something which inherently violates logic.
No being, no matter how powerful, is worthy (in my opinion) to be worshipped as God, unless He is powerful enough to limit all other beings in the universe to only those things which He allows them to do.
This is sufficient to insure that there can be only one such being. The standard is less than what I would define as omnipitence, and less than what I am sure God can really do, but it is sufficient for my argument. I do believe that God can do much more than this, but I agree that it would be pointless for Him to do something which inherently violates logic.
I guess that it's possible there are other gods, if you think about it. Think of God's commandment "There shall be no other gods before me" - does that hint at the existence of other gods? Well, I'm not one to say... But I'm sure there are other Biblical references to One True God (meaning there can be no other gods/goddesses).
| Indi wrote: |
| Even if two of the gods form an alliance to overthrow the third, the remaining two gods would then be making themselves vulnerable. A system of three pseudo-omnipotent deities would thus be stable.
So there are no real arguments against having more than one god... once you first allow for the existence of one. |
A stable system of 2 or more omnipotent Gods would in effect be just one God. They would never disagree and always act as one. Assuming they were also omniscient, they would know what the others were thinking at all times. There could be a billion of them, but they would all be part of one consciousness.
Last edited by NemoySpruce on Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:35 am; edited 1 time in total
firstly
http://www.nur.org/treatise/articles/questions_of_science_and_technology.htm
we accept there is a god
"He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God, there is no God but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (59:22-24)
quran says "there is no god but he"
and we believe this.
| Quote: |
| “You know that a village cannot be without a headman, a needle without the one who manufactured it, and a letter without its writer, so how is it that this country (universe)so infinitely well-ordered should be without a Ruler?” |
http://www.nur.org/treatise/articles/questions_of_science_and_technology.htm
we accept there is a god
"He is God; there is no god but He, He is the Knower of the unseen and the visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God, there is no God but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they associate! He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (59:22-24)
quran says "there is no god but he"
and we believe this.
| palavra wrote: |
|
quran says "there is no god but he" and we believe this. |
Ok let me get this straight, so the question is;
"How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?"
and your reply is...bcoz the quran says so. end of argument. Thanks for playing.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Defining omnipotence in this way is all fine and good... but for one not-so-small problem. That definition means that God would be subject to a higher power. Think for a second on what makes something impossible. Something can only be impossible if there exists a higher law - a force or thing (concrete or not) with greater power - that prevents that thing from being possible. i can never square a real number and get a negative number because the laws of mathematics prevent that, and no matter how much i might want to, i cannot change the laws of mathematics. In other words, i am a slave to the laws of mathematics, subordinate to them. In fact, i am slave to many higher powers that i cannot overrule. That's just nature. So if God is defined as being unable to do anything, logical or no, that means that there is a power greater than him. And that contradicts tons of statements in the bible. Therefore, unless you want to almost completely write off the biblical description of God, you cannot posit a higher power, and thus you cannot say that God is limited by logic. |
I stand by my argument: you can't judge a being to not be omnipotent because that being cannot work contradictory nonsense. And I can't put it any more succinctly or eloquently than C.S. Lewis in the quote referenced (ironically) by The Conspirator.
I define omnipotence as the ability to do all things that are possible. Nonsense is nonsense no matter how you cut it.
Yes, you are right in that if someone defines "omnipotence" as the ability to do all things no matter how absurd they are trapped by the "rock paradox" (or any other nonsensical thing you wish to use, such as a square circle, a sky that is both red and blue, ad infinitum).
However, the paradox here is spurious because it does in fact rely upon a definition of omnipotence not held by theists.
To say any hypothetical omnipotent being is not omnipotent because it cannot perform or create an oxymoron is absurd. As I said, God is not limited because he cannot perform the task. The task does not exist.
| Indi wrote: |
| Therefore, if there is no power higher than God, then God can do anything, even things that would seem illogical to us, because there would be nothing to stop him. So God could create a rock he cannot lift - because there's nothing that can stop him from doing it. But that's an illogical proposition, which makes God an illogical concept. |
I don’t hold to this line of argument since I find the assumed definition of omnipotence to be false. However let’s examine it.
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God can do anything in set A.
3. Set A includes all things both logical and illogical.
4. God can do the illogical.
If God can do the illogical, why is his nature (or existence) suddenly bound by logic as it is in your conclusion? (“But that’s an illogical proposition…”) Yes it is, but did your argument not just state that God can do the illogical, and thus fulfill even an illogical proposition?
For further reading on this argument (and the definition of omnipotence) I recommend the following. However, there is a plethora of information and arguments from all sides of the aisle on this classic argument.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://radgeek.com/gt/1997/08/12/the_big
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/omni.htm
----------------
| Indi wrote: |
| There's another aspect to the discussion here i've found disturbing. Several people have argued that a single omnipotent being is logical, but more than one is not… If you accept one, you can't argue against two. |
Agreed. As I mentioned before, the existence of God cannot be proven by empirical evidence or logic. Thus two or more gods cannot be proven either. It is a matter of faith or belief based on that which cannot be observed. Logically the belief in one God is no more or less valid than a belief in infinite gods. One can only argue it from a standpoint of one faith or belief system vs. another.
Respectfully,
M
| NemoySpruce wrote: | ||
Ok let me get this straight, so the question is; "How can you say your god exists and not other? If all other gods are myths, then how can you believe your god is real?" and your reply is...bcoz the quran says so. end of argument. Thanks for playing. |
i already wrote my answer.
“You know that a village cannot be without a headman, a needle without the one who manufactured it, and a letter without its writer, so how is it that this country (universe)so infinitely well-ordered should be without a Ruler?”
| SonLight wrote: |
| OK, there seems to be some difficulty about what the word "omnipotent" means. If you don't want to accept Lewis's definition of the word as valid, then perhaps I need to be more specific about what the minimum standard for the God I worship is.
No being, no matter how powerful, is worthy (in my opinion) to be worshipped as God, unless He is powerful enough to limit all other beings in the universe to only those things which He allows them to do. This is sufficient to insure that there can be only one such being. The standard is less than what I would define as omnipitence, and less than what I am sure God can really do, but it is sufficient for my argument. I do believe that God can do much more than this, but I agree that it would be pointless for Him to do something which inherently violates logic. |
That's not a definition of omnipotence though, or even a basic definition of a god by most measures. Imagine i had a closed room that nothing could get into or out of - my universe. Imagine i filled it with all kinds of creatures, large and small - my subjects.
Now imagine i shot them all dead. i have now effectively limited them to do the only thing i chose for them to do: decompose. They can do absolutely nothing except for what i desire them to do, which is lie still and rot.
By your definition, i would be a god. Obviously, that doesn't fly, does it? Would you say that i was a god of that universe? What if i developed a way to kill every living thing in the universe? Would i then be god of everything?
| NemoySpruce wrote: |
| A stable system of 2 or more omnipotent Gods would in effect be just one God. They would never disagree and always act as one. Assuming they were also omniscient, they would know what the others were thinking at all times. There could be a billion of them, but they would all be part of one consciousness. |
Nonsense: nothing in the situation i described implies that they never disagree or that they always act as one. On the contrary, they may disagree bitterly and each attempt to garner their own followers in the hopes of amassing more power, so that they may eventually overthrow the others. In a system of three gods any one of them would be prevented by doing so by the fact that if they started to get too large, the other two would step in to stop them.
There is no reason to assume they all agree or that they get along. All you need to do is assume a treaty of sorts: "Ok, יהוה you get to do what you want with the people in the Middle East, 玉帝 you get Asia, and Almighty Dollar, you get the West." This does not preclude occasional skirmishes when one of them oversteps their bounds, provided they don't overstep so far as to draw the wrath of the third. For example, יהוה may attempt a sortie into Almighty Dollar's territory that results in a small but fierce struggle between the two. As long as the dispute is small, it will be no problem. But if יהוה overreaches - if he gets a little too carried away in his zeal to take as much of Almighty Dollar's power as he can, 玉帝 will step in to protect his own interests and ensure that if יהוה&