If God is all powerful, does he have to power to create a stone so big that even he cannot lift?
And if so, doesn't that make him not all powerful?
But if he can't then he's not all powerful anyway?
Sorry if you already know this one lol that is a very old one..
haha I didn't know about this one ! great!
But that is a definitional paradox 
It is not fair to extend omnipotency to such scenarios because then omnipotency will not only be impossible but utterly absurd.
It's like saying hey, God is omnipotent so he should be able to make a tree that is not a tree :O Or create something beautiful that is ugly, make something really big and really tiny. | dubstar wrote: |
If God is all powerful, does he have to power to create a stone so big that even he cannot lift?
And if so, doesn't that make him not all powerful?
But if he can't then he's not all powerful anyway?
Sorry if you already know this one |
Peace.
This paradox does not disprove God, just because it seems we humans (who are not all-knowing) cannot give an answer to this paradox. Just like the grandfather paradox doesn't disprove time, just because there isn't a satisfactory answer.
Just because we humans, who are not all-knowing, seem unable to solve this paradox, it doesn't mean there is no answer. It can easily be that we simply don't know the answer.
The paradox itself is flawed. God isn't a physical being so He doesn't "lift" stones. Humans find stones heavy when they have insufficient physical strength to lift the heavy stone. But God isn't human; He is not made of flesh, blood, muscle...In other words, God does not find things heavy.
The paradox also is flawed, because God is infinite. To make the stone heavy enough (you said "big", but i think you're talking about weight), you'd need to make the stone have an infinite mass. But this would change the stone into something else. So it'd no longer be a stone.
God is all-powerful, but He is not illogical or irrational. He might do things that we don't understand, but they are logical.
For example, God can do 2+2=4. But it makes no sense to say "Can God do 2+2=5? If not, he isn't omnipotent" because you aren't asking God do perform a difficult task, but asking Him to do something that doesn't make sense.
It's like writing a computer program that can compute all possible forms of script/code, and then typing in it a load of nonsense and saying "well obviously it can't compute all possible forms of code, because i just used it, and it doesn't work". In this analogy, valid code wasn't typed in; nonsense was typed in.
In other words, you're asking God to do something that doesn't make sense. So the problem is with the paradox and not with God.
A Christian response to this paradox says:
| http://answers.org/apologetics/omnipotence.html wrote: |
To speak of an almighty God creating an object that He cannot lift is to posit a logically contradictory state of affairs. It is a variation on the old question, "What happens when an immovable object (the stone) meets an irresistible force (God)?"
The answer is that both an irresistible force and an immovable object cannot exist together in the same universe without creating a logical contradiction. If reason is valid then to speak of the two in the same sentence is to speak nonsense. Similarly, it is nonsense to speak of God creating a stone that he cannot lift.
...These answers did not satisfy the objectors. Their retort was to accuse the Christians of equivocating. "You admit that there are things that God cannot do, therefore you are admitting that God is not really omnipotent! You have only proved the case against the self-contradictory and self-stultifying Christian conception of God."
...[But] the definition of omnipotence has never meant what the objectors say it meant. The historical understanding of omnipotence never meant that God can do anything whatsoever. The objection is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst, merely an intellectually dishonest straw man argument.
|
| loyal wrote: |
| Quote: | | ...[But] the definition of omnipotence has never meant what the objectors say it meant. The historical understanding of omnipotence never meant that God can do anything whatsoever. The objection is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst, merely an intellectually dishonest straw man argument. |
|
Which is, itself, a completely dishonest argument. Notice that it relies on unsubstantiated statements. The historical understanding of omnipotence most certainly DOES mean that God can do anything. | Bikerman wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Quote: | | ...[But] the definition of omnipotence has never meant what the objectors say it meant. The historical understanding of omnipotence never meant that God can do anything whatsoever. The objection is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst, merely an intellectually dishonest straw man argument. |
|
Which is, itself, a completely dishonest argument. Notice that it relies on unsubstantiated statements. The historical understanding of omnipotence most certainly DOES mean that God can do anything. |
Are you sure?
The christian website i quoted gives examples of people who historically believe God can do anything but within logic and reason.
Peace.Of course it does - that is what we call anecdote.
The problem with this - as with so much theology - is that you start from an untenable position and end up spending a huge amount of time 'wriggling' to make it tenable - that is what the Jesuits are famous for.
Witness the words of Thomas Aquinas: | Quote: |
| "while all confess that God is omnipotent...it seems difficult to explain in what God's omnipotence precisely consists." |
In other words you start with a definition - omnipotence - which means all powerful. Then you run into problems (such as the one here) and you actually discover that the definition is invalid - it is logically insupportable. You then spend centuries trying to explain what is really meant, when the fact is that the original definition was simply not possible. | Quote: |
| In other words you start with a definition - omnipotence - which means all powerful. Then you run into problems (such as the one here) and you actually discover that the definition is invalid - it is logically insupportable. You then spend centuries trying to explain what is really meant, when the fact is that the original definition was simply not possible. |
Well you really only run into trouble if you insist that omnipotence means you can do any thing. In fact, you may or may not run into trouble, depending on what you consider a thing. I think its perfectly reasonable for theists to consider omnipotence as all powerful in the sense that anything in this universe is possible. It just happens that our language permits the conceiving of absurd propositions that can never exist even in principle in the natural world. This is why logic exists - as a framework under which we could systematically identify what is plausible and what is definitionally contradictory. In a way we can look at this as a shortcoming of our own human capability to appreciate nature, and so it makes sense to argue that we by no means need to force these absurdities born only of our own linguistic shortcomings on the definition of omnipotence.
In any case, if we want to get into anything close to an intelligent and fruitful argument over the existence of God and the extent of His capabilites, I'd say we must necessarily first agree on a definition of God and omnipotence that is reasonable. | moofang wrote: |
Well you really only run into trouble if you insist that omnipotence means you can do any thing. In fact, you may or may not run into trouble, depending on what you consider a thing. I think its perfectly reasonable for theists to consider omnipotence as all powerful in the sense that anything in this universe is possible. It just happens that our language permits the conceiving of absurd propositions that can never exist even in principle in the natural world. This is why logic exists - as a framework under which we could systematically identify what is plausible and what is definitionally contradictory. In a way we can look at this as a shortcoming of our own human capability to appreciate nature, and so it makes sense to argue that we by no means need to force these absurdities born only of our own linguistic shortcomings on the definition of omnipotence.
In any case, if we want to get into anything close to an intelligent and fruitful argument over the existence of God and the extent of His capabilites, I'd say we must necessarily first agree on a definition of God and omnipotence that is reasonable. |
But the definition you are trying to use is clearly inadequate.
First: You say, God can't do what is "logically impossible". Alright, fine. So God can't create a stone he can't lift. That's logically impossible, right?
Wrong.
What's logically impossible about being able to build something you can't lift? i do that all the time. i make machines the size of warehouses. i am doing the logically impossible? Hardly.
But it gets worse.
Let's say there is a scale of "potence", ranging from utterly impotent to omnipotent. i am more powerful than an ant because i can do whatever an ant can do... and more. At the ultimate high end of that scale is an omnipotent being who can do anything that anything less potent can do, and more. God is more powerful than anything because he, she or it can do whatever anything can do... and more.
Only... i can create an object i can't lift. God can't. So apparently, i am more powerful than God.
You see? Defining "omnipotence" the way you're trying to do simply doesn't work. You only create a whole new host of paradoxes in the attempt to worm your way out of the one. Oh, and there are more paradoxes, too, that get created by this attempted definition - i only mentioned two. That definition has been rejected by philosophers since the days of the Ancient Greeks... because it simply doesn't work. Back in the days of Zeus they debated this, so if this is a "linguistic shortcoming", it has survived over several languages. The only people who hold on to this definition are religious apologists... and not even all of them.
If you want my advice, the only solution you have is to simply throw your hands up and submit to the absurd. Let omnipotent mean what it obviously means - by virtue of what the word is: "omni-", totally; "-potent", powerful - and simply answer "yes" to any question that starts with "can God...", even if that question is for something completely absurd: "Can God create a square circle?" "Yes." It's the only way you can avoid any paradoxes - because paradoxes only apply within logical constraints, and there is simply no way to make God work within logical constraints. 10,000 years of trying (with various gods), and it hasn't been done yet.
And why is this so difficult to do? After all, you're talking about an intelligent being of enormous power that is apparently unbound by the laws of causality, and that either emerged fully formed out of nothing or has "always existed". Absurdity seems almost par for the course.It's funny that as much as critics lament the religious for holding rigid and absolute stances, they very often end up themselves guilty of exactly the same -_- Just for the sake of arguing I am going to challenge your vehement and rather demeaning outburst - in its entirety based on a single point of gross misintepretation on your part that you were obviously too condescending to give due deliberation to.
| Quote: |
| What's logically impossible about being able to build something you can't lift? i do that all the time. i make machines the size of warehouses. i am doing the logically impossible? Hardly. |
To lay it out to you in no uncertain terms, since you seemed to have missed it completely, the entire focus of this thread's debate has been centred around the ability to create a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift. And if it is not apparent where the logical contradiction is, allow me to offer an explanation, so that we wallow no more in misunderstanding. We define omnipotent as capable of doing anything, and necessarily a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift as, simply, a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift. However, since lifting the stone is itself an act, and since an omnipotent being is by our previous definition capable of any act, a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift is logically inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence. So in order to find ourselves anywhere, it is necessary either to discard your ridiculous definition of omnipotence, or to discard the notion that such a stone as we have considered can ever come into existence - Either way of which you would arrive at the simple vantage point that I have offered in my previous post.
I don't generally feel a need to defend God and the issue of His existence and power, but it ticks me considerably when all over the place I see religious people being unfairly undermined in arguments such as this. I now offer you a clear and logical stand on this issue that is fairly consistent with most mainstream religious doctrine : God is omnipotent, and omnipotence is the unlimited ability to do anything that is not definitionally absurd. I am myself aware that this stand is arguable, but as I noted in my previous post - we can only have a fruitful and meaningful discussion if we would stop shutting down a debate, insisting there is absolutely no say because we stubbornly refuse to be uprooted from a problematic definition. Isn't that exactly what we criticize religious fundamentalists for? -_- | moofang wrote: |
| indi wrote: | | What's logically impossible about being able to build something you can't lift? i do that all the time. i make machines the size of warehouses. i am doing the logically impossible? Hardly. |
...the entire focus of this thread's debate has been centred around the ability to create a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift...We define omnipotent as capable of doing anything, and necessarily a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift as, simply, a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift. However, since lifting the stone is itself an act, and since an omnipotent being is by our previous definition capable of any act, a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift is logically inconsistent with the idea of omnipotence. So in order to find ourselves anywhere, it is necessary either to discard your ridiculous definition of omnipotence, or to discard the notion that such a stone as we have considered can ever come into existence - Either way of which you would arrive at the simple vantage point that I have offered in my previous post. |
Exactly...!
The paradox and contradiction is that one definition of omnipotence being able to anything, including the absurd and illogical contradicting an object greater than ability. In other words, an all-powerful being able to create something that is more than all-powerful. It's self-contradictory.
Peace.I really can't comprehend the problem in defining the word. It means what the definition says.
1. almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2. having very great or unlimited authority or power.
These don't seem like ridiculous definitions to me but what do I know -.-
| loyal wrote: |
The paradox and contradiction is that one definition of omnipotence being able to anything, including the absurd and illogical contradicting an object greater than ability. In other words, an all-powerful being able to create something that is more than all-powerful. It's self-contradictory.
Peace. |
As is being omnipotent and being incapable of doing any single thing.
It can't be both ways. The subject at hand is either omnipotent and can do every possible thing ever pondered upon (illogical to the human mind or not) or the subject at hand isn't omnipotent and is incapable of doing any single thing. | liljp617 wrote: |
It can't be both ways. The subject at hand is either omnipotent and can do every possible thing ever pondered upon (illogical to the human mind or not) or the subject at hand isn't omnipotent and is incapable of doing any single thing. |
God CAN do any single thing. But the paradox proposed is itself flawed. So it isn't a valid objection. See my first post in this topic.
The idea behind this paradox is not asking God to do something incredible. It's asking Him to do something that doesn't make sense. It's like the analogy i gave of typing nonsense into an computer, that can read any scripting language and process it, and expecting it to process the nonsense.
Peace.God is all knowing. Everything makes sense to him. He is not a computer programmed from the ground up by human minds to accept only specific formats.
It has nothing to do with nonsense or being illogical. He can or cannot do it. If he can, it leads to conclusions. If he can't it leads to other conclusions.
I don't care about the nonsense of it, CAN HE DO IT? Yes or no.
Hmmm I think its fair (and interesting!) if you would like to argue that God is limitless in that He is not even bound by logic, and is capable of illogical things too, because He is not bound by the 'format' of human minds. That might make a plausible and defendable stand too. The situation outlined in OP can then be explained as thus :
"God is limitless omnipotent, and so He CAN create a stone that He Himself cannot lift. However as you noted we know for sure that human minds are 'programmed' in a specific format so that we can only perceive and make sense out of things that are logical, so that if God DOES go ahead and create such a stone, He will be operating outside of our mental capacity, and we will never be able to explain how He did it. Just like how a calculator, programmed solely to understand numbers and arithmetic, will never be able to accept and explain grammatical structures."
| moofang wrote: |
Hmmm I think its fair (and interesting!) if you would like to argue that God is limitless in that He is not even bound by logic, and is capable of illogical things too, because He is not bound by the 'format' of human minds. That might make a plausible and defendable stand too. The situation outlined in OP can then be explained as thus :
"God is limitless omnipotent, and so He CAN create a stone that He Himself cannot lift. However as you noted we know for sure that human minds are 'programmed' in a specific format so that we can only perceive and make sense out of things that are logical, so that if God DOES go ahead and create such a stone, He will be operating outside of our mental capacity, and we will never be able to explain how He did it. Just like how a calculator, programmed solely to understand numbers and arithmetic, will never be able to accept and explain grammatical structures." |
This is a nonsense answer. A stone is perfectly comprehensible to the human mind. In fact, the question is phrased by a human mind, using concepts invented by a human mind and criteria specified by a human mind. If God creates some 'stone' that we are incapable of understanding then IT ISN'T A STONE. God does not have to explain how he/she/it created the stone since that is not part of the question. The question was simple - can God do it?
The fact is that the concept of omnipotence is logically flawed, as is the concept of omniscience. The paradox simply points this out. Generations of theologians and apologists then spend their time trying to weasel their way around the basic paradox, rather than come clean and say - nope, if there is a God he/she/it is not omnipotent, sorry, we made a bollox.*
*Ask yourself this question - who defined the notion of omnipotence? Where was the word coined? I think you will find that it originates with religious apologists in the 14th century, deriving from a notion expressed in scriptures (specifically the use of the Greek word 'pantokrator', which is found throughout the New testament). It is hardly fair to blame critics for picking up on a concept originally defined by the 'believers', is it?
Last edited by Bikerman on Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:59 am; edited 1 time in totalThere are no logic tests in the afterlife, though I think there are jokes
Logic: You are all using it in a very narrow sense. He's omnipotent. No matter how many 'logical' solutions you guys apply the answer is simple.
He can create a stone that he can't lift and lift it without actually lifting it.
How, you ask? He's omnipotent, dumbnut.
| Ascaris wrote: |
| How, you ask? He's omnipotent, dumbnut. |
Anyone who gives the sort of answer you just did should be very careful about using words like 'dumbnut'.... | Quote: |
| He can create a stone that he can't lift and lift it without actually lifting it. |
Unless you can propose a system of logic in which this makes sense then it is simply a nonsense statement (not a statement in some 'ultra logic'), since all logic systems rely on avoiding direct contradictions, and this sentence contains a direct contradiction in terms.He can create a stone which he cannot lift and lift it wihout actually lifting it. He is no lifting the stone but it is indirectly being lifted through him. I know that there are contradictions in this too but you cannot apply proper logic to omnipotence of God since it exists beyond a level of human comprehension.
| Ascaris wrote: |
| He can create a stone which he cannot lift and lift it wihout actually lifting it. He is no lifting the stone but it is indirectly being lifted through him. I know that there are contradictions in this too but you cannot apply proper logic to omnipotence of God since it exists beyond a level of human comprehension. |
Which makes no sense at all and avoids the question by postulating another paradox.
The fact is that the question is flawed only because the term 'omnipotence' is a logical contradiction - whether applied to God or any other entity.Which is my point. It is a paradox, there is no logical answer. It's the same as the chicken or egg question.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| This is a nonsense answer. |
Conceded. I don't like that answer too much myself - but it is an interesting thought nonetheless 
It is not entirely absurd, I think - it only requires us to fall to subscribing to the notion that God is too far greater than us for us to be able to even define or conceive what exactly he is able to do - which would render all discourse on the subject of God meaningless since we are admitting we cannot possibly reason God out.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| *Ask yourself this question - who defined the notion of omnipotence? Where was the word coined? I think you will find that it originates with religious apologists in the 14th century, deriving from a notion expressed in scriptures (specifically the use of the Greek word 'pantokrator', which is found throughout the New testament). It is hardly fair to blame critics for picking up on a concept originally defined by the 'believers', is it? |
Also conceded. However what I had a problem with is this : when the religious actually move out of their box and are willing to admit more logical definitions of things like omnipotence, critics go out of their way to stamp it out and say "No! You mean omnipotence as this! And its impossible!". In any case, religion is not the only field in which definitions are evolving, and the fact that it is I think should not be used as an indicator that religion is failing, or as a counterpoint to the credibility of properly thought out religious arguments. Change is the inevitable by-product of humanity's collective intellectual growth, because as we acquire greater abilities to reason about things, we begin making finer and more precise definitions.
Science once insisted that light is a wave and not a particle too 
| moofang wrote: |
| It's funny that as much as critics lament the religious for holding rigid and absolute stances, they very often end up themselves guilty of exactly the same -_- |
*ahem* For the record, critics do not lament the religious for holding rigid and absolute stances. They lament them for holding rigid and absolute stances without evidential or rational justification.
i mean, obviously. ^_^; You're not going to find a lot of scientists who are going to be flexible about the notion that the world is not flat. i'd say they're pretty rigid and absolute on that one.
As for the rest, others have already taken on your misconceptions quite well, and you seem to have a hate on for me, so i won't bother. | moofang wrote: |
| In any case, religion is not the only field in which definitions are evolving, and the fact that it is I think should not be used as an indicator that religion is failing, or as a counterpoint to the credibility of properly thought out religious arguments. Change is the inevitable by-product of humanity's collective intellectual growth, because as we acquire greater abilities to reason about things, we begin making finer and more precise definitions. |
I would be impressed with this argument if I could see any evidence for it. Unfortunately I can't.
If you look at modern theology it doesn't seem to have evolved at all since the days of Aquinas.
The Aquinas solution to the paradox was to posit that | Aquinas wrote: |
| Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God. |
The problem here, of course, is that 'contradiction' simply imports a new paradox. Contradicting the laws of physics is a pretty good definition of a miracle and Aquinas did not wish to say that God could not perform miracles.
Modern theologians have tried to get around this by 'finessing' Aquinas's point.
For example, Polkinghome states that | Quote: |
| It is part of God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for God to go against His own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so. |
(Note the weasel words at the end, 'softening' Aquinas' stance and obviously designed to allow for miracles).
OK, he is saying, God obeys the laws of physics and the laws of logic UNLESS HE CHOOSES NOT TO.
We are given no clue, of course, what the 'overwhelming reason' might be.
It is interesting that a previous Pope (John Paul II), on surviving an assassination attempt (1981), knew exactly who had performed the 'miracle' that saved his life. The Pope was certain that 'Our Lady of Fatima'* had interceded, altering the course of the bullet and saving his life. Now that, of course, is a contradiction of basic physical laws but, more importantly, it is not God who performs this contradiction - it is Jesus' non-divine mother.
Protestants can take no comfort from the apparent lack of logic displayed by Catholics. Martin Luther was unequivocal in his rejection of reason. | Luther wrote: |
| Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has. It never comes to the aid of spiritual things. |
| Luther wrote: |
| Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason |
| Luther wrote: |
| Reason should be destroyed in all Christians |
Not exactly a model for enlightenment, I would suggest...
*It has always puzzled me that Catholics seek to split people up into different personae. I suppose it stems from the notion of the Trinity. Mary, for example, has at least 6 personae that I can think of..Woo. Another impossible question for my pretentious R.E teacher...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| It is interesting that a previous Pope (John Paul II), on surviving an assassination attempt (1981), knew exactly who had performed the 'miracle' that saved his life. The Pope was certain that 'Our Lady of Fatima'* had interceded, altering the course of the bullet and saving his life. Now that, of course, is a contradiction of basic physical laws but, more importantly, it is not God who performs this contradiction - it is Jesus' non-divine mother. |
It seems to me to be an inconsistency that religions usually say there's no proof of god's existence because with proof, you wouldn't have to prove your faith and faith is a test of your worthiness! but at the same time they claim miracles are proof. Your example of 'Our Lady of Fatima' (which seems to me to be no more than minor coincidences - seeing a picture of Mary of Fatima held by a girl in the crowd and bending over for a closer look when the first shot was fired, missing him and the assassination attempt date being the same as the vision date) was seemingly enough to convince him and others that a miracle had occurred. (Speaking of the omnipotence of god, it's a wonder that he couldn't have afforded JPII somewhat better protection - albeit via one of Mary's aliases - he did still get hit by a couple of bullets.)
At to whether paradoxes can be used to prove things, I think they are more useful as devices to keep us from getting too carried away with our logical leaps (like Russell's paradox which had a big impact on bringing some mathematicians' dreams of a 'mathematical grand theory of everything' crashing down).
This thread reminded me of the 'ontological proof' Saint Anselm of Canterbury came up with (god not existing would be a paradox) which many people actually accepted as a proof of god for a while.
It went (from Wikipedia) | Quote: |
1. God is, by definition, a being greater than anything that can be imagined.
2. Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one's imagination.
3. Therefore, God must exist in reality: if God did not, God would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined. |
Pick the bones out of that one!
But there is no proof that god exists or that god doesn’t exist (however unlikely). All religions that have survived have (at least) one thing in common – the only superstitious predictions that they make can neither be proved nor disproved. (e.g. heaven and hell – well, you’ll just have to wait and see!). If they said something that could be tested, it would be and found lacking. Many religions that did make testable claims have for obvious reasons, become extinct. (Although some struggle on after predicted dates for the end of the world have passed, but offer 'clarifications' (read obfuscations) to render their previous predictions non-testable again.)
Cheers,
B.Well, the ontological 'proof' went out some time ago, but, yes, several philosophers took it seriously. Many theologians point out that Bertrand Russell was convinced by the argument (as indeed he was, for a time). They always fail to acknowledge that he later 'recanted': | Russell wrote: |
| About two years later, I became convinced that there is no life after death, but I still believed in God, because the "First Cause" argument appeared to be irrefutable. At the age of eighteen, however, shortly before I went to Cambridge, I read Mill's Autobiography, where I found a sentence to the effect that his father taught him the question "Who made me?" cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question "Who made God?" This led me to abandon the "First Cause" argument, and to become an atheist. |
| barmstonian wrote: |
| But there is no proof that god exists or that god doesn’t exist (however unlikely). All religions that have survived have (at least) one thing in common – the only superstitious predictions that they make can neither be proved nor disproved. (e.g. heaven and hell – well, you’ll just have to wait and see!). If they said something that could be tested, it would be and found lacking. Many religions that did make testable claims have for obvious reasons, become extinct. (Although some struggle on after predicted dates for the end of the world have passed, but offer 'clarifications' (read obfuscations) to render their previous predictions non-testable again.) |
Well, though I agree with the general thrust of this, I have to say that most religions today still make scientifically testable claims. Catholicism, for example, was the religion that made HUGE claims. Now, of course, it has consistently backtracked from those claims since the renaissance (arguably since before) but it still appears to be going strong. Catholicism still contains many items of dogma which can be put to the test, despite the best efforts of Jesuit theologians to retreat to a safe and supportable 'gibberish' theology over the years...
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total | Bikerman wrote: |
| Catholicism, for example, was the religion that made HUGE claims. Now, of course, it has consistently backtracked from those claims since the renaissance (arguably since before) but it still appears to be going strong. Catholicism still contains many items of dogma which can be put to the test, despite the best efforts of Jesuit theologians to retreat to a safe and supportable 'gibberish' theology over the years... |
Yes, it's interesting how they still maintain their confidence about things that are on the edge of understanding (where scientists are still at the conjecture stage), having being dragged kicking and screaming (and executing and torturing) to each point along the way from their previous dogmatic (infallible!) positions. Accepting the heliocentric nature of the solar system and evolution being particularly big climb-downs.
I remember reading in one of Stephen Hawking's books about a conference hosted by the Vatican at which he presented a talk on how the big bang was closed in time and space - i.e. that the big bang did not mark a beginning of time but was just one space-time position like all the others in the universe. The Vatican (having not paid enough attention to his talk, clearly!) announced that it welcomed scientific investigation into all aspects of the universe from the big bang onwards, but should not bother with the moment of the big bang, for that was the time when god created the universe!
They are adamant that their dogmas are correct. When they are proved not to be, they change them but for some reason don't see that this (at the very least) puts those that are not testable on very shaky ground!
Regards,
B[quote="Bikerman"] | Russell wrote: |
| ...I still believed in God, because the "First Cause" argument appeared to be irrefutable. At the age of eighteen, however, shortly before I went to Cambridge, I read Mill's Autobiography, where I found a sentence to the effect that his father taught him the question "Who made me?" cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question "Who made God?" This led me to abandon the "First Cause" argument, and to become an atheist. |
Peace.
How does "who made God" disprove the first cause? It doesn't. One of the points of the argument was that the first cause had to be an uncaused cause. I.e. an infinite causer caused the finite causes. I should have thought it was obvious.
The first cause argument relies on the logic that everything must have a cause. It then throws away this logic regarding the creator itself. It is therefore logically inconsistent. Supporters, of course, try to finesse the argument by saying the creator is 'beyond' causality, being infinite, and therefore does not need to be created. That is a classic example of weasel words, since the exact same argument could be used about the material universe, without the need to invoke an extra layer of infinite complexity (ie God).
To take an arithmetic analogy, this is a bit like proving that 2=1 by introducing an infinite term into the chain of logic. It is extremely easy to do* but logically it is nonsensical and the results obtained are meaningless. You do not add extra complexity to a problem unless it is absolutely necessary (Occam).
* a=b=1
a^2 = a.b
a^2-b^2 = a.b - b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
2=1
QED (NOT!)
| Bikerman wrote: |
* a=b=1
a^2 = a.b
a^2-b^2 = a.b - b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
2=1
QED (NOT!) |
Yet it's ironic that even when you point out flaws in many people's logic (best example in my opinion is Young Earth Creationists) they'll still continue to divide by zero.Oh my, this debate has gone pretty far while I was away o_o
| Indi wrote: |
*ahem* For the record, critics do not lament the religious for holding rigid and absolute stances. They lament them for holding rigid and absolute stances without evidential or rational justification.
i mean, obviously. ^_^; You're not going to find a lot of scientists who are going to be flexible about the notion that the world is not flat. i'd say they're pretty rigid and absolute on that one.
As for the rest, others have already taken on your misconceptions quite well, and you seem to have a hate on for me, so i won't bother. |
Quick apology to Indi first - I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile, but your own post wasn't very friendly and benign either Anyway I hope you understand that its nothing personal at all, I only got caught up in the heat of the argument. Friends?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The problem here, of course, is that 'contradiction' simply imports a new paradox. |
I'm not sure where the paradox is in Aquinas' stand. Can you explain it to me?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| If you look at modern theology it doesn't seem to have evolved at all since the days of Aquinas. |
You are probably right. However I have not been discussing theologians when I said "the religious", but rather I meant quite literally the people who believe in their religion. It is true that theologians tend to take a very scripture/dogma based view of everything (that's why they are theologians!), but many ordinary believers have acted to adjust their belief's so that they are consistent with their (own) reasoning. I'd be one too, supposing I'm a theist | moofang wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The problem here, of course, is that 'contradiction' simply imports a new paradox. |
I'm not sure where the paradox is in Aquinas' stand. Can you explain it to me? |
Certainly.
The 'laws of nature' are God given (according to theists). A contradiction of basic physical laws is what we commonly call a 'miracle'.
Now, Aquinas is trying to answer the paradox of the omnipotent by a simple device, by saying that anything 'contradictory' is not within the 'nature' of God's omnipotence (ie God doesn't do contradictions).
In his own words | Aquinas wrote: |
| Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God. |
Pretty plain.
Well, that gets around the paradox of the stone OK - and other paradoxes arising from the concept of omnipotence - but it also pretty much rules out contradicting the physical laws - in other words God doesn't do miracles either. Now Aquinas certainly did NOT want to say that - since all theologians of the time believed that miracles were occurring on a pretty regular basis. If you follow the logic of Aquinas' position through you end up with a Deist position, not a theist position.
This is one reason that later theologians tried to weasel their way around this by introducing a get-out clause - such as the one I quoted earlier. | Bikerman wrote: |
I should have thought it was obvious.
The first cause argument relies on the logic that everything must have a cause. It then throws away this logic regarding the creator itself. It is therefore logically inconsistent.
|
No, that's not understanding the point the argument is making.
It says that everything has a cause, but there can't be an infinite regression of causes, so there must be an uncaused causer.
The uncaused is different to the cause. If they were the same nature, the argument would fall apart because of the self-contradictory nature. But, the argument is that there is an uncaused thing. By defining it as uncaused, it is marked as different to the everything else which has a cause. Theists, and deists too i think, say that God is different to His creation.
Everything has a cause. Except the original cause. Those two statements don't contradict. If God knocks a standing domino, which knocks a second domino, which knocks a third domino, and so on; All of those dominos' falling have a cause. God doesn't have a cause, even if He knocked, and so caused, a domino to fall, because He is, by the very intention of the argument and its defenders, different in nature.
| Quote: |
To take an arithmetic analogy, this is a bit like proving that 2=1 by introducing an infinite term into the chain of logic. It is extremely easy to do* but logically it is nonsensical and the results obtained are meaningless. You do not add extra complexity to a problem unless it is absolutely necessary (Occam).
* a=b=1
a^2 = a.b
a^2-b^2 = a.b - b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
2=1
QED (NOT!) |
[/quote]
I believe this line is incorrect:
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
Taking a = b, then:
(a+a)(a-a)=a(a-a)
Which can be simplified to:
(2a)(a-a) = a(a-a)
Which can be expanded to:
2a.a-2a.a = a.a-a.a
Factorising:
a.a(2-2)=a.a(1-1)
Dividing by the common factor of a.a:
2-2=1-1
Simplifying:
1=0
Which shows the original line, fully simplified on the basis that a=b, is flawed. So your mathematical attempt to show that 1=2 is wrong.
By the way, I don't see how your mathematical argument is like the cosmological argument we are discussing.
I personally prefer the Muslim philosopher's version (kalam) of the cosmological argument:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
Of course there are differences to the christian version. The kalam version suggests nothing about the cause of the universe. However, it states only that which begins to exist has a cause. Thus, if the cause of the universe is God, God does not need a cause, because He did not begin to exist.
Peace.We've already been through the issue with cause-effect in relation to the Big Bang.
Regardless, that "argument" argues against yourself as much as anyone else.
| loyal wrote: |
No, that's not understanding the point the argument is making.
It says that everything has a cause, but there can't be an infinite regression of causes, so there must be an uncaused causer.
The uncaused is different to the cause. If they were the same nature, the argument would fall apart because of the self-contradictory nature. But, the argument is that there is an uncaused thing. By defining it as uncaused, it is marked as different to the everything else which has a cause. Theists, and deists too i think, say that God is different to His creation. |
They may say that but the distinction is entirely invented. By positing an 'uncaused' thing you are introducing an infinity into the explanation which is unnecessary. You could equally well say that the material universe is infinite (thus avoiding introducing a new infinite term). The notion that you can 'define' something as uncaused, and therefore distinguish it from 'caused' things is a pure theological invention (ie it introduces a new posit without justification). | Quote: |
| Everything has a cause. Except the original cause. Those two statements don't contradict. If God knocks a standing domino, which knocks a second domino, which knocks a third domino, and so on; All of those dominos' falling have a cause. God doesn't have a cause, even if He knocked, and so caused, a domino to fall, because He is, by the very intention of the argument and its defenders, different in nature. |
The first domino could fall because of a random quantum fluctuation which does not, itself, need a cause. In fact, given infinite time, it is CERTAIN that the domino will fall in such a manner. That is a much simpler explanation and requires no infinite complexity. Therefore, Occam says, it should be the preferred explanation.
You see, once you introduce infinities into any explanation then anything is not only possible, but actually certain - and you don't need supernatural causation. Introducing an infinite first cause, therefore, is just another form of infinite regress (but the theologians like to pretend otherwise).
| Quote: |
| Which shows the original line, fully simplified on the basis that a=b, is flawed. So your mathematical attempt to show that 1=2 is wrong. |
Err....you miss the point entirely. The flaw is in dividing both sides by (a-b). In doing so you are dividing by zero which introduces an infinity..
PS How do you go from:
2-2=1-1
to
1=0
?? | loyal wrote: |
| Everything has a cause. Except the original cause. Those two statements don't contradict. |
Actually, yes they do. ^_^
------------------------
There are two problems with the first cause argument.
First: it's wrong. We know that now. Not everything has a cause.
Second: even if it were right, it has nothing to do with gods. The first cause doesn't need to be a god just because you say it does. You say (wrongly) everything has to have a cause, then you create an exception for your god. i say, wait a minute... if you can create an objection for your god, why can't i create an exception for the Big Bang? And, of course, you can't answer.
Then i take it to the next level: i say ok, both your god and the Big Bang are uncaused events. Why should i presume your god instead of the Big Bang? It turns out... i shouldn't. The Big Bang is just a big, dumb... "bang". Whereas your god is an incredibly powerful intelligence. Which one is more likely to have just come into being out of nowhere? To me, the answer is obvious. People aren't nearly as powerful or complex as gods, and it would be ridiculous to assume they could pop into being. Meanwhile we have observed "mini Big Bangs" popping into being many times in particle physics. In fact, if i had access to our tandem accelerator, i could show you some any time you asked.
So in the end, the first cause argument doesn't really stand up logically... and even if it did it doesn't lead to any god. In fact... quite the opposite. | loyal wrote: |
I believe this line is incorrect:
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
Taking a = b, then:
(a+a)(a-a)=a(a-a)
Which can be simplified to:
(2a)(a-a) = a(a-a)
Which can be expanded to:
2a.a-2a.a = a.a-a.a
Factorising:
a.a(2-2)=a.a(1-1)
Dividing by the common factor of a.a:
2-2=1-1
Simplifying:
1=0
Which shows the original line, fully simplified on the basis that a=b, is flawed. So your mathematical attempt to show that 1=2 is wrong.
Peace. |
LoL, as Bikerman said, you completely missed the point there. If you had read the previous posts, you'd have seen that I already pointed out the flaw, which is clearly and obviously a division by zero.
I'll quote myself:
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Yet it's ironic that even when you point out flaws in many people's logic (best example in my opinion is Young Earth Creationists) they'll still continue to divide by zero. |
P.S.
I was under the impression that 2-2=0. But I suppose I could be wrong... Maybe all of those hours spent in math class were a complete waste of my time.I don't really know what the fuss is about with the first cause principle. As people have pointed out - it is at odds with quantum mechanics, which itself is a theoretical framework with enough evidential backing to make it absurd to ignore. So unless anyone here is willing to dispute quantum mechanics, a fundamental premise of first cause - that everything has a cause - is wrong, and that's that. (I should point out that its not necessarily LOGICALLY wrong though, there is a difference).
Leaving that aside, I'd like to go back to Aquinas' quote :
| Quote: |
| Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God. |
Which essentially summarises the stand I have been arguing for since the beginning of this thread. We agree that this gets around the paradox of the stone fine, but I'd like to argue that this does not preclude the occurence of miracles - because the laws of physics are NOT an inviolable part of logic. In fact, a fundamental requirement for scientific laws and theories is that it must be possible to prove them wrong. In other words the laws of physics are propositions that so far as we know are true. But if the day comes when a stone suddenly falls upwards, all it means is we would need to revise the set of propositions that make up physics - the framework of logical reasoning itself is unscathed.
So violation of physical laws should not come under 'implies contradiction' because the only thing it contradicts is a separate proposition. In logic speak when we say that a proposition 'implies contradiction' we really mean that said proposition is false and can never be proven to be true because it contradicts its own self. Examples of such propositions include
"A being exists that can perform any act, and an act exists that no being can perform"
"anything that is a circle is round, and a circle exists that is not round"
"An object is red in colour, and is not red in colour"
In this light, Aquinas' stand is perfectly logical and supports the notion of a miracle-capable God with no problems at all, as long as miracles don't defy logic | moofang wrote: |
| In this light, Aquinas' stand is perfectly logical and supports the notion of a miracle-capable God with no problems at all, as long as miracles don't defy logic |
Nope, this is circular.
I agree that the laws of physics are mutable in light of new discovery (though it is worth pointing out that physical laws are rarely shown to be wrong since they are based on observation. What normally happens is that they are shown to be a sub-set of a larger 'law'). Leaving that aside, however, consider the following:
A terminal cancer patient takes a trip to Lourdes and, bam, is 'cured'. 'It is a miracle', says the priest who accompanied the patient. I can't explain it, says the doctor who treated the patient - it defies everything I know about medicine.
OK - so we have two possible conclusions.
a) It is not a contravention of physical law - it's just that we don't fully understand the mechanism by which the 'cure' occurred.
b) It is a contravention of physical law - something happened which has no possible rational explanation.
If the latter is true then we have a miracle - and a contradiction of physical law. If the former is true then there is no contravention of physical laws but THERE IS NO MIRACLE.
A miracle is DEFINED as | Quote: |
| a visible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention. |
In other words the laws of nature have to be suspended or contravened for it to be a miracle - if it is simply a result of an unknown or faulty law then there is no miracle.Good points.
| Bikerman wrote: |
a) It is not a contravention of physical law - it's just that we don't fully understand the mechanism by which the 'cure' occurred.
b) It is a contravention of physical law - something happened which has no possible rational explanation. |
Let me discuss the latter first. If we can indeed prove that 'physical law' was violated, all it will mean for us is that said physical laws need a revision. If we can convince ourselves that no revision is possible that will satisfactorily allow for the phenomenon, then it will simply mean that we will have to grant that physical law is non-absolute. The key point here is that this is not 'unrational' because we have absolutely no reason (save for observation from our small small vantage point in this cosmos) to suppose that such a thing as a completely, universally binding set of laws exist - especially if the universe was born out of chaos and not of an intelligent designer. Such a 'relenting' to chaos has actually already happened to some degree in physics, where it has been proven quantum mechanically that the fundamentals of this universe operate non-deterministically - with no precise law.
In other words, if God were to operate in this manner, no logical contradictions will be implied. We will simply have a not-so-ordered universe in which we are capable of some things, and God is capable of alot more. Aquinas' statement stands.
Now the former. Supposing we CAN derive a precise law to explain 'miracles', there is still no obvious reason for us to stop calling them miracles. If we can, for example, at some point understand God and nature sufficiently to draw out a precise manner in which the being of God is able to interact with nature to allow Him to do things mortals cannot do - why should we stop calling it a miracle? It is still something that is only possible with God in the equation. Of course if we take your definition strictly:
| Quote: |
| a visible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention. |
Then it will be no miracle. But casual words like 'miracle' don't have a formal definition, and the one you offered is undoubtedly simply one of several contextual ones. And even if we grant that miracle is strictly thus defined, it is still aside from the point. God still can exist, and He can still do amazing and wonderful stuff. We just refuse to call them miracles. | moofang wrote: |
| Let me discuss the latter first. If we can indeed prove that 'physical law' was violated, all it will mean for us is that said physical laws need a revision. If we can convince ourselves that no revision is possible that will satisfactorily allow for the phenomenon, then it will simply mean that we will have to grant that physical law is non-absolute. The key point here is that this is not 'unrational' because we have absolutely no reason (save for observation from our small small vantage point in this cosmos) to suppose that such a thing as a completely, universally binding set of laws exist - especially if the universe was born out of chaos and not of an intelligent designer. Such a 'relenting' to chaos has actually already happened to some degree in physics, where it has been proven quantum mechanically that the fundamentals of this universe operate non-deterministically - with no precise law. |
This does nothing to address the issue at all.
Firstly your characterisation of the universe being 'born out of chaos' is, I think, mistaken. Leave aside the word 'chaos' (which I believe you have used incorrectly*). Let us assume that you mean 'disorder' - would that be a better reflection of your intention?
Now, 2nd law tells us that, on average, entropy increases, not decreases. Run this backwards and it follows that the universe was 'born' at a time of minimum entropy (disorder).
*If you do actually mean 'chaos' then you need to consider that chaotic systems ARE deterministic.
Secondly, physical laws are considered to be universal, not local. Thus gravitation, for example, is assumed to apply everywhere in the observable universe, not simply here on Earth. We have good observational and theoretical reasons to assume that this is true.
Finally you are confusing non-determinism with 'no precise law'. One does not imply the other. The 'laws' of quantum physics are well defined. The fact that they are probabilistic, rather than deterministic, is a different issue, and does not mean that 'anything is possible'. It is possible, under the laws of physics, for a particle to 'disappear' here and suddenly appear on Jupiter (according to quantum wave-function). It is not possible, under those same laws, for this to happen deterministically (ie on demand). If God can choose to make this happen, then he/she/it is either:
a) Using some technology or exploiting some law we don't know about
b) Suspending the law we DO know about.
The first is not a miracle, the second is.
You can roll a 6-sided dice as many times as you like, but if you get a 7 then something is wrong, and if you don't get a linear outcome then the die is biased...
| Quote: |
| In other words, if God were to operate in this manner, no logical contradictions will be implied. We will simply have a not-so-ordered universe in which we are capable of some things, and God is capable of alot more. Aquinas' statement stands. |
No it doesn't. God is either bound by physical laws or he/she/it isn't. If he/she/it isn't then there is a contradiction. The fact that we are not capable of some things does not mean that those things contradict physical law. There are many things that we can't do but which are POSSIBLE to do. A miracle is something which is, by definition, not possible within the physical laws. The question is not whether God can do something we can't, but whether God can do something which contravenes the physical laws that apply to observable reality. | Quote: |
| And even if we grant that miracle is strictly thus defined, it is still aside from the point. God still can exist, and He can still do amazing and wonderful stuff. We just refuse to call them miracles. |
If you don't like my definition then I challenge you to find one that does not mention contravening or suspending physical law(s).
The fact of God's existence is not the topic under discussion and I have said nothing to address that issue. The topic under discussion is whether God can perform miracles within the Aquinas definition of omnipotence - I still contend that God cannot, without contradicting physical law, because that is implicit in the definition of a miracle and, therefore, Aquinas rules out miracles, albeit unintentionally.
God may well be able to do amazing/wonderful stuff, but if that 'stuff' is constrained by physical laws then that 'stuff' can be done by anyone with sufficient knowledge and there is no reason to apply either the term 'miracle' or, in fact, the term 'God'.
I'm reminded of Clarke's third law - "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The point is, however, that it certainly isn't either miraculous or divine.
Finally, we are left with the issue of evidence. Is there clear evidence for any such 'miraculous' or even 'technologically wonderful' actions by God? I maintain that there is not and that the whole argument is entirely hypothetical... | Bikerman wrote: |
| The fact of God's existence is not the topic under discussion and I have said nothing to address that issue. |
This is dishonest. What meaning is there to saying that God exists but cannot perform anything extraordinary? Any meaningful definition of God requires that He be divine in some sense, so if you are contending that God cannot do anything out of the ordinary, either you acknowledge that you can go ahead and call you and me God, or you are contending that God doesn't exist.
I will address the second case first again because I suspect here we are approaching a consensus.
| Bikerman wrote: |
God may well be able to do amazing/wonderful stuff, but if that 'stuff' is constrained by physical laws then that 'stuff' can be done by anyone with sufficient knowledge and there is no reason to apply either the term 'miracle' or, in fact, the term 'God'.
I'm reminded of Clarke's third law - "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The point is, however, that it certainly isn't either miraculous or divine. |
Let me inject a small amendment to that : a "stuff" being constrained by physical law does not imply that said "stuff" can be done by anyone with or without knowledge. Taking an example, I think we can agree that the fish's gills function absolutely under the bounds of physical law. However, knowing how the gills (and the rest of the fish's respiratory mechanisms) work does not mean that a human being can suddenly start breathing in water. In other words, "stuff" can have prerequisites, and if the prerequisite of some particular "stuff" is some godly property inherent in the being of God, then it still means that there are "stuff" that only God can do. We can choose to call this a 'miracle' or otherwise, it doesn't matter. The net effect is we have to agree that it is logically possible for a God who can do extraordinary (in the sense that it cannot be done by us) things to exist.
Alright, now on to the first case.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Firstly your characterisation of the universe being 'born out of chaos' is, I think, mistaken. Leave aside the word 'chaos' (which I believe you have used incorrectly*). Let us assume that you mean 'disorder' - would that be a better reflection of your intention? |
No, I do not mean disorder in the sense of entropy, and yes, I used the word 'chaos' loosely. By 'born out of chaos' I simply referred to the hypothesis that the present universe had completely random origins (is not 'designed'), and is the way it is today entirely by coincidence. I'm sorry if I'm misusing 'chaos' there, but I think that the quark soup moments after the big bang can be regarded, albeit on a purely intuitive level, as being more 'chaotic' than the system of galaxies that is our present universe.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Secondly, physical laws are considered to be universal, not local. Thus gravitation, for example, is assumed to apply everywhere in the observable universe, not simply here on Earth. We have good observational and theoretical reasons to assume that this is true. |
You are correct. And the reason is, as you say that "We have good observational and theoretical reasons to assume that this is true". This is precisely my point, we simply have no reason to believe otherwise, as yet. However, definitionally in science, we are always ready to be proven wrong. It is logically plausible to hypothesize, for example, that in truth, the laws only apply most of the time. Proving that is another matter. I am simply saying that we cannot logically rule out such a possibility.
| Quote: |
| Finally you are confusing non-determinism with 'no precise law'. |
Nope. I think you are simply misunderstanding what I meant by 'precise law', but I think this is not important.
| Quote: |
If God can choose to make this happen, then he/she/it is either:
a) Using some technology or exploiting some law we don't know about
b) Suspending the law we DO know about. |
I think this is interesting. I'm not sure I'm getting you entirely though. Are you suggesting that anything that is deterministic is intrinsically 'lawful' by virtue of the fact that it obeys some form of causality?
Case a) here obviously reduces to the 'second case' (God obeys the rules), which I discussed above. However what does Case b) imply in the context of our problem (ie how does it prove you right, and me wrong, if indeed it is meant to)? It does seem to bring to mind the following interesting question tho : can you deterministically suspend a law without in turn creating a new one?
For example, if we have a law A that says event B is impossible. If God 'suspends' law A and cause B, what stops us from creating a new law C - that B is impossible in a system without God? Is there any meaning to the notion of a miracle that cannot be explained in principle by any law?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Finally, we are left with the issue of evidence. Is there clear evidence for any such 'miraculous' or even 'technologically wonderful' actions by God? I maintain that there is not and that the whole argument is entirely hypothetical... |
Agreed. And likewise on the flip side I maintain that there is no sufficiently convincing proof that God cannot exist or that God is incapable of miracles (or 'extraordinary acts' if you insist). I am arguing for the proposition that the existence of such a God is logically sound.
And finally,
| Bikerman wrote: |
| If you don't like my definition then I challenge you to find one that does not mention contravening or suspending physical law(s). |
The point I'm making is that 'miracle' is a casual word that is not used in a precise fashion in any field of formal study that I am aware of, and so does not have a rigid and/or rigorous definition.
| The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 wrote: |
1. A wonder or wonderful thing.
[1913 Webster]
....
2. Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the
established constitution and course of things, or a
deviation from the known laws of nature; ....
(emphasis added)
|
*shrug*
Bikerman : I've put back everything I can remember, hopefully I didn't miss anything. Feel free to start responding now. If I find out I forgot something I'll just add it to my subsequent replies
| moofang wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | The fact of God's existence is not the topic under discussion and I have said nothing to address that issue. |
This is dishonest. What meaning is there to saying that God exists but cannot perform anything extraordinary? Any meaningful definition of God requires that He be divine in some sense, so if you are contending that God cannot do anything out of the ordinary, either you acknowledge that you can go ahead and call you and me God, or you are contending that God doesn't exist. |
Not so. Pantheists and Deists both assert that God exists but neither assert that God performs 'extraordinary' acts. If you are saying that Deism is dishonest then I must disagree - I think it is the most honest of the 'god' religions.
| Quote: |
| Let me inject a small amendment to that : a "stuff" being constrained by physical law does not imply that said "stuff" can be done by anyone with or without knowledge. Taking an example, I think we can agree that the fish's gills function absolutely under the bounds of physical law. However, knowing how the gills (and the rest of the fish's respiratory mechanisms) work does not mean that a human being can suddenly start breathing in water. In other words, "stuff" can have prerequisites, and if the prerequisite of some particular "stuff" is some godly property inherent in the being of God, then it still means that there are "stuff" that only God can do. We can choose to call this a 'miracle' or otherwise, it doesn't matter. The net effect is we have to agree that it is logically possible for a God who can do extraordinary (in the sense that it cannot be done by us) things to exist. |
Bad example. I can easily breathe water - just give me a power source and two electrodes and I will construct an electrolytic cell. I might get a bit high breathing pure oxygen but I could survive quite happily.
The point is not that some biological forms are different from our own. Who knows what biology applies to God? The point is that a thing is either doable (according to the laws of physics) or it is not.
| Quote: |
| No, I do not mean disorder in the sense of entropy, and yes, I used the word 'chaos' loosely. By 'born out of chaos' I simply referred to the hypothesis that the present universe had completely random origins (is not 'designed'), and is the way it is today entirely by coincidence. I'm sorry if I'm misusing 'chaos' there, but I think that the quark soup moments after the big bang can be regarded, albeit on a purely intuitive level, as being more 'chaotic' than the system of galaxies that is our present universe. |
Well, your use of the word 'chaotic' is entirely unhelpful. Chaotic systems are deterministic. The early 'quark soup' was very ordered - much more so that the current universe. | Quote: |
| You are correct. And the reason is, as you say that "We have good observational and theoretical reasons to assume that this is true". This is precisely my point, we simply have no reason to believe otherwise, as yet. However, definitionally in science, we are always ready to be proven wrong. It is logically plausible to hypothesize, for example, that in truth, the laws only apply most of the time. Proving that is another matter. I am simply saying that we cannot logically rule out such a possibility. |
Science does not rule out any possibility - it works by refuting hypotheses. The God hypothesis has been posited in various formats over the centuries and has been refuted numerous times. Each time a specific hypothesis is refuted (creation, the age, shape and size of the universe and so on) then theists redefine their theology to suit. It is impossible to refute a continually changing hypothesis. This is simply an appeal to ignorance and though it may be logically sustainable, it is a very weak argument. | Quote: |
Case a) here obviously reduces to the 'second case' (God obeys the rules), which I discussed above. However what does Case b) imply in the context of our problem (ie how does it prove you right, and me wrong, if indeed it is meant to)? It does seem to bring to mind the following interesting question tho : can you deterministically suspend a law without in turn creating a new one?
For example, if we have a law A that says event B is impossible. If God 'suspends' law A and cause B, what stops us from creating a new law C - that B is impossible in a system without God? Is there any meaning to the notion of a miracle that cannot be explained in principle by any law?
|
C is not a law - it is a tautology. It is, in effect, saying that event B will not happen, unless it does happen. A physical law applies consistently. If we can reduce God to a physical law then that implies that God is predictable. If so then why use the word 'God' - surely God is just a word for a yet undiscovered physical law? | Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Finally, we are left with the issue of evidence. Is there clear evidence for any such 'miraculous' or even 'technologically wonderful' actions by God? I maintain that there is not and that the whole argument is entirely hypothetical... |
Agreed. And likewise on the flip side I maintain that there is no sufficiently convincing proof that God cannot exist or that God is incapable of miracles (or 'extraordinary acts' if you insist). I am arguing for the proposition that the existence of such a God is logically sound. |
But you have already admitted that the classical definition of a 'miracle' is not compatible with the Aquinas doctrine. You are reduced to arguing that God may be capable of 'wonderful' things that do not necessarily contravene physical law (merely our current understanding). Such a God is a technologist and is surely unworthy of the title 'God'. | Bikerman wrote: |
| But you have already admitted that the classical definition of a 'miracle' is not compatible with the Aquinas doctrine. You are reduced to arguing that God may be capable of 'wonderful' things that do not necessarily contravene physical law (merely our current understanding). Such a God is a technologist and is surely unworthy of the title 'God'. |
This is only the beginning of the problems with this kind of definition of God. If it is true that God cannot contradict the laws of nature, then there are two possible definitions for God.
One, God is a being who is capable of doing more within the laws of nature than its subjects. Or in other words, God cannot do anything that violates the laws of nature, but he can do more fantastic things that don't violate the laws of nature than we can. By this definition, the only difference between God and me is that God has better technology... but what it means is that, to a caveman, i am a god. Note: not like a god - a literal god. And, in fact, if i learn more technological tricks than God, i would be God's god. This is Clarke's Third law writ literal, and divine.
Ok, most theists would balk at that description, so instead we have option two: God is a being who is capable of doing everything within the laws of nature. Or in other words, God cannot do anything that violates the laws of nature, but he can do everything that doesn't. By this definition i cannot learn more tricks than God, and i am not actually a god by the reckoning of less advanced beings (although i might fool them into thinking i am, of course). Seems like this fixes things.
Only, it doesn't. Because even though i can never become superior to God, i can become his equal. And still, God really isn't all that great - he's only "better" than me because he has a head start on reading the play book of the universe; given enough time, i will be God 2. He doesn't deserve respect and worship from me anymore than i deserve respect and worship from a caveman.
moofang is right in that such a god is "logically sound"... but that's not really an impressive break. It may be logically sound, but it is utterly un-godlike, and if that's supposed to be a serious candidate for a god-model, i'll pass, thank you, logically sound or not. Also, i'm surprised Bikerman didn't take you to task for your dishonest weaselling about the definition of miracle. It does indeed mean what Bikerman has been saying it means, and - despite your claim to the contrary - it is quite a well established meaning. You even showed that in the definition you quoted, which i will again quite, but this time properly highlighted:
| The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 wrote: |
2. Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the
established constitution and course of things, or a
deviation from the known laws of nature; |
It's right there, plain as day - a miracle is a contravention of physical laws.
Now, whether God exists or not, who knows? But as for proving whether he does... it is not impossible. if God does exist, he either can or can't do miracles. If he can then he is violating the laws of nature, and we could probably detect that - thus proving God exists. But if he can't perform miracles, then he is the unimpressive demi-god i have described above, and not really worth the name of God. So if you want to prove God exists, all you have to do is find evidence of a contravention of physical laws that cannot be explained by any other means. That will be your evidence, and it would probably be enough to swing most atheists.
Of course, it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist - that is attempting to prove a negative. This is why the onus is on theists, not atheists. | Bikerman wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | No, that's not understanding the point the argument is making.
It says that everything has a cause, but there can't be an infinite regression of causes, so there must be an uncaused causer.
The uncaused is different to the cause. If they were the same nature, the argument would fall apart because of the self-contradictory nature. But, the argument is that there is an uncaused thing. By defining it as uncaused, it is marked as different to the everything else which has a cause. Theists, and deists too i think, say that God is different to His creation. |
They may say that but the distinction is entirely invented. By positing an 'uncaused' thing you are introducing an infinity into the explanation which is unnecessary.
|
How is it unnecessary? It isn't.
The argument says all finite things have a cause. But the first finite thing must have been caused by the infinite thing. Infinity isn't unnecessary in this explanation. Infinity is proposed to be the causer of finite causes.
| Quote: |
You could equally well say that the material universe is infinite (thus avoiding introducing a new infinite term)
|
Yes, that's an alternate theory: that the universe has no cause and is infinite. But it doesn't disprove the argument. It simply proposes an alternative.
| Quote: |
The notion that you can 'define' something as uncaused, and therefore distinguish it from 'caused' things is a pure theological invention (ie it introduces a new posit without justification).
|
It's not theological. It's simple vocabulary. Something which is caused has a causer. Something which was not caused, either didn't happen or is infinite or came into being without cause.
You don't need a theologian to tell you that cause is different to uncaused.
| Quote: |
The first domino could fall because of a random quantum fluctuation which does not, itself, need a cause. In fact, given infinite time, it is CERTAIN that the domino will fall in such a manner. That is a much simpler explanation and requires no infinite complexity. Therefore, Occam says, it should be the preferred explanation.
|
I don't see how that's simpler. Simplicity is a matter of opinion in alot of cases. The atheist says it's simple: things happen logically and there's no magic hand of God. The theist says it's simple: God waved his hands, and things just appeared.
Anyway, the idea that the domino would have fallen anyway given infinite time (which i disagree with) is simply a reiteration of an alternative theory that the universe came into being randomly. The cosmological argument disagrees and says all things have causes.
| bikerman wrote: |
| loyal wrote: | | Which shows the original line, fully simplified on the basis that a=b, is flawed. So your mathematical attempt to show that 1=2 is wrong. |
Err....you miss the point entirely. The flaw is in dividing both sides by (a-b). In doing so you are dividing by zero which introduces an infinity.
|
I didn't miss your point. I only pointed out that your "example" is incorrect.
| Quote: |
PS How do you go from:
2-2=1-1
to
1=0
?? |
I would have thought that was obvious. You wrote the line: (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
You said that a = b, so I replaced b with a. I then simplified the expression to get: (2a)(a-a) = a(a-a)
I expanded this to get 2a.a-2a.a = a.a-a.a . I factorised (the common expression of a.a) to get a.a(2-2)=a.a(1-1) . I then divided by the common factor of a.a.
This left me with (2-2)=(1-1), which simplified is: 1=0
This shows the original line, fully simplified on the basis that a=b, is flawed. So your mathematical attempt to show that 1=2 is wrong. Because you started with a line that says 1=0. Which is wrong, obviously.
Peace. | loyal wrote: |
How is it unnecessary? It isn't.
The argument says all finite things have a cause. But the first finite thing must have been caused by the infinite thing. Infinity isn't unnecessary in this explanation. Infinity is proposed to be the causer of finite causes. |
This argument is a flawed tautology - and obviously so.
Finite things MUST have a beginning (otherwise they are not finite). That does not mean that they need to be created by an infinite 'cause'. One can easily posit an infinity of finite objects with no first cause. In fact that is why the Vatican was so keen on BB theory - since the alternative was the Hoyle steady-state universe with NO first cause. Infinity is not a 'thing', it is a timescale. The cosmological argument posits that all things are finite EXCEPT the first cause which is infinite. That is called special pleading.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | The first domino could fall because of a random quantum fluctuation which does not, itself, need a cause. In fact, given infinite time, it is CERTAIN that the domino will fall in such a manner. That is a much simpler explanation and requires no infinite complexity. Therefore, Occam says, it should be the preferred explanation.
|
I don't see how that's simpler. Simplicity is a matter of opinion in alot of cases. The atheist says it's simple: things happen logically and there's no magic hand of God. The theist says it's simple: God waved his hands, and things just appeared. |
It is clear that quantum fluctuation is simpler than God. We can model quantum fluctuation and observe it experimentally. We cannot model God. God introduces an INFINITE layer of complexity into the explanation. Quantum fluctuation does nothing of the sort.
| Quote: |
| Anyway, the idea that the domino would have fallen anyway given infinite time (which i disagree with) is simply a reiteration of an alternative theory that the universe came into being randomly. The cosmological argument disagrees and says all things have causes. |
But it is wrong, as is easily demonstrated. Imagine a container of gas. The molecules will collide with the walls with no need for a 'prime mover' and can continue to do so ad infinitum.
| loyal wrote: |
| Which shows the original line, fully simplified on the basis that a=b, is flawed. So your mathematical attempt to show that 1=2 is wrong. |
LOL - you have still missed the point. OF COURSE IT WAS WRONG. The error was in dividing by zero - thus introducing an infinity into the equation. The example was designed to point out that introducing infinity produces unreliable results.
| Quote: |
| This left me with (2-2)=(1-1), which simplified is: 1=0 |
Rubbish. That simplifies to 0=0
| Quote: |
| This shows the original line, fully simplified on the basis that a=b, is flawed. So your mathematical attempt to show that 1=2 is wrong. Because you started with a line that says 1=0. Which is wrong, obviously. |
Nope - I did no such thing. Can you actually DO basic algebra?
Let's go through it slowly:
a=b=1
OK - no problem. (I could have left out the '=1' and the example will still 'work').
a^2 = a.b
That is fine - we have simply multiplied both sides by a
a^2-b^2 = a.b - b^2
That is fine - we have simply subtracted b^2 from both sides
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
Again that is fine - simple factorisation
a+b=b
There is the problem. We have divided both sides by a-b. Normally that would be OK but in this specific example a-b=0, so we have in effect divided both sides by zero.
Do you see now?n ordinary life with the ordinary mind everything is divided into its opposites, and there is a great attraction for meeting with the opposite:
God is a state, God is not an object. And God is not even a person, because God is neither objective nor subjective. God is transcendental.
If you are in the objective I will say, ‘Seek the subjective — there is the God.’ If you are in the subjective, I will say, ‘Now go beyond. There is no God in the subjective. God is beyond.’ By and by one has to go on eliminating, by and by one has to go on dropping. God is when there is no object and no subject, when there is no thing and no thought, when there is no this world and no that world. When there is no matter and no mind, God is; God is neither matter nor mind. In God both exist. God is a tremendous paradox, absolutely illogical, beyond logic. You cannot make an image of God in wood or in stone and you cannot make an image of God in concepts and ideas. When you dissolve all images — when you have dissolved all in/out, man/woman, life/death, all dualities — then that which is left is God.
Here we go again 
You seem to have quite logical understanding and reasoning of something so beyond logical understanding and reasoning. eternity can lift eternity... God is that stone... It's time to rethink - can you do pushups???
Peace.
| Bikerman wrote: |
This argument is a flawed tautology - and obviously so.
Finite things MUST have a beginning (otherwise they are not finite). That does not mean that they need to be created by an infinite 'cause'. One can easily posit an infinity of finite objects with no first cause.
|
Yes, but all I'm saying is that the theory claims there is no infinite regression of causes, which I agree with.
| Quote: |
In fact that is why the Vatican was so keen on BB theory - since the alternative was the Hoyle steady-state universe with NO first cause. Infinity is not a 'thing', it is a timescale. The cosmological argument posits that all things are finite EXCEPT the first cause which is infinite. That is called special pleading.
|
There is more than one possible theory. The cosmological argument does say all causes are finite, except the first. But there is a difference in the nature of the first compared to the other causes; the first is infinite and the rest are finite.
Are you going to say the BB theory is wrong?
| Quote: |
It is clear that quantum fluctuation is simpler than God. We can model quantum fluctuation and observe it experimentally. We cannot model God. God introduces an INFINITE layer of complexity into the explanation. Quantum fluctuation does nothing of the sort.
|
It is your opinion that quantum fluctuation is simpler than God. In-fact, I am sure there quite a few people who don't understand or know about quantum fluctuation, but who understand (arguably to some degree) and know about God.
Besides, of course you can't model God. He's of a different nature. That doesn't mean we must discount His existence or His involvement, simply because we can't experiment on Him.
I don't see the infinite layer of complexity introduced. All I see is infinity being introduced.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Anyway, the idea that the domino would have fallen anyway given infinite time (which i disagree with) is simply a reiteration of an alternative theory that the universe came into being randomly. The cosmological argument disagrees and says all things have causes. |
But it is wrong, as is easily demonstrated. Imagine a container of gas. The molecules will collide with the walls with no need for a 'prime mover' and can continue to do so ad infinitum.
|
And who caused this space with physical things ready to react together to eventually lead to life?
| Quote: |
LOL - you have still missed the point. OF COURSE IT WAS WRONG. The error was in dividing by zero - thus introducing an infinity into the equation. The example was designed to point out that introducing infinity produces unreliable results.
|
Oh, sorry, my apologies.
If introducing infinity is unreliable then an infinite regression of causes is unrealistic and impossible. God is infinite too, but one must note the difference in the nature and position of God in the cosmological argument. The argument says that all causes, after the first, are impossible. There is nothing infinite about the rest of the causes. It is only the first cause which is infinite. The first cause doesn't affect the nature of the rest of the causes; It only initiates a second clause. So, infinity doesn't cause the cosmological argument to be unreliable. Because it is only the first cause, which is of a different nature and separate, which is infinite and that first cause does not interfere and only brings about the second cause.
| Quote: |
Nope - I did no such thing. Can you actually DO basic algebra?
|
Of course. I simplified, factorised, and so on. As you saw, I made a simple numerical error, not an algebraic error. You're trying to argue against quantum fluctuation using the argument "people don't understand it"?
I don't think any person understands the concept of a god. If you disagree, please prove it by explaining to me how God works.
| loyal wrote: |
| Quote: |
It is clear that quantum fluctuation is simpler than God. We can model quantum fluctuation and observe it experimentally. We cannot model God. God introduces an INFINITE layer of complexity into the explanation. Quantum fluctuation does nothing of the sort.
|
It is your opinion that quantum fluctuation is simpler than God. In-fact, I am sure there quite a few people who don't understand or know about quantum fluctuation, but who understand (arguably to some degree) and know about God. |
You know, you deserve that, Bikerman, as punishment for this: | Bikerman wrote: |
| That is a much simpler explanation and requires no infinite complexity. Therefore, Occam says, it should be the preferred explanation. |
Occam says "simpler" should be preferred? Blasphemy! And you know better, too! ^_^; | Indi wrote: |
You know, you deserve that, Bikerman, as punishment for this: | Bikerman wrote: | | That is a much simpler explanation and requires no infinite complexity. Therefore, Occam says, it should be the preferred explanation. |
Occam says "simpler" should be preferred? Blasphemy! And you know better, too! ^_^; |
I do, I was just having a bad day
Yes, point taken - Occam says (all other things being equal) the explanation with the fewest additional assumptions should be preferred. Now, given that the assumption of an infinite complexity (God) is being compared to a scenario which does NOT require such an assumption (quantum fluctuation) then Occam's razor clearly indicates the latter is the correct choice, since the God hypothesis does not add any new information and merely makes more assumptions....
(Is that better )Much better. ^_^
In this case, you could also word the razor as "the theory with less hypothetical entities is preferable", then point out that God is a hypothetical entity (until you can prove God exists), but quantum fluctuations have been (indirectly) observed. We know quantum fluctuations happen, but we don't know if God exists (indeed, this whole first cause thing is usually an attempt to prove he does). Therefore, it is more preferable to assume a quantum fluctuation created the universe than it is to assume a god.
That completely sidesteps the ambiguity created by discussing the "complexity" of the god hypothesis. Sure, a scientist will have no trouble understanding what you mean when you say a god is a more complex hypothesis than a quantum hiccup, but a layperson will probably just misinterpret what you mean by "complexity" and turn around and say: "It is your opinion that quantum fluctuation is simpler than God."
Rather than having to take a long side bar to explain what hypothetical complexity means and why a god is infinitely more complex than a quantum fluctuation, all you have to do is say quantum fluctuations have been predicted, quantified and indirectly observed - in other words, they're not hypothetical anymore - whereas a god has not managed any of those feats. Then all you have to do is count hypothetical entities in each case: god = 1, quantum fluctuation = 0. QM wins. Gott is tot.
QUESTION: Could got create a stone that he couldnt even lift?
ANSWER: What do i take away from infinity to make zero?
I am not a profound religious guy but your statement sounded just like mine but in a diffrence context.
Perhaps God has a God too.
So God could create something he can't lift, but God's God could.
Am I uttering rubbish? Heh, maybe.
| ParsaAkbari wrote: |
QUESTION: Could got create a stone that he couldnt even lift?
ANSWER: What do i take away from infinity to make zero?
I am not a profound religious guy but your statement sounded just like mine but in a diffrence context. |
Well, in that case you need to read the posting again, since it is nothing like yours - regardless of context. | JinTenshi wrote: |
Perhaps God has a God too.
So God could create something he can't lift, but God's God could.
Am I uttering rubbish? Heh, maybe. |
Pretty much rubbish No offense. | ParsaAkbari wrote: |
QUESTION: Could got create a stone that he couldnt even lift?
ANSWER: What do i take away from infinity to make zero?
I am not a profound religious guy but your statement sounded just like mine but in a diffrence context. |
Not even close.
First, let's deal with your statement. Your statement is just complete gibberish. It's nonsensical, like asking what happens when you multiply green by 2. This is not the fault of the statement, it is a problem with your understanding of infinity. Infinity is not a number. You can't add or subtract anything to infinity. i usually describe infinity as a direction... so your question is pretty much the same as "what do i have to add to east to get 4?" It is literally gibberish.
Now, let's deal with the original question.
Is there anything crazy about God lifting or moving stuff? Not in most god-concepts. For example, in the Judaistic conception, God lifts or moves things around all the time. He parts seas, throws frogs from the sky, lifts people to Heaven, etc. etc. There's nothing absurd about suggesting God can something... because he apparently does. A lot.
Ok, so is there anything crazy with asking what God can't lift? Am i crazy to ask, "Is there anything on Earth God cannot lift?" No, not really. The answer seems obvious - it is no - but just because an answer is obvious does not make a question absurd (quite the opposite, actually). What if i asked, "Is there anything in the solar system/galaxy/universe that God cannot lift?" Again, not a gibberish question, just a question with a (theoretically) obvious answer: no, there is not.
Let's look at a different problem now: is there anything absurd about God creating stuff? Not according to most god-concepts. In fact, God usually created the whole universe. And since God has the ability to create, there is nothing absurd with asking what the limits of that ability are.
And that's all the problem is. God has two abilities of interest here: the ability to create physical things, and the ability to move physical things. All the question is asking is which ability is greater. There is no absurdity there, no matter how hard theologians try to claim there is to avoid answering it.
The problem is not with the question, the problem is with the very idea of God. The question is fine. Your question - the one about infinity - was gibberish... meaningless nonsense that only sounds meaningful to people that don't understand infinity. The question about lifting is not gibberish - God can lift and God can create... which power is greater?
What's absurd about asking that?
