Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of GOD
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 61 of 312 (454034)
02-05-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-04-2008 6:06 PM


Re: omni everything and logic
Hi Ruleroftheuniverse
Most of your post does not apply to my definition of GOD as it explains WHY God is Omniscient in the first place, "Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them". This is sort of what you talk about near the end of your post, however you reasoning is faulty.
No I don't believe my reasoning is faulty at all. I think it more likely that you are missing my point to some degree. It is a kind of tricky concept that I am trying to get across.
Knowing and seeing all possibilities certainly sounds like omniscience.
However, in the realm of infinite alternate realities in which a new reality branches off for each decision made by each person, EVERY possibility is true somewhere and all universes are equally real. How do you define THIS universe when this universe will branch into a massive number of alternates before the foreknown event comes to pass. From our present point, ALL of those possibilities are THIS universe. Only down certain branches have been made will the different potential outcomes become limited.
The problem comes when the act of KNOWING (with absolute certainty) what WILL happen down each and every one of these pathways, fixes them in stone and makes them unchangeable. If they can be changed then they are not knowable.
My God not only knows all possibilities but can bring any possibility it chooses into existence.
The point being that in this kind of multiverse, all possibilities already ARE in existence so your God wouldn't even need to make it real.
You maybe right by predicting something and it maybe correct in some other universe, but can you bring it about in this universe or ALL universes, that would be true omniscience.
No actually that would be true omnipotence
And again the problem you have is that if God were to manipulate all of the possible outcomes to be the same then no other possibilities exist any more. Since you already stated that he previously knew all the other possibilities then that means that he had to have been wrong in his knowledge.
in a nutshell nobody can know, with absolute certainty, that 2+2=4 and also know (with absolute certainty)that it will be that way for all eternity, then go and change the universe so that 2+2=5 and then still be right.
Logically you can have either one or the other but omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive
By the way why couldn't an all powerful being put limits on itself, I would think it could. Putting limits on yourself does not make you wrong, infact an all knowing being would need to know how to control its power.
Are you talking voluntary limits? i.e. choosing not to do certain things. kind of like i choose not to cause the nuclear reactor that I work at, to melt down and kill everybody around it?
Yeah i choose that but It would still be within my power (hypothetically) to make it happen.
Or are you talking about absolute limits such as armed guards that would stop me doing it?
If the latter then God would have completely removed his omnipotence by making it impossible for himself to do something. Not voluntarily restricted by an act of will but totally IMPOSSIBLE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-04-2008 6:06 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-05-2008 3:33 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 312 (454046)
02-05-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by PurpleYouko
02-05-2008 9:08 AM


Re: omni everything and logic
Logic is a human convention so God obviously cannot be constrained by it.
Heck, people aren't even constrained by it!
Seriously, though, reality isn't even constrained to behave according to our rules of logic -- in fact, the only reason that reality appears to be constrained by our logic is because we constantly change our basic definitions to ensure that logic is preserved.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 9:08 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 10:58 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 312 (454047)
02-05-2008 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by PurpleYouko
02-05-2008 8:57 AM


Another point.
Hi, PY.
Another interesting feature about the traditional Christian God:
If in each and every possible situation there is always a best possible course of action or a best possible decision, and if God always makes the best possible decision, then God doesn't have free will, either.
Hell, in that case, God simply becomes a force of nature, and may not even need to be conscious or intelligent.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 8:57 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 11:00 AM Chiroptera has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 312 (454049)
02-05-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PurpleYouko
02-04-2008 2:04 PM


handwaving --> omni everything and logic
Omniscient = Always knowing everything, past present future with absolute infalibility. i.e. can NEVER be wrong about even the minutest detail.
omipotent = Can do absolutely anything. NO LIMITS.
No limits, huh?
Wouldn't saying that because something is not logically possible then god can't do it be placing a limit on what god is capable of doing? Wouldn't "NO LIMITS" include to the ability to do that which is logically impossible?
If omnipotence is limited to only that which is logically possible, then that is something very very close to, but not quite, omnipotence.
Given that he KNOWS (omniscience) what I will be doing, does he have the power (omnipotence)to make me do something else?
If YES then that means that he may well be omnipotent but he cannot be simultaneously omniscient since he has now been demonstrably wrong about what I would be doing.
If NO then he cannot be omnipotent since I have just found something that he cannot do.
With absolute omnipotence, he would be able to both know what you will be doing and change it, while maintaining omniscience. If he can't do that, then he isn't really omnipotent.
ere is really no wiggle room in this conundrum if you stick to the rules of pure logic.
While it seems to show a fault in omni-stuffs, it could just as easily be showing a fault of logic.
Either way you look at it, omnipotence overturns omniscinece every time. In a nutshell, Omnipotence gives God the power to be wrong. If he can never be wrong then he is, by definition, not omnipotent since he is limited.
I too, think that omnipotence trumps omniscience. Isn't omniscience a subset of omnipotence anyways? All powers include the power to know everything (and nothing).
It's like the old adage. Can God make a boulder so big that he can't lift it? I know that is a bit cliche but nevertheless it is a valid point.
God can make a boulder that is simultaneously too big to lift and lift-able.
I guess my point is that it is futile to use logic on omnipotence. You starting by already putting a limit on omnipotence, which is defeating the whole puropse of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-04-2008 2:04 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 65 of 312 (454050)
02-05-2008 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Chiroptera
02-05-2008 10:45 AM


Re: omni everything and logic
Hi Chiroptera
Heck, people aren't even constrained by it!
That was kind of my point.
I actually said as much in the following lines.
My only point here is that you can't use logic to determine what God is like since logic is our own tool and really has no power over the real world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 02-05-2008 10:45 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 11:00 AM PurpleYouko has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 312 (454052)
02-05-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by PurpleYouko
02-05-2008 10:58 AM


Re: omni everything and logic
My only point here is that you can't use logic to determine what God is like since logic is our own tool and really has no power over the real world.
I wish I head read this before I wrote the previous post as this is the point I was making to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 10:58 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 67 of 312 (454054)
02-05-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Chiroptera
02-05-2008 10:51 AM


Re: Another point.
Completely agreed.
That's why you can't define the guy with logic.
Any attempt to do so just results in defining him out of existence.
As Douglas Adams puts it, "God promptly disappeared in a puff of logic"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 02-05-2008 10:51 AM Chiroptera has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 68 of 312 (454056)
02-05-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2008 11:00 AM


Re: omni everything and logic
Hehe.
I thought I was getting that point across all along but obviously i failed.
The God who actually exists (if one indeed does) is highly likely to be so far beyond our comprehension that the application of logic is utterly pointless.
All logic is capable of doing is determining if something makes sense in our own frame of reference.
In this respect, our definition of Omniscient is incompatible with our definition of Omnipotence
That does not limit God.
It limits our understanding of him
It proves that logic cannot be the correct tool to define him.
Since logic was proposed in the OP as a way to determine God's qualities, I am simply arguing that it can't since it is woefully inadequate to do so.
Edited by PurpleYouko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 11:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 11:49 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 312 (454057)
02-05-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-03-2008 6:07 PM


uotu writes:
Below is my definition of God, What I would like is everyone's opinion of it. Do you think it is a valid definition? Could you improve on it? Or do you have any criticism of it?
GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence.
Hi ROTU. Welcome to EvC. In your OP you didn't state whether you didn't state which god you are identifying. There have been thousands; likely millions of gods throughout human history.
If your question applies to the Biblical god, this god would be defined as follows.
1. Proper name (like surname) of god = Jehovah as verified by over 6000 references in the oldest manuscripts of the OT.
2. Father of his only born son, Jesus as per John 3:16 and other NT references.
3. Omnipotent, omniscient, eternal supreme creator having no beginning being of the universe from whom all things (energy/matter) came and by whom all things (energy/matter) exist.
4. Designer of all that exists.
5. Monotheist being the only existing god of the universe.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-03-2008 6:07 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-05-2008 4:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 312 (454061)
02-05-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by PurpleYouko
02-05-2008 11:11 AM


Re: omni everything and logic
I guess I could have read it either way, but to me it seemed that you were saying that since omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist logically, then god cannot have both of those abilities. But what you were really saying was that since omnipotence and omnicscience cannot coexist logically, then you can't use logic to determine the abilities of god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 11:11 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 12:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 71 of 312 (454064)
02-05-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2008 11:49 AM


Re: omni everything and logic
but to me it seemed that you were saying that since omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist logically, then god cannot have both of those abilities
yes I was saying that, but not to limit God.
I was just saying that the logical inference is that he cannot have both of these things as we understand them
You could read that as limiting God
or you could read that as limiting our understanding of the terms omnipotence and omniscience.
Since we are neither, we are allowed to be wrong.
Logically, by our definitions, God can't be wrong, even if he wanted to be.
And that is the dilemma. Either God is wrong or WE are.
If God does exist then it is way more likely that it is us and our logic that is wrong, don't you think?
Logic is just the wrong tool for the job of proving or disproving anything related to God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2008 1:24 PM PurpleYouko has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 312 (454072)
02-05-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PurpleYouko
02-05-2008 12:11 PM


Re: omni everything and logic
Logically, by our definitions, God can't be wrong, even if he wanted to be.
And that is the dilemma. Either God is wrong or WE are.
If God does exist then it is way more likely that it is us and our logic that is wrong, don't you think?
For sure. What we "prove" about god has nothing to do with what god is actually about.
Logic is just the wrong tool for the job of proving or disproving anything related to God.
I've been down that road before...
I don't understand why its hard for people to accept that.
And another thing, if we DID prove that god existed, then that would undermine the whole faith thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 12:11 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-05-2008 2:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 73 of 312 (454073)
02-05-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
02-05-2008 12:40 AM


Re: Re-Definition
ROTU writes:
1. Come up with your own definition of GOD
quote:
I AM
You really have to explain what qualifies I AM as GOD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2008 12:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2008 1:47 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 74 of 312 (454076)
02-05-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-05-2008 1:29 PM


Re: Re-Definition
Hi rulerofthisuniverse,
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
You really have to explain what qualifies I AM as GOD.
I thought the term was self explanatory.
As I understand it it is all inclussive.
Which would be everyting that ever was, is, or ever will be.
You have fun now,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-05-2008 1:29 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-05-2008 4:46 PM ICANT has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 75 of 312 (454079)
02-05-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chiroptera
02-05-2008 7:18 AM


Dear Chiroptera,
quote:
Well, no one has to do any such thing. These are criteria that you have arbitrarily set for yourself -- there is no reason for anyone else to accept these criteria as necessary in any conception of god. To me, the only necessary criteria for a definition of God is that it is possible for such a being to exist, and that it approximates in some degree with people's conception of God.
Well you certainly don't have to DO anything, but you miss the whole point of what I am doing. I have stated that I am attempting to define GOD in a scientific and logical way (regardless of whether GOD itself is logical or scientific). So I have defined What I believe is a valid definition of a supreme intelligence, like all theories we have to start somewhere.
To be a scientific theory it needs to be falsified, that is why I have given examples to show how my theory can be falsified. All I am doing at this point is to establish that my definition of this supreme intelligence is the correct definition OF GOD. Not a GOD based on any theological concept, but a GOD defined by logic (What would God ACTUALLY be rather than what we BELIEVE it to be).
quote:
That is why I suggested my own definition. There is a powerful being who may have interacted with humans in the past, and the sacred scriptures that we have may be some sort of record (perhaps not entirely reliable) of this interaction. My definition fits my criteria -- it is possible that such a being did exist (although I personally believe that it did not), and since many people believe in their sacred scriptures, then my definition fits their conception of god to some degree.
This is why you are struggling to understand my logical concept of GOD, because you can only define God using theological concepts. I would of thought that someone who doesn't believe in these theological constructs would love a chance to actually help define GOD using purely logical means, without the need of including any religious belief. Isn't that what Atheists and others have been complaining about for so long, that religious beliefs about God get in the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 02-05-2008 7:18 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by subbie, posted 02-05-2008 2:22 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 85 by Chiroptera, posted 02-05-2008 3:45 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024