God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient.

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

Quote:

One solution of the omnipotence paradox is to make God omnipotent but still bound within the laws of logic. So while God could happily create matter out of absolutely nothing, violating conservation of energy, suddenly reverse the orbit of the planet Earth, violating conservation of momentum, or perhaps even make a Pot Noodle taste nice God would still be bound within the laws of logic. This is, of course, playing with the definition of omnipotence and it's generally up to the religion in question to determine the extent of the deity's omnipotence. This response if often said as something similar to, "God is able to do all that is able to be done." This approach could be interpreted as skewering itself on the horns of a metaphysical version of the Euthyphro dilemma - why is God the ultimate authority if there exist things even more fundamental?

(link)

And I'd add that the Trinity in Christianity isn't particularly logical.

If omnipotence includes being able to defy logic how does doing what you want despite knowing exactly what you will do in advance pose a problem?

The problem is, if God knows he is going to X in the future, then we can rule out him ever being able to do Y. If God can't do Y, then God is not omnipotent.

Quote:

The problem is of a logical nature, you just proposed that God, as ultimate authority, shouldn't be stopped by such trifles as logic.

No, I'm pointing out that the Christian dogma of the trinity completely throws logic out the window.

And it's true that the entire point of God is to have an ultimate reference point, beyond anything else, including logic. Some have even gone as far to say that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 instead of 5 is based solely on an arbitrary decision of God.

[The20]

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

Quote:

One solution of the omnipotence paradox is to make God omnipotent but still bound within the laws of logic. So while God could happily create matter out of absolutely nothing, violating conservation of energy, suddenly reverse the orbit of the planet Earth, violating conservation of momentum, or perhaps even make a Pot Noodle taste nice God would still be bound within the laws of logic. This is, of course, playing with the definition of omnipotence and it's generally up to the religion in question to determine the extent of the deity's omnipotence. This response if often said as something similar to, "God is able to do all that is able to be done." This approach could be interpreted as skewering itself on the horns of a metaphysical version of the Euthyphro dilemma - why is God the ultimate authority if there exist things even more fundamental?

(link)

And I'd add that the Trinity in Christianity isn't particularly logical.

If omnipotence includes being able to defy logic how does doing what you want despite knowing exactly what you will do in advance pose a problem?

The problem is, if God knows he is going to X in the future, then we can rule out him ever being able to do Y. If God can't do Y, then God is not omnipotent.

Quote:

The problem is of a logical nature, you just proposed that God, as ultimate authority, shouldn't be stopped by such trifles as logic.

No, I'm pointing out that the Christian dogma of the trinity completely throws logic out the window.

And it's true that the entire point of God is to have an ultimate reference point, beyond anything else, including logic. Some have even gone as far to say that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 instead of 5 is based solely on an arbitrary decision of God.

I don't know if it really makes sense to keep up a discussion about the free will of an omnipotent being when one of the underlying reasons for the discussion is the assumption that part of being omnipotent means you can defy logic.
Putting that aside, i think you are misrepresenting causality. Does seeing you do something in the future cause you to do it? This is itself a logical paradox, because then there is no cause for your action. The future does not exist because you saw yourself do X, it exists because you decided at some point to do X. What you saw is not the beginning of the chain of events, it is the end.

[Enicea]

Lady Kariel

omnipotent - having unlimited power
omnipresent - the property of being present everywhere
omniscient - knowing everything

I don't think it's possible to have proof of non-existence.
If omnipresence is true, it means He is everywhere all at once and so has to be immaterial.
At least that's my take on it.

But you can detect "immaterial" forces like electromagnetism and gravity. Though my take on "proof of nonexistence" is that this seems to be a wrong question to ask. If "proof of nonexistence" is needed for any mythical being, then surely unicorns and fairies would hold to the same standards as well. For me personally, it's more of "doesn't exist until proven".

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

Quote:

One solution of the omnipotence paradox is to make God omnipotent but still bound within the laws of logic. So while God could happily create matter out of absolutely nothing, violating conservation of energy, suddenly reverse the orbit of the planet Earth, violating conservation of momentum, or perhaps even make a Pot Noodle taste nice God would still be bound within the laws of logic. This is, of course, playing with the definition of omnipotence and it's generally up to the religion in question to determine the extent of the deity's omnipotence. This response if often said as something similar to, "God is able to do all that is able to be done." This approach could be interpreted as skewering itself on the horns of a metaphysical version of the Euthyphro dilemma - why is God the ultimate authority if there exist things even more fundamental?

(link)

And I'd add that the Trinity in Christianity isn't particularly logical.

If omnipotence includes being able to defy logic how does doing what you want despite knowing exactly what you will do in advance pose a problem?

The problem is, if God knows he is going to X in the future, then we can rule out him ever being able to do Y. If God can't do Y, then God is not omnipotent.

Quote:

The problem is of a logical nature, you just proposed that God, as ultimate authority, shouldn't be stopped by such trifles as logic.

No, I'm pointing out that the Christian dogma of the trinity completely throws logic out the window.

And it's true that the entire point of God is to have an ultimate reference point, beyond anything else, including logic. Some have even gone as far to say that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 instead of 5 is based solely on an arbitrary decision of God.

I don't know if it really makes sense to keep up a discussion about the free will of an omnipotent being when one of the underlying reasons for the discussion is the assumption that part of being omnipotent means you can defy logic.

I don't know if it really makes sense discussing God, period - let alone believing in one.

Quote:

Putting that aside, i think you are misrepresenting causality. Does seeing you do something in the future cause you to do it?

No, it only means God cannot do otherwise. You are very confused on this point.

Quote:

This is itself a logical paradox, because then there is no cause for your action.

Strictly speaking, it's a mistake to speak of causality in reference to God's actions, since causality pertains to naturalism, and God is by definition NOT a naturalistic being.

Quote:

The future does not exist because you saw yourself do X, it exists because you decided at some point to do X. What you saw is not the beginning of the chain of events, it is the end.

In that case, God should simply not have knowledge of the future at all. But that blatantly contradicts revealed religious doctrine, i.e. the divine faculty of prophecy.

[Exoth XIII]

anonymous attributes

If the Christian God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, can there be absolute proof of Gods non-existence?

If god isn't real, why is it a horse?
Celestia: 1
Atheists: 0

[The20]

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

And I'd add that the Trinity in Christianity isn't particularly logical.

If omnipotence includes being able to defy logic how does doing what you want despite knowing exactly what you will do in advance pose a problem?

The problem is, if God knows he is going to X in the future, then we can rule out him ever being able to do Y. If God can't do Y, then God is not omnipotent.

Quote:

The problem is of a logical nature, you just proposed that God, as ultimate authority, shouldn't be stopped by such trifles as logic.

No, I'm pointing out that the Christian dogma of the trinity completely throws logic out the window.

And it's true that the entire point of God is to have an ultimate reference point, beyond anything else, including logic. Some have even gone as far to say that the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 instead of 5 is based solely on an arbitrary decision of God.

I don't know if it really makes sense to keep up a discussion about the free will of an omnipotent being when one of the underlying reasons for the discussion is the assumption that part of being omnipotent means you can defy logic.

I don't know if it really makes sense discussing God, period - let alone believing in one.

Quote:

Putting that aside, i think you are misrepresenting causality. Does seeing you do something in the future cause you to do it?

No, it only means God cannot do otherwise. You are very confused on this point.

I'm very clear on that point. He saw himself do X in the future because he decided to do X. If he decided to do Y he would have seen himself do Y.

If you look in a mirror and see yourself standing do you stand because you see yourself standing in the mirror? No, you see yourself standing in the mirror because you were standing when you decided to look in the mirror. What you did does not depend on the mirror image, it's the other way around. Why do you believe looking in the future is different?

azulmagia

The20

This is itself a logical paradox, because then there is no cause for your action.

Strictly speaking, it's a mistake to speak of causality in reference to God's actions, since causality pertains to naturalism, and God is by definition NOT a naturalistic being.

So logic is out the window, causality is out the window ... frankly, i think your argument is doomed if this trend continues.

azulmagia

The20

The future does not exist because you saw yourself do X, it exists because you decided at some point to do X. What you saw is not the beginning of the chain of events, it is the end.

In that case, God should simply not have knowledge of the future at all. But that blatantly contradicts revealed religious doctrine, i.e. the divine faculty of prophecy.

What? Why not?

[My Dog Mr. Kitty]

No, you can not prove that God does not exist

The same way that you can not prove that there does not exist any of the other Gods

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

The20

Putting that aside, i think you are misrepresenting causality. Does seeing you do something in the future cause you to do it?

No, it only means God cannot do otherwise. You are very confused on this point.

I'm very clear on that point. He saw himself do X in the future because he decided to do X. If he decided to do Y he would have seen himself do Y.

Sorry, but you have your topsy mixed with your turvy, and the bolded word are therefore just a non sequitur. God sees himself doing X in the future, because God already knows the future (and has always known the future) and X is the future come what may. Consequently, God cannot then decide to do Y because that would contradict the presumption of omniscience. That he must also decide to do X at some point is a mere formality.

Quote:

If you look in a mirror and see yourself standing do you stand because you see yourself standing in the mirror? No, you see yourself standing in the mirror because you were standing when you decided to look in the mirror. What you did does not depend on the mirror image, it's the other way around. Why do you believe looking in the future is different?

Because it's not causality that is the problem here, it's logical consistency. Knowing that X is the future and Y is not the future doesn't at all cause X to happen absent of a decision to do X. Anymore than 4 is caused by 2 + 2.

Quote:

azulmagia

The20

This is itself a logical paradox, because then there is no cause for your action.

Strictly speaking, it's a mistake to speak of causality in reference to God's actions, since causality pertains to naturalism, and God is by definition NOT a naturalistic being.

So logic is out the window, causality is out the window ... frankly, i think your argument is doomed if this trend continues.

If the buck really stops with God, where's the room for God to be subject to logic? If there are rules that even God has to obey, then he's not really the top dog, is he?

And where is there the faintest room for causality to operate given that God is a bodyless, immaterial, non-space-occupying, timeless, transcendental, not-composed-of-parts being? Our actions are caused by physical brain cells obeying laws in a naturalistic universe. What exactly can cause God's actions?

I think we have to either bite these kinds of bullets if we're to take the idea of God seriously....or do the sensible thing and say ******** it and just embrace atheism already.

Quote:

azulmagia

The20

The future does not exist because you saw yourself do X, it exists because you decided at some point to do X. What you saw is not the beginning of the chain of events, it is the end.

In that case, God should simply not have knowledge of the future at all. But that blatantly contradicts revealed religious doctrine, i.e. the divine faculty of prophecy.

What? Why not?

Well, you can get out of it by ad hoc-ing it such that knowledge of the future is not knowable even by an omniscient being by the virtue of the fact that it has not happened yet. But that would never sit well with religious believers since God is supposed to know the future, e.g. predictions of the Messiah, the second coming and Armageddon, or the Mahdi if we are talking about Islam.

I also don't think this works since omniscience implies knowing how all the particles in the universe will act according to deterministic or stochastic laws. Human beings can't predict the future in this absolute sense, but someone with literally infinite computational capacity could do it, especially if they made the universe in the first place.

[El Boriqua33]

anonymous attributes

El Boriqua33

No, because there where and are a s**t load of other deities that have been around way longer then the Abraham religion..

I didn't know Abraham had a religion.

PS, at what point in time in history did the God of the bible create the heaven and the earth?

The Abrahamic religion.. are.. "The Abrahamic religions are religions originating from the traditions of Iron Age proto-Judaism; the major ones are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, though there are others that are either offshoots of the main three or early branches that are not directly related to the modern forms of any of the main three."
Three religions one god.

It all depends on who you ask.

[The20]

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

Putting that aside, i think you are misrepresenting causality. Does seeing you do something in the future cause you to do it?

No, it only means God cannot do otherwise. You are very confused on this point.

I'm very clear on that point. He saw himself do X in the future because he decided to do X. If he decided to do Y he would have seen himself do Y.

Sorry, but you have your topsy mixed with your turvy, and the bolded word are therefore just a non sequitur. God sees himself doing X in the future, because God already knows the future (and has always known the future) and X is the future come what may. Consequently, God cannot then decide to do Y because that would contradict the presumption of omniscience. That he must also decide to do X at some point is a mere formality.

So who or what decided that future beforehand?

azulmagia

The20

If you look in a mirror and see yourself standing do you stand because you see yourself standing in the mirror? No, you see yourself standing in the mirror because you were standing when you decided to look in the mirror. What you did does not depend on the mirror image, it's the other way around. Why do you believe looking in the future is different?

Because it's not causality that is the problem here, it's logical consistency. Knowing that X is the future and Y is not the future doesn't at all cause X to happen absent of a decision to do X. Anymore than 4 is caused by 2 + 2.

The longer this keeps going on the less i understand your problem. So if knowing X is going to happen does not cause you to do X what is the problem?

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

This is itself a logical paradox, because then there is no cause for your action.

Strictly speaking, it's a mistake to speak of causality in reference to God's actions, since causality pertains to naturalism, and God is by definition NOT a naturalistic being.

So logic is out the window, causality is out the window ... frankly, i think your argument is doomed if this trend continues.

If the buck really stops with God, where's the room for God to be subject to logic? If there are rules that even God has to obey, then he's not really the top dog, is he?

And where is there the faintest room for causality to operate given that God is a bodyless, immaterial, non-space-occupying, timeless, transcendental, not-composed-of-parts being? Our actions are caused by physical brain cells obeying laws in a naturalistic universe. What exactly can cause God's actions?

I think we have to either bite these kinds of bullets if we're to take the idea of God seriously....or do the sensible thing and say ******** it and just embrace atheism already.

Why should i embrace something that can only offer me death in the long term? I think i'd rather take my chances with logical paradoxes.

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

The future does not exist because you saw yourself do X, it exists because you decided at some point to do X. What you saw is not the beginning of the chain of events, it is the end.

In that case, God should simply not have knowledge of the future at all. But that blatantly contradicts revealed religious doctrine, i.e. the divine faculty of prophecy.

What? Why not?

Well, you can get out of it by ad hoc-ing it such that knowledge of the future is not knowable even by an omniscient being by the virtue of the fact that it has not happened yet. But that would never sit well with religious believers since God is supposed to know the future, e.g. predictions of the Messiah, the second coming and Armageddon, or the Mahdi if we are talking about Islam.

I also don't think this works since omniscience implies knowing how all the particles in the universe will act according to deterministic or stochastic laws. Human beings can't predict the future in this absolute sense, but someone with literally infinite computational capacity could do it, especially if they made the universe in the first place.

So it could be done but it wouldn't work? I don't understand you.

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

Putting that aside, i think you are misrepresenting causality. Does seeing you do something in the future cause you to do it?

No, it only means God cannot do otherwise. You are very confused on this point.

I'm very clear on that point. He saw himself do X in the future because he decided to do X. If he decided to do Y he would have seen himself do Y.

Sorry, but you have your topsy mixed with your turvy, and the bolded word are therefore just a non sequitur. God sees himself doing X in the future, because God already knows the future (and has always known the future) and X is the future come what may. Consequently, God cannot then decide to do Y because that would contradict the presumption of omniscience. That he must also decide to do X at some point is a mere formality.

So who or what decided that future beforehand?

azulmagia

The20

If you look in a mirror and see yourself standing do you stand because you see yourself standing in the mirror? No, you see yourself standing in the mirror because you were standing when you decided to look in the mirror. What you did does not depend on the mirror image, it's the other way around. Why do you believe looking in the future is different?

Because it's not causality that is the problem here, it's logical consistency. Knowing that X is the future and Y is not the future doesn't at all cause X to happen absent of a decision to do X. Anymore than 4 is caused by 2 + 2.

The longer this keeps going on the less i understand your problem. So if knowing X is going to happen does not cause you to do X what is the problem?

If you're too thick to see it, the problem is you.

Quote:

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

This is itself a logical paradox, because then there is no cause for your action.

Strictly speaking, it's a mistake to speak of causality in reference to God's actions, since causality pertains to naturalism, and God is by definition NOT a naturalistic being.

So logic is out the window, causality is out the window ... frankly, i think your argument is doomed if this trend continues.

If the buck really stops with God, where's the room for God to be subject to logic? If there are rules that even God has to obey, then he's not really the top dog, is he?

And where is there the faintest room for causality to operate given that God is a bodyless, immaterial, non-space-occupying, timeless, transcendental, not-composed-of-parts being? Our actions are caused by physical brain cells obeying laws in a naturalistic universe. What exactly can cause God's actions?

I think we have to either bite these kinds of bullets if we're to take the idea of God seriously....or do the sensible thing and say ******** it and just embrace atheism already.

Why should i embrace something that can only offer me death in the long term? I think i'd rather take my chances with logical paradoxes.

Argument from consequences.

Quote:

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

The future does not exist because you saw yourself do X, it exists because you decided at some point to do X. What you saw is not the beginning of the chain of events, it is the end.

In that case, God should simply not have knowledge of the future at all. But that blatantly contradicts revealed religious doctrine, i.e. the divine faculty of prophecy.

What? Why not?

Well, you can get out of it by ad hoc-ing it such that knowledge of the future is not knowable even by an omniscient being by the virtue of the fact that it has not happened yet. But that would never sit well with religious believers since God is supposed to know the future, e.g. predictions of the Messiah, the second coming and Armageddon, or the Mahdi if we are talking about Islam.

I also don't think this works since omniscience implies knowing how all the particles in the universe will act according to deterministic or stochastic laws. Human beings can't predict the future in this absolute sense, but someone with literally infinite computational capacity could do it, especially if they made the universe in the first place.

So it could be done but it wouldn't work? I don't understand you.

You don't understand anything.

[The20]

azulmagia

Argument from consequences.

That wasn't even an argument ...

azulmagia

You don't understand anything.

Maybe that's because you can't explain anything.

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

Argument from consequences.

That wasn't even an argument ...

Sure it is, you advanced it as a reason for rejecting atheism.

Quote:

azulmagia

You don't understand anything.

Maybe that's because you can't explain anything.

I have done my best to explain things; that you don't understand them at this point is probably more due to your limitations as an understander than my limitations of an explicator.

[KingNot]

[Rebeldoomer]

Man created God in his own image. -Truth