regarding the Holy Spirit

[Twey]

Yes, yes, of course, but what attributes do you assign them? Having shown that we logically can't have all four, and since you've asserted omnipotence and ergo omniscience, as far as I can see that leaves only two options. I am, of course, open if you can think of another explanation.

[magicyte]

I'd rather not.

-magicyte

[Twey]

I see. I feel there was a rather abrupt self-censorship there... that's a little disturbing :-\

[magicyte]

Oh, please!

-magicyte

[molendijk]

I don't know why I thought those thoughts... My concern is, nevermind. I still have to delete the value of these posts....
I am for God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (a gift from God (<- this may arise some other argumental posts :D)).
Once again, I must delete the value of all of the posts.
-magicyte
Magicyte: you look confused by our discussion. You shouldn't be. If the things you believe in make sense to you, and if you feel anguished by logical arguments against what you feel is true, then you should hold on to your truth. So if your thoughts about God + Christ + the Holy Spirit give sense to your life -even if those thoughts seem illogical to us - then don't let nobody take your thoughts away from you.
I thought we were having a logical discussion. Apparently, it was an existential one to you. In a discussion, I may be logically right. But if that means it confuses someone (existentially), then I am wrong, in a non-logical way.
The reason I took your post so seriously was that I thought: 'here's another preacher that wants to force certain thoughts upon us". Apparently, you are no such preacher.
As I said before: logic doesn't explain it all. There's no logic allowing us to really understand 'eternity' in an existential way. Logic is only a very good tool for reasoning. It's enough for me. But not for anyone, apparently.
===
Arie.

[jscheuer1]

About this omniscient business. If one is omniscient, one is all knowing and all seeing. Now if you or I were omniscient we would know what that means and what it entails visa vis the future, the human heart and everything else (all). But we are not, and we don't. So there is no way we can judge what an omniscient God would know or what that would mean. The omnipotence thing is similar. No one I know personally (in the mundane sense of personally, like my neighbor) is omnipotent, so I don't know what that means. Could one who is omnipotent make a milkshake that he couldn't drink? I can, but I doubt that I would. Just because one is omnipotent doesn't deprive them of common sense. In fact, to be all powerful, one would have to have more than common sense. I imagine, if such things are true (these omni - powers), the bearer of them would have an understanding of the universe that surpasses that of the sciences, where we have already determined that at the subatomic level certain logical paradoxes appear to obtain. If we are comfortable with that, why would we have a problem with the milkshake or the rock?

[Twey]

I'm not quite sure if you're playing on my earlier typo of 'omniscient' for 'omnipotent'; if you are, please pardon my over-serious response :)

Omnipotence and omniscience aren't the same things. To be omnipotent means to be capable of anything. However, it is a self-contradiction, since it requires that the omnipotent be capable of, amongst an infinite number of other things, creating a situation whereby the omnipotent is incapable of doing something. If an omnipotent being isn't capable of creating a rock that the omniscient being is incapable of lifting, then said being is not omnipotent, since there is an action of which the omnipotent is incapable; on the other hand, if the omnipotent is capable of creating a rock that the omnipotent is incapable of lifting, then the being is incapable of lifting a rock created with the intention of making a rock that the being is incapable of lifting, and is therefore not omnipotent. Whether the being ever actually does create the rock or not is irrelevant: the definition of omnipotence requires only, well, the potency.

Omnipotence requires omniscience or at least potential omniscience, but the reverse is not true. I know, for example, how a diamond is formed, but that does not mean that I am competent to construct one from nothing but carbon atoms.

[jscheuer1]

I'm not quite sure if you're playing on my earlier typo of 'omniscient' for 'omnipotent'; if you are, please pardon my over-serious response :)

That was serious? Anyways, yes - that's what you've been saying, and I already got that. I was saying that you cannot really know though. To be all powerful, and to satisfy your logical conundrum, an omnipotent being would be able to do both - create the rock that cannot be moved, and to move it. If we are to believe in God, we must accept that contradiction. How it would play out in such a celestial reality as would be inhabited by such a God, we cannot know because we aren't omniscient. But this God is, so he would.

Now I know this sounds a little stupid in a way. But logical contradictions appear to obtain in science (and few, if any understand all of those), so why would we have such a problem with this one just because it is over a spiritual matter?

I certainly have other issues with religion, as you can surely tell from reading over other things I've written on the subject, even in this thread. But the omnipotence thing is no problem for me. It appears to me that omnipotence and omniscience would have to go hand in hand. If they do, then God would know how that all worked. The Judeo/Christian God isn't like - say, The Fantastic Four where "Stretcheroo" has all the smarts and The Thing is the strong guy.

[Twey]

The apparent logical contradictions currently present in science are formed on the basis of empirical evidence. This leads to two reasons to attempt to work with that data anyway: that there is empirical evidence that contradiction or not, it does seem to happen; and also that whatever it is that happens, that it's likely that there's no logical contradiction at all, and our knowledge is merely incomplete, leading to a misunderstanding of the subject matter at hand. On the other hand, the omnipotence conundrum has neither of these going for it: it has not been demonstrated empirically, and the paradox exists in the very logical definition. There is no way that we can simply be misunderstanding the situation, since we ourselves have constructed it from our logic; and there is no empirical evidence to suggest that there is an error in our logic somewhere. Combined, these suggest quite strongly to me that the whole concept is simply nonsensical.

[molendijk]

To be all powerful ... an omnipotent being would be able to do both - create the rock that cannot be moved, and to move it. If we are to believe in God, we must accept that contradiction.
As Twey said, anything can be presupposed without logic.
===
Arie.

[jscheuer1]

There is no way that we can simply be misunderstanding the situation, since we ourselves have constructed it . . .

If you want to go that route, at least Webster's would give you a run for your money (below three quotes from Merriam-Webster online):


omnipotent - (adjective) having virtually unlimited authority or influence


omnipotent - (noun) God


God - the supreme or ultimate reality

Since being omnipotent is only a virtual state, it could allow for your rock issue. And/or, if God is as defined, things might work differently on that exalted plane, we simply cannot know. It's not a matter of presupposing anything. It is a matter of knowing the limits of human knowledge.

Further, the 'the supreme or ultimate reality' definition is so akin to 'all that is and all that is not and all else', as well as to the ultimate understanding that could theoretically be achieved in science, that I think any reasonable person would allow for some apparent contradiction.

There is no conclusive empirical evidence one way or the other on God - a fact that I think we've already beaten to death elsewhere, perhaps even earlier in this thread. Where science relates here is, while investigating phenomena that appear to defy logic, the researcher is supposed to keep an open mind, as it is the most logical approach.

You seem to have, for whatever reason(s), closed your mind on this rock issue. It (the rock thing) seems to me a self justification of an atheistic or atheistic leaning outlook, which presupposes that God cannot exist. If you start from a place where God could exist, there would be no need to exact such a narrow view of omnipotence upon God.

[molendijk]

On time, change and rock-lifting

How about this?:

(i) if God allows himself to change, then he may allow himself to make a rock he cannot lift

(ii) if God does not allow himself to change, then he will not allow himself to make a rock he cannot lift (since that would imply change).

Now, on several places in the Bible we can read that God never changes (Malachi 3:6 "I am the LORD, and I do not change…”). So (ii) would apply. If you see things in that perspective, there doen't seem to be a rock-lifting issue. If time stands still in God's universe, things will always be the same for him.
By the way, this would make God's omnipotence a notion that is different from what was said above about it. The object of his omnipotence would not be himself, but other beings and their existence(s).
===
Arie.

[djr33]

I have no problem challenging the definition posed by that dictionary. It's actually worthless, just like an advertisement, with the use of "virtually".

omnipotent - (adjective) having virtually unlimited authority or influence
The word breaks down into omni (omnis, omne: all, every) + potens (posse [potere]: to be able, "can"). "can [do] everything".
The word is not limited. Using virtually in the definition it reduces it to "virtually all-powerful" which is like saying "virtually infinity", which means, basically "a lot" and no longer anything to do with "infinity". (Refer to "virtually unlimited bandwidth", a phrase with which we are all familiar, for evidence of this divide.)

Thus, the dictionary is being careful, as in common usage we do not always mean literally "all powerful" but very powerful. "Wow, that athlete must be omnipotent", in the sense that within his realm (let's say baseball) he's all powerful, or we are just being expressive (hyperbole). However, the actual word DOES mean it is really all-powerful, not sorta all-powerful, and in the sense of "God", where his realm is said to be everything, he is all-powerful.

In the argument about what he can and cannot do, if you believe the traditional thoughts on the matter, I'd say he can do anything. He could, for example, create another god in fact. However, though he is all powerful he is not necessarily all-doing. He may simply choose not to do something, though he could in fact, for example, destroy himself. And that's a better question-- is he more powerful than himself? And you run into a paradox, thus proving, to some degree, he is not really all powerful, or omnipotent, though he is arguably very powerful and nearly omnipotent (just like "nearly infinity" above).

Perhaps, though, this is just within our realm. Just like the big band answers where we came from, but not where it came from, god is omnipotent on earth, but not omnipotent in his realm.

[magicyte]

I have a comment. If God is incorrect about something, he is no longer God. Good thing is he will always be correct, so he is always God.

-magicyte

[jscheuer1]

I have no problem challenging the definition posed by that dictionary. It's actually worthless, just like an advertisement, with the use of "virtually".

As you like. Either way there is an 'out' for God. Either omnipotence is a virtual state that God exercises within whatever limits logic allows, or it is an absolute state in which the apparent contradictions of logic do not apply. In the 'no God' view of omnipotence as an absolute state, it is not God that is at fault, rather the concept of omnipotence. Nothing, nada, no one can logically be omnipotent. The word itself is then an oxymoron.

My point in bringing up the definition though was in part that, if humans cannot agree on what omnipotence is - How can we use it as criteria in judging God? Further, as I stated, clinging to this rock issue as proof that God is not real is the result (in most cases) of a presupposition that God cannot exist, that there can be no being that defies mundane logic, etc.

[Twey]

John: the definition of 'omnipotent' you've used there is intended to be applied to humans, and as such is meant to be hyperbolic (hence the word 'virtual' being in brackets). The word taken literally means 'all-powerful'. The idea that God could be omnipotent within this realm but not another is an interesting one, and has occurred to me, but doesn't solve the rock issue (it still applies within any realm delimited).
In the 'no God' view of omnipotence as an absolute state, it is not God that is at fault, rather the concept of omnipotence. Nothing, nada, no one can logically be omnipotent. The word itself is then an oxymoron.This is my conclusion. Certainly the impossibility of omnipotence doesn't preclude divinity; it does, however, preclude the Abrahamic God, defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator.

[djr33]

Nothing, nada, no one can logically be omnipotent.Right. That's the main problem with the concept of God.

[jscheuer1]

The word virtual (actually, virtually was the word used, and that's how I quoted it) is not in brackets or treated any differently in my source than any other part of the definition. I italicized it for emphasis. The fact that some may choose to define a word so as to be an oxymoron (contrary to its dictionary definition) is no proof one way or the other as regards the existence of God.

This quibbling over the meaning of words is rather pointless when it is so obvious that there are things we simply do not understand about the universe. I believe that these things are great enough to admit the possibility of God, even a God that embodies traits that would seem to be a logical impossibility.

I was willing to enter into the discussion about the word (omnipotent) itself though, because I thought it might shed some light for some folks.

This is not to say that I insist upon there being a God, or not. I do take issue with both atheism and fundamentalism though, at least in most cases because they simply appear closed minded to me. The word that perhaps best describes my outlook is 'agnostic', and in a loose sort of way, 'gnostic'.

[Twey]

You're quite right... I rather misread that one :-\ At any rate, 'omnipotent' means literally 'all-powerful', or 'capable of anything', and has ever been used in this manner to describe the Abrahamic God.

While I agree with you that, of course, it is quite possible that divine beings, if they exist, may be omnipotent in defiance of our logic, as I've also stated that possibility applies to just about anything — the invisible pink unicorn is every bit as likely, and both fall foul of Occam's Razor. I'm curious, then, as to why people generally prefer to believe in the omnipotent being than the invisible pink unicorn, which doesn't have the logical issues against it, and therefore is in fact more possible.

I believe that there are no real certainties; what we describe as 'certain' is merely highly probable. However, on that basis, it's reasonable to assume that the merely fairly-probable is in fact true, so long as we keep an open mind in regards to its factual status and likely alternatives.

[molendijk]

I'm curious, then, as to why people generally prefer to believe in the omnipotent being than the invisible pink unicorn, which doesn't have the logical issues against it, and therefore is in fact more possible.
The reason may be that humans seem to have a kind of metaphysical awareness of 'something' which will never fit into anything we consciently know, see etc. and which, as a consequence, is in fact impossible by human standards. The more it's unlikely to exist, the more we are attracted by the thought that it might be 'there', because we seem to have an 'instinctive feeling' about it.

Or: humans are perfectly aware of their incapacity of controlling everything. Your cannot control your own birth, nor the birth of your parents, nor the birth of their parents etc. And yet your parents, grand-parents etc. are / were 'there'. Who controls that?

What distinguishes atheists and theists from 'agnostic believers' is that the former ones try to concretize the thing(s) that do(es)n't fit into anything we know (atheists concretize it by reducing it to zero), whereas agnostics don't feel the need to concretize it at all.

I think it was Blaise Pascal who said that we can give ourselves intellectual tasks that we never will be able to solve. That must have something to do whith that metaphysical awareness of 'unthinkable' things.

In short, I think there's a reason for us to prefer 'illogical' omnipotence to logical IPU.
===
Arie.

[Twey]

Well, no: that would certainly be a reason to believe in gods, possibly even very powerful ones, but there's no need for omnipotence in that. Since we can't even imagine every possible occurrence, I don't see why we would have to create omnipotent gods to explain them.

[molendijk]

Aren't the gods in polytheistic religions omnipotent too? The Greeks thought their gods (or at least one of them) were (was) capable of doing anything.
===
Arie.

[Twey]

Some of them, aye. It's not an idea specific to the Abrahamic god.

[molendijk]

So in the end, people always created at least one omnipotent god?
I would say: yes (but I'm happier with agnostism myself).
===
Arie.

[Twey]

No, not all. The idea of gods as just people who exist on a different level to humans or are bound by a different set of physical rules is common.

[jscheuer1]

The idea of gods, or God is boundless. You may feel more comfortable binding this idea to some sort of anthropomorphic model before (or more to the point, while) dismissing it.

The Occam's Razor argument doesn't hold water here. Some of the recent discussion (by Twey and molendijk) since my last post hints at that.

More likely an imaginary pink elephant, or an unimaginable force/being of some nature that lies behind all of creation? We in fact have the latter as apriori (at this writing) in science. Whatever scientific theory of creation one ascribes to, nothing is known about its antecedent or ultimate cause, or the ultimate cause of that.

This is a fact, the colorful elephant is mere fantasy.

Now I'd be happy to have the discussion of what's most likely to have obtained at the moment of creation and/or before, that would be far more interesting to me than worrying about whether or not there was such a moment and about whether or not we have as yet to understand it.

There was such a moment, and we don't understand it.

[Twey]

More likely an imaginary pink elephant, or an unimaginable force/being of some nature that lies behind all of creation? We in fact have the latter as apriori (at this writing) in science. Whatever scientific theory of creation one ascribes to, nothing is known about its antecedent or ultimate cause, or the ultimate cause of that.Hmm? I'm pretty sure that most scientists don't a-priori assume the existence of a creator God. Maybe the Christian Scientists. :)
This is a fact, the colorful elephant is mere fantasy.It may be a fact, but it doesn't in any way hint at omnipotence. As I said earlier, divinity is a reasonable hypothesis for the parts of the universe that we don't understand, but nothing requires the logically dodgy idea of omnipotence.
The idea of gods, or God is boundless. You may feel more comfortable binding this idea to some sort of anthropomorphic model before (or more to the point, while) dismissing it.That's very Western-centric, and in opposition to dogma too. No, the idea of a 'boundless' god is, while not entirely specific to Abrahamic religions, quite rare in comparison; and even the Abrahamic god is mostly anthropomorphic ('God created humans in His own image', 'God loves').

I'm not quite sure why you'd garner from the above discussion that Occam's Razor doesn't apply here. It's the principle you yourself just applied in order to rule out the pink elephant, after all.

[jscheuer1]

Truth be told, I've been doing a bit of thinking on how this issue is being discussed. But first I'd like to respond to two things.

One, when I said in regard to science:


We in fact have the latter as apriori (at this writing) in science.

The latter being:


an unimaginable force/being of some nature that lies behind all of creation

I meant just that. Not that anything had been decided apriori, rather that the fact of nothing being known for certain about the actual beginning of the universe and what came before was - scientifically (at least at this writing) apriori, a current starting point so to speak. This is simply the fact of the matter in today's science.

Two, in mentioning that Occam's Razor didn't hold water here, I didn't mean we should abandon it, simply that it doesn't apply in ruling out God if you mean to maintain that an imaginary elephant is as likely as God. Perhaps as likely as a literal anthropomorphized God, but not nearly as likely as God.

Which brings me to what I've been thinking about as regards how this is all being discussed. I believe I've probably (and others involved, possibly) conflated objections put forth here to an anthropomorphic God (something like some guy with a white beard in Heaven, alternately looking out for us and punishing us) with objections to a supreme being or an ultimate reality beyond our immediate understanding.

The concept of a God or gods has been with us from the dawn of recorded and deduced (anthropological) history, probably before that as well. I believe the anthropomorphizing of God/gods to be primarily a way of explaining the concept that then became later ensconced in traditions and dogma.

In some traditions, God/gods aren't anthropomorphized, rather animated (not sure if that is the right word, but given animal traits is what I mean).

However God is explained, that becomes the tradition. It doesn't change God, just how people teach about God.

All of this is to say, well many things, but primarily that I didn't want to imply that I think there is some guy in a throne up in Heaven deciding our fate and that he's like Superman or something. That is silly, at least in my opinion. And that equally as silly (to me) is that there is nothing but blind random chance molded by physical laws at work in the universe. And even if that's all that there is, all that there is - is just so unimaginably complex, beautiful, ugly, all encompassing, diverse, wonderful and horrible . . . to constitute a force in and of itself. One to be reckoned with, at least by those of us in the know.

[Jack]

Ooops...

(Post Edited)