Omnipotence of God

[Tormod]

This may be off-topic, but since people are getting goosebumps etc, I have learned that the Christian God's real name is supposed to be unspeakable.

 

The question is: "why"?

[Freethinker]

If as I believe, God created the universe, then he fully understands it. Using this as a base for a logical diffinition,

Ah but there's the rub. It is not a logical assertion and as such can anot be used to construct a logical argument.

 

You are asking us to assume as real just by asking so. It is fine that you believe it. But if we are to acccept it to support your premise, we need to be shown why we should accept it. We should not be expected to just blindly accept it.

 

Nothing logical ("diffinition") can be assumed to come from a logical fallacy. The fallacy of petitio principii / Begging the question. This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form.

 

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging

[infamous]

I'm sure that you are familiar with most of the theories for universal oirgin. Most likely, more numorus than my knowledge of such things I'm sure, but there are two theories that recieve most of the attention today. The Big Bang and the Steady state. With the Steady state view of things, one finds a universe that always was, is, and always will be. Sounds a little like God to me. With the Big Bang theory one finds a universe that must have had an initial cause. Again, this sounds a little like the creater God of the bible. In either case, the God concept can be conveniently applied. I must admit my view is biased to some degree, but I am open to any and all opinions and points of view.

[Stargazer]

I suppose it depends on how you define god. If god is the universe, then clearly god exists, so why not just say "the universe" instead to avoid misunderstandings? Also, a creator is not necessary, and even if it was, why would the god of the Bible be the true one? Because it says so? Because it's the most common myth in the western world?

[Freethinker]

I'm sure that you are familiar with most of the theories for universal oirgin. Most likely, more numorus than my knowledge of such things I'm sure, but there are two theories that recieve most of the attention today. The Big Bang and the Steady state.

Where'd you get this from? There has not been any serious support for steady state for a long long time.

With the Steady state view of things, one finds a universe that always was, is, and always will be.

Yes and with a perfectly equal distribution. That would mean that the light would be of equal intensity in every direction. Obviously a bogus concept.

Sounds a little like God to me.

Yes, again, obviously bogus. I agree!

With the Big Bang theory one finds a universe that must have had an initial cause.

Nope, bad assertion. You can not extend causality as we know it back to before the BB. Causality is based on our current space time continuum, That started with the BB. As such our time space continuum does not go back before it.

 

THis is the same problem as with the question of this thread itself.

 

I will get to that.

Again, this sounds a little like the creater God of the bible. In either case, the God concept can be conveniently applied. I must admit my view is biased to some degree, but I am open to any and all opinions and points of view.

Let's say that the god concept can be applied with the same level of accuracy. both lacking any.

[Freethinker]

The question one could ask is, from where should she lift it?

Ah SG1! I had hoped that you would continue with this one. This is the answer to the paradox. As is the case with many supposed paradoxes, they really aren't. They are actually a form of the fallacy of the complex question. It begs an answer when there isn't one. Because not all of the conditions are known/ defined.

 

The key is your comment. "lift". What does it mean to "lift"? If you are standing on earth and "lift" an object, you are basically increasing the distance between the object and earth. With the assumed effort of countering the gravitational pull between the object and earth.

 

So asking if some entity could "lift" something, would require TWO objects, not ONE.

 

This is a sentence that is structured as an interrogatory sentence, but the construction is a fallacy. It does not work. It can not have a logical answer.

[Tormod]

The Big Bang and the Steady state.

As pointed out, the steady state theory is no longer a mainstream theory and has "fallen from grace", so to speak.

 

With the Steady state view of things, one finds a universe that always was, is, and always will be.

No, this is an oversimplification. The steady state universe could not explain the constant need for creation of matter in an expanding universe, and thus did not stand the test of observation. For a brief background, read http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_steady.html .

 

Sounds a little like God to me. With the Big Bang theory one finds a universe that must have had an initial cause. Again, this sounds a little like the creater God of the bible. In either case, the God concept can be conveniently applied.

(my bold and italics)

 

It could sound like a pink unicorn if you ask someone else. This is a science forum, and as such we cannot base our discussions on what things "sound like" without backing these hunches up with observations and (vitally) knowledge about the subject at hand (cosmology).

 

If you search the forums you will find numerous discussions on god and religion and you'll find that one camp often resorts to "since it seems like A, it must be A" logic - which is fallacious.

[Stargazer]

Ah SG1! I had hoped that you would continue with this one. This is the answer to the paradox. As is the case with many supposed paradoxes, they really aren't. They are actually a form of the fallacy of the complex question. It begs an answer when there isn't one. Because not all of the conditions are known/ defined.

 

The key is your comment. "lift". What does it mean to "lift"? If you are standing on earth and "lift" an object, you are basically increasing the distance between the object and earth. With the assumed effort of countering the gravitational pull between the object and earth.

 

So asking if some entity could "lift" something, would require TWO objects, not ONE.

 

This is a sentence that is structured as an interrogatory sentence, but the construction is a fallacy. It does not work. It can not have a logical answer.

Yes it just came to me when I thought about it. Should the rock be lifted from the Earth? No, that's too easy, I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than lifting it from Jupiter. Or maybe the sun? Or how about... etc. It seems like it's not about lifting the rock from the Earth but more like lifting Earth from the rock... which really is the same anyway. But why limit ourselves to gravity, how about the strong nuclear force? Isn't it impossible to separate two quarks? Or is it just really hard?

 

Anyway, I suppose the question isn't really about rocks and whether it's possible to lift them, since it would obviously not lead anywhere. It must be some metaphor or something? Here are some other questions about an omnipotent god: Can an omnipotent god create a new god that is stronger? Is the stronger god then more omnipotent...? Or, if the god is omniscient, can he then really be omnipotent? That is, if he knows the future including his own future, can he change it? Does an omnipotent god really have free will? Does he even have a future until he creates time? How long did it take him to do that? :) etc.

 

Also, this whole paradox goes away if you do away with your omnipotence. After all it's quite possible for humans to build something we cannot lift from the Earth. Curious how non-omnipotent beings are not restrained by paradoxes...

[Freethinker]

we need a definition of God first to start things off.

I'm proud of you Tinny!

(gotta be quick, the librarian might catch me)

Are you cheating to post this? Bad...

[infamous]

Hey Tormod; I stand corrected, I quess I need to bone up on current scientific observations. You'll have to excuse me for being a little out of date, I'm 62 years old and haven't been following current discoveries for quite some time. From now on I'll investigate a lot more closely before I develope opinions about scientific data. Not withstanding, my faith in God is not shaken, it's only the trust in my own understanding that I need to evaluate. Thanks for the reflection.

[Freethinker]

my faith in God is not shaken, it's only the trust in my own understanding that I need to evaluate. Thanks for the reflection.

Isn't it interesting when people's proofs fail but their stance stands still?

[infamous]

Hello Freethinker, you want to talk proof do you? I havn't found proof for anything in this life as yet, have you? I'm not trying to prove anthing, just suggesting possible answers to questions we all ask. I choose to believe in God, I don't have to prove this concept to anyone. I'll ask you a question here if I may, what is proof, can you give me proof for your answer. Maybe we should talk more in terms of logical speculation instead of defining anything as proof.

[Tormod]

I'll ask you a question here if I may, what is proof, can you give me proof for your answer. Maybe we should talk more in terms of logical speculation instead of defining anything as proof.

I know this was directed at Freethinker, but I'll chip in here.

 

No. The scientific requirement for proof is what makes science science. It is also what we base our discussions on here at Hypography.

 

Here is a section of our FAQ which might be of interest:

http://www.hypography.com/scienceforums/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item

 

I agree that we do not always need proof to discuss something. But we need to know that if something cannot be proven, it is not a valid scientific theory, and as such will be dismissed as non-scientific. Yet we discuss such topics as well (witness the number of philosophy and religion debates we have).

 

It is okay to think that you have never seen proof of anything in your life. I am not saying that it is a "wrong" statement. But in the world of science you see proof of things every day.

 

It's easy - assume that there are people that are left-handed, and that there are people that are right-handed. Ask all your friends and relatives what they are. You will find out that a number of them are left-handed, and even that some might be ambidextrous. You have proven your theory.

 

Proof is not some evil thing, nor is it difficult to understand. It is simply a requirement for science.

[lindagarrette]

To be able to prove something, you have to be able to state a falsifiable hypothesis. For example: All crows are black is falsifiable since it's possible to show that there could be a non-black crow. Until that crow is found, the all black theory stands.

 

To prove there is a god as creator (or whatever), you have to state a "null" hypothesis that no god was involved in the process. Since all the evidence supports the null hypothesis, then there is no alternative theory to prove. But since religious notions are metaphysical and do not require evidence, proof does not apply..

[infamous]

I have to say that I do agree with every point you all have made. I was just trying to express to Freethinker that I was not trying to prove that God exists, only proposing the possibility. I certainly can't prove that view to anyone, but I also can't escape the inner awareness that causes me to believe. It is on the face not a logical determination of evidence based on supposed facts, that is why it is called faith. Maybe it is not a proper topic to discuss on this forum, but if is not, then I would have to call into question even discussing the topic we started with. "Omnipotence of God" How can we fairly discuss a topic related to a concept about God when we can't acknowledge the possibility of his esixtence.

[Freethinker]

Hello Freethinker, you want to talk proof do you?

Yes, this is a science site. We are nothing if we ignore the need for proof. We'd be a religious site if we relied merely on desires and warm fuzzy beliefs.

I havn't found proof for anything in this life as yet, have you?

OK, we could argue to absurdity. We could demand proof of our very existence before we could discuss anything involved in our existence. And no, we can not "prove" we exist. Nor can we "prove" causality. Just because X happens every time you have done Y so far, does not mean it will next time, or maybe the time after that. Until X is shown to happen because of Y after an infinite number of tries, we are allowing acceptance of certain levels of proof. How many reindeer do we push off the top of a building to their death and how many laws of physics need to be shown it violates before we accept that reindeer can't fly no matter what stories tell us?

 

We must all allow for acceptance of certain "realities" or it would be impossible to live. We accept that placing certain substances in our mouths and consuming them will provide the energy our bodies (if they exist) need to survive. We accept that some force is allowing us to stay attracted to the earth. Otherwise we would be afraid to lift a foot lest we float off into space.

I'm not trying to prove anthing, just suggesting possible answers to questions we all ask.

No problem. But understand the rigor many of us here require in order to make assertions acceptable. Suggesting an answer, especially if the answer requires acceptance of certain assertions, requires proof to support the assertion. To say that X happens because of blixflip will require gving reasonable proof of blixflip or it is meaningless to us as an explanation.

I choose to believe in God, I don't have to prove this concept to anyone.

For your personal edification, perhaps not. That is your choice. We all have to decide how valuable our live's work is. And as such how much rigor and due diligence we require for things we accept in guiding our decisions. You may choose as you say, to believe what ever. No matter how much or little proof there is. But in discussion here, you will find a much higher level of required rigor before claims are accepted and allowed as explanations. Speaking at least for myself, I find the data supplied for support at least as valuable as the item under discussion itself.

I'll ask you a question here if I may, what is proof, can you give me proof for your answer. Maybe we should talk more in terms of logical speculation instead of defining anything as proof.

"logical speculation" is a great way to put it. That is perhaps the best that can be hoped for. It does require that facts be provided to validate the claims and that the argument be assembled in a logical fashion.

 

As far as "what is proof". The "Scientific method" is a great start. Something that fits repeatablity, predictability and falsification and does not use argument fallacies for support.

[Stargazer]

A lot of things are possible, including the currently most popular gods (and all the various interpretations of them, of course). This means there are lots of things that are possible that many religious people would consider ridiculous, and that often includes all the gods that this particular person does not believe in. Anyway, I think that the concept of a god that created exactly everything, is not a very good explanation. It's more of a claim really. How does a believer choose what god is the right one?