Can A Being with Complete Power Exist?

[Moridin]

Our logic, is based on our experience in the world. If a god exists outside of our world, and indeed if a creator god exists, then there is no reason to believe the 'rules' for that god are the same as the rules for us. The premises for god may be different from the premises for our universe.

Contradiction. You are trying to apply human logic to god in saying that human logic cannot be applied to god.

 

[Holocene]

An omnipotent god should NOT need to exist in order to create the universe. If a god first must exist in order to create, he's not omnipotnent. A truly omnipotent god is a god that can create the universe without even existing.

Therfore, it stands to reason, that god does not exist.

 

[Moridin]

One can say a god exists, but he seems do have nothing at all to do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck time (10^-43 second), we find that universe started out in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it had nothing to create.

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big bang is meaningless.

What reason for existential import can possibly exist for such an entity?

 

[kenewbie]

I respectfully disagree with that. If your definition of God is self-contradictory then it can be logically proven that that particular god cannot exist. The bible's definition is self-contradictory. If your definition is not self-contradictory, then it cannot be disproven.

Like I said, you pick one or the other. You are clearly picking formal logic, which cannot unify with a god. So do I. People that pick god are free to do so, but rationally they have to give up logic as a consequence. You can only "disprove god" as illogical if you actually choose to believe in formal logic before god. You do NOT, on the other hand, HAVE to choose logic above god. I'm not sure I'm coming off as clear as I want to be.

Ok. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Omniscience is the state of knowing everything. By anything and everything I mean exactly that. With those definitions, a being cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously.

That definition of omnipotence and omniscience makes no sense in formal logic. But if you do not care about formal logic, then you can believe in a god, and he can be omnipotent and omniscient, because he is not bound by any rules of logic.

k

 

[JoeDawg]

That definition of omnipotence and omniscience makes no sense in formal logic. But if you do not care about formal logic, then you can believe in a god, and he can be omnipotent and omniscient, because he is not bound by any rules of logic.

That about covers it.

Its a similar kind of thing to when the laws of physics break down as you get closer to the big bang. The rules no longer apply. Other rules may emerge, but when discussing a 'creator god', human logic may simply break down. Or, of course, that god could simply be poorly defined and not exist.

 

[ciorion tae]

I can answer the rock question easily by saying that god already created somthing he cannot influence, the human soul. It's also the answer to the question of can he create a being like himself. But that's exactly why he created mankind. It's like he created a rock he cannot lift but that is able to lift itself. And maybe if he asks nice enough it will lift itself for him.

Of course there's the argument about the omni stuff. But you have to realize that if we have free will, then logicaly he has free will, this means that even if he can see the future then he sees all possible choices, thus all possible futures. And if quantum physics holds true then there are multiple universes out there, one for every choice that was ever made by anything that can make a choice.

But perhapse there's one universe that's not affected by that, or maybe in between all those universes is the realm you could call heaven where GOD resides. But you know I'm a philosophical christian and thus try to use what I know to prove that god exists.

 

[octelcogopod]

I can answer the rock question easily by saying that god already created somthing he cannot influence, the human soul. It's also the answer to the question of can he create a being like himself. But that's exactly why he created mankind. It's like he created a rock he cannot lift but that is able to lift itself. And maybe if he asks nice enough it will lift itself for him.

Of course there's the argument about the omni stuff. But you have to realize that if we have free will, then logicaly he has free will, this means that even if he can see the future then he sees all possible choices, thus all possible futures. And if quantum physics holds true then there are multiple universes out there, one for every choice that was ever made by anything that can make a choice.

But perhapse there's one universe that's not affected by that, or maybe in between all those universes is the realm you could call heaven where GOD resides. But you know I'm a philosophical christian and thus try to use what I know to prove that god exists.

I would propose that you can never prove that god exists..
Any proof will need at least an observation, anyone can make a logical argument about something (invisible pink elephant) but the /proof/ part comes in at observation.
No offense but making some pink elephant like argument on a message board is never going to be enough to prove something as substantial as a god.

I also feel your whole argument is based on a lot of assumptions, for instance that there exists a separate universe for every choice or that quantum physics implies multiple universes.

 

[ciorion tae]

I also feel your whole argument is based on a lot of assumptions, for instance that there exists a separate universe for every choice or that quantum physics implies multiple universes.

Many fields of science are based on assumptions, that's why half of science consists of theories. In religion there's a simular thing, it's called faith, which is the evidence of things unseen.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

In men it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.

 

[JoeDawg]

Many fields of science are based on assumptions, that's why half of science consists of theories. In religion there's a simular thing, it's called faith, which is the evidence of things unseen.

The 'assumptions' of science are based on observables.

The assumptions of religions are based on revelation, and are generally at odds with observables. Comparing the two is disingenuous and is usually just an attempt to somehow legitimize fantastical beliefs.

 

[JoeDawg]

In men it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.

God is impossible then.

 

[VashtiMaiden]

God is impossible then.

?

 

[a2tha3]

In men it is impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.

You are applying your human logic (assuming you are human) to a higher entity in which case does not apply.

God is impossible then.

Impossible to be impossible? As moridin would say--contradictory

But I agree with you, because I think you are essentially saying that since it is impossible to be proven it is impossible to have nothing be impossible.

But (I think) you are also apply human logic concepts to a (in theory) higher entity in which they may not apply, in which case if they don't apply, then nothing might apply to the higher entity. (But if you are doing something else let me know, don't let me try to put words in your mouth.)

For example, the concept of existence applies to us, but it doesn't really apply to a higher entity given that it is a human logic concept.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that god doesn't exist, and I am certainly not trying to say he exists but In our terms he does or doesn't exist.(which don't apply because they are human logic concepts)

I don't even know where I'm going with this post, I'm just trying to make everyone think. Maybe nothing applies to anything. Well think about it.

 

[JoeDawg]

Impossible to be impossible?

I was applying human sarcasm.
Nothing is impossible
God is nothing.

For example, the concept of existence applies to us, but it doesn't really apply to a higher entity given that it is a human logic concept.

As someone once said, on that we cannot speak of, we should remain silent.

But I tend to agree, 'God' doesn't exist in any human sense, so for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist. Claiming he exists in some 'alien' fashion is equivalent to claiming he is nothing.

 

[Noone]

Anything can be done, But that doesn't mean it will be done :)

But in are phyiscal state we are in, there are some thing's that we cannot create with are mind, and one of them is creating a new geometric shape, or making a new color

LOL what would they even look like? well we can't think of what a new color or a new shape would look like because there one of the things that we can't think of or phyicaly create or manipulate in any way shape or form, in any given point of perceptable time... So the answer is NO we can't do everything, but anything can be done just doesn't mean it will be done within are known world that we are bound in...

Only a fixed amount of things to think and see , do, and play... why waste it in such a way :) OooO i know! because i say :)