Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    a puzzle about something that doesnt exist is fairly un interesting.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TK0)
    a puzzle about something that doesnt exist is fairly un interesting.
    You can never know for certain. And also, even if you are certain he doesn't - it's purely hypothetical conjecture which a good thought experiment. We have all defined God as omnipotent regardless of whether he exists, so it is good to see that definition being attacked.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hi there Lou - just thought I should bring the thread back to the original question, and add some more...

    1) Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?
    2) Can God make himself omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time?
    3) Can God create another omnipotent being?
    4) Can God cease to be omnipotent?

    I'll try to answer these question in another post (will probably take me some time, and it will be long, so I fear people will not take the time to read it. I wanted everyone to at leat see the questions though...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    Hi there Lou - just thought I should bring the thread back to the original question, and add some more...

    1) Can God make a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?
    2) Can God make himself omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time?
    3) Can God create another omnipotent being?
    4) Can God cease to be omnipotent?

    I'll try to answer these question in another post (will probably take me some time, and it will be long, so I fear people will not take the time to read it. I wanted everyone to at leat see the questions though...
    thanx, i actually think quite a few people will read it, i am definately intrigued how it can be explained.

    lou xxx
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lou p lou)
    thanx, i actually think quite a few people will read it, i am definately intrigued how it can be explained.

    lou xxx
    And attempt of an answer, and more problems...
    (this is refering to the four questions I posted before).
    You can immediately see the problems, 2 seem absurd, and no matter how you answer the others there seem to be some limits to God’s power.
    Responses to these have been either to engage them directly or to acknowledge their force but not their relevance.
    But how to solve these paradoxes then? Many have said that these objections (to God’s existence) have something of a word game nature to them and suggest that none of these questions generate paradox when looked at correctly. In the stone case, for example, to say that” God cannot create a stone which is too heavy to move” is a direct and harmless consequence of saying “God can create and move stones of any weight at all”. In case 4 a common response is to say that God cannot cease to be omnipotent any more than He can cease to exist, but that this inability is not a contradiction of his omnipotence but an expression of it.

    A separate but related issue to do with the nature of God is His omniscience, i.e. His knowledge of all things at all times. The argument goes as follows: if God is omniscient then He knows what you are about to do; if he knows what you are about to do then you must do it (otherwise God would be in error); if you must do it then you have no freedom (since you couldn’t do anything else). But we know (?) that we have freedom, and hence God cannot be omniscient.
    There are several possible responses to this problem (one being determinism which I will not go into). An interesting line is taken by some who has placed God in time (as opposed to the more common conception that God is timeless) and said that His omniscience only extends to what can be known, which does not include the future. Thus, God’s omniscience does not include knowledge of my future choice. Critics of this approach ask how can God then make prophecies, and asks what it means for God to have been younger in the past.

    Gotta love those ToK classes… It’s late (00:40), so I’m gonna go to bed. I’ll post more tomorrow.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    come on, people... Some feedback please. I have no intentions of just arguing with myself here...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    You can never know for certain. And also, even if you are certain he doesn't - it's purely hypothetical conjecture which a good thought experiment. We have all defined God as omnipotent regardless of whether he exists, so it is good to see that definition being attacked.
    not know for certain, well ok but quite a large amount falls under that bracket, as richard dawkins says, hes fairly sure theres no teapot in orbit around the sun although he cant prove their isnt, so at this point some sensible assumption should be made. Omnipotent is almost ironic considering the amount of effect god has, if we were to hear booming voices from the clouds of course i would be utterly wrong. anyway i think this problem is of the kind "what is outside the universe" invalid really.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TK0)
    not know for certain, well ok but quite a large amount falls under that bracket, as richard dawkins says, hes fairly sure theres no teapot in orbit around the sun although he cant prove their isnt, so at this point some sensible assumption should be made. Omnipotent is almost ironic considering the amount of effect god has, if we were to hear booming voices from the clouds of course i would be utterly wrong. anyway i think this problem is of the kind "what is outside the universe" invalid really.
    actually it has more of a "this sentence is false" fallacy to it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    actually it has more of a "this sentence is false" fallacy to it.
    ill go with that, my example wasnt too good. i dont know just seems like a waste of time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Linda

    You might find it interesting to know that there are similar problems in ALL thinking, not merely in religion. As an example, Kurt Gödel formulated his famous incompleteness theorem to show that logic is invalid.

    Considder the following:
    "This statement cannot be proven to be true."

    The direct consequence of the above statement is that either there are truths which can never be prooved, or alternatively you can proove something, which is in fact wrong. Gödel showed that ANY system, complicated enough to contain mathematics, would contain such paradoxes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Linda

    You might find it interesting to know that there are similar problems in ALL thinking, not merely in religion. As an example, Kurt Gödel formulated his famous incompleteness theorem to show that logic is invalid.

    Considder the following:
    "This statement cannot be proven to be true."

    The direct consequence of the above statement is that either there are truths which can never be prooved, or alternatively you can proove something, which is in fact wrong. Gödel showed that ANY system, complicated enough to contain mathematics, would contain such paradoxes.
    Nice
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Who says that God is omnipotent anyway? Instead of debating it why don't we just assume that this classical view is in fact wrong?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Who says that God is omnipotent anyway? Instead of debating it why don't we just assume that this classical view is in fact wrong?
    It has been suggested already in the thread
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    It has been suggested already in the thread
    Ahh.
    Well it certainly makes a lot of sense. In my opinion, either God doesn't exist or he does exist but is not omnipotent. Whatever, we can never prove that he does exist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Ahh.
    Well it certainly makes a lot of sense. In my opinion, either God doesn't exist or he does exist but is not omnipotent. Whatever, we can never prove that he does exist.
    Yes. Indeed.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Yes. Indeed.
    A secular state is quite clearly the way forward - http://www.secularism.org.uk/principles.htm
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    A secular state is quite clearly the way forward - http://www.secularism.org.uk/principles.htm
    saddam would have given u a few tips on how to keep it that way :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Linda

    You might find it interesting to know that there are similar problems in ALL thinking, not merely in religion. As an example, Kurt Gödel formulated his famous incompleteness theorem to show that logic is invalid.

    Considder the following:
    "This statement cannot be proven to be true."

    The direct consequence of the above statement is that either there are truths which can never be prooved, or alternatively you can proove something, which is in fact wrong. Gödel showed that ANY system, complicated enough to contain mathematics, would contain such paradoxes.
    Interesting, indeed. So we can never reach the end of science then, huh? There is no TOE? I consider this as great news - the grand game will never end, we cannot reach complete certainty even in mathematics, meaning that there will always be a place for human ingenuity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    Interesting, indeed. So we can never reach the end of science then, huh? There is no TOE? I consider this as great news - the grand game will never end, we cannot reach complete certainty even in mathematics, meaning that there will always be a place for human ingenuity.
    Well, I would not be to certain about that. After all, Gödels theorem only applies to INFINITE axiomatic systems. If the universe can be described with a finite amount of information (That is, the universe cannot represent supernatural integers) then Gödels theorem does not neccessairly apply. Furthermore, Gödels theorem doesnt say anything about the implicatiosn of these truths. They might be quitre irrelevnat. After all, sentences such as "This statement is false" doesnt yield a very huge impact upon our reality. Furthermore, it has already been argued that perhaps logic is not complete. That is, the logic Gödel used to find his proof might not be correct. In one way , Gödels theorem bites its own tail.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Well, I would not be to certain about that. After all, Gödels theorem only applies to INFINITE axiomatic systems. If the universe can be described with a finite amount of information (That is, the universe cannot represent supernatural integers) then Gödels theorem does not neccessairly apply. Furthermore, Gödels theorem doesnt say anything about the implicatiosn of these truths. They might be quitre irrelevnat. After all, sentences such as "This statement is false" doesnt yield a very huge impact upon our reality. Furthermore, it has already been argued that perhaps logic is not complete. That is, the logic Gödel used to find his proof might not be correct. In one way , Gödels theorem bites its own tail.
    How I wish I studied maths...

    Oh well, back to the problem of God, take a look at this argument (Russel beleived this, at least for a while).

    1. God is that of which none greater can be conceived (definition of God).
    2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
    3. For any x and for any y, if x is only in the mind and y is in reality, then y is greater than x.
    4. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than God, perhaps something just like Him except that it is thought to exist in reality.
    5. We cannot imagine something greater than God.
    6. Hence, God exists in reality.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.