One could say that god has already expressed its omnipotence by making the Earth the way it is. And that that is gods will. I suppose?
Workable systems of god
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
One could say that god has already expressed its omnipotence by making the Earth the way it is. And that that is gods will. I suppose?
According to mathematics it is 'possible' a toaster coalesced on Mars at some point. But the chances a bag of waffles AND some maple syrup turned up at the same time is a little bit more unlikely? But still possible LOL.
One could, if one wanted to be flawed in their understanding of what constitutes omnipotence. Unfortunately there is no way to prove omnipotence other than by doing everything - i.e. an absolute quality can only be proven by absolute demonstration.
By making the Earth the way it is would merely be demonstration of the ability to make the Earth the way it is.
Imagine it as the difference between 1 + 1 = 2, and the algebra of a + a = 2a.
The former is a demonstration of a specific case, and the algebra is holds for all values of "a".
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I wrote: "I fail to see what relevance science could have to answering the question of "how god could exist", assuming that the question even makes sense."
Science is a naturalistic subject. God, if such a thing exists, presumably isn't a natural object.
If science describes physical reality and seeks to correlate physical events with other physical events as cause/effect etc., then what relevance could science possibly have to explaining the existence of something that isn't part of physical reality?
You ask for "theories of how god could exist". I'm not entirely sure what a 'theory of how a chair could exist' would look like. What is 'existence' in the first place? What kind of conditions have to be met in order for even mundane things to exist?
Even if we can answer those kind of questions for simple physical objects (and I'm not sure that we can), how would we answer them for hypothetical transcendent non-physical objects that aren't even part of our space-time-matter universe? What justification would we have for thinking that the approach that we took with the physical object would still be applicable to the transcendental object?
Science is a naturalistic subject. God, if such a thing exists, presumably isn't a natural object.
If science describes physical reality and seeks to correlate physical events with other physical events as cause/effect etc., then what relevance could science possibly have to explaining the existence of something that isn't part of physical reality?
You ask for "theories of how god could exist". I'm not entirely sure what a 'theory of how a chair could exist' would look like. What is 'existence' in the first place? What kind of conditions have to be met in order for even mundane things to exist?
Even if we can answer those kind of questions for simple physical objects (and I'm not sure that we can), how would we answer them for hypothetical transcendent non-physical objects that aren't even part of our space-time-matter universe? What justification would we have for thinking that the approach that we took with the physical object would still be applicable to the transcendental object?
Last edited:
Alas, it was not fundamental, but God had some french toast with syrup. He has to eat, given all the energy He expends.
There are many names for nothing, but there is only one nonexistence, and it is the only source for existence. One of its names is not ‘God’ for it is quite the opposite of that complex concept. Oh, well.
Existence can only balance to partial nonexistence in the one way, of the only two ways to make things, which is why there are opposite matter states in 3D, matter and antimatter, and why there are opposite polarity states in 4D, positive and negative, which nullifies all of existence in the overview, but never in reality, for ‘nothing’ is perfectly unstable, as it must be. The real somethings are sum-things, always produced in a pairing or as the paring contained as neutral.
Darn, I have gone against the notion of a non-interfering Deity, too.
Existence can only balance to partial nonexistence in the one way, of the only two ways to make things, which is why there are opposite matter states in 3D, matter and antimatter, and why there are opposite polarity states in 4D, positive and negative, which nullifies all of existence in the overview, but never in reality, for ‘nothing’ is perfectly unstable, as it must be. The real somethings are sum-things, always produced in a pairing or as the paring contained as neutral.
Darn, I have gone against the notion of a non-interfering Deity, too.
Maybe because we don't understand it fully. We define the universe by rules. I doubt It does the same for itself.
The universe can add mass to a planet at a moments notice therefore affecting gravity. It happens all the time in fact from rocks from the sky and killing the surviving dinosaurs. Why is it that we have to be fully and completely under the assumption that omnipotence and magic are hand in hand?
While the supernatural itself would be undetectable, its effects ought to be, at least for a Theity.
Meaningless final sentence.
What? That's less likely than the toaster on Mars.
What arrant nonsense. How much do you think gravity was affected by the dino-killer?
You at least appear to be assuming that, the rest of us...? Not so much.
We don't understand it fully, sure, but whether the universe defines itself (if it even has such an ability, which is yet to be demonstrated) by rules or not, the simple fact is that it has never demonstrated an ability to act outside those rules. Ever.
When it does... IF it does... then you can come back to the table with omnipotence of the universe as a workable system.
While it acts within the rules it seems to have, and of which we are gradually
refining our understanding, it is clearly not showing any sign of omnipotence.
No, it can't. It can merely move mass from one place to another. Or do you think the earth suddenly gets more massive?
Ah, no, you accept that mass merely moves from one place to another.
Do you suppose that the movement of that mass contravenes the rules that we are trying to understand... or do you think the universe can suddenly push mass around faster-than-light, for example? Or in any way break the laws/rules on which the universe appears to be built?
What do you mean by "magic"?
Just because it has resolve does not make it meaningless...
There is a toaster on Mars?
A highly insignificant amount, but over years you might just have a small amount of change going on.... Remember our foreword thinking as time is most likely irrelevant to the universe. At-least I didn't suppose dinosaurs grew to their extreme size because millions of years ago the gravity was significantly less.
I compared what Sarkus thought of as omnipotence and claimed his definition was akin to magic. Your thoughts here are incorrect and off base. Sarkus asked for magic. I gave him reality.
learn one thing right now from this. I don't make assumptions, I allow you to make them. Your feverish mind, I can tell, makes plenty before you write. Do you hide them from the rest of us in an attempt to uphold to reasonable social standards? Is that why you like pointing out errors in logic? You find so many in your own mind it makes you feel as if your meaningless life has a purpose for just one singular instant when you strike down the common assumptions of unchallenging people.
What has resolve? You mean you're personally resolved to make inane claims? See Sarkus' reply.
Possibly. See here, or post 12 in this thread.
Got it, thanks. Over the years it happens at a moment's notice.
Is it just me or is there something slightly skewed about that?
Our foreword thinking? Someone wrote a preface?
What makes you think that time is "most likely irrelevant to the universe"? The universe is subject to time.
Ah right. You don't understand what omnipotent means.
Nope.
Wrong. You do little but. Insupportable ones usually.
Then you're incorrect and assuming again.
Um, no. I find the errors in logic in, mostly, your posts, not my own mind. And you're assuming again if you think my life is meaningless. But you are correct that you're "unchallenging".
Stop talking drivel.
If you think my "definition" of omnipotence was akin to magic then you clearly need to address what you consider to be omnipotence, and perhaps make use of a dictionary.
As for "I gave him reality"... our reality is not omnipotence. The fact that we are bound within this universe, bound by laws, prevents our reality by definition from being anywhere close to omnipotent.
So please stop making grandiose statements that are, to be honest, ridiculous.
It did when It started and most likely still does in the extremities. The second we see it acting outside what we already know we define it as natural.
The universe is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. Sounds like the definition to me.
Cheap trickery like the ploy I just used with the "dino-killer."
Irrelevant of the magic the matter used to get to earth, It would affect gravity.
Woah... slow down. The universe is is 99.9% light and .1% heavy
, 70% of statistics are made up, so how is the universe supposed to move faster than itself? If we can understand the laws of which it was built, (which we don't because no demonstration has ever been shown) Then we would know which laws follow the closest representation of the actual universe.
Apologies, I mistook you for someone being serious. Me bad.
But, you are assuming that you know god's mind. That is my point. If god exists then he is getting his way (its his/its design). To say he hasn't done something you regard (wrongly or rightly) as impossible doesn't disprove gods omnipotence.
There you go presuming.
You are presiuming again. Give me an example of something proven to exist that isn't physical?
You do not know how a chair could exist? Interesting. For starters chairs have been proven to exist already so the question doesn't really transfer across.
A god that created, is, influences the universe/ world/ multiverse etc. has no interaction with the physical? mmmm. Interesting presumption.
Are you going to outline your theory of god?
That's precisely the point - it remains unprovable and thus not a valid theory.
To say that God has expressed his omnipotence by creating the world, the universe etc is a belief and not demonstration of his omnipotence, but merely his demonstration (should he exist) of creating the world/universe.
I am not using this as disproof of anything, but of lack of proof of something.
There goes god exerting his preferences onto the physical world again.
IF god created a universe with worlds in it I would take THAT as proof he is omnipotent. Anyway, we are only wrangling over levels of power/terminology.
However, this thread isn't about proof. It's about conjecture that follows logic. And this is a side point.
Anything is possibly 'provable' in the future. I am looking for plausible modes of god.
I still like the first point you made