Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Normal · 08-03-2003, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
So the commonly-formulated Christian God cannot bring about the state-of-affairs, "The Christian God never performs an evil action."

I was under the impression the christian god was omnibenevolent as well.

Philosoft · 08-03-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
I was under the impression the christian god was omnibenevolent as well.

Even so, omnibenevolence applied reflexively to God appears to require some temporal aspect. That is, for all actions that God will perform, none of them will be evil. This certainly appears to be a case of God limiting his own power.

phil · 08-03-2003, 06:07 PM

Can an omnipotent god create a rock that he/she cannot lift?

There are so many things wrong with this question I don't think a book could describe them all. Here's a few ideas:

First of all, if a god just created a rock it would be weightless (assuming the rest of the universe was empty). For the rock to weigh anything you need a gravitational field. In order to have a gravitational field you need a mass of some kind.

I can lift six times more mass on the moon than I can on earth. A better question would be "Can an omnipotent god create a planet where the rocks on it would be too heavy for him/her to lift?"

Even this question has problems. Onmipotence means infinitely powerful, so our 'planet' in question would be one unbelievably massive black hole, infinitely massive, in fact.

So here we have 'god' standing on the event horizon of a black hole the size of the universe trying to lift a rock. Could he/she do it?

Sorry, but the rock would disintegrate and become part of the black hole before he/she could grab it (man! I didn't see that one coming

.) There are many more physical problems with this, but there's no need to delve into them.

I do find it quite humourous though how people can converse about rocks, infinity, and such for 4 pages and get nowhere. Don't get me wrong, it gave me some 'light' reading. 'rock' on!

-phil

long winded fool · 08-03-2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft

I disagree. Consider some corollary questions:

1. Can God create a rock too heavy for God to lift?
Corollary: Is there a logically possible being B that can create a rock too heavy for B to lift?

2. Can a being that can do anything not do something?
Corollary: Is there a logically possible being P that can do anything but can't do something?

Apparently, the original questions aren't necessarily talking about the same being, because B is a logically possible being, whereas P is not.

Further, "can do anything" is entirely too vague. If "create a rock too heavy to lift" is an acheivable state-of-affairs for B, then it follows that it is part of the actions that encompass "anything" and leads to a contradiction within question 2.

The key is that B is not logically possible if B is omnipotent and also necessarily not-P, which is the case when talking about omnipotence. In order for the paradox to work, P must be assumed true in order to form the argument about omnipotent B and then rejected after the conclusion is arrived at. The conclusion is logical so long as the thing which can create a rock too heavy to lift can also not be omnipotent. If it is both, it is P and can't exist. Therefore, either the omnipotent thing described is not-B (cannot create a rock too big for itself to lift) or it is P. Since it cannot be P, it must be not-B. This is not a contradiction.

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
It doesn't reject omnipotence if being B can create a rock too heavy for B to lift. If "create a rock too heavy to lift" is an acheivable state-of-affairs by some logically possible person, then it must also be acheivable by an omnipotent person.

Achievable! That was the word I was looking for! Thanks to Philosoft for correcting our silly vocabulary.

I must disagree. For omnipotence to be defined, there must be no achievable state-of-affairs that can ever occur outside of it's potence. This definition must be rejected for limitation to be considered an achievable state-of-affairs for something that is unlimited. Limitation is necessarily only achievable by not-unlimited things. Can an unlimited thing be limited? If it can't, is it limited?

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
But that's not what I asked. I asked whether it was bring about able. By excluded middle, we know that either it is or it isn't. A bring-about-able state of affairs is just a state of affairs that is brought about in some possible worlds.

Yes, it is an achievable state of affairs. It is possible for a thing to create a thing that is outside of its power to manipulate. It is also possible for a thing to be unintelligent and fall off a cliff to its death. It is also possible for a thing to be only a rock and nothing else. It is also possible for a thing to burst into flames against its will. So it eventually boils down to the syllogism: If it's possible to do something, it's impossible to be able to do everything.

I don't think this logically follows. Omnipotence might not exist, but it is erroneous to assume that because unlimited power can't be limited, it therefore can't be unlimited. Maybe unlimited power can't exist, but it's certainly not because it's 'not-limited!' This is part of the definition, just as God's inability to create a rock so big that he can't lift it is part of the definition of God's omnipotence. If he's omnipotent, he can't do it. If he's not, he can. See above to understand why this only sounds like a contradiction. Positing the absence of limit causes the unlimited thing to never be able to achieve limit. This makes sense. "Achieve limit" is not a statement of ability, it is a statement of inability.

xorbie · 08-04-2003, 09:25 AM

Quote:

But I would say the correct way to interpret that is that God cannot be omnipotent, because he would have to create infinity. There is a logically possible person who can create something she can't lift, without having to create infinity. So it looks as if God can't be omnipotent, because to be so, he would have to do something impossible.

And I would have to disagree. I think you are somehow confusing infinity with some actual number. It's not that God can't create infinty, it is that infinity does not actually exist. You simply cannot have an infinite amount of anything physical, for it would not fit in the universe. It is not possible, no matter how you look at it. And this does NOT mean God is not omnipotent. Let's look at the problem more closely:

Let R-I be the set of object's I can't lift, and R-G be the set of objects God can't lift. I can create many of the objects in R-I. R-G is by definition empty. So, have I done something God can't? No, I have not, you are simply playing semantics. God can still create any of the objects in R-I that I can create. His ability (or lack thereof) to create an object in the set R-G (which is, again, a null set) is not analagous to my ability to create an object from the set R-I. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but that seems to make sense to me.

Normal · 08-04-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Even so, omnibenevolence applied reflexively to God appears to require some temporal aspect. That is, for all actions that God will perform, none of them will be evil. This certainly appears to be a case of God limiting his own power.

I don't know about being "applied reflexively". I think the christian definition of god says omnibenevolence is part of god's nature itself (just like omnipotence), and that is why he doesn't commit evil actions.

Randy X · 08-08-2003, 12:32 PM

But God commits evil actions every minute, and every hour and everyday, and every year.It continues for centuries and eons.

How does logic correlate with God? Apparently God is impossible to percieve, yet there are those that understand his word.Why do certain individuals get the priviledge of this honour?

Is it possible that perhaps God is dead.Perhaps he isn't all powerful, but most powerful.In this case, is it not possible that he simply ceased to exist.Or perhaps the logic surrounding God is moot, and he only visits those that cannot persuade others.Perhaps someday he might decide to visit me, when i'll proceed to tell him to PISS OFF!

Regards

Captain Howdy · 08-08-2003, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool
This is true. However if the Super-Entity is actually the creator of the four dimensional universe, then the space-time continuum can be assumed to be relevant to "it" in some way. (At least by those bound to it.) The interesting thing is that, as evidenced by the analogy, there are an almost infinite number of other factors, infinitely incomprehensible to any consciousness limited to four dimensions, which are also relevant to the creator. Maybe God is, "gone" because he had to go to the office and had to leave his program on standby? Maybe Genesis occurred at seven o' clock in the super-dimensional morning, and the crucifixion at nine? Maybe His prophesied return is merely five o' clock in the super-dimensional evening?

But you're right. The harshness of the four dimensional reality may be foremost in our minds, and at the same time completely irrelevant to the creator without contradicting its omnibenevolence. This is actually somewhat evidenced in the Bible. Jesus said he'd abandon his entire flock (to the wolves, it is presumed) to save one lost lamb. This indicates to some extent that there is more to reality than suffering and death. That the existence of these two great four-dimensional evils is not incompatible with omnibenevolent "19-dimensional" good. That because we don't like it doesn't ultimately label it evil, if we base our concept of a creator Super-Entity on the God of the Bible. "His flock" supposedly goes to "heaven," whatever that is, when they are horribly torn apart by wolves. The "lost lamb," after a long and pleasant life away from the flock and a peaceful death, supposedly does not. If this were the case, for the sake of argument, it would be understandable from a "higher being" point of view, but not one which necessitates subjective, humanly understandable qualities and emotions on a being that cannot exist as a human by our very definitions of both 'human' and 'exist.'

Can someone PLEASE make this just a bit simpler?

Philosoft · 08-08-2003, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
I don't know about being "applied reflexively". I think the christian definition of god says omnibenevolence is part of god's nature itself (just like omnipotence), and that is why he doesn't commit evil actions.

I don't seem how it can be. Omnibenevolence, applied to a free willed being, appears to be a state wherein each decision made by said being must bring about the greatest good. Thus, God is only omnibenevolent until such time as the next decision is to be made. Should God then make the best decision, he continues to be omnibenevolent. However, to say that omnibenevolence is a property that precludes making a decision which brings about some level of goodness less than the maximum is to deny free will, as far as I can see.

Jobar · 08-08-2003, 11:06 PM

The problem lies, not in 'lift', but in 'create'.

Can God create a being equal to Himself?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2003, 06:07 PM	#93
phil Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 170	Can an omnipotent god create a rock that he/she cannot lift? There are so many things wrong with this question I don't think a book could describe them all. Here's a few ideas: First of all, if a god just created a rock it would be weightless (assuming the rest of the universe was empty). For the rock to weigh anything you need a gravitational field. In order to have a gravitational field you need a mass of some kind. I can lift six times more mass on the moon than I can on earth. A better question would be "Can an omnipotent god create a planet where the rocks on it would be too heavy for him/her to lift?" Even this question has problems. Onmipotence means infinitely powerful, so our 'planet' in question would be one unbelievably massive black hole, infinitely massive, in fact. So here we have 'god' standing on the event horizon of a black hole the size of the universe trying to lift a rock. Could he/she do it? Sorry, but the rock would disintegrate and become part of the black hole before he/she could grab it (man! I didn't see that one coming .) There are many more physical problems with this, but there's no need to delve into them. I do find it quite humourous though how people can converse about rocks, infinity, and such for 4 pages and get nowhere. Don't get me wrong, it gave me some 'light' reading. 'rock' on! -phil

08-08-2003, 12:32 PM	#97
Randy X Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South Africa Posts: 258	But God commits evil actions every minute, and every hour and everyday, and every year.It continues for centuries and eons. How does logic correlate with God? Apparently God is impossible to percieve, yet there are those that understand his word.Why do certain individuals get the priviledge of this honour? Is it possible that perhaps God is dead.Perhaps he isn't all powerful, but most powerful.In this case, is it not possible that he simply ceased to exist.Or perhaps the logic surrounding God is moot, and he only visits those that cannot persuade others.Perhaps someday he might decide to visit me, when i'll proceed to tell him to PISS OFF! Regards

08-08-2003, 11:06 PM	#100
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	The problem lies, not in 'lift', but in 'create'. Can God create a being equal to Himself?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.