Is omnipotence self-contradictory

[Rafajafar]

Ah, an attack against external causation is nothing new. *yawn* i think plato solved it sweetie. ucciscore is doing a good job holding rafa's hand, i must say.

I've never met a chick before in my life who had such a raging case of penis envy.

Lemme guess, middle child with an older sibling who either achieved well or was praised more for their achievments than your over-achievements?

Eh, it was a blind shot in the dark.

[trix]

i heard that penis envy arises from the desire to always have a penis in you, so you get girls who are wild about sex having sever cases of penis envy. if this is the case, i wouldn't dismiss the diagnosis.

as for the rest, a pure shot in the dark that missed horribly.

i speak only the truth in my earlier post. well, at least de'trop supports you.

[Metavoid]

i heard that penis envy arises from the desire to always have a penis in you, so you get girls who are wild about sex having sever cases of penis envy. if this is the case, i wouldn't dismiss the diagnosis.

Penis envy, apparently, comes from incestuous father/daughter desires. I wouldn't worry, even most Freudians think penis envy is rubbish. But if you really want one, make one....
My apologies for the digression.

[Uccisore]

First off, if god is subject to maximal degree of power within reason, the he is also subject to cause and effect. Why? Because to defy apparent cause and effect principles would be to defy all rationality.

I'm sorry to sound like a 6th grade math teacher, but you need to show your work on that one. Saying that it's hard for us to concieve of an uncaused Being is one thing, saying it's a logical impossibility on the level of a square circle is another. I'm not saying you're wrong about this, I'm saying I'm not willing to take it for granted. Besides, if an uncaused Being is so irrational, and the only way to be an uncaused being is through the type of omnipotence you are talking about, then that's just another argument against an 'infinite' conception of omnipotence, right?

The ontological proof meant that you could not conceive of anything greater than god. He's the perfect perfection. However, if God is subject to reason, he is a slave to reason, as well. This, in my mind, is a flaw, and therefore, I can percieve of a God that is slave to no one.

I think you are equivocating a bit there. Picturing a God that is a 'slave to no one' is possible, as far as that goes, but what you need to do is concieve a God capable of performing logical impossibilities. How can you do that without first concieving the impossibilities themselves, and how can you do that at all? I maintain that a Being capable of performing everything logically possible is the most powerful Being that can be concieved of.

God can create, it is not outside reason to define God such that he can create himself, yes?

Off the cuff, I'd say 'no', actually. I think two all-powerful, omnipresent, unrestricted Beings is an impossibility, as they would have to restrict each other in terms of control over their environment, knowledge, or locality in order to actually be two discrete beings. Again, my argument is twofold:
1) God can't do anything that is logically impossible, or which would inevitably lead to a logical impossibility.
2) This is actually not a restriction at all, since nothing logically impossible can exist or be concieved of.

[Rafajafar]

I'm sorry to sound like a 6th grade math teacher, but you need to show your work on that one. Saying that it's hard for us to concieve of an uncaused Being is one thing, saying it's a logical impossibility on the level of a square circle is another. I'm not saying you're wrong about this, I'm saying I'm not willing to take it for granted. Besides, if an uncaused Being is so irrational, and the only way to be an uncaused being is through the type of omnipotence you are talking about, then that's just another argument against an 'infinite' conception of omnipotence, right?

First off, don't use the word infinite. I hate that word. It's a direction, it's not an object. Use it as a method, not an object. When you say "infinite conception of omnipotence", that means jack to me... seriously, I can't understand what you're saying when you say that.

Second.... causality is one of the basic premises of all logic. Even if direct causality does not exist, there is an overiding function that relates one event to another. Recent mathematical paradigms place this in the 5th dimension (in other words, the R^5 dimension actually contains all of causality in our R^4 and down perception). Let me ask you, if it is rational that there could be an uncaused cause, then how can you be certain that anything is actually caused? It really laughs in the face of scientific thought, yes? Hell, even symbolic logic can be broken down to the if-then function. Yes! If->then is a cause->effect relationship. If you want to say that something can be uncaused, all of logic fails.

I think you are equivocating a bit there. Picturing a God that is a 'slave to no one' is possible, as far as that goes, but what you need to do is concieve a God capable of performing logical impossibilities. How can you do that without first concieving the impossibilities themselves, and how can you do that at all? I maintain that a Being capable of performing everything logically possible is the most powerful Being that can be concieved of.

You can maintain that all you want, but it's still flawed, no matter what your ego wills you to think. The ontological proof states that, by definition, god MUST exist. However, God's definition includes the formal definition of omnipotence. If you change what omnipotence means, he's no longer all-powerful; you're redefining god, you're placing limits on god. He is no longer "that which none greater can be concieved" because I can concieve of something able to make circular squares. The concept of logical impossibilites does not denote their existence (in fact, quite the contrary), so I fail to see what bearing that has on anything. The ontological argument states the opposite: that the concept of god is enough justification for his existence. I can concieve of a being able to do everything logically possible, including breaking the laws of logic (which is logically possible, and essential, for a truly omnipotent being...and for the definition of god to be sufficient).

Off the cuff, I'd say 'no', actually. I think two all-powerful, omnipresent, unrestricted Beings is an impossibility, as they would have to restrict each other in terms of control over their environment, knowledge, or locality in order to actually be two discrete beings. Again, my argument is twofold:
1) God can't do anything that is logically impossible, or which would inevitably lead to a logical impossibility.
2) This is actually not a restriction at all, since nothing logically impossible can exist or be concieved of.

No no no, that's the problem.... it IS logically possible for god to create himself. But once he does that, he creates a logical impossibility. See? There's nothing causal issues with god creating himself. There's no circular squares there... it's just simple addition... one god plush one god equals two gods. The problem isn't the action of creation, the problem is what happens after creation. See the dilema? Even within reason, god has the ability to break reason. Your #1 is just placing further restrictions on god.

You started out stating that my Proof That God Is Either Humane or Does Not Exist was incorrect, yet you've done a great job proving him humane. What, exactly, was your point?

As for #2 of what you said up above. I can concieve of logical impossibilities. Can't you? Hell, I used to disprove such impossibilites every other day in logic class a couple years ago. Yes, they can be concieved of, they just never can actually happen.

[Uccisore]

First off, don't use the word infinite. I hate that word. It's a direction, it's not an object. Use it as a method, not an object. When you say "infinite conception of omnipotence", that means jack to me... seriously, I can't understand what you're saying when you say that.

I'm not a fan of it either, but the conversation seems to require it.

Let me ask you, if it is rational that there could be an uncaused cause, then how can you be certain that anything is actually caused? It really laughs in the face of scientific thought, yes? Hell, even symbolic logic can be broken down to the if-then function. Yes! If->then is a cause->effect relationship. If you want to say that something can be uncaused, all of logic fails.

Thanks for spelling that out for me. That's all fine with me, I won't disagree with any of it. Point is, if all that I've just quoted from you is true, then the Cosmological argument fails regardless of what take on omnipotence you have, so why bring it up?

You can maintain that all you want, but it's still flawed, no matter what your ego wills you to think. The ontological proof states that, by definition, god MUST exist. However, God's definition includes the formal definition of omnipotence. If you change what omnipotence means, he's no longer all-powerful; you're redefining god, you're placing limits on god.

Saying God can only do the logically possible is not placing a limit on God, because only the logically possible exists in the first place. Illogical things are just language games. If what you're saying is true, then I can come up with a new term, 'floog', define it as "The thing God can't do" and I have unrefutable proof that there's something God can't do- floog. Who cares if it doesn't strictly mean anything?
We can't restrict God through clever word usage, and that's all this talk about square circles and God creating Himself is- word games that don't refer to anything. Jibber Jabber. You can't think of logical impossibilities as being a series of toys in a box that God isn't allowed to play with, or greyed-out options on a Window's task bar. There's no such thing as a logical impossibility, in and of itself, there's just word-strings that appear to mean stuff but don't.

I can concieve of something able to make circular squares.

Well, that's the core of our disagreement, then. I don't believe that you can. How do you concieve of an ability, with no conception of the performace or product that that ability (since it's impossible, and thus inconcievable)?

I can concieve of a being able to do everything logically possible, including breaking the laws of logic

So, breaking the laws of logic is logically possible? I really don't follow now.

No no no, that's the problem.... it IS logically possible for god to create himself. But once he does that, he creates a logical impossibility. See?

I don't think you can seperate the act from the product that way. You may as well say "It's possible to draw on a piece of paper, therefore I can draw a square circle with no violation of logic...it's not until it's created that the violation occurs" which isn't true. Yes, God can make stuff, but He can't make another Being identicle to Him because it conflicts with His definition.

I can concieve of logical impossibilities. Can't you?

Nope. I can picture a string of words in my head that spell out a logical impossibilty, but I can have no conception of what the impossibility would 'look' like. Again, I can't see a square circle in my head, or a rock so big that God can't lift it. I suppose I can imagine an old man with flowing robes snapping his fingers, making a rock appear, and then failing to lift it, but that's not right at all. Give me an example of a logical impossibility that I should be able to conceptualize.

[Rafajafar]

Let me ask you, if it is rational that there could be an uncaused cause, then how can you be certain that anything is actually caused? It really laughs in the face of scientific thought, yes? Hell, even symbolic logic can be broken down to the if-then function. Yes! If->then is a cause->effect relationship. If you want to say that something can be uncaused, all of logic fails.

Thanks for spelling that out for me. That's all fine with me, I won't disagree with any of it. Point is, if all that I've just quoted from you is true, then the Cosmological argument fails regardless of what take on omnipotence you have, so why bring it up?

Well excuuuuuseee me. I thought you were trying to PROVE something here. So I decided to show you how none of the proofs are helped much by your claim. God forbid I bring something up .

Saying God can only do the logically possible is not placing a limit on God, because only the logically possible exists in the first place. Illogical things are just language games. If what you're saying is true, then I can come up with a new term, 'floog', define it as "The thing God can't do" and I have unrefutable proof that there's something God can't do- floog. Who cares if it doesn't strictly mean anything?
We can't restrict God through clever word usage, and that's all this talk about square circles and God creating Himself is- word games that don't refer to anything. Jibber Jabber. You can't think of logical impossibilities as being a series of toys in a box that God isn't allowed to play with, or greyed-out options on a Window's task bar. There's no such thing as a logical impossibility, in and of itself, there's just word-strings that appear to mean stuff but don't.

Well, let me ask you again. If only the logically possible exists, then how did YOUR god create the universe? Uh ohh!!! Let me ask you, who created logic? Where did the person who create logic come from?

I'll elaborate on this further in a moment.

I can concieve of something able to make circular squares.

Well, that's the core of our disagreement, then. I don't believe that you can. How do you concieve of an ability, with no conception of the performace or product that that ability (since it's impossible, and thus inconcievable)?

I most certainly can. Can you concieve of an uncaused cause? People have been concieving such things for all of man's existence. Understand where I'm getting with this? Things that are impossible are not inconcievable. For instance, I can concieve of you flying through my screen, dressed in green leotards with a green ring on your finger, surrounding me with a bubble and taking me to see The Watchers so they can explain to me God's purpose. I'm willing to call that impossible, aren't you? I'm not willing to call it inconcievable. Don't limit MY imagination such that I cannot concieve of the impossible. Can I see a circular square in my head... not quite. But I know I'd know one if I'd see it. That's the key.

I can concieve of a being able to do everything logically possible, including breaking the laws of logic

So, breaking the laws of logic is logically possible? I really don't follow now.

Oh my yes. It is very logical to state that it is possible to break the laws of logic. Why? Logic functions on absolutes. In other words, you could be a complex Eliza machine whose purpose is to contradict everything I say. I haven't proven you're not, so logically, the possibility exists. Inductively, it's rather unsound. Deductively, though, very logically possible, and indeterminate.

Now, lets look at God. I don't know he doesn't exist, because I can't. Why can't I? Logic wont allow me to prove anything's non-existence deductively! It just wont, because there's always something that is unchecked, there's always a caveat. On the same line, I can't prove that there isn't something that is able to defy the laws of logic. This is a logical possibility...although undesireable. It's still possible... I don't mean this as an insult, because I know you're capable, but an intro to logic class would do you a lot of good.

No no no, that's the problem.... it IS logically possible for god to create himself. But once he does that, he creates a logical impossibility. See?

I don't think you can seperate the act from the product that way. You may as well say "It's possible to draw on a piece of paper, therefore I can draw a square circle with no violation of logic...it's not until it's created that the violation occurs" which isn't true. Yes, God can make stuff, but He can't make another Being identicle to Him because it conflicts with His definition.

Yes, well this is an existential problem, isn't it? If existence preceeds essense, then the flaw would be in the essense of the second god. But he would exist before he was actually "corporeal" (for whatever that word is worth). Therefore, the problem is not in possessing the ability to create existence, the problem is in the essense of the creation and the creator. Therefore, it's not illogical to create something whose essense contradicts your own. You create existence, the essense comes later.

I can concieve of logical impossibilities. Can't you?

Nope. I can picture a string of words in my head that spell out a logical impossibilty, but I can have no conception of what the impossibility would 'look' like. Again, I can't see a square circle in my head, or a rock so big that God can't lift it. I suppose I can imagine an old man with flowing robes snapping his fingers, making a rock appear, and then failing to lift it, but that's not right at all. Give me an example of a logical impossibility that I should be able to conceptualize.

Infinity.

[Uccisore]

Well excuuuuuseee me. I thought you were trying to PROVE something here. So I decided to show you how none of the proofs are helped much by your claim. God forbid I bring something up.

Yeah, tell me about it. What's up with you, anyways? You're always sayin stuff. Anyway, I guess we agree that what you've said about the cosmological argument is no special refuter for my version of omnipotence.

Can you concieve of an uncaused cause? People have been concieving such things for all of man's existence. Understand where I'm getting with this? Things that are impossible are not inconcievable. For instance, I can concieve of you flying through my screen, dressed in green leotards with a green ring on your finger, surrounding me with a bubble and taking me to see The Watchers so they can explain to me God's purpose

Sure, but things like unicorns and me being the Green Lantern aren't logical impossibilities- they are merely untrue. Can you picture me surrounding you with a sphereical bubble which is at the same time and in the same sense also a cube? No, because that is a logical impossibility. Huge difference.

Logic functions on absolutes. In other words, you could be a complex Eliza machine whose purpose is to contradict everything I say. I haven't proven you're not, so logically, the possibility exists. Inductively, it's rather unsound. Deductively, though, very logically possible, and indeterminate.

But me being an Eliza machine isn't a logical impossibility in the first place.

I can't prove that there isn't something that is able to defy the laws of logic. This is a logical possibility...although undesireable.

I had to think about that a while, that's a good point. I can't prove that nothing can violate the laws of logic, because I can't prove the non-existence of a thing. However, it seems to me that's not the same as saying that breaking the laws of logic is logically possible.What you've shown, it seems to me, is a very tweaked way of saying,
"We have no way of knowing for certain if the laws of logic apply absolutely"
which is implicit when we take logical laws as an assumption. However, when we say that violating the laws of logic is impossible, what we're technically saying is that violating the laws of logic is impossible according to the laws of logic, which is still true.
Did that make sense?

It's still possible... I don't mean this as an insult, because I know you're capable, but an intro to logic class would do you a lot of good.

I know, I'm working on it.

Therefore, it's not illogical to create something whose essense contradicts your own. You create existence, the essense comes later.

Well, there's another factor in this too, in that the process of God A creating God B changes the nature of God A by restricing his power. So the conflict lies in more than just God B being an impossible thing, but rather God A becoming an impossible thing in the process as well. So if you don't mind the concession "..but then he wouldn't be God anymore", then yes, perhaps God could create a duplicate of himself in the sense that you can get two duplicate 5's from a 10.

Infinity.

Well, isn't that a sticky wicket. Isn't infinity a material impossibility and not a logical impossibilty? Even still, I'm not sure t all I can conceptualize it. I define it, but that's not the same.

[chanbengchin]

... how can you be certain that anything is actually caused?

We cannot and probably never will. (Not unless, I suppose, such a one who is the Causer tells us so, and we are able to understand him.)

Now to add some views. I think the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, and similarly "limited-potence" omnipotence.

A simple example: there are such things as one infinite set being greater than another. (See here for example.) I still cannot imagine what this means. And we are talking about things humanly discernable with thoughts. What about things humanly undiscernible or even unimaginable?

[Rafajafar]

... how can you be certain that anything is actually caused?

We cannot and probably never will. (Not unless, I suppose, such a one who is the Causer tells us so, and we are able to understand him.)

Now to add some views. I think the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, and similarly "limited-potence" omnipotence.

A simple example: there are such things as one infinite set being greater than another. (See here for example.) I still cannot imagine what this means. And we are talking about things humanly discernable with thoughts. What about things humanly undiscernible or even unimaginable?

Well, I claim I can understand infinity.

Here's how.

Imagine yourself walking in a circle. It doesn't matter how large a radius the circle is, just picture the feeling of walking in a circle. Now, imagine telling yourself that you cannot stop walking until you get to the end of the circle.

If you keep going in that direction, you're going towards positive infinity. It's a "direction". It is nothing more. If you were to turn around and go in the opposite direction you were in a vain attempt to get to the begining of the circle, you're going towards negative infinity. This is this magical "infinite" everyone talks about. It's not a number, it's a property of our number system.

I can feel this direction, I can see this direction. It's a matter of one up-ing yourself. Anyone who says, "You cannot conceive of the infinite." is correct only in so far as saying, "You cannot conceive of the end of a circle."

That's why infinity is something you can concieve of and the infinite is not. The infinite doesn't exist. If it did exist, it would be final, it would have an end...

oh my. If god is defined as infinite, then he cannot exist by reasons of logic as existence is finite.

I...I'll have to sit on that.

[Uccisore]

Imagine yourself walking in a circle. It doesn't matter how large a radius the circle is, just picture the feeling of walking in a circle. Now, imagine telling yourself that you cannot stop walking until you get to the end of the circle.

As you're talking about infinity here, it has nothing to do with the infinite as a logical impossibility- and you saying you can picture a conceptualize a logical possibility was false. When the person you are picturing walking around in circles has walked around forever, let me know, because only then will you have conceptualized infinity. You may as well conceptualize a square circle by picturing a hexagon.
As that relates to the ontological argument, all I have to say is that a maximally powerful God has "the ability to do what he wants", and as long as in any particular situation only a finite amount of power is required, the entire question of whether his power is infinite is dodged- but it compares to what you've done here. Picture a God making rocks, and each rock he makes is slightly bigger than the last. He can't stop until makes 'a rock greater than which cannot be concieved'. Is there such a thing as a biggest possible rock? Who cares- it's infinite power as a direction, right? You can say the same thing for the enternal nature of God- He exists now, into the past, and into the future in both directions as far as existence continues to go. Any particular distance back or forward, I'm only envisioning a finite amount of time, so does that mean I've conceptualized infinity as a potentially endless string of moments?

[Rafajafar]

From the post you were replying to:

Well, I claim I can understand infinity.

That's why infinity is something you can concieve of and the infinite is not.

Just make sure you know the difference. "The Infinite" is something impossible. It's the "end" of a circle". It is a logical impossibility that doesn't exist. It is not a number.

Infinity is the cardinality of the Natural Numbers. It's a logical impossibility as well, but one that can be conceptualized. (see: perpetual kinematic energy)

and you saying you can picture a conceptualize a logical possibility was false. When the person you are picturing walking around in circles has walked around forever, let me know, because only then will you have conceptualized infinity.

(sic)

I'm assuming you mean "impossibility" instead of "possibility".

I can conceptualize infinity, I cannot conceptualize the infinite. The infinite cannot exist through reason. Reason is finite, otherwise, we could never say anything was "unreasonable".

Infinity...my dear... is a direction. I can conceptualize that just fine. It's an unatainable goal.

He exists now, into the past, and into the future in both directions as far as existence continues to go. Any particular distance back or forward, I'm only envisioning a finite amount of time, so does that mean I've conceptualized infinity as a potentially endless string of moments?

Oh for christ's...or whoever's sake.

What, pray tell, created time?

What, pray tell, created god?

What, pray tell, created apparent causation (creation)?

Your answer is God.

If god exists within reason, god cannot exist outside of causation.

God must exist outside of causation to create causation.

God, by your IMMENSLY FLAWED definition of "omnipotence", is the creator of nothing.

Therefore, God is Superman. Immortal, Invincible, a Savior, but not THE ANSWER to ANYTHING.

To say something always exists is to say time always existed.

To say time always existed is to say that causation always existed.

To say that causation always existed means that reality always existed.

To say reality always existed is to say that nothing created the universe.

To say that nothing created the universe is to deny apparent causality patterns.

Do you think you weren't created by nothing, you were created by nothing, or you weren't not created by something?

DO YOU SEE THE FLAW?

[chanbengchin]

oh my. If god is defined as infinite, then he cannot exist by reasons of logic as existence is finite.

God is outside the system of logic. Even if he is by Goedel incompleteness principle you may not be able to know or prove it. Can a house discern its architect? Can a jar its potter? Or Microsoft, Bill Gates?

And then again what I quoted you said may not be true, eg is existence finite?

We do not even know whether time is finite. You can always conceive of a moment after the last moment and so on, but it is also conceivable that there can be no next moment after the last, and time ceasing. It is as good a hypothesis as infinite time given our state of knowledge today. Therefore we cannot even know whether time is infinite or not. (But if you know the Creator of Time, then you know, by faith in what he said, that time on earth is finite.)

And finally I do not agree with you that the notion of infinity is that of a "direction". (You circle example mixed it up with another another concept, namely that of boundedness.)

Mathematically, infiniteness is defined as that property of a system where you can always find a part of the system "greater" than any part of the system, however "greater" is defined, eg "greater" could mean longer, heavier, larger, bigger, more good, more wicked, etc.

Actually I am pretty uncomfortable here, for infinity is what we defined it to be. I am not sure how well it reflects or what correlation it has with reality. It may be that the finite can never understand the infinite.

[Rafajafar]

oh my. If god is defined as infinite, then he cannot exist by reasons of logic as existence is finite.

God is outside the system of logic. Even if he is by Goedel incompleteness principle you may not be able to know or prove it. Can a house discern its architect? Can a jar its potter? Or Microsoft, Bill Gates?

Yeah, but that's a flawed argument. A house, a jar, or Microsoft can't conceive of themselves, let alone their creators.

And then again what I quoted you said may not be true, eg is existence finite?

Existence is a finite set that is composed of everything that "exists". Anything that does not exist is another set that is exclusive of existence, and both are within another set of what can exist, potentially. Outside of this set is everything that can not exist within reason. Make a Venn Diagram for yourself.

If god exists, he's zero percent potential and one hundred percent actual. This means he's no longer infinite. God would have to be everything that exists and everything that does not exist at the same time.

We do not even know whether time is finite. You can always conceive of a moment after the last moment and so on, but it is also conceivable that there can be no next moment after the last, and time ceasing.

Actually, we know time is finite in that we can calculate the area underneath it's curve via happy go lucky integration. We also know that time is not 1-to-1 because of the curvelinear properties of spacetime. This being the case, yes, time has a begining and end.

It's proven.

And finally I do not agree with you that the notion of infinity is that of a "direction". (You circle example mixed it up with another another concept, namely that of boundedness.)

Sorry to be rude, but tough shit. Go tell a real mathematician that and get reamed harder than you ever have before in your life. I don't have the energy to explain it to you any more than I already have. The circle example is actually a well known example that most teachers use in class. Sorry if you disagree with hundreds of years of mathematics. Perhaps you can change it. That'd be neato. Until you do, I don't have much to say to you.

Mathematically, infiniteness is defined as that property of a system where you can always find a part of the system "greater" than any part of the system, however "greater" is defined, eg "greater" could mean longer, heavier, larger, bigger, more good, more wicked, etc.

No, mathematically it's defined as the cardinality of the natural numbers. It's also defined as the cardinality of the rational numbers between the closed set zero and one. Same thing, really, though.

Actually I am pretty uncomfortable here, for infinity is what we defined it to be. I am not sure how well or what correlation it has with reality. It may be that the infinite can never understand the infinite.

Infinite doesn't exist. Heh.

[Uccisore]

Infinity...my dear... is a direction. I can conceptualize that just fine. It's an unatainable goal.

Well, if that's how you need to define it than I guess so. What would be the point over arguing the definitions of words? I take this for granted a little further down, though. If it is proper to think of infinity as a direction, then there's no real difference between a God with infinite power and a God with 'enough power'.

If god exists within reason, god cannot exist outside of causation.

Strictly speaking, things are not caused. Events are caused. Things just play their part in those causes and effects. The event that you would be referring to here would be the creation or beginning of God. Certainly, the Beginning of the existence of God would have to exist within causation, for all the reasons you've said and more. The idea here, is that "The Beginning of God" is a non-event. It never happened. God does exist within causation as everything else does- He does things which affect reality, and (I believe) reality affects Him. Saying that everything must have a beginning in order to be part of causation isn't true.

To say something always exists is to say time always existed.

Well, what can 'always' mean other than 'throughout all of time'? Time existed throughout all time? Sure. Was there a 'time before time existed'? Of course not.
Skipping down:

To say reality always existed is to say that nothing created the universe.

No, it's not, if reality was created along with time by an event which occured at the beginning of time. Nothing ludicrous here- standard theology.

DO YOU SEE THE FLAW?

Many, yes.

[Rafajafar]

I have no idea which flaws you see, yours or the ones you want to have in mine but arent there.

There is a difference with a god with the power to one-up everything and a god who cannot one-up everything, just everything except himself without also destroying himself (which is ok).

The difference is one god could make a rock that he could not lift, and the other could not make himself without dying.

Well, what can 'always' mean other than 'throughout all of time'? Time existed throughout all time? Sure. Was there a 'time before time existed'? Of course not.

This makes sense, bud. Here's how. A line, in order to move, must go through a plane.

A plane, in order to move, must go through space.

Space, in order to change, must go through time.

Time, in order to change, must go through causation (R5).

Quote:
To say reality always existed is to say that nothing created the universe.

----------------------
No, it's not, if reality was created along with time by an event which occured at the beginning of time. Nothing ludicrous here- standard theology.

Are you saying that reality and the universe are separable?

[Uccisore]

There is a difference with a god with the power to one-up everything and a god who cannot one-up everything, just everything except himself without also destroying himself (which is ok).

Yes. I would consider the former to be a more accurate description of how God must be, because being able to one-up oneself seems impossible for an already maximally-powerful Being. If he's already as powerful as something can possibly be, becoming yet more powerful would be impossible by definition, right? As far as creating another one of Himself, the answer depends on what you allow for being God's 'self'. God could limit His own power in order to create another Being with that same new amount of power, I suppose. Which Talmud scholar from back in the day said that God created the universe from a portion of Himself? It's up to you if you think it's appropriate to call those two new Beings 'God's anymore. I don't think I would.

The difference is one god could make a rock that he could not lift, and the other could not make himself without dying.

Two limited Gods, in other words- one apparently can't lift certain rocks, the other that has the capacity to destroy Himself.

Are you saying that reality and the universe are separable?

I'm saying that 'always' can only apply to the existence of time. It need not imply infinity if time itself had a beginning. If time was created, and the universe (other than God) was created along with it, then it would be true to say that the universe has always existed, and also that it was created.
This might lead back to the idea of God existing 'before' He created time, and the confusion this creates since 'before' technically doesn't mean anything without the existence of time, and therein lies the limits of my brainpower. I can't say I can comprehend such a thing, but I also haven't seen it shown as a rigorous contradiction either.

[chanbengchin]

A house, a jar, or Microsoft can't conceive of themselves, let alone their creators.

True.

That does not mean we can conceive of God either.

Conception is human, not of non living things. But just as a house or a jar or Microsoft do not have the capacity for conception, are there certain faculties that humans do not have that God have, and there is no way we can know, just as there is no way a jar can know that it can't think?

[Rafajafar]

A house, a jar, or Microsoft can't conceive of themselves, let alone their creators.

True.

That does not mean we can conceive of God either.

Conception is human, not of non living things. But just as a house or a jar or Microsoft do not have the capacity for conception, are there certain faculties that humans do not have that God have, and there is no way we can know, just as there is no way a jar can know that it can't think?

I think this is an unanswerable question as it is wholly dependant on the nature of god...

We're not even sure it exists let alone what its nature is.

But that was my argument to Ucciscore. Does a jar know what the potter was thinking when it made the pot? No, a pot doesn't think anything. The comparison is flawed.

[chanbengchin]

I think this is an unanswerable question ...

Lets think of a set of things conceivable, call C. Another of things unconceivable, ~C (a strange notion: conceiving the unconceivable, but may not be a contradiction, as we are not conceiving the unconceivables but just such a collection, and a collection of anything is conceivable.)

What then is the union , C U ~C? What, conceptualy, is such a thing?

Now let us think of a set of things true, T, in the sense that they exists, or ontologically consistent, and another that is not true, or ~T.

Again what is the meaning of the union, T U ~T?

Let superimposed the unions, (C U ~C) and (T U ~T).

Certainly the intersections, C ^ T, C ^ ~T, ~C ^ T, ~C ^ ~T, are not necessarily empty sets.

And thus there can be things unconceivable, that are conceivably true, and things conceivable that are conceivably false. And things unconceivable are by definition not accessible to the human consciousness or intellect at all. And God can be such an unconceivable but true thing.

Thus there is no grounds philosophically speaking to say that just because we cannot know or conceive of a thing it is not true or does not exist.

Now an interesting question: is (C U ~C) = (T U ~T)?

[chanbengchin]

Another of conceiving omnipotence, apart from the idea of the infinite or infinity, is the notion of chance or probability.

If I throw a dice and would pay 1000 your bet if you guess rightly the upward facing face, how would you bet?

Now if I am omnipotent, what is the difference?

Indeed if I can make a call on all such stochastic events, such as the movements of Wall Street, or the outcome of the next presidential election in the US, or the outcome of every sport played in the world, I can truly be god!

To God there is no such thing as probability, which is the degree of belief of an occurrence of a future event (or unknown event).

[Rafajafar]

I think this is an unanswerable question ...

Lets think of a set of things conceivable, call C. Another of things unconceivable, ~C (a strange notion: conceiving the unconceivable, but may not be a contradiction, as we are not conceiving the unconceivables but just such a collection, and a collection of anything is conceivable.)

What then is the union , C U ~C? What, conceptualy, is such a thing?

It's the universal set. Your point?

Let's take the universal set and union it with everything not in the universal set. That's a better question. What is that?

Now let us think of a set of things true, T, in the sense that they exists, or ontologically consistent, and another that is not true, or ~T.

Again what is the meaning of the union, T U ~T?

The union of anything and its compliment is always the universal set.

Let superimposed the unions, (C U ~C) and (T U ~T).

Certainly the intersections, C ^ T, C ^ ~T, ~C ^ T, ~C ^ ~T, are not necessarily empty sets.

The intersection between all things concievable and all things true it our reality at the moment.

The intersection between all things concievable but not true is called rational fantasy.

The intersection between all things inconcievable but true is an empty set, by dependant on the corrolary that all things that are true are also concievable in one form or another by man. (Rationalist thinking... self defeating to consider otherwise).

The intersection between all things inconcievable and not true is still fantasy, but reserved for an alternate fantasy realm where the laws of reality are not the same as ours (a realm that can neither be proven to have existed or not to have exist, but if it does exist, would contradict ours so deeply that our reality would not be related in any fashion.

One is, indeed, an empty NULL set.

And thus there can be things unconceivable, that are conceivably true, and things conceivable that are conceivably false.

Yes, but there is nothing inconcievable that is true. It would contradict man's rationatlity, which is "undesireable".

And things unconceivable are by definition not accessible to the human consciousness or intellect at all. And God can be such an unconceivable but true thing.

Yes, and if such things are in existence, then all talk of rationalizing God (as this conversation is doing), is moot.

See, I'm agnostic. This means, I don't think God doesn't exist. It does mean that I feel that I don't have the answer, and am on a search to know. I'm not saying that god doesn't exist (although, I proposed an idea that he may, possibly, not exist by ontological definition...but this is unexplored by me). I will give to the idea that he MAY exist...

However, I will not say that he does exist. This is what THIS particular conversation is about.

Thus there is no grounds philosophically speaking to say that just because we cannot know or conceive of a thing it is not true or does not exist.

That's a basic corrolary in rationalist thought... you cannot prove something's non-existence with absolute certainty.

Now an interesting question: is (C U ~C) = (T U ~T)?

Yes it does... well.. they are both one-to-one and onto each other. Plus as they approach the infinite (an impossible concept, but a possible direction), they have the same range which is all complex reals.

This leads me to state that the Universal Set derived from {C U `C} is the same as the Universal Set derived from {T U `T}.

However, I'm not as clear on the properties of the Universal Set as I should be.[/img]

[chanbengchin]

.. all things that are true are also concievable ...

This is a BIG claim. Essentially you are say that T => C, ie T is a subset of C.

I would rather think that there are T^~C is NOT an empty set, without any contradiction whatsoever to all that is known.

And by definition I cannot know this set, although, obviously, we can talk about it.

You say if T^~C is not an empty set then it contradict man's "rationality". Why this is so? What is it in man's "rationality" that guarantees that he can know ALL truths?

I will now make a BIG claim of my own, namely that we can get some glimpse of elements in the set {T^~C} via revelation.

... all talk of rationalizing God (as this conversation is doing), is moot.

Perhaps. But not if we factor in revelation, such as God entering into our conceivable world itself, ie making some elements of ~C to be C.

What is the "universe" set form by C U ~C? Reality? as real as real is, and not necessary only that conceivable today. For example until quantum mechanics came along could you even consider the possibility of parallel universes real?

I am still not sure if {C U ~C}={T U ~T} ...

[Rafajafar]

.. all things that are true are also concievable ...

This is a BIG claim. Essentially you are say that T => C, ie T is a subset of C.

They are.

I would rather think that there are T^~C is NOT an empty set, without any contradiction whatsoever to all that is known.

And by definition I cannot know this set, although, obviously, we can talk about it.

We can talk about the set, but the set is not the same thing as its elements. Its elements cannot be explained or talked about by man.

You have every right to claim that these things can exist, but to Rationalists, this is gibberish.

Man has to be able to understand everything in the universe, otherwise, we have no point in discussing such ideas.

You say if T^~C is not an empty set then it contradict man's "rationality". Why this is so? What is it in man's "rationality" that guarantees that he can know ALL truths?

Because, if we can't know all truths, we cannot fully understand ANYTHING because it adds a factor of probability into even the most simple discussion. I have to believe that everything can be rationally proven and that all things rational are a subset of all things concievable.

I will now make a BIG claim of my own, namely that we can get some glimpse of elements in the set {T^~C} via revelation.

Stop mystifying scientific thought. It trivializes the hard work put into it.

... all talk of rationalizing God (as this conversation is doing), is moot.

Perhaps. But not if we factor in revelation, such as God entering into our conceivable world itself, ie making some elements of ~C to be C.

So, you believe god CAN make a rock so large he couldn't lift it? That's exactly what is means to make some elements of C` to be C.

What is the "universe" set form by C U ~C? Reality? as real as real is, and not necessary only that conceivable today. For example until quantum mechanics came along could you even consider the possibility of parallel universes real?

Yes, yes you could. Because the idea has been around since the 40's. This is all prior to its proof (which did NOT happen with quantum mechanics... superstring theory, bro).

In fact, if you want to consider every work of fiction as a parrellel universe, you can say man has been considering "other worlds where magiks are real and elves roam amongst man," for all time.

I am still not sure if {C U ~C}={T U ~T} ...

Neither am I, but I'm pretty sure the Universal Set (U) is equal to itself..

ie: ((U) = (U) U (U) = (U)) = (U)

[chanbengchin]

I will now make a BIG claim of my own, namely that we can get some glimpse of elements in the set {T^~C} via revelation.

Stop mystifying scientific thought. It trivializes the hard work put into it.

Is a fact mystical?