First cause

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm afraid your reference is a bit too obscure for me. A little help, please.

A more traditional view of god than God.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'm afraid your reference is a bit too obscure for me. A little help, please.

Jormungand

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you come by that conclusion? You keep posting it but I haven't seen you back it up. Also, "an all encompassing logic independent of the universe" is what I was claiming from the very beginning and have maintained in every thread on the matter.

Ok is this "all encompassing logic that is independent of the universe" eternal or temporary? If it is temporary then it has to be part of the universe and will die out if and when the universe dies . However , if not temporary then it starts to sound dangerously like it has God like properties. Maybe this logic was around before the big bang?

Look at nemesio's post , at least he is consistent.

Originally posted by Agerg
see...if I made a comment along the lines of God is at both ends of the timeline, he exists outside of time, he doesn't know what actions we will take as result of our free will, he merely watches [b](independently of time) in order to rebut a point made by some atheist, I'd make sure I had some means of backing up this assertion with strong justif ...[text shortened]... think it can be dis-regarded as crack-pottery whenever you present it. (I mean no offence btw)[/b]

None taken. The whole concept requires immense imagination since we are talking about something beyond the known universe. In reality I know very little about God , all I'm doing is stating a position. All arguments on both sides require imagination.

My concern has been to raise awareness of the idea that God does not look along our timeline in the way we imagine he does. It's this misconception that leads us to think about God forseeing things. Maybe it's the phrase "God knows in advance" that is the problem . Much of this is a question of semantics really. All our language is time based so it's going to sound contradictory to describe an eternal being.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But not Merriam-Webster,

having virtually unlimited authority or influence

or Dictionary.com

almighty or infinite in power, as God.

or Wiki

Omnipotence (literally, "all power"😉 is power with no limits i.e. unlimited power.


Seems only the theists which believe that "all power" means "not really all power". Furthermore, I don't actually know what authority you are quoting from. The bible?

Get a new dictionary. I quoted from the Catholic encyclopedia, which I trust more than the Merriam Webster.

Seems only the theists which believe that "all power" means "not really all power".

Again, I have illustrated that the definition you use is absurd and entails a situation where God does not have all power. If you are such the logical and rational person you claim you are, then you should have recognised that you have used the word to an unreasonable extent.

The power to deprive existence from the universe, to effect all possible things, really is what omnipotence is means. If I had some bizarre revelation from God, I should not respond, "No, I am not going to listen, God. You are not so good as you claim. You cannot make a square triangle." That would be stupid, and only something you might do.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The power to deprive existence from the universe, to effect all possible things, really is what omnipotence is means.

But since we do not know what is or is not possible, it is rather meaningless. It might for example be impossible for God to do anything. Thus you could still have an omnipotent God who is incapable of anything.

I too am omnipotent. I can do anything that it is possible for me to do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But since we do not know what is or is not possible, it is rather meaningless. It might for example be impossible for God to do anything. Thus you could still have an omnipotent God who is incapable of anything.

I too am omnipotent. I can do anything that it is possible for me to do.

No; I refer exclusively to logical impossibilities: to make one and one equal three; to create a square triangle. Such things by definition are absurd and cannot exist. An omnipotent God is capable of anything that does not entail its own self-contradiction.*

*Christians will also add the criterion that God cannot do that which he does not will to do. Generally, Christian theology recognises that God is not arbitrary, but has a defined nature of benevolence. Therefore, he cannot effect something malignant.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; I refer exclusively to logical impossibilities: to make one and one equal two; to create a square triangle. Such things by definition are absurd and cannot exist. An omnipotent God is capable of anything that does not entail its own self-contradiction.*

*Christians will also add the criterion that God cannot do that which he does not will to trary, but has a defined nature of benevolence. Therefore, he cannot effect something malignant.

Hey, even I can do that!

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Hey, even I can do that!

I think this is a good reason why I should proof-read before posting.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No; I refer exclusively to logical impossibilities: to make one and one equal three; to create a square triangle. Such things by definition are absurd and cannot exist. An omnipotent God is capable of anything that does not entail its own self-contradiction.*

*Christians will also add the criterion that God cannot do that which he does not will to do. G ...[text shortened]... trary, but has a defined nature of benevolence. Therefore, he cannot effect something malignant.

In another thread it was suggested that God cannot lie.

But my stance remains, we do not know what the logical impossibilities are. For example, it would be logically impossible for God to always tell the truth and to also be capable of lying. There may be a logical reason why he cannot violate the laws of physics - which would quite severely hamper his abilities.
I personally think that there may be logical reasons why he cannot know the future, or why he cannot be independent of time.

Originally posted by rwingett
Causality is an area where theists are keen to posit the necessity of their god as being the first cause. If every effect needs a cause, you are, it seems, left in an endless causal chain. God is supposedly the only way out of that infinite regress, as he would be the original cause.

[...edited...]

In order to rescue their god as being the ultimate f ...[text shortened]... behind every tsunami and mall shooting that ever occurred, or ever will occur.

[...etc...]

It's an interesting argument, but there are some weak points. First, you seem to be confounding cause and blame. One can believe in a God that is the only original cause in a world in which all other events have causes, without assigning guilt, blame, responsibility, what have you, to that God. Put God aside for a moment, along with all of the past. Just looking at the future, *I* am the cause of every generation of my descendants on to eternity. Does that mean that if in a million years a distant descendant of mine commits an atrocity and murders an entire planet full of people that somehow *I* am not a good person?

A second--and related--weakness to this argument is the jump you make from everything tracing causally back to God, and everything being predeterimined. Just from the argument you have laid out, this does not necessarily follow. By responding to your message, I am causing readers of this thread to think about my ideas. Have I taken their free will to accept or deny these ideas?

Originally posted by GMF
Does that mean that if in a million years a distant descendant of mine commits an atrocity and murders an entire planet full of people that somehow *I* am not a good person?

Would you say its moral to have children if you know that one of your descendants will "murder an entire planet full of people?"

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Would you say its moral to have children if you know that one of your descendants will "murder an entire planet full of people?"

It is to this which I referred in one of my earlier posts to your charge of the impossibility to reasonably reconcile the supposed rifts between reality and statements from the Bible.

In particular, you are using several misguided definitions of key concepts. For one, you forget the ultimate truth of reality, i.e., the glorification of God. In its place, you insert morality as the highest good. Morality isn't even a distant second.

Next, you place death on an exaggerated scale of importance. Even in large scale multiplication, death isn't as bad as you make it; surely it is no more important than life!

Lastly, you confer upon one person some of God's omniscience, but not all of God's omniscience. Reality is not cut-and-paste. In order to adjust properly to it, one must be in coformity with it. While one need not know all of reality in order to comply, one certainly is not able to knowingly omit (thereby reject) aspects of the same and yet hope to remain within its confines.

Originally posted by rwingett
Causality is an area where theists are keen to posit the necessity of their god as being the first cause. If every effect needs a cause, you are, it seems, left in an endless causal chain. God is supposedly the only way out of that infinite regress, as he would be the original cause.

So the theists tell us that if we accept that every effect has a cause ...[text shortened]... unnecessary and ineffectual god whom we need take no further note of. Not an enviable choice.

How about you take a little dose of your own medicine?

It is customery to give credit to sources your plagerize from.

You charge me with it. Now lets apply your own standard to your post.

Originally posted by rwingett
Causality is an area where theists are keen to posit the necessity of their god as being the first cause. If every effect needs a cause, you are, it seems, left in an endless causal chain. God is supposedly the only way out of that infinite regress, as he would be the original cause.

So the theists tell us that if we accept that every effect has a cause ...[text shortened]... unnecessary and ineffectual god whom we need take no further note of. Not an enviable choice.

How about you take a little dose of your own medicine?

It is customery to give credit to sources you plagerize from.

You charge me with it. Now lets apply your own standard to your post.