What is a god?

[mooeypoo]

Is that all it takes.

If it's that simple, sure.

 

These premises lead to some profound logical conclusions, about the nature of God.

profound, maybe, logical? not so much. "Before the universe" makes no sense logically. All good and all knowing *AND* all powerful (as was discussed in the other thread) makes little logical sense too.

 

Think about it. Use your scientific reasoning.

 

Heck, use your puzzle solving reasoning.

In other words, you don't care to reason, you just want us to reason for you.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

I have been pondering this question.

 

I think that the trail starts with these premises.

 

God is all knowing.

 

God is all seeing.

 

God is everywhere.

 

God is all powerful.

 

God existed before the universe manifold.

 

In the beginning there was nothing, except god.

 

These are only true of capital G God, ie the monotheistic variety. Polytheistic gods are far less powerful. So these attributes do not hold of gods in general.

[ponderer]

These are only true of capital G God, ie the monotheistic variety. Polytheistic gods are far less powerful. So these attributes do not hold of gods in general.

 

You didn`t solve the riddle.

[Moontanman]

Is that all it takes.

.

 

Pretty much yes, ydoaPs already has my respect but if he wants my worship a demonstration of power is in order...

[AzurePhoenix]

the overwhelming, life-smiting power of his odor should prove sufficient

[Severian]

Pretty much yes, ydoaPs already has my respect but if he wants my worship a demonstration of power is in order...

 

I do supernatural things every day. Anything that you do which is non-predictive is not explainable by science and thus supernatural. So if I have free-will (and admittedly that is an assumption) many of my actions are supernatural.

[ponderer]

I do supernatural things every day.

 

I'm trying to cut back.

 

So no one is going to take a shot at the riddle.

 

OK, I'll give you a hint.

 

Change the order of the premises, to this order.

 

In the beginning there was nothing, except god.

 

God existed before the universe manifold.

 

God is all knowing.

 

God is all seeing.

 

God is everywhere.

 

God is all powerful.

 

Consider God only in the beginning.

 

What can God know?

 

What can God see?

 

Where can God be?

 

What does God have power over?

 

What could God remember?

 

In the beginng there was nothing.

 

Just reason it through. The rest follows from there.

 

Deductive logical conclusions about the fundamental nature of any potential primal God follow from these premises.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ponderer

[Sisyphus]

If god is all powerful, he can microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it. But then, he's no longer all powerful. I guess that god doesn't exist.

[Mr Skeptic]

If god is all powerful, he can microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it. But then, he's no longer all powerful. I guess that god doesn't exist.

 

If you go that route (rejecting the Principle of Non-Contradiction), then God would be able to eat it despite it being too hot for him to eat.

[ponderer]

If god is all powerful, he can microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it. But then, he's no longer all powerful. I guess that god doesn't exist.

 

Lame.

 

Do you want to take the blue pill or the red pill?

 

OK here are some deductive conclusions, but you can take it further.

 

God is developmental.

 

God has always been all knowing etc, but in the beginning he was all knowing etc of nothing, because there was nothing.

 

If God existed, he must have existed as a self aware purely emotional entity. God is love?

 

Any primal God would have to know more only as he creates more, and the universe unfolds. He would create his own rational mind.

 

At first his creations must be purely emotional. All ideas depend on order and chaos, which in turn depend on set theory and geometry. These do not exist in the beginning. Space-time-energy do not exist.

 

Indeed any idea of order or structure, within the "brain" of God, must then have deeper primal roots, which evolved God.

 

Thought cannot exist. There is nothing God can think about. If God is truly primal, then there can be no complex structure to God's initial existence.

 

I think if you are to understand the nature of, or account for the existence of, any God believable within a philosophical and scientific framework, this is the place to start.

 

Many believe without rational understanding.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ponderer

[Sisyphus]

If you go that route (rejecting the Principle of Non-Contradiction), then God would be able to eat it despite it being too hot for him to eat.

 

Right. Omnipotence and the Principle of Non-Contradiction can't both be valid. Wait...

[ydoaPs]

Pretty much yes, ydoaPs already has my respect but if he wants my worship a demonstration of power is in order...

 

I routinely split atoms. How much more power do you need?

[Moontanman]

I routinely split atoms. How much more power do you need?

 

Do you split these atoms via technology or just force of will?

[ydoaPs]

Makes it even more amazing that they are as cohesive as they are, doesn't it?

Except that they're not as 'cohesive' as you're implying.

 

If we would all just pick and choose what we wish to accept and believe, then discard what doesn't fit our view of the way things were, are or should be.

Good thing that's not at all what I'm doing.

 

the overwhelming, life-smiting power of his odor should prove sufficient

Fairly impressive thing to smite with smell via internet connection.

 

I do supernatural things every day. Anything that you do which is non-predictive is not explainable by science and thus supernatural. So if I have free-will (and admittedly that is an assumption) many of my actions are supernatural.

 

Free will ≠ non-predictive. In fact, Free Will depends upon some level of determinism.

 

Do you split these atoms via technology or just force of will?

Both. I split them via my will through technology.

[Moontanman]

Both. I split them via my will through technology.

 

Not quite supernatural now is it? So far I have zero desire to worship you ydoaPs

[ydoaPs]

Not quite supernatural now is it? So far I have zero desire to worship you ydoaPs

 

Well, I have cookies.

[Moontanman]

Well, I have cookies.

 

Why didn't you say so to begin with all powerful ydoaPs!

[ydoaPs]

Why didn't you say so to begin with all powerful ydoaPs!

 

AND we have beer!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If god is all powerful, he can microwave a burrito so hot that even he can't eat it. But then, he's no longer all powerful. I guess that god doesn't exist.

 

That's assuming that the words "an omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot that He can't eat it" in fact describe an action. My philosophy professor would get out of the dilemma by stating that the words do not, in fact, describe any action whatsoever.

 

Anselm of Canterbury would go further and say that God cannot lie, but that is not a lack of power but in fact a result of his power. (Lying indicates that you are corruptible and cannot tell the truth, which means you lack power. Lying is not a power in itself.)

 

Not sure I buy Anselm's argument, but it was interesting nevertheless.

[ydoaPs]

That's assuming that the words "an omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot that He can't eat it" in fact describe an action. My philosophy professor would get out of the dilemma by stating that the words do not, in fact, describe any action whatsoever.

 

Microwaving is not an action? Then what did I do to my TV dinner?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Microwaving is not an action? Then what did I do to my TV dinner?

 

Microwaving is an action. "An omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot that He can't eat it" is not.

[ydoaPs]

Microwaving is an action. "An omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot that He can't eat it" is not.

 

Omnipotent beings cannot microwave? That doesn't seem very omnipotent.

[Sisyphus]

Sure it's an action. I can microwave a burrito so hot that I can't eat it. What you mean is that "so hot God can't eat it" is not a valid state of being, by the definition of omnipotence. But that still means He can't exceed Himself (in the way that I can!), and the "can't" invalidates the omnipotence. And since it's inherent to omnipotence, then "omnipotent" becomes self-contradictory and itself empty of meaning. Anselm argues, essentially, that the concept is real because it can be conceived of. I would argue that it cannot be conceived of.

 

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object?" It makes grammatical sense and the individual concepts seem to make sense - just taking ordinary concepts and "taking them to the limit," as with an equation with a variable approaching infinity. Yet the question is nonetheless meaningless, as "unstoppable force" negates the existence of "immovable object" and vice versa. "Omnipotence" implies both, and thus negates itself. The word is meaningless.

[Mr Skeptic]

"Omnipotence" implies both, and thus negates itself. The word is meaningless.

 

Silliness. No reasonable person can define omnipotence as "the ability to do anything, even contradictions" without also rejecting the Principle of Non-Contradiction, in which case proof by contradiction is meaningless, and there is no problem. On the other hand, someone who adheres to the Principle of Non-Contradiction would define omnipotence as "the ability to do anything that is possible to do" in which case again there is no problem with an omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot even he can't eat it.

 

The key is that no one uses meaningless words. Well, not if they want to say something.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Silliness. No reasonable person can define omnipotence as "the ability to do anything, even contradictions" without also rejecting the Principle of Non-Contradiction, in which case proof by contradiction is meaningless, and there is no problem. On the other hand, someone who adheres to the Principle of Non-Contradiction would define omnipotence as "the ability to do anything that is possible to do" in which case again there is no problem with an omnipotent being microwaving a burrito so hot even he can't eat it.

 

The key is that no one uses meaningless words. Well, not if they want to say something.

 

Indeed. Also, Anselm would point out that the desire to burn oneself with a hot burrito indicates a lack of power (being divided against oneself is a problem), and so any god that wants to burn Himself with a burrito is not omnipotent.

 

Similarly, God can't have a material body according to Anselm, because material bodies can be altered or destroyed, and that'd make God imperfect. But God's inability to walk through the park (since he has no body) does not mean he's not omnipotent. Walking through the park is due to imperfection, not perfection. It results from a lack of power, not a power.