no God is Omnipotent...

[tzor]

I used the generalized definition of Omnipotent on the 'deity' level as to not insist one religions definition was of greater importance to reference than another religions.

you referenced the Catholic definition. I responded to that definition from that religion noting that if the Catholic God was all-powerful / almighty. then nothing would be intrinsically impossible for him to do. ..

First of all, you used a random simple definition from a dictionary. I referenced an encyclopedia ... catholic, only because I'm not aware of an online Lutheran, or Episcopal, or Methodist, encyclopedia. Since it is a term that comes from the Latin, I'm not expecting the term to be defined in non western religions, although it might be.

So, with that in hand, I'll link the Wikipedia article. "However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so."

[NomadPatriot]

complains i used a single dictionary definition for omnipotent without referencing any particular religion directly….

then he uses a single definition from a single encyclopedia.. referencing the definition based upon a single religions view...

[NomadPatriot]

I used the generalized definition of Omnipotent on the 'deity' level as to not insist one religions definition was of greater importance to reference than another religions.

you referenced the Catholic definition. I responded to that definition from that religion noting that if the Catholic God was all-powerful / almighty. then nothing would be intrinsically impossible for him to do. ..

First of all, you used a random simple definition from a dictionary. I referenced an encyclopedia ... catholic, only because I'm not aware of an online Lutheran, or Episcopal, or Methodist, encyclopedia. Since it is a term that comes from the Latin, I'm not expecting the term to be defined in non western religions, although it might be.

So, with that in hand, I'll link the Wikipedia article. "However many modern scholars (such as John Polkinghorne) hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for a deity to go against its own laws unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so."

ok..
let me get this thing down correctly..
the Catholic God has unlimited power to do everything intrinsically possible.. because that is his nature.. and he can not go againist his own nature & cannot do things Intrinsically Impossible.. .. "unless there were an overwhelming reason to do so"

so.. if the Catholic God did have an overwhelming reason to do something Intrinsically impossible... like say.. create a rock so heavy he could not lift it.. he could & would go againist his own nature..?

that's what you just referenced from that encyclopedia..& it is contradicting itself..
so..
are you sure you still want to keep referencing that encyclopedia..?

[jimboston]

"ill-regardless"?

ok you got me on that one. maybe the 3rd time I have ever actually used the word..

irregardless isn’t really a word either.

[hotfire]

can mankind be so anthropocentric that it creates a god in his image that created man in his image

[NomadPatriot]

can mankind be so anthropocentric that it creates a god in his image that created man in his image

yes.. many times over..
it's not like Dinosaurs ruled the earth for a good few hundred million years or anything...

"God" seemed fairly happy with that scenario up until that 1 day he sneezed & OOPSEY!

hence I Trust in the Singularity

[jimboston]

So you only believe in a God that can create a 4-sided triangle?

I do not believe in any God.. I Trust in the Singularity..

the word triangle is a human concept..
but in human terms.. it would depend on which dimension the triangle is being created within.. 2nd , 3rd or 4th dimension

if you are curious about what I mean by " I Trust in the Singularity".. it is also referred to as 'The Big Bounce' ..

this video explains what that entails starting at the 4:00 timestamp mark.. the video also explains how infinity isn't actually possible.. if you care to watch it all.. it's interesting enough..

Interesting Video

Can you have “The Big Bounce” and still have an Infinite Universe... or are those thoughts mutually exclusive?

Infinity is an interesting concept to think about.

I like how he points out in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of stars... there’s also an infinite number of atoms...yet every star is made up of hundreds of millions of atoms... so the number of atoms is greater than the number of starts. Therefore Infinity > Infinity.

... and this is mathematically possible? Hard to truly wrap your head around.

I heard an interview once where one writer/philosopher was talking about dimensions and universes... and how some theoretical physicists think there are an infinite number of these. He postulated that if there are an infinite number of universes, then there is a universe which is made up of / looks like anything we imagine. So theoretically there’s a universe for example in which Batman fights crime in Gotham City, because people have written about it and thought it... so therefore it exists. In this case, our thoughts essentially ‘create’ these universes.... so would that make the ‘creator’/writer the ‘god’ of that universe? You could also reverse that and imagine that our creative thoughts come from these alternate universes... maybe through dreams or through a breakdown in universal barriers.

I’m not sure I believe any of these theories... but they;re interesting to think about.

Unrelated but also interesting / similar... God’s Debris by Scott Adams.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Debris

Short easy to read book.

So...is there a universe in which Nomad and I can discuss a subject civilly?

[DoomYoshi]

So you only believe in a God that can create a 4-sided triangle?

I do not believe in any God.. I Trust in the Singularity..

the word triangle is a human concept..
but in human terms.. it would depend on which dimension the triangle is being created within.. 2nd , 3rd or 4th dimension

if you are curious about what I mean by " I Trust in the Singularity".. it is also referred to as 'The Big Bounce' ..

this video explains what that entails starting at the 4:00 timestamp mark.. the video also explains how infinity isn't actually possible.. if you care to watch it all.. it's interesting enough..

Interesting Video

Can you have “The Big Bounce” and still have an Infinite Universe... or are those thoughts mutually exclusive?

Infinity is an interesting concept to think about.

I like how he points out in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of stars... there’s also an infinite number of atoms...yet every star is made up of hundreds of millions of atoms... so the number of atoms is greater than the number of starts. Therefore Infinity > Infinity.

... and this is mathematically possible? Hard to truly wrap your head around.

George Cantor set out to explain how to measure which infinity is bigger. He came up with the idea that if you can 1:1 map things (like prime numbers can be counted 1,2,3,5,7,11 or 1,2,3,4,5,6 so they can still be counted) then they have the same size. The prime number set is the same "size" as the integers. What is crazy though is that the number of decimals between 0 and 1 is also infinite, but it is infinitely more infinite than the number of integers. This actually drove Cantor crazy and he was locked in an asylum.

The interesting thing about infinity is that all of our ideas about randomness come from concepts of infinity. If there is no infinity, then you cannot (with current views) prove that anything is random. The first statement of dice being random is that if you roll a dice an infinite number of times then you can expect every sequence of results, including an infinite stream of 1s, because if there was only 10 1s in a row, then you would know that the 11th die is not 1 and it would not be random anymore. Intuitively we have a problem with this (you mean I'm going to roll 1s and nothing but 1s my entire life???), and we also practically have a problem with it since there is no infinity. Randomness needs a major rethink. It will probably come from group theory instead of Cantor's set theory.

[tzor]

so.. if the Catholic God did have an overwhelming reason to do something Intrinsically impossible... like say.. create a rock so heavy he could not lift it.. he could & would go againist his own nature..?

It's a crappy hypothetical. There is no reason to create a rock you can't lift. NONE. Just create a rock and decide not to lift it. You can't lift a rock you don't try to lift in the first place; problem solved.

[riskllama]

2.4/10

[NomadPatriot]

so.. if the Catholic God did have an overwhelming reason to do something Intrinsically impossible... like say.. create a rock so heavy he could not lift it.. he could & would go againist his own nature..?

It's a crappy hypothetical. There is no reason to create a rock you can't lift. NONE. Just create a rock and decide not to lift it. You can't lift a rock you don't try to lift in the first place; problem solved.

honestly it is seeming like you can not dispute the arguments i am making here..

you posted definitions.. i read your definitions.
your definitions contradicted themselves..

i point out that clear contradiction..
and you say me pointing out the contradiction is "crappy"... and that there is no reason for "god" to do something that your definition says he would do if there was an overwhelming reason to do it..

it's your definition . .you are saying the definition YOU posted is a 'crappy hypothetical'....
WHAT??!!??

???

i do not want to create a rock I can not lift..

the discussion is about "God".. not me..

but I can certainly think up of a reasons for a "god" to create a rock he cannot lift...

if there is a God. then there has to be a Devil..
if there is a god & a devil.. then there has to be a Heaven & Hell..

1) if this God wanted to ensure the safety of his heaven & to protect the souls within it. .from the devil or even from himself.. ( because God is forgiving & he might let the devil in one day for 'Fun-zies'...) then he could place the keys to heaven between 2 rocks he can not lift.. so not even he would be able to change his mind one day... thus permanently protecting heaven..

[NomadPatriot]

Tzor…

you also stated God can not do something that is Intrinsically Impossible…

ok..
nothing can go faster then the speed of light.. it is Intrinsically Impossible to do so..

the Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 light years across..

are you suggesting it would take God 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way Galaxy going at Light Speed..?

or
can he be on 1 side of the Milky Way Galaxy.. then with a blink of an eye, be on the other side of the Milky Way Galaxy..?
because he is the all-powerful God, he is not limited by Space & Time and CAN do things intrinsically impossible

you cannot have an omnipotent all powerful god who is limited to only doing things that are "intrinsically possible"...

so, that means either he is not Omnipotent
or
your Catholic definition of Omnipotent is wrong..

you choose ..

not sure.. but is that checkmate...?

[Phil Gates]

No all you've proven is your ability to play word games.

[HitRed]

God is not constrained by physics or time. Those are human limitations.

[tzor]

nothing can go faster then the speed of light.. it is Intrinsically Impossible to do so..

There are a number of things here that need to be extrapolated. In many ways the "nothing can go faster" is a lot like the object so heavy that it cannot be lifted. The speed of light is effectively the conversion between the three spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension. No "information" can propagate faster along the space time medium faster than that conversion rate (quantum entanglement is a seeming contradiction but that entanglement actually results in no "information" being transmitted).

Given the fact that the conversion (speed of light) is a constant, funky things happen when objects are near the speed of light. Yes, I can travel 1,000 light years in a second, while still observing that the speed of light is constant. Throwing acceleration into the mix tends to result in a massive Debbie Downer (this is the real key to the twins paradox). (Reality check: Current real ideas for star ships barely accelerate to 10% of C so relativistic effects are still minimal.)

But again there is nothing in the definition of Omnipotent that causes a problem. It's actually the Omnipresence that forces an interesting requirement; God being outside of space time. This is an area of meta-physics that gets really strange very quickly in part because time is such an integral part of science that to explore physics outside of the time associated with our standard dimensions brings us to concepts that we have no easy way to test through experiments. Once you view the entire space time universe as a static object, information speeds becomes moot. It is like looking at the left of a computer screen and then looking at the right and trying to figure out how "fast" your eyes went from one side of the screen to the other.

The trans-dimensional nature of God doesn't result in speed of light violations in as much as it results in time paradoxes, but then again, that's also a key to relativity; all attempts to propagate information faster than light results in time paradoxes due to the relative time frameworks of various objects. However this isn't a problem with power; it actually takes as much "power" for a trans-dimensional being to influence space time as it takes for a normal human to point to any spot on a globe; given that they are completely outside that globe.

[NomadPatriot]

It's actually the Omnipresence that forces an interesting requirement; God being outside of space time. This is an area of meta-physics that gets really strange very quickly in part because time is such an integral part of science that to explore physics outside of the time associated with our standard dimensions brings us to concepts that we have no easy way to test through experiments.

so God is outside of Space Time and Standard Physics do not apply to him.. ?
entailing God can do things that are intrinsically impossible.. like creating Time Paradoxes..

" As intrinsically impossible must be classed: Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes; Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements"

-- A temporal paradox, time paradox, or time travel paradox is a paradox, an apparent contradiction, or a logical contradiction that is associated with the idea of time and time travel.

[tzor]

so God is outside of Space Time and Standard Physics do not apply to him.. ?
entailing God can do things that are intrinsically impossible.. like creating Time Paradoxes..

First of all, depending on how you define "standard physics" half of the universe doesn't apply.
Second of all, multiverse physics is still wildly theoretical, so we have no understanding of dimensions outside of the standard dimensions an exactly how they interact with the standard dimensions.
Multiverse theory has been one way to explain the strange acceleration of the universe we observe in the stellar historical record, so this is a question of astrophysics more than theology.

[jimboston]

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone so heavy God can't pick it up.

[NomadPatriot]

so God is outside of Space Time and Standard Physics do not apply to him.. ?
entailing God can do things that are intrinsically impossible.. like creating Time Paradoxes..

First of all, depending on how you define "standard physics" half of the universe doesn't apply.
Second of all, multiverse physics is still wildly theoretical, so we have no understanding of dimensions outside of the standard dimensions an exactly how they interact with the standard dimensions.
Multiverse theory has been one way to explain the strange acceleration of the universe we observe in the stellar historical record, so this is a question of astrophysics more than theology.

you brought up physics in the standard dimension.. not me..

but if you want to change the subject & keep stretching on the conversation onto another 45 other topics .. we can start another thread for that..

- I checkmated you on infinity.. so you switched topics
- I checkmated you on the notion we need to address every single religions definitions. so you switched topics
- I checkmated you on the Catholic omnipotent definition .. because it also states god could do something intrinsically impossible if he had an overwhelming reason to do so.. and you switched topics again
- I checkmated you on the speed of light scenario.. so again .. you switched topics
-and I just checkmated you on the Physics scenario.. .. so let me guess what happens next..

your main problem Tzor is you keep applying Human concepts & limitations to your God... which proves he is not a God at all..

[tzor]

your main problem Tzor is you keep applying Human concepts & limitations to your God... which proves he is not a God at all..

I'm still looking for your "checkmates" ... I can't seem to find them. Perhaps they are in your own mind. Perhaps we should look into your understanding of a "god" (odd thing there, the use of the indefinite article and the capitalization of the word to imply definite article, "a God" but I'll let Freud handle that).

You seem quite content to create a straw man so that you can personally set it on fire.

[tzor]

you brought up physics in the standard dimension.. not me..

"Standard" physics generally refers to Newtonian Mechanics, not standard dimensions. We can get to string theory later, if you like.

[HitRed]

God does not ask us to prove he exists. He calls us to believe he exists.

[riskllama]

meh, either way this thread still sucks.

[NomadPatriot]

tzor is still applying Human limitations & Concepts onto the thing he calls a "God"..


but we can let Freud into the conversation since you like him..