1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is a good observation. I won't say that my notion of 'powerful' is necessarily superior to yours, but I'll ask you these questions...
The Law of Non-Contradiction can stop things from occuring. It can't do anything. I'd say the guy who can do things is more powerful than the one who can't do anything but stop the occasional action.
Which is more powerful?
The bank robber, or the policeman with the power of arrest to stop him?
The prisoner who can do anything he wants within his cell, or the bars stopping him from leaving?
A speeding bullet with the potential to kill, or the bullet-proof vest that stops it?
An Internet troll with the ability to wreak havoc upon a discussion board, or the admin that stops him by banning him?
Again, in each of these cases, whenever a conflict arises, one side wins, and I thus say that that side is more powerful. Your notion of 'power' is not one based on conflict, and I think this is its weak point, because I think it is moot to ask whether one entity is more powerful than another if those entities will never come in conflict.
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayOK, I won't dispute your first point.
It may seem like an empty and relative claim, but I think it is quite
impressive nonetheless.
So is the creator of the the law stronger, or the creation? Is
As for the second, I do not hold that a creator is necessarily more powerful than his creation, simply by virtue of having created it. Consider Dr. Frankenstein, a powerful (yes, I do know he is fictional) scientist who created life out of non-life.
The particular monster he created was arguably inferior to him, as he didn't understand many things about the world. But it's conceivable that if Dr. Frankenstein had created a second monster, that one could have a been a damn genius, surpassing in scientific prowess his creator.
We don't even need to turn to fiction. How long does it take you to multiply two 5-digit numbers? I bet you can't do it as quickly as even the most rudimentary of electronic calculators that man has created. This is a counterexample to anyone who would make the claim that the creation process entails a preservation of the creator's superiority.
In fact, to wax philosophical, I'd say the notion of creation entails that the creator is attempting to create something superior to himself, something new and external to him that complements his previous state. I don't think man would have a creative drive if it meant only producing inferior creations.
Dr. S
Originally posted by KellyJayOf the theological things I've read on this site, this
As soon as I said God could not, would not lie, doesn't that reduce
God to, God can only do what God can do, in reality? Nothing is
impossible for God in the since of truth, power, and so on.
has to be the most interesting (to me).
Can God lie? The immediate, perhaps not-considered
answer would be 'no.'
But then God cannot do all things. The reflected answer,
then, would be 'yes.'
The question is: Does God lie?
Just because I have the capacity to kill doesn't mean that
I should. Just because I choose not to kill doesn't mean
that I lack that power.
In any event, I think that, from the theist's perspective
the whole question of 'Can God do xxx' is a flawed one.
For example, as it pertains to 'non-contradiction,' is God capable
of arranging things to be in two, mutually exclusive states?
Can God arrange it such that two objects occupy the same
space at the same time?
I think the theist suggest that we are only capable of thinking
in the terms of laws by which we are governed. We think of
things in terms of the physics, math and logic. The very notion
of two things occupying the same space at the time is immediately
rejected because of the laws that we know.
If God made these laws, then, it would seem to me that it
is reasonable to believe I can rewrite them if He chose.
The question itself, then, is flawed, because it imposes upon
God the very restrictions in the universe that He is supposed to
have created. If one believes that God has no restrictions, then
the notion of forcing God to bend to a law is in violation of
axiom.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by nemesioThis sort of question may perhaps be flawed, but it is an absolutely fair one to ask as soon as a person describing God attributes to him a set of powers, or omnipotence.
In any event, I think that, from the theist's perspective
the whole question of 'Can God do xxx' is a flawed one.
If I make the claim, "I can beat every RHP user at chess," it is fair for you to ask me, "Can you beat Ravello?", "Can you beat kirksey?", "Can you beat Nemesio?". It is even fair to ask "Can you beat yourself?" I might then respond that I don't know how to answer that last question, but it is a very fair one for you to ask because my claim implicity asserts "I can beat myself."
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt seems to me that the theist would argue that we, humans,
The prisoner who can do anything he wants within his cell, or the bars stopping him from leaving?
are the prisoner. We can wander around all we want in our
cells, but we are bound by the rules of physics and the ways
of thinking which dervive from it. Those are our bars, placed
there by God.
If we have no concept of what it is like on the outside, to
have never smelled fresh grass clippings or swam in the ocean,
we can have no concept of it.
There is a presumption that God cannot violate His own laws
here; He may choose not to do so, but that doesn't demonstrate
that He can't. It just seems from our limited vantage point that
He shouldn't be able to do so.
But, after all, if you believe that He created the worlds from
nothingness in six days, whatever impositions and limitations
you are going to place on Him are necessarily going to be easily
refuted.
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianLet's not quibble over who's banned and who isn't. Let's just be thankful that we're together and able to enjoy each other's company for the holidays. We can save the persecution until next year, can't we?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]My doctorate is in a field inappropriate to discuss in these forums.
Sigh.. I really figured Cribs had something better to do.[/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Let's not quibble over who's banned and who isn't. Let's just be thankful that we're together and able to enjoy each other's company for the holidays. We can save the persecution until next year, can't we?
What exactly is the relationship between you and Russ. Did you have to get a random IP ? Hehe, really willing to spend that much to chat here ?
Man, gotta be better things to do with your time dude.
Originally posted by pcaspianWasn't it you who proposed: "Arguments can wait till next year."
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]Let's not quibble over who's banned and who isn't. Let's just be thankful that we're together and able to enjoy each other's company for the holidays. We can save the persecution until next year, can't we?
What exactly is the relationship between you and Russ. Did you have to get a random IP ? ...[text shortened]... g to spend that much to chat here ?
Man, gotta be better things to do with your time dude.
[/b]
I'd just like to be with my friends here through the holidays. If
you could find the grace and forgiveness in your heart to not
tattle on me for being here, it would be a display of true Christmas
spirit.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Wasn't it you who proposed: "Arguments can wait till next year."
I'd just like to be with my friends here through the holidays. If
you could find the grace and forgiveness in your heart to not
tattle on me for being here, it would be a display of true Christmas
spirit.
For someone trying to stay on the site, you sure seem to employ strange tactics 🙂
Try piss off fewer people and we may see you into the next year 😉
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe theist argument:
This sort of question may perhaps be flawed, but it is an absolutely fair one to ask as soon as a person describing God attributes to him a set of powers, or omnipotence.
But you are assuming that God can only create things that
you can understand. Perhaps God can create a rock that He
can both lift and not life simultaneously. Of course it is absurd
in our universe, but if He in fact created all things and the rules for
all things, then He could bend, break, pervert, twist, or otherwise
confuse the rules in order to make mutually exclusive claims occur
simultaneously.
I imagine that most theists who give God a position of omnipotence
would say that he can make a ball 'drop' upwards, or have two objects
occupy the same space at the same time, or move faster than the
speed of light. These are the sorts of violations of rules that we can
fathom. I suspect that they would argue that He could violate any
rules He chose, including the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by nemesioOur creator has endowed us with a mind that has irrefutably proven that from a contradiction, anything at all can be validly deduced. Suppose God's powers do allow him to bring actual contradictions into existence. Then, we know from using the very mind that God has equipped us with that God does not exist, for we can deduce 'God does not exist' from any contradictory state. In the end, you may be correct, He may be able to bring contradictions into existence, but He better not let me catch him doing it! Or else...Poof!
I suspect that they would argue that He could violate any
rules He chose, including the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspian'But now you must puth them all away: anger, fury, malice,
Try piss off fewer people and we may see you into the next year 😉
slander, and obscene language out of our mouths.
Colossians 3:8
Certainly, as a saved Christian, this passage applies to you. Or are
you only obligated to be civil to other saved Christians?
If you had accepted Jesus into your life fully, would you have made
this nasty comment? Would Jesus have made this nasty comment?
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioI believe that 😉 is the smiley for "Father, forgive me this sinful comment. Please show mercy on me, for at least I am not an alcoholic."
If you had accepted Jesus into your life fully, would you have made
this nasty comment? Would Jesus have made this nasty comment?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThis reminds me of the story of Zeus and Semele. Zeus, in his usual
Our creator has endowed us with a mind that has irrefutably proven that from a contradiction, anything at all can be validly deduced. Suppose God's powers do allow him to bring actual contradictions into existence. Then, we know from using the very mind that God has equipped us with that God does not exist, for we can deduce 'God does not exist' ...[text shortened]... ing contradictions into existence, but He better not let me catch him doing it! Or else...Poof!
manner, was having an affair with the mortal, Semele. Of course, she
did not know it was a god at the time. However, jealous wife that she
was, Hera discovered the affair and, disguised, told Semele to ask
the mystery lover to show himself in his full glory. Zeus refused and
Semele denied him, ahem, conjugals. So, Zeus took the teeniest,
tiniest lightning bolt, and the wee-est, babiest cloud he could find and,
as she wished, showed himself to be the mighty god, Zeus.
But, even with Zeus' being as conservative as he could in his
godliness, Semele was burnt to ashes. (Interestingly, as the story
goes, her fetus did not get burned and Zeus saved it, sewing it up
in his leg. Three months later, Dionysus was born from Zeus' thigh.)
The moral of the story? Don't test G/god by asking H/him to do things
reserved for G/godhood.
One might argue that He will not go poof, but your head would
explode from the realization of the contradiction.
In amusement,
Nemesio