Can any being have infinite power?

[quatona]

I think my biggest problem with your explanation is that this makes God bound by human logic and means that it's something that God did not create, that logic is somehow universal constant or rule even to the omnipotent, everlasting creator of everything.

OTOH, if we accept the premise that God is not "bound by logic" (whatever that might mean) - where is the problem with the answer: "Yes, he can create a rock he cannot lift, and, yes, he can lift this rock he created?"
Heck, under this premise god can even exist and not exist simultaneously.

 

[sandwiches]

And my biggest problem is that assuming God created logic. That is to equivocate the word "create" as logic is not made up of physical material or substance as the earth was "created."

God is not bound by logic but acts in a logical way. The alternative of this explanation, that God can preform the illogical, is to only derail from making sense of omnipotence, which is why it should be avoided.

There's three questions

1) You say that God isn't bound by logic. So, can God act illogically to us?

2) Logic is based on premises and we've based our logical conclusions on incorrect premises before. So, why should we avoid the possibility that some premise we're using in our logic (e.g. "Something can't be more powerful than itself") is completely logical with the correct premises?

3) Why MUST we assume that God is logical in all he can do? Or to put it in another way, why must God make sense to us in all he does?

 

[elopez]

There's three questions

1) You say that God isn't bound by logic. So, can God act illogically to us?

What I actually meant is that saying God is not bound by logic would not be the appropriate way to put it. Saying God acts in a logical and consistent is more preferable. Logic is not some physical force that restricts God from acting; God is logical and acts accordingly.

So no, God cannot act illogically to us. That would mean God could create a square circle, and what would a square circle look like to us? It could not appear or be created in our reality.

2) Logic is based on premises and we've based our logical conclusions on incorrect premises before. So, why should we avoid the possibility that some premise we're using in our logic (e.g. "Something can't be more powerful than itself") is completely logical with the correct premises?

What incorrect premises are you talking about? What logical conclusion could be reached by incorrect premises? I'm not following you here...

We were talking about an omnipotent being being incapable of creating an inanimate object too heavy for it to lift which is a contradiction. I do not think a contradiction could be made sensible no matter what premises are used.

3) Why MUST we assume that God is logical in all he can do? Or to put it in another way, why must God make sense to us in all he does?

A logical God would not act in an illogical way. It is simply in God's nature to remain constant.

 

[nebulaJP]

If God is omnipotent can he make a weight so heavy that he can't lift it?

om·nip·o·tent   [om-nip-uh-tuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.

I don't know but I think I only mean this:

Can any being have the ability to do anything (rather than just some things)?

If God can do anything can he make a weight so heavy that he can't lift it?

So to me, if a true omnipotent being exists, he can do anything I can imagine (including the illogical, absurd, physically impossible, etc) and much, much more. After all he's already supposed to have broken many rules of logic by being three beings in one, creating things from nothing, existing forever without time, never changing yet acting, breaking the laws physics all over the Bible, etc. I think for God, making a little square circle would be peanuts compared to creating the universe.

God not being bound by logic or reason is possible. But such a God is impossible to reason about or discuss, or to direct one's action towards. It might be true, but it is pointless to consider.

Do you want us to accept and keep to logic during this discussion? In which case your question itself already violates this rule.
If, however, - as your question implies - we can postulate illogical stuff, my response would be simply "yes".

OTOH, if we accept the premise that God is not "bound by logic" (whatever that might mean) - where is the problem with the answer: "Yes, he can create a rock he cannot lift, and, yes, he can lift this rock he created?"
Heck, under this premise god can even exist and not exist simultaneously.

I agree with sandwiches that making a square circle falls within the realm of "power" so, I totally accept this answer that an omnipotent deity can make a weight too heavy for it to lift and then it can go ahead and lift the weight that is too heavy for it to lift. That seems like the best approach.

So no, God cannot act illogically to us. That would mean God could create a square circle, and what would a square circle look like to us? It could not appear or be created in our reality.

I really should not be invoking quantum physics here, especially since I barely understand it, but....isn't matter only "organized energy" or something? Maybe to someone who doesn't have the same persistence of vision we have, a square circle looks like a circle one millisecond and a square the next, alternating back and forth between the two. I guess it's similar to the idea that motion pictures are made up of still frames shown at 24 frames per second. We see fluid motion when in reality it's only a bunch of frames displayed one after the other.

 

[nebulaJP]

So no, God cannot act illogically to us. That would mean God could create a square circle, and what would a square circle look like to us? It could not appear or be created in our reality.

Oh, to us. Is that what would it look like to us when looking at it directly (probably a blur) or what would it look like to us when using our technology - like if we filmed the square circle with an incredibly high speed film camera and then slowed the film down to a crawl?

 

[nebulaJP]

Or maybe a "film camera" is a little archaic. Scratch that. To accurately perceive the square circle you need a digital video camera with a frame rate of billions or trillions of frames per second.

 

[nebulaJP]

Isn't an 'all or nothing' attitude rather simplistic? Of course some things are that easily black and white, but there is no reason to think the Bible is like this. Divine inspiration doesn't mean the Bible has to be the exact words of God. It can mean that the overall meaning and principles are what are inspired, but the way in which those principles are expressed are confined to the culture they were written in.

Personally, if accepting the Bible as a divinely inspired book is sophisticated, I'd rather be a simpleton. I think that religions need to make sense and pass basic tests of reason. If they don't have to make sense, then why wouldn't you believe that I'm a deity who created the universe 5 minutes ago with all of your memories included?

There is an argument called the "argument from locality" or something that goes like this:

If a deity really wanted to make its existence known to humans, it would reveal itself consistently throughout history including in the present day. It would not make its presence known explicitly through miracles only to a particular ethnic group or to people of a particular time. Rather, it would reveal itself to all people all over the world all the time. Missionaries would travel to remote jungle locations only to discover that the natives have the exact same deity, symbols and doctrines as the missionaries. That would make sense. The idea that God desires humans to know of his existence, yet he requires us in the present day to believe that humans from one particular ethnic group who lived 2 to 4 thousand years ago are telling us the truth is illogical.

For example, people alive in Jesus' day, who saw the miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension etc. didn't have to have any faith that other people were telling the truth. We on the other hand, have to believe that ancient biblical authors were telling the truth. Due to all the miracles and stories involving God, it's not the same as asking us to simply believe in some plausible, historical story. It's asking us to believe that ancient people's accounts of supernatural events are true. It does not make sense. (If a Wookie lives on Endor you must acquit.)

I agree with you. The Bible likely talks of a solid firmament above the earth. I have used this in a thread against creationism before. I don't have any problem with this because the main point of the Bible isn't to be a science book. The main points seem to be about meaning, the correct way to live and our relationship to God. These points are made through the past culture though.

There's no good reason why God doesn't show himself today or at least have prophets on the planet in 2011 who can perform miracles for the scientific community so that we all have proof of God's existence, if he really wants humans to know that he exists as the Bible and Christians claim. If he let his presence be known today through miracles, it would only be a matter of do we as humans choose to reject God, or do we choose to worship him. As it is, the issue is do we or do we not trust that ancient people were telling the truth.

 

[elopez]

Or maybe a "film camera" is a little archaic. Scratch that. To accurately perceive the square circle you need a digital video camera with a frame rate of billions or trillions of frames per second.

Is that even possible? What is the highest frame rate a digital video camera could have? I'm guessing this is equally as improbable as the film camera scenario you retreated, which only means a square circle cannot be perceived or much less brought about. And only further shows the point that a square circle could not be created by God and so does not do the illogical.

 

[quatona]

So no, God cannot act illogically to us. That would mean God could create a square circle, and what would a square circle look like to us? It could not appear or be created in our reality.

With the flipside being, of course, that "God´s reality" is completely irrelevant to us.

 

[nebulaJP]

Is that even possible? What is the highest frame rate a digital video camera could have? I'm guessing this is equally as improbable as the film camera scenario you retreated, which only means a square circle cannot be perceived or much less brought about. And only further shows the point that a square circle could not be created by God and so does not do the illogical.

It's a hypothetical square circle and a hypothetical camera. I imagine in the future some video camera will be able to capture billions or trillions of frames per second. There is already one that can shoot a million frames per second. Also, I don't know how fast the square circle would be changing shape back and forth so this camera, the Phantom v1610 would possibly be good enough, hypothetically.

 

[elopez]

It's a hypothetical square circle and a hypothetical camera. I imagine in the future some video camera will be able to capture billions or trillions of frames per second. There is already one that can shoot a million frames per second. Also, I don't know how fast the square circle would be changing shape back and forth so this camera, the Phantom v1610 would possibly be good enough, hypothetically.

But remember, we were talking about God creating in our reality, so there really is no hypothetical. So again there is no camera that could capture by slow frame what a square circle looks like, not because there is no such camera capable but because a square circle cannot exist within our reality.

A square cannot be square and at the same time circle. A square can transform from that to a circle by the slow motion camera function, but that is far from the square being circle at the same time. The point persistently remains: God cannot create a square circle in our reality which only means God cannot act illogically.

 

[elopez]

With the flipside being, of course, that "God´s reality" is completely irrelevant to us.

I wouldn't go as far as saying God's 'reality' is completely irrelevant to us since we are discussing the nature of one of His attributes.

 

[quatona]

I wouldn't go as far as saying God's 'reality' is completely irrelevant to us since we are discussing the nature of one of His attributes.

Well, at the point I made this remark this very nature had just been defined out of discussability (a reality that is not accessible to us).

 

[elopez]

Well, at the point I made this remark this very nature had just been defined out of discussability (a reality that is not accessible to us).

Just because it is not accessible to us presently does not mean it is incomprehensible otherwise we wouldn't begin to define His nature.

 

[quatona]

Just because it is not accessible to us presently does not mean it is incomprehensible

What cannot even be accessed can not be comprehended.

 

[elopez]

What cannot even be accessed can not be comprehended.

Not totally, or again you wouldn't even begin to define anything or much less think of it.

 

[nebulaJP]

A square cannot be square and at the same time circle. A square can transform from that to a circle by the slow motion camera function, but that is far from the square being circle at the same time. The point persistently remains: God cannot create a square circle in our reality which only means God cannot act illogically.

I know that normally it can only be a square or a circle at any one given time, but I thought there is a certain speed of changing back and forth at which it IS a square and a circle at the same time. If it's made out of metal for example, maybe there is a point at which the straight lines of the square and the curved line of the circle exist simultaneously. Since it's the same matter making up the straight and curved lines, then in a way, it's both a square and a circle at the same time. I did invoke quantum physics. I thought that was suppose to give me some kind of pass.

 

[elopez]

I know that normally it can only be a square or a circle at any one given time, but I thought there is a certain speed of changing back and forth at which it IS a square and a circle at the same time. If it's made out of metal for example, maybe there is a point at which the straight lines of the square and the curved line of the circle exist simultaneously. Since it's the same matter making up the straight and curved lines, then in a way, it's both a square and a circle at the same time. I did invoke quantum physics. I thought that was suppose to give me some kind of pass.

Well I believe that is to think incorrectly as there would be no speed at which a square is a circle at the same time. There would be no point at which the curved and straight lines would co - exist even if it is metal. At best the metal would be made into an object that has five lines like a pentagon.

The image you posted is a circle within a square, not a square circle. Nice try though lol.

Are you also suggesting quantum physics gives you some sort of pass to be illogical?

 

[quatona]

Not totally, or again you wouldn't even begin to define anything or much less think of it.

...and that´s exactly what happens when people start assuming a reality that´s not accessible to them: they simply make ex negativo claims, don´t define anything and declare one can´t think of it.
Once we assume that in god´s reality things are possible that do not appear in our reality because they defy logic - the very frame of all our conceptions - this reality is not thinkeable or definable.

 

[quatona]

The image you posted is a circle within a square, not a square circle. Nice try though lol.

How about a tube the diameter of which has the same size as its length - it looks like a circle from one perspective and like a square from another.