- Feb 15, 2013
- 8,824
- 6,252
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Ok let me try a line of inquiry that might reveal what I'm trying to get at.
Do you believe that the material world had a cause?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I can see how we'd like to think so based on the intuitions we've developed from worldly experience.
We think we can run the clock backwards until we catch the hand of the builder making his final adjustments.
We want everything to reasonable, in all domains. I dont know that it is tho.
I think its possible. Not sure tho, as I just cant really grasp the full implications, and whether those implications are possible. Its really too much to ask to be confident that its possible..
No. It might have a cause. Or alternatively it could be eternal, uncreated and uncaused....Do you believe that the material world had a cause?
No. It might have a cause. Or alternatively it could be eternal, uncreated and uncaused.
“I don’t know” wasn’t on there before. Depending on what definition of “all powerful” and “all knowing” you’re using, you might be invoking some logical contradictions.I noticed that @gaara4158 voted "No. It's not possible that God exists." What makes God's existence impossible?
“I don’t know” wasn’t on there before. Depending on what definition of “all powerful” and “all knowing” you’re using, you might be invoking some logical contradictions.
Necessary for what?If it had a cause, then the universe is not necessary.
If it is eternal and uncaused, then the universe is necessary.
Of course I'm unsure which is correct. On what basis could I possibly know about a putative cause? Its waaay outside my domain....Sounds like you're not sure which is correct.
Necessary for what?
Does "necessarily exists" also mean there is no possible alternative situation to its existence? Like it "has to" exist (for whatever reason)?Necessary in the philosophical, ontological sense. It is necessary rather than contingent. If the universe is eternal and uncaused, then its existence does not depend on anything else. It exists because it necessarily exists. Everything else like ice cream, planets, and puppies depends on the existence of the universe. They are contingent. They might not have existed and they might go out of existence, whereas the universe would still necessarily exist.
Absolute forms of omnipotence are vulnerable to the stone paradox, but if you reduce God’s powers to maximal power within logic and his personal nature, then I, too, meet those requirements. I can’t defy logic and I can’t go against my nature.Could you elaborate on what contradictions you think are implicit in these concepts?
Does "necessarily exists" also mean there is no possible alternative situation to its existence? Like it "has to" exist (for whatever reason)?
Thats a little different than "necessary" meaning not contingent on anything else.
Absolute forms of omnipotence are vulnerable to the stone paradox, but if you reduce God’s powers to maximal power within logic and his personal nature, then I, too, meet those requirements. I can’t defy logic and I can’t go against my nature.
I honestly dont know:That's correct. The idea of "necessary" includes both these things you've mentioned. If something is not contingent, then it necessarily exists. And if something necessarily exists, then it is not contingent.
If you believe there's a possible alternative to the universe's necessity then you may believe that it's possible that God exists.
Sure. Then God is bound to the constraints of logic, that’s fine. Can he lie? Can he commit an act of evil? Be unfair?In other words, "a rock that an omnipotent being cannot lift" is just as logically absurd as "a square circle". It sounds like it's a concept, but it's just a string of words put together.
Sure. Then God is bound to the constraints of logic, that’s fine. Can he lie? Can he commit an act of evil? Be unfair?
That’s fine, then, if that’s how you define omnipotence then it is not inherently contradictory.I wouldn't view logic as a constraint like a limitation of power. Something that violates logic is simply incoherent.
Those who affirm God's omnipotence mean to say that God is able to do all his holy will. That is, God can do whatever he wants to do. Since God does not want to commit evil, his inability to do evil probably shouldn't be thought of as a constraint.
But we also see here how God's power is different from ours. We are not able to do all we want. There are many things that we would like to do but lack the power to do them. God's not like this.
That’s fine, then, if that’s how you define omnipotence then it is not inherently contradictory.
I wouldn't say that. I would just say that as far as I can tell there are no fatal contradictions in the definition of God you have provided. I have no idea what's possible beyond what we are able to describe coherently.With definitions like this in mind, do you believe it's possible that God exists?
With definitions like this in mind, do you believe it's possible that God exists?
How are we supposed to be able to judge the actual possibility of such things?....I have no idea what's possible beyond what we are able to describe coherently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?