Refuting this question

[JohnCJ]

Ah, I see the problem. It's a communication problem.
1. Any other spacetimes right now are pure speculation. There has been absolutely no testing of them. Therefore you can't use them as evidence to refute my statement.
2. "the universe" was a vague term. It simply meant "everthing material that exists". If you look at the guys speculating about alternate spacetimes, they end up calling the entire group of spacetimes "the universe".

1. God is pure speculation by the same token. There has been absolutely no testing of him. Therefore I can use him as evidence.
So i can use other space times as evidence and mind you this is speculation based on theories of one of the greatest minds of all of mankind (Stephen Hawking an authority in these matters).

God and other spacetimes carry the same weight as they are both speculation in this context.

2. But you did not set that parameter.

So, the question still remains: God has to be powerful enough to create. Why does God have to be omnipotent?.

This is a question of faith in this space-time anyways. If he is not omnipotent then he is lying. So in lying proveing himself false. How can man which is not omniscient understand omnipotent in the first place? If you believe that you are omnisceint then you are a heretic.(i am not implying this simply finishing that point)

I don't see how that matters in this context. We would still be faced with the question of the origin of God, whether that was in our conventional spacetime or not. We are still contemplating a situation where God does not exist, and then does. What you are doing with "outside of time" is still the duck of "God always existed." That's still begging the question.

It was not a duck, so here is your answer again.
God said in Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
God said he is was and will be. Which again for this not to be true he would be lying.

Stephen Hawkings theory says'Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who [an English Star Trek]. But never the less, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.
As yet again can be simply illustrated here

This can most definately leave room for a God that has always existed.

This is the view Paul gave of God. But it doesn't imply what you say it does. Paul is simply saying that God was here before humans were around and will be here at the end of time.

Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John
Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, WHICH IS, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

For Paul that meant the Second Coming. Now, God can also, as sustainer of the universe, be "which is to come" without knowing what is to come.

In your understanding of a small finite God sure. But my understand of an omnipotent God, as he was what was, is what is, and is what is to come is what to come. Why would God have to sustain a creation working fine on its own (baring miracles in his relationship with mankind).

The Hawking use of imaginary time is a condition shortly after the singularity when all 3 space dimensions and time were the same dimension. What you missed is that this makes a universe without a beginning

.
In The Universe in a nutshell Hawking writes: It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure.. pg 59

God is omnipotent so a mathematically proven universe that has no beginning is even more proof that God has no ending and not beginning.

In Hawking's words, space is finite but unbounded. There is no creation! The article you quoted doesn't have the entire No Boundary Proposal in it. So, to see you trying to use No Boundary to bolster the case for God is very ironic, since Hawking says that No Boundary removes God as Creator. Instead, the universe has no Creator; it just is.

Hawkings philisophical thoughts make no addition or substraction to his math. So as God said inRevelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Now, Hawking's No Boundary also has never been tested. What's worse, it doesn't appear that it can be. It will give a universe like we see, but only if you arbitrarily pick the parameters such as imaginary time. Thus there is no way to test No Boundary because it doesn't have any consequences other theories don't.

God is not testable or verifiable it doen't mean he isn't out there. It was not arbitrary as it is part of my thesis of God being omnipotent.

We are not discussing whether God is the Creator. We are discussing whether God is omnipotent. Please try to stay on topic. The question shows that logically, God can't be omnipotent. Now, does that matter?

If God is not omnipotent he could not create an unbound universe or creation in other words therefore makeing him a liar. God as a liar is a God not of creation but of nothing.

You can't even say it about this spacetime. If we can find a way around Methodological Materialism,

if you can find a way around science and philosophy go right ahead.

we can test directly. Or, if we can propose a method that only God can use and then find the method, we may still be able to make the conclusion.

Test directly makeing your own universe? If only God can use the method then only God can use the method.

How does having more spacetimes "prove" the existence of God? Why would God be required to get those spacetimes. The current speculations on the origin of those spacetimes don't include God.

Any speculation in any true science does not include God. To prove the existence would prove the existence of space time. God would be required for any space-times as God is the creator.

You go at it from the other end. Can the exact position and momentum of an electron be known at the same time? NO! The information can't be known. In a group of 100 C14 atoms, can it be known which atom will decay next? NO! It can't be known. In a stream of photons hitting a mirror, 95% get reflected and 5% pass thru. Can it be known which photons will go thru? NO! Quantum mechanics don't match our common sense, but the data and math is very clear. The information simply can't be known.

Man is not omniscient therefore it is not possible to know all things and we can expect not to know. But God is omnipotent and knows all and is all or he is a liar.

This then leads to the next question, which is theological: why would God created a universe such that He can't know the future of that universe in detail? That's where the fun really is, not arguing against data that is inarguable.

Oh I am sorry I thought we were talking about the God of our faith not some small finite God.

This doesn't say God is omniscient, just that He was around at the beginning of the universe and will be there at the ending.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which IS, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

In A Brief History of Time Hawking writes:

One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

Be careful here. You just left Christianity and became panentheistic. God is not "everything". God is separate from His Creation.

What do you mean left Christianity? Who are you to tell me what christianity is? You are no closer to God than I am. You are the one makeing God out to be some small finite thing you are the one attempting to bound God to the rules of his creation. You are free to ask those question but you should be the one being carefull.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

 

[billwald]

God took a long time Because it was the logical way to get the job done. The best way.

 

[gluadys]

Expanding on bushido's answer with a twist of my own.

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is that omnipotence is only one of the characteristics attributed to God. Equally important are such qualities as wisdom, love and purpose. Just because God is able to do something, it does not follow that God will do that thing. It may contravene God's wisdom or love or purpose.

Now consider creation in light of some of these other attributes.

Does what we see in creation suggest it was God's purpose to create a magicial universe in which anything can happen unpredictably? or an orderly universe unfolding according to in-built natural laws?

Does what we see in the universe suggest it was God's purpose to create a sterile universe incapable of sustaining life, or a universe of vibrant and diverse life?

Does what we see in the universe suggest it was God's purpose to create a static universe with fixed, limited capacities, or a dynamic universe filled with potential?

I personally believe that the second purpose in each of these questions is more in tune with God's purpose: so I ask what does God need to think of when creating an orderly, yet dynamic and life-sustaining universe capable of developing potentials and true novelty without the use of magic.

That calls for a particular set of natural laws. And once God has designed the quantum particles and natural forces to set those laws in motion, it would be contrary to God's wisdom, love and purpose to interfere with them except in the rarest of circumstances (e.g. the resurrection of Christ). God will rather sustain and nurture the universe by working in and through the nature he designed it to have.

And in our universe it takes a million years or so from the initiating Big Bang for stars to form and then another 10 billion years for first generation stars to generate the heavy elements from which planets and living beings are made.

Physicists tell us that if the properties of the fundamental particles and forces were just slightly different, the universe would not generate or sustain life.

God designed that process deliberately to give us the kind of universe we needed. Why then would God interfere with it?

The problem I have with my refuation is that it makes humans seem less important than the rest of God's creation.

A common reaction of people being displaced from a pedestal of privilege is to see themselves as being unjustly demoted rather than seeing others being justly raised to equal status. Consider the resistance to equality for Blacks in a white society and to equality for women in a patriarchal society.

The rest of God's creation is just as important as God's human creation. Recognizing that is not putting humanity down except in the minds of those who wish to cling to a higher status. Such people need to take to heart Paul's words in Philippians 2:5-8 and imitate their Lord who chose not to cling to his privileged status.

 

[mshupe1959]

Back to the question, and I await your handwaving: Can God create a rock He cannot lift? Either possible answer has God not being omnipotent.

To the question about the boulder and lifting. If God is able to do anything, well he can also willingly limit himself however He likes, so the answer is yes He can create a boulder that He cannot lift. He showed His willingness to limit himself by coming to earth and limiting Himself with a physical body (Jesus) and allowing Himself to be our ultimate sacrifice.

 

[rmills]

Space-time may not be confined to this space-time. There may be other universes with there own kinds of space time.



I don't believe man will last long enough in physical for anyways for us to understand 'everything'. Even if we did understand this space-time we would still have to understand what is beyond that. I don't thinks he expects us to understand how so it doesn't matter if we do. If he didn't want us to understand the world around us he would have made us unable to think for ourselves. We would be unable to create our universe and even if we could it would still not make us God.



Omnipotence seems to be a qualification...

I respect your answer. Thank you.

Space-time in other realms or dimensions are speculation at this point. Unlike myself (Pay attention Lucaspa), some will literally take scripture and determine that the existence of multiple universes must exist in order to facilitate a parallel dimension for angels and demons. I can’t find scripture to even literally support this but I would not throw out the notion.

The second statement is brilliant.

 

[JohnCJ]

To the question about the boulder and lifting. If God is able to do anything, well he can also willingly limit himself however He likes, so the answer is yes He can create a boulder that He cannot lift. He showed His willingness to limit himself by coming to earth and limiting Himself with a physical body (Jesus) and allowing Himself to be our ultimate sacrifice.

Unless you believe God put only part of himself in Jesus in such away as not to take away his individual mind. Other wise Jesus is a poor example because if he was a God he was able to resist the temptations of his own creation which for a God would be no impressive task. Jesus had to be an example for man and so had to be a man. Though right now he is more than any man!

 

[Crusadar]

lucaspa said: Why? Why does God have to be all-powerful? It seems to me that God only has to be powerful enough to create the universe. That's a lot of power, but not necessarily all-powerful.

That's silly. Thats what it makes Him "God" because He is all powerful. (Note the capital G) Do remember it was He who created us and not the other way around. And where do you suppose this idea that God is "not necessarily all-powerful" come from - it isn't from scripture thats for sure. Oh I remember now, is it because he is the god of evolution - right?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

lucaspa said: Why? Why does God have to be all-powerful? It seems to me that God only has to be powerful enough to create the universe. That's a lot of power, but not necessarily all-powerful.

That's silly. Thats what it makes Him "God" because He is all powerful. (Note the capital G) Do remember it was He who created us and not the other way around. And where do you suppose this idea that God is "not necessarily all-powerful" come from - it isn't from scripture thats for sure. Oh I remember now, is it because he is the god of evolution - right?

No that is not what makes him God. Whether God has infinite power (which I don't believe) or just has a lot of power (which I do believe) makes no difference.

The insistence on infinite is the old 'My God is bigger than you're God' childishness.

 

[Bushido216]

lucaspa said: Why? Why does God have to be all-powerful? It seems to me that God only has to be powerful enough to create the universe. That's a lot of power, but not necessarily all-powerful.

That's silly. Thats what it makes Him "God" because He is all powerful. (Note the capital G) Do remember it was He who created us and not the other way around. And where do you suppose this idea that God is "not necessarily all-powerful" come from - it isn't from scripture thats for sure. Oh I remember now, is it because he is the god of evolution - right?

What's the difference between omnipotent and powerful beyond comprehension?

And if God is all-powerful, can he create a rock that even He cannot lift?

 

[Biarien]

Is there a reason God can't be "enough." As in, He is powerful enough, though maybe not all powerful? I'm not saying one is right, but why is it so necessary that He can do everything? Is it scriptural, or just a personal/denominational belief?

 

[Bushido216]

Probably the latter influenced the former.

 

[Crusadar]

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said: No that is not what makes him God. Whether God has infinite power (which I don't believe) or just has a lot of power (which I do believe) makes no difference.

Then what makes Him God? Is his omnipotence clearly seen in the process of evolution or in an instantaneous creation? But according to scripture now and not your personal views. Show me where God is nothing less than infinite in all capacities.

I don't really care about what you believe or not believe about God, what I do care about is what does His Word tell us about Him - and the Bible does paint a very clear picture of God's incomprehensible capabilities.

The insistence on infinite is the old 'My God is bigger than you're God' childishness.

No one is insisting on anything, it is what scripture tells us. A child of God yes, who stands on His Word.

-------------------------------------------------------------​

Bushido216 said: What's the difference between omnipotent and powerful beyond comprehension?

The meaning of omnipotence is that God is “powerful beyond all comprehension” meaning power to the infinite degree.

The difference is that “powerful beyond comprehension” doesn’t make one a god, it just makes them a tyrant – like the old saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Now is God absolutely corrupt because He has absolute power?

And if God is all-powerful, can he create a rock that even He cannot lift?

Gee I don’t know, could this be on the same line of thought as “if God is all powerful then can he make himself to not exist?” So would He be all powerful then if He couldn’t lift a rock that He created? Would He even be God then if he couldn't?

And because He is powerful beyond all comprehension there are some things that even He can’t do – like contradict Himself, kill himself, lie, be unholy, learn anything new, change and etc.

 

[Bushido216]

Then he isn't omnipotent if he can't do things...

You can't dodge the question that way.

 

[gluadys]

It seems to me this boils down to a few questions.

1. Does omnipotence mean God can do things that by definition cannot be done? The usual examples of things that cannot be done are definitional and often geometric. God, for example, cannot make a triangle with four corners because, by definition, a figure with four corners is not a triangle. And the usual response to this question is: No, God cannot do anything that by definition cannot be done because doing it requires a logical contradiction of some sort. Omnipotence is the power to do anything which can be done and does not extend to silly logical contradictions.

2. Does omnipotence mean God can do whatever can be done? The answer to this is again "no" for there are obviously things that can be done which God cannot do. The constraint here are the other facets of God's nature. For example, it is clearly possible to lie and deceive. But God being all-Truth cannot do these things, for they are contrary to God's nature.

3. Does omnipotence mean that God will do whatever God can do? Again the answer is "no". God could have sent legions of angels to prevent Jesus' crucifixion, but chose not to. God could have destroyed the Israelites in the desert when they sinned, but on the basis of Moses' pleading chose not to.

4. Within the constraints of logic and the constraints of God's nature, can God do whatever God chooses to do? If the answer to this question is "yes", and I believe it is, then as far as I am concerned, that is omnipotence.

Now two other considerations:
The first question dealt with logical constraints and these are easy to see in the abstract realm of geometry. I would suggest, however, that there are also concretely physical constraints of the same sort--though they probably involve questions 2 & 3 as well. I believe that having created a universe, God's range of action in the universe is limited logically by the nature of the universe. God cannot, for example, act in contravention to the law of gravity without serious consequences for the universe as a whole. And God's nature (question 2) and God's will (question 3) not to mention God's wisdom and God's love and God's purpose for the universe may all restrain God's power in this regard. I think this is the most logical explanation for why God does not take special action to prevent accidents, hurricanes, wars, crimes and other occurrences that bring widespread suffering and death. Such special action would so upset the balance of forces in the universe as to undo creation itself. So while it may be theoretically possible for God to act, it is not practically possible in these circumstances. So, by the time we consider the various constraints which even an omnipotent being must contend with: logical, divine nature, physical nature, divine will and purpose--our concept of omnipotence needs to shrink a great deal from the simplistic "God can do anything".

Still God can do what God chooses to do. Nature may not be totally malleable, but it is still manipulable, and God can accomplish God's purposes. Is that not omnipotence enough?

Finally, the plaintive cry from creationists that TEs are denying God's power is quite at odds with reality. TEs do not at all deny that God can do what God wishes to do. They simply say the evidence indicates that God chose evolution as the means of creation. That takes just as much power as instantaneous creation. And from my perspective it takes even greater wisdom, patience and love.

 

[lucaspa]

1. God is pure speculation by the same token. There has been absolutely no testing of him.

Not so. Several people have tested God. Doubting Thomas comes immediately to mind. As to evidence of the existence of God, that's what the Bible is. Now you are denying Christianity.

So i can use other space times as evidence

No, because it's not the same thing. There has been no testing of other space times. Only speculation.

and mind you this is speculation based on theories of one of the greatest minds of all of mankind (Stephen Hawking an authority in these matters).

In science, the only authority is the physical universe. Hawking is not an authority. As Hawking will be the first to admit, he can be, and has been, wrong. See his video A Brief History of Time.

If he is not omnipotent then he is lying.

Where? All I see God claiming is that He is very powerful. It is humans who have extrapolated from this to God being omnipotent.

How can man which is not omniscient understand omnipotent in the first place?

You don't need to be omniscient to understand a concept. Omnisicient is knowing everything. You don't need to know everything in order to know something or a little. It was not a duck, so here is your answer again.

God said in Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
God said he is was and will be. Which again for this not to be true he would be lying.

But God did not say He always existed. "which was" does not mean "always was". And, if God had a beginning, then that would be the Alpha, wouldn't it? The beginning of God. It's not that God is lying; it's that you are reading into the statement things that are not there.

Stephen Hawkings theory says'Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who [an English Star Trek]. But never the less, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

I read it. This is what the author is saying. However, in A Brief History of Time Hawking is more specific. Imaginary time happens when time is indistinguishable from the space dimensions, or they are indistinguishable from time. Instead of having 3 space and 1 time dimension, you have just 4 dimensions and they are all the same.
As yet again can be simply illustrated here

This can most definately leave room for a God that has always existed.

There is a difference between "leave room for" and "this is the way it is". I'm not denying the possibility that God has "always" existed; I am denying the compulsion that this is true.

Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John
Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, WHICH IS, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I talk about Paul and you quote Revelation, which has a different author. I've already taken care of 1:8. You have misread it.

In your understanding of a small finite God sure. But my understand of an omnipotent God, as he was what was, is what is, and is what is to come is what to come.

The question is whether God is omnipotent, not that I can't understand that.

Why would God have to sustain a creation working fine on its own (baring miracles in his relationship with mankind).

How do you know it works fine on its own? That's the issue! Atheism believes that natural process work without God. In fact, that is the basic statement of faith of atheism. But the Bible says God sustains the universe. That nothing in the universe happens without God's will. If God ever withdraws His will, the universe goes poof!

In The Universe in a nutshell Hawking writes: It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure.. pg 59

But that is not the same as having effects that no other theory will produce, is it? What are those effects? Should we have been able to measure them? Did you continue to read that using imaginary time means that the universe no longer has to be created? In fact, that the universe was NOT created according to No Boundary.

God is omnipotent so a mathematically proven universe that has no beginning is even more proof that God has no ending and not beginning.

A universe without beginning is a universe that was never created. It gives you a God that has no beginning but means God did not create the universe.

Hawkings philisophical thoughts make no addition or substraction to his math.

What you are missing is that God did not create under No Boundary is a conclusion from the math. That the conclusion is philosphical does not make it any less a conclusion. I'll have to find it again, but there is a webpage with an essay that argues that Hawking's No Boundary means that God cannot and does not exist.

God is not testable or verifiable it doen't mean he isn't out there. It was not arbitrary as it is part of my thesis of God being omnipotent.

For Hawking picking imaginary time and the parameters was arbitrary. There is nothing that compels him to pick those parameters and, if he picks different parameters, he still gets the universe we see around us. The only reason for picking those parameters was to eliminate a beginning of the univrse -- eliminate that the universe was created. So, if your thesis that God is omnipotent depends on Hawking, you are screwed, because imaginary time is not necessary. The foundation of your argument is gone.

If God is not omnipotent he could not create an unbound universe or creation in other words

Sure He could. Unbounded means there is a beginning to time. God can be powerful enough to do that but not omnipotent.

God not of creation but of nothing.

So, God has to create or He is nothing? But that is exactly what No Boundary does to God. It says the universe was never created. So God is not of creation.

You can't even say it about this spacetime. If we can find a way around Methodological Materialism,
if you can find a way around science and philosophy go right ahead.

You do realize, don't you, that Methodological Materialism is part of science? MM is that we can't directly test for the supernatural by the current methodology of science. We can only test the material. So, if we can find a way around this limitation of science, then we could find out if God exists or not.

Test directly makeing your own universe?

No, directly test for the supernatural.

If only God can use the method then only God can use the method.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Say only God could cause the Noachian Deluge. Well, then, if we could find evidence that could only be due to the Noachian Deluge, then that would provide strong support for God. Right now atheists are upset at the intercessory prayer studies because, traditionally, prayers are answered only by God. Show, in showing that intercessory prayers have an effect (are answered), atheists are worried that this "proves" the existence of God.

Any speculation in any true science does not include God.

"These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. " Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

8: Griffin DR. Is the universe designed? Yes and no.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:191-205.PMID: 11797749 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Pelikan J. Athens and/or Jerusalem: cosmology and/or creation.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Dec;950:17-27.

So, science can include speculation on God. And has done so. This makes it even more telling that speculations on multiple universes do not include God. They could if they thought it would help or was necessary.

To prove the existence would prove the existence of space time. God would be required for any space-times as God is the creator.

The issue in science is whether God is the creator. It is not established by science that God is the creator. As I noted with Hawking, the conclusion of No Boundary is that God is not the creator of spacetime. The existence of spacetime is "proved" by our being in spacetime. We know spacetime exists. Therefore proving God does nothing for proving spacetime. The point of the alternative hypotheses -- like No Boundary -- for the cause of the universe is that they do not depend on God to create.

Man is not omniscient therefore it is not possible to know all things and we can expect not to know.

Again, we don't have to know all things. What we know is that some things can't be known. That doesn't mean we know everything. Just that this can't be known.

But God is omnipotent and knows all and is all or he is a liar.['quote]Omnipotence is not omniscience. Again, in the Bible all we have is that God is very knowing. He knows a lot. But it does not say He is all knowing. That is a human theory about God. I wish you'd stop passing off your beliefs about God as God.

Oh I am sorry I thought we were talking about the God of our faith

We are. But apparently you are so stuck in your dogma that you won't even consider other questions, not even for fun. Not even on the off chance that the answers will give you more insight into the God of your faith. You have created a small god that you seem to know all about and there is nothing more to learn. That is a little strange considering you insist humans are not omniscient.

This doesn't say God is omniscient, just that He was around at the beginning of the universe and will be there at the ending.
Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which IS, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

This says nothing about God's knowledge (prescience) but that God exists. Please read the verse correctly.

In A Brief History of Time Hawking writes:

One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

LOL! And you are trying to use it to argue God was here forever? Don't you realize that Hawking's statement means there is no God. Didn't you see that "It [the universe] would neither be created"? You yourself said that if God didn't create, then God is nothing. You are shooting yourself in the foot.

What do you mean left Christianity? Who are you to tell me what christianity is?[

I am a person who has read the Nicean and Apostle's Creed and the Bible. Christianity is a set of shared beliefs. And this belief is not one of them. You have stated "God is everything and anything accocitated with anything." Did you notice that "everything". YOU are something. But YOU are not God. Yet your statement says you are. A mountain is something, but God is not a mountain. Yet you said God is "everything", including the mountain. This belief is not Christian. It is panentheism. Now, if you want to be a panentheist, that is OK. I'm not telling you that you can't be this. But I am saying that you can't believe this and still be a Christian. Christianity has God separate from His Creation. You can't redefine Christianity just because you want to. You can't change the shared beliefs. If you no longer believe what Christians do, then admit it and leave Christianity. You can't force Christianity to follow you.

 

[lucaspa]

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said: No that is not what makes him God. Whether God has infinite power (which I don't believe) or just has a lot of power (which I do believe) makes no difference.

Then what makes Him God?

That He is powerful enough to do what we consider God able to do.

Is his omnipotence clearly seen in the process of evolution or in an instantaneous creation? But according to scripture now and not your personal views. Show me where God is nothing less than infinite in all capacities.

God is not omnipresent. Remember, in quantum mechanics observation collapses the wave function of probabilities. If God were omnipresent there would be no incoherence -- no place where Schroedinger's Cat is both dead and alive. Yet the Cat is both dead and alive. So God is not omnipresent:
. G Taubes, Atomic mouse probes the lifetime of a quantum cat. Science, 274 (6 Dec): 1615, 1996.
6. P Yam, Bringing Schrodinger's cat to life. Scientific American, June, 1997, pp. 124-129. Summary of recent experiments of superposition (coherence) and dechoherence.
7. GP Collins, Schrodinger's SQUID. Scientific American 283: 23-24, October 2000. Electric current flows both ways around a superconducting loop at the same time.

Please show me the Bible verses that says God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I submit that these are human theories about God.

the Bible does paint a very clear picture of God's incomprehensible capabilities.

Yes, the Bible paints a picture of VERY powerful, knowing, and present entity. But that does not mean God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. That is your extrapolation from what the text says.

The difference is that “powerful beyond comprehension” doesn’t make one a god, it just makes them a tyrant

Why?

– like the old saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Now is God absolutely corrupt because He has absolute power?

According to omnipotence, that is exactly what He is. However, remember that this saying applies to humans. No one said it applied to God. Amazing that you would think it applied to God.

And if God is all-powerful, can he create a rock that even He cannot lift?

Gee I don’t know, could this be on the same line of thought as “if God is all powerful then can he make himself to not exist?” So would He be all powerful then if He couldn’t lift a rock that He created? Would He even be God then if he couldn't?

Nice handwaving, but you still can't get around the fact that God can't be omnipotent. We say that yes, God would still be God. It is omnipotence that we are discarding, not God.

And because He is powerful beyond all comprehension there are some things that even He can’t do – like contradict Himself, kill himself, lie, be unholy, learn anything new, change and etc.

Well then, you have just shown that God isn't omnipotent, because you believe God can't contradict Himself, lie, or be unholy. However, the Bible is clear that God has learned new things and changed. At least changed His mind upon occasion. (hint: look up David and Amelekites and Acts 9)

 

[lucaspa]

1. Does omnipotence mean God can do things that by definition cannot be done?

Omnipotence:
"1 : the quality or state of being omnipotent
2 : an agency or force of unlimited power "
Omnipotent:
"2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence"
See that "virtually unlimited"? Well, your examples make limits.

No, God cannot do anything that by definition cannot be done because doing it requires a logical contradiction of some sort. Omnipotence is the power to do anything which can be done and does not extend to silly logical contradictions.

But that last isn't the definition, is it? You have changed the definition. Now, rather than change the definition to include the limits, how about we simply discard omnipotence as a requirement to be God?

2. Does omnipotence mean God can do whatever can be done? The answer to this is again "no" for there are obviously things that can be done which God cannot do. The constraint here are the other facets of God's nature.

More limits. Remember, "constaint" is a synonym for "limit". The definition of omnipotent is unlimited.

4. Within the constraints of logic and the constraints of God's nature, can God do whatever God chooses to do? If the answer to this question is "yes", and I believe it is, then as far as I am concerned, that is omnipotence.

But it isn't the definition. You have just redefined the word so that you can keep the word, but not what it means. So, you don't think God is omnipotent as in "virtually unlimited".

I believe that having created a universe, God's range of action in the universe is limited logically by the nature of the universe. God cannot, for example, act in contravention to the law of gravity without serious consequences for the universe as a whole.

We are not talking about miracles. God can act in contravention to gravity in local areas without serious consequences for the universe as a whole. For instance, God can cancel the gravitational attraction between you and the earth without consequences to the universe as a whole.

Rather, what we are talking about is that there are parts of the universe which God simply can't get around. One of them is the consequences of the Uncertainty Principle. For whatever reason, God made a universe where it simply can't be known the exact position and momentum of an electron or which photon will go thru a mirror and which will be reflected. Can't be known. Not by God, not by any method or anyone.

So, the question becomes: why did God create a universe like this? Of course, we probably won't ever get to that question because too many people are in denial that the universe is like this.

I think this is the most logical explanation for why God does not take special action to prevent accidents, hurricanes, wars, crimes and other occurrences that bring widespread suffering and death. Such special action would so upset the balance of forces in the universe as to undo creation itself.

I have another, that I think is better, explanation: to do so deprives our lives of meaning. It converts us to puppets.

Nature may not be totally malleable, but it is still manipulable, and God can accomplish God's purposes. Is that not omnipotence enough?

How about: is that not powerful enough? See, when you put that "enough" on it, you leave the "unlimited" and acknowledge that there are limits. So the question to you is: why are you clinging to the word "omnipotence" even tho you are redefining it to be the same as "powerful". A rose by any other name ... So, why do you want the name of rose?

Finally, the plaintive cry from creationists that TEs are denying God's power is quite at odds with reality. TEs do not at all deny that God can do what God wishes to do. They simply say the evidence indicates that God chose evolution as the means of creation. That takes just as much power as instantaneous creation. And from my perspective it takes even greater wisdom, patience and love.

Very good.

 

[rmills]

That He is powerful enough to do what we consider God able to do.

That statement right there answers every question I had about your theological reasoning for TE or anything else.

Thanks.

 

[gluadys]

Omnipotence:
"1 : the quality or state of being omnipotent
2 : an agency or force of unlimited power "
Omnipotent:
"2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence"
See that "virtually unlimited"? Well, your examples make limits.

But that last isn't the definition, is it? You have changed the definition. Now, rather than change the definition to include the limits, how about we simply discard omnipotence as a requirement to be God?

More limits. Remember, "constaint" is a synonym for "limit". The definition of omnipotent is unlimited.

But it isn't the definition. You have just redefined the word so that you can keep the word, but not what it means. So, you don't think God is omnipotent as in "virtually unlimited".

I would vote for changing the definition. I think the common definition creates unrealistic expectations.

We are not talking about miracles. God can act in contravention to gravity in local areas without serious consequences for the universe as a whole. For instance, God can cancel the gravitational attraction between you and the earth without consequences to the universe as a whole.

I have nothing against that kind of miracle. I was thinking more of some of the literal flood scenarios which would require significant changes in the physical and chemical properties of matter on a large scale.

Rather, what we are talking about is that there are parts of the universe which God simply can't get around. One of them is the consequences of the Uncertainty Principle. For whatever reason, God made a universe where it simply can't be known the exact position and momentum of an electron or which photon will go thru a mirror and which will be reflected. Can't be known. Not by God, not by any method or anyone.

So, the question becomes: why did God create a universe like this? Of course, we probably won't ever get to that question because too many people are in denial that the universe is like this.

Oh, I'm with you here. Theologically I identify the uncertainty principle with a sort of freedom for the universe to become. God doesn't decide in advance what will happen every moment. God can't even know in advance every detail of what will happen. In order to create the kind of universe we have discovered we live in, it is necessary that God relinquish a degree of control over its becoming. And a God who is willing to do this is a God much to be admired and worshipped---and imitated. We have too many people running around who think they must be in total control of their lives and of others as well.

I have another, that I think is better, explanation: to do so deprives our lives of meaning. It converts us to puppets.

I don't disagree, but that is a different plane of argument.

How about: is that not powerful enough? See, when you put that "enough" on it, you leave the "unlimited" and acknowledge that there are limits. So the question to you is: why are you clinging to the word "omnipotence" even tho you are redefining it to be the same as "powerful". A rose by any other name ... So, why do you want the name of rose?

Basically because it's already there. Personally I don't really care what the label is as long as the concept is clarified. But people have associated omnipotence with divinity for so long I figure redefining the concept is easier than denying it. But hey! I could be wrong. Sure wouldn't be the first time.

Very good.

Thanks. From you that is a significant compliment.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Logically, God can't be omnipotent. I've heard all the handwaving, but I'm still faced with the question: Can God create a rock He can't lift? No matter the answer, God isn't omnipotent.

It's a stupid paradox. Anyone who's even stared at the outside of Quantum physics knows that the universe is far more complicated then we CAN understand. Attempting to place any sort of limitations on a being who not only understands these workings, but created them is futile.