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 still present the alternative of "chaos" as the beginning of everything.
Max said that "nothing" would include also "no potentials". That is correct. But he also allows "God" to act beyond the rules of logic... and so does Chaos. "Nothing" also means "no logic".
So there can be potentials without there being potentials. And where there are potentials, there are actualities.
There are cyclic models of the universe positing infinite series of expansions and contractions. The Steinhardt model is one. I'm not an expert by any means, but I know they avoid the thermodynamic death which might be assumed by the 2nd Law. And they are consistent with the evidence that is thought to support the Big Bang. Steinhardt draws from M-Theory, which is controversial. But the point is that there are coherent scientific theories for an eternal universe which obviate the need for some supernatural creative force.
It's a comparison that is unwarranted, the swimming one.
Sinning is not choosing God; if we could only choose God would free will be free? No, it would be just another function of God, not separate from Him.
If you have a mouse in maze that is just a straight corridor, is it a maze? Does the mouse choose? In order for it not to be a choice, we would have to be completely unaware of anything but good, which makes choosing good not a choice.
You can swim 1000 fathoms under the sea. But you will die. You have the choice to, but there are consequences.
Quote from the OP: "Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality."I allow God to act beyond logic nowhere; His omnipotence is enough of a logical explanation.
No. The logical conclusion only goes as far as that logic does not apply to chaos/nothing. What happens then is not dealt with logic, but with chaology.Firstly, if you think logic does not apply, this argument does not apply. Because it can make sense. It uses premises and makes a conclusion; a logical argument. So your own premise that logic does not apply violate your argument.
But logic can´t apply. As soon as you introduce a concept where logic can be transcended, it becomes meaningless.Secondly, potentialities do not imply actualities. Much potential is never moved into actuality, and anyway, what is there to move nothing into something, to move potentiality into actuality?
I only follow your footsteps.And don't say logic can't apply, because to support that argument you use logic.
There is no formal scientific definition... this concept of "chaos" does not derive from science, but a thorough following of the though what "nothing" really means.Is there some formal scientific definition of "chaos"? Where is all of this coming from?
In asserting something cannot come from nothing, some think I have run into an apparent contradiction - how can God create something from nothing if something cannot come from nothing?
For the sake of this thread, accept these two premises:
1) God exists as Creator
2) He is omnipotent
Now, something cannot come from nothing because nothing is absolute lack - lack of any actuality or potentiality. That which has no potential to exist will not, ever, exist. Thus nothing can only beget nothing.
God is something. He is omnipotent. There was no prior substance to His creation, "nothing," that we have now, but not absolute nothing as in the example above. Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality. So, when God exists, you have potentiality from which things can move into actuality, but with absolute nothing, you have no such potentiality.
There is no formal scientific definition... this concept of "chaos" does not derive from science, but a thorough following of the though what "nothing" really means.
But they're not. We have the ability to try anything, successful or not.Consequences are irrelevant to the issue of free will.
But sin is different. If we were aware of sin, and could try it, that would be a sin in and of itself. So we can only know God, not sin. But if we only knew God, our only choice would be God. No choice means no free will.In the diving analogy, no human can dive down 1000 fathoms. It cannot be done no matter how much a person wants to. They might die trying, but they couldn't actually do it. Thus, this illustrates how we always have limits on our possible options, yet remain having free will.
Eating isn't so much a choice as it is a matter of preference.I eat what tastes good, and anyway, eating can be sinful.Eliminating evil choices does not mean all option would be good. There are nutral options. Choosing to eat an apple over an orange does not necessarily implicated good over evil. Like most choices we use our free will with daily, good or evil are simly not implicated. Yet, our free will in these decisions remain.
Free will is the ability to choose. If one takes away all the oranges, do we choose to eat apples? We have no choice.Removing sinful options also does nothing to eliminate free will. There is no such requirement in free will. Free will requires the ability to free choose among more than one viable option. There are innumerable things any individual cannot do regardless of free will, but this does not eliminate that person's free will.
So why did God create us? I can honestly say I do not know.Finally, what pleasure would God derive from people not choosing him? What aspect of existence was/is God lacking that required he create humans who could reject him? This whole concept implies an imperfect and incomplete God. A god that needed more to be whole, and required fallible creations, a vast majority of whom would reject him, in order to be fully god. If this is not the case, then creating humans would just an unecessary and arbitrary joke.
Which is it?
Yes, that is the definition of omnipotence. God as the first cause would have to be omnipotent... how does that not logically follow? Like I said, the mechanism, not the concept, eludes us. Like gravity.Quote from the OP: "Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality."
So he can do anything, even if it is logically impossible. Because he is "omnipotent"... which does not mean anything but that he can do anything.
Why?Well, "Chaos" is omnipotent as well.
Actually, your argument goes beyond saying logic cannot apply, it goes into saying since logic doesn't apply, anything goes. A conclusion following from the premise and previous conclusion. Logic.No. The logical conclusion only goes as far as that logic does not apply to chaos/nothing. What happens then is not dealt with logic, but with chaology.
Logic can be violated by omnipotence, but omnipotence can be logically defended. So omnipotence is not a logic-transcending concept.But logic can´t apply. As soon as you introduce a concept where logic can be transcended, it becomes meaningless.
Not true - God's omnipotence as a necessary being can be defended, demonstrated, but like I said, all God's omnipotence means is that the mechanism eludes us in our base understanding of Him, not the concept.You allowed you God-concept to transcend logic (...can do anything - "logically" possible or not...) and thus no logic argument you make has any back-up any more. You don´t need God´s will, God´s nature or whatever you use to explain the how and why of this existence... is is no longer necessary.
Nuh-uh!I only follow your footsteps.
I think you may have looked over that pile of other assorted fruits just beyond the oranges. Sorry we don't have any apples. Anyone want a banana or kiwi instead?Free will is the ability to choose. If one takes away all the oranges, do we choose to eat apples? We have no choice.
Kiwi is good.I think you may have looked over that pile of other assorted fruits just beyond the oranges. Sorry we don't have any apples. Anyone want a banana or kiwi instead?
Your dichotomy doesn't exist.
The concept of omnipotence is a linguistic machination, not a logical conclusion.Yes, that is the definition of omnipotence. God as the first cause would have to be omnipotent... how does that not logically follow? Like I said, the mechanism, not the concept, eludes us. Like gravity.
Because!Why?
That´s why I discribed "chaos" as undescribable. It transcends our ability to make statements about it.Actually, your argument goes beyond saying logic cannot apply, it goes into saying since logic doesn't apply, anything goes. A conclusion following from the premise and previous conclusion. Logic.
But if logic doesn't apply, chaology doesn't; if logic doesn't apply then you cannot make the conclusion anything is possible. You simply have to stop there, and make no more statements, unless the statements themselves in no way make any kind of logical sense.
Not quite. As soon as you introduce a concept that can violate logic, you do away with the need for logical reasoning to conclude it.Logic can be violated by omnipotence, but omnipotence can be logically defended. So omnipotence is not a logic-transcending concept.
Basically, I don´t debate against the concept of "omnipotence" or even "violating logic". In my view, Chaos does the same.Not true - God's omnipotence as a necessary being can be defended, demonstrated, but like I said, all God's omnipotence means is that the mechanism eludes us in our base understanding of Him, not the concept.
And why do you think that?Sorry, it took me some time to get back to this thread.
The concept of omnipotence is a linguistic machination, not a logical conclusion.
Alright.Because!
Why is God omnipotent? Because he is, he necessarily must be (how can something necessarily be when there is no logic?), because our system would break down if he wasn´t.
Chaos is omnipotent because chaos is everything.
Than you can't say it implies something will come from it.That´s why I discribed "chaos" as undescribable. It transcends our ability to make statements about it.
No, you do away with the need to logical reason for the mechanism the omnipotence, not the concept or application of the omnipotence.Not quite. As soon as you introduce a concept that can violate logic, you do away with the need for logical reasoning to conclude it.
Yeah, but you say the overarching concept violate logic, not an aspect of it.Basically, I don´t debate against the concept of "omnipotence" or even "violating logic". In my view, Chaos does the same.
It's not God that violates logic, it's that He can in a mechanism. Basically, you can logically conclude He exists, is willful, and is omnipotent.All I am doing is trying to show that as soon as you introduce such a concept, every other statement becomes meaningless.
Because "everything" is a vague a concept as "nothing"... but it sounds good.And why do you think that?
That is correct. But I can still say something might come from it.Than you can't say it implies something will come from it.
Doesn´t matter. It´s a kind of backlash... as soon as you introduced something that violates logic, it invalidates (logically speaking) anything connected with it.No, you do away with the need to logical reason for the mechanism the omnipotence, not the concept or application of the omnipotence.
Yeah, but you say the overarching concept violate logic, not an aspect of it.
Perhaps you could help me out here: in other posts in this thread, several concepts were brought that you denied would violate logic, and this not touch the topic of omnipotence. The square triangles were such an example.It's not God that violates logic, it's that He can in a mechanism. Basically, you can logically conclude He exists, is willful, and is omnipotent.
Not really. The definition of everything, is, of course, the broadest of all, but it is not badly defined. It is a thing with no boundaries.Because "everything" is a vague a concept as "nothing"... but it sounds good.
But the only reason you're prejudiced to say that is that you see there is something, so you must conclude chaos could or did in some way cause it. But why is there not still chaos? Why did chaos "kill" itself? Why did the universe limit itself in logic? In chaos, both something and nothing existed. Neither bound by logic, apparently. Still is this true?That is correct. But I can still say something might come from it.
Not necessarily. If you can logically conclude a mechanism that could violate logic, is it so illogical?Doesn´t matter. It´s a kind of backlash... as soon as you introduced something that violates logic, it invalidates (logically speaking) anything connected with it.
I don't recall the square triangles, I think that was another user.Perhaps you could help me out here: in other posts in this thread, several concepts were brought that you denied would violate logic, and this not touch the topic of omnipotence. The square triangles were such an example.
Creating something with no prior substance.Perhaps you could give me some (or one) example of what you consider "violation logic" but where God is still able to do it?
And metaphysics are, as we both know, one of the most exact of sciences.Not really. The definition of everything, is, of course, the broadest of all, but it is not badly defined. It is a thing with no boundaries.
And nothing is the lack of something. Both are well enough defined, and essential if you want to discuss metaphysics.
Oh, I see where this misunderstanding comes from now. (Or rather, I do not: the same concepts would apply to "God")But the only reason you're prejudiced to say that is that you see there is something, so you must conclude chaos could or did in some way cause it. But why is there not still chaos? Why did chaos "kill" itself? Why did the universe limit itself in logic? In chaos, both something and nothing existed. Neither bound by logic, apparently. Still is this true?
Yes... I´ll come back to that at the end.Not necessarily. If you can logically conclude a mechanism that could violate logic, is it so illogical?
Correct. And in response that that proposal you said: "And making round squares isn't impossible, per se, but a paradox."I don't recall the square triangles, I think that was another user.
Before I comment and continue the thought from above, I would you to answer another question: why do you think these examples are logically impossible?Creating something with no prior substance.
Separating a thing(the soul, intellect) from Himself.
Wrong forum, isn't it? This would be more appropriate in C&E.In asserting something cannot come from nothing, some think I have run into an apparent contradiction - how can God create something from nothing if something cannot come from nothing?
For the sake of this thread, accept these two premises:
1) God exists as Creator
2) He is omnipotent
Now, something cannot come from nothing because nothing is absolute lack - lack of any actuality or potentiality. That which has no potential to exist will not, ever, exist. Thus nothing can only beget nothing.
God is something. He is omnipotent. There was no prior substance to His creation, "nothing," that we have now, but not absolute nothing as in the example above. Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality. So, when God exists, you have potentiality from which things can move into actuality, but with absolute nothing, you have no such potentiality.
Peter Kreeft argues that God cannot do anything that is not logically possible. He cannot make round squares or a universe where free will exists but the possibility to sin does not, for example. There is no evidence to suggest that God can do the impossible, since it is by definition impossible.
And metaphysics are, as we both know, one of the most exact of sciences.
So chaos, being invisible and above logic, would simply be another supernatural thing, no?Oh, I see where this misunderstanding comes from now. (Or rather, I do not: the same concepts would apply to "God")
There still IS Chaos. Chaos does not change. The "visible" universe is simply a subset of Chaos.
Ok.Yes... I´ll come back to that at the end.
He can do the paradox, but will He? No. He's not a stupid Guy. Also, what may be an apparent paradox to us might not be so to Him.Correct. And in response that that proposal you said: "And making round squares isn't impossible, per se, but a paradox."
Well, what is a paradox, if not something that is logically impossible, because it violates its own definition?
But if I understood you correctly, you say that God can do the logically impossible, but not the paradox. Am I right in this? How does that jive with omnipotence?
For the first one, in order for something to come into being it must move from potentiality to actuality, and with no prior substance you have no potentiality. But that's where God comes from.Before I comment and continue the thought from above, I would you to answer another question: why do you think these examples are logically impossible?
Um, I must say you have a certain talent for completely misrepresenting a person's argument. And God isn't "supercomplex."Wrong forum, isn't it? This would be more appropriate in C&E.
Actually, I find it pretty hard to even take your premises for granted, as "something cannot come from nothing, so it must have been created by that supercomplex überbeing" strikes me as a rather simplistic and fallacious approach to begin with.
Again, chaos fails to make sense to me because the entire argument goes, to take a page out of your book, "something didn't exist so everything existed."Now, regardless of whether a divine being exists, you cannot apply a simple cause-and-effect approach to the beginning of spacetime, as time itself did not exist independently of space, and was thus nonexistant prior to what is commonly referred to as the "Big Bang". Technically, there simply was no "before", and the conditions that could be found inside a singularity like the one that supposedly gave birth to our universe are totally outside of anything we can conceive of. No "before" or "after", no "here" nor "there", just infinity, caught up in a point that does not take up any space.
Tohu va bohu, to say it with a Hebrew term. Chaos.
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?