freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Yet still omnipotence is impossible within his creation, he must have special condition, which means he is subject to his creation, although not in the same way that we are subject to it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Disproving god with the laws of logic
- Thread starter freethinker44
- Start date
Yet still omnipotence is impossible within his creation, he must have special condition, which means he is subject to his creation, although not in the same way that we are subject to it.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
You are right. He would have some leeway, but not infinite leeway. He is still, to some extent, subject to his creation.
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
I don't find that to be a particularly logical argument. The 'special set of conditions' may well be that he has no constraints whatsoever.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
A completely objective being cannot exist, everything is subject ot something else. Even something not being subjected to anything is still subjected to complete freedom. Objectivity can only exist as a concept, reality is subjective.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
And now we come full circle to the original post. So, even the most powerfull being real or conceived is not a god, it is just a powerfull being.
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
I'm sorry, but I can make little sense of this. Is there such a thing as being subjected to freedom?
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
Either that, or your logic is a little circular...
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I know, logic is hard, I get a headache from thinking about it sometimes but I will try to break it down.
A being with total freedom must not be constrained by any rules or laws.
If this being could be subjected to anything, then it is not completely free.
However, if a being can not be subjected to any rules, it cannot be completely free, because it wouldn't have the freedom to do as it chooses if it chooses to not be free. If it doesn't have the freedom to choose complete freedom then it is not completely free.
This kind of goes along the same lines of the paradoxes created with omnipotence. Omnipotence is impossible, complete freedom is also impossible, therefore, everything is subjective to something else.
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
But this hypothetical being could choose to remain in complete freedom, or subject himself to an environment where he is not completely free, and feasibly have the freedom to change between the two states.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
It would seem, but that is like asking if god could choose to not be god. But if god isn't god, then how can god become god again. If he chooses to give up whatever makes him a god, but can still become god, then he never actually stopped being god in the first place. If we have physical laws that deem such a being impossible to exist, and this being chooses to become subjected to these laws, then it would essentially be choosing to not exist, or it would be choosing to never be a god. It is kind of a trap. So in order for god to remain god, god cannot interact with his creation, but god is still subjected to the possibility of being subjected to something. There is no objectivity.
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
But if God were to, say, split himself - one part remaining God, and the other part being subject to his creation, he would pull that off rather niftily.
rageoftyrael
Veritas
only one problem with your entire argument. if there is a god, who says logic applies? better yet, let's go with the theory that the universe and god are the same. now of course, there are rules involved, but let's assume he can change them, at will. so, if everything in existence is a part of god, and he can change any part of himself at will, in any imaginable way, doesn't that pretty much break your theory?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
This would mean that we are apart of god, and also that we do not possess a consciousness because our perceived consciousness is not ours but gods, which mean any kind of retribution by such a god would be meaningless because anything we say do or think, including logic would be gods will since we are only extensions of god because we are apart of the universe. Unless you are saying this god who is our universe doesn't have a consciousness, but even that would be wrong because we are part of the universe and we have a consciousness so, if this is true, the universe must possess a consciousness at our level at least.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Several centuries ago, a piece of writing gave credit that God is self aware.
The mention of such takes place in the old testament.
Moses was about to descend the mount, to take his report to the people, when he turned to ask of Him....the name of God.
God replied.... 'tell the people "I am." They, who understand will know whose law this is.'
The brief statement, offered as a name, is profound in it's meaning.
It gives indication, that the creation is the effect, and the will of God caused it all to happen.
The singularity, and the resulting universe (one word), could be thought of as the echo, to that initial pronouncement.
The mention of such takes place in the old testament.
Moses was about to descend the mount, to take his report to the people, when he turned to ask of Him....the name of God.
God replied.... 'tell the people "I am." They, who understand will know whose law this is.'
The brief statement, offered as a name, is profound in it's meaning.
It gives indication, that the creation is the effect, and the will of God caused it all to happen.
The singularity, and the resulting universe (one word), could be thought of as the echo, to that initial pronouncement.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Whatever caused the "singularity", if it even had or needed a cause, was not god.
rageoftyrael
Veritas
what if that cause was natural? while the definition of god is dynamic, most people would agree that when they think of god, they think supernatural. so, if the cause(assuming there was one) was natural, than who's to say it was god? you know, if there is a god, you probably have no better an idea of what it/he/she/other is than anyone else. that's what i reject more than anything else, that people who have never actually spoken to god, or any such thing, actually think they know what this god is like. let alone the fact that there is no evidence, as far as we know, that there is even a god to begin with.
and yeah, freethinker, the funny part is that there are people who basically believe what i said. and yeah, it would be pointless for such a god to exact retribution for anything. but like most atheists say, we don't necessarily reject the idea of a god in general, most of us reject the theistic gods, cause those gods are just ridiculous.
and yeah, freethinker, the funny part is that there are people who basically believe what i said. and yeah, it would be pointless for such a god to exact retribution for anything. but like most atheists say, we don't necessarily reject the idea of a god in general, most of us reject the theistic gods, cause those gods are just ridiculous.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Freethinker is correct in as much as to posit that Perfection cannot exist within the confines of reality IFF reality is imperfect. If reality (the totality) is perfect, then it is itself the Perfection in question, and thus the question is mooted.
Try to contain an infinity within a finite structure and the finite structure fails. It is only by leaving some quality or another undefined that limited constructs manage to contain seemingly infinite qualities of one sort or another. In order to avoid contradiction (or rather to invalidate contradiction) Perfection (which must be non-finite in all respects) must be completely indeterminate. Perfection exists and it does not exist. To be otherwise is to be limited, and thus not Perfection.
The ultimate question of whether reality was created or not falls on its face since we can't really gather evidence of whether it was or not. The best we can do is posit how likely our immediate confines are of being designed or not. And that is hardly indicative of the whole.
MTF
Try to contain an infinity within a finite structure and the finite structure fails. It is only by leaving some quality or another undefined that limited constructs manage to contain seemingly infinite qualities of one sort or another. In order to avoid contradiction (or rather to invalidate contradiction) Perfection (which must be non-finite in all respects) must be completely indeterminate. Perfection exists and it does not exist. To be otherwise is to be limited, and thus not Perfection.
The ultimate question of whether reality was created or not falls on its face since we can't really gather evidence of whether it was or not. The best we can do is posit how likely our immediate confines are of being designed or not. And that is hardly indicative of the whole.
MTF
Thief
Rogue Theologian
That the singularity has a natural cause?
'Nature' used to be the name of a god.
The God I believe in doesn't have a name.
When Moses asked for a name he was told....
'Tell the people...'I am'...and the ones who understand will know whose law this is.
It seems that labeling God brings objection more quickly than anything else.
So as we discuss the singularity, I say God did it.
Hence the label, 'creator'.
If you take away that label, and replace it with another noun, the cause is still there....separate and yet retaining a relationship to the singularity.
You can't separate the singularity from it's Source, altogether.
The singularity is the effect, and the One who spoke 'I am' is the cause.
Now if you're uncomfortable with the God that Moses dealt with...
don't be Jewish.
'Nature' used to be the name of a god.
The God I believe in doesn't have a name.
When Moses asked for a name he was told....
'Tell the people...'I am'...and the ones who understand will know whose law this is.
It seems that labeling God brings objection more quickly than anything else.
So as we discuss the singularity, I say God did it.
Hence the label, 'creator'.
If you take away that label, and replace it with another noun, the cause is still there....separate and yet retaining a relationship to the singularity.
You can't separate the singularity from it's Source, altogether.
The singularity is the effect, and the One who spoke 'I am' is the cause.
Now if you're uncomfortable with the God that Moses dealt with...
don't be Jewish.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
or Muslim
or Christian