Is omniscience or omnipotence really possible?

[tomspug]

I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are not properly definable by mankind, since we are limited to using our own limited definitions and understanding. So, yeah, it doesn't make sense.

But then again, you could equally argue that the concept of infinity isn't possible either, yet we accept the concept. It is merely that: a concept. Omniscience and omnipotence are concepts, but that does not make them impossible, simply impossible to DEFINE (which for some people means the same thing).

 

[mr.guy]

I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are not properly definable by mankind, since we are limited to using our own limited definitions and understanding. So, yeah, it doesn't make sense.

I think they're easily difinable. Like most things, they're often made out to be more than the what the mean. The concept is largely bound and limited by reality, whatever that is.

But then again, you could equally argue that the concept of infinity isn't possible either, yet we accept the concept. It is merely that: a concept. Omniscience and omnipotence are concepts, but that does not make them impossible, simply impossible to DEFINE (which for some people means the same thing).

Why are concepts, at large, impossible to define?

 

[tomspug]

I wasn't saying that all concepts are impossible to define, but because they are ONLY comprehensible as concepts, they are not definable. We define infinity merely as a symbol, as well as the square root of -1, and a number divided by -1. None of these can be defined beyond the concept.

 

[mr.guy]

I wasn't saying that all concepts are impossible to define, but because they are ONLY comprehensible as concepts, they are not definable.

If i've never seen a bird, but have heard of one, would it be indefinable? I'm still not clear on the cutoff, here.

We define infinity merely as a symbol, as well as the square root of -1, and a number divided by -1. None of these can be defined beyond the concept.

For that matter, any mathematics (confusing or no) could be related as such.

"One" is defined by symbol, and related to by concept (the loneliest number).

Yet, is it possible to define the number one?

 

[Magic Man]

If i've never seen a bird, but have heard of one, would it be indefinable? I'm still not clear on the cutoff, here.

For that matter, any mathematics (confusing or no) could be related as such.

"One" is defined by symbol, and related to by concept (the loneliest number).

Yet, is it possible to define the number one?

The difference is that a bird is something we can physically experience, concepts like infinity are not. Animals fall into the category of things that we can easily wrap our minds around. You can picture a bird because you can view it with your eyes.

No, any mathematics couldn't be related as such because we can do most math in the real world. If I physically have 5 birds in a cage, and I add 1 more, I now have six. I can't have -1 birds, it's only a concept.

 

[rajakrsna]

A god that is omniscient would know all of its future decisions, therefore is severely limited by its own knowledge, i.e. has no freewill. This seems an absurdity, therefore, at best a god can only be omniscient about all things and decisions unrelated to itself.

But this means it is not truly omniscient, as it cannot know the future, since it does not know the actions it will take. If it is not omniscient, it follows that it cannot be omnipotent, as it is usually taken that one implies the other.

Any thoughts?

If there was no omiscient & omnipotent person to reckon with in the first place, logic is impossible. Everything would have been quixotic err chaotic.

 

[yossarian22]

The difference is that a bird is something we can physically experience, concepts like infinity are not. Animals fall into the category of things that we can easily wrap our minds around. You can picture a bird because you can view it with your eyes.

No, any mathematics couldn't be related as such because we can do most math in the real world. If I physically have 5 birds in a cage, and I add 1 more, I now have six. I can't have -1 birds, it's only a concept.

That breaks your case, every number has a real world use.
√-1 or i is used heavily in engineering. Electronics uses it to determine force vectors for AC circuits. There can be negative voltage as well.
And the trouble you are having is with treating infinity as a discrete number; it's not. Infinity is a direction.

 

[Francine]

√-1 or i is used heavily in engineering. Electronics uses it to determine force vectors for AC circuits. There can be negative voltage as well.

There's no mystique there, i simply extends the number line in the vertical direction so you can perform Laplace transforms (of which the Fourier transform is a subset). They chose the word "imaginary" to differentiate that part of a complex number from the real part, and in the popular mind, imaginary means "not physical", but it is actually just as physical as the real part.

 

[Francine]

Infinity is a direction.

Although it sounds contradictory, infinity is a limit. We say the function F(x)=1/x approaches zero as x approaches infinity.

 

[yossarian22]

Although it sounds contradictory, infinity is a limit. We say the function F(x)=1/x approaches zero as x approaches infinity.

Infinity can be used as a limit, but only for functions. It is a direction, it always is. It can't be discrete.
A limit is just a direction which x (in this case) approaches but never hits.

And for those interested, infinity can't be discrete, because, if it was ,it would be equal to 1/4

A plane with an infinite length has coordinates of (-∞,-&#8734 (∞,&#8734
Therefore
∞=[∞-(-&#8734]²
∞=(2&#8734²
∞=4∞²
1=4∞
∞=1/4

 

[rajakrsna]

Infinity can be used as a limit, but only for functions. It is a direction, it always is. It can't be discrete.
A limit is just a direction which x (in this case) approaches but never hits.

And for those interested, infinity can't be discrete, because, if it was ,it would be equal to 1/4

A plane with an infinite length has coordinates of (-∞,-&#8734 (∞,&#8734
Therefore
∞=[∞-(-&#8734]²
∞=(2&#8734²
∞=4∞²
1=4∞
∞=1/4

Can you please describe infinity further with words? I`m not good in numbers & equations, you know. I flunked algebra in my 2nd year high.

 

[yossarian22]

Can you please describe infinity further with words? I`m not good in numbers & equations, you know. I flunked algebra in my 2nd year high.

Sure.
Infinity is different from any other number in that it is not a fixed quantity.
2 is always 2, no matter what. Infinity on the the other hand, cannot be assigned a numerical quantity. Infinity is always bigger than any number we assign it by its definition.
Because of this, infinity is considered a direction and not an actual number.
On a traditional number line, infinity is the right, and negative infinity is the left.

 

[rajakrsna]

Sure.
Infinity is different from any other number in that it is not a fixed quantity.
2 is always 2, no matter what. Infinity on the the other hand, cannot be assigned a numerical quantity. Infinity is always bigger than any number we assign it by its definition.
Because of this, infinity is considered a direction and not an actual number.
On a traditional number line, infinity is the right, and negative infinity is the left.

If infinity is a line or direction will it takes us say, to the kingdom of God? Is this line going straight or it reaches upto a point where it bends or curves? Like going in circles.

 

[yossarian22]

If infinity is a line or direction will it takes us say, to the kingdom of God? Is this line going straight or it reaches upto a point where it bends or curves? Like going in circles.

If its a line, it can't curve, or else it is not a line. It just keeps going and going.

Kind of like the energizer bunny,

 

[rajakrsna]

If its a line, it can't curve, or else it is not a line. It just keeps going and going.

Kind of like the energizer bunny,

It`s because I read about Einstein`s theory that if you travel straight in outer space from point A you will ultimately in the end reach point A. Like going in circles.

 

[Francine]

It`s because I read about Einstein`s theory that if you travel straight in outer space from point A you will ultimately in the end reach point A. Like going in circles.

That's not what Einstein said at all. His equations work for all three possibilities for the shape of the universe, a closed Riemannian manifold (spherical), a flat parabolic universe (Euclidian), or a hyperbolic universe, shaped like a giant Pringle. My belief is that it is spherical, but so huge that our best detectors will see it as flat.

 

[rajakrsna]

That's not what Einstein said at all. His equations work for all three possibilities for the shape of the universe, a closed Riemannian manifold (spherical), a flat parabolic universe (Euclidian), or a hyperbolic universe, shaped like a giant Pringle. My belief is that it is spherical, but so huge that our best detectors will see it as flat.

I was moved by that movie Planet of the Apes. When they left earth for outer space from point A they reached a thousand years later point A which they thought was on another planet. & yet they didn`t grow very old.:snoopy:

 

[Francine]

I was moved by that movie Planet of the Apes. When they left earth for outer space from point A they reached a thousand years later point A which they thought was on another planet. & yet they didn`t grow very old.:snoopy:

Except for the woman in the malfunctioning hibernation chamber. She got real old.

 

[logician]

So, you won't explain the "absurdity" of the above? Yes or no will do.

Who am i kidding, i don't even expect that much.

All right...let me then ask another question that i fully expect to be dismissed:

What value would freewill hold to an all-powerful, all-knowing being?

Really.

Value, being relative to what one is capable of procuring or attaining, might not be quite the asset you paint it to be to god. I can value something by it's availability; concepts, like market goods, can also suffer inflation.

If I could do anything, one may presume that any action, being of equal effort (aka none) to any other might imply a futile course, a null-decision; there is no relative value to anything relative to myself, as i can do one thing just as simply as another. This grand equalizer makes value judgements, with all things actually being equal, useless.

So, goals are worthless, ambition non-existant, and freewill absurd.

I'll take that as a "i don't feel like thinking through that one". That's fine, i don't either.

Not to my satisfaction, they haven't.

Potential is the central concept.

Then it should be fair game, no?

You get what you pays for.

The statement "god has not freewill", is an absurdity, taken on its own, otherwise it could not answer prayer, or make decisions regarding good and evil (its job). But, maybe your god likes not to have freewll, I don't know.

You see to like to insult people, watch it, that will get you banned quickly on this board.

 

[Popeyesays]

You get what you pays for.

The statement "god has not freewill", is an absurdity, taken on its own, otherwise it could not answer prayer, or make decisions regarding good and evil (its job). But, maybe your god likes not to have freewll, I don't know.

You see to like to insult people, watch it, that will get you banned quickly on this board.

Free will is irrelevant to an omnipotent deity. God's will is unopposed, nothing challenges it.

God created all that is and all that is is good. He created man with free will to choose whether to do good or not do good.

Regards,
Scott