Must God necessarily be omnimax?

[Penumbra]

The conceived power of gods has expanded over time. As the understanding people have of the world has grown, their imaginations have apparently grown as well. As stories are told, continually bigger stories are told to trump the ones before them. People used to think that this planet was all there was, and gods had limited powers over water and sky and desert and animals and so forth, and yet now we know we are a speck in the universe, and conceptions of god are sometimes imagined on a universal scale as a sentience beyond our wildest imaginations, wisdom, and logic.

The same thing happened with Superman. At first he could jump less than a mile and take hits up to an artillery shell. Later, after tons of comics, he could fly across galaxies and withstand nuclear strikes. The writers had to purposely limit his power once again so they could actually come up with material for his adventures, and then the power increase began occurring again. Each story has to be cooler than the one before it.

The god in Genesis was like the first superman- powerful yet limited.

Genesis 18:
Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

In this scenario, God doesn't actually have any direct perception of what's going on in these cities. He has heard prayers, but has to go and check it out for himself. He is not omniscient or omnipresent. He has no future knowledge of what will come. He has a finite degree of observation, within the confines of time, and apparently must direct his observation towards certain cities.

Today, believers suppose that their Abrahamic god knows every thought in their head, has a plan for their individual life, and loves them more intimately than any human possibly could. But the history of this deity suggests it isn't even directly aware of human activity on a city-wide scale, let alone a personal scale.

 

[Jeremiah]

I suppose the answer to the question of God's 'omnimax'-like qualities hinges on the definitions one employs to describe these qualities.

I didn't spend a lot of time referring back to different definitions of 'omnipotence', but I did take a look at a few different online dictionary entries to see the 'standard' or most-widely used definition of the word. I didn't really like any of 'em.

Of course, there will always be some theists that claim God can do absolutely anything. He can dunk better than Michael Jordan, paint better than Picasso, shoot a rifle more accurately than Alvin York and tell a joke that's funnier than Richard Pryor.

However, while God can perform the impossible, God cannot do the illogical and the absurd. God can defy the laws of gravity, I would suppose. Einstein says matter can't travel faster than the speed of light, correct? You brainy science-types help me out here. I'm thinking God could break, ignore or simply circumvent this and other pesky rules of physics, if He wanted to do so. And if I'm wrong about Einstein and the light speed rule thing, I would ask you science-types to please correct or ignore me. Even if I'm a little off on the technical aspects of my own argument, I hope you all see and understand what I'm trying to say. God can probably create and destroy matter as well as energy, but He can't tell a truthful lie or make a circular square.

In my estimation, which I'll concede could be woefully wrong, logic, unlike physical laws, is not a set of natural 'rules' by which our universe/nature operates. Logic, unlike the laws of science, does not confine God nor does it impose limits on his omnipotence. Logic is a medium by which we pinpoint and communicate truth, or so it seems to me. So, the old paradox about God and the 'rock so heavy He Himself can't lift it' does not demonstrate God's divine limits; it does indicate to me, however, that mankind's ability to understand and convey certain truths is somewhat confined by our own flawed and fallible instruments of personal communication.

"However, while God can perform the impossible, God cannot do the illogical and the absurd. God can defy the laws of gravity, I would suppose. Einstein says matter can't travel faster than the speed of light, correct? You brainy science-types help me out here. I'm thinking God could break, ignore or simply circumvent this and other pesky rules of physics, if He wanted to do so. And if I'm wrong about Einstein and the light speed rule thing, I would ask you science-types to please correct or ignore me. Even if I'm a little off on the technical aspects of my own argument, I hope you all see and understand what I'm trying to say. God can probably create and destroy matter as well as energy, but He can't tell a truthful lie or make a circular square. "

All you have really done is lessen God's power until omnipotence makes more logical sense (which is really my point). You are still confining the powers of God in logic; but you are making the concept of omnipotence more logical.

However, the whole thing is a human concept at any rate. That is why omnipotence does not make sense, because it is a flawed concept. It is an arbitrary attribute of God, which is probably just an expression of the ego. Just a way for people to have the biggest, baddest god out there.

God does not necessarily have to be omnipotent; perhaps He can't break the law of physic, perhaps He is not albe to stop all the evil in the world, maybe he can't kill the devil, maybe He does not know everything. The idea of an omnimax god is completely a human concept, with no justification of being a real attribute of the Creator.

 

[Meow Mix]

"However, while God can perform the impossible, God cannot do the illogical and the absurd. God can defy the laws of gravity, I would suppose. Einstein says matter can't travel faster than the speed of light, correct? You brainy science-types help me out here. I'm thinking God could break, ignore or simply circumvent this and other pesky rules of physics, if He wanted to do so. And if I'm wrong about Einstein and the light speed rule thing, I would ask you science-types to please correct or ignore me. Even if I'm a little off on the technical aspects of my own argument, I hope you all see and understand what I'm trying to say. God can probably create and destroy matter as well as energy, but He can't tell a truthful lie or make a circular square. "

All you have really done is lessen God's power until omnipotence makes more logical sense (which is really my point). You are still confining the powers of God in logic; but you are making the concept of omnipotence more logical.

However, the whole thing is a human concept at any rate. That is why omnipotence does not make sense, because it is a flawed concept. It is an arbitrary attribute of God, which is probably just an expression of the ego. Just a way for people to have the biggest, baddest god out there.

God does not necessarily have to be omnipotent; perhaps He can't break the law of physic, perhaps He is not albe to stop all the evil in the world, maybe he can't kill the devil, maybe He does not know everything. The idea of an omnimax god is completely a human concept, with no justification of being a real attribute of the Creator.

If God isn't omnipotent, isn't omniscient, then the question "Is he ontologically necessary" becomes vastly important.

If yes, whence came the limitations on God's power; decided by what factor? That would be arbitrary, and it would destroy any possibility of "goddidit" to explain anything because the god "doing" it is itself unexplained. Theists couldn't assert to answer any problems, then, because they'd be building their house of cards over an open manhole so to speak.

If no, then that's just a further case for the nonexistence of gods. If gods are contingent beings we have all the more reason to doubt their existence considering the lack of evidence.

Either way it ain't pretty for theists.

 

[Willamena]

Why would a "god" that "can do anything," and whose job is creator of the universe, logically do anything other than everything that is done in the universe?

That's all "god" is needed to do.

 

[PolyHedral]

The problem being that there is another word for the underlying force of the universe: Physics.

 

[Willamena]

The problem being that there is another word for the underlying force of the universe: Physics.

:no:

Sorry, hon. Physics is a field of study, not a force.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also the laws of physics are contingent.

The laws of logic are not. Physics could be any which way is logically possible, so physics isn't a very good "constraint" since it's somewhat arbitrary the way it operates.

 

[PolyHedral]

The way physics operates is incredibly arbitrary, and a fairly large amount of debate has been had over why the constants have their values. However, if "life" as we know it is the goal, there are (apparently) very few other ways for it to operate.

 

[Meow Mix]

The way physics operates is incredibly arbitrary, and a fairly large amount of debate has been had over why the constants have their values. However, if "life" as we know it is the goal, there are (apparently) very few other ways for it to operate.

That would be the anthropic principle which is poor scientific metaphysics. Leonard Susskind et al would do well to stop using it.

Also, there are very few other ways for it to operate given the same structure and constants. The universe needn't consist of objects bound by gravity in spherical shapes; that's a contingency.

 

[PolyHedral]

But if gravity obeys an inverse-cube law, stable orbits aren't possible. The fact that it obeys inverse-square is thus quite strange.

 

[Penumbra]

Something arbitrary might just be.

If there is no god, and the universe is its own prime mover, then the foundations of the laws of physics might just be arbitrary. The number of dimensions, the types and strengths of forces, the amount of total matter and energy, and the types of particles might just be arbitrary. Why did it end up like it is? Who knows? Scientists are trying to figure it out, but maybe at the deepest level, it just is the way that it is. Why is there not more matter than there is? Why is the speed of light not faster than it is? Where did these seemingly arbitrary limitations come from? Why is everything not limitless?

If instead there exists a god that is the foundation of all existence, perhaps this god has an arbitrary nature. Maybe it only had certain powers at its disposal. Maybe it can only bring forth from itself finite options for creation. It could be arbitrarily limited like the universe.

The concept of the root cause having arbitrary limitations does not seem to be a problem limited to either theism or atheism. It's a genuine curiosity for either proposal.

 

[Meow Mix]

Something arbitrary might just be.

If there is no god, and the universe is its own prime mover, then the foundations of the laws of physics might just be arbitrary. The number of dimensions, the types and strengths of forces, the amount of total matter and energy, and the types of particles might just be arbitrary. Why did it end up like it is? Who knows? Scientists are trying to figure it out, but maybe at the deepest level, it just is the way that it is. Why is there not more matter than there is? Why is the speed of light not faster than it is? Where did these seemingly arbitrary limitations come from? Why is everything not limitless?

If instead there exists a god that is the foundation of all existence, perhaps this god has an arbitrary nature. Maybe it only had certain powers at its disposal. Maybe it can only bring forth from itself finite options for creation. It could be arbitrarily limited like the universe.

The concept of the root cause having arbitrary limitations does not seem to be a problem limited to either theism or atheism. It's a genuine curiosity for either proposal.

You're right, of course. However, we have a hope of trying to understand why things have the values that they do -- a theist has no hope with understanding a seemingly arbitrary limit on God.

 

[andys]

Maybe he wears purple underwear and reads ZAP comics.

You theists drive me crazy. Get a life and a brain.

 

[battar]

The image of "God" as omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent is the creator of everything, present in everything, hence knowing everything. I don't see why that image is a problem.

Personally, it's the only image of "God" that does make sense.

I'll tell you why should see why that image is a problem. Because you can't, and make no attempt, to think of a mechanism by which it is possible. God knows everything? who is the information transferred and stored? at what speed? There are many such questions which present your image of God as a big problem.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'll tell you why should see why that image is a problem. Because you can't, and make no attempt, to think of a mechanism by which it is possible. God knows everything? who is the information transferred and stored? at what speed? There are many such questions which present your image of God as a big problem.

For the record, you're describing a perceptionalist version of omniscience, which theists typically do not assert...

For instance there's a damning paradox in perceptionalist omnisciences: how does the god know that they know everything? They'd never be able to.

This is why most theists use a conceptionalist definition of omniscience in which God directly has knowledge; there is no transferring or storing of knowledge... it's just innate.

 

[Jeremiah]

Also the laws of physics are contingent.

The laws of logic are not. Physics could be any which way is logically possible, so physics isn't a very good "constraint" since it's somewhat arbitrary the way it operates.

"Also the laws of physics are contingent.

The laws of logic are not"

Logic is contingent on the human mind interacting with it's given environment; the results of which are contignet on evolution. I would almost say everything is contingent (even the subjective) but this would create an infinite regression.

 

[Meow Mix]

"Also the laws of physics are contingent.

The laws of logic are not"

Logic is contingent on the human mind interacting with it's given environment; the results of which are contignet on evolution. I would almost say everything is contingent (even the subjective) but this would create an infinite regression.

No, logic most certainly isn't contingent on our minds.

For instance, consider identity: A = A, things are what they are... and its corrolaries excluded middle (A or ¬A) and noncontradiction (¬[A & ¬A]).

These things would still be true even if a human mind weren't around to write them down or note their truth. Were we not here at all, the moon would still in fact be what it is (and not something else).

Further than that, it couldn't be otherwise; whereas physical laws could logically be otherwise. So, logic is ontologically necessary; it isn't contingent.

 

[Jeremiah]

No, logic most certainly isn't contingent on our minds.

For instance, consider identity: A = A, things are what they are... and its corrolaries excluded middle (A or ¬A) and noncontradiction (¬[A & ¬A]).

These things would still be true even if a human mind weren't around to write them down or note their truth. Were we not here at all, the moon would still in fact be what it is (and not something else).

Further than that, it couldn't be otherwise; whereas physical laws could logically be otherwise. So, logic is ontologically necessary; it isn't contingent.

Logic is subjective in nature, it does not exist without a mind. Also the resulting Moon is contingent, as well.

 

[Meow Mix]

Logic is subjective in nature, it does not exist without a mind. Also the resulting Moon is contingent, as well.

Disagree. No mind is required for things to be what they are. Do you believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking at it?

Regardless of the moon being contingent that state of affairs in which things are what they are is not contingent.

Even in the absence of any material thing logic still holds true; else the absence of any material thing would be able to also be the existence of material things at the same time and in the same respect -- which is clearly nonsense.

Logic is efficacious without minds; we don't invent it: we discover it. We do invent the syntax, symbols and words to express it; but the thing itself is external to us. Furthermore, it's ontologically necessary and therefore can't be contingent.

In fact, it's self-refuting to suggest that something incorrigible like identity could be contingent. That equates to saying it may be false. Attempting to suggest it may be false in fact has to assume its efficacy to do so, which is absurd (Nathaniel Branden called this self-refutation where you must assume something's truth to try to negate it the "fallacy of the stolen concept.")

 

[Jeremiah]

Disagree. No mind is required for things to be what they are. Do you believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking at it?

Regardless of the moon being contingent that state of affairs in which things are what they are is not contingent.

Even in the absence of any material thing logic still holds true; else the absence of any material thing would be able to also be the existence of material things at the same time and in the same respect -- which is clearly nonsense.

Logic is efficacious without minds; we don't invent it: we discover it. We do invent the syntax, symbols and words to express it; but the thing itself is external to us. Furthermore, it's ontologically necessary and therefore can't be contingent.

In fact, it's self-refuting to suggest that something incorrigible like identity could be contingent. That equates to saying it may be false. Attempting to suggest it may be false in fact has to assume its efficacy to do so, which is absurd (Nathaniel Branden called this self-refutation where you must assume something's truth to try to negate it the "fallacy of the stolen concept.")

"Do you believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking at it?"

The Moon is not logic. Logic is human rationalization, but don't take my word for it look it up.

Logic (from the Greek λογική logik&#275[1] is the study of arguments.[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do we know what we know?"[3] In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[4]
Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including ancient India, China and Greece. Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle, who established its fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium.
Averroes defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false";[5] Richard Whately, "the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning"; and Gottlob Frege, "the science of the most general laws of truth". The article Definitions of logic provides citations for these and other definitions.
Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

log·ic

&#8194; <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/L03/L0342300" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="logic pronunciation" /></a>&#8194;/&#712;l&#594;d&#658;

&#618;k/ Show Spelled[loj-ik] Show IPA
–noun 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

6. Computers . logic circuit.

Logic | Define Logic at Dictionary.com

• The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
• 1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
  2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
  3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
• Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
• The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
• Computer Science.
  1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
  2. Computer circuitry.
  3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

logic: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com