-
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!
questions about God
- Thread starter hmvv
- Start date
Aqualung
Tasty
Anything logically possible. It is logically impossible for something to be bigger than itself, for example. Or, it is logically impossible for a triangle to have four sides. In the same manner, it is logically impossible for something to be possible and impossible, like in your example.
charles brough
Member
Well then, who decides what is possible? If God exists, then surely it is He who decides! Otherwise, if WE decided, then we would always say that creating the universe out of nothing is not possible! In fact, none of the "miracles" in the Bible would be possible. That is why we call them "miracles" in the first place!
But perhaps you are an authority on the meaning of "omnipotent." So, then tell us how improbable does something have to be to be impossible?
If God is not able to change and manipulate the so-called "laws of nature," then He is merely an abstract god who has no function as far as we are concerned. There is no reason to pray to HIM!
charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
logic states logic is illigocial
The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:
With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.
He comprehends It who thinks he has not. He has not comprehended It who thinks he has. To the real masters It is the unknown, but to the ignorant He is always the known. –Lao Tzu
………………………………………………..
IF God guides you not into the road,
It will not be disclosed by logic.
Logic is a bondage of forms;
A road that is long and hard.
Leave it for a season. Like Moses
Cast away that staff
And enter for awhile “The Valley of Peace.” –Manichean Proverb
- Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
- Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
- Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
- Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
- If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
- We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
- "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."
With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...
How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.
The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.
miskatonic.org/godel.html :bow:Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...
How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.
The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.
He comprehends It who thinks he has not. He has not comprehended It who thinks he has. To the real masters It is the unknown, but to the ignorant He is always the known. –Lao Tzu
………………………………………………..
IF God guides you not into the road,
It will not be disclosed by logic.
Logic is a bondage of forms;
A road that is long and hard.
Leave it for a season. Like Moses
Cast away that staff
And enter for awhile “The Valley of Peace.” –Manichean Proverb
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Three Things God Can’t Do
He cannot lie.
He cannot learn.
He cannot force you to love Him.
Four Things God “Doesn’t Know”
He doesn't know a sin He doesn't hate.
He doesn't know a sinner He doesn't love.
He doesn't know an alternate path to His Throne but through His son.
He doesn't know a better time to accept Him than now!
He cannot lie.
He cannot learn.
He cannot force you to love Him.
Four Things God “Doesn’t Know”
He doesn't know a sin He doesn't hate.
He doesn't know a sinner He doesn't love.
He doesn't know an alternate path to His Throne but through His son.
He doesn't know a better time to accept Him than now!
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
God loves Cheese too, for it is Gouda..
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
If God made spice he could just turn Himself into a giant worm and eat it.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
Worms don't eat spice, spice is worm "poo". Worms eat smaller worms - sandtrout, as well as people.If God made spice he could just turn Himself into a giant worm and eat it.
God could make a spice too hot for him to eat, but then he could num his mouth and eat it anyway.
constantine
the Great
l dont think god can do anything humans can do. and visa versa
If you think about it, a triangle can have four sides. Think of a block cut in the shape of a triangle. Three sides around and the bottom makes four.
No, that would make it a pyramid, a triangle is a 2D object not 3D.
I suppose if you believe in the trinity then God could of made a spice that God (manifested in the flesh as Jesus) could not of eaten.
Super Universe
Defender of God
God can't lie? Uh, sure He can. But why would He?
God cannot learn? Not true, He wouldn't need the universe if this were true.
He cannot force you to love Him. More like, He won't.
God doesn't know a sin He doesn't hate? God hates nothing. If He did, it would not exist.
gnostic
The Lost One
aqualung said:
hmvv's question is indeed silly, but don't think you think some of the Christian belief in the bible where the impossible is quite readily acceptable.
Some Christians accept the impossible without question, like:
- This world, and even this entire universe, was created in 7 days, and that the earth is less than 6000 years old (FFH believed in the young earth creationist theory of 13700 years, but FFH is an exception).
- Adam created from dust or soil, and Eve is created from Adam's rib.
- The parting of the Red Sea.
- Changing woman into pillar of salt.
- Elijah is taken to heaven in a fiery chariot, pulled by fiery steed.
- Angels having wings, as many as 6 wings.
- Angels having heads of lion, bull, etc. Angels having two or more heads. Or even having more than one heads, which include animal head on one head, different face in another head.
As funny and useless and mundane as hmvv question is, I don't think it is in the realm of impossible when you considered what Christians, and other religious people believe in "as possible".