Damn, I know I can't see gifs on here when I use firefox but I can when I use chrome. It was just a gif of Descartes winking, but if you try using a different browser, you might be able to see a lot more images on here.
richanddead I had one philsophy class that studied the subject of Ontology and for our final the professor walked in, set a can of soda on his desk and said write an essay on proving the can's existence.
Math is a language used to attempt to describe reality. Like any language, it can be used to say anything. That doesn't mean that everything an equation shows is reality.
It's only logical if you take the definition of omnipotent to be of unlimited or infinite power and you take the view that God changes. Omnipotent can also mean of supreme or great power and this seems, generally speaking, to be what religious scholars mean when they use the term omnipotent. This definition of omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations or restrictions. St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to clarify this when he said that God was limited by his own will. Basically, if you have a being that exists everywhere, at all times, and has a supreme power to bring whatever he wants into being, then that Gods power doesn't pass through successive stages before the effect of it's power is accomplished. Think of it this way, where as we perceive time and change like watching a movie, from beginning to end, this version of god experiences a sort of eternal present, he has every frame of the movie laid out in front of him all at once. Now he can choose to add a heavy rock in one frame, but then that rock is there because it's his will that it should be there. If he wills it to lift in the next frame, then it was always lifted at that frame in time and God was not contradicting his own will. If God created the rock in the puzzle, the weight is unimportant, the point of contention is that he willed something to go against his will while never changing his will. The answer to the puzzle is no, because it would require God to be simultaneously willing something against his own will, which would be absurd.
That being said the idea that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent is usually attributed to God by religious scholars and not the religious text. As far as I know the religious text often claims that God is simply unknowable. Job 36:26 states "Look, God is exalted and unknowable; the number of his years is beyond counting." Although Job 11:7 could be taken to hint that God may have limitations "Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?" Yet I think what it is saying is "can you fully understand god," rather than saying "God has limitations can you guess what they are."
jaysingrimm actually, your riddle is not logical, but nonsense.
It's like asking "Can God’s infinite power overwhelm His infinite power?" or "Can God beat Himself in a fist fight" or “Can God think up a mathematical equation too difficult for Him to solve”. It's not logical because you’re basically asking if a being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself. So the riddle is sheer nonsense, God cannot create square circles, married bachelors, one ended sticks etc. (as far as i know at least.. maybe He can in some way that is far beyond what any human can fathom at this time).
C.S Lewis once said “Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.”
jaysingrimm it's only a paradox to those with confusion or misunderstanding about the nature of God, and a common mistake I see among people riling against God online. Like you, many of them also assert it's a valid and logical argument, but again, it's only a paradox to those with confusion or misunderstanding about the nature of God.
monkwarrior "it's only a paradox to those with confusion or misunderstanding about the nature of God...but again, it's only a paradox to those with confusion or misunderstanding about the nature of God."
monkwarrior It's a logic puzzle. There are only two possibilities. Either God can create a rock he can't lift or he can't. If he can then there's something he can't do (lift the rock), but if he can't, then there's something he can't do (create the rock). Either way, his power cannot be unlimited.
DrCribbens Again, it's not logical, but nonsense. But I understand if people think it's logical, as I've run into a number of people like that online who assert it's logical. IMHO it's nonsense, on par with the logic of a square circle. I find people may assert this due to their lack of understanding (or misunderstanding) about the nature of God.
DrCribbens The cat is a thought experiment to help understand quantum states, agreed upon by those who study quantum physics. It's quite unlike the nonsense riddle here which was likely thought up by someone whose understanding of God is based on assumptions, or poor understanding of God. While i agree it may once have been considered a 'thought experiment', it hasn't been for quite some time.
Okay, so, this pretty much shows that the answer is "No, you can't use math to prove the existence of God(s)." The reverse, that you can't prove the non-existence with math, is then, presumably, also true. So the real question is...what was the point of this?
I'd like to know why Something exists at all, the natural state should be nothingness, whether a god exists or not in this "somethingness" is pretty much irrelevant.
I'm more interested in WHY humans have this need for a spiritual dimension in their lives. Modern humans (Homo Sapiens) seem to have developed this very early on and I understand that there is evidence that Neanderthals also had some sort of understanding of the 'other'. Perhaps also the other humanoids that have co-existed with us in the past too? More recently, the Soviet system tried to impose atheism on their population but when the Soviet system collapsed there were not only people in their 80's and 90's who had maintained their Christian beliefs but also people in their 30's, 20's and teens who had been raised in an 'underground' Christianity. Belief in God(s) is tenacious.
mikesex Fear of death and a promise of an ever lasting afterlife are pretty strong motivators these days. I think it's the sole reason why people follow religion/god.
Long winded, isn't he. Kurt Gödel came up with a math formula that proved God. He did it to prove you can prove anything you want to with math, like the existence of god , unicorns, open minded liberals. Here it is
Gerry1of1 "He did it to prove you can prove anything you want to with math, like the existence of god , unicorns, open minded liberals." I notice you didn't say "open minded conservatives." I guess that means they can't exist.
kalron27 So am I, but now I'm on my 3rd Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster and I don't have bronchial pneumonia. If this doesn't work, I am reaching for the poetry.
We can via the Cogito.
Damn, I know I can't see gifs on here when I use firefox but I can when I use chrome. It was just a gif of Descartes winking, but if you try using a different browser, you might be able to see a lot more images on here.
i can't see my animated gifs I tried to post on here. I used too but now, Nada
btw LOL at the firefox gif
The existence of a truly omnipotent being is not logical.
It's only logical if you take the definition of omnipotent to be of unlimited or infinite power and you take the view that God changes. Omnipotent can also mean of supreme or great power and this seems, generally speaking, to be what religious scholars mean when they use the term omnipotent. This definition of omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations or restrictions. St. Thomas Aquinas attempted to clarify this when he said that God was limited by his own will. Basically, if you have a being that exists everywhere, at all times, and has a supreme power to bring whatever he wants into being, then that Gods power doesn't pass through successive stages before the effect of it's power is accomplished. Think of it this way, where as we perceive time and change like watching a movie, from beginning to end, this version of god experiences a sort of eternal present, he has every frame of the movie laid out in front of him all at once. Now he can choose to add a heavy rock in one frame, but then that rock is there because it's his will that it should be there. If he wills it to lift in the next frame, then it was always lifted at that frame in time and God was not contradicting his own will. If God created the rock in the puzzle, the weight is unimportant, the point of contention is that he willed something to go against his will while never changing his will. The answer to the puzzle is no, because it would require God to be simultaneously willing something against his own will, which would be absurd.
That being said the idea that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent is usually attributed to God by religious scholars and not the religious text. As far as I know the religious text often claims that God is simply unknowable. Job 36:26 states "Look, God is exalted and unknowable; the number of his years is beyond counting." Although Job 11:7 could be taken to hint that God may have limitations "Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?" Yet I think what it is saying is "can you fully understand god," rather than saying "God has limitations can you guess what they are."
Thank you for such a well reasoned response.
Interesting that some view the term "omnipotent" differently, and it's application to a deity.
"The answer to the puzzle is no, because it would require God to be simultaneously willing something against his own will, which would be absurd."
A paradox, but that's the point.
It's like asking "Can God’s infinite power overwhelm His infinite power?" or "Can God beat Himself in a fist fight" or “Can God think up a mathematical equation too difficult for Him to solve”. It's not logical because you’re basically asking if a being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself. So the riddle is sheer nonsense, God cannot create square circles, married bachelors, one ended sticks etc. (as far as i know at least.. maybe He can in some way that is far beyond what any human can fathom at this time).
C.S Lewis once said “Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.”
Understand, I'm not criticizing those that choose to have faith, just call it what it is.
Just who are you trying to convince?
Are you assuming gender?
More recently, the Soviet system tried to impose atheism on their population but when the Soviet system collapsed there were not only people in their 80's and 90's who had maintained their Christian beliefs but also people in their 30's, 20's and teens who had been raised in an 'underground' Christianity.
Belief in God(s) is tenacious.
I notice you didn't say "open minded conservatives." I guess that means they can't exist.
get it ?
Isn't that how religion works?
Answer It's right after the word Find :-)