I was talking about the stone/equation thing. And if you don't mind, I think I am finally beginning to understand your rebuttal to the omniscience against omnipotence thing, so could you state it as you would to a 9 year old?

Ok, God knows everything and can do everything. But if his plans for something were wrong, he could change them. but since he always makes the right decision, and he's benevolent, he would have no need to change his plans.

And as for the stone thing, i'll use a metaphore: If God were Superman on a stronger level, he would be able to lift anything and know anything and do everything. However, if he touched some Kryptonite (in God's case, simply powering himself down) he could MAKE himself not able to lift the gigantic rock.

So if he "could" change them, that makes him non-omniscient right?

See, if he foresaw picking option A, he, in effect, foresaw NOT picking option B. Now the point is whether or not he can (or could) change to option B, regardless of whether option A is the best possible.



So in his full power mode, he would not be able to make a rock too heavy for himself to lift.

Yes, but he still could make one that he couldnt lift, therefore making him omnipotent. the fact that you're purposfully making your question paradoxical makes it hard to answer, though.

And he could, but his total benevolence takes away any possibility that he would need to, therefore canceling out the option. Therefore, he's both omnipotent and omnicient, if he's also all wise and totally benevolent.

The question is paradoxical because being omnipotent and omniscient is paradoxical.

You really believe in a benevolent God?

Okay, so that brings us to "if he's benevolent". Now, prove it.


And the stone thing is only paradoxical for an omnipotent being. I can make a stone heavier than I can lift, and I can make an equation more complex than I can solve.

Allow me to play devil advocate this time. I will now show that God can both omnipotent and omniscient.

Aside: I must caution the wording that has been used. You can't ask "Can God create a rock that He(?) cannot lift?". The question in itself is a paradox. Since one assumes God is omnipotent (having power to do anything), God is therefore able to create anything and do anything. So yes, harking back to what Jikanu said: size and complexity don't matter if God is omnipotent and omniscient. Then we must make this distinction: God is meant to transcend physical boundary, therefore applying a physical limit on God makes no sense. Now what exactly is a "spiritual being" is anyone's guess but it's similar to the discussion of non-baryonic dark matter that is of intense interest in the physics community. There's something we do not yet know.

Also, I put a question mark next to "He" because this is clearly a sexist form. It is not coincident that "He", used to refer to God, and he, a pronoun for male, look the same. By this designation of "he", instead of "she" (which is also sexist) or something else that is neither (which can be thought of easily by the brilliant mind of the past), it shows how the notion of "God" came about: yes, it was told through a man, not a woman and so largely, the whole doctrine was affected by the man's reasoning and wording. If one claims that this is the man's prejudiced formulation of the termimology, then well, he/she is saying that the religion can't really... be trusted because with one fault, there may entail others, and consequently no one can take it as truth any more.

Back on topic: At first when I read about the notion of omnipotence and omniscience being incompatible, it made sense. However, when I read it today, it made sense and didn't.

The key point about incompatibility between omnipotence and omniscience perhaps is this: if one knows that something will happen, one cannot change it because changing it will turn it into a different thing, which is obviously not what one saw in the beginning. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That made sense.

Today, it doesn't. I sat at the computer for a while, thinking how that I once understood this and just can't see it again. It then became apparent that in my mind I was thinking about the theory that an event can lead to many possible outcomes, namely the current action leads to a specific future. I randomly call it the Many Futures hypothesis. In essence, this is just the crude version of the Multiverse theory.

Back to the point of omnipotent and omniscient being incompatible, let's look at it with the idea that one event leads to different future outcomes depending what action or set of actions is undertaken. If God is omniscient, God can see these possible outcomes. Being omnipotent, God can direct an event to a specific outcome (future). With this, the incompatibility of omnipotence and omniscience is completely abolished.

With this consideration, I refer to "free will" and "omnipotence and omniscience". I'll start by saying "free will" is the propaganda that existing religions created. Here's how: if God can direct the course of one's life, as is often cited, surely what one chooses and does, no matter how numerous the future possibilities of each moment in the person's life is, it has been seen and acted upon by God. If one chooses to keep "omnipotence and omniscience" as description of God, one must relinquish the notion of "free will". Now since all existing religions are so fond of all three, I must say that they're just creations of man, not God.

A fruitful point here is that the notion of "free will" is valid only as far as one preceives it as true (read: belief). The key is: if one chooses to worship an all-knowing and all-powerful and benevolent God, one must give up "free will" as having God who knows and influences what the peson does, one cannot say "I chose it by my own free will" but "it" was already seen to be happening by the deity, hence, their future was already predetermined.

Notwithstanding, you can choose to say God wants us to act by ourselves and want us to learn things ourselves then God is not benevolent because who would let their sons and daughters commit disgraceful acts as some of us are doing now? Islam in this regard gets it right:

source

The Islamic proposition is just that: the Deity created humans to withstand some sort of test so that the right doers will deserve the praise and eternal beautiful afterlife.

As good as it sounds, I have some major problems with Islam, which led me to reject it when I studied it more carefully.

In summary::

- omnipotence and omniscience can be compatible.
- free will does not exist if you choose to believe the Deity is omnipotent and omniscient.
- further proof that existing religions aren't what they claim they are.

You haven't got it right. Being omniscient, god not only sees three possible options, he also sees which of those three he is going to pick. The question is whether or not he can regardless of whether he will change that given option to another one.

Don't forget to read the Aside I added to my previous post.

That leads to me to another point: thus far, what we've been considering is a God with a defined characteristic, somewhat an image of a physical being, say, of a man.

To me, if there's a "God" , it is an impersonal God, meaning that God is not a well localised identity sitting in one spot, directing the course of life. God is everything in life. This is another reason why I rejected all existing religions which employ the human image of the God or localised identity of a God.

Further, this means that God does not possess a finite mind like humans do, to actually lie back and decide what to do. "God", in my terms, would just mean the flow of life, directing the course of life. It's as vague as it can get but the notion of the "mind" is not any clearer. Can you define a "mind"? If you can, you will win a Nobel prize since it currently is one of the most baffling questions in neuroscience.

And this is, again, as I emphasised what this discussion has consistently neglected: the impersonal aspect of God.

I have, it really doesn't change much, I'll look at it again, (to help me understand it too). I won't deny that a situation can lead to different outcomes based on what action is taken. That is elementary.



Being omniscient, god not only sees the possible outcomes, but also the outcome which is going to result from the action he is about to take now, which he has also foreseen.

Being omnipotent, of course he can direct an event to a specific outcome. The question is whether he can direct it to an outcome that he has not foreseen. He has foreseen all the possible outcomes, yes. But he has also foreseen the outcome which is going to present itself for sure. So can he direct it to an outcome which is different from the one he knows will present itself?


I read that back, and I hope it doesn't look like I'm trying to confuse you.

Are we all not sinners?

Ah, but of course. Yes, i understand what you were saying, and i completely agree. with every unrepentant sin, the world is slightly darker. is that what you meant?

I know you haven't really used it in this context, but in answer to your questions, no, I do not take things on faith. Now if that mysterious being told me to live my life as he told me, and showed me that he is all that he claims to be (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, whatnot) in some form other than a book that anybody could have concocted, in some form that would prove that he is, then I would believe that he exists without a shred of doubt.

Yes, yes. It took me a minute to think up somethign like that.
I'm not gonna get into the whole "God makes rocks too heavy to lift" thing, But i can make my point in other ways, God wants us to love him, What stops him from giving us proof NOW? At least back then he had a son to spread the word.

Don't forget I'm playing devil advocate, meaning I am not representing my true belief. I encourage Jikanu to read over what I and Vasu discussed to see why omnipotence and omniscience aren't compatible.

To play along with the idea that I will show that omnipotence and omniscience can co-exist, I will further my argument:

An event A may lead to consequences (futures) which we here conveniently term A1, A2, A3, etc. We have to mention specifically that the frame of reference in this consideration is a particular person in universe U1, let's say it's ours. It's important in that the Multiverse theory proposes that different futures may stem from the same event in different universes (not too hard to get but when we look at the holistic view of multiversal occurrences, it produces a rather interesting effect for the existence of Deity). Also, Einstein's notion of simultaneity of time points will also be explored (meaning past, present and future occur simultaneously in spacetime coordinates!).

With that set, we proceed with the experiment:

From A, one can proceed to the future A1 or A2 or A3, etc.

Omnipotence means God can influence anything along the way from A to any of the futures of A. Omniscience implies God knows exactly which future of A will be locked in, let's say A1 for our universe U1. Now combine the two, that God can influence anything along the way from A to A1, rendering a change in direction to, say A2. Since God knew that A1 would happen, he should not change the course because in doing so, that fact that he knew A1 would happen was false because what actually happens is A2. Arguing that he knows both A1 and A2 will happen is clearly nonsensical (You can't, for example, be on time and late for work at the same time). At this point, yes, omnipotence and omniscience aren't compatible.

Let's take a look at the multiverse U1, U2, U3, etc. The principle here is that the universes cannot interact with each other so I will design my multiverse in this way: each U1, U2, U3, etc. is a set of spacetime coordinates intersecting at the point A (much like a coordinate system with infinite axes - this is hypergeometry, don't bother trying to visualise it). Now have I met the requirement that the univserses don't interact with each other? I have. They intersect at event A and then proceed in their own planes. Each universe has its own set of A1, A2, A3... . Being omniscient, God surely knows which consequence of A in its respective universe will occur. Being omnipotent, God can change A -> A1 in U1 to A -> A1 in U2. Now the interesting effect is that the future event of A that God sees is identical! So by changing from path in U1 to the one in U2 makes absolutely no difference.

The flaw in that design, yes, you may have spotted it already is that: given the extra information, we must specify at the beginning that God must have known that A -> A1 in U1 and not U2. So here's the thing that will play with your mind: each universe is a virtual reality, meaning that they can be identical so U1 and U2 are just the same constructs branching in different virtual dimensions but ultimately interchangeable.

Another flaw in the design is that what if God changes A -> A1 from A -> A2. Now it's obvious whether they're in the same universe or different universes will make a difference. Now for simplicity's sake, let's say it's A -> A1 in U1 changed to A -> A2 in U2 by God's omnipotence. God's omniscience tells God that one of them has to occur. However, it doesn't need to be that way. Remember these are two separate universes, meaning from one event A, A1 will occur in U1 and A2 will occur in U2. God sees both of these. So where's the change of future that I spoke of? It's the existence of both universes that is the change. What if the change happens in the same universe? It has been shown that it is nonsensical because in the same universe, only one outcome exists. The power to change anything relies heavily on the multiversal model. In essence, to speak of omnipotence and omniscience is to assess the multiversal model.

I'm planning to talk to about the simultaneity of time but it's too late now. You can google it. lol

I understand... so essentially omnipotence and omniscience are compatible if the multiverse theory is true, right?

Well, that's the argument I present in support of my devil advocate's contention.

I invite everyone to examine it and bring this discussion forward. =]

I just realised that the multiverse theory is incompatible with a perfect god. See, if god is perfect, then his creation is perfect. So if one universe is perfect with its path, then the rest aren't, therefore creation is imperfect, bringing a paradox.

Lam, you've just about encapsulated most all of my preferred understanding of the world. Gj, I'd rep you but I can't again.



Not necessarily true. There is no implication that any universe is ''perfect with its path,'' a multi-verse exists because of different choices made by different individuals at different times, not any single one being more or less ''perfect'' than any other; perfect itself being a human value-judgement that has no implication on what actually is.


The example from Islam that lam had in his post is a good example of what I'm (inadequately) trying to say.

Alright, now on to the stone!

LMAO. Thanks a lot Lam for explaining it clearly.

@lrva: I am in the process of forming a systematic belief for myself, I guess.

@Vasu: You're welcomed. lol

However, the model I proposed has lots of holes in it. It was a one-hour work and definitely is not what I believe in. I only put it forward because I chose to position myself as the antagonist in this debate. lol

But does religion support multi-verses?

Very easily o.o

Well, ok. You say that but you haven't given me any proof of it.

The reason why I ask that question is because accepting multi-verses seems like it would include accepting a slew of other things related to physics, ie. Big Bang.

I mean, I clearly have no idea what the physics behind multi-verses are. But ultimately, physics is physics. Or even science is science. And it is known that religion is at odds with science on several fronts, depending on your particular branch of religion.

Multi-verses fall into the domain of Quantum Physics.


As one Quantum Physicist said "Anyone who tells you they know anything about Quantum Physics doesn't know anything."

Okay, I've rephrased my argument. If multiverses exist, then there will be universes in which Jesus wasn't born to die for our sins, where Moses did not receive any ten commandments, where there is absolute mayhem, and in other words, things that god doesn't want. And besides, god being omnipotent, should also be able to change A to A1 without having a separate universe.

^ only if there was a 50/50 chance of those happening or not.

50/50 chance of what happening or not?

I've never considered/heard of the multiverse theory being applied to a deity-debate. Interesting.



Very true, except probably for the last part. Things God doesn't approve of happen all the time in this universe so I suppose you could say it has no bearing on other universes as well.



I don't see how this has any bearing on anything. A multiverse is supposedly created every single time a being is presented with a choice, making for untold layers of multiverses all superimposed over one another. There'd be no point in imposing a change on only one facet because the choice that didn't happen would be enacted anyway.

I've always been rather reluctant to hold to the idea of a multiverse for every possible outcome because of the ethical implications involved. If I save someone's life, then that would mean I'm also condemning someone else to death in another multiverse.

That's not an argument for or against the idea, I just find it a very troubling implication.

Let me put it in another way. In this universe, I might murder someone. In another, I might not. So does god punish me or reward me? Because it's all me, it's not U1 me and U2 me.

I would guess that every universe's avatars are dealt with appropiately. The one that killed would be punished, the one that didn't would not.


A universe is created every time a choice is made/for every probability. Makes sense that what it ends in is different too.

But then what about what Hrae said? By saving a life, he's causing a death in another, so why are we all not guilty of murder?

How can one be punished for what another in a seperate universe has done?


Our avatars can still technically be called us, but what makes a person is not only their characters and memories but their decisions as well.

So... what...? There are multi-verse Heavens and Hells? There are multi-verse Gods?

...Christianity isn't a monotheistic religion..?

Say. Wut.

I frankly think that they aren't compatible. The people writing the bible obviously didn't account for a possible multi-verse.


Interesting concept though.

While what you say is true, this is all "fitting on" as it were. It's obvious, as you said, that the people writing the Bible didn't even consider the possibility of multiple universes. Suddenly, there's a way to explain the inconsistencies in the Bivle, and you can't say "therefore multiple universes exist, because it's compatible with the Bible."


I know nobody said that, but it's a ridiculous conclusion to jump to.

According to what i know about the multiverse theory, for a universe to split, there has to be an equal chance for all paths. I.E. if you flip a coin in this universe, in the parallel one it came up the opposite side. Therefore, for your theory to be correct, there would have to be a 50-50 shot for Jesus existing or not, or for Moses and the 10 commandments, but there more likely than not wasnt, so your theory is kinda moot, if im correct.

Anyway, i may be wrong, all i know is from the video we watched on it in science and the after-video discussion we had though.

The multiverse concept is so nebulous right now, we might as well be discussing how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. Certain data fits the model, but nothing coming anywhere close enough to be conclusive, much less the ability to pinpoint how the other universes are created, probability or not.

I've never heard of the 50/50 thing. Is there any writing or a link for it or is it purely the impression you got? (Yes, I read the part I quoted)


I don't think anyone seriously considered the multi-verse angle but only that it was very interesting to consider the whole question through the possibility of it being real. So many implications...


Or we could go back to the God lifting impossible stone thing.