Deity Existence

[Vasu]

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?

[Jikanu]

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.

[Vasu]

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.

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.

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

[Jikanu]

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.

[Ralath]

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.

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

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.

You really believe in a benevolent God?

[Vasu]

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.

[lamchopz]

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:

We know that Allah has no need of us. If every single person that ever lived or will live worshiped Allah night and day, it would make Him no greater. Likewise, if every single person that ever lived or will live disobeyed Allah night and day, it would not diminish Him one a bit.

[...]

Even the angels were shocked that Allah was going to create a being with free will who would do harm and shed blood. Allah’s answer to them was simply that He knows what they do not know.

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.

[Vasu]

Allow me to play devil advocate this time.

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.

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.

[lamchopz]

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.

[Vasu]

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

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.

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.

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.