God's Omnipotence is defined as god's ability to do everything, i.e. have immense power. — Augustusea
The main response from theists, is that god can do everything, but the impossible or contradictory is not a thing, so it isn't included in the definition, and this is done to save god from the problem of the rock he can't lift. — Augustusea
I think, that if the universe came from creatio ex nihilo, which is impossible/contradictory logically ( notice ) it must mean god cannot do it under this definition of everything, since anything impossible or contradictory isn't a thing, therefore god can't do it, therefore god didn't create the universe. — Augustusea
as for holy substance I would ask where that came from. — Augustusea
Some theists define it this way and I agree that if they seek to avoid a god doing logically contradictory things then this definition of Omnipotence wouldn't be what they were looking for. — substantivalism
Not exactly to save it from the rock paradox but rather make this property they ascribe to god consistent with their need for it to be logically constrained to classical logic. The definition that is given, after abandoning the previous, would usually be something similar to "For a being x to be omnipotent, x would only be able to do all that is logically possible". This falls prey to other misconceptions or problems given it's a rather vague statement without too much extra detail but this is to be expected. What are your thoughts/criticisms on this definition? — substantivalism
This is assuming that god could only have given rise to the universe through creatio ex nihilo means while under different philosophical traditions (I hopefully recall correctly) they don't have to strap themselves to this. God could give rise to the universe by manipulating matter as we know it (creatio ex materia) or similarly some previous chaotic substance (creatio ex profundis) or even out of god himself (creatio ex Deo) which would mean god either becomes the universe in totality (pantheism) or still remains separate somewhat (panentheism). Not every definition of god will fall prey to your argument there assuming it even holds at all. — substantivalism
Holy substance? Are you talking about philosophers or believers speculating on the idea that perhaps the substance of the universe or things within are not the same as what god is made of (physical vs. non-physical substances)? — substantivalism
Yes my argument is that they cannot truly escape it, for most theists anyways (meaning people who believe in Abrahamic or similar religions) — Augustusea
The rock he can't lift is what I meant as an example of him being logically contradictory, — Augustusea
I would criticize this definition with the same problem of creatio ex nihilo, as well as there is nothing that entails god is constrained to logical possibility, — Augustusea
but if he was illogical then you cannot prove him logically, — Augustusea
which makes them fall into another problem, of proving god's existence without using logic, or science, which I believe is impossible, making the entire idea of his existence absurd. — Augustusea
But then comes the question, where did that matter come from for creatio ex materia or creatio ex profundis? — Augustusea
god becoming the universe or taking a part of him and making it into matter, would imply god is made of some sort of matter, and anything made of matter, should have an origin if we assume the kalam cosmological argument is correct. — Augustusea
And that is correct, not every type of god, but I had the Abrahamic god in mind, which is a fault on my part, — Augustusea
I meant Creatio ex deo. — Augustusea
Not every theist is a presuppositionalist or such about god in which they think he must ground/give rise to even the laws of logic or that they even apply to him. Assuming we are not dealing with such a theist then saying you could define god without being constrained to logically possible actions isn't going to convince the theist who doesn't buy such an understanding of god to then accept a definition in which it can do logically contradictory things. — substantivalism
If we defined god as having certain characteristics that in the end lead to him being contradictory or definitionally incoherent then he would be illogical and conclusively non-existent. The key point here is in specifying those specific attributes then discovering whether they are or are not collectively contradictory. — substantivalism
Ex materia or profundis would probably involve the theologian here saying they coexisted with god himself merely that he crafted the universe from them. Basically, perhaps, the idea that you couldn't have one without the other. — substantivalism
No, this would imply that the substance that makes us up is the same as that which makes up god in some manner or gives rise to us. Think of a dot picture in which up close it's made of small circular dots but far away perceptually we gain awareness of the structures that emerges giving the appearance of a face. The dots are not equivalent to the face but the face wouldn't exist without the dots being there in some patterned way. — substantivalism
The Kalam assumes a lot of metaphysical baggage as far as i'm aware of including rather choice metaphysical interpretations of general relativity or that even the model itself fully describes or applies to descriptions of spacetime emergence/creation. If anything it also assumes an A-theory of time which is difficult to parse with general relativity as far as i'm aware and i'm still unsure that any philosophers model of time even has the last word on it's nature. — substantivalism
I believe it's contradictory to say God is good and yet I can beat a kitten to death. If he is so deficient in nature that he can't bring the "greater good" about without the kitten being beaten, then why call him God? After all, creation is supposed to reflect his nature — Gregory
I believe it's contradictory to say God is good and yet I can beat a kitten to death. If he is so deficient in nature that he can't bring the "greater good" about without the kitten being beaten, then why call him God? After all, creation is supposed to reflect his nature — Gregory
I would agree entirely, I just used it since, its the strongest argument for the existence or at least necessity of a god/first cause, other arguments can be debunked in one sentence truly. — Augustusea
yes that's correct but besides my point, my point is that god is made up of matter if he is, or uses a part of him to create the universe, since the universe is 100% made of some types of matter and energy,
that would logically entail god also being from matter. — Augustusea
I agree, but here I presumed that he doesn't follow the rules of logic in that statement (and followed after), meaning they don't apply to him and therefore he cannot be proven to exist, so we could basically throw him in the pile of unicorns and cathulus. — Augustusea
what entails god's existence then and not just the material? why would god be necessary? according to quantum physics it could be an imbalance in a field that produced such, ruling out god's necessity. — Augustusea
You seem to be glossing over the free will defense here as while god would have given rise to human beings with the capability to perform certain actions he wasn't in charge of them actually doing such an action. This does depend on whether it would be a more morally perfect universe to have free beings who make such choices rather than one filled with robots who only ever do what preprogrammed, morally pure, actions they undertake. The real issue comes when you begin dealing with natural evils such as hurricanes or diseases which don't have a direct origin in the actions of human beings. — substantivalism
I wouldn't even that is the strongest argument i've seen. To wave away other arguments with a single sentence they must of have been rather poorly constructed then. — substantivalism
Or that the world is made of god, were basically then disagreeing on what properties (emergent or fundamental) that physical (needs defining) objects consist of and whether, if god makes them up, this means god metaphysically grounds them (or they metaphysically ground god). Much similar to a discussion in the philosophy of spacetime in which some assert spacetime makes up objects (super-substantivalism), it's reductive to physical relations/properties (relationism), or according to some working on quantum gravity that you can't have spacetime without matter nor matter without spacetime, it's a two piece package. — substantivalism
Yes, similar to a person who refuses to even discuss truthfully his terms or willingly obscure the conversation sometimes does imply you simply can throw your hands up and walk away. Philosophers can get into heated but informative discussions of non-classical logics while layman may abuse the concept as a philosophical gotcha question to assume the win. — substantivalism
I can't answer your questions because i'm an ignostic and would leave those questions to be the philosophical burden of those who do happen to propose answers. Quantum physics in certain stripes or models propose spontaneous changes in the fields resulting universes being created or spontaneous production of particles as we know them. . . creation of the material from these involves some further specification on what were defining matter as or the intuitive/philosophical key points of being physical. — substantivalism
if god defeats himself, god is both not the top dog since he got defeated, and is the top since he is also victorious, such is contradictory, thus impossibleD -> O (If God defeats himself, he's still top dog) — TheMadFool
Omnipotence's regular definition is the ability to do everything, D is a thing if he can't do it it entails for him not to be omnipotent~D -> O (If God can't defeat himself, he's still omnipotent) — TheMadFool
If the world boxing champion spars with himself, two thing can happen: either he'll manage to knock himself out or not and either way he still keeps his title — TheMadFool
if he manages to knock himself out, he is both the world boxing champion and not the world boxing champion at the same time, contradictory. — Augustusea
I would criticize this definition with the same problem of creatio ex nihilo, as well as there is nothing that entails god is constrained to logical possibility, but if he was illogical then you cannot prove him logically, which makes them fall into another problem, of proving god's existence without using logic, or science, which I believe is impossible, making the entire idea of his existence absurd. — Augustusea
But then comes the question, where did that matter come from for creatio ex materia or creatio ex profundis?
god becoming the universe or taking a part of him and making it into matter, would imply god is made of some sort of matter, and anything made of matter, should have an origin if we assume the kalam cosmological argument is correct.
And that is correct, not every type of god, but I had the Abrahamic god in mind, which is a fault on my part, — Augustusea
Noob here. — DoppyTheElv
Doesn't the logical impossibility speak for itself here? A logically impossible thing can by definition not be done. Right? So it's contradictory to think anyone. Even God could do it? — DoppyTheElv
But the problem is that once you have God who is there to create then it is no longer creatio ex nihilo. As sub said panentheism for example. The universe would be within God. And if you subscribe to idealism then this can work out without ever having an issue. However im not even sure if Craig goes that far. He seems to specifically argue against creatio ex nihilo with God as the fix. Something about sufficient causes as well.
When you ask where this specific substance came from then..Well I suppose they would just say it's part of God and thats the end of it. Maybe they would even go as far as say its obvious where it came from. — DoppyTheElv
the paradox arises from absolutes, which aren't present in your example — Augustusea
"God can do everything"
is an absolute trait,
being the world champion is not an absolute — Augustusea
I would disagree, as God here is meant to be the most powerful, the best at doing everything, so it is an absolute which isn't relative, hmm it may differ in a way, I mainly used it to describe his power, and Ability to do everything, according to Abrahamic definitions — Augustusea
if so, yes, and it would be logically contradictory — Augustusea
Do I get you if I say that the question itself is nonsensical? Because thats what I meant too but I failed to communicate correctly — DoppyTheElv
Yes thats what I meant. So the question "who will win?" Or "Can he make a rock he cannot lift?" Lead to logical impossibilities and should be disregarded? — DoppyTheElv
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.