God's omnipotence is stretched in time

unDEFER

Hello!
I just discovered that I have knowledge for some significant time, which for some reason has not yet reached by humanity. This is actually a simple idea, but no one has ever operated on it, did not conduct reasoning using it, although it solves a huge number of so-called problems of logic. For a long time I did not consider this a discovery, because when I share it with friends, they are not at all surprised, because it seems to be "obvious", "lies on the surface." But nevertheless, Google does not display any relevant answers to a request that briefly formulates this idea, and Wikipedia is inundated with problems of logic that was thought from all sides, but never found this simple solution.
So the thought: "God has omnipotence but his omnipotence is stretched out in time." He can do anything, but everything takes time. This simple proposition easily resolves the so-called "paradox of omnipotence" asking "if God is omnipotent, then can he create a stone such that he cannot destroy?" Knowing about stretching of God's omnipotence in time, it becomes quite obvious that the question itself is incorrect. "What do you mean he can't?" "When won't he be able to?" "How long will not able?" "Never?" Then the answer: "Yes, he can. It will take about an eternity."
Or so-called "the problem of evil". Does God exist since there is so much evil in the world, but he is beneficent and should have nipped him in the bud? The answer is simple again. He does everything possible to destroy evil, and everything goes to this, but people often multiply evil themselves, with revenge, responding with rudeness to rudeness, backbiting to backbiting, etc. Was it possible to immediately create a person who is not capable of meanness, stupidity, etc.? Answer: "it is impossible right away, because the power of God is stretched in time."
Try to answer for yourself the questions related to theology seemed so far insoluble using this simple idea.
And let's marvel together how God once again "hidden" important knowledge "in the most conspicuous place."
Kind for everyone!

Tom Storm

I think it will help to read more philosophy on these issues as there is a huge amount of sophisticated literature addressing these issues.

his simple proposition easily resolves the so-called "paradox of omnipotence" asking "if God is omnipotent, then can he create a stone such that he cannot destroy?" Knowing about stretching of God's omnipotence in time, it becomes quite obvious that the question itself is incorrect. "What do you mean he can't?" "When won't he be able to?" "How long will not able?" "Never?" Then the answer: "Yes, he can. It will take about an eternity." — unDEFER

The paradox more usually is - "Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" The common answer is that God can't do that which is a logical absurdity. You don't need impossible stones to address this paradox, God also can't make 3 + 3 = 8. Omnipotence does not mean God can subvert logic. Many theists would argue that logic emanates from God's nature, therefore God can't do that which is not part of his nature.

I think a harder question to solve is why does God allow small children to die of starvation and cancer in the millions every year? Why does he allow the suffering of these innocents? Much more interesting than the lifting of a stone, huh?

Benj96

The common answer is that God can't do that which is a logical absurdity. — Tom Storm

Question: why the existence of the absurd or the concept of absurdity then? Why would anything irrational exist at all? Or do you believe that everything fundamentally reduces to something rational and explicable.

The paradox of such a case is that I fail to see how logic can exist with no antonym, no opposing counterpart anymore than wealth can exist without poverty. They are mutually dependent phenomena.

Can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?" — Tom Storm

We as humans often create things that we cannot control. For example the internet as a functional platform was created by several people but it doesn’t mean they control the internet or how it behaves/ the things that occur through it.

If I were to accidentally consume a poison for which there is no antidote I have created a set of conditions I cannot overcome or undo which ultimately leads to my demise.

Up until recently we could spilt atoms apart (fission) but could not force them together (fusion) - once it was split it was impossible to put them back together and even now it’s still very difficult - such a reaction cannot be sustained.

Some actions are irreversible. Entropy always increases. We can try to decrease it but in any attempt to do so we inadvertently increase entropy.

I think what the op was explaining is that omnipotence is dependent on/ spread through time.
The existence of time means pure potency is impossibly within temporality:

power = work done/time taken to do it. The greatest level of power in such a case is a state of affairs where work done = infinite, and time = zero (instantaneous).

Tom Storm

Question: why the existence of the absurd or the concept of absurdity then? Why would anything irrational exist at all? Or do you believe that everything fundamentally reduces to something rational and explicable. — Benj96

I make no claims about absolute truth. But, for the most part, I privilege reason. The response to the conundrum is simply what some Christian theologians and philosophers say when this chestnut is put to them. I have no belief in God or omnipotence so the question isn't asked in my world.

I think what the op was explaining is that omnipotence is dependent on/ spread through time.
The existence of time means pure potency is impossibly within temporality:

power = work done/time taken to do it. The greatest level of power in such a case is a state of affairs where work done = infinite, and time = zero (instantaneous). — Benj96

I guess the OP could have meant that. I responded to the bit I could follow and which interested me. I apologise if I missed the point.

Benj96

I have no belief in God — Tom Storm

Yeah but when you say this presumably you have a preconceived idea of the god to which you are rejecting?
Like would it not be more accurate to say “I have no belief in one version of a god” - your version, the one you’re rejecting.

But that’s one person - you. Or a group of people - Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. Not everyone’s god because to different people they have different ideas of the heavily loaded term.

Like the god I believe in is nature/ the universe . And by your statement “I have no belief in god” then logically you either a). Aren’t aware of my god/ don’t associate it the same way I do or b). You don’t believe in nature/the universe.

If anything that makes you agnostic not atheist.
You can be like “why do you call it god and not just the pursuit of natural sciences like everyone else?”

And I would just say it’s for several reasons, but one of the main ones is because I feel science as wonderful and powerful a tool as it is, is failing to address concepts that are very important to me like
Ethics and morality, subjectivity vs. objectivity, awareness, love, emotions and all that mysterious ewwy-gooey stuff which also exists in the universe.

Science only accepts something by objectifying it and establishing whether it is repeatable. But knowing that I myself nor you, can ever be repeated or objectified, it would seem to suggest that scientific method based on its principle could not accept that my specific unique personality exists. But I know it exists by virtue of the fact that I’m me. That’s where ethics comes in.

Ethics governs scientific method not the other way around. There is no objective scientific reason why we shouldn’t dissect each other or torture each other to gain valuable scientific insight. But we know it’s wrong. For whatever reason I don’t know.

This is why I call the universe god because - it is both a mechanical physical reality that we live in, as well as the conscious subjects that we share it with.

Tom Storm

Yeah but when you say this presumably you have a preconceived idea of the god to which you are rejecting?
Like would it not be more accurate to say “I have no belief in one version of a god” - your version, the one you’re rejecting.

But that’s one person - you. Or a group of people - Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. Not everyone’s god because to different people they have different ideas of the heavily loaded term.

Like the god I believe in is nature/ the universe . And by your statement “I have no belief in god” then logically you either a). Aren’t aware of my god/ don’t associate it the same way I do or b). You don’t believe in nature/the universe.

If anything that makes you agnostic not atheist.
You can be like “why do you call it god and not just the pursuit of natural sciences like everyone else? — Benj96

As I wrote to you an another thread. There are many forms of atheism, the best in my view argue that there is no reason to accept the proposition that a deity exists. Incidentally atheism and agnosticism address two different categories. The atheism part addresses the belief component the agnostic addresses the knowledge component. This is why there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists. I would put myself into this category. I can't know if there is or is not a god (just as I can't know if there are or are not aliens) but I don't have good reason to believe in one.

It's pretty simple. You can't choose your beliefs. Most agnostics in my view are atheists. They may say they don't know but technically they do not have a belief in any kind of god. All they are addressing with agnosticism is the knowledge component.

I feel science as wonderful and powerful a tool as it is, is failing to address concepts that are very important to me — Benj96

Yes, well your feelings are a separate matter, aren't they? I hear you but this is subjective.

One problem with religions and theism is the lack of moral foundation. As you have probably noticed even within one religious tradition morality is whatever a believer or a particular church community subjectively determines it to be.

Christians lie and cheat and murder and end up in jail. I have worked with prisoners for many years so I have seen this in person. But more than this, Christians are all over the shop when it comes to morality. Some believe women should just be housewives, some think they should be scientists and lawyers and the breadwinner. Some hate gays, others are gay friendly. Some believe in capital punishment, others fight against it. Some think being wealthy is God's reward, others think Jesus demands personal poverty and sacrifice.

In other words morality is based on the personal preferences of a believer or what their pastor tells them it is (this year). Religion/theism does not provide any certainty, only the illusion of certainty.

180 Proof

↪Tom Storm

:up:

“Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right.” ~H.L. Mencken

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg

unDEFER

↪Tom Storm

You are absolutely right, Tom. God cannot contradict logic. And maybe law of noncontradiction is the single law which works even out of our universe. In the beginning of times when God have created laws of physics in our universe they already started to work and he couldn't cancel it or make anything contradict to these laws.
Many many years past before humans was created and God would be glad to make them once with knowledge of all laws of universe. But it was just impossible. Instead of it God made feelings and if human hear it and acts accordingly to it, he feels happy. But human is too limited in his mind thing. And he very prone to as I call it "last bit error". Human can fully rightly understand the situation but just in the last moment do false conclusion. It is always looks like answer on a question yes or no. E.g. in China they tried to kill all sparrows to save harvest or in Africa they tried to kill all elephants to save the soil from devastation. In both examples human made false conclusion about flow of process. Human still far from understanding all laws of universe. But some people already starts to understand more than other. When all people will understand his nature deseases and children deaths will be stopped but it will take time...

unDEFER

Really I very discouraged that nobody can't understand how simple and elegant this dialog:
- Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?
- Yes, he can. It will take eternity.
All conditions of the question-trap is completed. God will create the stone, he never will lift it and he really never will able do it because the job will not done full eternity. But he is God and lives out of time. So he just lift it once when eternity ends...

tim wood

↪unDEFER

I.e., God will be God, but in due time, just not right now? I admire the self-contained simplicity and logic of it, But I don't think it will do as either theology or religion.

unDEFER

↪tim wood

Why do you think so, tim? God still God, but this universe rules doesn't allow any magic. To make or change something you need to go through all intermediate states. Even to go from point A to point B you need to make some path which connects this points. I don't speak that this is religion, but it is philosophy.

tim wood

Even to go from point A to point B you need to make some path which connects this points. — unDEFER

Some path indeed! Did you choose God or did God choose you?

unDEFER

↪tim wood

God in us and we are part of God. All that we do, God also do by our hands.

tim wood

↪unDEFER

You presuppose the existence of God, then. Which you are free to do.

unDEFER

↪tim wood

God or just nature or universe are all names of one thing. Who don't believe in God just calls it by other name...

tim wood

God or just nature or universe are all names of one thing. — unDEFER

For some, yes, others, no. "God" without clarification is an invitation to misunderstanding both of you and what you mean, and sometimes even trouble - as the history of the world shows

unDEFER

↪tim wood

I always say that existing or not existing of God is just question of defining of this term.

tim wood

↪unDEFER

A misuse of "existing" then. A man owes you 100 Ducats. He says he will pay you, and places nothing into your outstretched palm. "Where are my Ducats?" you ask.
"In your palm," he replies, "as I have defined them." Well, are you paid or not?

unDEFER

↪tim wood

Ducat is very simple and material thing. But who defined what is God by some obvious way?

tim wood

Ducat is very simple and material thing. — unDEFER

So is the claim of existence.

180 Proof

↪tim wood

:up: 'What exists' is unambiguously distinguishable from 'what does not exist', otherwise there are no grounds to accept or claim (it) exists.

↪unDEFER

I can't recall now when I'd first come across the notion that "God is a verb" and that translation from ancient Hebrew of the Name given to Moses is also "I Will Be That I Will Be" & "Tell the Israelites 'I Will Be hath sent me unto you'" (Exodus 3:14) implying, I suppose, that the Not Yet is holy. So "faith" means living in the future tense here and now (like daily prayer)? Tikkun olam? Gnosis? Process theology? ... Dao?

unDEFER

↪tim wood

Why not?

unDEFER

↪180 Proof

Very interesting information, thank you for it.

Benj96

Yes, well your feelings are a separate matter, aren't they? — Tom Storm

Not really lol. I mean we are talking about personal beliefs in a god or lack thereof so obviously personal opinion is one facet.

All you said is very articulate and details well this failings of religion but my point still remains pretty basic.
If one person refers to the universe with one name while another refers to it with another what difference does it make? How can either be any less correct than the other provided they are based in reason.

As I said my only reason for referring to the universe as god is to outline the fact that it has parts that are conscious (people, animals, plants probably as well as maybe other systems of life we haven’t discovered) as well as the sterile mechanic objective reality of hard sciences.
We can’t ignore the fact that the reality we live in developed self awareness in the format of living things.

And whether ones “subjectivity” can ever be explained objectively or not is irrelevant to the fact that subjects and objects exist in tandem. So I chose to go by a term that denotes some intrinsic sentience as well as being physical.

The problem is other people’s assumptions about what I mean by the term god based on previous uses of the word. What I’m saying is terms are dynamic and change in meaning.

And while ones term for god can be absolutely absurd and ridiculous another's having reviewed the term, analysed it, incorporated modern knowledge, physics etc and generally given it an update would not be so absurd.

God's omnipotence is stretched in time

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions