|
|
#51
11-13-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
I think god is bound by logic. Although I dare say a large part of this is because I just couldnt understand anything if he wasnt. So I dont think he wrote the rules of logic - they're just "there". (For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.)
I think God is able to do everything it is logically possible to do and able to know everything it is logically possible to know. 
|
|
#52
11-13-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
[ QUOTE ]
I think god is bound by logic. Although I dare say a large part of this is because I just couldnt understand anything if he wasnt. So I dont think he wrote the rules of logic - they're just "there". (For what it's worth, I also dont think he defined good, loving, moral etcetera. I think those are "there" too. I dont see how we can ascribe properties to god if those properties are solely defined by him in the first place.) I think God is able to do everything it is logically possible to do and able to know everything it is logically possible to know. [/ QUOTE ] Well, the question wasnt EXACTLY "do you believe that, of all the possible Gods that could exist, the one and only one that does is the type of God who is bound by logic?" But thats still a question worth responding to.
|
|
#53
11-13-2007, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience.
People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known. Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions.
|
|
#54
11-13-2007, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
[ QUOTE ]
If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience. People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known. Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions. [/ QUOTE ] All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean?
|
|
#55
11-13-2007, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience. People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known. Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions. [/ QUOTE ] All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean? [/ QUOTE ] Semantics as the definition goes but I'll try describing what I mean. Knowledge grows over time or iterations, depending on how you see such. The more you run something, the more information you have. So such a knowledge set would be in ceaseless expansion. So you could be omniscient and still have more to know. Knowing all that there is to be known at a certain point, yet still in motion and acquiring more knowledge. And such a being would still know everything, but everything isn't fully known.
|
|
#56
11-13-2007, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience. People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known. Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions. [/ QUOTE ] All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean? [/ QUOTE ] Semantics as the definition goes but I'll try describing what I mean. Knowledge grows over time or iterations, depending on how you see such. The more you run something, the more information you have. So such a knowledge set would be in ceaseless expansion. So you could be omniscient and still have more to know. Knowing all that there is to be known at a certain point, yet still in motion and acquiring more knowledge. And such a being would still know everything, but everything isn't fully known. [/ QUOTE ] Why is time relevant to an omnipotent or omniscient being?
|
|
#58
11-13-2007, 06:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If such a god started with nothing and emergent properties as described happened, they'd stay within his bounds of omniscience. People seem to define it as all-knowing. Perhaps it's more like knowing all there is to be known, yet there is more to be known. Seems simple enough to me. Linear perception is indeed an error when thinking of such definitions. [/ QUOTE ] All there is to be known = all, right? Otherwise what does omni mean? [/ QUOTE ] Semantics as the definition goes but I'll try describing what I mean. Knowledge grows over time or iterations, depending on how you see such. The more you run something, the more information you have. So such a knowledge set would be in ceaseless expansion. So you could be omniscient and still have more to know. Knowing all that there is to be known at a certain point, yet still in motion and acquiring more knowledge. And such a being would still know everything, but everything isn't fully known. [/ QUOTE ] Why is time relevant to an omnipotent or omniscient being? [/ QUOTE ] Reference points, and a way to keep track of the data. No linear bias though, the being could change the data at will, but he'd have to find it first. When you think that way, you start to see many-worlds branching, but one dataset. It'd be effectively an expanding infinite one though.
|
|
#59
11-13-2007, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
[ QUOTE ]
If there were a God, the universe and time would be a cross-section of His world. He would be omnipotent and not bound by any of the our physical laws. [/ QUOTE ] Of course. It just wouldn't be necessary to have active omnipotence. Would be useful if something got out of hand though, but not entirely necessary.
|
|
#60
11-13-2007, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy Question about Omnipotence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So you posted the definition of omniscience just so you could refute it or...what? [/ QUOTE ] NO. Omniscience means the capacity to know everything. But knowing everything does not mean controlling everything. Well, not exactly. If one tosses an unbiased coin and the result is truely random even an omniscient being could only at best predict the probability of the result, heads or tails. (or standing on edge if you consider that as a possible result). Certainly one could say that omniscience implies that the being would know every physical aspect of the toss and be able to predict with %100 percent sccuracy the result of the toss. However if all of the elements of a specific toss were known the toss would then not be random. Randomness means each result is equally likely. Now if the elements of the toss were known before hand that would negate the ability for each result to be equally likely so for our purposes in a random event all of the elements of the event cannot be known. Therefore omniscience cannot know anything more than there will be a toss, which is everything to be known at the tiem, and the best he can do is predict the probability of the results. Omniscience does not mean that one has the power to control events only to know everything there is to know about the event. It does not mean all powerful. If the only thing to know is that it is random then omniscience can only know that the possible results and the probability of each. Now if we add omnipotence, all powerful, then the event itself can be controlled. And we can then run Sam over with the bus whenever we please. We still must be both Omnisicent and omnipotent because we need to KNOW initially where sam is so we can control the event of hitting him with our bus. Omniscience and omnipotence are not the same as someone has claimed. Not exactly. They are indeed different, somewhat, and one does not ultimtely and perfecty yield the other nor does one allow the other to also be simply true. pokervintage [/ QUOTE ] No physical event in the universe is "truly" random. We can really only discuss probabilities when assuming a certain level of ignorance. Adding knowledge means that the probabilities change. Absent any amount of ignorance (as would be the case for an omniscient figure), and all events either have probability 1 or 0, even flipping a fair coin.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
