Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i suppose the way that i would see it is that if you are to say that god has all the power in the universe, and no one can have more than that, that would imply that there is a limit to power, and then power would not be infinite.
but if power was infinite, why couldn't many beings have said infinite power?
if you are drinking from a keg that never ends, shouldn't endless amounts of people be able to drink from this keg that never ends?
Well for one, he is not communicating with his creation in general, he is communicating with a) Those who believe and b) those who have opened themself to belief (for them understanding may be a bit slower but they catch up).
As I said in another thread, human beings don't grasp spiritual things if their actually trying to resist them, that is simply the way it works, it is not logical thought. Now if you are sincere and open but at the same time questioning, then you can receive. God dosen't play games, and it is not as if the answering of this question would immediately cause you to surrender your life to Christ.
if we can't grasp spiritual things because we resist them, wouldn't that mean that people DO grasp spiritual things because they want to?
in other words, wouldn't this mean that people are grasping spirituality because they choose to not resist?
but what is entailed with choosing to not resist? given the human propensity to see what we want and ignore what we want to in conjunction with this leaves a possibility to consider...
What is entailed is that a person not resist submission of his life to God only.
A person can make the decision to submit himself and his life to God and still have questions, I see it all the time. Yet he is in a position to receive an answer to the question because of his position of general openess to God, not of resistance. You said yourself that the human condition was such that human beings do not see what they do not wish to see. This is a carnal version of the law I just explained. Jesus said if any man wills to do God's will he will know of my doctrine whether it is of God or not. The corallary to that is that if a man detests the very idea of being submitted to God he will do everything he can to contradict scripture and everthing which concern God by any means necessary. When he does that he uses his free will to lock God out, as well as the understanding of God. God himself is the posessor and receptacle of that understanding, and he will not impose himself upon the will of anyone in this way.
Oh and once more, all of this only concerns the word Of God, not a logical philosophical discussion of the concept of God.
Ofcourse such a discussion can only ever touch the periphery of God but that is all threads like this are concerned with anyway.
Nikk:
The Judeo-Christian God did create all of the Universe.
Nick:
That's debatable. What's your evidence that this occured other then the say so of your religous text?
Quote:
Nikk:
The term rested does not necessarily mean that a person is tired (ie. from doing work). To rest can me to stop for a period of time. God rested on the 7th day of the creation week.
Nick:
Correct. Why did god rest?
Quote:
Nikk
This was the first full day for man. Maybe he wanted to spend this time with his children which he had just created?
Nick:
Possible. But I don't recall that reason being mentioned in Genesis.
Quote:
Nikk:
In any case, God does not need to rest. Jesus said concerning the sabath, that today I work and so does my father. So, Jesus did do work on the Sabath, but since he is creator he can work therein. It is written that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabath. So the Bible is clear that the Sabath or the day of rest was not for God, but for man.
Nick:
Then Jesus was contradicting his father. Genesis 2:2-3 says
" 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."
Perhaps jesus should have read Genesis 2:2-3 before he made such a statement.
Quote:
Nikk:
God wanted one day in which Man rested and spent time with God. Which is similar to what I said earlier that God rested to spend time with his creation.
Nick:
What you say does not align with Genesis 2:2-3 ; according to it, god santified the 7th day because he did indeed rest (not work) and it was something that HE did, not "man."
Quote:
Nikk:
God did not "need" one of Adams ribs to create Eve.
Nick:
Then why did he use it?
Quote:
Nikk:
The passage before this specifically shows God recreating all of the animals so Adam can name them. Adam however could not find a mate. So God took Eve out of Adam. Adam when God presented Eve to him, explained why God took Woman out of Man. He said, "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife". God wanted to reveal the relationship that he wanted a Man and Woman to have. When he presented Eve to Adam, this was the first wedding where the Father gave the bride away. Since Eve is Adam, Adam must love Eve as he loves himself. When Adam was hungry he ate, but he must also provide food for Eve because she is his bone and flesh. This is how a marriage must be to this day. A husband must love his wife like he loves himself. The bible latter reaffirms this relationship to us. It says, "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it". Jesus in his love for the Chruch "died" on the cross for it!
Nick:
Yes, I am familiar with this tale. Would you have any evidence that these things did indeed occur other then the say so of your religious text?
Quote:
Nikk:
So, us men must be willing to love our wives to the degree that we will be willing to die for them. Isn't this true love?
Nick:
No.
Quote:
Nikk:
All logic is from God.
Nick:
Once more... logic is not a "thing" that "comes" from something else. I could say that "That sandwich is from the deli." And it would be correct because a sandwich is real. Logic is not real the way that your computer, a sandwich and a car are real. Logic is an imaginary construct, a tool for organizing our thoughts and communication. If logic has a source, it's humans, in the form of organized communication (when we choose to be logical that is) and not from your alleged deity.
Quote:
Nikk:
Since he has set this Universe in order and it is governed by laws, this reflects the order and logic of the Creator. God who is creator also gave us laws to follow. These are the Ten Commandments.
Nick:
Do you follow the 10 commandments? I thought Jesus somehow "fufilled" [read: did away with] that.
What is entailed is that a person not resist submission of his life to God only.
A person can make the decision to submit himself and his life to God and still have questions, I see it all the time. Yet he is in a position to receive an answer to the question because of his position of general openess to God, not of resistance. You said yourself that the human condition was such that human beings do not see what they do not wish to see. This is a carnal version of the law I just explained. Jesus said if any man wills to do God's will he will know of my doctrine whether it is of God or not. The corallary to that is that if a man detests the very idea of being submitted to God he will do everything he can to contradict scripture and everthing which concern God by any means necessary. When he does that he uses his free will to lock God out, as well as the understanding of God. God himself is the posessor and receptacle of that understanding, and he will not impose himself upon the will of anyone in this way.
Oh and once more, all of this only concerns the word Of God, not a logical philosophical discussion of the concept of God.
Ofcourse such a discussion can only ever touch the periphery of God but that is all threads like this are concerned with anyway.
i also said that people see what they want to. by choosing not to resist, one cannot deny that at least from time to time, they aren't just seeing what they want to, and ignoring what they don't want to. and if someone wants to be submitted to scripture, would they not at least a part of the time justify their decision by any means necessary?
i wasn't trying to "pick a fight" just trying to illustrate it can go either way.
i also said that people see what they want to. by choosing not to resist, one cannot deny that at least from time to time, they aren't just seeing what they want to, and ignoring what they don't want to. and if someone wants to be submitted to scripture, would they not at least a part of the time justify their decision by any means necessary?
i wasn't trying to "pick a fight" just trying to illustrate it can go either way.
Trying to pick a fight? whoever accused you of anything like that?
I think however you missed this part of my post.
Quote:
"What is entailed is that a person not resist submission of his life to God.
A person can make the decision to submit himself and his life to God and still have questions,
It is not submission to the specific spiritual truth that I was talking about but submission to God in general.
The issue was not belief but understanding.
I don't feel like writing a tome in response, so I'm going to keep this short. I just went on vacation for crying out loud! But you bring up some interesting points, and I'll try to give you some thoughtful answers in response.
Nick:
My bad. I'll try to keep my reponces shorter and more concise.
Quote:
Matrix:
But in general, you seem to have two different issues: (1) the consistency of omnipotence, and (2) the basis for saying God is omnipotent in the first place.
Nick:
Correct. However, (1) is to a degree trivial. I simply argue it when people make unwarrented boasts of their creator somehow being able to do "anything." Since you aren't one such person, we can focus on a certain aspect of (2). The vast majority of my criticizms of Christianity involve Epistemology.
Quote:
Matrix:
So, on the one hand you seem to argue that omnipotence is incoherent, and on the other that Christians have no rational basis for the claim that God is omnipotent in the first place. Is that about right?
Nick:
Let's focus on the rational basis for the claim to omnipotence.
Quote:
Matrix:
I think the second claim is probably too much for you to try and establish. I'm not even sure what sort of argument you could give--it would need to be heavily historical, not only into Christian history, but Jewish history as well. OK, maybe you're just curious.
Nick:
I could argue it. It's rather simple.
(GOC= god of Christianity)
1) The belief that the GOC is omnipotent is rational if and only if either
(i). it is properly basic or (ii.) it is a justified belief.
2) it's not the case that either (i) or (ii) ergo 3) It's not the case that The belief that the GOC is omnipotent is rational.
If you don't ascribe to a foundationalist epistemology, then all premises are contraversial;if you do, then premise 2 is contraversial.
So in order to defend my argument further, I'd have to know if you think it's valid or if one or more the the premises are either unsupported (or not apparent) or just plain false.
So far, The majority of Christians that I've pressed on this matter have resorted to the bible. I think we agree that "the bible says so" is not a rational justification for such a claim. UNLESS, one ascribes to presuppusitional apologetics, which will assume that bible inerrent, which would beg the question.
Quote:
Matrix:
On the first thing, I just don't see the argument for the inconsistency of omnipotence working.
Nick:
In truth, you're correct. One needs only change the definition of omnipotence for the argument to fall flat. Impossibility arguments are impossible because it's always possible to change the defintions.
Quote:
Matrix:
Exactly. The ontological argument. Good stuff
Nick:
Yeah, I've never been a fan of any the ontological arguments though. Heck, i think even Alvin Plantinga thought that while it's a sound argument, it's not very convincing, and ergo is not a "good" argument.
Quote:
Matrix:
I don't know about "strange." But the extent of God's causal involvement in the world has always been an issue. There are at least three kinds of causal involvement people have talked about: (1) he's the first cause, (2) the sustaining cause, and (3) the cooperative cause (i.e., his involvement is necessary for every individual action, in some capacity). Maybe we could also say God is the "final cause." Anyway, I don't quite understand the third option too well, or the second. But this is another topic.
Nick:
True, it is another subject, but a note. Aristotle identified (4) types of causes.
1) Effecient = direct action
2) Material = whatever substance was used/needed
3) Formal = plans (i.e. blue prints for a house)
4) Final = purpose. A car's purpose is to transport cargo or whatever.
Quote:
Matrix:
That's hardly true at all. Modern day atheism is, well, modern day. Theologians and philosophers poked and prodded and had been having these discussions for almost two thousand years. But you make it seem as though it's only because of atheists that there is any thinking going on in Christianity at all. If that's even remotely what you're saying, it's incorrect (to say the least).
We could all benefit from trying to read the other position as charitably as possible. Having said that, I will try to read your statement as well-meaning.
Nick:
My bad. It was an unwarrented off handed remark that I retract.
What I should have said was that philosophers and theologians have argued about these concepts for thousands of years.
Quote:
Matrix:
I like the way Aquinas dealt with this....<stuff deleted>... so a "logically impossible thing" is nonsense. Otherwise, what criteria should we have for including contradictions in the realm of the possible? So to say that God can do impossible things (like create square circles) is to, in essence, talk unintelligibly, to speak nonsense.
Nick:
Aquanis did a good job with "Can god make 4+7=25 (assuming digits hold their value)?
But his argument does not avoid the rock argument. For making a block of concrete that I can't move is not nonsense. Hence the ideal of Maximal power that I mention earlier.
Quote:
Matrix:
I didn't state that as elegantly as I could have. But I hope it's clear enough. OK. The verse we're generally talking about is interesting:
Matthew 19:26 "And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.""
<stuff deleted>--but these are not limits per se, since beyond them we do not find "impossible things" (as I suggest, following Aquinas), since there is no thing that is impossible.
Nick:
Fair enogh
Quote:
Matrix:
There's another issue besides logical possibility--that of metaphysical possibility. And I think here, too, we can find limits to God's power. Maybe there are things that are possible for me, and yet not possible for God. For example, maybe a free action is something that, no matter what God does, he cannot bring it about unless I will it. So there could be possibilities that God cannot actualize.
But I don't see any of this as incoherent, or limiting omnipotence in any meaningful way.
Nick:
It's meaningful to me. If there is a god, and he or she is omipotent, omnibenevelent, and omnsicient, then he or she would have created the universe witout evil. Becuase this god did not do such a thing, then the god, as described (O-3 being) doesn't exist. This is, of course, the old problem of evil. It's off topic, but I just wanted to note that there is a wider context of my quibbles concerning omnipotence.
Quote:
Matrix:
I'm not sure I complete follow this. What's 'Ls" stand for? I have that book somewhere, but I haven't read it yet (not sure when I'll get a chance to look at it). And what are Flint and Freddosa arguing?
Nick:
Ls= world-type-for S
They're arguing that god is able to do whatever someone else could possibly do in a logically possible world.
Quote:
Matrix:
Why? because there are mysteries? The fact that we disagree about interpretations just means the texts are meaningful and difficult, not spoon-fed mush. but rather philosophically and theologically rich. Why should it all be easy and obvious? So we don't have to think for ourselves?
Nick:
I answer questions in order
a.1: becuase apparently, there are some things that your god either did not want us to know, or was unable to effectively communicate to us.
a.2 Yes
a.3 Because not everyone has an entire lifetime to devote studying the bible. Even after that, there are 10's of thousands of Christian denominations. Different protologies,soteriologies, ect. Lots of people have tried to understand the bible....Why all the disagreement? Presumably, the audience for the bible was all of humans. What kind of writer can't phrase his or her words so that his or her audience doesn't understand them? I'll give you a hint...not a good one.
a.4 A textbook can have a hard to understand subject, but a good textbook writer will make it easy to understand what the student needs to learn.
Quote:
Matrix:
I don't see why that follows. Do you know how many possible worlds, completely different from ours, there are, that could sustain life? Maybe infinitely many such worlds. Who are we to say?
Nick:
Let me see if I can put it simpler.
Consider 2 people. person A and Person B, respectivly (A) and (B)
Both (A) and (B) make a cake for us. (A) had to use a cookbook, flour, eggs, milk, salt, baking soda, and other ingredients to make this cake. (A) also needed an oven to produce this Cake. (B), on the other hand, just magicked a cake into existence. Both were able to make a cake, but it obviously took effort, time, and enery for (A) to make the cake.
Similarly, we dont' know if god, if he or she exists, had to take the baker's approach or was able to take the mage's approach. Did it take a lot of time for god to create the universe? Did he use much effort? Could he have created the universe differently then it is now? Did he blow himself up when he made the big bang?
All of these questions would be essential on determining exactly how much power this god has. Sure, we could infer that this creator of the universe was "very powerful" and even "very knowledgeable" because we know that we, ourselves would need a lot of power and knowledge to create another universe like this one.
the main problem is that god is unavaliable for comment. Sure, the bible pretty much tells us that it was no problemo for god to make the universe....But "the bible says so," doesn't cut it for me. The arguments of the fine tuning of the universe contradict the notion that god was albe to create the universe however he or she wanted. let's put this in a simple argument form.
1. The universe is vast, complex, and at times seemingly infinite
2. If the universe was created, then the creator had to have power that was vast, complex, and at times seemingly infinite
3. the universe was created
ergo
4. the creator had to have power that was vast, complex, and at times seemingly infinite
The main problem with this argument is premise (2).
it doesn't follow because power can grow,simple can become complex, and seemingly infinite is not actually infinite (omnipotent)
Trying to pick a fight? whoever accused you of anything like that?
I think however you missed this part of my post.
It is not submission to the specific spiritual truth that I was talking about but submission to God in general.
The issue was not belief but understanding.
sorry, sometimes when i post it makes sense to me, but it can be offensive without me really intending to do so.
i just like to clear that up sometimes, because i really don't mean to offend anyone. i just like to make sure that people don't think i am trying to flame them
One of the things you are pushing for is an answer to why we in the Christian tradition hold God to be omnipotent. I'm glad you're pushing it, since it's not something I have given too much attention to (though I have thought about it in some degree); so I thank you for that. There is an element of trust on my part (where trust = faith, I think). As a Christian I accept the basic teachings of the Christian tradition on this issue, trusting that those people who have thought a lot more than I have about this, have got it about right (in terms of both philosophical and theological aspects). Now, I don't think accepting this on faith is irrational, or "against" reason. But I also think some philosophical reasons can be given for holding God to be omnipotent, which I'll mention below.
In the end, I really don't think this matter all that much, since the difference between saying "God is omnipotent" and "God is powerful enough to do anything he wants" doesn't change the substance of the belief (or faith).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
The vast majority of my criticizms of Christianity involve Epistemology.
Good. I'm not well versed in epistemology. So I'm looking forward to your helping me understand it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
Let's focus on the rational basis for the claim to omnipotence.
I could argue it. It's rather simple.
(GOC= god of Christianity)
1) The belief that the GOC is omnipotent is rational if and only if either
(i). it is properly basic or (ii.) it is a justified belief.
2) it's not the case that either (i) or (ii) ergo 3) It's not the case that The belief that the GOC is omnipotent is rational.
If you don't ascribe to a foundationalist epistemology, then all premises are contraversial;if you do, then premise 2 is contraversial.
So in order to defend my argument further, I'd have to know if you think it's valid or if one or more the the premises are either unsupported (or not apparent) or just plain false.
So far, The majority of Christians that I've pressed on this matter have resorted to the bible. I think we agree that "the bible says so" is not a rational justification for such a claim. UNLESS, one ascribes to presuppusitional apologetics, which will assume that bible inerrent, which would beg the question.
Just a quick question on the logic. Do you need the first premise to be a biconditional? Maybe a conditional statement is enough.
I'm not really committed to an epistemological position, but I might accept something like reformed epistemology, following Plantinga. But I haven't read his Warrant trilogy yet. I have no problem seeing this belief as properly basic--I also have no problem with having a rational basis for it. I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive. If I remember correctly, Plantinga's point (or the reformed epistemologist's point) is that such beliefs do not necessarily need justification (or warrant), but they could have it. After all, Plantinga gives a long list of theistic arguments he accepts. In any case, this is a pretty complex area, and I don't know how I feel about it all.
You say that the Bible cannot be used as a rational basis for such beliefs. Why not? Why couldn't a person use it as justifying, or providing warrant for, a belief in God's omnipotence, or existence, or what have you? I think this is an important question, since the issue is what is to count as rational support. I've heard of (but never been really interested in) presuppositional apologetics--so I don't see why using the Bible as a source of rational support necessarily requires presuppositional apologetics. Maybe you could clarify why you think this is the case. One could, for example, read a story, and begin to see evidence for the historical truth of the story, and come to believe that the historical account is correct. The account could then, by this person, be used to form other beliefs without begging the question. I think this is a natural way to reason, and it doesn't necessitate that everyone who reads it will come to the same conclusions--there is, here, space for two people to form contrary beliefs which are both rationally based.
So, it's not immediately evident to me why the Bible cannot be used in some justificatory manner with regard to such beliefs.
But I also think there are other reasons that can be given. Right below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
Yeah, I've never been a fan of any the ontological arguments though. Heck, i think even Alvin Plantinga thought that while it's a sound argument, it's not very convincing, and ergo is not a "good" argument.
I'm pretty sure that Plantinga's opinion of the ontological argument is that it is both valid and sound, but its soundness is not something we can objectively or definitively prove. So it might not be convincing to someone already committed to either atheism or agnosticism (thought who knows, it might be). But it still can be used as rational grounds for belief. I would agree with this. And I think the ontological argument gives some reason to hold that God is omnipotent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
Aquanis did a good job with "Can god make 4+7=25 (assuming digits hold their value)?
But his argument does not avoid the rock argument. For making a block of concrete that I can't move is not nonsense. Hence the ideal of Maximal power that I mention earlier.
I agree; which is why I brought up the distinction between two types of possibility: logical and metaphysical possibility. Something is logically possible if its negation is not a contradiction. Metaphysical possibility refers to what is true in at least one possible world. So something might be logically possible and yet be metaphysically impossible. In the category of metaphysically impossible things, I would place "water is not H20" (Kripke's example), and "there is a largest natural number" (so truths of mathematics might be in this category), and that an omnipotent being can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it. Such an act of omnipotence might not be logically impossible, but it is (I suspect) metaphysically impossible. This comes back to indexing acts of power, and looking at the context. So, for example, any free action I do is something that God cannot do for me, or else it would not have been freely done by me--and in some ways this is analogous to the "stone so heavy he can't lift it" question, since human freedom is similar (in this case) to the stone. Grant that there is human freedom: God cannot then create a world in which he has complete control, since the free acts of creatures cannot be in his control and yet remain free acts. The limits to omnipotence in this case seem less about logic than they do about the natures of things that are possible. So I think it is completely consistent with omnipotence to say that God cannot do some acts that are logically possible but metaphysically impossible. Furthermore, there are perhaps things that we do and God cannot (like free acts--which God cannot do for us without stripping the acts of freedom). But again, I don't see the problem here for omnipotence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
It's meaningful to me. If there is a god, and he or she is omipotent, omnibenevelent, and omnsicient, then he or she would have created the universe witout evil. Becuase this god did not do such a thing, then the god, as described (O-3 being) doesn't exist. This is, of course, the old problem of evil. It's off topic, but I just wanted to note that there is a wider context of my quibbles concerning omnipotence.
Right. And I don't think the problem of evil is able to demonstrate the nonexistence of God, or that God does not have the traditional "perfections." My response is directly related to what I said above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
Ls= world-type-for S
They're arguing that god is able to do whatever someone else could possibly do in a logically possible world.
Ok. thanks for the clarification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
a.3 Because not everyone has an entire lifetime to devote studying the bible. Even after that, there are 10's of thousands of Christian denominations. Different protologies,soteriologies, ect. Lots of people have tried to understand the bible....Why all the disagreement? Presumably, the audience for the bible was all of humans. What kind of writer can't phrase his or her words so that his or her audience doesn't understand them? I'll give you a hint...not a good one.
But not every human audience is the same. Each audience comes with its own "issues." The basics of Christianity are pretty easy to grasp--which makes it accessible to everyone (nobody has to "study" the Bible for their entire life to understand the fundamentals). But when we turn to the deeper issues, maybe the fault is not with the Biblical texts, but with our own doubts and disbeliefs (our own sins). For all I know God reveals himself to us in this way because he desires us to ponder the mysteries--who he is--to draw nearer him with reason as well as with the heart. God is not simple and easy to understand: he is God. So why should the deep end of the pool be "an open book" so to speak.
I don't know why exactly there are so many denominations, other than to say that we have a certain amount of freedom in what we believe. I actually think it's healthier to disagree on things, since it forces us to think more deeply, to come to better appreciate both what we know and what is Mystery. The problem I have is not so much in disagreement, but in the manner in which people disagree--with hubris, not humility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
Let me see if I can put it simpler.
Consider 2 people. person A and Person B, respectivly (A) and (B)
Both (A) and (B) make a cake for us. (A) had to use a cookbook, flour, eggs, milk, salt, baking soda, and other ingredients to make this cake. (A) also needed an oven to produce this Cake. (B), on the other hand, just magicked a cake into existence. Both were able to make a cake, but it obviously took effort, time, and enery for (A) to make the cake.
Similarly, we dont' know if god, if he or she exists, had to take the baker's approach or was able to take the mage's approach. Did it take a lot of time for god to create the universe? Did he use much effort? Could he have created the universe differently then it is now? Did he blow himself up when he made the big bang?
I'm not sure what would count as answering your questions, since I'm not sure what criteria we're talking about. Are you raising these questions apart from anything the Bible says? Are you just talking about a creator as (e.g.) the conclusion of the cosmological argument?
Anyway, I don't know what God's relationship to time is, whether he is inside or outside of it. I don't know what "time" is, so I can't really say--if we accept a presentist account of time, then I don't see how God can be "outside" of it; if we accept something like what's called the "B-theory" of time, then God can be outside. I just don't know.
I don't know why the "effort" or "planning" for creating are issues here, or whether he blew himself up. God is the most perfect being (following in Anselm's footsteps). Full stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
All of these questions would be essential on determining exactly how much power this god has. Sure, we could infer that this creator of the universe was "very powerful" and even "very knowledgeable" because we know that we, ourselves would need a lot of power and knowledge to create another universe like this one.
That's enough for believing in him.
But beyond that, there is still rational ground for holding that God is omnipotent (ontological argument, Biblical passages)--even if you don't accept it as rational, others can, and I think they are within their epistemic rights to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
Sure, the bible pretty much tells us that it was no problemo for god to make the universe....But "the bible says so," doesn't cut it for me.
But that doesn't mean it cannot cut it for someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus
The arguments of the fine tuning of the universe contradict the notion that god was albe to create the universe however he or she wanted. let's put this in a simple argument form.
1. The universe is vast, complex, and at times seemingly infinite
2. If the universe was created, then the creator had to have power that was vast, complex, and at times seemingly infinite
3. the universe was created
ergo
4. the creator had to have power that was vast, complex, and at times seemingly infinite
The main problem with this argument is premise (2).
it doesn't follow because power can grow,simple can become complex, and seemingly infinite is not actually infinite (omnipotent)
I don't follow you. What does this argument have to do with "fine-tuning" arguments contradicting the notion that God is able to create whatever world he wants?
As far as I can see, there are an infinite amount of possible worlds. God could have created a world with nothing but fish, or a world with Sauron as the dark lord. He didn't need to create a life-sustaining world. (by the way, when I say "world" I'm referring to all that exists, not simply this universe). He wasn't logically committed to creating any world at all. His will wasn't limited by the possibilities.
Ok, that's all for now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But you bring up some interesting points, and I'll try to give you some thoughtful answers in response.
