I've been reading some Plantinga (a conservative Christian philosopher) and he's got me thinking... Of course he's going to side with the theists in the end, but he raised some interesting questions that I've thought about in different contexts...

 

Plantinga seeks to de-power God in a lot of ways and say, "Look, God may be the ultimate source of power in the universe, but there's certain things even he can't do." He says God can't violate the laws of logic or number because they exist independantly of anything else and are laws that the universe adheres to. He says God can't change the past. This is interesting to me because he's saying once something happens that's it, it's on the books and we can't change it, but neither can God. See, I always thought if God was all-powerful and wanted to change a timeline, he could. We wouldn't know it, because if God changes the timeline than time and circumstance automatically change all around us (which if God does actively change the past would line up with Leibniz "Best of all possible world's" theory). So, God seeks to reconcile Free Will, along with moral good and moral evil along with God's power (be lessening it), which is the bare essential of his writing on God in most material, HOWEVER...

 

The paradox I propose is an old classic, but reinterpreted by Plantinga. "Could God, in his all-power create a rock so large that even he couldn't lift it? Because if he can, then he can't lift it and thus isn't all powerful and yet if he can't there's something God can't do and thus God isn't all powerful."

 

The simple answer is, "No, God can't create a rock so big he can't lift it. He's God. He's too powerful and while some might percieve that to be a weakness, God's stronger than you so shut the f*** up." Heh. Obviously it's not a thrilling victory for each side, perhaps God could limit his power for, say, five minutes to make it so that he can't lift a large rock, so God could create a rock so big not even God could lift it, but that's not a satisfying answer.

 

Anyways, Plantinga reinterprets the argument in this way: Let's assume God created this universe. However, there were merely possible other universes God could have created but didn't. He chose to create this one. That being said, in the myriad of universes of all the possible ones we can think of, could God have created a universe in which he himself does not exist? If God is all-powerful it would have to be in his power to do such, correct?

 

I'm trying to get my mind around that. Could God have created a possible universe in which he doesn't exist? Plantinga says he can't, it's one of the limitations of God's power that he can't create something in which he terminates his own existence. And yet an atheist would argue, "Sure God can do that. He "created" this Godless universe didn't he?"

 

See, if there is a God, than I don't want to limit his power and say, "Well, God's all-powerful and yet there's certain things he can't do." Or, even worse, make it so that God doesn't have all-powerful. If God isn't all-powerful and can't affect evil in this world and thus there is undue suffering, then why worship him at all? It's a very slippy slope.

 

And this thread will probably get 0 replies. :lol This is what I do all day. Read these guys and interpret them.

I've always believed God to be absolutely sovereign. However I do not believe that God is actively working to prevent hardship and pain in the world.

 

It's pretty simple but it satisfies me. :thumbup

This theory only goes as far as you believe that God is bound by laws that existed before him, which in itself is a greater paradox.

 

The essence of God is that he is the ultimate creator. Without God's existence, there is no explanation for creation. Therefore, God had to create the binding laws of reason, and in the spirit of his ultimate creation, he would not bind himself.

 

Long-winded interpretation short: God would not create a system of natural laws that does not leave him the absolute sovereign, thus he's lifting any damn rock he wants to.

Well, the limitation of the idea of a G-dless universe in theistic thought is that the very nature of G-d is without a beginning or an end. G-d just is. And everything created by G-d has Divine sparks (ok, this is beginning to tread onto Kabbalist thought), so if G-d should remove the Divine sparks from something, that object/lifeform/whatever would cease to be. And something that ceases to be anything ceases to exist. So if G-d were to create a G-dless universe, He would, in effect, be simultaneously creating AND destroying it.

the opening point is interesting though. You certainly can't change the logic that 1+1=2, so there are limits even if you subscribe to the omnipotent/ omniscient type god.

 

I'm not religious so I don't have to work out this particular paradox, but I always find it interesting to study how different people define god and the universe in different ways.

 

And yet an atheist would argue, "Sure God can do that. He "created" this Godless universe didn't he?"

 

Why would an atheist say that?

the opening point is interesting though. You certainly can't change the logic that 1+1=2, so there are limits even if you subscribe to the omnipotent/ omniscient type god.

 

I'm not religious so I don't have to work out this particular paradox, but I always find it interesting to study how different people define god and the universe in different ways.

 

And yet an atheist would argue, "Sure God can do that. He "created" this Godless universe didn't he?"

 

Why would an atheist say that?

 

It's paradoxical. God creating a Godless thing. It doesn't make sense.

 

It's basically stating there is no God in a creative sense.

The God and logic paradox is similar to the evil demon paradox, ie the one thing that has to be true is existence(very abstract sense) because one can't be tricked, by an evil demon, into thinking that one exists. The famous phrase-I think therefore I am. One is being tricked, so one cannot be tricked into thinking. Similarly, God cannot negate existence because he negates himself. So he cannot negate logic and such.

 

Personally, I dont think a lot of these questions can ever be answered. It's almost like we are facing the worst kind of torture and we don't know it.

I look at it this way: If God was able to create the universe then he is too complicated to be understood using the logic of human minds. We are far from being able to answer these questions or even being able to understand what the questions are but it's always stimulating to ponder them. I just hate it when people think they are all knowing and believe they're absolutly right about everything Godish when really no one knows anything, such as atheists, or Pat Robertson.

I look at it this way: If God was able to create the universe then he is too complicated to be understood using the logic of human minds. We are far from being able to answer these questions or even being able to understand what the questions are but it's always stimulating to ponder them. I just hate it when people think they are all knowing and believe they're absolutly right about everything Godish when really no one knows anything, such as atheists, or Pat Robertson.

 

 

Can't disagree with you there. Well said.

I look at it this way: If God was able to create the universe then he is too complicated to be understood using the logic of human minds. We are far from being able to answer these questions or even being able to understand what the questions are but it's always stimulating to ponder them. I just hate it when people think they are all knowing and believe they're absolutly right about everything Godish when really no one knows anything, such as atheists, or Pat Robertson.

 

 

amen. And I'm going to submit "Godish" to the Webster folks immediately. I like it.

As Chewbacca wrote its adsurd to try to understand God. God's logic is far beyond our limited understanding. To try to understand God would be like tryng to pour a 50 gallon barrel of water into an 8oz. cup. Simply impossible!

As Chewbacca wrote its adsurd to try to understand God. God's logic is far beyond our limited understanding. To try to understand God would be like tryng to pour a 50 gallon barrel of water into an 8oz. cup. Simply impossible!

 

 

Not if you pour 8 oz at a time, and drink it.

As Chewbacca wrote its adsurd to try to understand God. God's logic is far beyond our limited understanding. To try to understand God would be like tryng to pour a 50 gallon barrel of water into an 8oz. cup. Simply impossible!

 

Then why be religious? I mean, there's no point in believing if it's impossible to discuss rationally, right? There's no point.

 

I mean, even those things that can't be talked about can be talked about in so far as what we know about it (can know). Certain religious leaders would also disagree, I mean, Church isn't anything but talkin' about God. Maybe they should shut down.

WOW super intersting post i never thought about God that way but just another way to prove that even god has limits

As Chewbacca wrote its adsurd to try to understand God. God's logic is far beyond our limited understanding. To try to understand God would be like tryng to pour a 50 gallon barrel of water into an 8oz. cup. Simply impossible!

 

Then why be religious? I mean, there's no point in believing if it's impossible to discuss rationally, right? There's no point.

 

I mean, even those things that can't be talked about can be talked about in so far as what we know about it (can know). Certain religious leaders would also disagree, I mean, Church isn't anything but talkin' about God. Maybe they should shut down.

 

Well it isnt simply being religious as you put it. Its all about faith, faith in an all omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, God. If you try to rationally explain or understand it, then your leaving out the very important concept of faith.

 

In other words, if you want to believe there is a God, but want tangible answers, or want to diminish him to our limited human understanding, you'll reach a dead end. Thats when faith kicks in.

Well it isnt simply being religious as you put it. Its all about faith, faith in an all omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, God. If you try to rationally explain or understand it, then your leaving out the very important concept of faith.

 

In other words, if you want to believe there is a God, but want tangible answers, or want to diminish him to our limited human understanding, you'll reach a dead end. Thats when faith kicks in.

 

 

There's still a certain level of rationality with which we can talk about these things. Anselm and Aquinas did so without talking about faith in their logical arguments (Ontological and Teleological). I'm not saying they're right, but if God created logic and number than is he himself bound by those same rules?

 

I mean, you're right, on some level we may NEVER come to a conclusion on these arguments, but they also take account of where people stand. You can easily deny God's existence based on the problem of evil without taking account of faith. You can also say it's rationally feasible to believe in God based on Aquinas' Teleological argument.

 

The thing is, in this kind of argument the ball will always be in the theists hands to account for God, because Faith isn't good enough for the non-believer. So, the equal ground on which to do so is philosophical discussion. I mean, if you can refute a non-believer's logical argument with one's of your own they have to concede, at least that you have rational grounds for believing (and then go back and tinker with their arguments). It's the whole point.

 

Faith isn't in any way explainable a priori/a posteriori nor is it even the same amongst people. Language and logic is. Hence we discuss such matters in a rational manner.