Is God inexperienced?

Originally posted by Gazrok
It is the ultimate paradox really...

God cannot be omniscient and perfect at the same time.

Being omniscient, he knew that he created a flawed being (man). By then punishing man for only being himself, as he was created, he is no longer perfect (nor could a perfect being create a flawed creation (by sheer definition)... Which of course, is why the idea of God is a fallacy to begin with...

The idea of God is not a fallacy.

The idea of God scentencing a human being to eternal punishment is.

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
Could God really be naive? Think about it. If Christians say that God is omniscient, that must mean that he has never experienced things like uncertainly, curiosity, surprise, insecurity, confusion, disappointment, anticipation, things that we as humans know very well. He may have knowledge of these things but he can never truly KNOW them. Therefore, can he really be empathetic to the human condition? Even if God came to Earth as Jesus, he never experienced the one thing he requires of humans: faith. How can he ask of others that which he has never had to do himself?

Well I know the way some christians see it.. and it goes something like this. God Created us, and thus KNOWS what we feel. He doesnt have to experience it, because he created it. But yes, very tricky buisness this god stuff is. But all provable through science.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
If you are wanting to play that game, riddle me this; Can God create a rock that He can't pick up?

Sure He could. Remember: with God all things are possible.

On the other hand--God '... is mighty in strength and wisdom...'
(Job 36:5)

It is the might of His mind that is the ultimate force:

The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.
--Proverbs 3:19-20

So...

He could create a rock so large it could not be budged by His strength--but I would venture to say that it is the strength of His wisdom that would prevent Him from desiring to make something too big for Him to wield.

It would be a foolish thing to do, the way I see it.

So yes He could, but no, He wouldn't.

please note this is all pure speculation on my part, intrigued by the philosophical question

[edit on 10/10/2005 by queenannie38]

I've thought about that question a lot (Can God create a rock so big even he can't lift it.)

I've come to the conclusion that he could do so in one of two ways, both are a bit difficult to explain so bare with me.

1. God could create a rock so big even he couldn't lift it (he's all powerful), then he could move the ground/surface the rock is resting on downwards in relation to the rock so the rock would be lifted in relation to the surface. This way, the rock would appear to be lifted and physically it would be lifted, but at the same time it would remain stationary. No contradiction.

2.God could create a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it (he's all powerful), he could then recreate logic (since he created it in the first place) so that if he then proceeded to lift the rock even though he couldn't, it would no longer be illogical. God is all-powerful therefore he is able or should be able to do this.

There are probably more ways than that, I am not omniscient (obviously). God could be making rocks so big he can't lift them right now and lifting them


*Edited - typo.
[edit on 10-10-2005 by Simon_the_byron]

[edit on 10-10-2005 by Simon_the_byron]

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I've thought about that question a lot (Can God create a rock so big even he can't lift it.)

I've come to the conclusion that he could do so in one of two ways, both are a bit difficult to explain so bare with me.

1. God could create a rock so big even he couldn't lift it (he's all powerful), then he could move the ground/surface the rock is resting on downwards in relation to the rock so the rock would be lifted in relation to the surface. This way, the rock would appear to be lifted and physically it would be lifted, but at the same time it would remain stationary. No contradiction.

2.God could create a rock so big that even he couldn't lift it (he's all powerful), he could then recreate logic (since he created it in the first place) so that if he then proceeded to lift the rock even though he couldn't, it would no longer be illogical. God is all-powerful therefore he is able or should be able to do this.

There are probably more ways than that, I am not omniscient (obviously). God could be making rocks so big he can't lift them right now and lifting them

Hmm.. the way it was explained to me was sort of like this. I'll Explain it in a sort of obscure manner, so it probably will not be too clear unless read carefully.

Can God create a boulder even he cannot lift?
Yes, but because it is a contradiction, he would literally be creating 'nothingness'. So logically speaking, he couldn't, because omipotent only means he can do everything logically possible. Its like asking if an all powerful being could create a being with more power. Its just not logically possible.


The Boulder Soulution

This is explained in something called "The Contradictions"



[edit on 10/10/05 by ivanglam]

Originally posted by ivanglam
Can God create a boulder even he cannot lift?
Yes, but because it is a contradiction, he would literally be creating 'nothingness'. So logically speaking, he couldn't, because omipotent only means he can do everything logically possible.

If god can only do everything logically possible, then the axioms of logic are superior to him as he is bound by them.

From the theist perspective, the simple answer to that dilemma is that god is an actual contradiction. Logic only tells us what's possible, not what's actual.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by ivanglam
Can God create a boulder even he cannot lift?
Yes, but because it is a contradiction, he would literally be creating 'nothingness'. So logically speaking, he couldn't, because omipotent only means he can do everything logically possible.

If god can only do everything logically possible, then the axioms of logic are superior to him as he is bound by them.

He created them, so he is not bound by them.

Would god not be that rock once created?

and if all things are possible would it not be possible for him to create a rock he can't pick up, but than to pick it up.

With that said with god all things are possible except one law of self which he is not possible to break.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
If you are wanting to play that game, riddle me this; Can God create a rock that He can't pick up?

Sure He could. Remember: with God all things are possible.

On the other hand--God '... is mighty in strength and wisdom...'
(Job 36:5)

It is the might of His mind that is the ultimate force:

The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.
--Proverbs 3:19-20

So...

He could create a rock so large it could not be budged by His strength--but I would venture to say that it is the strength of His wisdom that would prevent Him from desiring to make something too big for Him to wield.

It would be a foolish thing to do, the way I see it.

So yes He could, but no, He wouldn't.

please note this is all pure speculation on my part, intrigued by the philosophical question

[edit on 10/10/2005 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by ivanglam

He created them, so he is not bound by them.

Are you claiming that they did not exist before god created them? If so, doesn't that imply god was not always bound by logic, and if so, why is he bound by them now?

Originally posted by spamandham
Are you claiming that they did not exist before god created them? If so, doesn't that imply god was not always bound by logic, and if so, why is he bound by them now?

He is not bound by logic, where did you get that from?

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
Could God really be naive? Think about it. If Christians say that God is omniscient, that must mean that he has never experienced things like uncertainly, curiosity, surprise, insecurity, confusion, disappointment, anticipation, things that we as humans know very well. He may have knowledge of these things but he can never truly KNOW them.

These are part of the HUMAN experience. God does not need to experience them. Why? Well because he created them. He truly KNOWS them. How can the master not make which he does not understand? So thus, he understands it before he created it.

Human emotions co-exist with free will. Those emotions are created due to our actions and free thoughts. God gave us free will, and allowed us to experience the emotions he created for us.

According to theology, angles are superior to humans. There is a ladder of supeririority.

God > Arch-Angels > Angels > Man > All other Creations.

Angels have a different experience, and yet they are greater than us. More 'Perfect" than us. And yet they are purley spirtual beings. The way they think is different too. They have intuitive knowledge. Humans see A = B, and B = C, so thus, A = C. Angels do not need a B. They sinply see A = C. Humans require rationalism to solve things. God knows A = C because he created C.

Therefore, can he really be empathetic to the human condition? Even if God came to Earth as Jesus, he never experienced the one thing he requires of humans: faith. How can he ask of others that which he has never had to do himself?

Jesus's faith was tried many times. He was tempted by the devil in the desert. He prayed for mercy in the garden. He knew his suffering was necesary to 'save' us, and he well through hell for us (literally). He is simply asking us to follow in Jesus' footsteps. However, these are small words for a huge task.

But god is benevolent and all-merciful. As long as one is truly sorry for thier sins, they can get into heaven. What is a sin and what isnt is dependant on God though, not on our society. When the 'seccond coming' comes (I'm skeptical of this) we will all be accountable for what we have done, but i think in the end, very few of us will actually end up in hell.

Originally posted by spamandham
If god can only do everything logically possible, then the axioms of logic are superior to him as he is bound by them.

From the theist perspective, the simple answer to that dilemma is that god is an actual contradiction. Logic only tells us what's possible, not what's actual.

Are you suggesting that God does not exist? Logic tells us that A God MUST exist. Whether it is the christian God or another's is irrelevent. The fact is, it is proveable that there is a God.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by ivanglam

He created them, so he is not bound by them.

Are you claiming that they did not exist before god created them? If so, doesn't that imply god was not always bound by logic, and if so, why is he bound by them now?

He created Logic, but is not bound by it. Logic is something that helps US understand our EXPERIENCE. We are not intuitive beings like Angels or all knowing like God. Logic is the proscess of seperating Truth from Fallacy. It helps us discover as much as we can about God. But we can never discover ALL about god, because we are limited. He does not need to discover, and so, is not bound by it. Examples of how he is not bound by it are found in the Mysteries of our Faith.

Example. "And on the third day he decended into heaven body and soul"
Example2. - the virgin birth

Originally posted by ivanglam
Are you suggesting that God does not exist?

No, I'm saying I doubt you can even define "god" in a coherent way, and that if you manage to succeed, you probably can not demonstrate the existence of said being.

Originally posted by ivanglam
Logic tells us that A God MUST exist. Whether it is the christian God or another's is irrelevent. The fact is, it is proveable that there is a God.

Give that some thought. If the nature of this god is irrelevant, then in what sense must it exist? Please tell me your not referring to the Modal Ontological Argument. If so, I can use the same technique to prove the impossibility of god.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by ivanglam
Are you suggesting that God does not exist?

No, I'm saying I doubt you can even define "god" in a coherent way, and that if you manage to succeed, you probably can not demonstrate the existence of said being.

Originally posted by ivanglam
Logic tells us that A God MUST exist. Whether it is the christian God or another's is irrelevent. The fact is, it is proveable that there is a God.

Give that some thought. If the nature of this god is irrelevant, then in what sense must it exist? Please tell me your not referring to the Modal Ontological Argument. If so, I can use the same technique to prove the impossibility of god.

From one of My other Posts.

But, contrary to popular belief, one can prove God DOES exist. Whether or not it is the christian view of a God; perhaps we shall not know 'till the day we perrish.

Ok Lets start proving the Logic behind the organized insanity which is God.

There are two ways the Universe could have been created:

1. A Infinate Chan of Causeality, or
2. God

Ok. Now why Infinate Chains of Causeality are not possible (logically)

There are only 2 types of infinite chains.

ex1. Linear Infinate Chains

... -> B -> C-> ..... (infinity caused B, caused C, caused infinity)

Linear Chains are not Possible in Space and Time (the dimensions we live in) Anything measurable cannot be infinate. If All events in the chain are measurable, and in Space and Time, measurable things cannot be infinate, then the only possible explanation is that Linear Chains of Causeality are not possible.

Well if Linear Chains are not possible what about Infinate Cycles?

ex2. Infinate Cycles

... (D) -> A -> B -> C -> D -> (A) ...

So A is the Begining. B and C are indetween times, and D is the end days.

A goes to B, goes to C, goes to D, goes to A, and so on. This makes a lot more sense than Infinate Lines, but still has its loop holes (don't mind the pun)

So A caused B right? Seems logical. The begining caused the inbetween days. Well, what cause A? Ohh, thats right. D did. But wait didnt you say that A was the FIRST? So what started the Cycle?

Selecting any one point as the starting point would render this Chain inaccurate. It would then have a Starting point and would no longer be infinate.

That starting point, we call God.

If infinate chains cannot exist in space and time, then God is the only option. Some, I bet are still skeptical. But I am not asking you to believe what the christians, islamics, or hindu's (arguably) believe, I am simply asking that you accept the undenyable thruth that there is A GOD, and that it IS PROVEABLE.

Happy Digestion of the Information.

To the Believers - Never let anyone convince you otherwise; there is a God
To the Non-Believers - Theres the PROOF, logically presented, to show A God DOES exist.



Deny Ignorance.

Maybe instead of trying to prove that there is some intelligence behind the universe (which, in my opinion anyway, is obvious enough), it should be shown that this "intelligence" (which I'll use instead of 'God' to avoid religious connotations) is represented accurately in the Bible, or any other religious document, etc.

Originally posted by ivanglam
There are two ways the Universe could have been created:

1. A Infinate Chan of Causeality, or
2. God

Causality is an aspect of the macroscopic universe and there is no reason to even suspect such a thing applies without the universe. Are you suggesting god used an aspect of the not-yet existent universe (causality) to bring the universe into existence? Not to mention, causality implies a change of states. But a change of states implies time. Time is also an aspect of the universe. Are suggesting god was able to change from the state of nonexistent universe to the state of existent universe without the passage of time? If so that's a contradiction. If not, then time is independent of itself (the universe) which is also a contradiction. It is impossible for the universe to have been created.

thus...

3. The universe was not created

But if you don't like that, then there is an alternative which is also an absurdity, which is

4. There is nothing.

But within the context of nothing, there is not even noncontradiction, so there is nothing to prevent the existence of everything...and so here we are.

Since out of all of these, (3) is the only one that does not result in contradiction, I vote for that one.

Originally posted by ivanglam
Ok. Now why Infinate Chains of Causeality are not possible (logically)

Yes they are logically possible, they are simply not concievable or measurable. There is no logical reason an actual infinite can not exist. Yet at the same time, if they do, we can not directly comprehend it nor could we ever measure it. The proof that they are possible is that it is not possible to bound the extent of such a chain.

However, that's just an aside. The reality is that only the present is actual, which is why both the future and past can be unbounded without violating the nonexistent law against actual infinites.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by ivanglam
There are two ways the Universe could have been created:

1. A Infinate Chan of Causeality, or
2. God

Causality is an aspect of the macroscopic universe and there is no reason to even suspect such a thing applies without the universe. Are you suggesting god used an aspect of the not-yet existent universe (causality) to bring the universe into existence? Not to mention, causality implies a change of states. But a change of states implies time. Time is also an aspect of the universe. Are suggesting god was able to change from the state of nonexistent universe to the state of existent universe without the passage of time? If so that's a contradiction. If not, then time is independent of itself (the universe) which is also a contradiction. It is impossible for the universe to have been created.

thus...

3. The universe was not created

But if you don't like that, then there is an alternative which is also an absurdity, which is

4. There is nothing.

But within the context of nothing, there is not even noncontradiction, so there is nothing to prevent the existence of everything...and so here we are.

Since out of all of these, (3) is the only one that does not result in contradiction, I vote for that one.

No, there would not be a contradiction. For God to be able to be infinate, he would have to exist beyond space and time. Being from beyond space and time, he started the first event (big bang) and all things that followedand will follow.

Originally posted by ivanglam
Ok. Now why Infinate Chains of Causeality are not possible (logically)

Yes they are logically possible, they are simply not concievable or measurable.

If it is logically possible, then how can it not be convievable?

According to St. Anslem's arguments for the proof of God, this was among one of them. What the human mind can think of is possible.

"I think, therefore, I am."
"I can think of God, therefore he exists"

can you think of nothingness? no, so therefore, nothing does not exist.
Nothing is an atribute of something. It is the LACK of something, but is not a real thing. Thats why nothing cannot exist.

What about a purple elephant? Can you think of one? Yes, yes I can.
But it doesn't exist. Why?
Well, purple is true, and elephant is true, but together, they are not.

Couldnt the same be said for God? (omnipotent, omnicient, omnipresent)
What if his attributes do not work together? Can it be proved that they do?

Can a being who is omnipotent be thought of? Yes. - We call this being God
Can a being who is omnicient be thought of? Yes. - We call this being God
Can a being who is omnipresent be thought of? Yes. - We call this being God



Of course, this is a weaker argumnent for the existance of God, but the more it is thought of, the more sense it makes.

Originally posted by ivanglam
No, there would not be a contradiction. For God to be able to be infinate, he would have to exist beyond space and time. Being from beyond space and time, he started the first event (big bang) and all things that followedand will follow.

To start something requires time, because starting something assumes that there once was a time when it was non-existant.

We can only prove something or know something in so much as we can perceive it. Since our perception is limited and flawed by design (or accident) we can never know or prove something universally.

Therefore these so-called proofs are useless.

An infinite God that we could understand completely using our tichy brains and flawed perception is a God not worth worshipping, likewise a universe we could understand fully is a universe not worth living in.

In my flawed, limited perception anyway.