Re: Limits of God..
The meaning of “exist”
There can be no such a real God as mentioned in any of the religious holy books because religious concept of God is self-contradictory.
If you successfully formulate a concept of God which is consistence in all its attributes as well as it succesfully (logically) accounts for the reason of our own existence as well as the reason of existence of such a (which we know) universe, then that God can be said to have logically possible existence.
Re: Limits of God..
The simple way around this is I think Yes, God can create things over which He does not have control.
But He is all-powerful, so He can simply alter the properties of something such that it changes from being something He can’t control to be something He can.
Now you may ask, can He not make the properties of the object themselves uncontrollable. Yes, but there are properties of properties that can be changed to make them controllable…
In short, the case you presented is far too simple to be able to be used to argue limits on God.
Unlike any other being, He has the ability to change the rules of existence on the fly, to make things He can’t control controllable and vice versa.
Re: Limits of God..
MD Scientist:
Yours is a very interesting reply. But do you think that it is honest reply? Are you not making fun of your ownself?
What you will say if I say no it is not God who is the 'absolute creator' as well as 'all powerful' but actually it the Devil who is the absolute creator as well as 'all powerful'...???
By using your funny reasoning I also can, then, prove that Devil can create such things that he himself cannot control. But since nothing is out of control by that Devil so he would change the properties of his powers (i.e. make new version of his powers) so as to control that type of creation. He (i.e. Devil) in this way can change properties of properties etc. So nothing even self-contradictory things would not be impossible by that Devil. He would be able to make 'square triangles' also etc. etc.
How will you prove that Devil cannot do such things....????
Re: Limits of God..
Interesting, but your logic completely falls because one of the "ifs" is an impossibility - the Devil is created, rather than beign a creator. The only absolute is God.
It's actually when I realised that the only absolute is God that the thought struck me that I will never ever be able to fully understand His nature - the human mind is not designed to be that way.
Re: Limits of God..
The answer is Yes and No. He can create something that He can not lift, but if He wants He can lift it and play hoops with it. Since God is all supreme He can CREATE anything and DO anything with it. There is nothing He can not create (He can create something that He can not lift) and there is nothing He can not have control over (He can lift anything even if He is not suppose to). That is absolute power, absolute supreme.
Made sense???? lol
Re: Limits of God..
erroneous duplication
Re: Limits of God..
erroneous duplication.
Re: Limits of God..
You have not proved that why my that if is an impossibility. You also have not proved why your own belief is a possibilty.
However see the following detailed answer.
Re: Limits of God..
My logic does not fall because it is based on my ‘assumption’ that instead of God, it is the Devil who is real creator and the absolute powerful. So as long as my ‘assumption’ holds as well as your own funny reasoning works, my logic does not fall.
You say that “Devil is created, rather than being a creator” … but you have not proved this statement. It is only your claim (or belief) and not a proven fact just like that my own ‘assumption’ also was not a proven fact.
Since you based your ‘interesting’ reasoning on an un-proved claim so that reasoning can be considered to be valid only if we ‘assume’ that your claim was true. But if we become sure that your claim that only God is the absolute creator and all powerful etc, then your logic becomes invalid because now is is not based on an ‘assumption’ but have been claimed that it is based on a true statement. Your logic falls because the truth of that statement has not been ‘proved’ in your post.
So your logic is based on ‘false surity’ whereas my logic is based on ‘confirmed assumption’. I do not need to prove my assumption because it is only an assumption. You also can ‘assume’ what I did, (i.e. that Devil is the absolute creator as well as all powerful) and then use your own funny reasoning, you shall reach at the same results about this Devil that were derived by you about your God.
But you need to prove your ‘claim’ that it is only God who is absolute creator as well as all powerful. If you do not prove your claim, your logic falls. If you accept that status of your claim is not more than an ‘assumption’ then your logic would become valid, just like that my own logic is valid because it is based on my assumption and then on your own reasoning style.
If you know something about logic, you must be aware then that there is difference between ‘validity’ of logic and ‘truth’ of the conclusion. I am sure that my logic is ‘valid’ as long as my ‘assumption’ holds as well as your reasoning style works. My logic is valid - I am sure about it. But my conclusion may not be true because it depends on the truth value of my assumption. If my assumption is really true, then my conclusion would also be true, provided your own funny reasoning style is valid one. But if my assumption was false, then my conclusion would also be false. If my ‘assumption’ was a doubt in fact, then my conclusion also is not more than a doubt.
Was my assumption true or false…?? This I do not know because for me it was just an ‘assumption’.
Similarly your logic is ‘valid’ if it is based on a claim and your (if valid) reasoning style. Your conclusion however may not be ‘true’ because its truth value will depend on the truth value of your ‘claim’. Your claim can be true or false. If your claim was true then your conclusion was also true. But if your claim was false then your conclusion also would be false. If your claim was a doubt then your conclusion also is not more than a doubt. And if your claim was a ‘belief’ then your conclusion is also just a belief.
If you insist that your conclusion was ‘true’, you will have to prove that your claim was ‘true’. It means that you will have to prove that only God is the absolute creator as well as all powerful. Your proof have to be independent of any belief because if you base your logic on one kind of belief, I would then base your own logic on entirely opposite beliefs. Both the logics would be valid because they would be based on just ‘beliefs’. But if you know logic - you should know that there is difference between validity of logic and the truth of conclusion. Both the logics were ‘valid’ in this case but the conclusion of neither of them can be considered to be ‘true’ because both the logics were based on just beliefs and not on confirmed truths.
I am not interested in proving the truth of my conclusion because I know that my logic was based on unprovable assumption.
You also cannot prove the truth of your conclusion because after all your logic also is based on unprovable belief.
But unlike me you insist that your conclusion is true. My dear it is not proved in your logic that your conclusion was ‘true’. Because first you have to prove the truth of you belief that instead of Devil, it is God who is the absolute creator as well as all powerful. I am not going to challenge the validity of your funny reasoning at this stage. First when you shall prove the truth of your belief, then I shall come to the issue of validity of your funny reasoning. So please try to prove the truth of your belief. And please do not try to prove the truth of this belief on the basis of some other belief such as that it is written in some Holy Book. You are trying to convince me and I do not believe in any holy book.
I can try to convince you on the basis of some references out of your Holy Books because you yourself believe in those Holy Books but you cannot try to convince me on the basis of references of your own holy books. I shall not be convinced in this way because I do not believe in any holy book. Then what is the valid wayout for to convince me? You will have to prove your claims in a pure rational style. If you successfully do it, then I shall be convinced.
Re: Limits of God..
AQ-:k:
Logic and metaphysics are mindgames whose players definitly entertain each other without proving anything in the end because by essence they talk about the unprovable.
(ie. metaphysics versus science)
*Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.ref. *http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science)
Metaphysics: A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphysics
Faith comes from the heart, feel it, why argue about something you** can’t** know (ie. God)?