Can god be both omnipotent and omniscient in any way humans could conceive?
Is time really independent of the world and events, can anything be eternal or stand outside of time.
I have proved or disproved "god" is just too nebulous to even merit much comment. Except no you have not to both claims.
god is the rational,ordering and creative principle of the universe: prove or disprove that.

If you have any other attributes for a deity, please list them so that I can gain a better grasp on what God actually is.

It is difficult to explain the degree of suffering, pain and natural and moral evil in the world with an omnipotent god. It is difficult to account for free will or the freedom of creatures with an omnipotent god. It is difficult for a god to be omniscient (knowledge of the future) and claim man has moral responsibility and free will. Could an omnipotent god change the future or the past and still be omniscient? There are all sorts of theological problems and logical problems associated with these concepts. They are not Biblical and they come from the Greek worldview about the eternal changeless perfection of the heavens which we now know does not correspond to (is not truth) about the universe. Changing worldviews require changing concepts of god and divine action.

There are lots of previous threads on the nature of time in the forum you might look at a few of them. My basic position is time is change or process. No change, no time. Time is not independent of space; and space is not independent of the matter/mind which occupies it. So your position about time existing independent of the world and change in the world is one I do not share.

I think the issue has two parts, first is the question of whether or not gods are relevant. If gods are relevant for human beings, then they must, in some sense, be causally interactive with humans. And if they're not relevant, then the question of their existence is unimportant. So, if the question is worth discussing, then I hold that gods should be assumed to be relevant.
Part two; for something to be a relevant god, I think the following three characteristics are required:
1) a god is in control of, but distinct from, at least one natural phenomenon
2) a god must demonstrate goal directed behaviour
3) a god must be controllable or influenceable by, at least some, human beings.
If the above is correct, two arguments follow:
1) condition 3 (above) allows us to test any hypothesis, that moots a god, by prayer or other rituals. As this experiment has been conducted by millions of people over a period of several thousand years, we already have enough data to conclude that there are no relevant gods.
2) should a reliable procedure be discovered, for exploiting gods, then gods will fall within the category of natural objects studied by scientists. Thus, in order to retain divine status, gods must remain outside the set of things that can be described and understood, in short, gods are irreducibly imaginary. It follows from this that it is impossible to both be a god and to meet condition 3, therefore, there are no gods.

But, shouldn't this thread be in the philosophy of religion forum?

My question has always been, if god was real why be so hidden about it but then wage a beings entire existence off being hidden? It is so absurd but the argument I hear from theists is that god would ruin free will if he revealed himself. But that is funny in itself.

If a theist is so convinced that there is a god, and that they would never question such an existence then aren't they by their own argument suggesting their own free will is now compromised because of their belief?

They don't even realize their own argument defeats itself. The only reason they come up with this weak argument is to protect the fact that a god does not exist. Because how would my free will be compromised if god all of a sudden revealed himself to me? It wouldn't. Because I would still have the option to decide weather or not I wanted to follow or submit to it. I could decide to ignore it all the same. So my free will would not be compromised in the least. A hidden god to play a game of hide and go seek at the gamble of eternity of suffering is just not logical and never will be.

Free will has its basis in the act of faith

So what? Faith is only necessary because you can't be certain. It would be much better to be certain than to guess. Wouldn't it? Just like my car analogy. Should I torture you with it again?

You are about to cross the street, so you look both ways before crossing it. However; all the cars are invisible but real, you just can't hear them or see them moving. The question becomes, when is it a good time to cross the street? You can never determine it, but instead would just have to guess. That is what faith is, it is a guess. So you could step off the curb make it a few feet and either keep taking steps or you could be plowed down by the invisible car.

Faith is the patch project for a problem of existence. Faith is not the solution it is a temporary fix until truth is revealed or discovered. A god can never be discovered or known because the basis for their existence can never be known. Only dead people know the truth, and I'm wagering all the money ever in existence that once you are dead, you don't even know that you are dead. I'm ready to cash in on that bet too.

You all are bonafide idiots.

You can't prove or disprove something that do not exist. You can only prove or disprove something that exist.:detective:

a being or entity cannot logically be omnipotent and any other all-encompassing trait.
- we already have sattelite telephone which can cover 100% of the world's surface, that is from a medival perspective a godlike power, to being able to communicate with a person in a random local on the surface of the world, instantly.

- we can send pictures, music, videos, programs ..etc trhough the internet, that is also a godlike power.

- we can send intercontinental missils to destroy cities.

- we have sattelites to spy the world, just look up google earth

Above mentioned examples imo are the definition for omnipotence. If we have it, why shouldn't god have it?



Obviously, this being cannot be all powerful and, at the same time, have the power to *not* do something imperfectly, or not know something, ect. I see USA as an immense powerful nation, yet they'r not perfect in the gulf war the greatest cause of allied casualties was to friendly fire. The have the most powerful arsenal of weaponry, most powerful intelligence service, most powerful space agentcy ..etc.

Maybe God doesn't care about all irrelevant information, after all we ate of the forbidden fruit and can think for ourselfs, and he let us take care of buisness so he doesn't have to babysit us whiney humans all the time.


The second problem is that an omniscient being cannot, by the definition of omniscient even *be* omniscient. This entity cannot conceive something so intricate that it cannot understand it - which definition contradicts godly omnisient?

- sounds like you are sorely ignorent about savants, less super savants.


nor can this being create something so big that it couldn't lift it A mere mortal man can create structures thousands of times greater than himself, sky scrapers and huge boats. Mortal man uses machinery to aid him, why shouldn't God rely on tools and machinery himself? Why would he do the dirty work himself? Why not just having his angels do it?

Although this disproves most gods today, it does not disprove the An entity that is just "GOD". Since it is impossible for an infallible being to exist, the Greek polytheist view of Gods and goddesses as fallible beings is the only one that can exist so far.


The next information deals with an infinite being. It is important to note that when you hear someone saying "...before time" ect. they don't know what they are talking about. We use time based on events (big bang) and we say this is the beginning of time. It is not. Time doesn't need an event to exist, it continues to exist with nothing, and nothing is the only thing that can exist with it.
- uhmm, yes, here we can sorta agree.

The only thing is that an infinite being also cannot exist. The only things that can exist infinitely are time, ideas and nothingness.
- ..and stupidity!

- don't think time in itself exist, just because someone said it does, doesn't mean it have to exist, Einstein couldn't prove existance of gravity.
Imo time is just a messurement just as speed.

- if an idea can exist infinitivly, then everything else can. Ideas can be changed, forgotten or erased.

-----------

I will stop wasting my own time commenting more of this.

I'm amazed how people can define someting scarecely defineable when they hardly can define the existance of their next door neighbour, don't know anything about quantum physics ..don't know how to make a computer chip ..have no knowledge of make a marrige last till death do them part.

If you are so smart and brilliant, then tell me what is the similarities of:
- ablation shield
- cavitation
- ultrasound cleaner
- can 22 celcius hot water water turn to ice, at living room temperature?

- when does rubber ties for cars have greater traction when having no pattern in the rubber? And why?

It's impossible to offically "disprove" God because God is non-mathematical concept. Proofs are only carried out in pure mathematics from a set of axioms.

You can only produce logical deductive arguments for/against God.
But then again, your arguments is as good as your premises.

You all are bonafide idiots.

You can't prove or disprove something that do not exist. You can only prove or disprove something that exist.:detective:

Theologikos;143318 wrote:

a being or entity cannot logically be omnipotent and any other all-encompassing trait.
- we already have sattelite telephone which can cover 100% of the world's surface, that is from a medival perspective a godlike power, to being able to communicate with a person in a random local on the surface of the world, instantly.
- we can send pictures, music, videos, programs ..etc trhough the internet, that is also a godlike power.
- we can send intercontinental missils to destroy cities.
- we have sattelites to spy the world, just look up google earth
Above mentioned examples imo are the definition for omnipotence. If we have it, why shouldn't god have it?
Obviously, this being cannot be all powerful and, at the same time, have the power to *not* do something imperfectly, or not know something, ect. I see USA as an immense powerful nation, yet they'r not perfect in the gulf war the greatest cause of allied casualties was to friendly fire. The have the most powerful arsenal of weaponry, most powerful intelligence service, most powerful space agentcy ..etc.
Maybe God doesn't care about all irrelevant information, after all we ate of the forbidden fruit and can think for ourselfs, and he let us take care of buisness so he doesn't have to babysit us whiney humans all the time.
The second problem is that an omniscient being cannot, by the definition of omniscient even *be* omniscient. This entity cannot conceive something so intricate that it cannot understand it - which definition contradicts godly omnisient?
- sounds like you are sorely ignorent about savants, less super savants.
nor can this being create something so big that it couldn't lift it A mere mortal man can create structures thousands of times greater than himself, sky scrapers and huge boats. Mortal man uses machinery to aid him, why shouldn't God rely on tools and machinery himself? Why would he do the dirty work himself? Why not just having his angels do it?
Although this disproves most gods today, it does not disprove the An entity that is just “GOD”. Since it is impossible for an infallible being to exist, the Greek polytheist view of Gods and goddesses as fallible beings is the only one that can exist so far.


The next information deals with an infinite being. It is important to note that when you hear someone saying "...before time" ect. they don't know what they are talking about. We use time based on events (big bang) and we say this is the beginning of time. It is not. Time doesn't need an event to exist, it continues to exist with nothing, and nothing is the only thing that can exist with it.
- uhmm, yes, here we can sorta agree.

The only thing is that an infinite being also cannot exist. The only things that can exist infinitely are time, ideas and nothingness.
- ..and stupidity!
- don't think time in itself exist, just because someone said it does, doesn't mean it have to exist, Einstein couldn't prove existance of gravity.
Imo time is just a messurement just as speed.
- if an idea can exist infinitivly, then everything else can. Ideas can be changed, forgotten or erased.

Firstly Hex, I really appreciate you taking the time to criticize my points instead of just agreeing. That is what I need, someone smart who will see things that I don't.

Hex, I think you're reaching a bit when you liken technological advances to God. Those are natural, ordered explainable and understandable concepts that have grown exponentially with human advancement. They are also extremely limited. We cannot reach to the very limits of space, we can't even leave our galaxy. We have much advancement to do, but it can only get underway if we as a race forget our useless and unimportant squabbles on this Earth and move on to greater horizons to ensure our existence for more than a million years.

Concerning the omnipotent paragraph. I need to edit my syntax a bit. I accidentally merged an example of an omnipotent paradox with an omniscient/omnipotent example
omniscient (thoughts. . . complex)
omnipotent (lift rock) [I know this paradox has issues and I plan to address them in my next edit]

And you make a very good point about the angels. But, do we really have enough information about them? From what I know, they are messengers, but they also can wreak havoc. Maybe god has helpers? I'm not sure If I should include something on this or not. :/

In regard to the infinite bit. I need to edit out ideas. Sure potential ideas exist eternally, but for an idea to exist it must be held by a sentient being (human, god, ect). sorry about the confusion.

Concerning your time remark, I assumed that time could have a starting point ant that nothingness isn't active. (it's in my reply to someone and it is accompanied by a video. You don't have to watch the vid.)

Again, I really appreciate your time and your criticism. It was very useful.

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 12:19 PM ----------

(...all there is is BEING, no emptiness, nowhere...)