Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[UXLZ]

Ah, sorry, my mistake. An 'Utterly Perfect' being would have to be 'all' but at the same time 'nothing', and everything 'in between', yet also not be. Essentially, to be 'utterly perfect', one would have to... Not be. It's something that contradicts itself because to exist it must not exist. Am I making sense?
 
Do note though, however, that this is 'utter perfection' rather than 'ordinary perfection' (and perfection is something people differ on the meaning of). Something 'ordinarily perfect' like a person who could live forever free of disease and pain, with no worries of death or sorrow, is something I consider possible. Of course, from then would the argument of 'is such an existence truly perfect' spring, but let's not go into that.

Omnipotence - at least the type the God of Christianity is seemingly represented as having (correct me if I'm wrong) - is something necessary for 'utter perfection' but is likewise also impossible, because of something so simple as... Well, doing anything, really. It cannot make it an object It cannot lift because It is omnipotent, but It cannot be omnipotent because It cannot make that object, the only remaining conclusion is that it was never such to begin with.

It's important to recognize that I am speaking in absolutes. Something with seemingly omnipotent power or 'the perfect being' from a human perspective could exist, but 'true' objective omnipotence, perfection, etc. are things that cannot possibly exist.

[Orange Wizard]

Right, I see. You're using perfect to be substantially more perfect than I am .

With regards to omnipotence, I think someone earlier in the thread made the point that all-powerful in the Bible actually better translates as all-controlling. I can't vouch for the validity of that, though.

Of course, I still have to poke at the awkward logic of "it's not omnipotent because it can't create a problem that it cannot solve".

[UXLZ]

Was that a joke? I'll respond to it seriously, regardless.
Oh, and as to the 'nonstandard definition', those are all just slightly different ways of expressing 'perfect.' Also, 'flawlessness' and 'without error-ness' are things that are not objective and something I doubt cannot exist outside of subjective interpretation. The concept of perfection is similarly troublesome, but I am speaking of utter perfection to remove that issue.

Why do you think I keep using 'utter' and 'true'? ^^
An ordinarily perfect thing from a single person's perspective may be possible but an 'utterly perfect being' is not. It's like trying to have a number that is both positive, negative, and zero at the same time. I mean an actual number, by the way, not something like x^2. Even that analogy is barely able to capture just how impossible the notion really is.

By the strictest definition that automatically makes 'true' omnipotence impossible. It's a simple paradox, I'll admit, but it is there nonetheless.

If that's what it actually translates to, I'm fine with that. (If by all-controlling it doesn't just mean a different way of wording omnipotence.) Of course, It would only be subjectively all-controlling or hypothetically all-controlling, but that is something I find perfectly acceptable.

[Bohandas]

Why do you think I keep using 'utter' and 'true'? ^^
An ordinarily perfect thing from a single person's perspective may be possible but an 'utterly perfect being' is not. It's like trying to have a number that is both positive, negative, and zero at the same time. I mean an actual number, by the way, not something like x^2. Even that analogy is barely able to capture just how impossible the notion really is.

By the strictest definition that automatically makes 'true' omnipotence impossible. It's a simple paradox, I'll admit, but it is there nonetheless.

If that's what it actually translates to, I'm fine with that. (If by all-controlling it doesn't just mean a different way of wording omnipotence.) Of course, It would only be subjectively all-controlling or hypothetically all-controlling, but that is something I find perfectly acceptable.

Omnipotence is a separate attribute entirely.

It's like trying to have a number that is both positive, negative, and zero at the same time. I mean an actual number, by the way, not something like x^2. Even that analogy is barely able to capture just how impossible the notion really is.

Also, I think you mean x^(1/2)

[UXLZ]

Something 'utterly perfect' needs to be omnipotent.

No, I meant x^2 as in x squared. Actually, x^3 would have been better since that actually goes negative. x^(1/2) can't be negative unless we're talking about complex, here.
And by 'actual number' I meant a thing that's value doesn't change, like e, Pi, Phi, c, etc. Constants.

[Bohandas]

Something 'utterly perfect' needs to be omnipotent.

No, I meant x^2 as in x squared. Actually, x^3 would have been better since that actually goes negative. x^(1/2) can't be negative unless we're talking about complex, here.

One, you're denying the antecedent, and two, x^(1/2) is both positive and negative provided that x is positive

(-n)^2=n^2

[UXLZ]

Is it 0?

Regardless, that's beside the point. The analogy was meant to describe something more along the lines that '+1 cannot be -1 and 0 and none of the above at the same time.'

I mean, just x on its own is technically all numbers since it's an empty box, but it isn't constant.

[Bohandas]

Is it 0?

Regardless, that's beside the point. The analogy was meant to describe something more along the lines that '+1 cannot be -1 and 0

But +1 and -1 are both the square-root of 1 (they're not 0 though, I'll give you that)

[UXLZ]

Ohhh, now I understand what you're saying. You should have just said 'square root 1' though, since I was rejecting x^(1/2) on the basis that x is not a constant.

Sadly, yes, not 0.

[Orange Wizard]

I don't know how useful maths and semantics really are.

[UXLZ]

The maths was an analogy, the semantics is a demonstration that 'God', while possibly extremely powerful is not an absolute ruler. It is not all-powerful, it is not omnipotent.

It is not utterly perfect.

[Orange Wizard]

Okay. What is your point?

[UXLZ]

The point is that we've been considering and talking about the Christian 'God' wrong. It's like the difference between 10^10^100^100 vs. Infinity. Basically insignificant to us but incomprehensibly massive at the same time.

It gives Its existence substance. It can have regrets, make mistakes, or be wrong (even if the chance of those things happening is in the absurd minutiae.) It is no longer automatically right in all circumstances and relating back to earlier discussion means that the God of the OT and NT can be the same thing. Something 'utterly perfect' cannot change. Something that isn't can.

Also, it allows the acceptance of both God's existence and the concept of free will as things that can coexist, but that's a separate topic.


Though this is going by the Bible as being literal, which I personally do not think is correct. That's something open to a lot of different interpretations, though.

[Orange Wizard]

If we're talking about the God of the Bible, then it's He, not It. Every address made to God in the Bible is masculine (other than "you" or whatever, at least) so there's no reason to insist on using It all the time.

In terms of the exact nature of God... The Bible is kinda vague. Psalms is full of stuff like "infinite strength" and "boundless wisdom", but that's Psalms, so YMMV.
In terms of God changing and whatnot... I'm unconvinced. We don't see God the Father do anything (other than announce that he's pleased with Jesus during his baptism) in the NT. Jesus says (among other things) that he's there to save those the Father had given to him before the creation of the world, i.e., God's chosen people. Which is fully in line with the OT, wherein the Father is fond of smiting people he doesn't like.

[Helgoland]

Wasn't this thread originally meant for discussion of topics within Christianity, as opposed to another 'God is impossible' circlejerk? I don't know when the swing started, but I can't remember the last time an interesting discussion popped up here.