Re: Can God....
 

David, is your reasoning in this thread so far intended to demonstrate anything about the validity of Christianity?

Re: Can God....
 

Yes, he can, by definition. If he could not do this, he couldn't be omnipotent and then couldn't be God, if God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being being who takes an interest in humanity (this is important otherwise there would be no difference between God and Nature).

Just because God can do it doesn't mean we can even begin to understand it.

N.B. I don't really have any beliefs about the existence of God as it seems silly to me to believe something which I can neither prove nor have a strong innate feeling about. (I know this is illogical really as that basis for belief is only valid based on itself, but I don't really care because I have nothing better.) All I'm saying is that if God did exist then he would be able to do this type of seemingly impossible thing and it would just be beyond the ability of humans to fathom it.

Some say that this is an evasive answer, and it probably is, but if we accept that there are things which are possible and the we understand that say, ants, do not understand and we also accept that God has higher comprehension powers than ourselves (which I would argue we must accept given how I defined God, above) then it seems logically consistent to say that there are things which God can understand that we cannot.

I suppose it probably comes down to how you define God, or logic, or both.

Re: Can God....
 

Yes, he can, by definition. If he could not do this, he couldn't be omnipotent and then couldn't be God, if God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being being who takes an interest in humanity (this is important otherwise there would be no difference between God and Nature).

Thus Felson is dumb fo believing otherwise?

Re: Can God....
 

"Thus Felson is dumb for believing otherwise?"

I have been accused of worse.

David, are you going to answer my question in this thread?

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Yes, he can, by definition. If he could not do this, he couldn't be omnipotent and then couldn't be God, if God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being being who takes an interest in humanity (this is important otherwise there would be no difference between God and Nature)."


Thus Felson is dumb for believing otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

As you are so fond of saying, it depends.

If Felson believes that God is omnipotent and also that he solve the problem you set out in your original question, well I'd hesitate to call him "dumb" but this certainly seems inconsistent.

If Felson has some other definition of God, well that's up to him.

Felson, I would be interested to know how you do define God. If you want to say that God is so complex and any definition would, inherently, be restrictive as it would be bounding an infinite and abstract being with words which have finite and specific meanings then fine, I can't really argue with this.

Re: Can God....
 

I would rather say that we disagree on the meaning of omnipotent. I don't believe that the definition of omnipotence should include the ability to do things that are logically impossible.

When Christians say that omnipotence means "all-powerful," I think that the "logically possible" part should be assumed. If you disagree, then okay. My understanding of the Christian God is such that he fails to meet your definition of omnipotence. He does satisfy my understanding of the word.

Re: Can God....
 

Your question embraces infinity. In that sense it also embraces God.
/M

Re: Can God....
 

When Christians say that omnipotence means "all-powerful," I think that the "logically possible" part should be assumed.

If God is bounded by logic, where does this stop? Is it logical that you can fly? Can God make you fly? Is it only logical that you can fly if it is God who is making you fly? If so, isn't your definition recursive and therefore useless?

I don't really see how you define what is and is not logical.

Re: Can God....
 

My flying does not entail a logical contradiction. It only violates the laws of nature as we understand them. So yes, an omnipotent being should be able to make me fly.

This is very different from the question David posed or the question of whether God can make a four-sided Euclidean triangle. For those questions, the logical consequences are obvious.

Judging from his posts in this thread, my guess is that David and I have reached a rare point of agreement here. But I would still like to hear his response to my earlier question.

Re: Can God....
 

[ QUOTE ]

My flying does not entail a logical contradiction. It only violates the laws of nature as we understand them. So yes, an omnipotent being should be able to make me fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well David's initial question does not entail a logical contradiction then, it only violates the laws of mathematics as we understand them.

What's the difference between nature and mathematics? Is it that the latter is intrinsically logical as it is based on logic?

But when you refer to the "laws of nature", you're really just talking about how an object moves in space, which is physics. Physics is based on mathematics which, in turn, is based on logic. So what's the difference?