God and Logic

[BrianT]

Just two little nuggets:

This one is from Myers.

With emphasis on the last sentence:

In general, diagonalization shows that a set of objects (sequences, programs, provable theorems, true facts) either can't be listed, computed or defined in a nice way or else a simple-to-construct diagonal or self-referential object is not one of the set's objects.
Roughly either the objects can't be listed or they aren't closed under the substitution and complementation operations used to construct a diagonal.

Let's replace "sequences" by "sequences I can comprehend". Then either I can't comprehend the list of all such sequences, or I can't comprehend the diagonal. I figure that if I could comprehend the whole list in any way, I should also be able to comprehend the diagonal. Hence I must accept the first alternative: I can't comprehend the list of comprehensible sequences. The same applies to "sequences which God can comprehend". Thus omniscience has some limits.

A logical God cannot be omniscient? What do you think?

And another little tidbit from Raymond Smullyan's "Forever Undecided":

p. 103. "God exists if and only if you will never believe that God exists." ... Someone who believes this cannot believe in their own consistency without becoming inconsistant.

Not at all having to do with the existence of God; just fun food for thought.

[LooF]

thats a really extremely complicated way to say "could God create something so heavy that he cannot lift?"

[BrianT]

Except that this was an argument that puts limits on omniscience, not omnipotence, but yeah...

It also appears that an omniscient being has no free will; it knows 5 minutes in advance that it will choose door number 1 and it cannot change that choice when 5 minutes expire and it comes time to choose a door. If it could change the choice it predicted, then that would violate omniscience.

To turn it around, a being with free will can never be omniscient.

[LooF]

that, is only in a human mind

it is Choosing five minutes before, at the same time it is Knowing

because it is existant in all time

so omniscience is possible



about the rock heavy enough he cant lift

if A=A can be not true, then he can certainly create it

so i dont know anyway else

anyone know anyway else to see him create the rock?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A logical God cannot be omniscient? What do you think?

It's perfectly logical to say that God is omni, "the totality of all things that exist" or being itself. The contradictions come when adding omni to something that is limited by definition like knowledge or power, only temporary tiny parts of existence.

[BrianT]

I'm quite fond of that definition of God. After reading a bit about paradoxes like Russell and Liar, my conclusion is that the statements about God that are paradoxical do not show there is a problem with God or its existence: there is a problem with the language we use to make statements about God.

[David Quinn]

Or more accurately, it only becomes a problem when foolish people attempt to talk about God - such as that great fool, Bertrand Russell. I know that Russell is highly respected in academic circles, but really, his approach to deeper spiritual matters was always extremely juvenile and clumsy. I have very little respect for him, both as a thinker and as a man.

When people lack clarity about the nature of God, they unwittingly introduce conflicting elements into the proceedings, which is what generates the "paradoxes". In effect, these people are wanting God to be different things at the same time, in response to their conflicting emotional desires. It has nothing to do with reality.

Diebert demonstrated that it is very easy to talk about God logically and clearly. Enlightened people can do it effortlessly. There is nothing limited about the English language as far as this area is concerned.

-

[BrianT]

English is not limited?

Then yes or no, can God create a rock (being omnipotent) that it cannot lift?

Now, dismissing that question by calling me a fool would just be... a kind of language called *fallacy* (ad hominem to be specific).

If you can't answer that yes/no question (and you probably can't without contradicting yourself), then I see two possibilities. Either God doesn't exist or there is something limited about the language used to ask a question about God. And since God is as defined earlier as being the totality of all that is exists, there is a problem of some kind or limitation with natural language.

[David Quinn]

BrianT wrote:

English is not limited?

It has its limitations, but these limitations are the same regardless of whether we talking about God, clouds or trees. It doesn't mysteriously become more limited simply by addressing the concept of God. Predominantly, it is the intellectual ignorance of the person using the language which creates the problems.

Then yes or no, can God create a rock (being omnipotent) that it cannot lift?

Diebert has already addressed this issue with perfect clarity. See his response above.

Now, dismissing that question by calling me a fool would just be... a kind of language called *fallacy* (ad hominem to be specific).

Well, I wasn't addressing you specifically. I was making a general comment about the way in which language becomes limited, and generates false paradoxes, in the hands of the foolish. It's up to you whether you want to include yourself in that category.

If you can't answer that yes/no question (and you probably can't without contradicting yourself), then I see two possibilities. Either God doesn't exist or there is something limited about the language used to ask a question about God. And since God is as defined earlier as being the totality of all that is exists, there is a problem of some kind or limitation with natural language.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As Diebert explained, if God is defined to be the totality of there all is, then the question of whether he can create a rock that he cannot lift becomes meaningless. The rock in question is necessarily a part of God, and God is neither a conscious being not a person. This is what the concept of the totality implies.

In other words, your puzzle is incoherent because it wants God to be both the totality and not the totality at the same time. It only exists by virtue of this sloppy contradiction.

-

[BrianT]

BrianT wrote:

English is not limited?

It has its limitations, but these limitations are the same regardless of whether we talking about God, clouds or trees. It doesn't mysteriously become more limited simply by addressing the concept of God. Predominantly, it is the intellectual ignorance of the person using the language which creates the problems.

Actually, the limitation arises when statements refer either to themselves, their own truthfulness, or about all of something, like omnipotent. You're saying that the same limitations apply to all things. But I can ask if you can create a rock you can't lift and the answer is no (unless you know how to create rocks). And an answer here doesn't lead to a paradox. About God, everyone is intellectually ignorant.

Diebert has already addressed this issue with perfect clarity. See his response above.

If you read it carefully enough, you'll notice that the statements made were about the question (meta-level) and not an answer to the question (yes/no).

Well, I wasn't addressing you specifically. I was making a general comment about the way in which language becomes limited, and generates false paradoxes, in the hands of the foolish. It's up to you whether you want to include yourself in that category.

I know.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As Diebert explained, if God is defined to be the totality of there all is, then the question of whether he can create a rock that he cannot lift becomes meaningless. The rock in question is necessarily a part of God, and God is neither a conscious being not a person. This is what the concept of the totality implies.

Your statements would imply that the question, "can God create a rock it can lift" is also meaningless when, in fact, the answer to that is "yes."

In other words, your puzzle is incoherent because it wants God to be both the totality and not the totality at the same time. It only exists by virtue of this sloppy contradiction.

How does the puzzle "want" God to not be the totality?

[David Quinn]

BrianT wrote:

DQ: Predominantly, it is the intellectual ignorance of the person using the language which creates the problems.

BT: Actually, the limitation arises when statements refer either to themselves, their own truthfulness, or about all of something, like omnipotent.

I see it differently. As we have seen in this thread, language is perfectly able to expose the limitations of certain concepts, such as omnipotence. The limitations exist within the concept itself, not the language probing the concept.

You're saying that the same limitations apply to all things. But I can ask if you can create a rock you can't lift and the answer is no (unless you know how to create rocks). And an answer here doesn't lead to a paradox.

Sure, it's an amusing riddle, a play on the concept of omnipotence. My point is, however, it has nothing to do with God, the totality of all there is. It has no connection to reality.

About God, everyone is intellectually ignorant.

That's rather arrogant of you, I must say. I know everything about God.

DQ: Diebert has already addressed this issue with perfect clarity. See his response above.

BT: If you read it carefully enough, you'll notice that the statements made were about the question (meta-level) and not an answer to the question (yes/no).

Or to put it more another way, Diebert is interested in reality and couldn't give two hoots about trivial word-games. And more power to him.

DQ: As Diebert explained, if God is defined to be the totality of there all is, then the question of whether he can create a rock that he cannot lift becomes meaningless. The rock in question is necessarily a part of God, and God is neither a conscious being not a person. This is what the concept of the totality implies.

BT: Your statements would imply that the question, "can God create a rock it can lift" is also meaningless when, in fact, the answer to that is "yes."

If God is the totality of all there is (and He is), then, strictly speaking, He cannot do anything. He is everything, rock included. The only way that the question can become meaningful is by assuming that God is less than the totality - i.e. the totality minus the rock. But then as soon as you make Him less then the totality, He ceases to be omnipotent. And so the whole question .... as a meaningful exploration of reality .... collapses.

DQ: In other words, your puzzle is incoherent because it wants God to be both the totality and not the totality at the same time. It only exists by virtue of this sloppy contradiction.

BT: How does the puzzle "want" God to not be the totality?

Because it needs to seperate Him from the rock in order that He may be conscious and do some lifting. The paradox only works by inserting this contradiction.

-

[BrianT]

I see it differently. As we have seen in this thread, language is perfectly able to expose the limitations of certain concepts, such as omnipotence. The limitations exist within the concept itself, not the language probing the concept.

If the language (in particular the word omnitpotent) is unlimited, then we should be able to provide a yes or no answer to the question. We can't. Therefore, the language is limited. I'm basically saying by that that omnipotence is undefined.

Sure, it's an amusing riddle, a play on the concept of omnipotence. My point is, however, it has nothing to do with God, the totality of all there is. It has no connection to reality.

Nothing to do... Many, many, many people will tell you they believe that God is omnipotent, meaning in naive terms that it can do anything. So it doesn't have nothing to do with God.

That's rather arrogant of you, I must say. I know everything about God.

Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

If God is the totality of all there is (and He is), then, strictly speaking, He cannot do anything. He is everything, rock included. The only way that the question can become meaningful is by assuming that God is less than the totality - i.e. the totality minus the rock. But then as soon as you make Him less then the totality, He ceases to be omnipotent. And so the whole question .... as a meaningful exploration of reality .... collapses.

So I can do more than God can do? Wow.

Because it needs to seperate Him from the rock in order that He may be conscious and do some lifting. The paradox only works by inserting this contradiction.

I can lift my arm easily enough.

[bert]

the God vs rock thing is a semantic problem.
It is in the language.

other example:
everything in this post is false.

[David Quinn]

BrianT wrote:

DQ: I see it differently. As we have seen in this thread, language is perfectly able to expose the limitations of certain concepts, such as omnipotence. The limitations exist within the concept itself, not the language probing the concept.

If the language (in particular the word omnitpotent) is unlimited, then we should be able to provide a yes or no answer to the question. We can't. Therefore, the language is limited. I'm basically saying by that that omnipotence is undefined.

If it's undefined, then how can we meaningfully talk about it? Just the fact that we are having this conversation puts lie to that.

No, the definition is very specific. It means "all-powerful". The paradox you are highlighting doesn't arise from its supposed lack of definition, but from the conflicting strands of information which are created by the use of the word "all". The "all" is too encompassing for the word "powerful" - it creates different avenues of meaning which eventually overlap and conflict with each other.

It's all very straightforward. There's nothing mysterious going on. Certainly, nothing profound, religious or spiritual.

The point also remains that, logically, there can be no such thing as an "omnipotent being who is conscious". Such a thing is a contradiction in terms - like "square circle". Hence, this issue, as amusing as it is, has nothing do with reality.

DQ: Sure, it's an amusing riddle, a play on the concept of omnipotence. My point is, however, it has nothing to do with God, the totality of all there is. It has no connection to reality.

BT: Nothing to do... Many, many, many people will tell you they believe that God is omnipotent, meaning in naive terms that it can do anything. So it doesn't have nothing to do with God.

I'm not interested in what fuddy-duddy people think. Their conception of God is imaginary and irrational, and therefore has nothing to do with reality.

There is only one sense in which God (the Totality) is omnipotent - namely, that it is both indestructible and the creator of all things. Nothing can ever overpower it, because, by definition, there is nothing other than it.

DQ: That's rather arrogant of you, I must say. I know everything about God.

BT: Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

I was deadly serious.

DQ: If God is the totality of all there is (and He is), then, strictly speaking, He cannot do anything. He is everything, rock included. The only way that the question can become meaningful is by assuming that God is less than the totality - i.e. the totality minus the rock. But then as soon as you make Him less then the totality, He ceases to be omnipotent. And so the whole question .... as a meaningful exploration of reality .... collapses.

BT: So I can do more than God can do? Wow.

I can certainly do far more than an imaginary God. Can't you?

-

[Leyla Shen]

DQ: In other words, your puzzle is incoherent because it wants God to be both the totality and not the totality at the same time. It only exists by virtue of this sloppy contradiction.

BT: How does the puzzle "want" God to not be the totality?

DQ: Because it needs to seperate Him from the rock in order that He may be conscious and do some lifting. The paradox only works by inserting this contradiction.

BT: I can lift my arm easily enough.

Um, do you mean to imply that, therefore, you both created your own arm and are omnipotent by virtue of the fact that all those things that have come together to cause the lifting of your arm -- including you -- have caused the lifting of your arm?

Can you create a Natural (for the sake of separation, you understand) rock?

[BrianT]

You're right, it's not undefined any more than "square" or "circle" are undefined.

No, the definition is very specific. It means "all-powerful". The paradox you are highlighting doesn't arise from its supposed lack of definition, but from the conflicting strands of information which are created by the use of the word "all". The "all" is too encompassing for the word "powerful" - it creates different avenues of meaning which eventually overlap and conflict with each other.

Right. Like I said earlier. There are potentially big problems with language when you use the word "all" and when a statement refers to itself as in "this post is false."

The point also remains that, logically, there can be no such thing as an "omnipotent being who is conscious". Such a thing is a contradiction in terms - like "square circle". Hence, this issue, as amusing as it is, has nothing do with reality.

Well I don't see it that way necessarily. That could be one option but the other option is that the problem is not that God is not really omnipotent but that the language used to talk about God is flawed. Or maybe both.

I'm not interested in what fuddy-duddy people think. Their conception of God is imaginary and irrational, and therefore has nothing to do with reality.

Fair enough, but you can't say it has nothing to do with God except in your own personal world where it doesn't. You're basically defining a circle to be a square and then saying that there is such a thing as a square circle. That's what you do when you remove "omnipotent" from the definition of God.

There is only one sense in which God (the Totality) is omnipotent - namely, that it is both indestructible and the creator of all things. Nothing can ever overpower it, because, by definition, there is nothing other than it.

Those sure are strange senses for one to be omnipotent. There's a big difference between omnipotence and invulerability and between omnipotence and being the creator. Sounds like you're saying it is the most powerful "thing" that exists, which I can certainly live with for the reason you stated. And that certainly wouldn't lead to any silly paradoxes.

I was deadly serious.

Ok. Well, I don't believe you know everything about God. God contains the set of natural numbers because that set exists. So you're saying that you know everything about this tiny, tiny, tiny corner of God. Then what's the solution to the Collatz Problem, the Goldbach conjecture, the Riemann Hypothesis, or the Catalan Conjecture? Or better yet, let p(n) be the nth prime number. Factorize p(g^g^g^g^g^g) where g = 1 googleplex. You know everything about God means you know everything about everything. God also contains as a tiny, tiny, tiny subthing the planet Earth. Since you know everything about God, you can tell me how many neutrios are hitting the atmosphere at any given instant, or what President Bush is thinking at this very moment.

Besides, even if you did know everything about God, that is a far cry from knowing God.

I can certainly do far more than an imaginary God. Can't you?

Yes though God is not imaginary.

[BrianT]

DQ: In other words, your puzzle is incoherent because it wants God to be both the totality and not the totality at the same time. It only exists by virtue of this sloppy contradiction.

BT: How does the puzzle "want" God to not be the totality?

DQ: Because it needs to seperate Him from the rock in order that He may be conscious and do some lifting. The paradox only works by inserting this contradiction.

BT: I can lift my arm easily enough.

Um, do you mean to imply that, therefore, you both created your own arm and are omnipotent by virtue of the fact that all those things that have come together to cause the lifting of your arm -- including you -- have caused the lifting of your arm?

Can you create a Natural (for the sake of separation, you understand) rock?

I'm not claiming I'm omnipotent. I think the problem is that we're using limited reasoning on God. Our intuition may not apply to God. When God lifts something, it is lifting a part of itself to another part of itself. When God creates something, it creates something new within itself. Me saying I can lift my own arm implies that it is conceivable that God can lift a part of itself to another part of itself.

[David Quinn]

Brian wrote:

DQ: There is only one sense in which God (the Totality) is omnipotent - namely, that it is both indestructible and the creator of all things. Nothing can ever overpower it, because, by definition, there is nothing other than it.

BT: Those sure are strange senses for one to be omnipotent. There's a big difference between omnipotence and invulerability and between omnipotence and being the creator. Sounds like you're saying it is the most powerful "thing" that exists, which I can certainly live with for the reason you stated. And that certainly wouldn't lead to any silly paradoxes.

Yes, as I say, I'm not really interested in the logical nuances of the abstract concept of "omnipotence". I'm far more interested in what actually exists in reality. And as far as that is concerned, the fact that God/Nature creates and destroys all things, and is beyond all possibility of being destroyed itself, does indeed mean that it is omnipotent.

DQ: That's rather arrogant of you, I must say. I know everything about God.

BT: Well, at least you have a sense of humor.

DQ: I was deadly serious.

BT: Ok. Well, I don't believe you know everything about God. God contains the set of natural numbers because that set exists. So you're saying that you know everything about this tiny, tiny, tiny corner of God. Then what's the solution to the Collatz Problem, the Goldbach conjecture, the Riemann Hypothesis, or the Catalan Conjecture? Or better yet, let p(n) be the nth prime number. Factorize p(g^g^g^g^g^g) where g = 1 googleplex. You know everything about God means you know everything about everything. God also contains as a tiny, tiny, tiny subthing the planet Earth. Since you know everything about God, you can tell me how many neutrios are hitting the atmosphere at any given instant, or what President Bush is thinking at this very moment.

Oh, they're unimportant details. They're nothing. Once you know the nature of God, which is timeless and is everywhere, all those little empirical details suddenly pale into insignificance.

When a person understands the nature of water, the idea of trying to map and describe every possible shape that water could form becomes unnecessary to him. For he has already grasped the true nature of all these forms in a single flash of thought. That is what the wise mean by omniscience.

Besides, even if you did know everything about God, that is a far cry from knowing God.

Interesting statement. You make it sound as though you are you talking from personal experience. I wonder if you could explain more clearly what you mean by "knowing God"?

DQ: I can certainly do far more than an imaginary God. Can't you?

BT: Yes though God is not imaginary.

Which God is that?

-

[BrianT]

Oh, they're unimportant details. They're nothing. Once you know the nature of God, which is timeless and is everywhere, all those little empirical details suddenly pale into insignificance.

Sure, they're unimportant and insignificant. In the grand scheme of things.

When a person understands the nature of water, the idea of trying to map and describe every possible shape that water could form becomes unnecessary to him. For he has already grasped the true nature of all these forms in a single flash of thought. That is what the wise mean by omniscience.

That's an easy way to dismiss the questions. Anyway, if one understands the nature of water, they should be able to map and describe every possible shape that water could form, don't you think? Are you able to?

Interesting statement. You make it sound as though you are you talking from personal experience. I wonder if you could explain more clearly what you mean by "knowing God"?

In general, there is a difference between knowing about something and knowing something. You can know about me but I know me. Knowing God would mean being identical to it.

Which God is that?

How many Gods are there?

[David Quinn]

Brian,

DQ: When a person understands the nature of water, the idea of trying to map and describe every possible shape that water could form becomes unnecessary to him. For he has already grasped the true nature of all these forms in a single flash of thought. That is what the wise mean by omniscience.

BT: That's an easy way to dismiss the questions.

I'm not dismissing them, just placing them in their proper context. Mapping and describing the empirical details of the world is the job of scientists, not philosophers - although philosophers do like to map and describe human psychology from a spiritual perspective. Their main task, however, is to understand the nature of Reality in a fundamental sense.

Anyway, if one understands the nature of water, they should be able to map and describe every possible shape that water could form, don't you think? Are you able to?

No, that is literally impossible - for any of us. But as I say, from a philosophic perspective, it is also unnecessary.

I agree with what Lao Tzu says:

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

DQ: Interesting statement. You make it sound as though you are you talking from personal experience. I wonder if you could explain more clearly what you mean by "knowing God"?

BT: In general, there is a difference between knowing about something and knowing something. You can know about me but I know me. Knowing God would mean being identical to it.

That's true. Luckily, the fundamental nature of God is identical to the fundamental nature of ourselves.

DQ: Which God is that?

BT: How many Gods are there?

How many deluded people are there? There are millions of imaginary Gods - surely you know that. I'm asking you, Brian, what do you personally mean by "God" and how do you know it is real?

-

[BrianT]

I'm not dismissing them, just placing them in their proper context. Mapping and describing the empirical details of the world is the job of scientists, not philosophers - although philosophers do like to map and describe human psychology from a spiritual perspective. Their main task, however, is to understand the nature of Reality in a fundamental sense.

You called the questions insignificant. That's a dismissal in my book. For example: see below.

No, that is literally impossible - for any of us. But as I say, from a philosophic perspective, it is also unnecessary.

Then you don't know all about God. God is the totality of all that exists. You don't know all about it if you can't do one pretty simple thing compared to the totality. Unnecessary as that ability is, it would be required to be able to say I know all about God. If you meant, I know much about God, correct me. I'm mainly taking issue with the word all.

I agree with what Lao Tzu says:

Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Does Lao Tzu say you can know all about God without knowing all about God? Is that the Zen of Theology? So you think that a person born in a closet and confined there without ever going outside can know the whole world? While I don't know any such person, it is very hard to believe they can know the whole world. They wouldn't know me, for example, because they aren't me. And since I'm in the world, they wouldn't know the whole world.

That's true. Luckily, the fundamental nature of God is identical to the fundamental nature of ourselves.

What do you mean by our "fundamental nature"?

How many deluded people are there? There are millions of imaginary Gods - surely you know that. I'm asking you, Brian, what do you personally mean by "God" and how do you know it is real?

That's an insignificant question that I won't, therefore, answer. See how a dismissal that is? Anyway, there are a lot of deluded people. Do you think there is a God per deluded person? I don't. I wasn't speaking of imaginary Gods. I asked how many Gods there were, not how many imaginary Gods. God is by my definition the totality of everything that exists which is real if and only if anything is real.

[DHodges]

God is by my definition the totality of everything that exists which is real if and only if anything is real.

Under that definition, asking whether God is omnipotent or omniscient seems silly.

Those properties can only be properties of a being that has knowledge and will. Applying them to the entire universe just doesn't make sense. It's like asking whether the universe is blonde.

[BrianT]

I agree that is the case for omnipotence but not omniscience. One could allow that identification with or being something is to have knowledge of that something. This naturally implies that God would be omniscient. And also, it's pretty clear that God is omnipresent.

Those properties can only be properties of a being that has knowledge and will.

How do you know that God does not possess knowledge and that God does not have a will?

[DHodges]

One could allow that identification with or being something is to have knowledge of that something.

I'm pretty sure that I have a brain, and I know a few things about it. However, it's impossible for me to have complete knowledge of everything about my brain. Omniscience implies complete knowledge.

And also, it's pretty clear that God is omnipresent.

Remember that you are talking about the whole of all that exists. The whole of all that exists can only exist... over the sum total of all that exists. The total can not exist in each part.

Those properties can only be properties of a being that has knowledge and will.

How do you know that God does not possess knowledge and that God does not have a will?

It seems pretty clear to me that the totality of all existence can not be a being. Beings come into being - are born - and pass out of being - they die.

Something that comes into and goes out of existence can not be the entirety of existence, it can only be a part.

It seems clear to me that the totality of existence does not have knowledge or will, but I don't see how to prove it at the moment. Why don't you try showing that it does?

[BrianT]

One could allow that identification with or being something is to have knowledge of that something.

I'm pretty sure that I have a brain, and I know a few things about it. However, it's impossible for me to have complete knowledge of everything about my brain. Omniscience implies complete knowledge.

So you're assuming that you are your brain, that you are identical to your brain?

Remember that you are talking about the whole of all that exists. The whole of all that exists can only exist... over the sum total of all that exists. The total can not exist in each part.

That's an assumption. There are several real life examples of the total being in each part and mathematically, they're known as hypersets.

It seems pretty clear to me that the totality of all existence can not be a being. Beings come into being - are born - and pass out of being - they die.

Mortal beings, yes. You're assuming all beings are mortal (and finite)

It seems clear to me that the totality of existence does not have knowledge or will, but I don't see how to prove it at the moment. Why don't you try showing that it does?

Well, I already demonstrated the knowledge bit as God is omniscient, meaning it has knowledge of all of existence. The will of God is what I call the teleological imperitive or objective directive. I can do no more than speak from personal experience on that one. Not expecting to convince you but I can mirror you in saying that it's clear to me that God has will.