Im back & wanna say 1 more thing about slavery then I'll drop it.
I just want 2 say than in the 4 yrs I've been debating theology, Ive only met 1 Xian who was honest about this stuff..
Lets face it, u pick the warm & fuzzy verses on slavery, I pick the worst. but my reasons R different than yours. You're overlooking the worst. The reason I choose the worst is bcuz, the Judeo slash Xian religion & god, is as only as good & righteous as it's worst deeds!! Yahweh has 3; Murder, Misogyny, & slavery
How do you control man? By creating fear in his life! How do you do that? By creating an all powerful, all knowing god...and angry, vengeful god! And it worked...back then. it won't work today. We know to much. This is why we don't see any evidence for any gods today!! And we won't!
Yes if GOd has the power to create Satan that was an imperfect act in my opinion. Not all people believe God's acts are "perfect" according to human standards of perfect but people feel well since He's God whatever He does is perfect. So yes God is capable of doing anything.
Plotinus got this right. Since action is impossible outside of time (cause and effect), then God can't act. Actions (like creation, salvation) is left to lesser beings. Everything you're going on about, can god do this or do that, is off the point. God can't do. Action is imperfect so its not part of it's nature (and you, the usual Neoplatonic term for god is a grammatical neuter: to on or the one).
I just finishing making a response to omni vs omni.
I attempt to refute the idea that omnipotence and omniscience (of God) are logically contradictory. I realize there are two ways of refuting it, but I figured the argument for God being outside of time would be to complicated to explain. You did a pretty good job of it tho.
My video really addresses your point as well tho. You might find it interesting. It is "omni vs omni and really big rocks"
3:15 - Doesn't that mean that he was always the creator of the Earth? Because if that's the case, then either God is only 6,000 years old, or the Earth is timeless.
It would be difficult to describe God as perfect because He (God) goes beyond that. He is the Perfecter, that is, through His own perfection He makes things perfect. Therefore He is even above perfection itself. I would not say what He can or cannot do though, that would be futile as there is nothing God cannot do. It seems the defining aspect of what He choses to do is based on what is the truly right thing to do. This is one reason God "allows bad things to happen"
Ok clutch. God cannot do anything that contradicts his nature. He can't lie because his nature is perfectly moral. But this doesn't limit his omnipotence (my definition is A maximally powerful being can actualize any possible state of affairs.)So god being imperfect is not a logically possible state of affairs for god- so it doesn't limit his omnipotence any
Can god exist and not exist at the same time if he chooses to do so? Obviously he should if he is omnipotent. I only see two possibilities out of this dilemma.
A) God is not omnipotent
B) Trying to argue what god can and can not do is a futile endeavor because god isn't contained within the laws of logic.
Don't we all exist outside of time? There is only "now" and all things exist in that "now". Past and future are merely concepts and ones we experience in the "now". Reality is simply the eternal flux of that "now".
God is the standard for perfection in a Christian world view there for by definition god can not do anything that is not perfect how ever he can do anything because if he thats it it is perfect there for would i limit a allow powerful been if i where to say to this been you can do what ever you do, and then this been can not go against my will.
there for making it not all powerful.
thats simply where you argument fails i may put this in a video.
I think I got lost. You know I can't pay attn for longer than a few minutes.
So God created Lucifer who changed his name to Satan when he decided to go evil. Satan is supposedly responsible for making *us* do evil, but what made Lucifer evil? God made him. So, God made evil. God can do no wrong and cannot go against his own will, but Satan can. Satan must be every bit as powerful as God.
For "God" to WANT to undertake an action suggests that by doing so things will be made perfect; that means "God" must think that, prior to undertaking the action, something is imperfect (thus the reason for the WANTING to act).
The constant changing of things suggests nothing's perfect except in its imperfections; perfection's a misconception.
Thus, God acts imperfectly every time he undertakes an action; he merely THINKS his action will make things perfect.
Yes, of course. It all connects. The attribute of timelessness was meant to solve some problems and supposed contradictions in the theistic definition, but I think it causes more problems than it solves myself.
The concept basically dissolves all aspect of a 'personal' God from the definition.
exactly no if god has a "plan" he already excuted the plan there for the plan is already done there for he had a plan and HAS a plan at the same time. ( the action of excuting that plan is still in process ).
there for he can make adjustments for personal request or has already made adjustments better said.
there for this would not rule out the concept of a personal god by definition.
@Clutchology i'm assuming that you are a theist,so i hope you don't mind if you answer a question to do with god.if god is supposedly omnipotent doesn't that create a paradox in it of itself?
for example if god is omnipotent can he create something indestructible?if so then he can't destroy it and he isn't omnipotent,if not then he cannot create something and thus also isn't omnipotent,what is you're opinion on this,because i think this refutes the hypothesis of omnipotence.
@reclamationify I'm actually an atheist, but in answer to your question, we haven't really found anything "indestructible." We only know of things we do not have the strength/precision to break. I'm not totally convinced an "indestructible" thing could exist. Maybe a god could no more create one than a squared circle.
But omnipotence is a weak concept too. A better question would perhaps be: could God kill himself? Because surely an all-powerful being cannot be killed, but can kill anything.
So if God always existed, then when did he create our universe? Without the linnear timeline upon which he looks, he has no means of identifying WHEN to do something relative to our perception of time, meaning that by your reasoning, the universe always existed, which is not supported by scientists.
The Urantia Papers reconciles this apparently divergence between eternity and time. It goes in this way, Existential is related to Eternity, and Experiential is related to time. God(Creator) is existential (Eternal), man(creature, creation) is experiential. Evolution is directly related to time, that is all that is experiential is subjected to evolution. Evolution is just a slow-downed creation, it is creativity in time, so that the creature (man) may know that is growing...
man is growing in a universe that is also growing, that explains why the the evolutionary universe is changing... however there is a master pattern, and that is a perfect universe (this is eternal, people call it heaven) from which evolutionary universes are trying to be made alike... and in that perfectioning man himself is reaching out for perfection, man achieves perfection through experiential means, living everyday... but the pattern is always necessary that is way Jesus say I am the way...
i sure learn by experience, yet nothing in this universe seems to point to a perfect eternal being, words like that shouldn't be bambied about like its so obvious or common
Since human beings are experiential creatures, they do experience the creation, in the creation and with the creation, that is a fact , no one escapes from experience, whether you believe in God or not. Similarly, you can indeed experience the Creator since he dwells in your very mind, a fragment of him lives there, it is a spark of infinity and is there to guide you if you want to. If you read the Urantia Papers all this would make more sense.
The question that does he have power to do imperfect actions itself is almost a non sensical question. Because god in a literal sense has the power to do anything, but it isn't a question of power, it is a question of want. And if god is perfect, than his wants are perfect and therefore will always do perfect things. Asking if he has the power to be imperfect is like saying do you have the power to do what he won't do. You are mixing the realms of ability of intent.
Whoops I mean, "is like saying DOES HE have the power to do what he won't do... and In which case, the answer is yes, he has the ability to, but he won't.
No, no. You should probably watch the video again. I tried to clear that up, because the "he just doesn't want to" defence completely misses the point.
My bad. Let me see if I have wrapped my head around it well this time. What if I had a gun in my hand, I could shoot something, I have the power to do it. But in terms of intent it hinders me. What I might be misunderstanding is a specific word, which is "power" or "could". I could do it, as far as physics are concerned, but if I take my human nature into account of the equation, than my potency for this ability is non exsistant. So I think I get what you mean, am I on the right track now?
And therefore, though god on his divine realm of exsistance may have the MEANS to do it, doesn't neccesarily assert that god is omnipotent because of it.
you know what, I think I may have just spoken a load full of shit. For some reason my head just cannot get around it right today, sorry. :D Perhaps I will come back to this in a couple days, perhaps with a video if I can wrap my head around it.
Haha! Well, I can try and explain it to you briefly in text form if you want. That might help, especially as I think this renders heavily on the specific definition of 'perfect' the argument employs.
Basically, this works off the definition that a perfect thing cannot be made imperfect, as something which can be made imperfect is less perfect than something which can't.
So, if God is perfect then he cannot be made imperfect. But God's omnipotence can do anything with anything. So does he have the power to make himself imperfect or not? Either answer seems to reflect a flaw in one of the concepts.
That's the argument. Whether it works or not, well, that's what the video is for!
Hmm, i has a similar discussion the other day, and they claimed that God could, i do agree that the 2 are contradictory, but it seems a theist wouldn't.
Also, with your counter-theory to (Scott?) point, i still think it works; If he performs all his actions (For all time) at one point, then he should know he is going to perform those set actions, so he no longer has a choice again, as he is set to perfom those ones. It's the same as the first argument, but on a bigger scale. Nice video though
Yeah, the issue becomes not about predicting his actions, but that a timeless being is by necessity changeless, and so God could perform no other action than those which he 'chose' to perform. I think I hinted at that in the video, but it's nice to see an explicit stating of it. Good point!
In Caballah god is existing and non-existing and that time is a part of god. God is also within and without, existing in many dimensions. Meaning, we are inept and will never understand god's nature and that what seems contradictory is just beyond us.
I would accept those explanations - when I become crazy, again!
This seems like a metaphysical argument. To know everything and do everything at once, this would make him both omnipotent and omniscient, as you said. But then you contradict yourself by saying that he can't do anything imperfectly this is implying that he is really not omnipotent because he can't do something. I see where you coming from but like I said before it's metaphysical and you can't really have the side that you are taking without making assumptions. dnoohi made a good point aswell
I see where you going at, making your own argument when you say that maybe he doesn't have the power to do something imperfectly, but again that is making the assumption that he can't instead of he doesn't want to thus giving him his omnipotence. Good video though.
I suspect the question assumes that such a being exists. I don't think the people involved really believe in it but it's more in line with a thought experiment.
I'm not sure it would need to be both in and out of time. This is a deistic entity they're talking about. It could concievably effect events while still outside time (you know with it's magic powers and stuff =P). Think of molding clay except in 4D.
I would like to know how you view judgement (in the heaven and hell sense)in the context of your argument. If god knows all we will do before, when and after he created us, even if they are all the same. Then how would he justify sending someone to hell for what they do if he knew it would happen all along, that is kind of the underlying question to the free will argument. If we all serve god's purpose no matter what then why punish some of us for it?
You should know that aChristian who knows his religion will tell you God does not send people to hell,they send themselves. Sort of like you drowning in a lake, someone offering their hand, and you rejecting it. Stupid, I know, because who put you in the lake? Biggest problem is that if God is omnipotent then he can destroy hell and Satan; perhaps remake hell into an unpleasant place but not one in which you are tortured. He doesn't. Why? Can he? Perhaps God shares ombipotence with Satan...
God created and defined the "Day" on the first day. The word "day" cannot have been symbolic of anything the first time it was used. To be used symbolically, a word must have been used before. Therefore, it was meant as a literal day.
Genesis 1:
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Exodus 20:
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...
I think the point of consistency in omnipotence and omniscience is that they must be taken as one whole. There are not separate attributes of God.
Essentially all phenomena are a manifestation of God's knowledge. What God knows is what happen(s/ed). Thus, being all knowing and all powerful are just different perspectives on one attribute.
Of course, this is all just "philosophical bullshit" since it is all imagination and no substance.
I'd have to say the response would be that he could do any action, and regardless of what it is it's perfect because he is the agent involved in the action, and then follow with "God cannot be imperfect, but that is not a limitation of his omnipotence, rather a result of it."
But then, I wonder, does that make perfection completely arbitrary?
Fine, lets explore both sides but it is kinda silly when the premise is based on a god acting in some sort of timeless state which means everything is done perfectly in instant, there is no need for change; basically started the perfect big bang and that's it.
One can call it nature and ask himself why even invent god for this equation.
If he can be timeless and forever so can universe in loop, two can play this game or I invent supergod to explain god.
Hm... I dunno about that, actually. It'd sound like it's impossible, but perfection is subjective. A god is a perfect being by nature, objectively, on the other hand. Anything a god does would have to be perfect, in that sense. I don't think it's that he can't choose as much as there not being a choice to make; any action done by a perfect being should be perfect, right? :/ very interesting...
Nice mental gymnastics, but the whole argument is pretty much void. You cannot just throw around terms like "timeless" and "perfect" and act like they mean something. What do you mean timeless? Timeless would simply be unchangeable for all eternity. Something like that cannot have a personality. Something like that cannot make decisions.. Something timeless just is. And don't even get me started with the "perfect" it makes even less sense.
Take those complaints to the theist, not me. I share your pain, but if they are the terms that theists use then those are the ones we have to use too.
Yes, but the 'Is the definition meaningful?' debate is one argument. The 'Is the definition consistent?' debate is another. I try to keep the two separate as much as I can so things don't get over-complicated.
I'm not attacking you. I'm just at a loss as to why is this even a discussion.
Maybe we should argue that god cannot be "timeless" in any meaningful way. Not in a way that theists see their god. If something is timeless and able make choices, then that is a paradox to the highest degree. You cannot argue with that, that's absurd.
I made a video on this and basically concluded that if God is timeless and perfect then he might as well just be a universal constant. Talking about God in the conventional sense would have us place him in an alternate time-space looking in at and ours. But that could be anything.
Agreed. Universal constant is surely not what the theist are arguing for.
Eternal omnipotent being that is the root cause of everything and that even has a personality has never made any sense to me. It's like saying "universe started with strawberry icecream!". It's oddly specific. Why not vanilla for example? If one really wants to have a god, it should be something more neutral.. but that of course would defeat the purpose.
Reading the description, my first thought was that it's just semantics.
But jeez, uh... I guess this is similar to the stone so big he can't move it question. I skimmed Shotothe's comment and he makes a good point... I don't think it's so much as he decides what is perfect, as much as him being a perfect being, cannot do anything imperfect, because him doing it would make it perfect...can a perfect being do anything imperfect? No,but what that means I don't know :/
Im back & wanna say 1 more thing about slavery then I'll drop it.
I just want 2 say than in the 4 yrs I've been debating theology, Ive only met 1 Xian who was honest about this stuff..
Lets face it, u pick the warm & fuzzy verses on slavery, I pick the worst. but my reasons R different than yours. You're overlooking the worst. The reason I choose the worst is bcuz, the Judeo slash Xian religion & god, is as only as good & righteous as it's worst deeds!! Yahweh has 3; Murder, Misogyny, & slavery
Cootabux 1 year ago
How do you control man? By creating fear in his life! How do you do that? By creating an all powerful, all knowing god...and angry, vengeful god! And it worked...back then. it won't work today. We know to much. This is why we don't see any evidence for any gods today!! And we won't!
Cootabux 1 year ago
How is having the power to fuck up make you more powerful?
zapo147 2 years ago
I disagree with what you said but you really made me think. think TBS had the better argument, but good job!
A5Hellcat 2 years ago
Yes if GOd has the power to create Satan that was an imperfect act in my opinion. Not all people believe God's acts are "perfect" according to human standards of perfect but people feel well since He's God whatever He does is perfect. So yes God is capable of doing anything.
MsExoticBliss 2 years ago
Plotinus got this right. Since action is impossible outside of time (cause and effect), then God can't act. Actions (like creation, salvation) is left to lesser beings. Everything you're going on about, can god do this or do that, is off the point. God can't do. Action is imperfect so its not part of it's nature (and you, the usual Neoplatonic term for god is a grammatical neuter: to on or the one).
HConstantine 2 years ago
Very intelligent video.
I just finishing making a response to omni vs omni.
I attempt to refute the idea that omnipotence and omniscience (of God) are logically contradictory. I realize there are two ways of refuting it, but I figured the argument for God being outside of time would be to complicated to explain. You did a pretty good job of it tho.
My video really addresses your point as well tho. You might find it interesting. It is "omni vs omni and really big rocks"
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
3:15 - Doesn't that mean that he was always the creator of the Earth? Because if that's the case, then either God is only 6,000 years old, or the Earth is timeless.
Venaloid 3 years ago
It would be difficult to describe God as perfect because He (God) goes beyond that. He is the Perfecter, that is, through His own perfection He makes things perfect. Therefore He is even above perfection itself. I would not say what He can or cannot do though, that would be futile as there is nothing God cannot do. It seems the defining aspect of what He choses to do is based on what is the truly right thing to do. This is one reason God "allows bad things to happen"
wed110197 3 years ago
Ok clutch. God cannot do anything that contradicts his nature. He can't lie because his nature is perfectly moral. But this doesn't limit his omnipotence (my definition is A maximally powerful being can actualize any possible state of affairs.)So god being imperfect is not a logically possible state of affairs for god- so it doesn't limit his omnipotence any
plato(.)stanford(.)edu(/)entries(/)omnipotence(/)
facilisdescenus 3 years ago
"God cannot do anything that contradicts his nature. He can't lie because his nature is perfectly moral"
Did God create his own nature?
vanmartinmpg 3 years ago
Can god exist and not exist at the same time if he chooses to do so? Obviously he should if he is omnipotent. I only see two possibilities out of this dilemma.
A) God is not omnipotent
B) Trying to argue what god can and can not do is a futile endeavor because god isn't contained within the laws of logic.
infinit888 3 years ago
Don't we all exist outside of time? There is only "now" and all things exist in that "now". Past and future are merely concepts and ones we experience in the "now". Reality is simply the eternal flux of that "now".
We're God, bobdammit!
MenoftheInfinite 3 years ago
God is the standard for perfection in a Christian world view there for by definition god can not do anything that is not perfect how ever he can do anything because if he thats it it is perfect there for would i limit a allow powerful been if i where to say to this been you can do what ever you do, and then this been can not go against my will.
there for making it not all powerful.
thats simply where you argument fails i may put this in a video.
pagangeek 3 years ago
I think I got lost. You know I can't pay attn for longer than a few minutes.
So God created Lucifer who changed his name to Satan when he decided to go evil. Satan is supposedly responsible for making *us* do evil, but what made Lucifer evil? God made him. So, God made evil. God can do no wrong and cannot go against his own will, but Satan can. Satan must be every bit as powerful as God.
I'm left wondering if I missed the whole point.
proteanview 3 years ago
For "God" to WANT to undertake an action suggests that by doing so things will be made perfect; that means "God" must think that, prior to undertaking the action, something is imperfect (thus the reason for the WANTING to act).
The constant changing of things suggests nothing's perfect except in its imperfections; perfection's a misconception.
Thus, God acts imperfectly every time he undertakes an action; he merely THINKS his action will make things perfect.
This is how a HUMAN thinks, too.
skewed12 3 years ago
Yes, of course. It all connects. The attribute of timelessness was meant to solve some problems and supposed contradictions in the theistic definition, but I think it causes more problems than it solves myself.
The concept basically dissolves all aspect of a 'personal' God from the definition.
Clutchology 3 years ago
exactly no if god has a "plan" he already excuted the plan there for the plan is already done there for he had a plan and HAS a plan at the same time. ( the action of excuting that plan is still in process ).
there for he can make adjustments for personal request or has already made adjustments better said.
there for this would not rule out the concept of a personal god by definition.
pagangeek 3 years ago
@Clutchology i'm assuming that you are a theist,so i hope you don't mind if you answer a question to do with god.if god is supposedly omnipotent doesn't that create a paradox in it of itself?
for example if god is omnipotent can he create something indestructible?if so then he can't destroy it and he isn't omnipotent,if not then he cannot create something and thus also isn't omnipotent,what is you're opinion on this,because i think this refutes the hypothesis of omnipotence.
reclamationify 9 months ago
@reclamationify I'm actually an atheist, but in answer to your question, we haven't really found anything "indestructible." We only know of things we do not have the strength/precision to break. I'm not totally convinced an "indestructible" thing could exist. Maybe a god could no more create one than a squared circle.
But omnipotence is a weak concept too. A better question would perhaps be: could God kill himself? Because surely an all-powerful being cannot be killed, but can kill anything.
Clutchology 9 months ago
okay pat condell, the answer is God's god or God's God's son whom came down from heaven to our God's world
dospook 3 years ago
So if God always existed, then when did he create our universe? Without the linnear timeline upon which he looks, he has no means of identifying WHEN to do something relative to our perception of time, meaning that by your reasoning, the universe always existed, which is not supported by scientists.
Venaloid 3 years ago
The Urantia Papers reconciles this apparently divergence between eternity and time. It goes in this way, Existential is related to Eternity, and Experiential is related to time. God(Creator) is existential (Eternal), man(creature, creation) is experiential. Evolution is directly related to time, that is all that is experiential is subjected to evolution. Evolution is just a slow-downed creation, it is creativity in time, so that the creature (man) may know that is growing...
ireligion 3 years ago
man is growing in a universe that is also growing, that explains why the the evolutionary universe is changing... however there is a master pattern, and that is a perfect universe (this is eternal, people call it heaven) from which evolutionary universes are trying to be made alike... and in that perfectioning man himself is reaching out for perfection, man achieves perfection through experiential means, living everyday... but the pattern is always necessary that is way Jesus say I am the way...
ireligion 3 years ago
what the fuck did you just say?
cowboifunk 3 years ago
In a few words. God perfect, eternal=non time. Man imperfect,non-eternal= time bounded.
God existential. Man experiential.
Man is perfected by experience. Everyone learns by experience,don't you?
ireligion 3 years ago
i sure learn by experience, yet nothing in this universe seems to point to a perfect eternal being, words like that shouldn't be bambied about like its so obvious or common
cowboifunk 3 years ago
Since human beings are experiential creatures, they do experience the creation, in the creation and with the creation, that is a fact , no one escapes from experience, whether you believe in God or not. Similarly, you can indeed experience the Creator since he dwells in your very mind, a fragment of him lives there, it is a spark of infinity and is there to guide you if you want to. If you read the Urantia Papers all this would make more sense.
ireligion 3 years ago
timeless? the very word implies multiple holes in logic. sorry.
AR333 3 years ago
Try a universal wave in motion. It is always expanding with no beginning or end.
ThisBoyTV 3 years ago
The question that does he have power to do imperfect actions itself is almost a non sensical question. Because god in a literal sense has the power to do anything, but it isn't a question of power, it is a question of want. And if god is perfect, than his wants are perfect and therefore will always do perfect things. Asking if he has the power to be imperfect is like saying do you have the power to do what he won't do. You are mixing the realms of ability of intent.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Whoops I mean, "is like saying DOES HE have the power to do what he won't do... and In which case, the answer is yes, he has the ability to, but he won't.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
No, no. You should probably watch the video again. I tried to clear that up, because the "he just doesn't want to" defence completely misses the point.
Clutchology 3 years ago
My bad. Let me see if I have wrapped my head around it well this time. What if I had a gun in my hand, I could shoot something, I have the power to do it. But in terms of intent it hinders me. What I might be misunderstanding is a specific word, which is "power" or "could". I could do it, as far as physics are concerned, but if I take my human nature into account of the equation, than my potency for this ability is non exsistant. So I think I get what you mean, am I on the right track now?
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
And therefore, though god on his divine realm of exsistance may have the MEANS to do it, doesn't neccesarily assert that god is omnipotent because of it.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
you know what, I think I may have just spoken a load full of shit. For some reason my head just cannot get around it right today, sorry. :D Perhaps I will come back to this in a couple days, perhaps with a video if I can wrap my head around it.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Alright alright. :D God is NOT omnipotent due to intent. That is my final answer, lock it in! ;)
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Haha! Well, I can try and explain it to you briefly in text form if you want. That might help, especially as I think this renders heavily on the specific definition of 'perfect' the argument employs.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Please, if you wouldn't mind. :D Fustrating, I am not used to not being able to comprehend things.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Basically, this works off the definition that a perfect thing cannot be made imperfect, as something which can be made imperfect is less perfect than something which can't.
So, if God is perfect then he cannot be made imperfect. But God's omnipotence can do anything with anything. So does he have the power to make himself imperfect or not? Either answer seems to reflect a flaw in one of the concepts.
That's the argument. Whether it works or not, well, that's what the video is for!
Clutchology 3 years ago
If God was perfect, how come he had to suddenly "promise" not to drown most of his creation as he did after the flooding.
Wasn't drowning them the perfect thing to do in the first place? since he kind of regretted it?
Maybe he'll just burn most of his creation with volcanic eruptions on a worldwide scale next time =o)
Noah Two build a 300m long spacecraft. He will bring forth two of every kind...
Paxmax 3 years ago
Hmm, i has a similar discussion the other day, and they claimed that God could, i do agree that the 2 are contradictory, but it seems a theist wouldn't.
Also, with your counter-theory to (Scott?) point, i still think it works; If he performs all his actions (For all time) at one point, then he should know he is going to perform those set actions, so he no longer has a choice again, as he is set to perfom those ones. It's the same as the first argument, but on a bigger scale. Nice video though
Darkmaster77777 3 years ago
Yeah, the issue becomes not about predicting his actions, but that a timeless being is by necessity changeless, and so God could perform no other action than those which he 'chose' to perform. I think I hinted at that in the video, but it's nice to see an explicit stating of it. Good point!
Clutchology 3 years ago
In Caballah god is existing and non-existing and that time is a part of god. God is also within and without, existing in many dimensions. Meaning, we are inept and will never understand god's nature and that what seems contradictory is just beyond us.
I would accept those explanations - when I become crazy, again!
onotheo 3 years ago
I love how atheists make far better arguments for god than any theist could ever make.
zbambam5 3 years ago 4
This seems like a metaphysical argument. To know everything and do everything at once, this would make him both omnipotent and omniscient, as you said. But then you contradict yourself by saying that he can't do anything imperfectly this is implying that he is really not omnipotent because he can't do something. I see where you coming from but like I said before it's metaphysical and you can't really have the side that you are taking without making assumptions. dnoohi made a good point aswell
Br0k3nS41nt 3 years ago
I see where you going at, making your own argument when you say that maybe he doesn't have the power to do something imperfectly, but again that is making the assumption that he can't instead of he doesn't want to thus giving him his omnipotence. Good video though.
Br0k3nS41nt 3 years ago
Logically one cannot simultaneously exist both outside of time and within it, I dont care how powerful their God is, these laws cannot be violated.
stagism 3 years ago
I suspect the question assumes that such a being exists. I don't think the people involved really believe in it but it's more in line with a thought experiment.
I'm not sure it would need to be both in and out of time. This is a deistic entity they're talking about. It could concievably effect events while still outside time (you know with it's magic powers and stuff =P). Think of molding clay except in 4D.
thorungal 3 years ago
I would like to know how you view judgement (in the heaven and hell sense)in the context of your argument. If god knows all we will do before, when and after he created us, even if they are all the same. Then how would he justify sending someone to hell for what they do if he knew it would happen all along, that is kind of the underlying question to the free will argument. If we all serve god's purpose no matter what then why punish some of us for it?
Fangs1978 3 years ago
You should know that aChristian who knows his religion will tell you God does not send people to hell,they send themselves. Sort of like you drowning in a lake, someone offering their hand, and you rejecting it. Stupid, I know, because who put you in the lake? Biggest problem is that if God is omnipotent then he can destroy hell and Satan; perhaps remake hell into an unpleasant place but not one in which you are tortured. He doesn't. Why? Can he? Perhaps God shares ombipotence with Satan...
photekxl 3 years ago
Fuck Religion. Fuck Christianity.
XVX for life, R.A.S.H. 'til death.
aquamammal 3 years ago
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and everything in them, and he took his rest on the seventh day."
Brought to you by Timeless Inc.
dnoohi 3 years ago
So are those God-days or earth-days?
Stephen5000 3 years ago
From wikianswers:
God created and defined the "Day" on the first day. The word "day" cannot have been symbolic of anything the first time it was used. To be used symbolically, a word must have been used before. Therefore, it was meant as a literal day.
Genesis 1:
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Exodus 20:
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work...
dnoohi 3 years ago
Point is if he is timeless and all powerful why rest?
Why take 7 human days for this action when there is no days from his perspective?
Possible answer is to push the week days agreement to the public by telling these stories but lets not go there, that's too real.
dnoohi 3 years ago 3
I think the point of consistency in omnipotence and omniscience is that they must be taken as one whole. There are not separate attributes of God.
Essentially all phenomena are a manifestation of God's knowledge. What God knows is what happen(s/ed). Thus, being all knowing and all powerful are just different perspectives on one attribute.
Of course, this is all just "philosophical bullshit" since it is all imagination and no substance.
bpabbott1st 3 years ago
I'd have to say the response would be that he could do any action, and regardless of what it is it's perfect because he is the agent involved in the action, and then follow with "God cannot be imperfect, but that is not a limitation of his omnipotence, rather a result of it."
But then, I wonder, does that make perfection completely arbitrary?
Clutchology 3 years ago
"But then, I wonder, does that make perfection completely arbitrary? "
Exactly!
slipcurve 3 years ago 2
Someone is trying hard to look agnostic.
Fine, lets explore both sides but it is kinda silly when the premise is based on a god acting in some sort of timeless state which means everything is done perfectly in instant, there is no need for change; basically started the perfect big bang and that's it.
One can call it nature and ask himself why even invent god for this equation.
If he can be timeless and forever so can universe in loop, two can play this game or I invent supergod to explain god.
dnoohi 3 years ago
fallacy and contradiction becomes pretty complicated when trying to be determined them off of a myth, ain't it?
foe1one 3 years ago
Hm... I dunno about that, actually. It'd sound like it's impossible, but perfection is subjective. A god is a perfect being by nature, objectively, on the other hand. Anything a god does would have to be perfect, in that sense. I don't think it's that he can't choose as much as there not being a choice to make; any action done by a perfect being should be perfect, right? :/ very interesting...
Madfoot713 3 years ago
Interesting.
Chuloloc 3 years ago
Nice mental gymnastics, but the whole argument is pretty much void. You cannot just throw around terms like "timeless" and "perfect" and act like they mean something. What do you mean timeless? Timeless would simply be unchangeable for all eternity. Something like that cannot have a personality. Something like that cannot make decisions.. Something timeless just is. And don't even get me started with the "perfect" it makes even less sense.
slipcurve 3 years ago 3
Take those complaints to the theist, not me. I share your pain, but if they are the terms that theists use then those are the ones we have to use too.
Clutchology 3 years ago
slipcurve, ah I didn't see your comment before, I wrote basically the same after watching the video.
Clutch, isn't the whole point to debate about it, not just the hypothetical but the possibility of it as well.
After all we are talking about something most people think is actually true.
dnoohi 3 years ago
Yes, but the 'Is the definition meaningful?' debate is one argument. The 'Is the definition consistent?' debate is another. I try to keep the two separate as much as I can so things don't get over-complicated.
Clutchology 3 years ago
But it seems futile to skip reason and logic in order to discuss with reason and logic in some limited area.
What is the point of this; maybe to destroy the argument on their home ground...
Sometimes you sound like a theist undercover.
But I like your videos, please don't mind the criticism.
dnoohi 3 years ago
I'm not attacking you. I'm just at a loss as to why is this even a discussion.
Maybe we should argue that god cannot be "timeless" in any meaningful way. Not in a way that theists see their god. If something is timeless and able make choices, then that is a paradox to the highest degree. You cannot argue with that, that's absurd.
slipcurve 3 years ago 2
I made a video on this and basically concluded that if God is timeless and perfect then he might as well just be a universal constant. Talking about God in the conventional sense would have us place him in an alternate time-space looking in at and ours. But that could be anything.
Stephen5000 3 years ago
Agreed. Universal constant is surely not what the theist are arguing for.
Eternal omnipotent being that is the root cause of everything and that even has a personality has never made any sense to me. It's like saying "universe started with strawberry icecream!". It's oddly specific. Why not vanilla for example? If one really wants to have a god, it should be something more neutral.. but that of course would defeat the purpose.
I don't think one can win with religion.
slipcurve 3 years ago
Geez... another great video.
Reading the description, my first thought was that it's just semantics.
But jeez, uh... I guess this is similar to the stone so big he can't move it question. I skimmed Shotothe's comment and he makes a good point... I don't think it's so much as he decides what is perfect, as much as him being a perfect being, cannot do anything imperfect, because him doing it would make it perfect...can a perfect being do anything imperfect? No,but what that means I don't know :/
Madfoot713 3 years ago
"No,but what that means I don't know :/"
Neither do I...
Clutchology 3 years ago