Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The impossibility of infinite ability..aka "god"
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 1 of 94 (449857)
01-19-2008 1:24 PM


God cannot be infinitely powerful. To be so, it would have to be able to move at an infinite rate.
But this is impossible, because consider: distance = rate * time, correct?
And, rate = distance/time, correct?
But if god were to move at an infinite rate, then either the distance moved in a time frame would be infinite, or the time for movement would be zero, or one last option: the rate is in fact ever-accelerating, rather than being infinite in one slice of time.
Option 1: distance moved in a time frame is infinite. But such is impossible because, say it takes time X to move an infinite distance. Since distance/rate = time, then if the distance and rate were infinite, the time taken would always be "1". It would take time to move at an infinite distance, but since the time would never change, neither could the distance, giving distance, and therefore rate, a finite value. God would be contradicting itself by saying that it could move at an infinite rate but not in any time frame go an infinite distance.
Option 2: time for movement is zero. But since distance = rate * time, no matter what the rate, the distance would be zero, since rate * zero = zero. and, since rate = distance/time, such an "infinite" rate would equal zero distance/zero time, = zero, not infinity. God would be contradicting itself by saying that it could move somewhere in zero time but not go anywhere.
Option 3: the rate is ever-accelerating, not infinite at one time. But since for, say, a random point in time the distance is X, for that period of time taken, the rate would only be distance/time, a finite value. So, god would'nt be able to go anywhere in an instant, but only go there at a rate. God would be contradicting itself by saying it could go an infinite rate but never actually be going at an infinite rate, just ever more quickly as time passes on.
Therefore, god is not omnipresent, since he can't be everywhere at the same time, and not omnipotent, since his ability to move, the fundamental type of action would be limited, so his abilities of action would be limited. He could'nt be omnipotent.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 8:21 PM TheNaturalist has not replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 8:32 PM TheNaturalist has not replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-19-2008 8:53 PM TheNaturalist has not replied
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-19-2008 10:01 PM TheNaturalist has replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 01-19-2008 10:28 PM TheNaturalist has not replied
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 01-20-2008 2:09 AM TheNaturalist has not replied
 Message 71 by riVeRraT, posted 01-21-2008 6:42 PM TheNaturalist has replied

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 2 of 94 (449923)
01-19-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 1:24 PM


is anyone EVER gonna reply or do anything with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 1:24 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 94 (449924)
01-19-2008 8:25 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 94 (449928)
01-19-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 1:24 PM


I don't think that works
I seem to remember part of a song from long ago
"If an irresistable force meets an immovable object,
something's gotta give, something's gotta give, something's gotta give."
Here is the problem. Force, distance, acceleration - these are all part of our world. If God is outside our world, there is no reason he would be affected by them at all.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 1:24 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 94 (449932)
01-19-2008 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 1:24 PM


Here is a similar line of thought.
If god can do anything he wants, can he commit suicide and succeed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 1:24 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 94 (449941)
01-19-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 1:24 PM


Therefore, god is not omnipresent, since he can't be everywhere at the same time, and not omnipotent, since his ability to move, the fundamental type of action would be limited, so his abilities of action would be limited. He could'nt be omnipotent.
The profound problem I see with this whole theorem is that it presupposes that God moves along a timeline with His creation, instead of being outside of the time domain. If God is outside of the time domain, it would not be difficult to encompass all points of time simultaneously.
The reason we are bound by time is because we are made of matter. Matter is intimately connected to time-space. If God is not made of matter then time and space are irrelevant to His existence.
I therefore see nothing in that as being of any consequence to the concept of God, unless of course you limit God, as you have done.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 1:24 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 10:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 94 (449944)
01-19-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 1:24 PM


Huh?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 1:24 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 8 of 94 (449947)
01-19-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
01-19-2008 10:01 PM


"The profound problem I see with this whole theorem is that it presupposes that God moves along a timeline with His creation, instead of being outside of the time domain. If God is outside of the time domain, it would not be difficult to encompass all points of time simultaneously.
The reason we are bound by time is because we are made of matter. Matter is intimately connected to time-space. If God is not made of matter then time and space are irrelevant to His existence."
That makes no sense at all. "Time" just means that something has moved a distance. Unless god can't move, he is confined to time. If he can't move, though, the only alternative to being confined to time, he's useless. Which do you choose?
Of course, it is impossible to have infitisimally small distance, so distance must occur in finite units. The time it takes something to move one distance unit is the smallest time possible(in a particular universe).
Don't say either: 1. "god is outside our universe". Then, he wouldnt be able to do anything in our universe. Obviously. He'd have to go in it, if only temporarily, to pull any strings.
Or, 2. "god built these rules, so he's outside it anyway". That is just a foolish cop-out low-intellects take, not realizing the foolishness of it, to explain the supernatural. It makes no sense at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-19-2008 10:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 01-19-2008 11:06 PM TheNaturalist has not replied
 Message 10 by nwr, posted 01-19-2008 11:07 PM TheNaturalist has not replied
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-19-2008 11:23 PM TheNaturalist has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 9 of 94 (449949)
01-19-2008 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 10:53 PM


TheNaturalist writes:
Unless god can't move....
If God is everywhere, "movement" is undefined.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 10:53 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 10 of 94 (449950)
01-19-2008 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 10:53 PM


Don't say either: 1. "god is outside our universe". Then, he wouldnt be able to do anything in our universe. Obviously. He'd have to go in it, if only temporarily, to pull any strings.
Or, 2. "god built these rules, so he's outside it anyway". That is just a foolish cop-out low-intellects take, not realizing the foolishness of it, to explain the supernatural. It makes no sense at all.
I write a computer program that emulates a world. I run that program on my computer. The emulated world runs in accordance with some laws that relate to force and other concepts within that emulated universe. There is even some randomness injected into the emulated universe. It turns out that life evolves in the emulated universe.
As the programmer and operator of the computer, I am god with respect to that universe. However, I am not god in our own universe.
With respect to the emulated universe, I can change things by modifying data in the current state database. Or I can also modify a few lines of code. I am not in any way bound by the laws in that emulated universe, because I can get around them by changing what is stored in the current state database.
Now what was that you said about impossibility?

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 10:53 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 94 (449952)
01-19-2008 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 10:53 PM


Limiting God to materialism
That makes no sense at all. "Time" just means that something has moved a distance.
That is not at all what time means. Does time stop if you don't move? Does it speed up if you don't move? More to the point, if God is outside of time, then how is he bound by your limitations?
The definition of time is not inclusive to the infinite, but of increments pertaining to mass and space.
Duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration.
Unless god can't move, he is confined to time. If he can't move, though, the only alternative to being confined to time, he's useless. Which do you choose?
Why do you insist that God moves at all, since movement is uniquely apportioned to that which has a body -- i.e., material? You speak of God in anthropomorphic terms, as if he were a man in outer space. These pantheistic notions about God have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
Of course, it is impossible to have infitisimally small distance, so distance must occur in finite units. The time it takes something to move one distance unit is the smallest time possible(in a particular universe).
I really don't see "distance" as being relevant to God. If God is omnipresent, there is no distance traveled, and indeed, this also speaks of God in anthropomorphic ways as if He ambles along on a time line like material beings.
Don't say either: 1. "god is outside our universe". Then, he wouldnt be able to do anything in our universe.
Why not!?!?! Just because you cannot conceive of it in your mind does not negate the possibility.
Or, 2. "god built these rules, so he's outside it anyway". That is just a foolish cop-out low-intellects take, not realizing the foolishness of it, to explain the supernatural. It makes no sense at all.
Low intellects? You seem to have trouble grasping physical concepts, and then further limit God to your own intellectual barriers. Since you are not what arbitrates God's existence or how he deals with the affairs of the universe, your whole premise is unfounded.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 10:53 PM TheNaturalist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Am5n, posted 01-20-2008 1:16 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 15 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 16 by anglagard, posted 01-20-2008 1:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 17 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-20-2008 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Am5n 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5901 days)
Posts: 106
From: New York City, New York, United States
Joined: 02-21-2007


Message 12 of 94 (449968)
01-20-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
01-19-2008 11:23 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
What do you expect NJ, He's a Naturalist...
1)One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany.
2)One who believes in and follows the tenets of naturalism.
Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish the supernatural (including strange entities like non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) from nature. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.
Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.
This distinction between approaches to the philosophy of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation-evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism and conflate it with metaphysical naturalism. These proponents of creationism use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports "theistic science" or pseudoscience.
extra:
Metaphysical naturalism, which is often called "philosophical naturalism" or "ontological naturalism", takes an ontological approach to naturalism. Ontology is a branch of metaphysics that studies being, and so this is the view that the supernatural does not exist, thus entailing strong atheism.
He seems to be entailing strong atheism and probably doesn't have an open mind, therefor his only purpose for this topic is, he might want to get people to question their faith, but he's made up his mind already to reject the possibility of there actually being a supernatural being, thus I feel as though, if we tried to question his "theories", it'll simply go in 1 ear and out the other.
ps: The last paragraph is only about, that of what I think He is doing and portraying, though it serves a purpose: The Naturalist should try and explain his argument in a way, that everyone can understand, because he seems to think he's making sense, though, he is only making sense to a Naturalist point of view. just so you know TN, "we're not all Natural Scientist", nor are you making any sense. You seem to be only making sense to the supporters of Darwinism and Evolution.
sincerely yours, Amen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-19-2008 11:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 2:43 AM Am5n has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 13 of 94 (449975)
01-20-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 1:24 PM


Mind Games
This kind of question sounds clever the first time you hear it, but in reality it is just a mind game, a verbal trick. It is much the same as "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?", which is a quote from that great philosopher Homer Simpson.
Nice try though.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 1:24 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 94 (449981)
01-20-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Am5n
01-20-2008 1:16 AM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
What do you expect NJ, He's a Naturalist.
Yes, but there seem to be some naturalists in here that are aware that he is using a non sequitur. I think what is irking me the most is that he is essentially referring to me as having "low intellect" when clearly it is he that has difficulty grasping the concept of time itself.
He seems to be entailing strong atheism and probably doesn't have an open mind, therefor his only purpose for this topic is, he might want to get people to question their faith, but he's made up his mind already to reject the possibility of there actually being a supernatural being, thus I feel as though, if we tried to question his "theories", it'll simply go in 1 ear and out the other.
With any luck he'll at least see that this particular argument is nonsensical, if nothing else. I never have a problem with people who have difficulty with believing in God. Its honest. What I have little tolerance for is people who search for ways to destroy someone else's faith just so they can pat themselves on the back. Clearly it backfired on him.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Am5n, posted 01-20-2008 1:16 AM Am5n has not replied

  
TheNaturalist
Member (Idle past 5683 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-18-2008


Message 15 of 94 (450053)
01-20-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
01-19-2008 11:23 PM


Re: Limiting God to materialism
That makes no sense at all. "Time" just means that something has moved a distance.
Nemesis Juggernaut-"That is not at all what time means. Does time stop if you don't move? Does it speed up if you don't move? More to the point, if God is outside of time, then how is he bound by your limitations?"
1. No, time doesnt stop if one particular body doesnt move. If everything in the universe stops though, yes, time stops. Time is only relative movement; if something never moves, it is the same as if time has stopped. Time, simply, is when something moves a distance. If nothing ever moved a distance, never budged, and were frozen, we would say time has stopped, wouldnt we? Because it has, in that case. The only way time hasnt stopped in that case is if there is something else "out there" (dont say "god", I mean, please) which is still able to move. That entity could look at everything else frozen and say, "everything has stopped. But I'm still subject to time".
2. Yes, time DOES speed up for you if you arent moving. Read Einstein's theories of relativity. The faster an object is moving, the slower time travels, for that object. Haha. I just destroyed you. I bet you cant believe it. And dont object to this. Its mathematically (and experimentally) proven that the faster an object moves, the slower time is experienced for that object.
Do you know why? Because of this. Say an atom has all of its electrons moving in orbits around its nucleus. It is not moving at all. The electrons are moving in perfect orbits, correct? BUT, say the atom starts moving, in any way. The electrons would not only be moving in their orbits, but also moving in the direction of the atom's overall movement, sort of like how if a racecar moves in a diagonal but the same distance forward, its moving in two directions at the same time, and the overall distance it moves becomes greater, but still, it moves the same distance forward. Get it so far? And anyways, since the electrons would be devoting some of their time to moving in the direction of the atom's overall movement, and some of it moving in their orbits, it would take more time to move in their orbits than if the atom werent moving itself. Understand? So anyways, the atom would take longer to move in its usual orbit, so, time would effectively be slowing down.
Besides that, time is indeed defined as distance traveled, since:
distance = rate * time. correct? of course. and, therefore, if there is no time, otherwise time, in this equation, equals zero, then d=rt= zero. No distance is traveled unless time passes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-19-2008 11:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 01-20-2008 1:40 PM TheNaturalist has replied
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 1:51 PM TheNaturalist has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024