faith

[Generous George]

I'm waiting for inerrant inspiration....I think the phone lines are down?   

[Codswallop]

First rate gods have their own books. So get to writing!

Second-rate gods have books too, but you can only get them at Target.

And maybe Wal-Mart.

And Costco, but you have to buy a whole box of them.

[Generous George]

Or send in to Cheerio Cereal box tops to PO box 666, tithing made easy department, Bumfvck, Egypt along with small unmarked bills in a paper bag. You will be absolutely amazed at what you get or q1uadruple you money backQ!

[freesoul]

that's how silly it can get if there was more than one GOD.
as silly as you can get.

[Vynn]

that's how silly it can get if there was more than one GOD.
as silly as you can get.

why exactly is this silly?

[MrFriday]

that's how silly it can get if there was more than one GOD.
as silly as you can get.

I agree that multiple gods makes no sense. To create everything, a god would have to be omnipotent. You cannot logically have more than one omnipotent being. If you can't figure that out, ask me. I promise to use small words.

Personally, I don't think actual omnipotence is logically possible and I find the notion of a creator God to be unlikely.

[Airyaman]

Hey, I never claimed to be omnipotent. But unlike the other gods who claim such, I can communicate with you with actual words. And if you ask me to heal an amputee, I won't the leave you hanging. The answer will always be "no".

At least I'm honest with you.

[velkyn]

velkyn, you say: Baseless claim.  How do "we" know "it" is there?
Answer: because it created us and created every thing else around us, that's how we know it's there. (Logic), the problem is that we can't imagine it so alot of  people have denied it. But it's there.
Unless you have created us MR: IHAVE NO ANSWER!!
You have to have answer's man!!

again, you have provided no reason why I should think a deity exists.  To refer to "everythign around us" means nothing.  I can show evidence that does not need a deity to make it happen.  At best, your argument argues for *a* deity, not the Christian one.  Just because I can imagine a deity doesn't mean that one exists.  I can imagine a leprechaun.  Does that exist?

and to add to vynn's question, indeed why are many gods any more "silly" than one Christian God that can't get anything right?   

[L6]

You cannot logically have more than one omnipotent being. If you can't figure that out, ask me. I promise to use small words.

Explain. Use big words if you need to.

[kcrady]

I agree that multiple gods makes no sense. To create everything, a god would have to be omnipotent.

I disagree.  According to current physics (as I understand it), it is possible for something like a quantum fluctuation, a black hole (Lee Smolin's hypothesis), or the collision of two "branes" to cause a Big Bang, i.e. "create everything."  If they're correct, then omnipotence is not needed to create everything.  A group of non-omnipotent gods--or, for that matter, even creatures like ourselves or our sapient robotic progeny--could create a new Universe by triggering the right sort of quantum fluctuation or creating a black hole.

I think multiple gods make more sense than a single omnipotent god, especially if we're talking about semantic-thinking, talking, symbol-using personal gods.  Reductio ad absurdum: Let's start with a single god in its "natural" state, i.e. before it has created anything else.  There is nothing for it to sense (however it would sense things).  There is no time in which it can sense any thing or think any thoughts.  There is no space wherein it can have extension.  There is no one for it to talk to, or learn how to talk from, or anything it can point to and babble at to learn/create its first word.  This god is supposed to be "pure consciousness," but there is nothing for it to be conscious of.  Which means: in this state, there is no difference between consciousness and unconsciousness.  This god is (so the believers tell us) timeless, space-less, and immaterial.  Each of these is a negation, a descriptor of nothingness.  They say what it isn't, but nothing about what it is.  Now we can add another negation--unconscious--to the list.  And we're back to nothing.

Now, if you had multiple gods, then each god has something of which to be aware: the other gods, and something to talk to: the other gods, and something to talk about: the other gods.  Of course the "timeless, spaceless, immaterial" aspects still get in the way.  If gods are timeless, there's no time in which they can experience awareness of each other.  There's no space in which they can have extension, or positional relationship to each other.  There's nothing for them to be made of, and thus nothing for them to perceive, and we're back to nothing.  But, if you've got multiple gods, and you permit them to have something like time, something like space, and something to be made of (it could be something other than matter/energy, like maybe "spacetime geometry"), then they have the option of being something, and of being conscious, language-using beings.  It's not like raising an infant in a sensory-deprivation tank and expecting him/her to be able to emerge as a thinking, talking adult.

You cannot logically have more than one omnipotent being. If you can't figure that out, ask me. I promise to use small words.

L6, my guess as to what he would answer goes something like this: if Omnipotent Being #1 wants to accomplish goal X, and Omnipotent Being #2 wants to accomplish incompatible goal Y at the same time and in the same respect (such as seeking to win a competitive game between the two of them), then one, the other, or both fail to achieve their goal.  The one (or both) that fails, is not omnipotent.

Personally, I don't think actual omnipotence is logically possible and I find the notion of a creator God to be unlikely.

Agreed.

[L6]

if Omnipotent Being #1 wants to accomplish goal X, and Omnipotent Being #2 wants to accomplish incompatible goal Y at the same time and in the same respect (such as seeking to win a competitive game between the two of them), then one, the other, or both fail to achieve their goal.  The one (or both) that fails, is not omnipotent.

I'll bite.

There are two gods, A0 and B0. Both are omnipotent. Space is defined by their relationship to each other, and time is defined by changes in that relationship; the universe, u0, is a mere artifact of their co-existence. Each has the the same mutually exclusive goal Y0 it wants accomplished at time t0. Since neither can lose, the goal is accomplished by both of them, with the artifact that parallel universes uA1 and uB1 are created. One in which one god wins, and one in which the other god wins, created at time t1. Since each universe is a reflection of the relationship between the gods, it follows that the gods themselves have also changed. That is, there is no longer a god A0 or B0, but A1 and B1. Paradox of mutual omnipotence is swept under the rug; A0 "won" u0 and the result was uA1, while B0 also "won" u0 with the result of uB1. u0 no longer exists, and the existence of uA1 and uA0 define a new A1 and B1. A0 and B0 are no more.

Anyway, now A1 and B1 want to accomplish Y1 in both universes at time t1, so both universes split again. And so on, in an endless computational loop. From within a given universe, it appears as if each omnipotent god wins and loses constantly, because we incorrectly assume the identity of the gods is unchanging. Each universe is a living memory of the their eternal conflict.

Kinda gnostic, yeah?

[MrFriday]

I agree that multiple gods makes no sense. To create everything, a god would have to be omnipotent.

I disagree.  According to current physics (as I understand it), it is possible for something like a quantum fluctuation, a black hole (Lee Smolin's hypothesis), or the collision of two "branes" to cause a Big Bang, i.e. "create everything."  If they're correct, then omnipotence is not needed to create everything.

Why doesn't the term "everything" include the black hole, quantum fluctuation or branes? What you are talking about is not a creation event, in my opinion. I see it as just a rearrangement of the matter/energy or whatever constitutes the universe that already exists. I've studied many theories of physics and that's why I think the universe (really everything) never came into being but always existed. Even the theoretical Higgs field would not qualify as "nothing". We may not be able to even mathematically model an eternal universe but that doesn't mean it isn't so. In any case, it seems we are talking about different things. The religious concept seems to be that absolutely nothing existed before the universe was created and that God literally created everything except himself ex nihilo.

A group of non-omnipotent gods--or, for that matter, even creatures like ourselves or our sapient robotic progeny--could create a new Universe by triggering the right sort of quantum fluctuation or creating a black hole.

I don't think you are using the same definition of “create” that I was. Nothing would be created if it was just a matter of using some process to make something happen. We could call beings that could do such things gods but I don't think I would.

I think multiple gods make more sense than a single omnipotent god, especially if we're talking about semantic-thinking, talking, symbol-using personal gods.  Reductio ad absurdum: Let's start with a single god in its "natural" state, i.e. before it has created anything else.  There is nothing for it to sense (however it would sense things).  There is no time in which it can sense any thing or think any thoughts.  There is no space wherein it can have extension.  There is no one for it to talk to, or learn how to talk from, or anything it can point to and babble at to learn/create its first word.  This god is supposed to be "pure consciousness," but there is nothing for it to be conscious of.  Which means: in this state, there is no difference between consciousness and unconsciousness.  This god is (so the believers tell us) timeless, space-less, and immaterial.  Each of these is a negation, a descriptor of nothingness.  They say what it isn't, but nothing about what it is.  Now we can add another negation--unconscious--to the list.  And we're back to nothing.

I couldn't agree more. I've used this same argument myself against the notion of God. Multiple gods might make marginally more sense than a single God, as you said. It might not be quite as difficult to conceptualize although I agree with you that it is also nonsensical. In any case, you hit on my point below.

L6, my guess as to what he would answer goes something like this: if Omnipotent Being #1 wants to accomplish goal X, and Omnipotent Being #2 wants to accomplish incompatible goal Y at the same time and in the same respect (such as seeking to win a competitive game between the two of them), then one, the other, or both fail to achieve their goal.  The one (or both) that fails, is not omnipotent.

That's exactly my point.  I suppose it doesn't logically preclude separate beings of finite power combining to make one all-powerful team if we were to assume that omnipotence is actually possible.

[MrFriday]

if Omnipotent Being #1 wants to accomplish goal X, and Omnipotent Being #2 wants to accomplish incompatible goal Y at the same time and in the same respect (such as seeking to win a competitive game between the two of them), then one, the other, or both fail to achieve their goal.  The one (or both) that fails, is not omnipotent.

I'll bite.

There are two gods, A0 and B0. Both are omnipotent. Space is defined by their relationship to each other, and time is defined by changes in that relationship; the universe, u0, is a mere artifact of their co-existence. Each has the the same mutually exclusive goal Y0 it wants accomplished at time t0. Since neither can lose, the goal is accomplished by both of them, with the artifact that parallel universes uA1 and uB1 are created. One in which one god wins, and one in which the other god wins, created at time t1. Since each universe is a reflection of the relationship between the gods, it follows that the gods themselves have also changed. That is, there is no longer a god A0 or B0, but A1 and B1. Paradox of mutual omnipotence is swept under the rug; A0 "won" u0 and the result was uA1, while B0 also "won" u0 with the result of uB1. u0 no longer exists, and the existence of uA1 and uA0 define a new A1 and B1. A0 and B0 are no more.

Anyway, now A1 and B1 want to accomplish Y1 in both universes at time t1, so both universes split again. And so on, in an endless computational loop. From within a given universe, it appears as if each omnipotent god wins and loses constantly, because we incorrectly assume the identity of the gods is unchanging. Each universe is a living memory of the their eternal conflict.

Kinda gnostic, yeah?

I find the notion of multiple universes to be oxymoronic. But we may just define "universe" differently. I consider it to be an all inclusive term. All that exists is the universe. That's why it has the prefix "uni" meaning one. How can there be more than one "all"?

[L6]

I find the notion of multiple universes to be oxymoronic. But we may just define "universe" differently. I consider it to be an all inclusive term. All that exists is the universe. That's why it has the prefix "uni" meaning one. How can there be more than one "all"?

I do not subscribe to the all-inclusive definition of "universe", no. If you have a preferable way to talk (however nonsensically) about all instances of our universe along the probability axis, then by all means, I'm open to it.

In any case, I was just having fun trying to reconcile the idea that there are two omnipotent gods rather than one. It is of no import whatsoever.

[MrFriday]

I find the notion of multiple universes to be oxymoronic. But we may just define "universe" differently. I consider it to be an all inclusive term. All that exists is the universe. That's why it has the prefix "uni" meaning one. How can there be more than one "all"?

I do not subscribe to the all-inclusive definition of "universe", no. If you have a preferable way to talk (however nonsensically) about all instances of our universe along the probability axis, then by all means, I'm open to it.

In any case, I was just having fun trying to reconcile the idea that there are two omnipotent gods rather than one. It is of no import whatsoever.

Right, but calling my statement nonsensical belies your statement. Same to you. If you care to look at what creationists think (about which we are talking) they think God created everything. Not some verse out of the multiverse. Go figure.

[L6]

"Same to me"? You're taking offense when there's none to be taken. You obviously think it's nonsensical to talk about anything more than the one universe you know about. It's going to be talked about, though, so what words should I use?

[MrFriday]

"Same to me"? You're taking offense when there's none to be taken. You obviously think it's nonsensical to talk about anything more than the one universe you know about. It's going to be talked about, though, so what words should I use?

When did I ever say it was nonsensical to talk about things outside the known universe? You are defining what we know about as the universe while defining other aspects of reality as different universes. We are tripping over definitions here. I agree that there is more to reality than the known universe. But everything that exists is the actual universe and that might comprise many more unknown universes by your definition of the term. But when we are talking about a religious claim that says a God created everything, I am quite sure they do not mean just the parts that we can see. If you want to separate bubbles within reality and divvy them up between deities, go for it. But if we are talking about all of existence, we are not talking about your limited definition. And within that context an omnipotent God would not make sense if it was only the God of one bubble of reality. I'm not taking offense. You are being snide and offensive. Own your comments. Don't run from them.

[L6]

I fail to see the snide and offensive bit, so if you could point that out, that'd be a big help. Your inner voice must read differently than mine speaks.

In any case, I have no interest in further definition-tripping.

[MrFriday]

I fail to see the snide and offensive bit, so if you could point that out, that'd be a big help. Your inner voice must read differently than mine speaks.

In any case, I have no interest in further definition-tripping.

Quit anytime you like.

Referring to what I'm doing as "definition-tripping" is another example of being snide and offensive. I realize it was a play on my comment about tripping over definitions but instead of addressing the point you made light of it.

[L6]

So you refuse to point out the original "offense"? Not that it would be the first time, considering how "offended" you got last year when I merely asked you what page an author said something in his book, because I'd forgotten. Whatever; I enjoy reading your posts, but if a grown man can't know/learn to read the best tone into a post (when other people don't seem to have that difficulty with my posts), then I'm at a loss. Forgive me for not being interested in making you feel better about misunderstanding my intentions after I've made the attempt to ask you to help me correct my initial communication. Take as many last words to "win" as you like.

[kcrady]

Why doesn't the term "everything" include the black hole, quantum fluctuation or branes? What you are talking about is not a creation event, in my opinion. I see it as just a rearrangement of the matter/energy or whatever constitutes the universe that already exists. I've studied many theories of physics and that's why I think the universe (really everything) never came into being but always existed. Even the theoretical Higgs field would not qualify as "nothing". We may not be able to even mathematically model an eternal universe but that doesn't mean it isn't so. In any case, it seems we are talking about different things. The religious concept seems to be that absolutely nothing existed before the universe was created and that God literally created everything except himself ex nihilo.

You're right that we are using different definitions.  I was responding to the sort of theist who points to the Big Bang and says "See?  The universe had a beginning, therefore God exists!"  The beginning of our particular "bubble cosmos" does not require an omnipotent god, or even non-omnipotent ones.  When using "universe" to mean "all that exists" (I agree, a more correct use of the term), then I also agree with you that "the universe" always existed in some form or another.  If "universe" includes all that exists, then it also includes any "gods" that may exist, and whatever alter-dimensions ("spiritual realms" or "kingdoms of Heaven") they might exist in.  In this case, a god cannot "create Universe." 

Regarding the notion that a god could "create everything but himself," I think that concept is nonsensical (and so, I expect, do you).  Since this theistic position still reduces to "Existence exists," then the question is: what makes more sense as a fundamental, irreducible form of existence, from which all other things can emerge--a complex, anthropomorphic, semantic-thinking, talking person, or something deeply and fundamentally simple, like some sort of "quantum of spacetime" from which all else emerges by natural processes?  I think Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747 Argument" deals with this issue quite well.  We know spacetime exists.  We do not know that disembodied anthropomorphic consciousnesses without space or time or matter-energy (and hence, without sense modalities or anything to perceive with them) can exist, much less create anything.