questions about God (God)

[hmvv]

If God is Omnipotent i.e. can do anything, could he make a spice so hot that he himself could not eat it?

[Aqualung]

Why do people always ask this question? It comes with a general ignorance about what omnipotent means. Omnipotent does not mean being able to do the impossible, but rather, being able to do everything possible.

[!Fluffy!]

i think it was some sort of exercise in high school logic class

[hmvv]

ok everything possible then define possible because if that is in human terms then God could not be what he supposedly is, niether could he of created us

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by hmvv

ok everything possible then define possible because if that is in human terms then God could not be what he supposedly is, niether could he of created us

Anything logically possible. It is logically impossible for something to be bigger than itself, for example. Or, it is logically impossible for a triangle to have four sides. In the same manner, it is logically impossible for something to be possible and impossible, like in your example.

[hmvv]

ok good anwser
but can you explain how a triangle cann logically have 4 sides as i see it as logically impossible

[Panda]

Why isn't it logically possible for a spice God can't eat?

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Why do people always ask this question? It comes with a general ignorance about what omnipotent means. Omnipotent does not mean being able to do the impossible, but rather, being able to do everything possible.

Well then, who decides what is possible? If God exists, then surely it is He who decides! Otherwise, if WE decided, then we would always say that creating the universe out of nothing is not possible! In fact, none of the "miracles" in the Bible would be possible. That is why we call them "miracles" in the first place!

But perhaps you are an authority on the meaning of "omnipotent." So, then tell us how improbable does something have to be to be impossible?

If God is not able to change and manipulate the so-called "laws of nature," then He is merely an abstract god who has no function as far as we are concerned. There is no reason to pray to HIM!

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Anything logically possible. It is logically impossible for something to be bigger than itself, for example. Or, it is logically impossible for a triangle to have four sides. In the same manner, it is logically impossible for something to be possible and impossible, like in your example.

logic states logic is illigocial

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

1. Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
2. Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
3. Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
4. Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
5. If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
6. We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
7. "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...
With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it.

All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...
Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...
How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.
The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally.

miskatonic.org/godel.html

He comprehends It who thinks he has not. He has not comprehended It who thinks he has. To the real masters It is the unknown, but to the ignorant He is always the known. –Lao Tzu
………………………………………………..
IF God guides you not into the road,
It will not be disclosed by logic.
Logic is a bondage of forms;
A road that is long and hard.
Leave it for a season. Like Moses
Cast away that staff
And enter for awhile “The Valley of Peace.” –Manichean Proverb

[sandy whitelinger]

Three Things God Can’t Do
He cannot lie.
He cannot learn.
He cannot force you to love Him.

Four Things God “Doesn’t Know”
He doesn't know a sin He doesn't hate.
He doesn't know a sinner He doesn't love.
He doesn't know an alternate path to His Throne but through His son.
He doesn't know a better time to accept Him than now!