The Omniproblems Of God And The Supernatural

[Shyone]

I’ve been thinking…

 

Omniscience.

Christians say God is omniscient. To be omniscient means to know "everything", but in order to know if someone or something knows everything, we must know everything there is to know and have a way of assessing whether the person or thing knows everything. IOW, to know a being is omniscient requires omniscience.

 

To say that God has “middle knowledge” implies that one knows the mind of God, and exactly what God knows. One must be God or His equal to make this claim.

 

Omnipresence.

Christians say God is omnipresent. To be omnipresent means to be everywhere, but in order to know if something is everywhere, one must first have a way to look everywhere or to know that this substance is everywhere. That is, one must be able to assess the presence of the substance or being everywhere at the same time. IOW, to say that a being is omnipresent requires that the person making this affirmative statement be everywhere at the same time (or be omniscient).

 

Omnipotence.

Christians say God is omnipotent. To be omnipotent means having absolute power over everything, but in order to know if something or someone is omnipotent, we must be able to establish that there are indeed no limits on the beings power. To create such a test would require infinite resources and energy, because anything less than infinite resources would only test a finite amount of power. Merely stating that something is omnipotent does not establish by fiat that the being or person is omnipotent. In order to evaluate and verify omnipotence would require omnipotence (or omniscience).

 

Omnibenevolence.

Christians say that God is good. To be all good means that every action must be good. Actions [depicted in the bible] that have the same result as we would expect from human evil are still considered good, so "good" in this instance does not refer to the same good as humans mean when they use the word, so the word "good" does not apply.

 

Paradoxes.

Can a being that is omnipotent create an object that is too big for the being to move?

Can a being that knows the future do something other than what it knows will happen?

What is everything? What does it mean to know everything? Does it include knowing that it knows everything? And would that also include knowing that it knows that knows everything? And does this knowing knowledge continue infinitely?

 

The omnipotence and omniscience paradox can be summed up as "Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?" If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.

 

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

 

If the properties of god are incomprehensible to mere mortals, then they have no meaning for us. They are, in fact, meaningless.

 

 

 

You know of the defense that children killed on the order of god were destined for heaven, or that they were saved from hell, because dead children get a ticket straight to heaven? Here's a little ditty about that:

 

A child has died. He stands before God in heaven and asks: "Why did I die so young, without a chance to know the world you gave me?"

 

God responds: "Because, child, I see all time, and I knew that you would grow up to be wicked, and that would break my heart. I brought you home now so that I could bring you home, before you were lost to me."

 

Whereupon a great lament was heard, and the souls in Hell cried out, "Why, then, did you not save us, Lord, while you still could?"

 

 

The Supernatural

 

Part One: Detectable but Unpredictable

 

If the supernatural is “detectable but unpredictable”, then we still would have no idea of what it is. Anything that has been described as “supernatural” could very well fit into this vague description including ghosts and fairies. Ghosts are detectable (people have seen them and give testimonial evidence and there have been photographs and even perhaps electronic signals) but really unpredictable. I’ve never actually seen one. Fairies have the same characteristics, and people claim to have seen them as well. There was a famous photograph of fairies, but it seems it was faked in a case of paranormal pious fraud. They too are unpredictable. I’ve never seen one of them either.

 

UFOs have been thought to be natural since they were assumed to have come from another place, but then they too are “detectable but unpredictable”. In fact, they seem to materialize within the atmosphere (since they have not been detected outside of the atmosphere), so it would appear that they exist in another dimension… or, more likely, “outside of the physical universe.”

 

And when your child comes home unpredictably late and you ask, “Where have you been?” he might answer, “Outside the physical universe.” And there is no way to dispute that. You can only say, “Don’t let that happen again!”

 

Part Two: Outside of the Physical Universe

 

I started wondering a while back when did a theologian came up with the idea that God was “outside of the physical universe.” It certainly wasn’t the case in the days of the Old Testament. Or the New Testament for that matter.

 

God was a burning bush, or a cloud that followed the Arc of the Covenant and even hung around the tabernacle. Men wrestled with God, and God spoke with them.

 

But God spent more and more time outside of the earth’s atmosphere when the miracles stopped. He was not too far outside though, and the medieval cosmologies put God’s Throne somewhere just beyond the sphere of the stars:

 

The Ptolemaic order of spheres from Earth outward is:

1. Moon

2. Mercury

3. Venus

4. Sun

5. Mars

6. Jupiter

7. Saturn

8. Fixed Stars

9. Sphere of Prime Mover

The Jewish Cosmology was a bit less complicated: The third heaven is a Jewish expression for that heaven which was beyond (1) the air, and (2) beyond the sun and stars; the secret place of the Almighty.

What modern theologian claimed authorship for the “outside of the physical universe” “location” of heaven, and when did he do it? It would have to be modern, and it would have developed after the invention of the telescope (and the acceptance of the Copernican and Keplerian Heliocentric system). After all, people could watch God changing his underwear with a good telescope – if he were there.

 

I suppose the Greek gods left Olympus when people started climbing mountains…

 

It seems the phrase, and indeed the concept, was “invented” by Arthur C. Custance, PhD and documented in a paper written between 1957 and 1967. He based his concept on Einstein’s theory of general relativity (http://www.custance.org/old/time/) and Big Bang cosmology.

 

But, according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time.

 

This in itself is difficult enough for anyone who has not reflected upon it. But there is an equally important corollary: namely, that in a spiritual world (in which matter has no place) the same situation would exist--there could be no passage of time. This would be a real world which either existed in the absence of a physical world altogether or existed alongside a physical world but without any dependence upon it. In either situation there need not be any experience of time as we understand it. If this spiritual world is thought of as existing in the absence of a physical world, it would be, as it were, "before" the Creation--that is to say, before Genesis 1:1.

 

 

Now you know. God disappeared from the universe into the void of nonexistence less than 100 years ago. He was disappeared by a theologian who decided a priori that there was a “real” spiritual world (an oxymoron). With no time, there is no cause since “cause” implies and event in time.

 

t′ = γ(t − vx/c2) ,

x′ = γ(x − vt) , (1)

y′ = y , z′ = z ,

where γ is defined as γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2.

 

And therefore there is no supernatural "world" and no causation without time.

 

God wears invisible underwear.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Yes, yes, YES!

 

On their own terms the logic fails. This is exactly what I concluded as well. Very nicely stated.

[par4dcourse]

Yes, yes, YES!

 

On their own terms the logic fails. This is exactly what I concluded as well. Very nicely stated.

 

I completely agree.

[Rev. Dr. Sparki Hooker]

This reminds me of something my high school bible teacher would always say: "God cannot do something which is outside of his nature."

 

I love the "not" part.

[Shyone]

This reminds me of something my high school bible teacher would always say: "God cannot do something which is outside of his nature."

 

I love the "not" part.

This is actually similar to the apology for the paradoxes. To ask, "Can god make a rock that is too heavy for god to lift?" is to ask something frivolous and irrelevent. And they also "define" gods actions as those that do not create logical paradoxes. Why ask if god can make a square circle if it isn't something in god's "nature."

 

Or something like that.

[Ouroboros]

This reminds me of something my high school bible teacher would always say: "God cannot do something which is outside of his nature."

 

I love the "not" part.

It's all too silly, isn't it?

 

So God, according to Christians, are not nature itself, and nature is not God, but God has a nature of being something, and it is supernatural, i.e. not natural.

[Shyone]

This reminds me of something my high school bible teacher would always say: "God cannot do something which is outside of his nature."

 

I love the "not" part.

It's all too silly, isn't it?

 

So God, according to Christians, are not nature itself, and nature is not God, but God has a nature of being something, and it is supernatural, i.e. not natural.

Naturally!

[Guest end3]

I’ve been thinking…

 

Omniscience.

Christians say God is omniscient. To be omniscient means to know "everything", but in order to know if someone or something knows everything, we must know everything there is to know and have a way of assessing whether the person or thing knows everything. IOW, to know a being is omniscient requires omniscience.

 

To say that God has “middle knowledge” implies that one knows the mind of God, and exactly what God knows. One must be God or His equal to make this claim.

 

Omnipresence.

Christians say God is omnipresent. To be omnipresent means to be everywhere, but in order to know if something is everywhere, one must first have a way to look everywhere or to know that this substance is everywhere. That is, one must be able to assess the presence of the substance or being everywhere at the same time. IOW, to say that a being is omnipresent requires that the person making this affirmative statement be everywhere at the same time (or be omniscient).

 

Omnipotence.

Christians say God is omnipotent. To be omnipotent means having absolute power over everything, but in order to know if something or someone is omnipotent, we must be able to establish that there are indeed no limits on the beings power. To create such a test would require infinite resources and energy, because anything less than infinite resources would only test a finite amount of power. Merely stating that something is omnipotent does not establish by fiat that the being or person is omnipotent. In order to evaluate and verify omnipotence would require omnipotence (or omniscience).

 

Omnibenevolence.

Christians say that God is good. To be all good means that every action must be good. Actions [depicted in the bible] that have the same result as we would expect from human evil are still considered good, so "good" in this instance does not refer to the same good as humans mean when they use the word, so the word "good" does not apply.

 

Paradoxes.

Can a being that is omnipotent create an object that is too big for the being to move?

Can a being that knows the future do something other than what it knows will happen?

What is everything? What does it mean to know everything? Does it include knowing that it knows everything? And would that also include knowing that it knows that knows everything? And does this knowing knowledge continue infinitely?

 

The omnipotence and omniscience paradox can be summed up as "Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?" If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.

 

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

 

If the properties of god are incomprehensible to mere mortals, then they have no meaning for us. They are, in fact, meaningless.

 

You know of the defense that children killed on the order of god were destined for heaven, or that they were saved from hell, because dead children get a ticket straight to heaven? Here's a little ditty about that:

 

A child has died. He stands before God in heaven and asks: "Why did I die so young, without a chance to know the world you gave me?"

 

God responds: "Because, child, I see all time, and I knew that you would grow up to be wicked, and that would break my heart. I brought you home now so that I could bring you home, before you were lost to me."

 

Whereupon a great lament was heard, and the souls in Hell cried out, "Why, then, did you not save us, Lord, while you still could?"

 

I see most of this first section under the category of our ability to see the complete picture based on the evidence in our realm. As it makes reference to a Heavenly realm, we could only be subject to the evidence of a created blob of something/realm that has "time", Could this be the ultimate test? I think surely.....set up so we have a choice between X and Y, but there still remains a Z?

 

 

The Supernatural

 

Part One: Detectable but Unpredictable

 

If the supernatural is “detectable but unpredictable”, then we still would have no idea of what it is. Anything that has been described as “supernatural” could very well fit into this vague description including ghosts and fairies. Ghosts are detectable (people have seen them and give testimonial evidence and there have been photographs and even perhaps electronic signals) but really unpredictable. I’ve never actually seen one. Fairies have the same characteristics, and people claim to have seen them as well. There was a famous photograph of fairies, but it seems it was faked in a case of paranormal pious fraud. They too are unpredictable. I’ve never seen one of them either.

 

UFOs have been thought to be natural since they were assumed to have come from another place, but then they too are “detectable but unpredictable”. In fact, they seem to materialize within the atmosphere (since they have not been detected outside of the atmosphere), so it would appear that they exist in another dimension… or, more likely, “outside of the physical universe.”

 

And when your child comes home unpredictably late and you ask, “Where have you been?” he might answer, “Outside the physical universe.” And there is no way to dispute that. You can only say, “Don’t let that happen again!”

Certainly a possibility for me.

 

Part Two: Outside of the Physical Universe

 

I started wondering a while back when did a theologian came up with the idea that God was “outside of the physical universe.” It certainly wasn’t the case in the days of the Old Testament. Or the New Testament for that matter.

 

God was a burning bush, or a cloud that followed the Arc of the Covenant and even hung around the tabernacle. Men wrestled with God, and God spoke with them.

 

But God spent more and more time outside of the earth’s atmosphere when the miracles stopped. He was not too far outside though, and the medieval cosmologies put God’s Throne somewhere just beyond the sphere of the stars:

 

The Ptolemaic order of spheres from Earth outward is:

1. Moon

2. Mercury

3. Venus

4. Sun

5. Mars

6. Jupiter

7. Saturn

8. Fixed Stars

9. Sphere of Prime Mover

The Jewish Cosmology was a bit less complicated: The third heaven is a Jewish expression for that heaven which was beyond (1) the air, and (2) beyond the sun and stars; the secret place of the Almighty.

What modern theologian claimed authorship for the “outside of the physical universe” “location” of heaven, and when did he do it? It would have to be modern, and it would have developed after the invention of the telescope (and the acceptance of the Copernican and Keplerian Heliocentric system). After all, people could watch God changing his underwear with a good telescope – if he were there.

 

I suppose the Greek gods left Olympus when people started climbing mountains…

 

It seems the phrase, and indeed the concept, was “invented” by Arthur C. Custance, PhD and documented in a paper written between 1957 and 1967. He based his concept on Einstein’s theory of general relativity (http://www.custance.org/old/time/) and Big Bang cosmology.

 

But, according to the theory of relativity, if matter and its motion disappeared there would no longer be any space or time.

 

This in itself is difficult enough for anyone who has not reflected upon it. But there is an equally important corollary: namely, that in a spiritual world (in which matter has no place) the same situation would exist--there could be no passage of time. This would be a real world which either existed in the absence of a physical world altogether or existed alongside a physical world but without any dependence upon it. In either situation there need not be any experience of time as we understand it. If this spiritual world is thought of as existing in the absence of a physical world, it would be, as it were, "before" the Creation--that is to say, before Genesis 1:1.

 

And we can fathom it on paper but don't give it any credibility in our reality? It makes me think of Star Trek when I watched it as a kid and thought no way will that every happen...but low and behold today....the new weapons that zap you without bullets?

 

 

Now you know. God disappeared from the universe into the void of nonexistence less than 100 years ago. He was disappeared by a theologian who decided a priori that there was a “real” spiritual world (an oxymoron). With no time, there is no cause since “cause” implies and event in time.

 

t′ = γ(t − vx/c2) ,

x′ = γ(x − vt) , (1)

y′ = y , z′ = z ,

where γ is defined as γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2.

 

And therefore there is no supernatural "world" and no causation without time.

 

God wears invisible underwear.

 

I guess you lost me here. Before Gen 1:1 could have been the timeless and Gen 1:1 is a reality in time? What did I miss?

[Ouroboros]

I guess you lost me here. Before Gen 1:1 could have been the timeless and Gen 1:1 is a reality in time? What did I miss?

I'm really tired of seeing comments like that.

 

How can something be BEFORE the START of TIME?

 

How can there be a pixie before pixies began to exist?

 

If you create a painting, what painting was that painting before it became a painting?

 

Time-Zero is the FIRST TIME.

 

Something BEFORE Time-Zero CANNOT exist.

 

Before you typed your message, what message had you typed?

 

Before you started your computer, what software was running on it?

[Guest end3]

I guess you lost me here. Before Gen 1:1 could have been the timeless and Gen 1:1 is a reality in time? What did I miss?

I'm really tired of seeing comments like that.

 

How can something be BEFORE the START of TIME?

 

How can there be a pixie before pixies began to exist?

 

If you create a painting, what painting was that painting before it became a painting?

 

Time-Zero is the FIRST TIME.

 

Something BEFORE Time-Zero CANNOT exist.

 

Before you typed your message, what message had you typed?

 

Before you started your computer, what software was running on it?

 

Could it not reference our natural physical time? If I filled up a balloon with water and said here is the beginning of time for the "balloon water universe", T(2)?

[Shyone]

Could it not reference our natural physical time? If I filled up a balloon with water and said here is the beginning of time for the "balloon water universe", T(2)?

I don't understand that, but today I'm not understanding much. Please forgive me.

 

I have a mental picture of "timelessness." I don't know if it could possibly correspond to "reality" because we have no experience of timelessness. Our universe, lives and bodies all are within the dimension of time.

 

But picture this: A moment frozen in time. No movement, no heartbeat, no thought, nothing happening. Even worse than a "frozen moment" would be a moment with nothing else. No mass, pitch black (not even any photons), nothing to move.

 

It is even hard to fathom what this means. The absence of time would be - nothing. It wouldn't "last" for any length of "time" because there would be no time.

 

The one thing time means is change. Nothing to change, so no change. Nothing. A lot like death I would think.

[Guest end3]

Could it not reference our natural physical time? If I filled up a balloon with water and said here is the beginning of time for the "balloon water universe", T(2)?

I don't understand that, but today I'm not understanding much. Please forgive me.

 

I have a mental picture of "timelessness." I don't know if it could possibly correspond to "reality" because we have no experience of timelessness. Our universe, lives and bodies all are within the dimension of time.

 

But picture this: A moment frozen in time. No movement, no heartbeat, no thought, nothing happening. Even worse than a "frozen moment" would be a moment with nothing else. No mass, pitch black (not even any photons), nothing to move.

 

It is even hard to fathom what this means. The absence of time would be - nothing. It wouldn't "last" for any length of "time" because there would be no time.

 

The one thing time means is change. Nothing to change, so no change. Nothing. A lot like death I would think.

 

Antlerman is the king of describing God as "Nothing". All I am trying to describe is a universe, our universe(the balloon), that has "time" within its realm. Is there something outside of our universe, that is timeless, and associated properties that are not defined within our universe? I don't know, but doesn't math allude to some similar thought, but can we measure it in any possible sense? I realize it is a stretch, but Buddhists and Christians believe something is out there.

[Ouroboros]

Could it not reference our natural physical time? If I filled up a balloon with water and said here is the beginning of time for the "balloon water universe", T(2)?

The problem with time is that it has to exist for things to be "before" something else. You can't have "before" a time that is the "first" time.

 

You can't have -1 if 0 is the first number. Unless... Unless you say that time started at -1, but the of course, what existed at -2? How can -2 exist if -1 was first? So we solve it with: -2 existed first! But hey, what about -3? Didn't Time -3 exist too? So let's include that one too. And -4, and -5, -6, -7, ... infinite negative regression of time. So time never started...

 

Like Shyone points out, time is a measurement of change. If change can happen, then time IS happening.

 

Or put it this way, when God "caused," time must have existed. So time must have existed before the Universe began to exist, and before Time began to exist, which means: Time began before Time began for an infinite regression.

[Brakeman]

A few points I'd like to comment about:

 

First the "detectable but not predictable" is a pure dodge. If something is real, it or it's effects and be independently observed. The need for predictability is solely for observation.

 

Another point about time:

Have you ever thought about the creation of a open ended ray, geometrically speaking?

For instance suppose you were a god and you decided to start making dimensions.

You decide to start on the x dimension, or width. Is there a beginning to width? Things may have a width, the universe may have a width, but the dimension (x)width, does not have width. It has no beginning and no end.

The same is obviously true on the next two dimensions Y & Z. But why do so many of us think that the 4th dimension, time, in not a dimensional open ended ray like the first three?

Thus a god would have to make all of time at the same time, so to speak.

On the surface this sounds ok for theists but then they discover that this negates all of their creational stories about order.

[Guest end3]

Could it not reference our natural physical time? If I filled up a balloon with water and said here is the beginning of time for the "balloon water universe", T(2)?

The problem with time is that it has to exist for things to be "before" something else. You can't have "before" a time that is the "first" time.

 

You can't have -1 if 0 is the first number. Unless... Unless you say that time started at -1, but the of course, what existed at -2? How can -2 exist if -1 was first? So we solve it with: -2 existed first! But hey, what about -3? Didn't Time -3 exist too? So let's include that one too. And -4, and -5, -6, -7, ... infinite negative regression of time. So time never started...

 

Like Shyone points out, time is a measurement of change. If change can happen, then time IS happening.

 

Or put it this way, when God "caused," time must have existed. So time must have existed before the Universe began to exist, and before Time began to exist, which means: Time began before Time began for an infinite regression.

 

Unaccounted matter ring a bell? Teasing. From matterless to matter wouldn't account for the start of time? Seriously, this is hard to mentally consider being a dumb fisherman/farmer type.

[Ouroboros]

Unaccounted matter ring a bell? Teasing. From matterless to matter wouldn't account for the start of time? Seriously, this is hard to mentally consider being a dumb fisherman/farmer type.

Whatever.