For my first post, this may be quite long. If you dont have a good chunk of time right now, you should come back to it later. It comes up a lot in discussions with theists of all stripes, either directly or indirectly, what is the definition of a god? Its an important question. If you cant define a god to some kind of reasonable extent, then that gods existence is irrelevant either way. If it has an impact of any kind on reality, that impact at least can be defined. If no definition can be set at all, then the god has had no effect, and has no meaning whether it exists or not. To be sure, many religions have had many different definitions, ranging from entirely inhuman and immaterial spirit beings of varying power, to anthropomorphized giants with a relatively small subset of limited but still superhuman abilities, all the way to otherwise indefinable entities with supposedly unlimited capabilities. Throughout the cultural development of the various pockets of humanity over the last 100,000 years or so, the definitions of those beings responsible for creating and managing the world outside our ken has changed according to our understanding of that world. When we knew nothing, gods had little to do, and were responsible only for the things we could immediately experience in some way. As we came to know some of realitys mechanics, gods took on more responsibilities to make up for our lack of understanding of the fundamentals of those mechanics. And so we come to the modern era, in which our actual knowledge in the grand scheme is minuscule still, but sufficient in functionality that we can dismiss absolutely all of the lesser god-beings of history without a second thought. All that leaves, is the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, immortal, utterly perfect entity. Im not going to get into whether god as defined in the bible is perfect or not. What this post is about, is whether or not such a being could ever exist at all, regardless of context. I say no, and heres why... - Omnipotence is inherently, and irresolvably, paradoxical. The classic, can he create an object that he himself can never destroy, (to which, the answer is irrelevant) is a good example of this. So at best, such an entity can only be ultimately powerful within the context of the reality it inhabits. - Extra-dimensionality. The common claim is that such a being is intrinsically beyond our reality and its constraints. To which I have no position, myself. The simple fact is, if such a being exists extra-dimensionally, then its powers are confined to that reality. If it enters our reality, or projects its capabilities remotely into our reality, itself, or those effects, become subject to the laws of our reality. The only other option, is that it either locally or universally alters our reality to conform to its capabilities, which changes the entire dynamic of how we perceive its powers in the first place. If such a being is limited by the rules of our universe, then all of its capabilities are potentially within our grasp. If such a being changes the rules of our universe so that its abilities are greater, then we are subject instead to those laws, and its capabilities are therefore still potentially within our grasp. Is it reasonable then to consider any being a god, when its powers are, at best, something we can perhaps match one day, through no more than mere effort and ingenuity? What do you all think?
Posted on: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:00:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015