A Finite God and Omnipotence

[Divine Insight]

Can it be said that a finite God could be omnipotent?

I've heard many arguments that an omnipotent God is logically impossible because there could be no such thing as a God who could make an object so heavy that even he couldn't lift it.

But that assumes that God is infinite in what it can do.

What if a God is finite in what it can do? Could it still be said to be omnipotent?

I think it could be said to be omnipotent within this context.

Let's say that all possible things that can be done are indeed finite. That might be hard to imagine, but for the sake of argument let's assume this to be true.

If this is the case, and a God can do every possible thing in that finite set of possibilities, then wouldn't it be fair to say that this God is "omnipotent" in this context?

After all, if God can do everything that is possible to do then God could be said to be omnipotent in that situation. The fact that we can describe things that are impossible (like making an object too heavy to lift) wouldn't apply if that specific possibility simply doesn't exist within the finite set of possibilities.

In other words, the saying "With God all things are possible", could simply mean that, with God, everything that is contained within the set of possibilities are possible. If something is not in this finite set, then it's simply not within the realm of possibility.

In fact, if we look at this from a human point of view we can see why it would make sense to say that with God all things are possible.

Imagine that all possible things are finite in scope. However, within that finite set, humans on their own, can only do a small subset of those possibilities. Not only now, before forever. They will always be restricted to a small subset of what's possible no matter how technologically advanced they become.

But if God can do everything that's possible (albeit a finite number of things) then it still makes sense to say that "With God all things are possible". Because in this context it simply means that if anything is possible then God can do it. And if it's not possible to do then it's just not in the set of possibilities at all.

In other words, there is nothing within the set of possibilities that God can't do.

Therefore, in this context it makes sense to say that this God is "omnipotent" because God can do anything that's possible to do. And if something is impossible (like God making an object too heavy that even he can't lift it) then that's just not in the set of things that are possible in reality.

It seems to me that it would make sense to say that this God is "omnipotent" in this given context. This God can do everything that's possible to do. That's pretty omnipotent right there.

[Divine Insight]

You need to look at evidence.

Evolution or Creation.

There is no experiment that can be performed to prove Creation false.
Why? Because in every experiment the one performing the test represents an intelligent mind. So the scientist would represent God. Evolution would only be correct if it was happening all the time. The fact it has not happened in millions of years proves there was a cause. That cause is God.

Your thesis on evolution is totally wrong. Evolution is happening constantly right before our very eyes. Ask any anyone who is familiar with viruses or insects. The fact that they evolve very quickly is what makes them very difficult to control and predict.

Where did you get your information about evolution? From Creationists?

By the way it's non-sequitur that if things aren't evolving there had to have been a God who created them anyway. Also, imagine how inept a creator God would need to have been if one did exist. The vast majority of species that he created have become extinct, there if a creator God exists, he either doesn't know how to design things well, or he's just fooling around trying lots of different things just for kicks.

Finally, why would a designer God design animals to each each other?

Is the Bible from God.

If I put five different people in different rooms with different back grounds and asked them to write the same fictitious story and have it line up chronologically to each other, what would I get? It is impossible to have them write the same story.
Take those same five people and tell them to relate the truth of an event they had in common. Then things will line up. Now think about the Bible, the background of these writers are diverse to say the least. Some were farmers, fishermen, shepherds, prophets, judges, kings, physicians, court officials, hunters, accountants, slaves, singers, young men, older men, you name they had it. Forty men wrote a chronological story that not only lines up with history, geography, and science, it has proven itself true against just about every test man has made to disprove it. No other book can make that claim. But that is what we could expect from a book that is actually from God.

Sorry, but you may not be aware of this but the same thing can be said for things like Greek Mythology. All cultures that write mythologies naturally include real historical events and chronology because that's what they know. It doesn't make their superstitious tales true.

Also, you seem to be forgetting that these authors didn't work in a vacuum. In fact, the very early parts of the Bible were passed down by word of mouth and not as written texts. Therefore the rumors had plenty of time to be refined over the ages.

Finally, if you put five people in a room who had all been exposed to rumors of say Elvis or Micheal Jackson or even Alice in Wonderland, and asked them all to write stories about these people or characters, their stories would naturally have a lot in common.

Same thing holds true for the Bible. The rumors were very common long before they were written down. Just look at the New Testament. Mark wrote down his superstitions, then Matthew and Luke retold them with additional absurdities. And then finally we see the stories Mark had written being added to in an effort to include the new stuff that Matthew and Luke had made up.

People who make claims that the Bible is a fable, fairy tale, or superstitious, are the one who have not studied the tests the Bible has undergone and passed.

The Bible hasn't passed any convincing or compelling tests. If it had then historians would be treating it as compelling history. But obviously they don't.

These people make statements without study. It is easy to make claims without proof. Without evidence our claims and conclusions are only guesses. I find that each generation attacks the claims and conclusions of the previous generation without studying or researching why that generation came to their conclusion. By claiming everyone is guessing it adds strength to their own conclusions, and encourages others not try.

The Religious community itself has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible does not contain any meaningful or consistent story. Just look at the confused state of this religion.

You need to include all of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, since they are all based upon these same fundamental fables. Yet all three fragmented factions of this religious fables have come to dramatically different conclusions.

Christianity alone is probably the most confused and disagreeing faction of the Biblical fables of all. Christianity is split into two major factions: Catholicism, and the Protestantisms. (there even exist other smaller factions that have totally different claims about the "Biblical God" and Jesus).

The Protestantisms are so wildly diverse and in disagreement with each other that the ones at the opposite ends of the spectrum are hardly even recognizable as having come from the same original folklore.

Christianity can easily boast of having more disagreeing sects than any other world religion. Obviously these Christian sects have no clue what they are talking about. They can't even agree with each other. Neither can their theologians convince each other of their radically different views.

We even see this same kind of division and confusion within the Catholic church. Popes over the ages have had wildly different views on what they think the God of the Bible expects from people.

The fact that the Bible is nothing but man-made superstitious fables is proven by the Abrahamic Religions themselves.

Does it matter what you believe in life?

If your answer is no.

Then there is no need to debate any conclusion, for we are all true.

But if your answer is yes.

Then you need to study the tests the Bible has passed.
Because the bible is the truest book to ever exist.

But what you have just stated here is nothing more than your own personal claim that has no support whatsoever.

For one thing which Bible are you even talking about? Even modern day Bibles aren't in agreement go read this thread:

Bible versions and translations (Engilish only)

It simply isn't true that the Bible has passed any convincing or compelling tests.

If that were true, then there would only exist one Biblical Religion instead of countless disagreeing factions.

You can't ignore either Judaism or Islam since they are both based on these very same original fables.

Your claim that the Bible has passed any tests is nothing but an empty opinion that has no convincing or compelling support at all.

In fact, the Jews have an air-tight argument for why the Christian Christ could not have been their promised messiah.

In the prophecy of the Old Testament the messiah was supposed to be handed the throne of King David and become the King of the Jews. He was also supposed to bring peace among all nations. Jesus did neither of these things. Jesus was crucified on charges of apostasy like a common criminal. No king there.

So Christianity has no merit at all.

If we were going to give this religion any merit at all we would need to stick with either Judaism or Islam. Forget Christianity since it can't possibly be true.

But even Judaism and Islam already have major self-contradictions in their original Old Testament fables. So the self-contradictions of this religion have already proven that it is in valid long before Christianity was ever invented.

So if anything the Bible is the greatest "Fail" in all of history.

If we want to consider the possibility of a "God" or a mystical essence to life our own hope would be to turn to the Eastern Mystical religions, like say Buddhism.

Hebrew mythology (i.e. the Bible) is clearly false and cannot be resurrected. It's simply too self-contradictory.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 10 by usassociatesllc@hotmail.c]

"
You need to look at evidence.

Evolution or Creation. "

Evolution part of Creation.

[usassociatesllc@hotmail.c]

If viruses evolved we would not be having this discussion.
Viruses can only replicate inside the cells of another organism. Without life viruses die. After millions of years these viruses have not evolved outside of living organism.

Can anyone show me a virus that can live extensively without outside assistance?

According to evolution this is happening, nevertheless according to science it hasn't ever happened. If evolution is happening constantly then we could record it. There would be science papers, books, videos, classes, etc. proving evolution. Once recorded it could be easy to replicate. Nevertheless, no one can purposely build the simplest form of prokaryotic cell. Yet people say this is happening right now? Can they provide proof? That would be the discovery of the century. That would mean in space, cells would just appear. Once again people make conclusions without evidence. Without proof they make a conclusion, one that scientists have been looking for support for hundreds of years.

People say God does not know how to design things well, then create life. Can they create any life? Do they know the building blocks of life? Do they know the components of a cell? Do they know the size of a cell? The inner workings of a cell?Do they know the size of the information in DNA? Do they know what RNA is?
Can they copy one cell?

Yet people say the design is not well?
The fact that people can formulate thoughts and contemplate their existence should scream that they were created. But because they only make conclusions based on lack of knowledge, it is understandable why they say evolution is true.

Greek Mythology huh, what year was Zeus discovered? What year did Zeus birth Hercules? Who was king during that time? What city was he born?

If the same could be said of Greek Mythology why is it not said?

Where is the proof? Or was it proven false? Because there was no proof. I am willing to see this experiment that people say we can take five people and build a chronological essay. Do such ones know what I mean when I say Chronological? Based on years of occurrence? Based on a Timeline?

I did not mention religion. I mentioned the Bible. I did not mention any translations. I mentioned the Bible. What is the name of the oldest scrolls ever written? How were they discovered?

If a person feels the Bible has not passed any convincing or compelling tests, then I know they have no schooling or professional academic background. Very limited knowledge.

All their conclusions are purely speculations.
They do not want an answer to their conclusions, they just want to speculate.

[Divine Insight]

There would be science papers, books, videos, classes, etc. proving evolution.

Science doesn't "prove" anything. It simply reports the overwhelming evidence. And there are tons of books, papers, videos, and classes, etc. that teach the overwhelming evidence to anyone who is interested in learning.

That would mean in space, cells would just appear.

What?

What do you think evolution is? Magic? The scientific theory of evolution does not make any claim that in space cells would "just appear". That's not even remotely close to what the scientific theory of evolution states. The scientific theory of evolution is actually a very rational explanation for how the observed phenomenon of evolution actually occurs. It's a rational explanation, not a proclamation of magic.

People say God does not know how to design things well, then create life. Can they create any life? Do they know the building blocks of life? Do they know the components of a cell? Do they know the size of a cell? The inner workings of a cell?Do they know the size of the information in DNA? Do they know what RNA is?
Can they copy one cell?

It's non-sequitur to suggest that because humans may not know all the details of a natural process this implies that some imagined invisible God did it.

That's not a rational argument.

Yet people say the design is not well?

The proof of that is in the many species that died off because they weren't designed well enough to deal with their changing environment. Also keep in mind that if a designer God is behind the environment then why does this God keep changing he environment? Couldn't he have designed a decent environment to begin with and just stick with that?

The idea that the universe was "intelligently designed" specifically for humans, obviously can't be true.

The fact that people can formulate thoughts and contemplate their existence should scream that they were created.

Why? If those characteristic scream for a creator then any proposed God who also has those abilities must also be screaming for a creator and so on.

Once again, your argument for a "need" for a creator is non-sequitur.

But because they only make conclusions based on lack of knowledge, it is understandable why they say evolution is true.

That's not the basis of the scientific theory of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution is an explanation that explains the observed phenomenon of evolution and it does so quite well. It not only tells us how things evolved but it also reveals to us how is it possible for us to engineer biological organisms. And this has already been done with predicable results.

If a person feels the Bible has not passed any convincing or compelling tests, then I know they have no schooling or professional academic background. Very limited knowledge.

All their conclusions are purely speculations.
They do not want an answer to their conclusions, they just want to speculate.

I've already provided proof positive of the confused status of the Abrahamic religions. Therefore your opinion noted above doesn't hold any water.

There are thousands of professional academics that see no merit in the Bible.

And even the Abrahamic theists who try to argue that the Bible has some sort of merit can't even convince each other.

So your claim people who don't recognize the Bible as having any merit have no schooling or professional academic background is clearly an unsupportable claim.

In fact, our most intelligent and best educated scientists tend to be atheists. The people who support religious superstitious tend to be the average masses.

I mean come on, Christianity has Jesus believing that the way to cure people is to cast evil demons out of them. Clearly Jesus had no clue about reality.

How many medical colleges teach their nurses and doctors to cast demons out of people?

That should tell you right there how little faith academia has in the Biblical superstitions. Even medical schools that are funded by theological institutions don't pretend that the superstitions they teach in their theology has any valid application in the real world.

Science has proven that it reigns supreme over religious superstition. Even the Catholic Church and the Pope know that much.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

"How many medical colleges teach their nurses and doctors to cast demons out of people?"

All those who understand what it means.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

"How many medical colleges teach their nurses and doctors to cast demons out of people?"

All those who understand what it means.

Well, if you are suggesting that it's just a metaphor then there are no such things as evil demons.

Also, why didn't Jesus then teach people the correct way to cure diseases if he wasn't using supernatural magic?

Jesus would have been far better off starting a medical school than spreading religious superstitions about an imagined life after death.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

"How many medical colleges teach their nurses and doctors to cast demons out of people?"

All those who understand what it means.

Well, if you are suggesting that it's just a metaphor then there are no such things as evil demons.

ME: Evil demons are evil people who have moved on.

Also, why didn't Jesus then teach people the correct way to cure diseases if he wasn't using supernatural magic?

ME: He did. By forgiveness of sins people were healed. This comes to the conclusion that the two are connected.

Jesus would have been far better off starting a medical school than spreading religious superstitions about an imagined life after death.

ME: Those who brand it as a religious superstition must have explored the realm of dying and came back to tell they could not find it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If viruses evolved we would not be having this discussion.
Viruses can only replicate inside the cells of another organism. Without life viruses die. After millions of years these viruses have not evolved outside of living organism.

Can anyone show me a virus that can live extensively without outside assistance?

Using mutation and rapid reproduction, viruses evolve very rapidly and with extraordinary effectiveness. Which is why they are so extraordinarily dangerous.

[Divine Insight]

ME: Those who brand it as a religious superstition must have explored the realm of dying and came back to tell they could not find it.

Why? Most people who place their faith in Hebrew mythology dismiss all other religions as nothing more than false superstitions. Yet they didn't explore those realms before arriving at their conclusion. In fact, man Christians aren't even familiar with what many other religions even have to say.

Also, scientific medicine works. Have you ever thought of that?

Do we really need to actually experience a proposed invisible and imaginary realm when we can easily see that the superstitions it's based upon are clearly false?

Also, by your reasoning, you could have no valid reason to dismiss the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unless, by your own criteria, you have actually been to that realm and come back to tell that you could not find it.

In fact, how would you even propose to do that? How do you go to a realm that doesn't exist and then come back and report that you didn't find it?

Does your own proposal really make any sense to you?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

"Do we really need to actually experience a proposed invisible and imaginary realm when we can easily see that the superstitions it's based upon are clearly false? "

How do you manage to see that?