Is Nature Omnipotent?

[Don Mc]

One of the common criticisms of theism is that omnipotence seems like a meaningless escape clause. The basic idea is that whenever Christian theists like me run up against a logical challenge such as an argument from evil, say, or a critique of the shrouded ontology of the Trinity, we can always handily resolve the dilemma by a blanket appeal to God's "mysterious ways" and thereby escape the burden of having to make sense of apparent contradictions. Though I think answers are available to such dilemmas beyond simply "God's mysterious ways," I do think the objection is a fair one on its face.

But I also think the kind of scientific-naturalistic view of the world shared so by many atheists faces a similar criticism. On scientific naturalism, nature, much like God, is credited with creating the universe from nothing (or else existing eternally), creating life from nonliving chemical constituents (the "dust of the earth"), and bestowing humanity with intelligence, an appreciation for beauty, and a sense of morality – among other seeming miracles. I've heard serious naturalist philosophers propose that even if it could be verified that Jesus rose from the dead, that would not mean there could not be a naturalistic explanation for it (and I think they're right). And the paradoxes of general relativity or quantum mechanics seem no less confounding than the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ. It appears that as understood by advocates of scientific naturalism, nature, no less than God, can do (and explain) anything.

Questions for debate/dialogue:

1. In principle, can nature do anything God can do?
2. If so, does it require a metaphysical assumption of some sort to believe nature can do anything God can do?
3. If not, what limits does nature face that God does not?

[Zzyzx]

If you want to argue against a theological concept, I am happy for you to focus on the resurrection, but not so keen for you to be directing your argument in my at my own, unless it is specifically answering the simulation theory [theism] of which I am addressing.

You opened that door with “Claims of resurrections are harder to find nonsupporting evidence.” I addressed that point specifically.

This thread is not devoted to 'simulation theory'. Feel free to open one to discuss the topic.

[William]

If you want to argue against a theological concept, I am happy for you to focus on the resurrection, but not so keen for you to be directing your argument in my at my own, unless it is specifically answering the simulation theory [theism] of which I am addressing.

You opened that door with “Claims of resurrections are harder to find nonsupporting evidence.” I addressed that point specifically.

This thread is not devoted to 'simulation theory'. Feel free to open one to discuss the topic.

This topic is suitable in that regard. If you don't want to consider the Simulation Theory as legitimate argument, you are - as is everyone - entitled to keep your opinions about it, to yourself.

Also, a quick review shows that it was you who brought up the subject of Claims of resurrection.

Go well...

[Zzyzx]

If you don't want to consider the Simulation Theory as legitimate argument, you are - as is everyone - entitled to keep your opinions about it, to yourself.

Correction: This is a debate site. Those who regard 'simulation theory' as illegitimate are welcome to respond however they wish (within Forum Rules and Guidelines). No point of view is given preferential treatment.

[William]

If you don't want to consider the Simulation Theory as legitimate argument, you are - as is everyone - entitled to keep your opinions about it, to yourself.

Correction: This is a debate site. Those who regard 'simulation theory' as illegitimate are welcome to respond however they wish (within Forum Rules and Guidelines). No point of view is given preferential treatment.

I am glad if you have changed your mind then. Shall we continue on the focus of Simulation Theory in regard to the OP subject? Have you decided to drop the strategy of bringing in unrelated opinions to 'debate' with?

[Zzyzx]

If you don't want to consider the Simulation Theory as legitimate argument, you are - as is everyone - entitled to keep your opinions about it, to yourself.

Correction: This is a debate site. Those who regard 'simulation theory' as illegitimate are welcome to respond however they wish (within Forum Rules and Guidelines). No point of view is given preferential treatment.

I am glad if you have changed your mind then.

Changed mind?

Shall we continue on the focus of Simulation Theory in regard to the OP subject?

'Simulation theory' is NOT the focus of this thread. Consult the OP if in doubt.

Although members are entitled to post their 'theories', no matter how irrational, no one is required to regard those 'theories' as anything more than flights of fantasy.

[William]

Changed mind?

Yep. Which signifies one has an 'open mind'.

I am not suggesting that your mind is totally open - I am suggesting that I see signs that you could turn...

'Simulation theory' is NOT the focus of this thread. Consult the OP if in doubt.

Since Simulation Theory involves creation [nature] - then I am in no doubt that any contrary opinion one has on "what the focus of the thread is about", is false opinion.

Although members are entitled to post their 'theories', no matter how irrational, no one is required to regard those 'theories' as anything more than flights of fantasy.

Your opinion on Simulation Theory is thus noted.

You think it as an "irrational flight of fancy".

Would you agree with my understanding of your opinion on the matter?

[Zzyzx]

Changed mind?

Yep. Which signifies one has an 'open mind'.

I am not suggesting that your mind is totally open - I am suggesting that I see signs that you could turn...

What, exactly (verbatim quotes) indicates that I have changed my mind about?

Although members are entitled to post their 'theories', no matter how irrational, no one is required to regard those 'theories' as anything more than flights of fantasy.

Your opinion on Simulation Theory is thus noted.

Read my statement again. It does NOT state anything about my opinion.

You think it as an "irrational flight of fancy".

Read it again. Not only does your 'interpretation' erroneously characterize my position, but it also mistakes 'fantasy' for 'fancy'.

Would you agree with my understanding of your opinion on the matter?

No. 'Irrational flight of fantasy' is much more generous than my opinion (but Forum Rules and decorum prevent me from being more specific).

[William]

Changed mind?

Yep. Which signifies one has an 'open mind'.

I am not suggesting that your mind is totally open - I am suggesting that I see signs that you could turn...

What, exactly (verbatim quotes) indicates that I have changed my mind about?

Although members are entitled to post their 'theories', no matter how irrational, no one is required to regard those 'theories' as anything more than flights of fantasy.

Your opinion on Simulation Theory is thus noted.

Read my statement again. It does NOT state anything about my opinion.

You think it as an "irrational flight of fancy".

Read it again. Not only does your 'interpretation' erroneously characterize my position, but it also mistakes 'fantasy' for 'fancy'.

Would you agree with my understanding of your opinion on the matter?

No. 'Irrational flight of fantasy' is much more generous than my opinion (but Forum Rules and decorum prevent me from being more specific).

What, exactly (verbatim quotes) indicates that I have changed my mind about?

It's just a feeling I get when I read your replies...I might be seeing something that isn't really there...time will tell, but do take into account I clarified things by writing that I was not suggesting that your mind is totally open.

You can clear this up for the reader if you want to. Am I mistaken?

Read my statement again. It does NOT state anything about my opinion.

So what is the statement then? A claim? Please also clear this up for the reader.

'Irrational flight of fantasy' is much more generous than my opinion (but Forum Rules and decorum prevent me from being more specific).

Speaking of forum rules, no matter how much one states their opinion, their opinion doesn't magically start to mean anything.

But, since it is not your opinion, is the reader able to identify it as a claim you are making? I am sure you could agree that whatever it is, as it presently stands, it simply appears to be opinion. It may not be how you might wish to express your actually opinion, but it is still opinion nonetheless.

Saying it is 'a more generous than your opinion' does not magically make it 'not an opinion'.

So what is it? An opinion or a claim or something else entirely?

[Zzyzx]

So what is it? An opinion or a claim or something else entirely?

It is Forum policy to allow all points of view to be expressed provided they are civil and are not in violation of Forum Rules. If they happen to be totally irrational and/or pure fantasy, they are still permitted.

That is Forum policy, not my opinion. If in doubt consult Forum Rules and Guidelines or contact Admin for clarification.

It is also Forum policy (and Rule) to debate the topic of threads. The topic of this thread is NOT 'simulation theory' and is NOT your 'feeling' about another member's post.

[William]

One of the common criticisms of theism is that omnipotence seems like a meaningless escape clause. The basic idea is that whenever Christian theists like me run up against a logical challenge such as an argument from evil, say, or a critique of the shrouded ontology of the Trinity, we can always handily resolve the dilemma by a blanket appeal to God's "mysterious ways" and thereby escape the burden of having to make sense of apparent contradictions. Though I think answers are available to such dilemmas beyond simply "God's mysterious ways," I do think the objection is a fair one on its face.

But I also think the kind of scientific-naturalistic view of the world shared so by many atheists faces a similar criticism. On scientific naturalism, nature, much like God, is credited with creating the universe from nothing (or else existing eternally), creating life from nonliving chemical constituents (the "dust of the earth"), and bestowing humanity with intelligence, an appreciation for beauty, and a sense of morality – among other seeming miracles. I've heard serious naturalist philosophers propose that even if it could be verified that Jesus rose from the dead, that would not mean there could not be a naturalistic explanation for it (and I think they're right). And the paradoxes of general relativity or quantum mechanics seem no less confounding than the Trinity or the Incarnation of Christ. It appears that as understood by advocates of scientific naturalism, nature, no less than God, can do (and explain) anything.

Questions for debate/dialogue:

1. In principle, can nature do anything God can do?
2. If so, does it require a metaphysical assumption of some sort to believe nature can do anything God can do?
3. If not, what limits does nature face that God does not?

A great OP.

I understand the answer to #1 is "Yes...Yes" /|\

Of course, this is dependent upon what one thinks a god should be able to do, to be recognized as a god. The planet specific has many of the attributes of a god, as far as the general understanding of 'god' applies.

#2 Not necessarily, but in light of Simulation Theory - the Universe is a Creation - therefore implying a Creator, therefore implying at least one alternate reality from which our one is sourced.

Essentially The Creator of this simulation can insert [whatever] into the simulation, even making it appear that it is 'nature' at work - effectively hiding behind the 'wall' the simulation creates between realms.

If Simulation Theory did not exist, [that it does is yet another sign] then whatever happens in this universe is caused by this universe and we can at least make the assumption that it is all happening inside the brain of an entity since we see the similar patterns as possible evidence of this being the case...this does not make the entity 'metaphysical' as it is all happening in the one place.

Whatever the truth...one cannot easily escape [explain away with hand-waving-words] the idea of a Creator/Creation.

[link]Your post frankly deserves more thought and more of a reply than I have given it, but I do appreciate your contributions to the thread so far.

Simulation Theory is accepted as relevant to the thread topic by Don Mc, the thread author.
Indeed, it [Simulation Theory] has been understood and responded to in this very thread with actual rational thinking/reasoning rather than just simply ungracious opinion.

The evidence in the thread correspondence supports Simulation Theory is applicable to the thread topic.

So while in the opinion of some, Simulation Theory might be nothing more than an irrational flight of fancy, opinions are nothing to be overly concerned about dear readers, so I would encourage those of you who will, to see such opinion in that light.

On the other hand, we are all [supposedly] here to learn... so if Simulation Theory is actually an "irrational flight of fancy" and as a claim can be verified [shown to be] as described, then - I for one - am keen to learn why this is the case.

It [Simulation Theory] may be difficult for individuals to integrate into their core knowledge/belief systems, but impossible?

Show me [Simulation Theory] is irrational.

Until such a time, I see no reason why Simulation Theory shouldn't be on the table with the rest.