h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"What happens when an immoveable object and an irresistable force collide."

A typical paradox, nay? One often discussed and thought of.

But now it has been compared to God. The question, "Well if God were omnipotent, it would be able to create a paradox, such as if he created an immoveable object and an irresistable force, would he not?"

One: The creation of a physical paradox, would, in theory, require an omnipotent being. However, as an omnipotent being, he would have free reign OVER the concept of paradox, thus making himself immune to it. Paradox means nothing to him. Neither would space, nor time, nor dimensions. For all we know, if he exists, he could've accidentally blown us apart a few million times, gone back in time, and corrected his problem. However, this also is impossible. See number two.

Two: God would be omniscient. As such, he would foresee ANY paradox he might create, OR any mistake he would make, thus making the above situation AGAIN impossible. For source of omniscience, refer to omnipotence of section one.

Three: If a paradox WERE to exist (which it cannot, see one and two), then it would cause the universe to cease to exist, as it would invalidate the nature of its own existence. Sort of like when you cause an error in a computer program, it has to stop running. Sort of. Use your imagination.



Another argument:

"God is all good.
God is omnipotent.
Yet Evil still exists."

What is wrong with this statement? As stated in the original entry in h2g2 entitled "Evil and the Christian God", God cannot be more than 2 of those. Or can he?

What is evil? It is a moral judgement based on our viewpoints and standards as society. By OUR viewpoints. By OUR standards. Not by God's. God did not create, or allow evil. It exists because we view it as such. God allowed it to exist because he has given us free reign over our thoughts under his own omnipotence, and thus, allows it.

"But the bible defines the evils that GOD set forth!"

The bible is a man-made work. If we use the bible to judge God, then he is a hypocrite. For example, one of the 10 commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." And yet God kills himself, in the bible.

"But his laws to US don't apply to HIM!"

Then you say God has double standards then.

"He can do that. He is omnipotent, after all."

But then he is not all good. That would show tyranny.

"Maybe not by OUR standards, after all, you said yourself that..."

By whose standards then?

"God's, of course!"

So you're admitting that everything that every single word that every single preacher has preached about the Goodness of God is false. Because, after all his standards don't align with ours. God could, theoretically, be responsible for every (in our eyes) BAD thing that has ever happened to us, correct? In his eyes, every single one of us could be evil.

The point is, evil is relative. There can be no one true definition of evil. It changes with our every societal whim. And if God were all good, and omnipotent, our society would HAVE to perfectly align with his idea of good. However, it is completely evident in the history of man, from prechrist to now, that our idea of good and evil has changed dramatically. We no longer condemn for things that would have caused execution earlier in time.

This turns us to 3 possible conclusions for this paragraph.

A: God is not all good. However, if this is true, God is not omnipotent, for an omnipotent being reverts the definition of Good to his own image. If God CHOOSES not to be all Good, then ALL of christianity as we know it is completely and utterly BUNK.

B: God is not omniscient, as he cannot SEE our evil. However, again, if this is true, God is not omnipotent, for an all powerful being makes himself all-knowing. See A.

C: God is not omnipotent, for he cannot control our societal whims. That makes him also not all good, and not all omniscient. He is a standard being.

"God... not omnipotent?"

Exactly. This means he is also... mortal. His powers are limited. His vision is limited. His existence... is limited. Perhaps... God is even already dead. There is no way to tell, for we would be lesser beings created by his power, just as biologists toy with making amino acids living via simulated generation in a lab.

Of course... assuming there was a God.

Through studies, scientists have all but proven the theories of evolution and natural selection. Bones have been found that display the evolution of man from as far back as astralopithicies (spelling?) time. We have observed the creation of planets via telescopy. We have seen it done, and how it could've been done. It is indeed possible for us to have been created without God.

"But God created the..."

Did he? Wouldn't he have had to manipulate it physically? If he is not omnipotent, as we have proved, he requires sustenance. He requires all these things, and most of all, he is PHYSICAL. Physical manipulation of EVERY planet's creation would be necessary. But planets continue to form even today under our observance without any physical assistance save the natural laws of science.



Quite simply, God's existence is so completely and utterly improbable, that it is infinitely impossible for him to exist. He cannot. He does not.

-Locke, Researcher of All Things Relevant and Irrelevant Alike.

Beg to differ, O surly one. God exists. He is alive and well, if a little full of self doubt at the moment, and last I saw him, he was at a cocktail party in this locale. You might have chosen the wrong place to try to disprove the existence of deities, as they are likely to answer back and demolish all your pretty theories. His sisters are also kicking around the joint and wreaking havoc.

A basic error you make is to assume that the human description of God is accurate. It's like a toddler trying to describe his parents--he tends to see them as all powerful, and hopes that they have his best interests at heart. However, toddlers are incapable of comprehending the forces that influence their parents and therefore react in an all-or-nothing way to them, either hurt and angry or happy and content, depending on the situation.

God is neither all good, nor is he all evil. He has a rather nasty self-serving streak in him, and can be a little cruel at times. Hasn't it occurred to you that he might have created paradoxes just to keep young lads scratching their heads and trying to make sense of life, the universe and everything, rather than stealing cars and joining gangs and committing other dastardly deeds? In everything there is a purpose....

First point is the difference between logical omnipotence and full omnipotence. Full omnipotence does, indeed, give rise to potential *real* paradoxes. Indeed, such a God could both exist and not exist at the same time. Logical omnipotence is omnipotence underneath logic - such that paradoxes cannot be created. If God created an irresistable force it would no longer be able to create an immovable wall, until the force was removed, but it would still be *logically* omnipotent.

More importantly than killing himself, God murders a whole bunch of Egyptian children, according to the bible...

Final note - if God is not omnipotent, he can still be omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Indeed, this is, perhaps, the nicest view of God we could have, though not one borne out by the Bible...

I think I've seen a daughter of His around the place, too...

Although I think it's safe to say he's not omnibenevolent...

He's not. Trust me on this one.

I rather enjoy Locke's theory. I would campaign for the cause!

It's about damn time Peetie had to work for something!

Be nice, honey. It isn't all fun and games for him, you know. His life is full of weighty tasks. And he does have to carry around his head, after all. Not an easy matter at the best of times....

And WHY don't I see WENCH affixed to your title??

The Universe is neither compelled nor constrained by our ability or inability to reason or imagine.

The Agnosis reigns. Know the Agnosis.

Apt diagnosis.

This post has been removed.

hmm
Gnostic meaning someone who thinks the Kingdom of God has already arrived, but you have to do weird stuff to see it...
agnostic meaning someone who thinks that you cannot or have not proved or disproved the existance of god
atheist meaning someone who thinks that no god exists....

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction there?

at least it's not a paradox...

By agnostic I mean that I believe that we cannot know. Not just about the existence of God, but many things about the nature of the universe. By atheist I mean that I personally see no reason to worship a god. By Gnostic I mean that I believe that God is within; perhaps not a full definition of Agnostic by Agnostic Orthodoxy but it is all I have to offer. If these be contradictions, make the most of it.

I think that there is no point in arguing about this because the premise.....god exists.... is a shaky foundation to start an argument on anyway.

what does exist is Man's need to have a spirtiual side to his existence.

Surely that is what God is - a manifestation of man's need to make sense of his surroundings. So surely God can be a supernatural being or the avatar of the Newtonian / atmonic forces of the universe?

yes man does need a spiritual side to his existence but i think that he can find all of that within himself without searching externally. God did not create man, man created god.

Strange - I don't feel I need a spiritual side to my existance... but then - what do you mean by that?

Strange - I don't feel I need a spiritual side to my existance... but then - what do you mean by that?

Did you know people stutter when they are deluding themselves?