/lit/ - Literature

>>14276070
No, he cannot do the impossible, because the impossible is unbeing, and God is absolute being.

>>14276070
why would he do that?

>give her the d
Reddit bugman le sex dude meme.

>>give her the d
>Reddit bugman le sex dude meme.

>>14276077
Surely then god cannot be omnipotent? If god can only accomplish what is within the realm of being then this means god's power is less than infinite.

In fact if we go even further to suggest that everything that could be already is then that would mean god is very much the opposite of omnipotent, he couldn't do anything at all.

>>14276079
Mysterious ways.

>>14276092
I think I sent my gf in 20013 this meme, I'm pretty sure it's from here.

>>14276070
You can also axiomize 1+1=3, there's no "issue with that" (even if the resulting system, assuming the other normal rules of Peano arithmetic, turns out to be inconsistent and so not valuable - but still partfectly valid as a mathematical framework).
For a related but richer axiom, consider 3=0, i.e. in Z mod 3 (i.e. in modular arithmetic.)

>>14276106
God does not operate in ways outside His nature.

>>14276122
Would that also not be a definite limit on God's power?

If God's nature is static and unyielding to even his own power then there is something that god simply cannot change, this is a lack of power. If god were truly all powerful then either a)he can manipulate his nature to be whatever he wills or b)his nature is infinite and there is no possible course of action that couldn't be included in it.

>>14276141
He could act so, but does not

>>14276122
Stop tellin’ God what to do, Albert.

>>14276077
Then God isn’t God, because if God is only absolute being he’s limited. A limited God isn’t God. Therefore a God must also be absolute nonbeing as well, and all other contradictory and complimentary states we can and can’t imagine. We’re the ones limited by being and nonbeing, logic and nonlogic, not God.

>>14276070
Yes

>>14276311
>>14276106
Extremely wrong. God did not create logic. Logic is simply one aspect of God. Asking Him to do the illogical would be to ask God to do something that is not in His nature, which is nonsense.

>>14276106
Is "G" a number on a scale of 0 to infinity? No? Then infinity is not infinite.

Mathematicians BTFO forever. Gookmoot needs to delete /sci/.

>>14276106
>Surely then god cannot be omnipotent
>everything that exists is possible because of God
>everythingbthat exists is created by God
>God made everything
>judging God's omnipotence as false, because you desperately attempt to redefine nothing as something
This is your brain on atheism

>>14276070
Yes, because the powers of god go beyond the laws of nature that himself has put into place.

>>14276070
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3CB0jvdNb0

>logic is an aspect of God which he cannot supercede
where can I read more about this anti-miraculous heresy?

>>14276070
God can't even stop me from making this post arrrghh my heart call 911

>>14276563
See
>>14276141

>>14276644
I'm not an atheist and that's not the argument I'm making.

>>14276070
1+1=3 is a formal linguistic abstraction so you are asking is whether God could create a formal language where 1+1=3 then yes he could, probably even humans could do it.

>>14276887
That's not the question. Of course god could just brainwash everybody so that "3" really meant "2" so that the sentence would be semantically true.

The question is if god could do something that fundamentally violates the laws of logic.

>>14276910
logic is just a language. there are no laws of logic other than formalized abstractions we made up. so there is nothing to there to violate that exists in itself as a concrete entity.

>>14277045
its like asking whether God can violate the laws of physics. the laws of physics don't exist. they are derived from our observations and formalized into a set we call the laws of physics. there is no violation when God decides to "interfere" in our reality.

>>14277055
similarly though not physical in nature, it is a non-question to ask whether God can violate the laws of logic.

>>14277045
>so there is nothing to there to violate that exists in itself as a concrete entity.
If you got a rock and then you find another rock how many rocks do you have?

Not semantically, I mean objectively. Objectively the sum of those rocks is two. "Two" could be substituted for any word but the numerical sum is always going to be equal to two. This isn't man-made, the words for it may be but numbers are real.

>>14276070
God could alter the universe to make you believe 1 + 1 to be 3 using very well-placed brain damage and deception of your senses.
God could already have altered the universe to make you believe 1 + 1 is 2 when it's actually 3.

>>14277106
>God could already have altered the universe to make you believe 1 + 1 is 2 when it's actually 3.
Now this is a good response.

Thomists sit down and watch.

>>14276070
Could God make farts smell pleasant?

>>14276070
This was actually a big debate within theism: Voluntarists, like Duns Scotus would say "Yes! Because the Will of God is absolutely unconditioned" whereas Intellectuallists like Aquinas would say that the intellect of God conditions what is possible and impossible, and so God could not make a square circle.

>>14277182
I'm not convinced the square circle type questions are actually good attacks against absolute omnipotence or something that even absolute omnipotence could offer. The name of shapes is a completely semantic matter, god could create a shape of any dimensions and people would refer to it accordingly.

If an object had four sides joined at equal angles then that would be a square, the only way for it to be a circle is if the semantic meaning of these words were swapped.

>>14276883
You are not making an argument, you just hold Being to act as if it was imperfect and then when it doesn't behave that way you claim omnipotence as false.
>>14276883
>I'm not an atheist
yeah sure

>>14277182
>>14277223
the debate is clearly about what logic actually is, whether logical necessity is an objective aspect of reality or not. Shestov goes over the history of this question in Athens and Jerusalem

>>14277086
this
>>14277055
>>14277045
>>14276910
>muh nothing is real everything is just fiction
Fuck off you are niggers.

>>14277237
Actually all the arguments I've made have been angling at the point that absolute omnipotence is the only defensible form of omnipotence.

>you just hold Being to act as if it was imperfect and then when it doesn't behave that way you claim omnipotence as false.
You literally didn't understand the argument I made. I didn't argue that omnipotence is false, I argued that the level of power anon was describing would be less than omnipotent.

>>14276070
Yes. The statement "1+1+3" is independent, it could potentially be used to express anything in the same way colours or images can be used to express anything. It's perfectly possible, though highly unlikely, that the exact quantities that numerals signify could gradually change, allowing 1+1 to equal 3 without divine intervention.
>>14277251
>he never read Wittgenstein
shameful

>>14277333
That's a non-answer though. Of course god could change language to make it semantically true. By the same logic god could make anything true without actually changing or creating anything.

The question is if he could make it actually true. That two individual units put together make three. Because to conventional logic such a thing is obviously nonsense.

>>14277375
Still yes, the entire functioning of the world is under the control of God.

>>14277375
The question is actually three-fold.

1. Is there an actual logic in the world or is our logic merely a formalization not related to any underlying fact
2. If there is an actual logic in the world does our formalization reflect it, or is our logic different than the underlying "true" logic
3. If our logic reflects the underlying "true" logic, did God use that logic out of necessity and he might not alter it?

I think you'd need to answer all three of those questions before knowing if a question like "Can God violate the laws of logic?" makes sense.

Lately I've been leaning towards a thing like this beig a case that cannot be solved by a finite human mind. I think the finite mind is not equipped to fully understand infinite mind (God) by natural processes which makes us in our intellectual reasoning run into certain unsolvable paradoxes. These tend to have the scent of God, which usually lies in cases where things seem to be in principle "unsolvable" or inexhaustible. Creation of the universe, hard problem of consciousness, origin of life etc. I think those might only be revealed by Divine Revelation and understood only within the moment of spiritual knowledge directed by said Divine Revelation which is why mystics always struggle to formulate a "coherent" statement about what they saw and understood. It is obvious that direct interaction of infinite-finite requires a Revelatory character rather than intellectual reasoning.

>>14276601
Undefined. There is also more than one kind of infinity in mathematics.

>>14277509
My feeling is that problems such as these and let's tackle one in particular which is the cosmological one, are in principle unsolvable. This is best seen in the multiverse hypothesis, it might be correct but it is in principle not something that could ever be proven. However, unlike some major physicists I don't have a strong opinion about it or any other theory being "correct". For me the take-away from this cosmological situation is philosophical. I am increasingly convinced that to human reasoning we might apply Godel just as validly as to formal systems.

I think the dominant scientific idea about how things are is essentially conditioned by the era scientists operate in (conditioned by ideology, funding, available technology etc.). When it comes to any fundamental questions of existence, I do not believe we are coming any closer to understanding them. I have liked the idea of geocentrism being correct. For the era and environment geocentrism formed in, it was more correct than heliocentrism. Of course we know geocentrism isn't objectively correct, but for the purpose of the era it was just fine. Ideas about cosmology even from 100 years ago look ridiculous in light of a possible multiverse. And a multiverse will look equally ridiculous if the entire multiverse is one tiny bubble riding on the back of a giant transcendent gorilla. The takeaway? Science doesn't answer existential questions, it just changes the resolution of the mechanistic picture. It is debatable whether the human mind is equipped to come at any conclusive answer about existence, I am sceptical that a human being can arrive at it via rational reasoning alone. Rational reasoning can point towards, or elucidate things. To understand an existential question, I think there is in human being equally a Divine spark, a capacity of the spirit to connect to the source for the answer, which we have obviously neglected. The mystical experiences, the religions, the whole body of work of a presumably spiritual way of looking at things to me signifies that there is a spiritual capacity much like rational capacity to use as means towards discerning meaning. I think the dominance of materialism is merely a fad in human history, it is popular to explain this spiritual capacity as an artefact of some material process by which it is completely exhausted and therefore by re-locating it erroneously within the strictly rational field, instead of looking at the two as complementary.

>>14276601
>Is "G" a number on a scale of 0 to infinity? No?
Yeah it is.

>>14276077
the he isn't omnipotent

The problem with a non-apophatic god is that anything, nonthing or analogue to a thing that is not bound to any kind of rules or positive statement onherently subverts an unsubvertable authority.

An entity without identity is the most semantically convenient concept of such a thing. It defies the very notion of constant, and can only exist in an alternative ontology, uncreated and operating outside the interactable bounds of everything that is. In this case, with such a strange existence, they cannot engage in the act of being, insofar as doing so would violate the no identity clause of the antidescription. Yet despite that, the negative trait provides a meta-identity that allows for dialectical notion of entities (note the lack of singular articles, a necessary quirk for semantic accuracy) that meet the requirements.

This is only one case of strange ontologies. In a primordial enough plane, even the mature concept of God as absolute being is surpassed by the systemic failures of rules. In sufficiently advanced grammars, arbitrary domain expansion is possible, and the permittence of undefined values (especially those considered metaphorical to defined ones) to be used as functions and axioms. This leads us to the fringe of metaphysics, and within this domain we may begin to conceive of things lile geometric morality, polyvalence, proto-existential frameworks, non-axiomatic thought, etc.

This is not meant to be a critique of God and conceptions of God in modernity. Do not mistake the practiced fool for an idiot. By all means, it instead intends to open your mind to the idea that a sufficiently advanced system trivializes the necessary God who is by all means unquestionably necessary. Do not replace God that fills the hole in your heart. Expand the space that you might understand post-top-level ontological planes.

>>14277106
This. Descartes says God could make you 'go astray' in your reasoning, such that you believe you went through the proper mathematical reasoning when in fact you did not. But mathematical truths, if found correctly, are not susceptible to doubt.

>>14276563
What is in gods nature?

>>14277647
You don’t understand what omnipotent means, it’s not your fault it requires a lot of neuroplasticity

>>14278500
omnipotent means he can do everything, fucking retard

this question is ultimately pointless, because numbers are absolutes that we can only apprehend subjectively. if you were to take an adult and another adult and sum them, you'd have two. if you were to take two adults and a child, you'd have three. you could also count the child as half of an adult, and half two and a half instead. so your notion of what two and three are is ultimately entirely dependent not only on how you count and group, but what your senses can take in. zoom in on a drawn circle hard enough with a computer assisted tool, and you will see jagged edges and corners instead of perfection. atheist pseuds that try to use questions like these as a denial of god need to wipe their shitty asses and go to take a nap

>>14278569
Wrong, it means unlimited power. “Do anything” is a causal statement that can only apply to being INSIDE time, they have a current state and a future state and in between the current and future state they make choices or decisions and can change those choices or decision and this is all predicated on perceiving events as a fixed linear sequence. In contrast god is OUTSIDE time and is omnipresent, he does not experience reality as a sequence of states he IS reality itself. His power is unlimited but also perfect and because it is perfect it is predictable. Humans have free will because we are imperfect. I am using simple terms to make this more digestible but you aren’t fully considering the implications of what gods existence would be, it would not be some anthropomorphised person making decisions day in and day out. It would be an awesome force permeating our reality on a metaphysical plane. Even time would be just a small fold in its complex topology.

>>14276070
Numbers are constant abstract values, God could change those if He willed it and He could do it without our knowledge. So yes He could.
But would He? I think not, He has made His creation perfect and He has made His laws unchanging.

>>14276070
God is the only thing that exjst by necessity hence everything that exist belongs to him and exists out of necessity. Math is a mode of thought which itself is only an attribute of God. You are so far down the chain of contigency, you don’t even know what math is let alone whether it represents something inside YOU or something in a NATURE external from you. Either way, it belongs to God and is as such an expression of his nature. All maths that are and that you can conceived of (which are still modes of God) belong to him. That which is literally invincible by the mind of God is that which does not exist. It does not exist because it is beyond God but because it is God that gives existence to things.

>>14278702
You didn't answer the question, ha.

>>14278710
Fair. I answer it by poiting out an age old assumption of yours that is not reasonably grounded. You asked whether God can “will” X. But what is God’s will exactly? Do you purport that God acts? If God is omnipotent and infinite then to ascribe a will in the sense of a human will already neglects both his omnipotency and infinity, not to mention his perfection. To will, as in the human faculty of bringing about something or “do” something necessary means to limit action to temporality. To will something, you kust’ve not been willing prior, all actions involve the previous existence of an inaction. God cannot will one thing since he is all things that ever were and will be; if he “wills” he does all of the possible willing simultaneously, which is absurd. The question makes no sense since God cannot will. If 1+1=3 is possible, if is so because it is according to God’s nature. God doesn’t will since that contradicts his omnipotency.

The answer is yes you brainlets. God is all powerful and can do literally everything

>>14279299
Who would win in a fight, god in jesus form or superman?

>>14279350
Superman could kill Jesus but he wouldn't truly "win" since Jesus would just go to heaven and send Supes to hell when he dies.

>>14277086
yes

>>14276070
Read Langan’s CTMU, brainlet. Its all in the foam.

Serious question, can god permanently kill himself if he is omnipotent?

>>14276070
Is there a significantce for mister D having 1200 atk and 1100 defence? Thats pretty decent for a human being, but just mediocre to low for a level 4 monster. Aslo, I dont think he would appreciate being called a spellcaster. Thar honor goes to Hegel and his bagels.

God can not create logical absurdities

>>14277745
go on......

>>14279722
It's because the actual Lord of D. card that predates the meme by at least a decade was a spellcaster type with 1200 atk and 1100 defence.

Lord of D. if I'm right was one of the first effect monsters created. Hence why it has such low stats for its level by modern standard.

>>14276070
Yes, but just because God can do something doesn’t mean he will.

>>14279917
Ah, Makes sense. I remember lord of D. now. God thats a goofy name.

>>14278756
I'm not OP I'm >>14278678
We basically agree.

>>14276070
Can God do something he can not do? If he can't do things he can't do, what kind of God is that? If he can do things he can't do, there's still things he cant do. WTF.

>>14280202
God can't lie because it's not in his nature. It doesn't make him less

>>14280285
Imagine a being that looks like pic related come to life. All it can possibly do is scratch its own ear, that's all its nature allows it to do.

Is this being omnipotent?

>>14280291
No, because it does not have unlimited power(omnipotence)

>>14280306
>God has unlimited power
>There are things god is unable to do because his nature precludes it
Choose one and only one.

He can't make 1+1=3 three mathematically.
But he can make in actuality that whenever someone doubles anything material it is tripled through ex nihilo intervention by God. Thus in practice being 1+1=3.

>>14276092
>>14276116
It's a 4chan original m8. Ignore the wojakposter

>>14279699
>does a fully actualized being have the potential to die?

>>14280309
>God is not omnipotent because he can't do things that don't exist
ok retard

>>14280942
You realise the example in question was whether god could tell lies right?

no, it's impossible because he wills that it be impossible

>>14277106

>God make universe go mad to trick us

The absolute STATE of Christfags

>mfw watching Chr*stians and ath*ists slap fight and piss their pants while I don't worship a literal dead jew OR stick bananas up my ass

>>14281268
>Jesus
>dead
>jewish
Pick one

>>14281072
God's a joker. That's one thing we can be certain of.

>>14281336
>all Jews are immortal
You’re embarrassing yourself now

>>14281072

>>14278569
Doing every-thing doesn't entail doing non-things.

>>14276141
Everyone keepa taking the fucking perspective that God is some being that is like us with oyr human brains. God is not static and unyielding, nor is he fluid and yielding. He is both. He is infinite.

In mathematics when you look at limits, it is infinity approaching some number but never really reaches that number, but it might as well be that.

>>14281336
Jesus is not even genetically jewish as He is the Son of God.

>>14276070
anyone could make 1 + 1 = 3 because math is just a language game

>>14282124
What about his mom?

>>14280291
Except God doesn't have only 1 task, poor analogy. God can do anything but he will not perform a contradiction because contradictions don't logically or physically exist in any way possible. It's not even that he can't lie, he could, he just won't. It's like asking a die-hard honest good person to steal, he can do it, but he will never do it. He's above that.

>>14282137
yes, but could he make 1+1=3 and 1+1=2 and 2=3+1?
I think what OP is really asking is whether god could make the sum combination of two carrots, for example, three carrots, but then break down the tree carrot sum into two carrot constituent parts. I think he could, however, do this anyway.

>>14282330
>food analogy
Numbers are just a sequence, what they represent in the physical world is irrelevant. If 1+1=3 the set of natural numbers would be:
{1,3,4,...} where 1 is the first element, 3 is what comes after it (what we know as 2) and so on.

>>14282325
Sounds like God's a bitch.

>>14282137
Not applied math. Ranges from geometry to quantum physics, the "language game" ultimately models reality. Could god make a sum of triangle corners more than 180 degrees?

>>14276070
Yes

>>14282330
>>14282616
Or to rephrase: Assuming a god can arbitrarily edit stuff *in* the universe, are those edits still restricted by rules of the universe?

If god can bend the rules, sure, 1+1=3 can happen. However if god is a mere reality editor, he can mere put the 1s anywhere they want, but 1+1 must still be 2 in the end.

Given that everything seems to follow same rules and there are no local violations, it seems like that if there is a god, they must obey the base reality like anyone else. They could be far more powerful, create planets and life out of thin air and what not. But whatever software gets written, it ultimately still must run on the common hardware.

This belongs on /his/, retards.

>>14281352
Unironically this. He has a pretty good sense of humor

>>14282647
Yes, the real question of this thread is of course whether god can do the impossible paradoxical and contradictory. Issue being is that the human mind is itself limited by paradox, I think. The divine mind not necessarily.
The fact that we cannot imagine how /// is // can be interpreted two ways - it is wrong (i.e. impossible) or we are wrong, and simply limited. This points out the irrelevancy of asking such questions I think quite nicely.

>>14276601
>t. never taken a math class beyond the calculus level

What if God frequently rewrites the laws of the universe and transplants new memories in everyone's head so no one's the wiser? Maybe 1+1 equaled three yesterday, but because our memories are transplanted, it seems like it's always equaled two.

>>14276070

>>14283562
1+1=3
It's called "sex".

>>14276141
you are trying too hard

Is god powerful enough to erase himself from existence?

>>14276070

>>14276116 is the only valid answer. Not only can God make 1 + 1 = 3, any human could do so. All the pseuds in this thread acting like arithmetic is some form of logic clearly have not read Godel.

>>14276070
For with God nothing shall be impossible.