A timeless being cannot create

[Belacqua]

I'm well aware of what 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' mean regarding theology.  Even with these definitions, the two qualities remain mutually exclusive.

Please explain why, given these definitions, the concepts are mutually exclusive.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm well aware of what 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' mean regarding theology.  Even with these definitions, the two qualities remain mutually exclusive.

Please explain why, given these definitions, the concepts are mutually exclusive.

No.

Boru

[LastPoet]

Philosophy. The fine art of using other thinkers to do it for you.

[tackattack]

I think there's a logical argument to be made against God's existence here on the basis of incompatible properties. God is outside time, we're told. He's not only eternal (existing forever) but also unaffected by temporal changes. He is after all the creator too, and that includes time. Yet when something is created, it comes into being. That entails a previous instance where it didn't exist of course. Yet if time itself was created, that makes no sense. To speak of a time "before" time is meaningless. Moreover, how does a timeless being create while outside time (and space as well)? A creation involves a change in space and time. It's enough to see how this could be done by a lesser being. How though could it be with a timeless being? I suggest it's incoherent, and the very fact that things do exist shows that such a being (i.e. God) doesn't. What do you think?

If He is a personal God that "walks in the garden" with his creation, your fault is in your definition of "unaffected by temporal changes" . God is eternal, consistent and He is eternally Himself is usually the definition.

[Anomalocaris]

Philosophy. The fine art of using other thinkers to do it for you.

Philosophy in the context some participants of this thread seems to be the art of pretending airy products of navel gazing deserves the same consideration and influence as descriptions of reality validated through the scientific method, and the navel gazer is entitled to speak didactically down on all others.

[The Grand Nudger]

We’re all “eternally ourselves”. What else could we be?

Bit of a deepity that says nothing and makes no particular distinction, IMO.

As to the rest, gods being eternal and consistent is highly suspect( to put it generously) by reference to their many alleged magic books. They express inconsistency both within their narratives as well as the narratives themselves being inconsistent over time, even within the minuscule frame of a single human life.

This is a strength, at least with respect to the continuity of god belief. They have to change to meet the expectations and norms if their adherents or they run the risk of abandonment and replacement. The world is positively choked with the corpses of outdated and useless gods.

[Anomalocaris]

I think there's a logical argument to be made against God's existence here on the basis of incompatible properties. God is outside time, we're told. He's not only eternal (existing forever) but also unaffected by temporal changes. He is after all the creator too, and that includes time. Yet when something is created, it comes into being. That entails a previous instance where it didn't exist of course. Yet if time itself was created, that makes no sense. To speak of a time "before" time is meaningless. Moreover, how does a timeless being create while outside time (and space as well)? A creation involves a change in space and time. It's enough to see how this could be done by a lesser being. How though could it be with a timeless being? I suggest it's incoherent, and the very fact that things do exist shows that such a being (i.e. God) doesn't. What do you think?

If He is a personal God that "walks in the garden" with his creation, your fault is in your definition of "unaffected by temporal changes" . God is eternal, consistent and He is eternally Himself is usually the definition.

He is only eternally himself if he is absolutely static and does nothing whatsoever. 

It is like saying god is by definition 2+2=5 and never wrong in his math.

Concocting a definition does not make the ill conceived ignoramus fantasy Less ill conceived, less revealing of the ignorance of the fantasist, or less of a fantasy.

That a definition like this can be claimed only shows how shallow the concept of god is, and how pathetically besotted the adherents to this fantasy have become.

[Mister Agenda]

God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent

As always, these words are usually misunderstood.

"Omnipotent" doesn't mean God can do anything. There are any number of things he can't do, like logical impossibilities.

The idea of omnipotence is based in the contrast of act and potency -- whether a characteristic is fully enacted or only latent and potential. Every material thing has potential -- it can change, grow, decay, fall, etc. Only God cannot change; he is totally, purely actualized. By saying he is omnipotent, theologians are saying that he is the cause of the activation of the potentialities in the material world. There is a long involved argument as to why the activation of potencies in the world requires a completely non-potential cause. But that's a different subject, and you won't like it anyway.

"Omniscient" also depends on Aristotelian metaphysics. It doesn't simply mean that there is a mind and it knows stuff.

The theory was that to know something, we take in its form but not its material. The material wouldn't fit into our heads anyway, but the form on its own is immaterial and has no extension in space. Since God contains all the forms, yet is perfectly immaterial, it is argued that all the forms, which constitute knowledge in animals, is present immaterially in him.

Again, I'm very sure you won't agree with any of this, and I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm only saying that the simple "he can do anything," or "he knows if you've been bad or good," dumbed-down versions of this are indeed silly, but that is not what serious people aver. Nor is this merely wordplay to try to save appearances, because it originates in serious attempts to understand the world that pre-date Christianity.

---

And that's not even getting into how a timeless being acquired the power to bring things into existence by commanding it to.

Timeless beings can't acquire anything. That would require change.

Does this God know what will happen to me (from my perspective) tomorrow? If so, can it change my future from what it knows it will be?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Belaqua.

Just some questions for my puzzlement.

Would you classify your diety as "Being 'Maximaly' great"?

Y'know, the greatest greatness a great thing can be.... kind'a thing.

Cheers.

[Brian37]

I think there's a logical argument to be made against God's existence here on the basis of incompatible properties. God is outside time, we're told. He's not only eternal (existing forever) but also unaffected by temporal changes. He is after all the creator too, and that includes time. Yet when something is created, it comes into being. That entails a previous instance where it didn't exist of course. Yet if time itself was created, that makes no sense. To speak of a time "before" time is meaningless. Moreover, how does a timeless being create while outside time (and space as well)? A creation involves a change in space and time. It's enough to see how this could be done by a lesser being. How though could it be with a timeless being? I suggest it's incoherent, and the very fact that things do exist shows that such a being (i.e. God) doesn't. What do you think?

The concept of a super cognition as claimed in it's myriad of forms in our species history, is nothing more than our species projecting it's own qualities of desire for survival, narcissism, fear and insecurities. God belief is ultimately our own fear of being finite. If we make up a super hero, and and afterlife that allows our cognition to continue, we don't have to face the reality we wont continue.

The argument against God, is simple. It is a denial of our own finite existence.