Evidence for God from Science

The typical atheist argument is "Can God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?"

This typical straw-man argument is easily answered here... http://www.gotquestions.org/God-rock-heavy-lift.html
here... http://www.gotquestions.org/God-rock-heavy-lift.html
and countless times here... Google.com



But I came across a different form of this question that I don't know how to answer. The question that was asked was...
"Can God surprise himself?"

In this question God's omniscience and omnipotence are both being attacked.


Anyone know the answer?

JC333 wrote:The typical atheist argument is "Can God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?"

This typical straw-man argument is easily answered here... http://www.gotquestions.org/God-rock-heavy-lift.html
here... http://www.gotquestions.org/God-rock-heavy-lift.html
and countless times here... Google.com



But I came across a different form of this question that I don't know how to answer. The question that was asked was...
"Can God surprise himself?"

In this question God's omniscience and omnipotence are both being attacked.


Anyone know the answer?

The answer may lie in what is being attacked-God's omniscience precludes a surprise of any kind or else
his knowledge would not be infinite.

God's omnipotence circumvents any possibility of sudden revelation by way of being unlimited in power, ability, and authority.

I'm trying to think of a way to formulate this to get to the answer you seem to be asking, but I'm stumped as to how to word it.

If this helps even a little, it will be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Hi JC333,

This is the same message I sent you by personal e-mail. I'll let the folks here take a look at it:

I'm really surprised how many "free-thinkers" think this red-herring is viable.

The argument is irrational. Omnipotence must be defined and the real question is this; Can an omnipotent being limit itself? I would argue yes. If you have omnipotence you have "the power" to do anything, right? God has the power to choose to limit Himself. In fact God has. There are several things God can't do. He can't, not be. He can't lie. He can't be irrational. The question of "the rock so big..." is similar to; Can God make a round square? The question is foolish and has no argumentative power.

The problem that Atheists can't seem to get past is God's ways are not our ways. God can "baaraa" (create ex nihilo), we can't. We are currently stuck in time, God is not. The question is what is eternal, God or the laws that govern us? Atheists assume that natural laws are eternal even though the most vociferous atheists agree that natural laws (even: time, space, matter) and all logic breaks down at the beginning of the "Big Bang". What does that mean?

Let me add that if God theoretically ever chose to break his promise, the foreseeable event would be the universe would implode not Him.

The question is self-contradictory and collapses on itself. Another example would be, "Can God create a squared circle?"

rodyshusband wrote:The question is self-contradictory and collapses on itself.

Thank you! Your words are what I was looking for in my post last night-short and to the point. on me.

I think you are underestimating the question. I for one know that I can surprise myself from time to time. So it is not just a matter of contradiction. Having a free will give you the option to be impulsive, and hence surprising yourself. God has a free will, but being omnipresent and omniscient, he wouldn't be able to. As far as I can see. This wuestion is not just like the classic rock-question. This question is actually based on something a human can do, but god cannot - or?

Besides, the question of selfcondradiction does NOT collapse on itself from a scientific point of view. You dismiss the rock argument, arguing that gods powers are infinite, thus an infinitely large rock would be required in order for him to move it. However infinite powers are not possible, since that would be a violation of the 1.law of thermodynamics.

Respecting Rich's arguments about god existing in 10, 11 or 24 (as I recall it) dimensions, one could postulate that we don't know for sure whether thermodynamics work in the other dimensions. We have no reason to believe otherwise, since the laws of thermodynamics works equally well in all known dimensions, and there is no evidence indicataing anything else. ID'ers have even tried to use the laws of thermodynamics themselves.

So posing a selfcontradictory question does not automatically make it collapse on itself. It makes the concept of omnipotence collapse. I realise that the creator of logic could put himself above logic - but then again we enter the world of imagination. From a scientific point of view, this paradox is still watertigh; omnipotence must be in a limited form to be true as int he sense of Augustine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotenc ... mnipotence) but then it is of course recognized that omnipotence is limited, and thus cannot be.

peter wrote:Besides, the question of selfcondradiction does NOT collapse on itself from a scientific point of view. You dismiss the rock argument, arguing that gods powers are infinite, thus an infinitely large rock would be required in order for him to move it. However infinite powers are not possible, since that would be a violation of the 1.law of thermodynamics.

You are imposing atheistic presuppositions on theistic ones which renders the above comments inconsistent. If God exists and created the physical laws (including law of thermodynamics), then God's powers are beyond these laws. As no relationship logically exists between God's power and the physical law of thermodynamics there is also no violation.

Respecting Rich's arguments about god existing in 10, 11 or 24 (as I recall it) dimensions, one could postulate that we don't know for sure whether thermodynamics work in the other dimensions. We have no reason to believe otherwise, since the laws of thermodynamics works equally well in all known dimensions, and there is no evidence indicataing anything else. ID'ers have even tried to use the laws of thermodynamics themselves.

So posing a selfcontradictory question does not automatically make it collapse on itself. It makes the concept of omnipotence collapse. I realise that the creator of logic could put himself above logic - but then again we enter the world of imagination. From a scientific point of view, this paradox is still watertigh; omnipotence must be in a limited form to be true as int he sense of Augustine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotenc ... mnipotence) but then it is of course recognized that omnipotence is limited, and thus cannot be.

Omni is a prefix meaning "all". Omnipotent therefore means "all powerful" not "infinitely powerful". Where infinitely is used of God, it should not be taken in a quantitative way. It rather should be understood descriptively as conveying God is maximally all such things.

As a final note, please contact Rich directly if you really want a response from him regarding his writings.

Hi thanks for trying to clear the definitions up. As I have posted on another thread, I am probably better of exploring this question by reading the arguments somewhere, instead of discussing them, since I probably wont be able to think up original points at my level of understanding it. You have however helped me a great deal in a wider understanding of the implications, and I have as of now redefined my understanding of the concept of god, in the sense that he is not infinitely powerful, but all-powerful. Exactly what that means I have yet to understand, but I am pleased with it since infinity doesn't make sense.

Kurieuo wrote:If God exists and created the physical laws (including law of thermodynamics), then God's powers are beyond these laws. As no relationship logically exists between God's power and the physical law of thermodynamics there is also no violation.

I don't necessarily agree with that postulate. If god has created our 4- dimensional world with all its laws and so on, there is no reason he should not be bound by those same laws in our 4 dimensions. What he does 'at home' is his business, but a violation of the physical laws in the 4-dimensional timespace-continuum is a different matter. He would of course have the power to create or destroy the entire universe, but I percieve no argument substantiating he could bend the laws he created in the context he created them.

JC333 wrote:The typical atheist argument is "Can God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?"

This typical straw-man argument is easily answered here... http://www.gotquestions.org/God-rock-heavy-lift.html
here... http://www.gotquestions.org/God-rock-heavy-lift.html
and countless times here... Google.com



But I came across a different form of this question that I don't know how to answer. The question that was asked was...
"Can God surprise himself?"

In this question God's omniscience and omnipotence are both being attacked.


Anyone know the answer?

Whenever an atheist asks me, "Could God create a rock so heavy he himself could not lift it?" I say, "Yes... and then He'd lift it. Cool huh?"

In all seriousness the term "so heavy He cannot lift it" means nothing because weight does not have any bearing on God's ability to lift it. That's like saying, "A cake so big you can't taste it." D'oh! Size of food has no bearing on your ability to taste something, and heaviness has no bearing on God's ability to lift something. Heaviness is a human concept.

Can God create at a rock so heavy he can not lift it and can God suprise himself?
NO!....Theology lesson over with. To limit God with our understanding of science and math and any other human undersatnding is to make God smaller than He is. Watch Rob Bell's "everything is spiritual" video and this might help.

God bless
LXX

Kurieuo wrote:

peter wrote:Besides, the question of selfcondradiction does NOT collapse on itself from a scientific point of view. You dismiss the rock argument, arguing that gods powers are infinite, thus an infinitely large rock would be required in order for him to move it. However infinite powers are not possible, since that would be a violation of the 1.law of thermodynamics.

You are imposing atheistic presuppositions on theistic ones which renders the above comments inconsistent. If God exists and created the physical laws (including law of thermodynamics), then God's powers are beyond these laws. As no relationship logically exists between God's power and the physical law of thermodynamics there is also no violation.

I agree. Besides, hasn't God defied his own natural laws before anyway? Look at Jesus walking on water or feeding five thousand with only five loaves of bread and two fish. I think God can choose whether He wants to follow His own laws or not.

Also, referring to the things God "can't" do, I don't think that imposes on His free will at all. He just has different desires than we do, because He has no sin. For instance, if a mother saw her child playing near the street, would she say, "Well, I'll just close my eyes and then open them and surprise myself to see if my son gets hit by a car!" She could do that, but why would she!? God could, I suppose, "turn off" His omniscience (this is just a theory, btw), but why would He want to?

And as for God not being able to lie: again, would He want to? He is pure and holy and just and loving. So Him saying "I cannot lie" is like a mom saying, "I could never eat my own son." Sure, she could physically, but why would she?? I'd rather starve than eat my own child!

Anyway, this is just a human theory. I think that's part of our problem...trying to explain God with human theories. That's like explaining color to a blind person.

It was explained to me so:

Imagine you are god, you can do anything and experience anything. Eventually what you want is a surprise, hence reality as we know it.