>God can do anything >God can do things without trying

Means we're here for a reason Helper

File: 1489687100291.jpg (27KB, 294x325px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 294x325px

>god could make the universe perfect
>instead the universe is shit
Truely causes one to consider

File: Gottfried_Wilhelm_von_Leibniz.jpg (34KB, 316x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 316x400px

>>2527491
>can can make perfect things only
>meaning we're leaving in the best of all possible worlds
You can thank me latter.

File: 1453236966805.jpg (40KB, 520x544px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 520x544px

>>2527511
>"best of all possible worlds"
>my pone waifu isn't real
Nice try (((Gottfried)))

File: voltaire121.jpg (169KB, 789x789px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 789x789px

>>2527511

>we're living in the best of all possible worlds

Excuse me what was that?

File: IMG_3853.png (37KB, 1127x685px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1127x685px

>>2527488
What reason?

>>2527527
>>2527529
I'm convinced we indeed live in the best of all possible worlds. Emphasis on possible. Some things aren't possible. Like when people ask if God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift. The answer is no, he can't, because it's not possible. An absurdity we can think of doesn't limit God's omnipotence. This is like asking if there can be a square circle. There can't. I hope I will make myself clear in the following paragraphs.

Say you have godlike powers and you want to create a world. Well I want to create a world where everybody is happy. Without even getting into the discussion of what happiness is, and whether it's subjective or not, that's not how you create a world. First you have to define the natural laws and universal constants that will operate in your world.

First of all, do you want to use constants at all? Wouldn't it be cooler if you used random numbers instead? But then your universe would be an infinite blob of chaos and destruction, which is cool, if you're into that. But suppose you want a universe that can house stable, organized higher life forms, particularly intelligent ones. Then you'd probably want to use constants. But once you chose the value of a constant, all other, infinite possible values for that constant are discarded. Notice that word again, possible. You can't chose two different values for the same constant. It's not - possible. Once you define a square, it's a square, not a circle. It can't be both at the same time. If you're God, an infinite being with infinite power, you can't create a stone so heavy you can't lift because you can always one-up the stone's heaviness by drawing from your infinite store of power. If you could create a stone so heavy you couldn't lift, you would limit your infinity and by definition you wouldn't be God. If you weren't God, you wouldn't be able to create an infinitely heavy stone in the first place. It's an absurdity. But moving on.

>>2527485
>can is the same as must

you fucked up

>>2528227
Next come natural laws. Are we using them at all? I think so for the same reason as constants. But right off the bat, you realize you can't use all possible natural laws at the same time because some choices preclude others. Suppose you want two bodies with mass to attract each other, but you also say that they repel each other in the same proportion, so your two laws cancel each other out! How retarded would that be?

You would also want to use the simplest and least amount of laws possible. First because of efficiency. If two laws can achieve the same result as twenty two laws, the two are more efficient than the twenty two and therefore the best choice. Second because too much complexity generates chaos. Suppose you want to create a field F that exercises a force expressed by arctan(1/z^3) in one direction, and exp(x^y^z) in another direction, and x^100 in another. Well that seems like an extremely lethal force field if you ask me. No. You'd probably want to use a simpler field equal in all directions like the ones we have, and even in our universe the majority of it is lethal.

And so on and so forth.

>>2528234

It's not easy to make a universe that just doesn't destroy itself or that is so stable that nothing ever happens. And this is what I think Leibniz meant with the best of all possible worlds, not a universe where you live sheltered lives free from suffering and harm, but the one with the least and simplest possible laws. But once you chose those laws, they are in effect. And once they are in effect, they produce natural phenomena. Among these natural phenomena are tsunamis and earthquakes (yes, Voltaire, including the Lisbon earthquake). But these are consequence of the set of natural laws that are in effect in the universe, not that God is personally shaking the earth and agitating the waters out of a sadistic wish to kill people. A different set of natural laws would produce different, perhaps even more lethal natural phenomena. I believe, however, that the ones we have is the best possible laws, and that we live in the best possible world. And if you believe in God, you should too.

>>2528227
>no, he can't

YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG

DESCARTES PLS

>the only perfect thing that exists is "God".
>we're imperfect - so is the world
>God made us imperfect
>meaning the perfect created the imperfect
>how can the perfect know about the existence of the imperfect?
>how is it possible for us to know that perfection exists, since we're imperfect?

Anyone? I'm really interested.

>>2528252
Let's hear it.

>>2528253
Perhaps He knows about the imperfect because absolute knowledge is perfect, i.e. Knowledge of the imperfect is a part of perfection.

I think God doesn't know about our existence, srsly.

>>2528264

An omnipotent being by definition has no limits to it's power. This necessarily includes the ability to simultaneously ignore and adhere to logic.

If God is omnipotent, then God can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, proceed to lift the stone, and still have created a stone so heavy he can't lift it. If God is omnipotent, God can create a square circle no problemo.

Just because it is impossible for us (limited and temporally restricted beings) to understand this doesn't mean God can't.

>>2528253
There's one God. He's infinite.
Every created thing is finite.
If God created infinite things he would limit his own infinity and not be God. See>>2528227
So God only creates finite things.
Now every finite thing is always going to be imperfect. To use an analogy from computer science. Floating-point arithmetic uses numbers with finite precision to represent real numbers. But real numbers are potentially infinite. Even if you use one million significant digits you won't be able to represent say pi or the square root of two with 100% precision. You have to round them up or down. Because of this there is always a small amount of error in every calculator or computer program. which error can propagates itself and become huge.
So every created thing is finite. Therefore every created thing, including every possible world, is necessarily imperfect. The best you can do is to make the best possible world, never a perfect one.

>>2527511

truly the dankest of all possible timelines

thank you Leibniz

>>2528294
>This necessarily includes the ability to simultaneously ignore and adhere to logic.
Yes, in his essence not in the created world. You're right in saying that God can simultaneously ignore and adhere to logic, but not created things, otherwise they would be God. The infinitely heavy stone that can and can't be lifted at the same time would have the power to adhere and not adhere to the laws of logic. Therefore the stone has godlike predicates. Therefore stone and God are not two different beings, but the same. Therefore the stone is not created and not a stone at all. Therefore God can't create a stone so heavy he can't lift.

>>2528330
>but not

God can do that too.

>the stone has godlike predicates

God can make it so it doesn't, cause omnipotence. Besides, just because two things share a single trait doesn't make them the same. God can choose to exist in the temporal sphere, but that doesn't automatically make everything in that sphere also God unless by his express will.

What does omnipresence mean to you?

>>2528330
On a side note this is why I think the Greek Orthodox theologians (and Nicholas of Cusa among the Catholics) are right when they say that we can't know God in his essence. Because, unlike the created worlds, the essence of God can include among other things the impossible and the contradictory and is beyond the grasp of our reason and intellect. We can't know God in his essence, only in his energies and effects.

>>2528308
why does god choose to limit himself in this way?

>>2528358
>just because two things share a single trait doesn't make them the same
This is generally correct, but there are attributes, such as infinity, omnipotence, that are only predicated of God. Say x is infinite and omnipotent. Therefore x is God.

Omnipresence means that God can be present in every point in space and time, but this only because he transcends space and time.

>>2528380
He doesn't. The created world is limited. Read again attentively.

>>2528395
you used a bunch of logical reasoning an omnipotent god could handwave away, because logic is a set of rules he's presumably in charge of setting. why'd he set these rules to limit himself?

>>2528406
>>2528330
>>2528361

>>2528386
>there are attributes, such as infinity, omnipotence, that are only predicated of God

...unless God decides not to be God anymore, or decides to create another God, or decides that those traits aren't particular to God, etc.

>>2528409
>"why does god have to conform to logical argument?"
>"well, read this logical argument and you'll understand"

>>2528237
So basically you mean the creative design argument? As in "if god isn't real, how come the laws of physics are just right to form even simple structures like aroms?"
Sound good at first, until you realize there are infinite parallel universes with infinite variations of physical laws an because there is a small chance any universe is just "perfect" as leibniz described it, there are infinite "perfect" universes, one of which we currently live in.

tl;dr parallel universes theory fucks up creative design theory

>>2528425
God can't do do those things for the reasons I have already explained.

>>2528438
Multiverse is a scientific hypothesis at this point, not even a theory.

>>2527485
I think I got dammed for being self-righteous. It's

>>2528461
>omnipotent god can't do x

lol

for all your all knowing all powerful god spiel you sure do love placing hard limits on your all powerful god's power when it logically frustrates you

>>2528478
So you're just going to ignore everything I said? Ok then.

>>2528461
>God can't do

NOPE

>>2528227

>he hasn't read Candide

>>2528490
>I can out-logic God

this is what christians tell themselves every night LOL. at least the kikes aren't dumb enough to think they can out logic yahweh

>>2528528

I read Candide and it was trash. Leibniz is right.

>>2528537
Oh boy. I don't think you're misrepresenting my arguments at all, I think you actually didn't get them.

>>2528528
Voltaire was a journalist.

>>2528541

Not an argument

>>2528552

Better a journalist than a shitposter

>>2528237

>if you believe in God

Big if

>>2528560
God is truth, it's self-evident.

>>2528558
Implying there's a difference.

>>2528227
>you have to define natural laws
Why? God supposedly create angels and other being that are capable of defying those natural laws.

>>2528562

>spook is spook, it's spook

>>2528570
Angels are not part of the natural order though.

>>2528571
I like a Stirnerpost as much as the next guy, but it gets old after a while.

>>2528571
Math is a spook then, honest to God you're playing with fire.

>>2528575
And? Why does anything have to be part of the natural order?

>>2528579

Technically it is. It is a concept which doesn't exist in reality.

>>2528585
It is a fundamental underlying reality.

>>2528571

"spook" is a spook

>>2528587

Concepts do not underlie what is. We merely impose them onto it.

>>2528588

True

>>2528592
We merely try and understand what was always there.

>>2528599

Ok but mistaking the cognitive tools for doing so and the thing itself is a mistake

>>2528607
Whose doing that?

>>2527485
God doesn't has to do party tricks for you.

>>2528618

Those who say maths or any other concepts including god are real

>>2528584
On a second thought, it depends on how you define nature, whether as essence or as physical, material reality. In the first sense even God and Angels have natures. In the second sense, only material things, material defined in the Aristotelian and scholastic sense of being subject to change. Angels in the latter sense defy natural laws because they have no material parts. In the first sense, not so. Why do some things have matter and others don't? I don't know.

>>2528632
How is recognizing math in gemoetric patterns found in nature mistaking cognitive tools and "the thing itself"?