OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Arryn]

I'm always amused by people blathering on about an omniscient and omnipotent deity. Any such fictional construct would have to, by definition, be able to know, and to alter, the quantum state of EVERY particle in the ENTIRE universe, and to be able to do so instantly. An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state. So, by deduction, such a omniwhatever deity would have to *be* the universe. If the deity embodies the universe (and is indistiguishable from it) it ceases to have an identity seperate from it. It's everywhere. Including in the humans that inhabit the universe. So (shocking as this may come), Norfleet is God. As am I. As are you. Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

Well, the universe does exist, and we're having a very silly discussion, so God cannot possibly be omnipotent/omniscient or this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It is a very extravagant claim to say that the laws of physics do not apply past a certain point. Do you have any proof of this?

When you start talking about proof, you're no longer doing science. The Theory of the Big Bang is just that, a theory. No-one has proof that the Universe started that way, even though it does do a good job of explaining the isotropic background microwave radiation.

I thought we were talking about the state of mainstream contemporary scientific thinking here, which definitely doesn't support your theory.

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Arryn:
An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state.

Yes, but that's only because we have to observe particles by operating on them in a physical way, such as arranging a collision with another particle.

As the creator of the physical Universe, I think we can safely assume that God has non-physical powers at His disposal, and so is free of the Heisenberg constraint (which He imposed in the first place).

And although the volume of information involved with being omniscient is staggering, there's no real limit on God's capacity to know stuff either. So I can't see that there's a metaphysical problem although, as I said before, it may cause problems with the consistency of Christian belief.

Regarding omnipotence, people always try to debunk it by pointing out that no being, no matter how powerful, can perform a logical contradiction or paradox. I think that's just linguistic trickery. We need to use the word "omnipotent" in the same way as the people ascribing that property to God, and I think those people probably meant that He could perform any logically valid physical (or spiritual, I suppose) operation.

Which would kind of make sense if He made everything in the first place.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Arryn:
I'm always amused by people blathering on about an omniscient and omnipotent deity. Any such fictional construct would have to, by definition, be able to know, and to alter, the quantum state of EVERY particle in the ENTIRE universe, and to be able to do so instantly. An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state. So, by deduction, such a omniwhatever deity would have to *be* the universe. If the deity embodies the universe (and is indistiguishable from it) it ceases to have an identity seperate from it. It's everywhere. Including in the humans that inhabit the universe. So (shocking as this may come), Norfleet is God. As am I. As are you. Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

Well, the universe does exist, and we're having a very silly discussion, so God cannot possibly be omnipotent/omniscient or this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

The God do not play dices with the Universe, huh?

I could try to play a devil's advocate here, but I think I'll pass, or we may go too deep into the realm of Godel's theory, provable and unpovable, and Geinzerberg's principle from the quantum theory, that you were refering to.

[ July 29, 2004, 23:28: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Just a reminder to keep the barbequesqe personal remarks to yourself and future "Memoirs of People I Loathe". Those of you who are toeing the line know who you are.

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

You lost me there. I completely agree to the first part of your posting. I do not understand however what you want to say with the qouted part. Lets assume we are the atoms of god, and earth might be a cell. Does a cell in my heart need to understand why it has to beat? Are the atoms of those cells even aware that something is beating?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Since you like "At least / only one of these four need be true" games, here's one for you.

#1 : God is a sadist, given the way the world is.
#2 : God isn't a sadist, but isn't omnipotent either, or the world wouldn't be the way it is.
#3 : God isn't a sadist, he is omnipotent, but he forgot about us and thus the world went to ****.
#4 : God isn't a sadist, and he is omnipotent, but he's also incompetent and can't fix the mess he made.

One of the four must be true.

(Which is of course BS, but so are the four possibilities you mentioned.)

I'm sorry; I don't see a proof attached for critique; have you listed it elsewhere and I just missed it?