First, I'm not the OP. I didn't ask the question to begin with, I was merely trying to make the OP's post sensible.
Second,
I thought I was asking "If this applies to God, when can God A > B". It's my fault if that wasn't apparent. I figured my first post made it clear that if we apply what Jesus said to God's actions, when can they be ">". Apologies if that didn't come out clear enough.
Finally,
There is no reason we can't apply this to God.
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
...
The real numbers are bound by logic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
First, I'm not the OP. I didn't ask the question to begin with, I was merely trying to make the OP's post sensible.
Got it. Sorry about that and I appreciate when people do that.
Second,
I thought I was asking "If this applies to God, when can God A > B". It's my fault if that wasn't apparent. I figured my first post made it clear that if we apply what Jesus said to God's actions, when can they be ">". Apologies if that didn't come out clear enough.
I'm quite guilty of nitpicking here. It's a guilty pleasure that I think most people in the debate forum indulge in.
Finally,
There is no reason we can't apply this to God.
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
Sadly, we do disagree here.
Christian "omnipotence" is of the boundless type (well, Catholic at least; I haven't actually studied if there were any differences characterizing this in other denominations), where God has no limits on power or resources.
Catholic belief is that since God created everything, including the laws of the universe and logic, that He is necessarily not bound by them. Excerpt from the First Vatican Council:
Chapter 1
On God the creator of all things
1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
2. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
...
The real numbers are bound by logic.
And the way in which they are bound by logic is analogous to the way God's actions are (or could be) bound by logic in what specific way?
***
Sadly, we do disagree here.
Christian "omnipotence" is of the boundless type (well, Catholic at least; I haven't actually studied if there were any differences characterizing this in other denominations), where God has no limits on power or resources.
Catholic belief is that since God created everything, including the laws of the universe and logic, that He is necessarily outside of them (yay paradox). Excerpt from the First Vatican Council:
Chapter 1
On God the creator of all things
1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
2. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
Right, but words have meanings.
If we start talking about God making square circles this is going to go nowhere.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
While I appreciate your effort, the OP was based on a misunderstanding of the text that I'm not sure allows this thread to be salvaged.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
Again, I feel like that runs contrary to the point.
Jesus isn't talking about God's actions. He's talking about human offerings to God. The woman who donated everything she had donated far more than anyone else, even though she offered less in terms of monetary value than the others.
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
...
The real numbers are bound by logic.
And the way in which they are bound by logic is analogous to the way God's actions are (or could be) bound by logic in what specific way?
There are an infinite number of real numbers. Yet they are bound by logic.
This directly contradicts "Things with boundaries are by definition finite"
Suppose God is bound only by the logic that "God can do whatever God wants". Then, logically speaking, God can do whatever God wants, yet be bounded by logic.
Oh no, I get all that, and yes I was trying to make something incoherent, coherent.
While I appreciate your effort, the OP was based on a misunderstanding of the text that I'm not sure allows this thread to be salvaged.
I still hold to everything else I said though.
If (giving all you have) > (giving a small portion of what you have)
When can God's actions be ">" ?
Again, I feel like that runs contrary to the point.
Jesus isn't talking about God's actions. He's talking about human offerings to God. The woman who donated everything she had donated far more than anyone else, even though she offered less in terms of monetary value than the others.
So is there any way it can be salvaged?
How can we derive value from his actions at all then?
For instance - was creating the Universe a significant deed or an insignificant deed for God? How can we tell, if the methods for which we derive the value of an action don't apply?
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
...
The real numbers are bound by logic.
And the way in which they are bound by logic is analogous to the way God's actions are (or could be) bound by logic in what specific way?
There are an infinite number of real numbers. Yet they are bound by logic.
This directly contradicts "Things with boundaries are by definition finite"
Suppose God is bound only by the logic that "God can do whatever God wants". Then, logically speaking, God can do whatever God wants, yet be bounded by logic.
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
...
The real numbers are bound by logic.
And the way in which they are bound by logic is analogous to the way God's actions are (or could be) bound by logic in what specific way?
***
Sadly, we do disagree here.
Christian "omnipotence" is of the boundless type (well, Catholic at least; I haven't actually studied if there were any differences characterizing this in other denominations), where God has no limits on power or resources.
Catholic belief is that since God created everything, including the laws of the universe and logic, that He is necessarily outside of them (yay paradox). Excerpt from the First Vatican Council:
Chapter 1
On God the creator of all things
1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
2. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
Right, but words have meanings.
If we start talking about God making square circles this is going to go nowhere.
Words have meanings, but as you can see from that First Vatican Council, every Christian denomination that still follows it explicitly believes God to be, outside of scripture and religious teaching, incomprehensible. Words have meaning and get some of God's point across, but Christians believe they do not and cannot capture the entire nature or essence of God.
Catholic belief is that since God created everything, including the laws of the universe and logic, that He is necessarily not bound by them. Excerpt from the First Vatican Council...
Your excerpt does not back up your assertion about Catholic belief. And both Thomas Aquinas and catholic.com directly contradict your assertion.
If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.
- Summa Theologica
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
...
The real numbers are bound by logic.
And the way in which they are bound by logic is analogous to the way God's actions are (or could be) bound by logic in what specific way?
***
Sadly, we do disagree here.
Christian "omnipotence" is of the boundless type (well, Catholic at least; I haven't actually studied if there were any differences characterizing this in other denominations), where God has no limits on power or resources.
Catholic belief is that since God created everything, including the laws of the universe and logic, that He is necessarily outside of them (yay paradox). Excerpt from the First Vatican Council:
Chapter 1
On God the creator of all things
1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
2. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
Right, but words have meanings.
If we start talking about God making square circles this is going to go nowhere.
Words have meanings, but as you can see from that First Vatican Council, every Christian denomination that still follows it explicitly believes God to be, outside of scripture and religious teaching, incomprehensible. Words have meaning and get some of God's point across, but Christians believe they do not and cannot capture the entire nature or essence of God.
Can we grasp enough of his nature, through the writings of the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus, to place a vector-point on a good<------->evil axis, or even a significant<-------->insignificant axis?
Maybe not. Maybe this is something we can't sort out to our satisfaction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
How can we derive value from his actions at all then?
For instance - was creating the Universe a significant deed or an insignificant deed for God? How can we tell, if the methods for which we derive the value of an action don't apply?
But that isn't the method we derive value of an action.
You're making the same mistake the OP made. Jesus isn't saying that the only way a deed is good is if it harms you, and from there it's a sliding scale of harm.
It's saying that the woman contributed more because she was willing to give up everything, including her own life, and that is more important than how much her contribution amounted to monetarily.
-------
Also, this discussion of God being incomprehensible is ridiculous.
God cannot be fully comprehended by man? Ok. That's fine.
God being entirely incomprehensible in every way? No, that's absurd. If nothing about God can be asserted, the fact that God is incomprehensible cannot be asserted, which means the very assertion invalidates itself.
How can we derive value from his actions at all then?
For instance - was creating the Universe a significant deed or an insignificant deed for God? How can we tell, if the methods for which we derive the value of an action don't apply?
But that isn't the method we derive value of an action.
You're making the same mistake the OP made. Jesus isn't saying that the only way a deed is good is if it harms you, and from there it's a sliding scale of harm.
It's saying that the woman contributed more because she was willing to give up everything, including her own life, and that is more important than how much her contribution amounted to monetarily.
I concede that point.
I'm asking a new question.
Is there a way for us to determine whether or not any action made by God is or isn't significant to God?
How do we measure this significance?
How can we tell if say <creating the universe> was a big deal for him or not?
This is relevant after all. "For God so loved the world, that he gave..."
What did he give? Did he give something significant? How can we tell it was significant? What if it was insignificant?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What makes you think either of those articles are supportive of the stance you're taking? These are about Woodin's ultimate-L model of set theory, which not only includes the mundane varieties of infinity that come up in philosophy, but (conjectures Woodin) every possible kind of infinity, including exotic ones that have never been contemplated outside of mathematics.
In any case your logic must encompass the concept of the infinite in order for the questions being asked here to even make sense. These are questions about infinity, not a denial of its existence.
Even deniers of the existence of the infinite have a problem, because what is it, precisely, that they are denying the existence of? A thing that always winds up existing (logically, not metaphysically) in some sense, even if the speaker is right and it doesn't exist in their particular system. (Formally, a proof ruling out the infinite has to be a meta-proof (first-order logics can't control the cardinality of their models by the Lowenheim-Skolem theorems) and must first construct or infer (using the metalogic) an infinity before they can proceed to refute its existence in their object system.)
I have no idea what you're trying to say with those articles, besides to continue keeping numbers in as if it's relevant somehow.
It is not, in case you are confused.
It was merely a direct counter-point to your claim that "If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite."
As stated, things with boundaries are not, by definition, finite.
Tell me how the set of numbers, while logically bound, and being infinite is analogous to the set of actions God can perform being logically bound.
We're not talking about an endless plane of numbers, we're talking about things God can do.
i.e.
The plane of numbers is endless, infinite.
The things God can do is not endless, finite. Unless it is endless, I could be wrong, seeing as I do not know what God can or cannot do.
So tell me how we know God's abilities are infinite again.
Tell me how the set of numbers, while logically bound, and being infinite is analogous to the set of actions God can perform being logically bound.
Your claim was that because God's omnipotence is bound by logic, it can't be infinite. This statement as written is simply a non sequitur, because it's not true that all things that are bound by logic are finite.
So your argument as written is prima facie unsound. If you still wish to claim that God's omnipotence is finite, then as the claimant, it's your burden to come up with a better argument. Otherwise you are making an unsupported assertion.
By asking us to construct the analogy you need to make to prove your case, you're asking us to shoulder your burden. It's not anyone else's job to fix your broken argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
Limitless. Are God's abilities limitless, or limited?
Boundless. Are they bound by something?
"having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude"
God's abilities are not infinite by definition.
Numbers are bound by logic. But the SET of numbers on a number line is limitless, endless, boundless.
Can you tell me what the last number in infinity is? The first?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
Limitless. Are God's abilities limitless, or limited?
Boundless. Are they bound by something?
"having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude"
The problem with applying these definitions correctly is making the proper meta- versus object-level distinction. The notion of boundedness is internal to the logical system being examined, not external.
We don't say the natural numbers fail to be infinite because they are bound by logic and set theory. Someone who improperly mixes object and meta-level might fall into the following trap: since they are bound by logic, they are bound by something and therefore not boundless.
However, the notion that the natural numbers are "bound by logic" is a metalogical notion -- when examined on the object level, the natural numbers aren't bounded. The same is true of God.
When someone says God's powers are infinite, they are generally referring to the "time, space, magnitude, and extent" definition you cited. There is no upper limit to any of those quantities when it comes to God's power. For you to refute the infinitude of his power would involve you establishing and proving an upper limit on those quantities, which you have not done. (In fact, it seems to me this infinitude is just a part of the definition of God.)
Numbers are bound by logic. But the SET of numbers on a number line is limitless, endless, boundless.
The set of numbers is also bound by logic. In fact, it's bound by more than just logic, it's bound by the axioms of whatever set theory is in use as well. Therefore it's not boundless, and therefore not infinite, right? I'll go ahead and put your name in for the Fields Medal.
Can you tell me what the last number in infinity is? The first?
I can no more tell you what "the last number of infinity" is than you can tell me what is the mass of the heaviest ball of lead God could make. And that, I think, is the point.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
Limitless. Are God's abilities limitless, or limited?
Boundless. Are they bound by something?
"having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude"
The problem with applying these definitions correctly is making the proper meta- versus object-level distinction. The notion of boundedness is internal to the logical system being examined, not external.
We don't say the natural numbers fail to be infinite because they are bound by logic and set theory. Someone who improperly mixes object and meta-level might fall into the following trap: since they are bound by logic, they are bound by something and therefore not boundless.
However, the notion that the natural numbers are "bound by logic" is a metalogical notion -- when examined on the object level, the natural numbers aren't bounded. The same is true of God.
When someone says God's powers are infinite, they are generally referring to the "time, space, magnitude, and extent" definition you cited. There is no upper limit to any of those quantities when it comes to God's power. For you to refute the infinitude of his power would involve you establishing and proving an upper limit on those quantities, which you have not done. (In fact, it seems to me this infinitude is just a part of the definition of God.)
Numbers are bound by logic. But the SET of numbers on a number line is limitless, endless, boundless.
The set of numbers is also bound by logic. In fact, it's bound by more than just logic, it's bound by the axioms of whatever set theory is in use as well. Therefore it's not boundless, and therefore not infinite, right? I'll go ahead and put your name in for the Fields Medal.
Can you tell me what the last number in infinity is? The first?
I can no more tell you what "the last number of infinity" is than you can tell me what is the mass of the heaviest ball of lead God could make. And that, I think, is the point.
Explain to me what heavy means to God, and you might understand what my problem is with saying he has infinite power.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Explain to me what heavy means to God, and you might understand what my problem is with saying he has infinite power.
The same as it means to anyone else.
A big problem with this conversation is that (despite Blinking Spirit's warning a few pages back) people have been maintaining the notion that the definitions of words like "morality" and "mass" are non-objective. But those things are defined objectively, and indeed they must be if we hope to have a sane conversation.
"Mass" means the same thing to God as it does to us, because logic requires that terms are defined objectively. If we are able to determine that the mass of an object is 1kg, then God will make the same determination. (God's observation may, of course, be more accurate than ours, but the thing he's computing -- mass -- is the same thing we're computing.)
So when someone says that God's powers are infinite, it implies (in the specific context of mass) that his abilities are not confined by any limit or bound on the measured, objective mass of the objects he can work with. There's no number X which has the property that God is unable to manipulate a mass of X kilograms.
Jesus is saying that the poor widow, though she gave only a few coins, gave an offering greater in value than those who gave larger amounts due to the fact that she gave all the money she had.
So, according to you, if God is all-powerful, then he can't give us anything of "great" "value."
To break down where the OP's logic went awry, the OP is essentially comparing apples to oranges and making a false argument.
As established, Jesus' words are about how the value of sacrifice is relative rather than absolute.
Then, the OP makes the assumption that the value of sacrifice equals the value of goodness. While Jesus' words imply that sacrifice and goodness can be related, He certainly doesn't equate the two.
There is also the assumption that Jesus' metrics judging humans' goodness and value of sacrifice can be applied to God Himself. That does not necessarily follow, since the Christian God is (aside from Jesus), not human.
I didn't say "God can't do good"; I said "God can't be good." Jesus' point is that anyone can do good deeds, but they're only evidence of goodness if they're inconvenient to the do-gooder.
Also, I never bought the argument in your last paragraph. In order for one to argue that there is no "morality-morality" and there's instead "God morality" and "human morality," one would have to name some "human rules" and some "God rules," or name some examples of things humans could do that would prove they're immoral, and some examples of things that God could that would prove he's immoral.
I get what you're saying. You're saying that God holds Himself to different--and higher--standers than He does his followers.
Because He's perfect and humans aren't.
What standard would that be?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
Jesus is saying that the poor widow, though she gave only a few coins, gave an offering greater in value than those who gave larger amounts due to the fact that she gave all the money she had.
So, according to you, if God is all-powerful, then he can't give us anything of "great" "value."
My goodness.
I hope most people don't fail reading comprehension as badly as this fellow here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Second,
I thought I was asking "If this applies to God, when can God A > B". It's my fault if that wasn't apparent. I figured my first post made it clear that if we apply what Jesus said to God's actions, when can they be ">". Apologies if that didn't come out clear enough.
Finally,
There is no reason we can't apply this to God.
If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
...
The real numbers are bound by logic.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Got it. Sorry about that and I appreciate when people do that.
I'm quite guilty of nitpicking here. It's a guilty pleasure that I think most people in the debate forum indulge in.
Sadly, we do disagree here.
Christian "omnipotence" is of the boundless type (well, Catholic at least; I haven't actually studied if there were any differences characterizing this in other denominations), where God has no limits on power or resources.
Catholic belief is that since God created everything, including the laws of the universe and logic, that He is necessarily not bound by them. Excerpt from the First Vatican Council:
And the way in which they are bound by logic is analogous to the way God's actions are (or could be) bound by logic in what specific way?
***
Right, but words have meanings.
If we start talking about God making square circles this is going to go nowhere.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
While I appreciate your effort, the OP was based on a misunderstanding of the text that I'm not sure allows this thread to be salvaged.
Again, I feel like that runs contrary to the point.
Jesus isn't talking about God's actions. He's talking about human offerings to God. The woman who donated everything she had donated far more than anyone else, even though she offered less in terms of monetary value than the others.
There are an infinite number of real numbers. Yet they are bound by logic.
This directly contradicts "Things with boundaries are by definition finite"
Suppose God is bound only by the logic that "God can do whatever God wants". Then, logically speaking, God can do whatever God wants, yet be bounded by logic.
So is there any way it can be salvaged?
How can we derive value from his actions at all then?
For instance - was creating the Universe a significant deed or an insignificant deed for God? How can we tell, if the methods for which we derive the value of an action don't apply?
***
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131126-to-settle-infinity-question-a-new-law-of-logic/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128231.400-ultimate-logic-to-infinity-and-beyond.html
Your argument is hardly compelling when we're discussing the abilities of a being to perform actions.
Unless of course, we started talking about whether or not God could count to infinity.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Words have meanings, but as you can see from that First Vatican Council, every Christian denomination that still follows it explicitly believes God to be, outside of scripture and religious teaching, incomprehensible. Words have meaning and get some of God's point across, but Christians believe they do not and cannot capture the entire nature or essence of God.
Your excerpt does not back up your assertion about Catholic belief. And both Thomas Aquinas and catholic.com directly contradict your assertion.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Can we grasp enough of his nature, through the writings of the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus, to place a vector-point on a good<------->evil axis, or even a significant<-------->insignificant axis?
Maybe not. Maybe this is something we can't sort out to our satisfaction.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But that isn't the method we derive value of an action.
You're making the same mistake the OP made. Jesus isn't saying that the only way a deed is good is if it harms you, and from there it's a sliding scale of harm.
It's saying that the woman contributed more because she was willing to give up everything, including her own life, and that is more important than how much her contribution amounted to monetarily.
-------
Also, this discussion of God being incomprehensible is ridiculous.
God cannot be fully comprehended by man? Ok. That's fine.
God being entirely incomprehensible in every way? No, that's absurd. If nothing about God can be asserted, the fact that God is incomprehensible cannot be asserted, which means the very assertion invalidates itself.
I concede that point.
I'm asking a new question.
Is there a way for us to determine whether or not any action made by God is or isn't significant to God?
How do we measure this significance?
How can we tell if say <creating the universe> was a big deal for him or not?
This is relevant after all. "For God so loved the world, that he gave..."
What did he give? Did he give something significant? How can we tell it was significant? What if it was insignificant?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What makes you think either of those articles are supportive of the stance you're taking? These are about Woodin's ultimate-L model of set theory, which not only includes the mundane varieties of infinity that come up in philosophy, but (conjectures Woodin) every possible kind of infinity, including exotic ones that have never been contemplated outside of mathematics.
In any case your logic must encompass the concept of the infinite in order for the questions being asked here to even make sense. These are questions about infinity, not a denial of its existence.
Even deniers of the existence of the infinite have a problem, because what is it, precisely, that they are denying the existence of? A thing that always winds up existing (logically, not metaphysically) in some sense, even if the speaker is right and it doesn't exist in their particular system. (Formally, a proof ruling out the infinite has to be a meta-proof (first-order logics can't control the cardinality of their models by the Lowenheim-Skolem theorems) and must first construct or infer (using the metalogic) an infinity before they can proceed to refute its existence in their object system.)
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I have no idea what you're trying to say with those articles, besides to continue keeping numbers in as if it's relevant somehow.
It is not, in case you are confused.
It was merely a direct counter-point to your claim that "If we can agree that God's omnipotence is bound by logic (I hope we can) then it isn't infinite in the strict boundless sense. Things with boundaries are by definition finite."
As stated, things with boundaries are not, by definition, finite.
We're not talking about an endless plane of numbers, we're talking about things God can do.
i.e.
The plane of numbers is endless, infinite.
The things God can do is not endless, finite. Unless it is endless, I could be wrong, seeing as I do not know what God can or cannot do.
So tell me how we know God's abilities are infinite again.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It wasn't meant to be an analogy.
Your claim was that because God's omnipotence is bound by logic, it can't be infinite. This statement as written is simply a non sequitur, because it's not true that all things that are bound by logic are finite.
So your argument as written is prima facie unsound. If you still wish to claim that God's omnipotence is finite, then as the claimant, it's your burden to come up with a better argument. Otherwise you are making an unsupported assertion.
By asking us to construct the analogy you need to make to prove your case, you're asking us to shoulder your burden. It's not anyone else's job to fix your broken argument.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Limitless. Are God's abilities limitless, or limited?
Boundless. Are they bound by something?
"having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude"
God's abilities are not infinite by definition.
Numbers are bound by logic. But the SET of numbers on a number line is limitless, endless, boundless.
Can you tell me what the last number in infinity is? The first?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The problem with applying these definitions correctly is making the proper meta- versus object-level distinction. The notion of boundedness is internal to the logical system being examined, not external.
We don't say the natural numbers fail to be infinite because they are bound by logic and set theory. Someone who improperly mixes object and meta-level might fall into the following trap: since they are bound by logic, they are bound by something and therefore not boundless.
However, the notion that the natural numbers are "bound by logic" is a metalogical notion -- when examined on the object level, the natural numbers aren't bounded. The same is true of God.
When someone says God's powers are infinite, they are generally referring to the "time, space, magnitude, and extent" definition you cited. There is no upper limit to any of those quantities when it comes to God's power. For you to refute the infinitude of his power would involve you establishing and proving an upper limit on those quantities, which you have not done. (In fact, it seems to me this infinitude is just a part of the definition of God.)
The set of numbers is also bound by logic. In fact, it's bound by more than just logic, it's bound by the axioms of whatever set theory is in use as well. Therefore it's not boundless, and therefore not infinite, right? I'll go ahead and put your name in for the Fields Medal.
I can no more tell you what "the last number of infinity" is than you can tell me what is the mass of the heaviest ball of lead God could make. And that, I think, is the point.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Ooooh, ok. Wasn't clear on that.
I would presume any action made by God is significant to God, given that God made the action.
But I'm pretty positive your follow-up is going to be, "How do we determine which actions are more significant than others?", isn't it?
One presumes so. God appears extremely interested in what happens inside of it, to say the least.
Explain to me what heavy means to God, and you might understand what my problem is with saying he has infinite power.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Yes.
I perform many actions that I myself would call "meaningless" or "insignificant".
How do we know he is extremely interested, versus say moderately interested, and against what are we measuring his level of interest?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The same as it means to anyone else.
A big problem with this conversation is that (despite Blinking Spirit's warning a few pages back) people have been maintaining the notion that the definitions of words like "morality" and "mass" are non-objective. But those things are defined objectively, and indeed they must be if we hope to have a sane conversation.
"Mass" means the same thing to God as it does to us, because logic requires that terms are defined objectively. If we are able to determine that the mass of an object is 1kg, then God will make the same determination. (God's observation may, of course, be more accurate than ours, but the thing he's computing -- mass -- is the same thing we're computing.)
So when someone says that God's powers are infinite, it implies (in the specific context of mass) that his abilities are not confined by any limit or bound on the measured, objective mass of the objects he can work with. There's no number X which has the property that God is unable to manipulate a mass of X kilograms.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
So, according to you, if God is all-powerful, then he can't give us anything of "great" "value."
"...this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others."
I didn't say "God can't do good"; I said "God can't be good." Jesus' point is that anyone can do good deeds, but they're only evidence of goodness if they're inconvenient to the do-gooder.
Also, I never bought the argument in your last paragraph. In order for one to argue that there is no "morality-morality" and there's instead "God morality" and "human morality," one would have to name some "human rules" and some "God rules," or name some examples of things humans could do that would prove they're immoral, and some examples of things that God could that would prove he's immoral.
What standard would that be?
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
My goodness.
I hope most people don't fail reading comprehension as badly as this fellow here.