Archive for the ‘musings’ Category

For All You Agnostics

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

All my readers know that I have more patience for Agnosticism than for Atheism, since it’s easier to prove that you don’t or can’t understand something than to call someone a fool for believing something that has neither been dis-proven nor can be.

But enough about that. Today I’m going to answer two questions: “Can God dig a pit so deep that he can’t climb out,” and “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t throw it.”

Before we can answer the questions we have to lay some groundwork. The reason these questions appear so confusing at first is because of the duplicity of the word “can” in the English language. This duplicity is shown in the definition of the word in the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary:

“1 a : know how to b : be physically or mentally able to c —used to indicate possibility ; sometimes used interchangeably with may d : be permitted by conscience or feeling to e : be made possible or probable by circumstances to f : be inherently able or designed to g : be logically or axiologically able to <2 + 2 can also be written 3 + 1> h : be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to”

The word “can” can be used in the sense of a, b, and f; or, alternately, in the sense of c, d, e, or g. In other words, when we hear the story of how George Washington supposedly said, “I cannot tell a lie,” we understand implicitly that he was not saying he lacked the mental, emotional, physical or other capacity to tell a lie. He was saying that he was so determined never to lie that such a thing would never – and indeed could never – happen.

Hence when the non-Agnostic Deist says “God can do anything”, he isn’t claiming that God is *capable* of anything. He’s claiming that there are no limits on God’s abilities or on God’s powers – in other words, he’s over-simplifying the definition of “omnipotence.”

In fact, the Bible itself uses the same grammatical structure as the George Washington story when it states that “God cannot lie.” Obviously we are not to meant to understand that if God wished to lie, He would be unable to do so. All this means is that God has never lied and will never lie. There are no limits on God’s power that would actually prevent Him from lying if He should choose to do so, but since He will never choose to do so, since He is not a liar, since lying is inconsistent with His nature, He cannot lie. In other words, it *can’t* be correct that God lied; the event known as “God lied” can never occur; and, by that definition, God cannot lie.

So we’ve debunked the idea that Christians believe “God can do anything.” Let’s continue our discussion by giving simple answers to these two questions before moving on to the address underlying misunderstanding of God’s nature.

Question 1: Can God make a rock so big that He can’t throw it?

This one is easy. Most see a paradox here, but I don’t. This question is actually a composite of two questions:
A) Is there a size limit for rocks that God could make?
B) Could there exist a rock so large that God couldn’t throw it?

Since we’ve already discussed the misuse of the word “can” in “God can do anything,” let’s take it as an assumption. If God is “omnipotent,” then there are no limits placed on the size of rock He is permitted to create. So the answer to the first question is no.

Again, if God is omnipotent, then there could not possibly exist a rock so large that God be “unable” to throw it, if He chose to (this stipulation is consistent with our definition of “can” as something that describes likelihood of occurrence rather than as something that describes capacity). So the answer to the second question, if we assume that God is omnipotent (which we must, as I will explain momentarily), is also no.

Why must we assume that God is omnipotent? Because if we didn’t, the question would be meaningless. If I were to ask you if you could create a rock so big that you couldn’t throw it, what would you say? That’s easy. “Of course I could.”

The real question is, “If God can do anything, doesn’t that mean He can create a rock so big that He can’t throw it?” But it should be, “If God is omnipotent, does that mean He can create a rock too big to throw,” or, in other words, “Does God’s omnipotence entail the ability to create a rock so big that He can’t throw it?” But I’m getting ahead of myself.

But enough of that, and back to the question. The trouble with splitting the question into two questions and answering them separately is that seem to rely on each other. In particular, the first part relies on the second part. It means, “assuming there could exist a rock so big that God couldn’t throw it, could God have created the rock?” In other words, the first part of the question falsely assumes that the answer to the second part of the question is, “Yes.” Since there is no limit to the size of rock that God can throw, there could not possibly exist a rock so large that God can’t throw it. And since such a rock can’t exist, God “can’t” create one.

“But wait!,” you say. “There’s something God can’t do!” How right you are! We have proven that the statement, “God can do anything,” is false (and that no one really believes it anyway), but we have not disproved God’s omnipotence, or His infinite power. It is precisely because God’s power is infinite that He can’t create such a rock. In other words, no matter how much power is required to throw a rock, that amount of power can’t be greater than the power that God possesses, because God’s power is unlimited. Therefore, even though there is no limit to the size of rock that God can create, the rock (even if the rock had an infinite size), could never become so large as to require a greater amount of power to throw than was at God’s disposal.

To clarify this further, let’s reword the question without changing it’s meaning: “If there existed a rock so large that God couldn’t throw it, could God have created the rock?” Again, let’s assume that “God can do anything,” since, if I were to ask, “If there existed a rock too large for Abraham to throw, could Abraham have created it” is a pointless question and the answer is obviously “yes.”

Now since “God can do anything,” it is unreasonable to believe that such a rock could exist. In other words, the question becomes, “If there existed a rock which could never exist, could God have created it?” Well no. Since the rock doesn’t exist, neither God nor anyone else could have created it.

So much for question 1. The answer is “No. Since God can[possesses the capacity to] do anything, He can’t[definitely has never and will certainly not ever] make a rock so big that He can’t throw it.”

Question 2: Can God dig a pit so deep that He can’t climb out?

We’ve already pretty much debunked this question, so we don’t really need to say anything more. Again, the answer is “no, because there is not, nor could there ever be, a pit so deep that God couldn’t climb out if He chose to, although there is also no limit to the depth of a pit that God could dig.” However, I’d also like to point out that this question overlooks something else about the nature of God, namely, His omnipresence.

Again, let’s break the question down into

A) Is there a limit to how deep a pit God can dig?

If God can do anything, the answer is “no.” In fact, the Bible even states that God is digging or has dug a “bottomless pit” into which He will eventually throw Satan.

B) Could there exist a pit so deep that God could not climb out?

Setting aside omnipresence for a moment, omnipotence alone says “no.” Again, only if the answer to one of these questions were “yes” could the combination of the two become a paradox. And the assumption that God is omnipotent precludes a “yes” answer to either question.

But back to omnipresence. The problem is that God is everywhere. If you jumped into a bottomless pit, you could never fall so far that God would not be present at that depth. Similarly, if you returned to the surface, God would still be there, outside the pit. In other words, God is simultaneously present both inside the pit and outside it. He would have no reason to “climb” out of the pit, and therefore, the question is meaningless. Whenever Christians talk about God “being” or “going” somewhere, it’s a metaphor that refers to His eternal presence at that location.

“Aha!,” you say. “But some Christians teach that hell is the place of separation from God.” Yes, but that separation is alienation. It doesn’t mean that God isn’t there. Even David said in the Psalms, “If I make my bed in hell, behold, You [, God,] are there.”

The real question is, “could God create a hole so deep that He would be trapped inside in the sense that we humans would be? Could such a hole become so deep that He would be unable to travel to or be present at other locations?” For this reason also, the answer is “no.”

You say you’ve found a contradiction? Because the Bible talks about God having a “mouth”, “eyes,” “ears,” “hands,” about God “going” there or “coming” here? To that I say, what is a mouth but speaking? What are ears but hearing? What are eyes (and incidentally, the Bible says that God’s “eyes” are in “every place”) but seeing? When God says, “I will visit my people,” He often means it in very much the same sort of ironic way a gangster means it when he says he’s going to “pay someone a little visit.” These passages are meant to communicate that God sees, hears, knows about, and can manipulate materials and circumstances that are relevant to us in time and space. He does not exist as an unapproachable foreign entity in some other dimension; instead, His ongoing work is evident in our own material world. Likewise, when a human being goes to another place, he must go there from the place where he is. Since God can be in both places at once, He has no such limitation, and can “go” anywhere without departing from where He is.

The Real Issue: Can God Get Himself into a situation He can’t get out of?
A better way to put this is, if God is vested with all power and authority, if there are no limits to what He may (although there are limits to what He can) do, then, can God put an irrevocable limit on His own power?

Let me give an example. While I own my car, I have the authority to drive it. I can smash it with a baseball bat if I want to. I can do anything I want (within the confines of the law, the realm of physical possibility etc.), but as soon as I sell my car, I move into an irreversible position. I no longer have power over the car, and there’s no way for me to get that power back. Since I have the authority to sell or give away my car, I have the power to give up my power.

Back to God. The question I’m asking is, is it possible for God to somehow undo His omnipotence? To remove that attribute of Himself? This is what both questions are really getting at. Can God (by whatever definition of the word “can”), put a cap on His own power?

I think God can and does restrain Himself. However, omnipotence is a characteristic of God – it isn’t a behavior. And if the Bible is to be believed, God’s character never changes. Yesterday, today, and forever, He remains the same. Therefore, in the sense of something that ever will or could possibly occur, God cannot cease to be omnipotent, because He cannot change. Whether He possesses the capacity to make changes to His own character is another question.

You have to remember that God didn’t create Himself. In addition to being omnipresent and omnipotent, He is eternal. Therefore in the sense that George Washington couldn’t lie (according to the story), God cannot change. Because if God could cease to be omnipotent, then by definition He would also cease to be God. (If God is defined as, “that omnipotent being who is eternal, unchanging, and omnipresent).

So the real question, when you boil it down is, “Can God stop being God.” Can a caterpillar become a butterfly is one question, can God (who, by definition, never changes), become anything other than God, is another question altogether. And the answer is no.

The only remaining question is, does omnipotence mean that the omnipotent one would succeed if He attempted to give up his omnipotence? I think that’s an important stipulation because we’ve established that such an attempt will never be made. But if such an attempt were made, would it be successful? I think the definition of omnipotence means that it would. So an omnipotent person could theoretically stop being omnipotent, but God in particular – who, in addition to being omnipotent, never changes – never will; even though He must indeed possess whatever power would be required for Him to do so.

So can God make a rock so big that He can’t throw it, can He dig a pit so deep that He can’t climb out? In short, can God be anything other than God? No. Does that mean God is anything less than omnipotent? No. None of these questions say anything about who God is or what He is like, and they certainly fail to demonstrate that we have no hope of ever understanding Him.

OH… MY… GOODNESS

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

I was listening to Michael Youssef today and he started talking about this conspiracy theory of his… it surrounds the Earth Charter. Ever heard of it?

Well… it’s not a theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Charter

Check the History section. Mikhail Gorbachev? Plus it’s been endorsed by over 250 universities around the world. And by the US Conference of mayors which consists of… all the mayors of US cities with populations of 30,000 or more.

“The Charter has received opposition from several groups. For example, in the United States, members of religious groups, such as the Religious Right have objected to the document on the grounds that it is secular, and espouses socialism. In addition, some conservatives cite an informal comment by Mikhail Gorbachev that the document is “a kind of Ten Commandments” and point to the fact that at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, a copy of the document was placed symbolically in an “Ark of Hope” — an independent project by the American artist Sally Linder. A number of conspiracy theorists claim that the founders of the Earth Charter are attempting to establish a global super-state to enforce the Charter.”

Conspiracy theorists, my FOOT! Go and read the bloody thing, it’s written right in there! “In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development. ” (emphasis mine) Also see this page: http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/articles/268/1/A-new-Guide-for-Using-the-Earth-Charter-in-Education-/Page1.html

In addition to educators, the charter openly states that it intends to involve governments and the media in it’s mission. It calls for tolerance of all religions, people of any sexual orientation, worship of nature, a “global civil community”, universal healthcare (including free access to birth control) and education, and special attention to the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. (Someone told me in an email they weren’t sure where the destabilizing influences in the US were coming from… now we know.)

And if you don’t believe this seemingly far-fetched article, then go to the homepage of the Ark of Hope, where they readily admit that the claims about this beastly, blasphemous box of balogna are true – and to samvandina.com (see the section appropriately titled “a third pillar” and the section that describes the “drafting process”.)

I’ve said this before but now I’m REALLY saying it… The End is Near. lol

The Theory of Relativity started at Babel

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Wikipedia defines linguistic relativity as “the idea that the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages affect the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.” (Click the word “Wikipedia” for a more in-depth explanation – not for the faint of mind.)

In layman’s terms – the language we speak affects the way we think, and the way we perceive things.

Of course this is a heavily debated claim… but have you ever asked yourself how far the linguistic divide reaches? I mean, when you and I look up at the sky we both say, “It is blue….”, but are we both really seeing the same color? How would anyone ever know if we weren’t? How do I know that when you say ‘up’, you’re thinking of the same thing I think of when I say ‘down’? After all… even if you were, you’d still call my ‘down’ ‘up’, and I’d never be the wiser. Neither would you.

A perfect example that illustrates this vividly is the Japanese word for “blue.” Well, they call it green. Of course they have a word that means “green” as well, but they only use it for plants. So a train car or a traffic light (which is just as green in Japan as it is here in the US) is “blue,” and a plant that is exactly the same color is green.

But you know what? The Japanese are 100% certain that the two colors are completely different. When they look at a stop light, they really “think” they’re seeing the color blue – and maybe they are!

So I’m starting to develop this theory… in the story of the tower of Babel it says that He confused their languages, and we tend to think, well that’s where all the different languages in the world came from. But what if the Lord made a change that was even more fundamental, a change that was even more subtle?

What if, in confusing our languages, He confused the very way we think about things? Not in a way that made us actually confused as individuals, but in a way that made it impossible for us to efficiently collaborate? After all, isn’t that why he did it – to make it impossible for the Babel builders to work together?

Earlier I observed that having views which deviate sufficiently from those of others can tend to separate us from each other. What if it’s literally impossible for two people to “put aside all of their differences”, “see eye-to-eye”, “be on the same wavelength”, or be “with each other all the way” on absolutely everything?

In fact, that sounds like common sense, and it’s why we have settled for “agreeing to disagree” with so many different people, about so many different things. Is it unreasonable to guess that this could be a result of what happened at Babel? That our widely varying perspectives actually serve as a handicap?

Before the tower of Babel, were there any wars? Think about it… maybe the key to Undiluted Perception has been hidden beyond our reach, only to be revealed when the Lord returns. Maybe the reason humans fail to agree about basic facts, including the best way to do things is because we lack the fundamental ability to do so – maybe we can’t arrive at the same version of “the truth”.

Just one more thing to look forward to, I guess.

Raymond on Mysticism and Faith

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

“The mode of the religious is faith. The mode of the mystic is experience. We do not enact rituals and promulgate dogmas to express our `faith’ that the sun rises in the east, because it is a fact of experience. No more does a true shaman or mystic invest faith in the god(s) he or she invokes; they too are facts of experience. The elevation of `faith’ is, in fact, a sign that a religious tradition is losing its ability to induce theophany, or has already lost it.” – Eric Raymond, 3rd Degree Wiccan

I guess I always knew I was a Christian mystic, and not a member of some dead religion. Funny though… his description of “faith” and “dogma” applies to atheism, just as much as it applies to any other religion.

“Remember, my son…”

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

“Remember, my son, there is no city in the world where they have a statue of a critic.” This was supposedly said to a famous composer by his father. However, he was wrong. I was able to find the severed head of Bion the Borysthenite, a Roman cynic philosopher, which is now in a museum, but which used to be part of an entire statue.

My 10 Commandments

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

1. Thou shalt not make assumptions
2. Thou shalt not deceive thyself or others
3. That shalt not say stupid things
4. Thou shalt be flexible
5. Thou shalt work like a dog for what you want
6. Thou shalt not complacently accept things as they are
7. Thou shalt respect everyone equally, including the misduided
8. Thou shalt never subject thyself to boredom
9. Thou shalt not harm anyone who doesn’t deserve it
10. Thou shalt despise and cruelly mistreat the insincere if you can get away with it

Note that any of the first 9 may be discarded when applying commandment #10.

SPECULATION ALERT

Friday, November 14th, 2008

Now first of all, please don’t read this unless:

1) You are really smart;
2) You don’t believe in any conspiracy theories (at least not very fervidly); and,
3) Are not easily influenced by what you read (be honest!)

Now there’s this age-old debate about who the sons of God and the daughters of men are in Genesis chapter 6. But check out verse 38 in Luke chapter 3: “[...] which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God” (KJV).

Not that this is some kind of magical map key or something– I certainly don’t agree with Dave Root’s idea that the Bible is a jigsaw puzzle– but could it be that there was more than one “first man?”

Now before you tar, feather, and burn me with the steak, go back up there and re-read the title. This idea sounds as preposterous to me as it does to you, but, did you know that the name Adam, in the original Hebrew, doesn’t necessarily mean “first man” in all cases? It could just mean, man-kind. So that would answer the question, “did Seth marry his sister?”– because maybe he didn’t have to. Maybe First Man was really just The First Men. Then it would also make sense that there were also First Women, and then we would have separate bloodlines, and people wouldn’t have to marry their sisters.

Anyway, the name Adam doesn’t show up until the middle of Genesis chapter two, so even if Adam means and was the first man, that doesn’t necessarily mean there weren’t others! And if Adam was “the son of God” – please notice carefully my emphasis on the lowercase ’s’ – suppose that maybe God put all of His apples on one tree, so to speak, and Adam was sort of His “special project man”– the one He was closest to. Then we could reasonably suppose that his sons were the sons of God and the daughters of the other men were the daughters of men.

Like I said, that’s just a theory, please please please don’t go off and use it as an excuse to start a new religion, and also don’t flame me for having false doctrine. This is just a crazy thought that I had.

There it is.

Friday, September 26th, 2008

So here I am, sitting at work, listening to ReignRadio.com, when, what should I hear? Well, one of the Old Hackers, a member of The Birds, told me one time that one of his favorite bands was Die Happy. (I seriously doubt you’re reading this, Jay.) I’d never heard of that band until today; I just assumed it was some heathen band. haha, I always thought he was such a bad [ahem, boy], and here that was a Christian band. Between moutain bikes, console emulators, and nerdy music, that guy was a true hacker and as stupid as it sounds, he was sort of a role model back then. hahaha Perspective changes everything.

Actually that band rocks, though.

Real Programmers?

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

Today they served us quiche lorraine for breakfast. Could this be an insult, or are they trying to send us a subtle message?

Blah

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah…

Blah blah blah blah, blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah. Blah blah blah.

Blah.