|
|
|
Subject:
SGTObvious Manifesto 2, Defnitions, and Infallibility
SGTObvious
8/21/2003 7:27:26 AM
|
| I'm going somewhere with this, I know it (with less than 100% certainty, see below) but I get a feeling I wont know exactly where it is till Manifesto 5 or 6.
Fallibility, Infallibility, Certainty, and Definitions
I'd like to start off with a free prize for all who read this- SGTObvious will now destroy a favorite paradox asked by over-inquisitive children for centuries.
"Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"
What is the answer? The answer is No.
That's right. Here's why. Before we answer a question, we have to agree on the meaning of the question. If we don't agree on the meaning, the answer is useless. If you ask me, how big is a hamster, and I define "hamster" to mean "the state of Nebraska", the answer will be of no use to us- and meaningless. In this question, when we say God, we mean an Omnipotent, (Can do anything) Omniscient (Knows Everything) being. We trust the being is Benevolent, too, because if not, well, that would be bad and is further discussed below. If you have any other meaning for God, we do not agree on the terms of the question.
Now God, being Omnipotent, is an unstoppable force, by definition. A rock he could not move, by definition, would be an immovable object. So our question really says "Can unstoppable force move an immovable object". Now, look again. The definition of unstoppable force MEANS that no immovable object can exist. By allowing the term to be used, if we accept its meaning, we cannot accept the existence of the other. The one is the Negation of the other. So, we can refine our paradoxial sentence again, and we get: "Can X = Not X?"
If X equals Not X, we do not have a definition of X. If X is undefined, we have no business asking questions about it, or answering them. It's meaningless. I could just as well ask, is a splatsblu a derfjik? With the terms undefined, the questions do not matter. So, God cannot make a rock he cannot lift, because if he could the question itself would be undefined and make no sense. SInce the Answer cannot possibly be Yes, it must be No. You might say, Aha, but this shows there is something God cannot do, so he is not Omnipotent! Wrong. Since the action you propose God cannot do is logically and mathematically undefinable, it cannot exist, even in theory. God can do anything definable. It is nonsense to ask if he can do undefinable things- we cannot ask a question we do not agree on- and in any event non-definable things have no bearing on a definition of God.
Can we accept God as infallible?
If we beleive that God is Omnipotent- capable of doing anything- it logically follwos that God has the capability of Omniscience- knowing everything. The gathering and processing of information is a definable action, therefore, God can do it without limitations. God may choose to leave some things unknown, to allow/create Free Will for example, but he has the capability to know everything.
The doubter says- wait, if he chooses not to know everything, then he is not really Omniscient, is he? Yes he is. Just as he is still Omnipotent even though he chooses not to do everything. So, God is Omniscient.
Does this mean he is infallible?
We might think that if God can choose to Not Know something, he might be, by his own choice, fallible. Where God fails, if he fails, it is his own choice. But we have to define failure. But "fail" is a judgement term. It means an outcome was judged to be inferior to an intended outcome. COnsider an possible action on God's part. He may choose to act, and thereby do anything he wills, or he may choose to not act, and leave the outcome to chance or human nature. If he chooses not to act, the outcome is still reflective of his choice, and so, any judgement on our part of "failure" is strictly a limited, personal one.
Although I choose not to beleive God views the world as a game, consider this analogy: You set up a chessboard. You have the option of playing both sides, and every move will be exactly as you will it to be, and your chosen side will win. Or, you set up a computer to play the other side, and it defeats you. Did you really fail? You lost the game, but you chose that possibility. Your intended Goal was a realistic and challenging game, and you got it. Still think you failed? Perhaps, from the point of view of the White King, you did, but not from your point of view. You lost a game, but only within the perspective of the game. From a far broader perspective, you succeeded.
So, God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Infallible. People, on the other hand, are another story. With a few exceptions, all people admit their own infallibility. There is a small and dangerous subclass of people that claims that depsite their mortal infallibility, they can interpret the will of God with absolute infallibilty.
They are wrong.
They might have extremely strong feelings on the subject, but that is irrelevant. They might |
| |
|
|
|
