<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thoughts on Omnipotence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/12/thoughts-on-omnipotence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/12/thoughts-on-omnipotence/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:20:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Joseph Porter</title>
		<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/12/thoughts-on-omnipotence/comment-page-1/#comment-384</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Joseph Porter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:00:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harvardichthus.org/?p=2335#comment-384</guid>
		<description>Pickens, why didn&#039;t you just use your real name?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pickens, why didn&#8217;t you just use your real name?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jordan Monge</title>
		<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/12/thoughts-on-omnipotence/comment-page-1/#comment-382</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordan Monge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harvardichthus.org/?p=2335#comment-382</guid>
		<description>Nathan, there is a categorical difference between things which are logically impossible and things which are scientifically &quot;impossible.&quot; Most scientists do not appreciate this distinction, and because most people take many science classes but no philosophy classes, the general population doesn&#039;t either.

Actions which are logically impossible are such by definition. For example, a triangle is defined by the fact that it has three sides. Giving it four sides to make it a square guarantees that it no longer has three sides to be a triangle. Or, for the more religious example. God cannot sin and still be God. Part of the definition of God is that He is all good. If He sins, He can no longer be called God. Note that this isn&#039;t saying that &quot;God can&#039;t sin&quot; in the sense of it is impossible for Him to do commit such an action. I am not sure if God could choose to sin or not. All I know is that if He does sin, then He will no longer be God by definition. This example illuminates the principle of non-contradiction, which is what makes things logically impossible.

Actions which are scientifically &quot;impossible&quot; -such as miracles- are not impossible in this same sense. Science is founded on inductive reasoning, that is, we see events occur over and over again according to the same pattern. We use that pattern to formulate a scientific &quot;law&quot; and miracles are events that break those &quot;laws.&quot; Yet there&#039;s nothing that tells us that it&#039;s &lt;i&gt;impossible*&lt;/i&gt; that some events fall outside the pattern. It&#039;s just that they &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;very rarely&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; do. All of the observed miracles we know of - the resurrection, turning water into wine, the creation of the universe - violate the scientific laws that we have discovered &lt;i&gt;inductively&lt;/i&gt;, but nothing makes them impossible &lt;i&gt;deductively&lt;/i&gt;. 

Saying that God operates within the realm of logic doesn&#039;t reduce God to our level. Saying that God operates within the realm of logic doesn&#039;t preclude the possibility for miracles. It merely points out something fundamental about the way the universe and God function. As Joseph does a good job explaining, even the Bible concedes that some things are outside of God&#039;s power, for God &quot;cannot disown Himself.&quot; This indicates that we mean something slightly different when we say God is omnipotent: God can do anything that &lt;i&gt;can be done&lt;/i&gt;. I don&#039;t think that understanding this difference is important for being Christians, but I do think it is important for being logical and rational.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nathan, there is a categorical difference between things which are logically impossible and things which are scientifically &#8220;impossible.&#8221; Most scientists do not appreciate this distinction, and because most people take many science classes but no philosophy classes, the general population doesn&#8217;t either.</p>
<p>Actions which are logically impossible are such by definition. For example, a triangle is defined by the fact that it has three sides. Giving it four sides to make it a square guarantees that it no longer has three sides to be a triangle. Or, for the more religious example. God cannot sin and still be God. Part of the definition of God is that He is all good. If He sins, He can no longer be called God. Note that this isn&#8217;t saying that &#8220;God can&#8217;t sin&#8221; in the sense of it is impossible for Him to do commit such an action. I am not sure if God could choose to sin or not. All I know is that if He does sin, then He will no longer be God by definition. This example illuminates the principle of non-contradiction, which is what makes things logically impossible.</p>
<p>Actions which are scientifically &#8220;impossible&#8221; -such as miracles- are not impossible in this same sense. Science is founded on inductive reasoning, that is, we see events occur over and over again according to the same pattern. We use that pattern to formulate a scientific &#8220;law&#8221; and miracles are events that break those &#8220;laws.&#8221; Yet there&#8217;s nothing that tells us that it&#8217;s <i>impossible*</i> that some events fall outside the pattern. It&#8217;s just that they <b><i>very rarely</i></b> do. All of the observed miracles we know of &#8211; the resurrection, turning water into wine, the creation of the universe &#8211; violate the scientific laws that we have discovered <i>inductively</i>, but nothing makes them impossible <i>deductively</i>. </p>
<p>Saying that God operates within the realm of logic doesn&#8217;t reduce God to our level. Saying that God operates within the realm of logic doesn&#8217;t preclude the possibility for miracles. It merely points out something fundamental about the way the universe and God function. As Joseph does a good job explaining, even the Bible concedes that some things are outside of God&#8217;s power, for God &#8220;cannot disown Himself.&#8221; This indicates that we mean something slightly different when we say God is omnipotent: God can do anything that <i>can be done</i>. I don&#8217;t think that understanding this difference is important for being Christians, but I do think it is important for being logical and rational.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Shepard</title>
		<link>http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/12/thoughts-on-omnipotence/comment-page-1/#comment-375</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Shepard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.harvardichthus.org/?p=2335#comment-375</guid>
		<description>If God operates within realms of logic, and if &quot;nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God,&quot; then God is not so different from us. Without the separation only a fundamental difference of existential nature can bring, how could God make miracles, defined as events operating outside realms of logic and rationality? The Christian God must be fundamentally unknowable; this is what makes miracles possible. The entire point of the resurrection is that God made what is impossible possible: life from non-life. This is just as much of an impossibility as a square triangle, if infinitely more complex. 
The same applies to the Creation itself. Creating life from non-life is impossible; yet God accomplishes this miracle. If God is bound by rationality, He is not capable of miracles. How can he then be the Christian God?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If God operates within realms of logic, and if &#8220;nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God,&#8221; then God is not so different from us. Without the separation only a fundamental difference of existential nature can bring, how could God make miracles, defined as events operating outside realms of logic and rationality? The Christian God must be fundamentally unknowable; this is what makes miracles possible. The entire point of the resurrection is that God made what is impossible possible: life from non-life. This is just as much of an impossibility as a square triangle, if infinitely more complex.<br />
The same applies to the Creation itself. Creating life from non-life is impossible; yet God accomplishes this miracle. If God is bound by rationality, He is not capable of miracles. How can he then be the Christian God?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

