A finite God?

[sackett]

Way too many years ago, I read a novel in which the hero comes, at the end of many travails, to an acceptance of the idea of a finite God, a God who can't do everything. (Wish I could remember author and title here, but I said it was too many years ago.) The idea intrigued me then, and intrigues me still: a single God who sure 'nuff created the universe, but whose creation got too big for him, and who now can only do his best, the same way we do. That would explain the problem of evil, and solve the dilemma of free will.

A finite God wouldn't seem as much of a sh!t as the overarching sees-all, knows-all, I'm-making-you-suffer-for-the-good-of-your-soul bastard the Christians and others currently contrive to worship. A finite God could be a lovable god - although he wouldn't necessarily be 100 percent nice all the time.

I like the idea of a God who gets wet if he doesn't come in out of the rain.

 

[EdipisReks]

i like the idea of a god that doesn't exist, better. seems to fit the available evidence, too. interesting concept you have there, though

 

[sackett]

A George Burns sort of God

Mind you, I don't for a second believe in a finite God or any other kind, but it's a consoling idea. It would be nice if we could in some way be God's parnters; if we could be in cahoots with a God who needs our help.

Another idea, this time my own (he said modestly): Perhaps we really do have souls, immortal or less so, but there's still no god. Imagine dying but then continuing to exist as much on your own as you ever were! Brr! It's chilly out here in infinity, and me without a body to keep me warm!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Re: A George Burns sort of God

Another idea, this time my own (he said modestly): Perhaps we really do have souls, immortal or less so, but there's still no god. Imagine dying but then continuing to exist as much on your own as you ever were! Brr! It's chilly out here in infinity, and me without a body to keep me warm!

Actually it kind of reminds me of what happens to the dead in Brian Lumley's Necroscope books.

 

[Yahweh]

The Finite God concept has been around for quite a while.

You ought to be aware of the Greek and Roman gods, they often specialized in various areas of life and were defined by what they could and could not do.

In Christianity, you might here people talk about omniscience and omnipotence. Some folks define a property such as omniscience as "perfect and complete knowledge that can be logically known", this definition allows god(s) to take the title of omniscience, but the connotation of the definition specifically describes a property of god(s) as finite. Defining a god's omniscience as "able to do all that can logically occur" nullifies the anti-omniscience query "if no task can defeat God, can God create a task which can defeat him", however that specific definition again defines the nature of god as finite.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Even that definition of omniscience is inadequate. "Everything that can be known" cannot be usefully defined because some knowledge is mutually exclusive with other knowledge. It's possible to know A, and possible to know B, but not possible to know A and B. So - does God know A or B?

 

[gnome]

Even that definition of omniscience is inadequate. "Everything that can be known" cannot be usefully defined because some knowledge is mutually exclusive with other knowledge. It's possible to know A, and possible to know B, but not possible to know A and B. So - does God know A or B?

Are you referring to Heisenberg, or something more logically subtle?

I'm not sure how to properly explain it, but I don't have a problem with an omniscient entity knowing what we can't, about a particle, for example. Once you have a "God" that has even moderate supernatural ability, I wouldn't balk at the Uncertainty Principle.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Are you referring to Heisenberg, or something more logically subtle?

More subtle, although the Uncertainty Principle would at least be an example of such knowledge.

"Knowing everything that could be known" would be meaningless. Borges' Library contains every statement that can be made, but that includes contradictory statements. Everything in the Library can be known, but each item within it cancels out its opposite.

 

[varwoche]

I like the idea that finite god is able to reset; the universe as we know it is iteration infinity plus one.

varwoche

 

[gnome]

More subtle, although the Uncertainty Principle would at least be an example of such knowledge.

"Knowing everything that could be known" would be meaningless. Borges' Library contains every statement that can be made, but that includes contradictory statements. Everything in the Library can be known, but each item within it cancels out its opposite. [/B]

I'm not sure I see the contradiction here.

Also, would that be Jorge Luis Borges?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I'm not sure I see the contradiction here.

Also, would that be Jorge Luis Borges?

Yes, it would.

What use is it to "know" X about the world when you also "know" Not X? If you simultaneously understand that the Earth is flat and oblately spherical, do you understand anything?

 

[Iacchus]

The Finite God concept has been around for quite a while.

You ought to be aware of the Greek and Roman gods, they often specialized in various areas of life and were defined by what they could and could not do.

Diversification, in order to better serve the variance and diversification of Its (God's) creation.

 

[Keneke]

Yes, it would.

What use is it to "know" X about the world when you also "know" Not X? If you simultaneously understand that the Earth is flat and oblately spherical, do you understand anything?

Oh, we could say that a thing is X and not X at the same time, but we could say anything we want. Omniscience would know what is real, what is untrue, and also how mankind can create untruths with his mind.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Oh, we could say that a thing is X and not X at the same time, but we could say anything we want. Omniscience would know what is real, what is untrue, and also how mankind can create untruths with his mind.

Ah, but the claim is not that omniscience knows everything that is true. The claim is that it knows everything that can be known, which is crucially different.