My purpose

In the last post there was some concern as to why having a soul should matter, or why I worry about OBVIOUSLY unimportant things in accordance to our everyday life. I would like to clarify what the point of philosophy is. Philosophy as we know it today is a collection of different thoughts going back as early as 3000 bc to today. The point of it is to explain the world to the best of our ability with what we know, we make assumptions and build assumptions off of those in hopes that we come to the ultimate truth of the universe. Around 1600 ad there were so many ideologies circulating that we decided to split the subject of philosophy into 5 different branches. There was the branch that defined and studied the things of the world that is unseen by us, we called this metaphysics. There was a branch that defined beauty and studied the theory of perfection, we call this aesthetics. There was a branch that made different scenarios and formulas possible thinking in lateral ways, we call his logic. There was a branch that defined what Good and bad were, and this was called ethics. The last branch is the study of knowledge through observations and conclusions, and we called this Epistemology. In the modern world, we have become a very materialistic society and in turn we came to a recent conclusion that the dealing with philosophical thoughts is something of the past. I believe that with the state of the world today we need more philosophers. Too many associate philosophers with "thinkers" And as clarification I would like to distinguish the two. A "thinker" is an enlightenment term given to skeptical assholes who think they know everything and try to destroy and debunk existing beliefs. A philosopher is someone who constructs different ideas, tests them out and sees how much merit each claim has. We have too many thinkers, but not enough philosophers.
           Now, the most infamous things of philosophy are those of metaphysics, and the funny thing is that people scoff at metaphysics and say that it is a product of ignorant religious thought, I would like to turn around and as a final point, say that What we know today as Quanatum Mechanics is The exact same thing as metaphysics. "How?" you ask, well that will be the topic of the next post.

Jonathan Robbins
(A little something to think about over the week end)

To me it seems quite obvious that indeed humans have a soul, yet to many it is a topic under debate. The main reason why it is a topic under debate is because the definition of the soul is constantly misunderstood, or under debate. I would like to share my conclusion about the human soul in hopes that this may help the argument.
    I would first like to say that if humans have a soul, then it would be of a substance which can not be perceived by the human senses, I would say that it is the reason for our intense consciousness, in comparison to other animals. We must distinguish, however, the difference between our brain; a complex organ that does multiple complex tasks, and our soul; our conscious self that work the machine of the body. When we separate the two we realize that in essence there are things that affect ourselves dearly but are only part of the brain. For example, a memory is something which is recorded and stored by the brain, and in all reality it would affect us (our soul) dearly, however our memories are separate from our soul, meaning that in the occasion that our body and soul get separated (death), our soul will remember nothing, even though it has definite markings of the action upon the soul.

   So just thought you might find that an interesting bit on the soul, if you have any questions, please leave them down below.

Jonathan Robbins                           

My trivial attempt to give a satisfactory explanation for why the “Paradox of Omnipotence” might not be a paradox at all.

                The paradox of Omnipotence is a very intellectual argument that seems to be very sound due to the fact that not too many theists have been able to combat the dispute and defend their idea of God, and many philosophers give credit to this argument for why they are not theists themselves.

            The paradox is as simple as this:

1.      God is omnipotent

2.      Omnipotence is the capability of doing and creating everything

3.      This means God can do anything and create anything

4.      Anything includes things which are in the mind of God

5.      Humans are made in the image and likeness of God, including the mind

6.      Meaning if a human thinks of something it would to be in the mind of God

7.      Anything that is in the mind of God can be created if God is omnipotent

8.      A rock so big that God can’t even lift it is in the mind of humans

9.      Thus it is too in the mind of God

10.  If God can make a rock so big that he cannot lift it, than he is not omnipotent, since he now has a weakness

11.  If he cannot, than he is not truly omnipotent, since God cannot create everything.

I see this as a flawed argument and I will explain why, but before I expound, allow me to give you the major topics of my argument. Firstly, I would like to point out that the definition of omnipotence is incorrect in this and many other arguments to prove God as inexistent, or weak. Secondly we must realize that existence does have logical bounds, however these bounds are still unfathomable to the human mind, and also God is the epitome of existence. Thirdly, it is a logical contradiction to create something of more substance than the creator if the creator is the medium. Finally God is incapable of going against his nature, but this does not make him any less powerful. These are my arguments in summary; however, you are lacking any explanation of why these should even be conceived as sound, so now allow me to elucidate in full my position.

            Now imagine if a God truly created a universe: the universe would be of this God, by this God and controlled by him. God is in everything in existence and everything in existence is a finite piece of an infinite being. If everything is of God, and he is capable of doing things of his own will, than we can easily deduce that, unless he said otherwise, he can control everything that is in existence. Since all there, is only him and his creation, and since we’ve deduced that he can control everything that exists, we can without a doubt say that he is omnipotent, and just saying the very broad term of all powerful without any further explanation can be very dangerous in the sense that we come to misunderstanding of the truth behind certain aspects, not just of God, but of the universe. Many might call me heretical by making such a claim, however this is the only way omnipotence can work, for any other way is illogical if you think about it. The idea that anything with God is possible has been abused to claim that certain illogical feats would be possible by a being made of logic. This too may sound like a heretical claim but if you follow my train of thought, you may too come to the same conclusion that God and Logic are interchangeable.

Now when people try to talk about God, one way or another we come to someone who thinks that we are incapable of comprehending such a God, or that “human” logic is incapable of describing such a being. Now the reason I address these people is because they assume that a being outside of our usual senses, must be outside of logic, in which I question how they came to such a conclusion (But more of that later). When many people think of logic, people think of some human made, dry, unimaginative concept that brings us “from point A to point B”. However, if we look at Logic and all of the subjects that wholly rely on it (Science, Mathematics, most of Philosophy), you will see that even with the uses of Logic, there are things which are unfathomable to the most knowledgeable of us. To a certain extent, anything is possible in existence even if it does not and cannot exist in the universe that we currently live in. Now if there is a God and all of everything is of God, and we exist, than we could deduce that existence comes from God, and indeed since he is the creator, and all creation contains existence, it would make sense to say that God is the archetype, the essence, or the epitome of existence. In fact I would even go as far as to conclude that he is existence completely and existence is of him, in him, with him, through him, and just outright him. Logic is of God, God is of Logic. Now, just because something is confined to Logic does not mean that it is inferior or finite. A good example of this would be by looking at the vast world of Mathematics: Mathematics is the best embodiment of Logic that we have, as the philosopher Pythagoras determined, meaning that all in Mathematics is true according to Logic. However the deepest Mathematics is absolutely fascinating in the sense that it is physically impossible to recreate, yet it is logical. Take for example: you take four apples away from somewhere where there were only three; you would have a negative apple left. If you were to say such a thing to an average person, then they might suggest that you seek out a mental hospital, for the idea itself within this universe is absolutely preposterous. There is still quite a lot about mathematics that is yet to be discovered, and I have a feeling that we will never truly discover the end of Mathematic studies because I believe that our finite minds will never truly understand God.

Now that we have the understanding that God is a Logical being, we may proceed to the third point which is explaining how it is logical contradiction to think that God can create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. We come to this conclusion because God is infinite, and infinity in the technical sense is the eternal expansion of something. However God had no beginning, and by being eternal, he will not have an end, and since he is outside of time as it was it will always be, and vice-versa thus our definition of infinite is an imperfect one, when pertaining to something outside of time. This means that God is the biggest possible infinity ever in the mathematical sense, and any other thing within existence cannot be bigger than, or more powerful than him by definition. Now, with this all being said, this still probably doesn’t convince you, for still God should be able to create such an object, however if you think about it, if God creates something, He is the Substance from which it was made. It would seem logical to then say that by making a rock more than half of his size would be enough for God not to lift, seeing as more than fifty percent of him is within the rock, and less than fifty percent is still himself, however, this scenario would only pertain to a finite being, since we are dealing with an infinite being no matter how much of himself he would put into the rock, there would still be an infinite amount of him left. But even then, there would still have to be a way in which he could make a rock a bigger infinity than himself, however there would not be enough God to make something bigger than himself, because in all technicality, he is all that exists, and he is in all directions infinite, there is no edge to him, no boundaries, for he is infinite, making him the biggest being ever, and as it was before, it will always be (when outside of time) and since there was never a bigger infinity than God there will never be. So, by definition, a rock bigger than God is a logical fallacy.

So, God is incapable of creating something because it goes against his nature, but that does not make him any less powerful. Let’s take some other object in comparison to make this point a little bit more obvious in meaning. Imagine an impossible object such as the perfect circle that has all of the properties of a square. This is an impossible shape to configure, even by the most intense mathematicians it is a Ludacris idea, for the nature of a perfect square and the nature of a perfect circle are contradicting natures, so naturally, there can never be a circle-square. But imagine if people came up to some poor ignorant Christian and said that God is not all powerful because he cannot make such a contradiction…that would be by far, a most weak argument. So too is this Argument of omnipotence, which I find to be a flawed argument at most.