Joined: July 2009
|Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,17:00)|
|Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,16:21)|
|Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)|
An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there, because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".
Is it a contradiction in a non-classical world?
I don't think the formulation is such that you have established meaning for "contradiction" yet. I may be wrong, I think your two states "exist" and "non-exist" for God are not operationally defined and so, there isn't any clear semantics underwriting the term "contradiction" there.
An example may be helpful. If, in an experiment, a supercooled membrane of some kind is set into superposition such that the membrane is simultaneously, "vibrating and not vibrating at the same time, and in the same sense", that is a contradiction only insofar as we can establish what "vibrating" and "not vibrating" mean, and tie both of those meanings to our observations. To the extent we can empirically identify both states (with the grounded meanings involved for "vibrating" and "not vibrating), at the same time, for the same membrane, you have at least an apparent contradiction, or a physical phenomenon that is not well modeled with the classical understanding of "vibrating" and "not vibration" being logical (exclusive) negations of each other.
With God "existing and not-existing at the same time, and same sense", you're pretty much hosed from the get go. The existence of God is a non-starter -- what does that mean? It isn't amenable to descriptions in natural, observable characteristics like "vibrating membrane". As far as I can see, it's not meaningful at all, a term used all the time that conceptually signifies nothing.
Until your terms you use as the predicate for any putative contradiction (or not) are more clearly defined, and grounded in meanings and concepts that can actually support one value negating the other, I think you just don't have anything to work with.
"Not even true/false", one might say.
We seem to have gone from god making the moon both exist and not exist at the same time, to god both existing and not existing at the same time (which is an interesting idea). I'm not suggesting that a god can exist myself, but looking at the suggestion that god could play around with the state of the moon from the POV of believers.
Let's look at your analogy. Why, from the point of view of Christians, can't their god make the moon both vibrate and not vibrate at the same time? That would seem to be sufficient to drive our Barry crazy, because he would certainly see it as incompatible with the LNC. Can it be argued that there are laws that override god's choices about the nature of the physical world he has created?
I certainly think it might be worth someone suggesting it on U.D. just to see what happens (I'm banned, as I mentioned above, and I see you've now joined the club - welcome).