Can there be two omnipotent beings?

A few years ago I watched a debate Trent Horn did with Raphael Lataster. I sent Trent two emails asking him questions about some things he said during the debate. He didn't respond. I was just looking at those emails this morning, and thought, hey, that might make a good blog post.

One of the things he said was that there can only be one omnipotent being becuase if there were more than one, then you'd have something like an immovable object and an unstoppable force, which is a contradiction.

But it got me to thinking. If we say that omnipotence does not entail the ability to realize contradictory states of affairs, then there shouldn't be a problem with two omnipotent beings. It would be a contradiction to suppose that an omnipotent being could be overpowered by another being, but that doesn't mean there can't be two omnipotent beings. It just means that if there were two omnipotent beings, then they wouldn't be able to overpower each other, and their inability to overpower each other would not count against their omnipotence since omnipotence doesn't entail the ability to engage in logical contradictions.

I just wanted Trent's thoughts on that, but what are your thoughts? Can there be two omnipotent beings?

Could something like AI exist in nature?

I was just thinking about Large Language Models, like ChatGPT, and how they work. There's no thinking going on with these models. They generate text by predicting what the next word or character should be based on patterns they learned through being trained on a massive amount of already existing text. It's getting to where it works so well, it could probably pass a Turing test. I use ChatGPT all the time, and I'm impressed with it.

That makes me wonder whether it's possible for something similar to happen in nature. What I mean is that I wonder if it's possible for a species to evolve that is able to generate words and behavior that "work" and that look like there's a conscious being behind it all, but without actually being conscious. The only reason I can think to doubt that possibility is that LLM's have to be trained on already existing text. How could something like that get off the ground without anything to be trained on? If that difficulty could be overcome, then maybe it is possible for a life-form to emerge that behaves as if it were conscious without actually being conscious.

It's an interesting thing to think about. There could be a planet somewhere in the universe populated with beings like ourselves who talk, interact with each other, form "relationships," have jobs, and so on, but who are not actually conscious. It's possible for another civilization that is conscious to discover them, learn their language, and interact with them. The conscious beings might not even realize the non-conscious beings were non-conscious. They would appear, by their behavior, to be conscious beings.

That's such a wild thought. They would essentially be philosophical zombies. Philosophical zombies wouldn't just be a thought experiment. They'd be real. Somebody should write a novel based on this idea if they haven't already.

Some thoughts on the empty tomb and minimal facts

I've been thinking about the empty tomb for the last few days, both from an historical perspective, and a theological perspective. The empty tomb is one of the "facts" William Lane Craig and other apologists have used in their defense of the resurrection of Jesus. A lot of minimal-facts-apologists have shied away from appealing to the empty tomb in their defense, though.

One reason is because twenty years ago, Gary Habermas published a paper in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus in which he surveyed historical Jesus literature over the previous thirty years to determine what trends existed during that time, especially when it came to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. He found that about 75% of scholars accepted one or more of the arguments for the empty tomb. The minimal facts approach to defending the resurrection is meant to simplify the case for the resurrection by only relying on facts that are well-established and that enjoy a strong concensus. While 75% is a decent majority, it falls short of what one might like to rely on when making a case from a set of minimal facts.

A second reason some apologists shy away from relying on the empty tomb in their case for the resurrection is because 75% is roughly the same percentage of scholars who are believing Christians. It looks, on the surface, that the only people who subscribe to the empty tomb are believing Christians, so there's a bias involved.

At least that's the word on the street. In reality, you have to be a lot more nuanced when you call a Jesus scholar a Christian. E.P. Sanders calls himself a "liberal protestant," but a liberal protestant is not what most of us think of when we think of believing Christians. John Crossan and Marcus Borg have both called themselves Christians, but neither believes Jesus literally died for sins or rose from the dead. So I don't think you can accuse scholars who accept the empty tomb of merely working from a Christian bias.

Since Habermas did his survey twenty years ago, I wonder if his findings are obsolete by now. I'm not a Jesus scholar or anything, but based on what I've read, I get the impression that historical Jesus scholarship moves in fits and starts. Every time there's a new Quest for the Historical Jesus, there'll be a little shift in views, then it'll stagnate for a few more decades. I haven't kept up with it in probably ten or fifteen years, so I don't know what's going on out there right now.

Some people have critized the minimal facts approach to defending the resurrection on the basis that if you want to make a good case for any historical event, you should use all the information that's available to you. While I agree that's how you should do history, I still think there's value in the minimal facts approach.

The more you learn, the more you're going to have to say, but you obviously can't just unload everything you know in every conversation you have about the resurrection. Most people you talk to are never going to read any of the scholarly literature. If you want to make an impression on somebody, you've got to get to the point as quickly as possible. If you're not a scholar yourself, it's unlikely people are going to embrace your historical judgment just on your authority as an armchair apologist. So there's benefit in being able to point out scholarly concensus on a few issues that neither you nor your buddy are experts on. Using a mimimal facts approach shortens and simplifies the conversation. Instead of having to argue each point, you can simply appeal to scholarly concensus on a few of them. The argument, then, can revolve around whether the inferences you make from those facts are justified. That allows the conversation to go forward without getting bogged down in too many of the details.

While there are practical advantages to the minimal facts approach, I do think if you care about the subject that you should inform yourself on why scholars have come to the conclusions they have. In the case of the empty tomb, you should also inform yourself on why 75% of scholars think it happened and 25% don't. That way you can have an informed opinion, and if it comes down to it, you can talk about it with your buddies.

There's a good summary of the arguments for the empty tomb in a short article William Lane Craig published in Jesus Under Fire. I don't have the book with me right now, but off the top of my head, here are a few of the arguments:

1. We have multiple independent sources that all say women were the first to discover the tomb empty, which is significant because the testimony of women was considered suspicious in that time and culture. So the empty tomb satisfies two of the criteria of authenticity--multiple attestation and embarrassment.

2. An empty tomb is implied by Paul's statement that Jesus was buried, followed by his statement that Jesus rose from the dead.

3. The empty tomb makes sense of the "third day" motif as well as the "first day of the week" motif. If Jesus' tomb were found empty on a particular day, that would explain why everybody claims the resurrection happened on a particular day. After all, the appearances happened over many days and weeks.

4. Matthew responds in his gospel to the rumor that the disciples stole Jesus' body. We wouldn't expect Matthew to feel the need to defend the resurrection against this rumor if the rumor didn't exist. More importantly, the purpose behind the rumor is to undermine the case for the resurrection in the early Christian movement, which means (1) that the empty tomb was part of the very early defense of Christianity, and (2) that even the opponents of the early Christian movement conceded that the tomb was empty.

5. Christianity began in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus' crucifixion. It couldn't very well have gotten off the ground if Jesus were still in his grave in the very city where the movement started. Had Jesus still been in his grave, the resurrection could've been disproved in a heartbeat.

6. An empty tomb helps explain why the disciples drew the conclusion that Jesus had risen from the dead. After all a mere appearance might've left them to believe Jesus was a ghost or that they had hallucinated. A vision of Jesus, combined with the empty tomb, has more power in explaining belief in the resurrection than an appearance alone.

7. I remember Craig saying the empty tomb was part of a pre-Marcan passion narrative, meaning the story was early. But I don't remember the details about that argument. I know some scholars think there was a pre-Markan passion narrative, but I don't remember the reasons.

Of course there are counter-arguments to all these points. It's worth debating over, and it can be interesting. I think there was an empty tomb, but of course I'm just a Christian, so you can't take my word for it.

Anyway, happy Easter! Here is a link to last year's Easter post which has links to previous years.

How should we feel about Good Friday?

On the one hand, if we love Jesus, we don't want him to be crucified. We can't be happy that an innoncent man suffered that much. But on the other hand, his death bought our salvation. He did it for us. He made peace between us and God.

Jesus' disciples certainly weren't having a good day when Jesus was crucified. But they probably didn't fully understand the significance of his death at that time. In fact, some (maybe all) lost hope. I wonder how they would've felt, though, if they had fully understood what Jesus' death meant.

On the one hand, they would've seen how God was being glorified by Jesus' death. His plan was coming to fruition. It meant not only their salvation, but the salvation of all of those who would believe in him. But on the other hand, they knew Jesus personally. They had a deeply personal emotional connection with Jesus. It must've been horrific for them to see somebody they loved suffer to such a degree, even if it was for their own good.

So how should we feel about Good Friday? I don't know. Maybe it doesn't matter how we should feel. We feel what we feel. At the very least, though, we should be thankful, and we should praise God.

She speaks the truth

Lots of cream and lots of sugar

I don't drink coffee very often, but when I do, I have it with lots of cream and lots of sugar. People sometimes say to me, "You don't actually like coffee. You like cream and sugar." But actually, I can't stand cream and sugar. That's why I put coffee in it.

What is a woman?

The reason this is a funny question is because of how people are defining women these days. They'll say you're a woman if you claim to be a woman, believe you're a woman, etc. If a woman is somebody who claims to be a woman, then what exactly are they claiming to be? Well, if a woman is somebody who claims to be a woman, then somebody who claims to be a woman is a person who claims to be somebody who claims to be a woman. And since that's what they're claiming, then they are basically claiming to be somebody who claims to be somebody who claims to be a woman. Etc. etc.

The gospel in a nutshell

There are parts of the Bible that are so hard to understand, you can spend your life wrestling with them and still not be sure. There are other parts that require a lot of work to understand, but if you have a passion for it, you can figure it out. Then there are other parts that are so obvious there's no excuse for not understanding them.

Thankfully, the most important things are easy and obvious. I'm going to explain, in the simplest terms I can, what I take to be the basic message of the Bible and why it's relevant to you. This is all in summary, so I'm not going to quote scripture.

There is one God whose name is Yahweh. In Hebrew, it looks like this:

Reading from left to right (because that's how Hebrew rolls), the letters are Yod, He, Wah, He, which we transliterate as YHWH, then add vowels to get Yahweh. The King James Version writes it as Jehovah in a few places, but it's the same name. Jews haven't pronounced it in over two thousand years, and since there's no vowels in ancient Hebrew, the correct pronunciation is speculative.

He is the creator and ruler of the cosmos and everything in it. He is a being on which everything else depends, and he's at the top of all authoritative heirarchies. He is a being of absolute perfection. He is all knowing, all powerful, and wholly good.

God imposes moral obligations on all of mankind. There is a real difference between right and wrong. This difference is rooted in God's character and is made manifest in his commands and requirements. He cares how we live our lives. His moral will is revealed in the Bible, but it's also revealed in our own consciences. We all possess an innate sense of right and wrong even if we are sometimes mistaken about the details.

Every one of us violates our moral obligations. Not one of us is morally perfect.

God holds people accountable for how they live their lives. There will be a day of judgment in which we all have to give an account of ourselves to God. We all have to answer to him. God will judge people for everything they said or did, whether good or bad. There will be punishment for the bad things we said or did, and there will be rewards for the good things we said or did.

Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, aka the Christ. That means he is an anointed king. Originally, the messiah was thought to be the fulfilment of a promise God made to king David that his dynasty would last forever, and so there would always be a man to sit on the throne of Israel. But Jesus is not only king of Israel; he is king of the whole cosmos. As Christians put it, he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

God is three persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is one being, but that one being is tri-personal. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but they share the same divine essence. In other words, they are the same being. Jesus is the Son of the Father, which makes him the Son of God. But he is also God.

Although Jesus was God, he humbled himself by taking on the nature of humanity. He was born into the world through a human woman named Mary. He came into the world, not only to reveal God's will through his teachings, but to save people who cannot save themselves. It was out of love and a desire to glorify himself through the demonstration of his mercy that Jesus came into the world. Although Jesus was just as human as the rest of us, he lived a sinless life in perfect obedience to the Father. He is the only human to have ever done so.

Jesus died to atone for our wrong-doing. God is not just a harsh inflexible ruler who is out to get us. Since he is wholly good, his character consists both of justice and of mercy. None of us are morally perfect, and we all stand to face judgment for our moral imperfections, but God has provided a means of obtaining a pardon through Jesus. Jesus paid the penalty we deserve by willingly dying by crucifixion, and his death is sufficient to cover our moral imperfections.

After dying for our sins, Jesus rose physically from the dead. He did not rise back to a normal mortal life. Rather, he rose to immortality. Although it was a physical resurrection, it was also a transformed physicality. His resurrection vindicated his claim that he was the Messiah and that he was sent by God the Father. His resurrection vindicated everything he taught about himself, his kingship, and his mission to save people through his death.

Jesus' death on the cross saves to the uttermost all of those who put their trust in him. If you confess that Jesus is king, and you trust that he died for your sins, you will have eternal life. You will not be judged for your moral failures. You will be pardoned. God will treat you as if you had the same righteousness that Jesus himself had. You will, in a sense, be clothed in the righteousness of Jesus. And just as Jesus was raised to immortality, you too will be raised to immortality. Once you have been raised to immoratlity, you will no longer suffer any pain, sickness, or death.

Once the resurrection and judgment have taken place, those who have put their trust in Jesus will forever bask in the glory of God. We will be able to behold him in a way that we are not able to see him now. We get a glimpse of who God is through reading the scriptures and learning about Jesus, but in eternity, we will come to know him more fully and directly. God will make his dwelling with mankind. We will be able to learn about and appreciate all his glorious attributes, including his love, kindness, power, and every conceivable good thing. We will be forever happy. We will experience love to its fullest extent.

This is the gospel--the good news about what God did to save sinners. People who embrace the gospel (i.e. put their trust in Jesus) do so not only out of self-interest, but out of a love for their creator. To love God is to want to be the kind of people he requires us to be. So it is impossible to honestly embrace the gospel without also wanting to be better people. Primarily, God wants us to love people, and we love people through how we treat them. This includes not only our family and friends, but even people who dislike us or even hate us. We are to love our enemies, remembering that before we knew Jesus, we were enemies of God, and he loved us anyway.

Once we have put our trust in Jesus, we have crossed over from eternal death to eternal life. There is a sense in which we have become new people. God gives us the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come. The Holy Spirit dwells in us for the rest of our lives. His indwelling manifests itself in a desire to please God. The result is a life long process of deeper understanding and moral improvement. We will never reach moral perfection in our mortal lifetime, but the desire to be part of God's kingdom will drive us to positive character development.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit will also give us a hunger for God, to learn about him through reading and studying the scriptures. This desire to be part of the kingdom of God will also manifest itself in a desire to be in communion with our fellow citizens of heaven, i.e. other Christians. Christians gather together in churches to worship God and to learn about him. We strengthen each other throguh mutual edification. We are all gifted in different ways for our mutual benefit. Some are gifted in teaching, some are gifted in helping, some are gifted in encouragement. The Bible lists various ways people are gifted for the sake of mutual benefit, but I suspect it is not exhaustive in listing these gifts. Just by being at church, worshipping together with like-minded people, you encourage those people, strengthen their confidence, given them a sense of belonging, etc. They, in turn, do the same for you.

So I encourage you to put your trust in Jesus. Jesus is God, but that did not stop him from becoming a man and enduring the same things all humans have to endure a result of living in this world. He did so out of love, to save his people. We all have to die, but Jesus came into the world when he didn't have to, and he did so for the purpose of dying so that we might have eternal life. Having defeated death by rising from the dead, Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father and became King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is a King worthy of honor, respect, gratitude, love, and worship. I encourage you to loves, serve, and trust in the one true King--Jesus.