What Omnipotence means

Omnipotence is a strange subject, we all think we know what we means, but I think it's actually a very difficult concept to comprehend...and for this reason, people make assumptions.. they make simple 5 seconds thoughts on the subject, think they understand it, then got on with watching the football, or whatever else seems of more immediate..practical..benefit.
I believe that if 'God' exists, he must be omnipotent, he must be "The One", otherwise he would not be 'the one' . He would simply not be God, this is not tautology. it's a truth. A being that is not omnipotent is merely a being, it is no different to the flying spaghetti monster, unworthy of respect, or indeed fear. Omnipotence has to be the key, the alpha and the omega, the defining characteristic of 'The One'

First of all, i want to talk about the shape of God. When we imagine him, and i do this too, i imagine that God looks like something, he has a shape.. Some people imagine him to be a man, or anything else to take their fancy... i imagine him to be well.. a bit like a diffuse nebula, glowing from within.. that's what i picture. But God has no shape, well an omnipotent being cannot. That would be a limitation on the aspects of God, and cease to make him omnipotent.
Lets use the shape of a man, a man has hands, you can see their outlines clearly, they move..and all around it, are things that are 'not hands'. they are limited, their outline defines their being. Aristotle imagined there must be some template, he would imagine an 'original' hand existing in eternity, and that the hands we see on the terrestrial plane..have elements of likeness to this original hand, giving them their label...of course that has been invalidated now..but that feeling can still exist within us.. we may imagine god to be a man, and immediately we diminish him. He has an outline, limitations.
omnipotence cannot have any limitations, if it did then it would cease to be omnipotent.

we make silly assumptions about the capability of science. We think science, and this is to the average lay person, is something that is entirely empirical, and if something cannot be measured, it cannot exist. But then, we forget, if God is omnipotent, then he ipso facto cannot be measured. One wonders what we expect to find from 'science', do we expect a 'hello i created you' radio wavelength on some receiver. what do we expect to see? That is never defined, but then, again, we forget what omnipotence means. Omnipotence means that an omnipotent being must have 'science' as an integral part of it's being. Lets use a quick example, you throw a ball, you see the way it arcs through the sky before thudding to the ground. Why does it go in a parabola? That simple mathematical equation can be calculated by any maths undergrad.. But what gave rise to that equation? That equation, what we see as eternal...that equation we're utilising has to be an aspect of any omnipotent being. That parabola, to put it another way, is the expression of God's will. The ball falls to the ground, in that manner, because an omnipotent being willed it to fall to the floor in that manner. If he did not create that 'law', then he would not be omnipotent, he would merely be another limited being with constraints.
you might ask at this point, then why doesn't he change the law at all times, he is after all infinitely powerful, he can do what he likes. Well yes he can. What we see as miracles, are just God expressing his will. They do not confound the 'laws of nature', they are merely God expressing his will in a manner we do not expect him to.
So what am i trying to say? These laws we see around us, these mathematical equations, be they parabolas, gravity, the melting point of icecream, not only are they expressions of God's will, but when we imagine them to be absolutes, we are just making assumptions, as if things must always be that way. We forget that an omnipotent being can change the rules we see around us, otherwise, he would not be omnipotent. This leads to an interesting side issue about evolution. I find 2 sides of the debate to be absolutely baffling, ludicrous and at times pitiful. Lets start with the anti-evolution religious believers. Some people have got it into their head, that God has created everything in a certain manner, and somehow, science is different to God. What they forget, is that if God is omnipotent, evolution occurs because of God's will. EVERYTHING we see around us does.
If a human body has 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in it. An omnipotent being defacto MUST know where each and every single atom is at any given time. He knows where the electrons are, where the protons are, and all about the neutrons, he knows their compositions, and even how fast they are rotating. Not only does he knows this, because he carries absolute knowledge, he knows where they came from, what their exact moment of genesis was, where they will exist spatially at any one time and where they will end up at the end of time. 'The One' must know where they are, because it is his nature to know. That number of atoms i quoted, is unfathomable to the human mind. Quite simply, our mind overloads, we see the zeros, we give up, and we just know that it is a lot. Now imagine how many atoms there are in the universe. Now remember an omnipotent being knows all about them too.
And yet, we question how God could have created something as simple as evolution. When we learn about science, what we are seeing are expressions of God's will. This is not an argument about how we came to be. It seems that we did evolve from more primitive lifeforms such as bacteria. So be it. But regardless of how we came to be, we forget what omnipotence means, evolution does not refute the existence of God. It can only refute the interpretation of a certain view of God. Omnipotence is so unfathomable to the human mind, we try to simplify it, we try to make out a caused b, then c happened. It helps us to see the picture clearly, it makes it easy for everyone to understand. So what am i saying? Those who don't believe in omnipotence use evolution to successfully (in my opinion) refute the arguments for many people's conception of God. And good for them. And the religious people who don't believe in evolution, their concept of God is so limited, they think that God would be disproven if evolution is proven to exist. It is integral to their self image. But why would humanity not have a complex genesis? What is wrong with humanity having that? Is that not proof of an omnipotent being's majesty?

I think I'd also like to talk briefly about how omnipotence relates to the every day person. We like to think that God exists 'up there', distant from our concerns, looking down on us, tiny specks below. Who knows if he listens to us or not. But again, that is a misconception of omnipotence. God has no core, there is no specific place he resides. Everything we do, IF he is omnipotent, we do it based on his will. As i type these letters on the keyboard, i am utilising several trillion 'laws of nature', which are just expressions of God's will. My Brain wills my hands to move through several trillion atoms, through near infinite connections, through a desire to type these words. my fingers impact the keyboard, the depressions it makes type the words as the information races through the computer, processed, deformed, reformed, digitised, broken up onto bits of information, channeled to a million servers across the web, and reformed into the letter A.
If God is omnipotent, that letter A, i just typed, it was only typed by the leave of God. He allowed me to type it, because ultimately, everything else, was his expression of will.
What we see as major laws, like the laws of gravity, ultimately, to an infinite being, they are not categorised into major and minor laws, they are all equal expressions of his will. Yet we imagine he is up there, dealing with 'major stuff', whilst by typing the letter A. We are closer to God than the artery in our necks.
He suffuses us.
So if he is so omnipotent, does free will exist? Well yes it does, and that's why it such an incredible gift we have been given. When we see that everything around us, is the expression of an infinite being's will. Then we can truly appreciate how special we must be to be given leave, to do what we can, in this universe. If we worship him, we do it through our own free will, but remember, the act of cupping our hands, all those millions of laws of nature we follow, they're expressions of God's will. And if we murder someone, that is us using our free will, utilising god's laws that he put in place for our benefit, to commit a heinous act, an act of disworship, practically treasonous to the incredible gift 'The One' has given us.

Why i wrote this - it's my present conception of God. I am sure there are flaws to this, but i will revisit, i will keep on learning, and hopefully, i will become wiser and more able to understand what omnipotence begins to mean.

Posting and deleting

I post on this blog, i get catharsis, and then i delete the posts. It's fun, silly and pointless.
I guess i get worried about what other people think... i wonder 'are my opinions too controversial'..will i hold to them, to i really feel the way i'm feeling, or are they just eddies in a current..but yeah.....i think... i think it's time i just write... i write already in my head, long stupid solilquies..who knows, perhaps some good will come of this...
so this is the blog about my personal feelings..how i feel about stuff, regardless of what 'others' may think..

Oil Market Speculation?

Inspired by the article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2195037/

The World Needs More Speculators by Tim Harford

***




One of the key issues of our time right now is of course the price of oil. People have watched it with increasing concern over the last decade as it has broken the $10 barrier, $30, $50, $100 and within the next year, undoubtedly the $150 barrier. The Oil price affects every single business and practically every single consumer via various knock ons.

So it is not unsurprising at all that many of us, in various conversations across the world are discussing WHY this is happening. It does seem bizarre that the same commodity, utilised for the same purpose can increase in price so much, so naturally attention has turned to the undefinable 'speculator', some people state that speculators are the cause of all this trouble, some state the complete opposite, that more speculation serves to bring the price closer to 'market fundamentals'.

Both sides are logically incorrect, there is not enough evidence to prove the correctness of either side's argument, so instead without realising, people refer to their intrinsic gut feelings.

******

So let's take a look at what is actually happening. The Oil market itself is characterised by inelastic supply in the short to medium term. In laymen's terms, this means that the supply of oil cannot be increased if the price of oil rises.

Lets take an example. Oil extraction costs in the Canadian (Albertan) Oilsands averages between $25-30 dollars per barrel. Ergo, it is profitable to extract oil at any price above say $35 to get a reasonable rate of return. Let us assume then, that this oil is being extracted at maximum speed possible based on their environment? Why? Because oil extraction has already achieved profitable rates of return and is hence being extracted at maximal capacity.. Now if the price for selling oil changes from $50 to $100, the rate of extraction will stay exactly the same, merely the profit for the entrepreneur will increase.

One can state that in the long term, that extraction of oil will increase, however we are dealing here in the short-to-medium term. It can take years to discover and begin exploiting new fields, even small ones. (vis-a-vis Peak oil theory, even the likelihood of long term increases of production seems to have been rendered unlikely with declining outputs from mature fields)

Regarding OPEC, the evidence suggests that OPEC is pumping at full volume, regardless of public announcements, because quite simply, the profits are there for the countries to grab. Especially since in a quota system, the higher the price, the more likely countries are to break the agreement to maximise gain for themselves, at the expense of their rivals. With game theory coming into place, this means that quotas are being broken wherever possible, with minimal outcry from other fellow quota breakers.

So to summarise, this means, that the hypothetical 100 units of production will occur regardless of the price increase.

Now lets look at demand.


In the short term, contrary to popular belief, demand is actually becoming inelastic. Oil is being used for key services which have no easy substitutes. Even a transfer of traffic from cars onto buses & trains does not change the underlying fundamental, that all rely, ultimately on oil.


(About electric trains running on energy generated via power stations, they may run on a mix of fuels ranging from nuclear to solar, but all are equally affected by rising energy prices which is directly correlated with rising oil prices)

In the medium to long term, one is likely to see fundamental shifts in oil habits and it is highly likely the oil efficiency per unit of GDP will increase, just as it experienced a major step change after the first oil shock in the 1970s.

However, as far as we are concerned, we are dealing with the short term, because going back to the original point, we are discussing 'speculation'. Oil is traded on the basis that X amount of barrels will be delivered to X location in 30 days.

So in this case, let us state that the hypothetical 101 units of demand will occur regardless of price.

Now this presents a major problem, if there is short term fixed demand, and short term fixed supply, how can price be determined? The diagram below presents the problem very well. Now the price will be determined by long term fundamentals such as how profitable it is to purchase 1 unit of oil, what it is used for etc. However, any change in demand, or indeed supply, will cause a massive price differential. This goes someway to explaining how OPEC in the 90's by contracting supply by as little as 2-3% was able to increase prices by an order of magnitude.


Now a similar situation may be occurring via demand. There are numerous risk factors that do affect the price of oil. The most famous (but not necessarily most important) of these included oil disruptions in Venezuela, Nigeria and Iran and long term increases in Oil production from countries such as Canada, Brazil, Russia etc. This is the key point, that as humans, we simply do not know what the future holds. The total sum of human knowledge when it comes to determining risk of oil supply as expressed via the market price will invariably be wrong. We simply do not know how the future holds, in effect, we can only make educated guesses.


The world is not an understandable machine with so many cogs in the wheel, it is only stated as such to help us construct (very useful) scientific models, to understand portions of the world, not as a fact itself.


An example of this is that in the Oil market, whilst it did factor in the Iraq war, in 2003, the market did not correctly predict that insurgents would specifically target oil installations and pipelines to cripple Iraqi oil supply, it was actually predicted by the balance of the market that oil supply would increase as oil firms flooded into Iraq in the 12 months following the invasion.


So this is a built-in factor in the price determining Oil price, the 'risk' that the market has factored in. This risk calculation may be as close as 0.001 percent into the reality of the situation. But when dealing with geopolitical situations, one simply cannot know for example if there is going to be an attack on Iranian oil installations and a counter attack on Bahraini installations.


So as the graph demonstrates, even an error of 2-3percent will result in massive price spikes (likewise so will an underestimate, let us not forget that the real price of oil may be undervalued based on what will happen in the next 12 months). The Blue represents demand, whilst the Red represents Supply, notice especially the sharp vertical nature of the two lines, if the lines move even marginally to the left, or the right, there will be considerably sharper price differentials.







This brings us finally, and neatly unto the speculators themselves. To me, a speculator is someone who does not deal in the commodity itself for their own personal use, but to gain a profit. The profit lies in being able to factor risk and the underlying value to a better degree than the market-at-large. Tim Harford, who is linked at the top of the article, suggests that inventory stocks would be rising if there was speculation, this is not occurring. Does that mean speculators are not operating in the market? No, unlike many other commodities, oil is primarily traded as a futures product, ie it is delivered 30 days in the future. It is perfectly possible for a trader to purchase oil and sell it 2 weeks down the line. This is especially likely as storing oil (inventorying) is a major expense as a percentage of the oil's original value. Due to the complexities of the trading markets, this may be very difficult to discern merely looking at the market and hence becomes an unknown.


Now as i stated earlier, oil demand is in the short term inelastic. Ergo there are only a certain number of purchasers. Ergo the following situation happens. Oil Producer A sells to Oil 'Speculator' C Sells to Oil Consumer B instead of; Oil Producer A sells to Oil Consumer B.

Now this introduction of the linkage may serve to bring the oil value closer to its true value. However, it is equally possible that the collective wisdom of the speculators is more erroneous than the collective wisdom of the consumers alone. In which case, as i stated earlier, with inelastic supply, this will merely serve to destabilise the price.


So after all that, what is happening........?


Well, what do you believe is happening....??

Introductions

Hello everyone!
This is a new blog where I hope to achieve something very specific. There are too many words published on the Internet, and not enough read. Unfortunately, this is the reality in which we live, it echoes the pre-Internet age in which it would be too easy for us to speak but too difficult to listen. To that end i hope that i will not contribute to the Internet's word pollution with useless and uninsightful polemic. That of course is for the reader to judge, I for one am a firm believer in the idea first stated succinctly by Roland Barthes that 'The Author is dead'. Once the words imprint upon the page, the reader has every right to interpret the words as they see fit, on par and even beyond the author's own abilities to formulate their own ideas.

What i do hope to do is to help contribute to understanding the issues that affect us all.

Ever since i was young, i have always had a knack for seeing the other side. This has developed over time into a search for truth. Socrates stated that 'A life unexamined is not worth living'. That affects me profoundly, how can i know an action i perform has a sound logical basis? Is it consistent with my core beliefs, if I do action X, does it contradict action Y, even if in the moment, i see no correlation? This does not mean that i live a highly consistent life, i do not, i believe that it is very difficult to achieve and near impossible. However i believe that it is a worthy ideal to aim for in mine and indeed, everyone's life.
In any case this blog is based on Pierre Abélard's (1079-1142) principles as stated in his book 'Sic et non'.

To quote Bertrand Russell

'Abélard's view, that (apart from Scripture) dialectic is the sole road to
truth, while no empiricist can accept it, had, at the time, a valuable effect as
a solvent of prejudices and an encouragement to the fearless use of the
intellect.'

Here i will, in my own very small way, aim to help highlight dogmatic thinking, where they err, and what the counter arguments are.
And yes, please do read between the lines and look for inconsistencies in my posts!