ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd July 2020, 01:54 PM   #41
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,901
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Very true. But it's even more basic than that: logic and sense will never win an argument against theism if the atheist insists that God is not bound by logic and sense. How can any such argument get off the ground in the first place?

Strange. I have never heard of atheists who insist that God is beyond logic and sense. "God moves in mysterious ways" has always been a theist last-ditch argument.

The idea that omnipotence means beyond logic, was something you brought up to get out of the mess with suffering not being suffering.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 02:01 PM   #42
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Still determined to get ii wrong, aren't you. If your question is whether or not I accept the laws of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction, then of course I do.
That's good.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Your final question is dishonest. I do not agree that god can do anything at all since I do not accept the existence of any god. Non-existent entities never do anything ever.
Can an argument that involves non-existent entities that transcend logic be analysed in accordance to the laws of logic?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Furthermore a benevolent, omnipotent god does not have to have to "convert suffering into non-suffering". He can ensure that there is no suffering in the first place.
Isn't that the same thing? (I don't think I said "convert"; the idea is that suffering is not really suffering in the first place since omnipotence -- according to you -- is not bound by the law of identity)

Last edited by GDon; 23rd July 2020 at 02:26 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 02:18 PM   #43
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Strange. I have never heard of atheists who insist that God is beyond logic and sense.
I hear it all the time! In a way, it partly validates the sense of Scorpion's OP, since I suspect many atheists become atheists at around the age of 10, with a 10-year-old's definition of omnipotence. And of course, theists are even worse in that regard.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
"God moves in mysterious ways" has always been a theist last-ditch argument.
Yep.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
The idea that omnipotence means beyond logic, was something you brought up to get out of the mess with suffering not being suffering.
No, actually abaddon brought it up. I'm just following him down the rabbit-hole of "omnipotence means beyond logic". That's the mess you see. Not my first time chasing the rabbit down that rabbit-hole.

For myself: I think that a universe subject to the laws of logic created by an omni-God opens up that God's attributes to critique via what we see in that universe. So the question "why do we see suffering?" is a valid question that theists like myself need to ask. In that way, the sense of Scorpion's OP is more relevant to theists. Atheists don't really need to concern themselves with questions about God, since they don't believe in gods in the first place. But theists? I'm amazed that many don't care.

Last edited by GDon; 23rd July 2020 at 03:15 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 04:40 PM   #44
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,462
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I'm struggling with this, perhaps an example would help.

What greater good did the Boxing Day tsunami, which killed a quarter of a million people, lead to?

It isn't as if a benevolent, omnipotent God would have needed to interfere with the free will of a single person to prevent it.
You don't become good at something or appreciate it if it comes too easily. Possibly a certain amount of difficulty (other than what people do to each other) may be necessary to prepare you for the next life.

I know that this is not a satisfactory explanation but it is the only thing that I can think of as to why a God would permit or even cause suffering.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 04:58 PM   #45
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,748
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Very true. But it's even more basic than that: logic and sense will never win an argument against theism if the atheist insists that God is not bound by logic and sense. How can any such argument get off the ground in the first place?
It can't. Atheists claim that god IS bound by foundational logic. You claim it is not. Justify that claim.

The atheist does not claim that god is unbound by logic the atheist claims that your god is illogical and demonstrates that it is.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 05:01 PM   #46
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,748
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I hear it all the time! In a way, it partly validates the sense of Scorpion's OP, since I suspect many atheists become atheists at around the age of 10, with a 10-year-old's definition of omnipotence. And of course, theists are even worse in that regard.


Yep.


No, actually abaddon brought it up. I'm just following him down the rabbit-hole of "omnipotence means beyond logic". That's the mess you see. Not my first time chasing the rabbit down that rabbit-hole.

For myself: I think that a universe subject to the laws of logic created by an omni-God opens up that God's attributes to critique via what we see in that universe. So the question "why do we see suffering?" is a valid question that theists like myself need to ask. In that way, the sense of Scorpion's OP is more relevant to theists. Atheists don't really need to concern themselves with questions about God, since they don't believe in gods in the first place. But theists? I'm amazed that many don't care.
Apparently the god botherers care little about logic or even truth. What does omnipotence mean to you. If you use any variation of maximal, you have lost already.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 05:38 PM   #47
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,748
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Apparently the god botherers care little about logic or even truth. What does omnipotence mean to you. If you use any variation of maximal, you have lost already.
True, but there's always an escape clause for the theist. Having absolute power doesn't obligate you to use it, does it?. For all we know, the great almighty god could be all sorts of omnipotent and omnibenevolent somewhere else, and just decided for reasons of his own not to do it here. I think I'll see what it feels like to be a second-rate god bound by logic. We'll just play around in this little corner of the universe and see how it works. Ha Ha! Look at those suckers go! Maybe we're just the feasibility study or the beta test of free will, and after a few more millennia God will conclude that it's not a good idea, wave his magic wand and go poof and go on about his business.

God botherers always claim whenever there's a disaster or a tragedy that we can't know God and his plan, and then confidently assert that they know what God is, and what his purpose is, but truthfully if there were to be something like a god, the chances are far better that it will be so alien and exotic that we won't have a clue.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 06:33 PM   #48
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,699
Omni kinda means just that: omni. If he's benevolent to only half the people (even including aliens or whatever), it kinda fails being OMNIbenevolent in the same way a god that's only present in half the universe would fail to be OMNIpresent.

I will grant though that I like the way out that popped up in this thread: a god that's omni- all three, but basically too crazy or retarded or otherwise illogical to actually solve the problem. It's the first time I hear a theodicy solution that actually manages to keep all 3 and suffering in a pretty darn valid way.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 07:14 PM   #49
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Can an argument that involves non-existent entities that transcend logic be analysed in accordance to the laws of logic?
Your question makes no sense whatsoever. Non-existent entities do not and never transcend logic.

Your belief in God/Gods is irrational or logically invalid.

Theists invent their own God/Gods and then imagine that they know its characteristics.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 07:23 PM   #50
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It can't. Atheists claim that god IS bound by foundational logic. You claim it is not. Justify that claim.
Wait a moment, this is YOUR claim. Personally I'm happy to run with an omni-God being bound by foundational logic.

Let's clarify: you wrote "by definition, omnipotence cannot have constraints." So is omnipotence constrained by foundational logic? If not, what do you mean by "bound by foundational logic"? In what way is an omni-God "bound"?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
What does omnipotence mean to you. If you use any variation of maximal, you have lost already.
I agree. God is omnipotent, which means that He has all power to do whatever power can accomplish. He does not have power to do things that power cannot accomplish. My example below. God is omniscient, which means He knows everything there is that can be known. He does not know things that cannot be known.

Example of the limits of omnipotence:

1. God creates a universe where squares and circles are separate things.
2. God has the power to create a circle 2 cm wide.
3. God has the power to create a circle 1000 km wide.
4. God has the power to create a circle the size of a galaxy.

But can God create a 2 cm wide circle shaped as a square? I'd argue: no, not in a universe that He created where squares and circles are separate things. He doesn't have the power. After all, how much power does it take to make a square circle?

Of course He could create a different universe where a square circle makes sense, but then we are talking about a different universe with different rules, not our universe.

I'm not an expert on philosophy by any means, but the example above is standard in discussions around omnipotence.

Last edited by GDon; 23rd July 2020 at 07:39 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 07:24 PM   #51
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,685
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I was under the impression that at least some Xtian theology has an out for that, that applies a different heaven and hell test to those who had no way of knowing about Jesus - such as everyone in the Old Testament. I don't remember how they got around it, but I'm pretty sure they did.

If I remember, Archie Bunker said Saint Peter meets Jews at the Pearly Gates, explains things to them, and then they go in.


Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Very true. But it's even more basic than that: logic and sense will never win an argument against theism if the atheist insists that God is not bound by logic and sense. How can any such argument get off the ground in the first place?

That's exactly what I've been saying. Once you grant the existence of a god, you lose every argument. God, being a god and all, has vastly superior knowledge than humans have or will have anytime soon. So he understands the logic of the situation even if we don't. Our premises are either faulty (temporary suffering may not be bad for our eternal souls) or we're eliding god only knows what.

It's not for us to understand God's plan, the theist says, just to trust it.



Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It can't. Atheists claim that god IS bound by foundational logic. You claim it is not. Justify that claim.

I can justify it: There is no evidence that any god exists.

There, justified. God is bound by foundational logic because zero is a perfectly cromulent value.

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God cannot take an action that God doesn't want to.
3. 1 and 2 are inconsistent
4. Thus, 1 and/or 2 contain one or more untruthful terms.

The untruthful term, in my opinion, is that god doesn't exist to begin with. I believe this because there is no evidence to believe otherwise.

An untruthful term cannot be consistent with reality. Everyone here is arguing over angels on heads of bowling pins.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 07:35 PM   #52
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I will grant though that I like the way out that popped up in this thread: a god that's omni- all three, but basically too crazy or retarded or otherwise illogical to actually solve the problem. It's the first time I hear a theodicy solution that actually manages to keep all 3 and suffering in a pretty darn valid way.
Thank you! The irony is that I'm not proposing it as a solution. I'm just running with the idea "omnipotence means the ability to do anything" and showing its implications. It makes things easy for the theist, since any argument against God can be resolved on the theist side by "an omnipotent being can do anything!" It's a get-out-of-jail-free card, that satisfies nobody and nothing.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 08:13 PM   #53
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
God is omnipotent, which means that He has all power to do whatever power can accomplish. He does not have power to do things that power cannot accomplish. My example below. God is omniscient, which means He knows everything there is that can be known. He does not know things that cannot be known.

Example of the limits of omnipotence:

1. God creates a universe where squares and circles are separate things.
2. God has the power to create a circle 2 cm wide.
3. God has the power to create a circle 1000 km wide.
4. God has the power to create a circle the size of a galaxy.

But can God create a 2 cm wide circle shaped as a square? I'd argue: no, not in a universe that He created where squares and circles are separate things. He doesn't have the power. After all, how much power does it take to make a square circle?

Of course He could create a different universe where a square circle makes sense, but then we are talking about a different universe with different rules, not our universe.

I'm not an expert on philosophy by any means, but the example above is standard in discussions around omnipotence.
Again, your post is just irrational.

A circular argument.

Theists believed their imagined God is omnipotent therefore he is omnipotent.

The rules of the universe regarding squares and circles is derived from scientific observation and application of logic by human beings not from imagined omnipotent deities.

Theists can never win any argument that is based on imaginary entities.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 08:18 PM   #54
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You don't become good at something or appreciate it if it comes too easily. Possibly a certain amount of difficulty (other than what people do to each other) may be necessary to prepare you for the next life.

I know that this is not a satisfactory explanation but it is the only thing that I can think of as to why a God would permit or even cause suffering.
Death is the end of life. What "next life" are you talking about?
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2020, 08:56 PM   #55
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by GDon View Post

Of course He could create a different universe where a square circle makes sense, but then we are talking about a different universe with different rules, not our universe.
Nope, he could not. He does not exist.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 12:34 AM   #56
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,699
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Thank you! The irony is that I'm not proposing it as a solution. I'm just running with the idea "omnipotence means the ability to do anything" and showing its implications. It makes things easy for the theist, since any argument against God can be resolved on the theist side by "an omnipotent being can do anything!" It's a get-out-of-jail-free card, that satisfies nobody and nothing.
That's not what is being said, though. Well, not by anyone even vaguely familiar with the theodicy problem, anyway. The argument isn't ONLY that God is omnipotent, but that he is all 3 of omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

What you do when you pretend that the argument was ONLY about omnipotence, is basically say that it becomes no problem if you drop two of them. And yeah, it does. You're not the first to notice that. In fact, it becomes no problem if you drop ONE of the tree, no matter which of them:

- drop omnibenevolence: e.g., "Yeah, but god is a bit of a dick." (The Jewish religion goes with that, pretty much.) Sure, then even with the other two omnis in place, it's pretty clear why suffering exists.

- drop omniscience: e.g., "Yeah, but he was busy fixing a football match across the globe; he didn't know you were getting raped." (Pretty much a common fundie argument.) Yeah, sure, then it explains why stuff flies under his radar.

- drop omnipotence: e.g., "Yeah, but he was busy fixing a football match across the globe; he can't do both at the same time." (Again, a pretty common fundie argument.) Yeah, sure, no problem then.

It's trying to have ALL THREE that starts to be a problem.

And the logic problem you mention is actually NOT a problem of omnipotence, but one of omniscience. An omniscient god would also know all there is on the topic of logic, including why every imaginable argument would be sound or unsound. The question isn't whether he CAN arrive at an unsound argument, but whether he (A) KNOWS and (B) CARES that it's unsound. Different OMNIs altogether.

But again, I can sorta see some handwaving possible that he knows and can apply logic, but is in some way bat-guano schizophrenic enough that he fails it anyway.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 01:00 AM   #57
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,877
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Omni kinda means just that: omni. If he's benevolent to only half the people (even including aliens or whatever), it kinda fails being OMNIbenevolent in the same way a god that's only present in half the universe would fail to be OMNIpresent.

I will grant though that I like the way out that popped up in this thread: a god that's omni- all three, but basically too crazy or retarded or otherwise illogical to actually solve the problem. It's the first time I hear a theodicy solution that actually manages to keep all 3 and suffering in a pretty darn valid way.
Hans if you think about it it just boils down to the good old "god works in mysterious ways".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 01:02 AM   #58
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,877
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Thank you! The irony is that I'm not proposing it as a solution. I'm just running with the idea "omnipotence means the ability to do anything" and showing its implications. It makes things easy for the theist, since any argument against God can be resolved on the theist side by "an omnipotent being can do anything!" It's a get-out-of-jail-free card, that satisfies nobody and nothing.
Every nine year old can work that out.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 01:04 AM   #59
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,897
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Hans if you think about it it just boils down to the good old "god works in mysterious ways".
Just like every philosophical question can be devolved to solipsism, every religious question can be devolved to Mysterious Ways.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 03:52 AM   #60
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,501
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I hear it all the time! In a way, it partly validates the sense of Scorpion's OP, since I suspect many atheists become atheists at around the age of 10, with a 10-year-old's definition of omnipotence. And of course, theists are even worse in that regard.
It would be interesting to hear if that is indeed the case for the atheists on this forum.
In my case, that is not true. I stopped being a Catholic at the age of 14, but didn't really become an atheist until some time later- probably, I think (it was a gradual process) not until my mid-twenties.
I am also quite sure that, at the age of 10, my thoughts did not include musings on the omnipotence of God. I recall being much more interested in the awesomeness of James Bond than with matters theological.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 04:13 AM   #61
Carrot Flower King
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
It would be interesting to hear if that is indeed the case for the atheists on this forum.
In my case, that is not true. I stopped being a Catholic at the age of 14, but didn't really become an atheist until some time later- probably, I think (it was a gradual process) not until my mid-twenties.
I am also quite sure that, at the age of 10, my thoughts did not include musings on the omnipotence of God. I recall being much more interested in the awesomeness of James Bond than with matters theological.
Age 10: totally hacked off with being made to go to church and Sunday school (Methodist variety); can't recall much about omni-anything; thinking it was all a bit contradictory and didn't make much sense; far more concerned about Wales' results in the Five (as it was then) Nations and strange stirrings involving that red-headed lass across the class room...

Total abandonment of any religious stuff around age 12, finally able to stop attending church etc age 15. Only really been in a church for architectural reasons since.

Last edited by Carrot Flower King; 24th July 2020 at 04:15 AM.
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 11:53 AM   #62
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That's not what is being said, though. Well, not by anyone even vaguely familiar with the theodicy problem, anyway. The argument isn't ONLY that God is omnipotent, but that he is all 3 of omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

What you do when you pretend that the argument was ONLY about omnipotence, is basically say that it becomes no problem if you drop two of them. And yeah, it does. You're not the first to notice that. In fact, it becomes no problem if you drop ONE of the tree, no matter which of them:

- drop omnibenevolence: e.g., "Yeah, but god is a bit of a dick." (The Jewish religion goes with that, pretty much.) Sure, then even with the other two omnis in place, it's pretty clear why suffering exists.

- drop omniscience: e.g., "Yeah, but he was busy fixing a football match across the globe; he didn't know you were getting raped." (Pretty much a common fundie argument.) Yeah, sure, then it explains why stuff flies under his radar.

- drop omnipotence: e.g., "Yeah, but he was busy fixing a football match across the globe; he can't do both at the same time." (Again, a pretty common fundie argument.) Yeah, sure, no problem then.

It's trying to have ALL THREE that starts to be a problem.

And the logic problem you mention is actually NOT a problem of omnipotence, but one of omniscience. An omniscient god would also know all there is on the topic of logic, including why every imaginable argument would be sound or unsound. The question isn't whether he CAN arrive at an unsound argument, but whether he (A) KNOWS and (B) CARES that it's unsound. Different OMNIs altogether.

But again, I can sorta see some handwaving possible that he knows and can apply logic, but is in some way bat-guano schizophrenic enough that he fails it anyway.
GDon has admitted the idea of an omnipotent entity resolves nothing for anyone..

Originally Posted by GDon
Thank you! The irony is that I'm not proposing it as a solution. I'm just running with the idea "omnipotence means the ability to do anything" and showing its implications. It makes things easy for the theist, since any argument against God can be resolved on the theist side by "an omnipotent being can do anything!" It's a get-out-of-jail-free card, that satisfies nobody and nothing.

Last edited by Agatha; 30th July 2020 at 06:01 AM. Reason: correct quote tag
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 03:57 PM   #63
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That's not what is being said, though. Well, not by anyone even vaguely familiar with the theodicy problem, anyway. The argument isn't ONLY that God is omnipotent, but that he is all 3 of omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
True, but we need to start somewhere. Let's start with omnipotence. Do you think that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything", including the logically impossible? Or does it mean "the ability to do anything that having maximal power can do"? Does an omnipotent being have the power to create a universe in which "1=1" and "1=2" simultaneously, in your opinion?

Last edited by GDon; 24th July 2020 at 04:01 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 04:11 PM   #64
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,699
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
True, but we need to start somewhere. Let's start with omnipotence. Do you think that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything", including the logically impossible? Or does it mean "the ability to do anything that having maximal power can do"? Does an omnipotent being have the power to create a universe in which "1=1" and "1=2" simultaneously, in your opinion?
TBH, I'm even ok with a lot less than that. About as much power as if you were the guy who wrote the simulation is also more than enough for the theodicy problem to still apply (assuming that the other two "omnis" are still in effect.)

That said, maths is perhaps a bad example, since maths doesn't actually (or not necessarily) describe the universe at all. Maths is not physics. You can quite trivially make up maths models that don't describe our universe at all. Whether 1=2 or not has pretty much nothing to do with the structure of the universe. We may not have discovered arithmetic if the universe behaved differently, but you could still come up with the exact same one as in our universe, and it would be just as true, even if it doesn't describe that universe.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 04:13 PM   #65
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,699
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
GDon has admitted the idea of an omnipotent entity resolves nothing for anyone..
Well, we're not even disagreeing there -- I THINK -- because I'm also not saying it actually resolves any problem. The three omnis are what CREATES the PROBLEM of theodicy, which is kinda the polar opposite of solving anything, if you think about it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 24th July 2020 at 04:15 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 05:35 PM   #66
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
TBH, I'm even ok with a lot less than that. About as much power as if you were the guy who wrote the simulation is also more than enough for the theodicy problem to still apply (assuming that the other two "omnis" are still in effect.)
Right. So how do I argue with someone who insists that "omnipotence" means the ability to do anything? Not much point bringing in the other omnis while operating under different views of what omnipotence means.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
You can quite trivially make up maths models that don't describe our universe at all. Whether 1=2 or not has pretty much nothing to do with the structure of the universe.
Of course. But no-one uses the physics of the universe when creating a logical argument, so I'm not sure how what you wrote is relevant. I've seen people move goal posts in an argument, but rarely entire football fields. Even if a logical argument can be made reconciling the three omnis, it doesn't mean the universe is any different to what we see.

Last edited by GDon; 24th July 2020 at 05:48 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 05:38 PM   #67
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,685
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, we're not even disagreeing there -- I THINK -- because I'm also not saying it actually resolves any problem. The three omnis are what CREATES the PROBLEM of theodicy, which is kinda the polar opposite of solving anything, if you think about it.

Which is, in itself, as good a definition of "unfalsifiable" as any. The thing isn't even self-consistent yet resolves that with its built-in inconsistency. I can't think of an unfalsifiable belief for which that doesn't fit.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 05:40 PM   #68
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by StillSleepy View Post
I didn't become an atheist until I was well into adulthood. For me it was more a matter of impotence. Also the whole "blatantly unreliable narrators" and "apostles murdering sinners" thing.
That's fair enough. You had an adult's understanding of the issues when you made your decision. My point isn't so much the age that someone makes their decision, it is the understanding that lies behind it. I'd much more trust the reasoning of a man who is 30 years old who decides he is an atheist than a 10 year-old who decides to become a theist. "Omnipotence means the ability to do anything" is a 10-year old's understanding, in my opinion.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th July 2020, 09:06 PM   #69
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,609
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
True, but we need to start somewhere. Let's start with omnipotence. Do you think that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything", including the logically impossible? Or does it mean "the ability to do anything that having maximal power can do"? Does an omnipotent being have the power to create a universe in which "1=1" and "1=2" simultaneously, in your opinion?
What does Omnipotence mean??

Originally Posted by GDon
... It's a get-out-of-jail-free card, that satisfies nobody and nothing.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 02:00 AM   #70
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,877
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
True, but we need to start somewhere. Let's start with omnipotence. Do you think that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything", including the logically impossible? Or does it mean "the ability to do anything that having maximal power can do"? Does an omnipotent being have the power to create a universe in which "1=1" and "1=2" simultaneously, in your opinion?
Like all the omni words it's pretty much a meaningless word in regards to describing reality. It is a word to describe fictional attributes.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 02:30 AM   #71
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,699
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Right. So how do I argue with someone who insists that "omnipotence" means the ability to do anything? Not much point bringing in the other omnis while operating under different views of what omnipotence means.
There's actually point enough if even a lot less omni still creates the same problem. Same as why we can still study the ideal gas laws or the ideal free market theory, even though none of the assumptions there are 100% perfectly true in any particular gas or respectively market.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Of course. But no-one uses the physics of the universe when creating a logical argument, so I'm not sure how what you wrote is relevant. I've seen people move goal posts in an argument, but rarely entire football fields. Even if a logical argument can be made reconciling the three omnis, it doesn't mean the universe is any different to what we see.
It's relevant because maths isn't tied to describing a universe. Asking for a universe where "1=2" is simply irrelevant nonsense, if "1=2" isn't tied to the properties of that universe, or indeed of any universe in particular.

It's like asking for a sphere where blue is green. It has nothing to do with it being a sphere.

To see how unconnected maths is from the actual properties of the universe, let's try this:

- can you describe a square whose surface (defined as in, all sides are equal, all corner angles are 90°) is the square of the length of the side? Sure, you can. Everyone learned that one in school. Is it true for any square in our universe? No, because space is curved in ours, and the surface of that square is actually a little greater than the square of the side. It comes closest to true in intergalactic space, but even there it's not strictly equal. The difference is lost in many decimals, but it's there.

- can you describe a right triangle where Pythagoras' applies, as in one angle is 90°, and the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the squares of the sides? Sure you can. We could since the third millennium BCE. You learned it in school. Is it true for an actual triangle anywhere in our universe? Nope, same deal as above.

That's the POINT. Maths is not tied to the properties of the universe. We could very well, and indeed DID make up some maths that isn't strictly true anywhere in our own universe. You can make up any frikken maths you want, regardless of whether it matches the universe in any form or shape. If you want to make up some maths where "1=2", whether you can or can't, has nothing to do with how that universe is. Regardless of whether an omnipotent deity created it or not.


Edit: which brings us to your objection in the first quoted paragraph: is there any point in bringing something up if it's not totally, perfectly, absolutely, 100% as perfect as in the most perfect definition? Sure there is. We do that with the square and triangle above all the time. If the approximation is good enough for the problem at hand, then yes, there is a point in bringing it up.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th July 2020 at 02:45 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 02:32 AM   #72
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,699
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Which is, in itself, as good a definition of "unfalsifiable" as any. The thing isn't even self-consistent yet resolves that with its built-in inconsistency. I can't think of an unfalsifiable belief for which that doesn't fit.
I would disagree. If assuming X creates an internal inconsistency or a contradiction, then you just proved that X is false. It's the definition of an ad absurdum, after all.

As a trivial consequence, if assuming X & Y & Z (those 3 omnis) creates an internal inconsistency or a contradiction, then the conjunction of the three must be false, i.e., at least one of them must be false.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th July 2020 at 02:46 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 02:42 AM   #73
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,699
Additionally, I would add that derailing it into exactly how omnipotent does God need to be, and whether it matches a 10 year old's or a 30 year old's definition, is a cute but ultimately nonsensical red herring, since the problem doesn't really need any particular definition of omni. In fact, the original formulation of the theodicy problem not only didn't mention omni-anything, it wasn't even asking for God to come anywhere NEAR being omni-anything. It just requires God to be powerful ENOUGH to end suffering or evil, depending on the formulation you go by, to have a problem.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th July 2020 at 02:44 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 05:07 AM   #74
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,685
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I would disagree. If assuming X creates an internal inconsistency or a contradiction, then you just proved that X is false. It's the definition of an ad absurdum, after all.

As a trivial consequence, if assuming X & Y & Z (those 3 omnis) creates an internal inconsistency or a contradiction, then the conjunction of the three must be false, i.e., at least one of them must be false.

Okay, I agree. I got a little overexcited there.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:07 AM   #75
jrhowell
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 678
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
In fact, the original formulation of the theodicy problem not only didn't mention omni-anything, it wasn't even asking for God to come anywhere NEAR being omni-anything. It just requires God to be powerful ENOUGH to end suffering or evil, depending on the formulation you go by, to have a problem.
God would not need to end all suffering or evil, but should be able to at least lessen it in cases where it is possible even with human-level knowledge and power. If God existed there would be no such thing as curable cancer because God would prevent it from ever happening in the first place.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:15 AM   #76
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
True, but we need to start somewhere. Let's start with omnipotence. Do you think that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything", including the logically impossible? Or does it mean "the ability to do anything that having maximal power can do"? Does an omnipotent being have the power to create a universe in which "1=1" and "1=2" simultaneously, in your opinion?
Ahh, here we go with "Let me question and redefine words until their redefinition fits my agenda"
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:19 AM   #77
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,877
Originally Posted by jrhowell View Post
God would not need to end all suffering or evil, but should be able to at least lessen it in cases where it is possible even with human-level knowledge and power. If God existed there would be no such thing as curable cancer because God would prevent it from ever happening in the first place.
Or since the claim is about something he already does - spontaneous remission.

Whichever way they try and slice it the "omni-Christians" can't reconcile their omnis.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:29 AM   #78
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by RedStapler View Post
Ahh, here we go with "Let me question and redefine words until their redefinition fits my agenda"
Well, not my redefinition actually. The one I'm using has a long history. Thomas Aquinas (13th Century CE): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence
"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
Out of interest, what is your definition of omnipotence? Do you agree with Thomas Aquinas's definition? I'm happy to understand your view of the matter.

Last edited by GDon; 25th July 2020 at 06:32 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:38 AM   #79
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Whichever way they try and slice it the "omni-Christians" can't reconcile their omnis.
Well, I'm not a Christian (I'm an omni-theist), but didn't I do that? As HansMustermann wrote on the last page:

"It's the first time I hear a theodicy solution that actually manages to keep all 3 and suffering in a pretty darn valid way."

And not only did I do it, I even used the definition of "omnipotence" provided by the atheists!: "Omnipotence means the ability to do anything."

Last edited by GDon; 25th July 2020 at 06:41 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2020, 06:45 AM   #80
RedStapler
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 423
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Well, I'm not a Christian (I'm an omni-theist), but didn't I do that? As HansMustermann wrote on the last page:

"It's the first time I hear a theodicy solution that actually manages to keep all 3 and suffering in a pretty darn valid way."

And not only did I do it, I even used the definition of "omnipotence" provided by the atheists!: "Omnipotence means the ability to do anything."
You have been shown various contradictions
Edited by Agatha:  Removed breach of rule 12

Last edited by Agatha; 30th July 2020 at 06:04 AM.
RedStapler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.