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 30th July 2020, 03:53 AM   #201
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,747
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I think everyone has their own version of God. There are 7 billion different versions that people believe exists, or believes don't exist, or lack a belief in.

But so far no-one in this thread has seemed to have argued against an omni-God whose omnipotence is defined as "power to do anything possible", which many theists like myself believe describes God's attribute of omnipotence.
Except, again, we have plenty of things that are possible, because we know either

A) we did it ourselves, such as cure a baby with pneumonia, OR

B) we can take the theists's word for it, that God already did it once. E.g., create a whole universe, with whole trillions of stars in billions of galaxies, plus like 4 times more mass in dark matter just to keep it nicely together, just because he wanted some pretty lights in the sky at night.

I'm saying the latter because even if AD ABSURDUM, to prevent some kid from being shot, God had to remove the whole universe and replace it with one where the bullet isn't in flight, we are told that he has that much power.

And note that even at that point it's still not hinging of his having INFINITE anything. We just use the theists "omni" claim only because it means whatever level of power you need, God is claimed to have more than that.

The whole "but does it include being able to square the circle" that you've been chasing over several pages is just your own nonsense strawman, not something that anyone actually needed for the theodicy problem to be a problem.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th July 2020 at 03:56 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 30th July 2020, 03:57 AM   #202
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,747
Hell, to prevent a LOT of suffering throughout history, God had to do literally NOTHING. Literally. He just had to refrain from telling people to make the problem worse in his name.

I trust it doesn't create any paradox for anyone, to ask of any being -- omnipotent by whatever definition or not -- to have the power to just shut the hell up, right?
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 04:56 AM   #203
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,923
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Except, again, we have plenty of things that are possible, because we know either

...snip...
If god had thought to mention he had created some tiny, invisible to the naked eye creatures that cause disease to his disciples when he was turning the water into wine imagine how much suffering he could have prevented over the last 2000 years.
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 05:09 AM   #204
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,405
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
If god had thought to mention he had created some tiny, invisible to the naked eye creatures that cause disease to his disciples when he was turning the water into wine imagine how much suffering he could have prevented over the last 2000 years.
A Mormon I was having a discussion with on another board once posted evidence of the harmful health effects of caffeine as evidence that Joseph Smith really did get special knowledge from God. I pointed out that his followers' biggest health problem at the time was cholera, not caffeine, and that by banning hot drinks Smith probably cost many of them their lives.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 30th July 2020, 05:31 AM   #205
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,513
Or just told everyone on the planet, directly and clearly what the rules are for behaving. No intermediaries, no interpreters, just straight from the horse's mouth 'here's what thou shalt/shalt not do.'

Something like "jerk off all you like, but don't use contraception", or "marry whomever you want in any combinations and quantities, but never strike your children", or "pork for dinner rules, but don't eat lamb - I think they're cute", or whatever. People would still have free will as they could choose to disobey, but there's zero ambiguity about the rules, and you wouldn't have people blowing each other up over who interpreted the vague message correctly.

Edit to add : unless of course God, the all-powerful creator of everything, couldn't figure out how to get his message across ...

Last edited by Joe Random; 30th July 2020 at 05:33 AM.
Joe Random 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 30th July 2020, 05:46 AM   #206
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,747
Well, the thing is... it also makes my other point, actually. Even there, even just shutting the hell up would have done a LOT of good. That's about how much "omni" his potence needed to be to reduce a lot of suffering. Let me show you.

Brothers and sisters, let us open the good book at the gospel of St Mark, chapter 7, from the beginning:
1. The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus

2. and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.

3. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.

4. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

5. So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

[... snip Jesus blasting them in return with unwarranted insults and dumb whataboutism ...]

14. Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.

15. "Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”
So let's recap: the Jews had ALREADY figured out that you need to wash your hands, not to mention your plates, pots, etc, before you eat. Which anyone who even vaguely heard of medicine and microbiology will tell you is the right thing to do. Eating with unwashed hands, and doubly so from unwashed dishes, is a recipe for how to get sick.

They didn't need God to tell them that. They ALREADY knew that.

So what does the omniscient and omnibenevolent God do about that? (Jesus IS God, according to RCC and most major denomination: different person, same God.) Encourage them to keep doing so, maybe? Nope, he actually blasts them for it, and tells everyone that you can't get 'defiled' by anything coming into your body from outside.

Which actually caused even more harm than you'd think in the long run: it also caused the Church to discourage bathing, and in various times and places actual punitive taxes on soap. As in, literally, just like with tobacco and alcohol nowadays, tax them until people start refraining from using them.

And in turn the effect of that can be seen in the Black Death outbreaks that killed pretty much half the people born in Europe. If you take the Jews as the control group, the ones who were NOT following Jesus's dumbassery, and compare them to the rest of the population, it was known even at the time that the Jews had far fewer casualties. And we know that because the dumbasses at the time actually used that as "evidence" that the disease is actually just a case of the Jews poisoning the wells. I mean, how else it would affect everyone but them, right?

That's millions upon millions of deaths, and very painful death at that, and the mood in the whole Europe turning depressed for centuries, based on that one dumbassery from Jesus.

LITERALLY, all God (as Jesus) had to do to avoid that was SHUT THE HELL UP. He didn't even need to tell people about bacteria or anything. Just SHUT THE HELL UP. That's all the power he needed.


(Side note, let's look again at, "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him." I'm pretty sure gay sex also qualifies as entering a man from outside, right? Dunno what the fundies have a problem with)
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th July 2020 at 05:50 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 30th July 2020, 06:19 AM   #207
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,765
By some definitions of ominipotence it would seem we all are. I mean, if omnipotence means the ability to do all we can, and not anything we can't, then there we are. Omnipotence, like everything else, turns out to be relative. Maybe God is just selfish and lazy like the rest of us.

But if God created the entire universe from nothing, didn't he create the rules too? We're back to the paradox of omnipotence. It clashes with logic from the very start. What created logic? A god may be omnipotential, but once he uses that power to make something, it's made, and whatever it isn't it isn't. Forget the stone too heavy to lift. Can God create a box he can't get out of?

So maybe we could have had a better universe, but it's too late now. We should feel some pity for God. In retrospect he coulda shoulda woulda, but he's stuck with us now.
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 10:50 AM   #208
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,910
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
But how do you know? How do you know that it isn't possible for God to prevent earthquakes, etc?
I know because we are talking about an omni-god, and his omnibenevolence makes him want to prevent the sufferings that earthquakes etc. causes, so it must be impossible to prevent it, or would he would use his omnipotence to do so.

The brilliant definition of omnipotence that you say the Christian philosophers have come up with, has reduced their god to a tautology.
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 11:19 AM   #209
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,764
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Thanks, abaddon! The text below for those interested, and who like myself didn't know this:
19:16 Behold, one came to him and said, "Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
19:17 He said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
19:18 He said to him, "Which ones?"
Jesus said, "'You shall not murder.' 'You shall not commit adultery.' 'You shall not steal.' 'You shall not offer false testimony.'
19:19 'Honor your father and mother.' And, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

19:20 The young man said to him, "All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?"
19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions.
19:23 Jesus said to his disciples, "Most assuredly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty.
19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."
19:25 When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
19:26 Looking at them, Jesus said, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
You're welcome, but have you any comment of your own to make?

ETA: And why the NIV?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 30th July 2020 at 11:24 AM.
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 30th July 2020, 01:15 PM   #210
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Or just told everyone on the planet, directly and clearly what the rules are for behaving. No intermediaries, no interpreters, just straight from the horse's mouth 'here's what thou shalt/shalt not do.'
But don't you see my point (well, one of them)? That's the equivalent of "God's mysterious ways" from the other side. "Well, God should do this." But you don't know that that's the case. And if you are making a positive claim, the burden of proof lies with you.
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 30th July 2020, 01:20 PM   #211
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
By some definitions of ominipotence it would seem we all are. I mean, if omnipotence means the ability to do all we can, and not anything we can't, then there we are. Omnipotence, like everything else, turns out to be relative. Maybe God is just selfish and lazy like the rest of us.
Sure, and if you proposed that kind of God, and I wanted to debunk it, it wouldn't make sense if I then said "that's not omnipotence, THIS is omnipotence." I would be creating a strawman, regardless of whether I felt my definition was the better one.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But if God created the entire universe from nothing, didn't he create the rules too? We're back to the paradox of omnipotence. It clashes with logic from the very start. What created logic? A god may be omnipotential, but once he uses that power to make something, it's made, and whatever it isn't it isn't. Forget the stone too heavy to lift. Can God create a box he can't get out of?
Exactly. The law of identity is that once God has made something, He has made it. If God can violate the law of identity, then "1 isn't 1", and "suffering isn't suffering". QED. (At least QED in a universe in which logic doesn't necessarily apply.)

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
So maybe we could have had a better universe, but it's too late now. We should feel some pity for God. In retrospect he coulda shoulda woulda, but he's stuck with us now.
That's the logical consequence, I agree. If God has made a universe that can be described by logic, then He can't simultaneously make the same universe so that it isn't described by logic. He's stuck with it, even if He is omnipotent (my version of course).

Last edited by GDon; 30th July 2020 at 01:42 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 30th July 2020, 01:24 PM   #212
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
I know because we are talking about an omni-god, and his omnibenevolence makes him want to prevent the sufferings that earthquakes etc. causes, so it must be impossible to prevent it, or would he would use his omnipotence to do so.
I agree, that's the logic. It's valid also.

Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
The brilliant definition of omnipotence that you say the Christian philosophers have come up with, has reduced their god to a tautology.
I don't disagree. Tautologies are logically valid, you know. Mighty handy in resolving the three omni-God attributes problem.

Last edited by GDon; 30th July 2020 at 01:35 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 30th July 2020, 01:35 PM   #213
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You're welcome, but have you any comment of your own to make?
Yes, I do, though not relevant to any discussion on this thread. First, thanks again for the information.

I thought the following highlighted passage is interesting:
19:20 The young man said to him, "All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?"
19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."
19:22 But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions.
19:23 Jesus said to his disciples, "Most assuredly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty.
19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."
19:25 When the disciples heard it, they were exceedingly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
The disciples' reaction to me is strange: "If rich people cannot be saved, who can be saved?", rather than "if keeping the commandments doesn't save you, who can be saved?", which is what you might expect.

The implication seems to me that they thought "if you are rich, then you'll automatically be saved", and they were surprised when Jesus claimed otherwise. Weird! What do you make of it?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
ETA: And why the NIV?
It's the World English Bible. It's in the public domain and easily accessible.

Last edited by GDon; 30th July 2020 at 01:56 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 30th July 2020, 01:50 PM   #214
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,765
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Sure, and if you proposed that kind of God, and I wanted to debunk it, it wouldn't make sense if I then said "that's not omnipotence, THIS is omnipotence." I would be creating a strawman, regardless of whether I felt my definition was the better one.


Exactly. The law of identity is that once God has made something, He has made it. If God can violate the law of identity, then "1 isn't 1", and "suffering isn't suffering". QED. (At least QED in a universe in which logic doesn't necessarily apply.)


That's the logical consequence, I agree. If God has made a universe that can be described by logic, then He can't simultaneously make the same universe so that it isn't described by logic. He's stuck with it, even if He is omnipotent (my version of course).
On the other hand, if he's ominipotent he could presumably make (or have made) an alternative universe, and he could presumably obliterate this one. We'd never miss it. Is suffering possible if all suffering and all memory of suffering and all definition of it disappears in a flash? What, other than our own ideas, says that there must be a universe at all? If there's a god, that god existed without one. If there's a god without a universe, the universe is optional.
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 01:56 PM   #215
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
On the other hand, if he's ominipotent he could presumably make (or have made) an alternative universe, and he could presumably obliterate this one. We'd never miss it. Is suffering possible if all suffering and all memory of suffering and all definition of it disappears in a flash?
Good question. Could God do that to this universe, at some point? Perhaps after we are dead and enjoying eternal life?
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 30th July 2020, 03:07 PM   #216
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,851
A god that can only do what is possible is not a god that can create a Universe or do magic and miracles.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot 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 30th July 2020, 03:31 PM   #217
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,765
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Good question. Could God do that to this universe, at some point? Perhaps after we are dead and enjoying eternal life?
Why wait? Who but God would know? Besides, even if you decide there is a god, deciding there's eternal life is a whole other matter.

Of course along with this we get the theist's "get out of jail free" card, that a creator who can create everything can create a past as well as a present, and everything he does is presumably true and good, so just as there's no way to know for sure we're not in the matrix or in the imagination of some great deity, we cannot be sure that the universe did not come into creation a second ago. God could reboot it daily.
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 03:41 PM   #218
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,920
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
ETA: And why the NIV?
NIV is the most common translation for those who don't want to deal with the archaic language of the KJB. It preserves most of the meaning of the... I was about to say "original" lol... without too many distortions.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot 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 30th July 2020, 05:41 PM   #219
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
... What, other than our own ideas, says that there must be a universe at all? If there's a god, that god existed without one. If there's a god without a universe, the universe is optional.

This recalls to me that other thread where the OP (of that other thread) was arguing that all life includes suffering, ergo creating new life, as in having children, is immoral.

That argument had plenty of holes. But when it comes to God, you have a point. All life, as we know it, no matter how charmed, must necessarily involve some suffering. So the only way God can be literally "tri-omni" is if he created nothing at all.

Since we exist, God cannot possibly be omni. Not all three omni's simultaneously. At least not literally,
Chanakya 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 30th July 2020, 05:49 PM   #220
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,884
If someone were, otherwise, inclined towards theism, then I don't see this tri-omni issue to be an insurmountable hurdle to reasonably continue doing that. Here's two distinct reasons why:

1. God has been described in these tri-omni terms, but it is easy, and reasonable, to think of these as figurative terms. (For instance, to a poor peasant, the king of a large kingdom may well appear omnipotent, and may well be described as such. That would be both because that enormous but finite difference between their situations might appear literally infinite to the poor peasant; or it could be some intentional hyporbole on his part, with intention to flatter, in order to propitiate said king; and either or both these reasons may reasonably get our hypothetical peasant to describe our hypothetical king as omnipotent; and others, down the line, might end up mistaking this figurative description as literal doctrine.)

2. We already do have one class of reality that is outside of our intuition. When it comes to the quantum world, we "peasants" readily defer to the authority of physicists -- and physicists readily defer to their mathematics and to the predictive value of their models -- to accept a class of reality that is beyond our/their everyday logic and intuition. The theist can do the same when it comes to this tri-omni business, and I don't see that this is any more unreasonable, provided the concept otherwise appears acceptable. (In other words, accepting six impossible things before breakfast is something we already do, if we have what we think are good reasons; so why should this be a deal-breaker for the theist, if he otherwise has what he thinks are good reasons to believe?)


Disclaimer:
1. I've only glossed through the thread. It could be someone's already said something like this. In which case, apologies for the repitition.
2. I'm not, myself, a theist. It's, just, I don't see this tri-omni business as this deal-breaking gotcha that some atheists imagine it is.
Chanakya 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 30th July 2020, 06:40 PM   #221
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,851
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
2. I'm not, myself, a theist. It's, just, I don't see this tri-omni business as this deal-breaking gotcha that some atheists imagine it is.
No logical, sound argument is likely to be a "deal-breaking gotcha" for most god believers. This doesn't mean logical, sound arguments aren't valid and shouldn't be presented, and that they mightn't have some effect on some god believers or some considering god beliefs.
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 30th July 2020 at 06:42 PM.
ynot 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 30th July 2020, 09:28 PM   #222
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,765
I agree. It's not a deal breaker because if a god is a god that god can violate any and all of our suppositions, including the supposition that he is omni-anything, or the supposition that anything he does is necessary rather than voluntary. After all, if there is a god, then that god can do anything it damned well pleases, including to confound us.

But I think it's a dealbreaker to our own ability to explain things, because we cannot readily violate logic, and omnipotence, at least, is logically contradictory. We can't say a thing is and isn't at the same time. And likewise, if omnipotence must obey logic, and be the ability only to do what is possible, then there are rules for the rules.
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 09:40 PM   #223
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,405
Are you guys ready to move onto the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 30th July 2020, 09:57 PM   #224
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
No logical, sound argument is likely to be a "deal-breaking gotcha" for most god believers.

Not quite right. I did say reasonable person, reasonable god-believer.

No reasonable person -- at least, no contemporary reasonable person, as opposed to someone who lived in times past, before evidentiary thinking became a thing -- would accept God's existence without evidence. That there is no such evidence is, indeed, a "deal-breaker", or should be for the reasonable person.

But, my point was, the "tri-omni" argument isn't such a deal-breaker, not even for the reasonable theist. For the reasons I presented above.

(Off-the-cuff reasons, thought of on the spur while browsing this thread, so I could be wrong. But what I said seems reasonable, so far.)


Quote:
This doesn't mean logical, sound arguments aren't valid and shouldn't be presented, and that they mightn't have some effect on some god believers or some considering god beliefs.

Sure, agreed.

Quite possible that a number of such arguments, that are none of them individually "deal-breakers", might incrementally get the theist to question their blind faith.
Chanakya 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 30th July 2020, 10:25 PM   #225
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,798
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
2. We already do have one class of reality that is outside of our intuition. When it comes to the quantum world, we "peasants" readily defer to the authority of physicists -- and physicists readily defer to their mathematics and to the predictive value of their models -- to accept a class of reality that is beyond our/their everyday logic and intuition.
Physicists don't 'defer' to the math, they have proved that it works and rely on the logic and 'intuition' that says it can be applied to their models - which is validated every time an experiment backs up the math. Nor do we have to defer to them. We could do the math too, and analyze the data or even do our experiments. But most of us don't because we figure (rightly) that it would be a colossal waste of time, since the scientists themselves are already doing that.

Quote:
The theist can do the same when it comes to this tri-omni business, and I don't see that this is any more unreasonable, provided the concept otherwise appears acceptable.
Problem is the 'physicists' of religion don't have a sound logical basis for their belief. If reduced to math it would fail instantly. And to make matters worse they have no evidence to back it up.

Quote:
In other words, accepting six impossible things before breakfast is something we already do, if we have what we think are good reasons; so why should this be a deal-breaker for the theist, if he otherwise has what he thinks are good reasons to believe?
You are right that it's not a deal breaker - the 'deal' was already broken when theists insisted the supernatural exists. But they still try to justify the tri-omni nonsense by arguing that it isn't what everyone knows it is - which is pointless because they already cooked their goose arguing for a supernatural god of any sort.

So atheists aren't seeing tri-omni as the 'deal-breaker' but just another nail in the coffin.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 30th July 2020, 10:27 PM   #226
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I agree. It's not a deal breaker because if a god is a god that god can violate any and all of our suppositions, including the supposition that he is omni-anything, or the supposition that anything he does is necessary rather than voluntary. After all, if there is a god, then that god can do anything it damned well pleases, including to confound us.

But I think it's a dealbreaker to our own ability to explain things, because we cannot readily violate logic, and omnipotence, at least, is logically contradictory. We can't say a thing is and isn't at the same time. And likewise, if omnipotence must obey logic, and be the ability only to do what is possible, then there are rules for the rules.

It appears to me it isn't, actually, the highlighted portion.

Given adequate reasons, external reasons if I may call it that -- in my example, that would be the predictive power of the quantum physicists' models -- we do accept wholly counter-intuitive things, apparently illogical things. By that token, that theist who, for external reasons -- like fideist faith, or some apparent mystical vision, or some prophet's alleged mystical vision, or whatever -- accepts the existence of God, then these apparent logical/intuitive inconsistencies oughtn't to be a deal-breaker, not if one is consistent in how one views these two categories of beliefs (and ignores, for the duration of the argument, the lack of evidence, since that is external to the immediate discussion).

Besides, treating these omni-descriptors as figurative rather than literal -- which, like I'd discussed earlier, kind of makes sense -- does away with the logical inconsistency altogether. A generally immensely powerful being, that is generally benevolent, and generally pretty well clued in to what's happening -- not "omni", not unlimitedly, but still immensely more so than the person attempting to describe this being -- is not necessarily inconsistent with our reality, at least not so impossibly inconsistent as to be a "deal-breaker".
Chanakya 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 30th July 2020, 10:30 PM   #227
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,765
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you guys ready to move onto the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
Eventually, but first we need to take a few pages to decide what sort of pin, and then to do some serious research into defining just what constitutes an angel, and determining their variety and mutability. And do they have to dance, and are they subject to social distancing rules now?
__________________
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 30th July 2020, 10:39 PM   #228
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,626
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I think everyone has their own version of God. There are 7 billion different versions that people believe exists, or believes don't exist, or lack a belief in.

But so far no-one in this thread has seemed to have argued against an omni-God whose omnipotence is defined as "power to do anything possible", which many theists like myself believe describes God's attribute of omnipotence.
Theists believe God can do the impossible as it is stated in their Bible.

Luke 1.37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

It is most disturbing that a theist would deny or fail to admit theists believe God can do the impossible.

In the Bible God made the sun stand still so the Jews could more daylight time to defeat their enemies.

Joshua 10.13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.



Originally Posted by GDon
Instead atheists have tried to 'convert' me to believe in a kind of God that (1) I don't believe in, but (2) which they are convinced I should believe in, so that they can then tell me why that God (which I already don't believe in) doesn't exist. I don't understand the thought process behind that.

If an atheist doesn't agree with me on the definition of omni-God, that's fine. But I'm not sure how any argument can proceed on that basis. They're not talking about my God.
What you say about atheist is not true. You don't want to accept the very teachings of your Bible that God is able to do the impossible.

You seem to be in denial.
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 30th July 2020, 10:56 PM   #229
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Physicists don't 'defer' to the math, they have proved that it works and rely on the logic and 'intuition' that says it can be applied to their models - which is validated every time an experiment backs up the math. Nor do we have to defer to them. We could do the math too, and analyze the data or even do our experiments. But most of us don't because we figure (rightly) that it would be a colossal waste of time, since the scientists themselves are already doing that.

I take your point about not necessarily having to defer to physicists. Your argument holds, in some cases at least. The major monotheist religions do not admit of gnostic realization. (Although there are others, like Theravadin Buddhism, that hold that this realization is available to all, much as the physics models and theories are avalible to all, if only we have some basic aptitude and put in the necessary work).


But leaving that aside, my point was, we do defer our intuition to the predictive value of our models. It would, by that token, not be inconsistent to defer everyday logic and intuition to, in this case, fideist faith, or mystical visions (one's own, or some prophet's), or whatever else may appear reasonable to the theist. That is, there is no inconsistency between accepting the apparent illogic of the quantum worldview, and the apparent illogic of the tri-omni argument, basis something external to the scope of this argument (in one case, the predictive value of the model; in the other, the mystical visions, or the faith in the doctrine, or whatever),


Quote:
Problem is the 'physicists' of religion don't have a sound logical basis for their belief. If reduced to math it would fail instantly. And to make matters worse they have no evidence to back it up.

You are right that it's not a deal breaker - the 'deal' was already broken when theists insisted the supernatural exists. But they still try to justify the tri-omni nonsense by arguing that it isn't what everyone knows it is - which is pointless because they already cooked their goose arguing for a supernatural god of any sort.

So atheists aren't seeing tri-omni as the 'deal-breaker' but just another nail in the coffin.

Sure, agreed to all of that. We're doing the equivalent of trying to figure out if Tom Bombadil fits in within the broader schema of Middle Earth, or if his presence invalidates that very basis of Middle Earth by introducing some impossible inconsistency.

The deal, as you say, is already long broken, and at that level of thinking the discussion already moot.
Chanakya 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 30th July 2020, 11:08 PM   #230
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you guys ready to move onto the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?

Nah, that would be beyond the scope of this universe. String theory, sorry, thread theory, dooms us to cogitating endlessly about the tri-omni thingy. The only way out is to leave this universe for another.

On the other hand, I suppose the deities that control this thread/universe might let us get away with a joke or two. Know any good ones about three omni-buddies walking into a bar?
Chanakya 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 30th July 2020, 11:15 PM   #231
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,747
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
1. God has been described in these tri-omni terms, but it is easy, and reasonable, to think of these as figurative terms. (For instance, to a poor peasant, the king of a large kingdom may well appear omnipotent, and may well be described as such. That would be both because that enormous but finite difference between their situations might appear literally infinite to the poor peasant; or it could be some intentional hyporbole on his part, with intention to flatter, in order to propitiate said king; and either or both these reasons may reasonably get our hypothetical peasant to describe our hypothetical king as omnipotent; and others, down the line, might end up mistaking this figurative description as literal doctrine.)
That is not what theologians claim. And at this point we're not talking about whether the bible is or isn't a metaphor, but stuff written in books on the topic, including the Catholic encyclopaedia. So if your argument basically hinges on basically "yeah, X said Y, but he secretly meant Z", I hope you can understand why it doesn't impress me much.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th July 2020 at 11:19 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 30th July 2020, 11:26 PM   #232
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That is not what theologians claim. So if your argument basically hinges on basically "yeah, X said Y, but he surely meant Z", I hope you can understand why it doesn't impress me much.

As actual argument for the existence of God, it doesn't impress me either.

But as one possible way of resolving the apparent internal inconsistency of the tri-omni argument -- which, after all, is what the thread's about -- it does impress me as reasonable.

But, like I said, it was just an off the cuff thought, and I shouldn't be surprised if there did turn out to be inconsistencies in it. What do you yourself find wrong with it?

Last edited by Chanakya; 30th July 2020 at 11:29 PM.
Chanakya 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 30th July 2020, 11:49 PM   #233
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,747
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
As actual argument for the existence of God, it doesn't impress me either.
I don't think anyone -- well, no actual theologian, anyway -- uses the "omni" claims as an argument for the existence of God. Anselm comes the closest, but even he just needs God to be 'the greatest imaginable', not actual infinity.

It's more like fanboyism than an argument for existence, really. Essentially picture a stereotypical bunch of primary school kids arguing over whose dad can beat up whose dad. Eventually someone is going to start down the path of "but my dad is twice as strong as yours", someone else will go "mine is THREE times stronger", and escalate until, if given enough time, some poor little dummy has just GOT to go for "infinity times."

The existence of their respective dads isn't in question. (If nothing else, because they're too young to figure out how to derail it into solipsism yet) It's just the pecking order that's being debated, with everyone wanting theirs at the top. "Infinity times" just says there can't be anything above it.

(Well, at least until the class idiot goes "infinity plus one." There's always one)

Same with Jesus fanboys and their imaginary Super-Dad in the sky, really. We're just at the point where someone went "infinity times", is all.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But as one possible way of resolving the apparent internal inconsistency of the tri-omni argument -- which, after all, is what the thread's about -- it does impress me as reasonable.
Well, ditching the 'omni' claims is not wrong as a way out of the problem. Nor a new idea. The theodicy problem can indeed be solved by dropping any one of the three to much less than 'infinite' levels. E.g.,

- no omibenevolence: "God is a bit of an ass hole." (The Jewish way out. And, after all, the whole POINT of the Job story.)

- no omnipotence: "God was busy doing something more important on the other side of the world. E.g., saving some kids from a burning school. Can't deal with your crap at the same time." (A lot of fundies basically go for that.)

- no omniscience: "God didn't know you were getting raped. Maybe you didn't pray hard enough."

The only thing that I have an issue with is the idea that you can just assume that when theologians and church doctrines say 'white' you can know they secretly meant 'eh, bit of a dark grey hue, really, but definitely not black'
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th July 2020 at 11:51 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 31st July 2020, 02:55 AM   #234
Carrot Flower King
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you guys ready to move onto the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
Yeahbut, that will only lead to someone insisting on using their own special definition of "angel" and/or "dance" and "pin", which differ from commonly accepted definitions in some manner which favours their line of "argument".

And we'll be off round another mulberry bush with Humpty Dumpty.
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 31st July 2020, 03:07 AM   #235
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,432
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you guys ready to move onto the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
All of them. Every angel demonstrated to exist will fit easily with room for high kicks.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer 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 31st July 2020, 04:19 AM   #236
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,747
The question about angels and pinheads was actually about whether two things can be in the same place. Today we know about the Pauli exclusion principle for most particles, but even now it's not clear that some beings couldn't exist that don't collide with each other.

It also never actually featured pinheads. It only appears in Aquinas, and at that exactly once, and even then only as to whether two angels could occupy the same space. It is never specified what that space might be, much less require it to be the head of a pin.

After that it only appears as a strawman. As in various dumbasses accusing others of being the kind of delusional old farts who debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We don't have any manuscript or reliable reference to anyone actually debating that.

So basically it's like going through all the posts mentioning the 'have you stopped beating your wife' trope, and concluding that wife-beating must be the #1 passtime for forum posters.

'Course it won't keep people from trying to sound smart about it without knowing what they're talking about, but that's generally the case with anything...
__________________
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 31st July 2020, 05:15 AM   #237
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,157
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you guys ready to move onto the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
As soon as those angels starts telling people to bomb abortion clinics or oppose teaching evolution in schools we'll get right on it, yes.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue 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 31st July 2020, 11:38 AM   #238
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,431
If god is ominipotent and omniscient, then we don't have free will. He already knows what we are going to choose AND he can manipulate circumstances to make us choose whatever he wants us to.

If we don't have free will, then the concept of a benevolent God is mooted. He created us knowing the contents of the book of our lives because he authored that book. He could have authored it differently. He didn't; so, it follows that he wants us to suffer our miseries.

This is my biggest problem with believers. They say stuff like, "God willing," "Everything happens for a reason," "God works in mysterious ways." Christians obviously believe we have free will but the tenets of their religion dictate that we don't. I mean, prayer is obviously futile because God already knows what he's going to do.

Which kind of impinges on the whole omnipotent/omniscient thing. I mean, does God even have free will? How can He do anything that He doesn't already know He's going to do? How can he not know in advance that he's going to exercise his power? It's like He's stuck on autopilot.

None of it makes any damn sense.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 31st July 2020, 01:20 PM   #239
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,460
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Are you guys ready to move onto the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
That's so last century. The question today is how many pins can you stick into the head of an angel.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 31st July 2020, 03:05 PM   #240
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If god is ominipotent and omniscient, then we don't have free will. He already knows what we are going to choose AND he can manipulate circumstances to make us choose whatever he wants us to.
How do you define "free-will"? Can you give me an example of free-will in action? (Just a warning: I'm a theist -- though not a Christian -- and I love these kinds of debates!)

I've found often that when the argument is "free-will not compatible with omniscient", the atheist has often defined free-will out of existence in the first place. It's so important to have a common understanding of the terms in any discussion.
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
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 01:16 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.