the question of omnipotence. can god create a rock he cannot lift?
Er, OK. So god knows that he could create a boulder that is too heavy for him to lift, so he won't do it. Is that correct ? I guess you're right. He would look a little silly if he did wouldn't he.He could create that boulder, yes, but it doesn't mean that he does, because he knows what will happen if he does
Er, so someone wrote a book about a philosophy that we, and the author presumably, can never hope to understand. Does it sell well ?It may be philosophy once more, but it's a philosophy outside the conception of humanity.
Though I do not know about the theology, which those ideas are based on, what you said made perfect sense to me. I perceive God as the universe, or perhaps as the multitude of universes (whatever, dunno) - as all that exists and is non-existent linked together as a whole. In the way of natural science: the equation of God would include everything that is, has been, will be (and what can be, cannot be...) However - I'm aware that mathematics is just a contruction of the human mind, and therefore I haven't got even the slightest idea, what the "core equation of everything" would really represent.Homeskooled said:God cannot contradict His own nature. --- God cannot lie, because he is truth. He cannot become all-weak. Aquinas even asked the question whether God could create any animals other than the ones which are alive now. --- Aquinas argues that he cannot. I wont go to indepth, but God is perfect, and his actions are perfectly complete. If God had been able create anything else on earth at that point, it would have been done.
Exactly !!! You've proved my point. You're completely right when you say it doesn't make sense, because you are unable to admit or comprehend that your diety (whichever one it is) cannot be completely omnipotent. But you're utterly wrong when you say it's a trick question, because it's not. It is a simple proof that nothing and nobody can be completly omnipotent. If your diety, by his very nature, CANNOT do EVERYTHING, then he is NOT omnipotent.Its a trick question. It doesnt make any sense.
Another case in point. Why can't he, if he's all powerfull ? And this also implies that he himself was created, which begs the question, who by ?God cannot contradict his own nature
If you read the bible, you may notice that god lies, decieves and generally behaves like a git quite a lot. If you want examples I'd be more than happy to give them to you.God cannot lie, because he is truth
Ha ha !!! Pop atheism !! What's that ? Disbelieving to a good dance beat ? Anyway, it doesn't go 'deeper' than us poor uneducated, unelightened atheists believe. What 'it' does it continually TWIST the truth. There's a subtle difference, but one not entirely lost on most people.This stuff goes alot deeper than pop atheism gives it credit for
Haha....okay Martin. You win. Everything which has a nature has a Creator. Even you.Another case in point. Why can't he, if he's all powerfull ? And this also implies that he himself was created, which begs the question, who by ?
Yes, actually, I would like some quotes of God lying, provided that you quote the philosopher from the other thread who "first" spoke of Christ 60 years after His death. Just make sure you arent quoting Josephus, who spoke about Him 30 years afterwards.If you read the bible, you may notice that god lies, decieves and generally behaves like a git quite a lot. If you want examples I'd be more than happy to give them to you.
Exactly !!! You've proved my point. You're completely right when you say it doesn't make sense, because you are unable to admit or comprehend that your diety (whichever one it is) cannot be completely omnipotent. But you're utterly wrong when you say it's a trick question, because it's not. It is a simple proof that nothing and nobody can be completly omnipotent. If your diety, by his very nature, CANNOT do EVERYTHING, then he is NOT omnipotent.
Lets start at the top here. No, the fact that it is a trick question doesnt prove your point. Yes, the situation is a paradox. Yes, paradoxes by their nature undercut logic. Yes, that makes it a trick question. No, its not a proof. No, if a deity cannot lift stones that cannot be lifted, it does not negate omnipotence. No, pop atheism is not a dance. No, scratch that, it is. And yes, it does go much deeper with some atheists. Do you think that atheists this century were the first to use the "rock that cannot be lifted" question? Try rewinding 10 centuries, then 10 more. Try Plato. Try Socrates, try Maimonides. These werent atheistic philosphers. They believed in deities. Socrates was the first to beleive in monotheism. But because they were in search of Truth, they asked these questions. You think the rock question is tough? What if you have two omnipotent beings. One wishes to move a feather. One wishes for it to remain still. If they both have infinite power, they will be able to negate each other, which will mean that they are not omnipotent. If one overpowers the other, still loss of omnipotence. These questions have been debated for centuries. I have a more in depth explanation of the ability of omnipotence to deal with impossible situations (which is how the rock question is classified, as well as other classic, useful questions such as "Can God make a shapeless cube?"), but you would have to accept my premises for the proof to have any value. So how do you define omnipotence? As accidental, essential, or maximalist? I can argue the point from there from a logic and a theological point of view.Ha ha !!! Pop atheism !! What's that ? Disbelieving to a good dance beat ? Anyway, it doesn't go 'deeper' than us poor uneducated, unelightened atheists believe.
No, wrong I'm afraid. Josephus was a jewish scholar writing in 37AD. The writings of St Paul were in 60AD. But I'm suprised at you, as the writings of Josephus are sometimes used by Christians as the earliest contemporary 'evidence' of Jesus's existence. Apparently, what he said was:Just make sure you arent quoting Josephus, who spoke about Him 30 years afterwards
No, Martin, it may surprise you, but I view you as quite the opposite of emotionless. :wink: When I stated that pop atheism's strong suits are not logic, proofs, or semantics, I meant it. Sure, it starts out with "proofs", but in the end, its the emotion, the vitreol, which rises up and expects to win the argument. This is usually the pattern which your arguments follow, at least.So there you go. Apologies for my emotion, which I'm sure you'll agree is strange coming from an emotionless, immoral atheist such as myself.
Tsk, tsk, Martin! And I thought you were a debater! Lets reminisce about some of the previous questions I didnt answer, shall we....you've never answered any of my questions. None !
Ouch! The sarcasm was stinging there! I think I replied thatHa ha !!! Pop atheism !! What's that ? Disbelieving to a good dance beat ?
Okay, maybe not my wittiest remark, but it is a bit of a tapdance. Next...No, pop atheism is not a dance. No, scratch that, it is.
Well, no, not very surprising Martin. I'm not sure, but I think I replied....Nowadays, only a handful of head-in-the-sand-theologans claim that the so-called Testimonium Flavianum which the above passage comes from, is genuine. Josephus was an orthodox Jew who cannot be expected to have written such obviously Christian words. If he did write them, and if he believed what they say, then why did he restrict his coverage of Jesus to this little parenthesis? Suprising wouldn't you say ?
Next we have a question which doesnt actually have much to do with the debate about whether omnipotence is possible, but true to form, tends to get just a little bit emotional. The first point is a question, the second a non-sequitur about God being giraffe-like. Lets take a look....Okay Martin. I'm going to call you on this. You googled Josephus's name, didnt you? He didnt write it in 37 AD, that is, unless he was an exceptional childhood prodigy at the age of ONE. And the wording of his post, is no, probably not genuine. Its a combination of Josephus's original text, and a passage from Luke. And that passage is also from the Antiquities, which is considered to be an invaluable guide to Jewish history. Scholar's dont have their heads in the sand about it, Martin, but a couple of websites on google might...
Homeskooled, who obviously doesnt like answering questions, replies....But with regards to 'god', can we just make sure we are talking about the same thing here. There are two things to remember when dealing or taking about the god-question. First, I need to know what you mean when you use the letter sequence g-o-d or utter the sound "gahd." Secondly, keep in mind that all you have is a claim -- a god-claim, absolutey nothing more. You can't allow the conversation/argument to degenerate into language that speaks of "God" as if She-He-It actually exists. You might as well be talking about a Giraffe, or car mechanics.
Ah, now we get to the meaty ones. No, they dont have much to do with academics. Not much to do with the original argument. Dont know much about omnipotence arguments but want to make belief in God look dumb? Well, there's always a rough passage from the Old Testament to pull out. Sure, it isnt really the ones you promised to everyone. Not much in them with God lying, but they sure do have an emotional appeal, dont you think? And thats our (pop atheism's) strong point. Sure we might be losing the academic argument, but isnt religion just silly? Should Homeskooled take the bait?Fair is fair. When I say God, I mean the Catholics one.
Well, luckily, these arent the rougher of the Old Testament passages that Martin could have pulled out.DT 21:10-14 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to kidnap "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their trial wives. If, after having sexual relations, a man has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go."
But what about coverting thy neighbours wife and the sanctity of marriage?
DT 28:15, 30 If you do not obey the voice of the Lord, the Lord will cause another man to "lie with" your wife-to-be
That's not true is it. Or is it just a threat ?
This is true. I've never met him, or Jesus, or St Paul, or anyone connected with the Jesus-myth. And you're right, I'm not familiar with his life or history - but I am familiar with all I need to be in response to this conversation - his quote regarding Jesus. I've know about it for years and wrote an article on a Atheism website entitled 'The Josephus Ruse'. And yes, 37AD was his date of birth. So ?doubt that you were familiar with Flavius Josephus
This is a quite astonishing statement. Firstly, Atheism means 'lack of theism', A-Theism, lack of belief. That's all. I never ever, and never would, stated that I have 'proofs' for the non-existence of your god, because as you know all too well, it is impossible. And for a start, I do not have to provide any 'proofs' because, and I'll say it again, the burden is on you, because you are stating a claim. And what's wrong with emotion and vitreol ? If you've spent your life gasping at the grotesque lies and bigotry of organised religion, it is suprising I get a little upset ? Was it Neitzche (I'll look it up on google later) who said, Ecce ****, human, all too human ? I'm sure you'll put me right.When I stated that pop atheism's strong suits are not logic, proofs, or semantics, I meant it. Sure, it starts out with "proofs", but in the end, its the emotion, the vitreol, which rises up and expects to win the argument. This is usually the pattern which your arguments follow, at least
I have answered this. No, omnipotence is not possible, for the reasons I stated. You may think it's a trick, but it's a simple fact. If your god is somehow 'beyond' simple human understanding of omnipotence, as you seem to be suggesting, then why bother even trying to argue the point, because by it's very nature, as a human, it would be beyond you ? You seem to regard omnipotence as a get out clause to difficult questions that us scum bags (whoops, watch the vitreol Martin) use. Tis much easier to resort to this than reason, as an Ostrich could demonstrate. Accidental omnipotence ? Wha ?"Is Omnipotence possible?", and " Will Martin EVER tell me whether he believes in essential, accidental, or maximalist omnipotence?"
Cop out #2. What divine truth ? Who's god ? You can't use this as an argument when you haven't even provided evidence of these 'truth's' or 'god/s'.Faith is" the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God.
Well, if St. Thomas, the zealous medieval Catholic theologian said so, then that's that. Incredible !!! But really, how so ? Did faith create that computer you're using to type on ? If so, where can I buy one ? Reasoning is all we have, and it's a terrible shame that you are disregarding 3 billion years of evolution that has allowed you to 'reason', in favour of simple, blind (was ever a word so appropriate ?) faith. If we didn't learn to 'reason' then we'd still be sitting in caves shivering at god's anger whenever there was a thunderstorm. I take it then that you disregard reason when you go to cross a busy road ? Or are you saying that reason is pointless when attempting to comprehend your god/s ? If so, well, that's pretty convienient wouldn't you say ? Children do something similar when confronting them with something they've lied about. Either they cry and stamp their feet until the accuser goes away, or flatly deny it, inspite of the staggering array of 'proof'.Reasoning, as St. Thomas says, is a defect of intellect.
Even if the premise if based on nothing except faith ? OK then, fine. As long as YOUR first premises are the right ones, yeah ? If that were the case, we'd still be thinking that the world was flat.Unfortunately, first premises must be accepted, not proven
Thank you. I hope I've done alright this time.Good luck, Martin, I'll be waiting.