Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Post Reply New Topic

Hulk *SMASH* puny argument!

Like what?


Logical principles are a part of God's essence, in my view. So "bound" and "not truly omnipotent" aren't how I would have phrased it.

If you had a decision to make and understood the consequences of that decision and what circumstances controlled it, would you make that decision by conforming to the expected consequences (which means no free will) or would you ignore the expected consequences and decide something that would give you no control over the consequences (free will)?

Did God create logic? If so, why couldnt God do away with logic or restructure it?
Is God logic itself?


Lemme rephrase the stone antinomy: Could God make a stone so Massive that he couldnt lift it?

Darwinian Psychology proves religion to be false; however, it cannot prove that being religious is a bad thing.

The issue??? The issue is kind of clear, omnipotence in dealing with theology is usually defined as logical possibility. Just taking a jump to wikipedia can tell you that. Not only that, but "omnipotence" the word isn't usually found in some scripture, nor would holy books be philosophical treatises to be read like that anyway. So, this great debunking tool is just so pointless, particularly given, I dunno, one could attack the "mystery of the trinity", the "mystery of omnipresence vs incarnation", the "mystery of the 2 natures of God", the "mystery of the incarnation", the "problem of evil"(perhaps even made into the problem of hell), the "argument from bad design", etc, to argue against either the Christian God, or the philosopher's God.

In any case, here's wikipedia

1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do[1].
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do[2].
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[3]
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan
6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

Just looking at it for a few seconds just already proves my case, and prove that this notion is nonsensical to the point of stupidity.

Now, you can attack me for being aggressive, but this line of argument is so groundless it makes me lose brain cells. Just a quick look at wikipedia can address it, given that there isn't just 1 definition, but 6.

Of course not! It only requires a look into history and current events.

Ummm..... no. That isn't even found in what I said. If God is omnipotent, and that means all-powerful, then it is logically impossible to make the supergod. Being unable to make the supergod says nothing bad about omnipotence, because omnipotence is often defined as the ability to do what is logically possible.

You can disagree with this definition, but I don't care, it is a common definition by theologians, omnipotence really isn't exhaustively analyzed by a holy book, and frankly, I don't see why people would be beholden to the definition that has logical impossibilities, and then is faulted because these things are logically impossible.

No it doesn't. It provides a non-religious source of religion, which reduces the probability that religion is true, but it does not prove religions to be false.

So a Deity cannot choose to do something that's logically impossible, or it simply cannot violate logic even if it wishes to do so.
Thus logic transcends the divine.

If this an issue of definitons, then God is omnipotent but is NOT truly all-powerful. By all-powerful I mean the ability to do Anything, even violate logic.

Last edited by Haliphron on 03 May 2009, 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This raises interesting questions. Is it logical that God can be aware of all time and yet continuously intervene when things go wrong? Is it logical that God can make mistakes and plant a tree of knowledge that would cause original sin? And what does that do to all that business about Christ saving mankind by forgiveness? Is there any logic in that whole business?

That sounds about right.....but...then again we don't know how much of that isn't just enlightened self-interest. Compared to an ant perhapse I have many powers, guillotining myself or putting socks and shoes on my hands to walk around aren't choices I'd find practical.

We regard certain things as universal truths, they may very well transcend everything; ie. if God is eternal and has a distinct personality then he's really beholden to all the things that he inherently would not do and might have to wonder where his personality and motivations came from even, if he really found himself that bored or on the strict circumstance that he didn't in fact know exactly where he came from or what he is.

The idea goes that he's an author, he wrote a book, set his creation in motion (published the end result) and his intervention was written into the story line just by his creating it. Limited free will comes from that as well, best example is that - if you ever saw the movie Fracture and remember Anthony Hopkin's marble tracks, its something like a huge contraption like that was built, one that allows for independent variables and one where God limited himself somewhat deliberately in terms of involvement where the rules of the universe are set in place to sustain life but are also, on the flipside, going to complicate life just the same and people will make their own choices.

The notion of him being 'outside of time' means that Christopher Hitchen's challlenge to believers that he watched a bunch of ape-like hominids club, rape, and drool on each other for 95,000 years and thought "Wow, I like these things - I think I'll give them souls" - I could write a fiction book about some type of bloodline that came from ancient Nigeria and spread with the seed of the human race that would trigger our next big evolutionary advance - if that book entails me giving them something its not like I watched them for thousands of years and as their God intervened; I was just writing a novel and people can debate my taste on whether or not they find certain changes in this bloodline to be campy authorship on my part.

But if we are just bits of ink in a superbook what happens to us when the story ends? Does God just go in and write a different story and all that stuff about heaven and hell are just bits of interesting fiction just to make the story go? Can He write amusing nonsense like Lewis Carroll? Then nothing makes sense.

He didn't just watch a bunch of apelike things do awful things, He invented them and knew damn well what they would do.

Its about the only way I can explain living and existing outside of time - it was created all at once from start to finish, did have random probabilities and certain things had a chain of events but the apparatus was pre-built. I really don't know how much of a traditional theist I am on heaven and hell, I'm not exactly sure what his sense of justice really is regarding what we do have in terms of free will - there are suggestions that have floated from time to time through history and while I can agree on some aspects I'm somewhat agnostic on others.



That does sound about right. Then again - when you watch the animal world around us; wolves, bears, birds, lions, gazelles, it never stopped being barbaric, we can argue that we've become less so (or at least have more of an option whether to go with our base instincts or go with our elements that truly do transcend that). We should though be just as angered and horrified about Siafu taking down elephants by slashing through their eardrums and eating their brains or by tribal warfare and murder committed by gorillas even today.

Whenever I hear questions like this about original sin I always think of children, because an effective way to get a child to do something is by telling them not to without offering a reason why.