Things that god can't do!

[Marquis de Carabas]

But they're funny.

They could be, but they're usually not. A four-sided triangle? A rock so big he can't lift it? That st makes Carrot Top look omnihilarious.

Now, if it was more like...

Can God create a rock so big Marion Barry can't smoke it?

Can God create a hymen so tough even he can't bust it?

Can God create a rock so small, some Palestinian won't throw it at a tank?

Can God create a sky marshal so powerful even Claus can't kill him?

...that'd be more like it.

 

[Klaymore]

They could be, but they're usually not. A four-sided triangle? A rock so big he can't lift it? That st makes Carrot Top look omnihilarious.

Now, if it was more like...

Can God create a rock so big Marion Barry can't smoke it?

Can God create a hymen so tough even he can't bust it?

Can God create a rock so small, some Palestinian won't throw it at a tank?

Can God create a sky marshal so powerful even Claus can't kill him?

...that'd be more like it.

Now that's an argumentum ad hilarium... and it's rock-solid!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Omni: all
Potent: powerful

As I already have shown, that definition does not lead to the idea that an omnipotent being must be able to perform paradoxes.

The number of "serious theists" who hold to an argument does not make that argument (or its antithesis) a "straw man."

The number of anyone who hold to any argument does not make any argument a logically sound or logically unsound argument. That argument is an argumentum ad populum.

No, it's not. I'm not saying your argument is wrong. You are right that by using a completely ludicrous definition of omnipotent it can be shown by paradox that no being can be such. What makes your argument a strawman is that it attacks a position nobody worth arguing with holds--that omnipotent beings can do the logically impossible.

As for those people who actually do hold this position, that God can perform paradoxes and is not beholden to logic, why bother constructing a logical argument to use against people who don't accept that logic applies in the first place?

Strawman or futility. Take your pick.

And "Marquis de Carabas," if that is your real name, is very silly

Well, it's not my real name, so it's not very silly.

 

[Klaymore]

As I already have shown, that definition does not lead to the idea that an omnipotent being must be able to perform paradoxes.

Well, you didn't really show it, MdC; you said it a couple of times. That's an argumentum ad nauseam (I'm not kidding! It's really called that! It says so on Wikipedia!)

As for those people who actually do hold this position, that God can perform paradoxes and is not beholden to logic, why bother constructing a logical argument to use against people who don't accept that logic applies in the first place?

Strawman or futility. Take your pick.

... : You got me with that one.

Well, it's not my real name, so it's not very silly.

Yeah, but I bet it's somebody's name. French bastards...

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, you didn't really show it, MdC; you said it a couple of times. That's an argumentum ad nauseam (I'm not kidding! It's really called that! It says so on Wikipedia!)

Then, once again. Fortunately, I've an iron stomach.

All powerful. Power is the ability to act. Powerful is the state of possessing power. All powerful, then, is the state of possessing the ability to do all actions.

A four-sided triangle is conceptually null. Not only is it not a real thing, it is a thing which cannot exist by definition. It can be said (and has been said ad nauseam) but it represents nothing. That which cannot exist cannot be brought into existence. There is no action of creating a four-sided triangle. Simply, the creation of a four-sided triangle is not contained in the set of all actions. So there is no need for a being to be able to do it to claim omnipotence.

Similar argument applies to the rest of the paradoxes as well, of course.

Yeah, but I bet it's somebody's name. French bastards...

The youngest son of a miller, bequeathed a booted feline.

 

[tsg]

They could be, but they're usually not. A four-sided triangle? A rock so big he can't lift it? That st makes Carrot Top look omnihilarious.

I didn't say they were very funny ...

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I didn't say they were very funny ...

Could God create a hockey team so powerful, they'd have an 11-7 record against Martin Brodeur in the playoffs?

Oh, wait, he doesn't need to.

 

[tsg]

Could God create a hockey team so powerful, they'd have an 11-7 record against Martin Brodeur in the playoffs?

Oh, wait, he doesn't need to.

I hate you.

 

[FramerDave]

Can God microwave a burrito so hot that even He can't eat it?

 

[lordcow]

No? The lifting heavy rock question is much better than the four-sided triangle, I always thought, as it should not be impossible for an omnipotent being to create rocks of whatever size&weight, even too heavy to lift. And then lift it.

i'll assume you're kidding?

Maybe not a rock hard proof of anything, but better than the triangle.

ho ho ho

It's own rules. I paraphrased someone's .sig. Don't remember whom's. The original is probably better.

i meant which instances are you referring to where we were forced to break his rules, but if you got that from a sig i guess you don't have an answer

Mosquito - Unable to change, so why are you asking me questions? If I'm going to answer them, I would anyway and if I'm not, then I won't. (The Mosquito answer to prayers)

*blink*

 

[lordcow]

That translates as "If we stopped talking about the stuff that proves that there could never truly be a being that could do anything (since even paradoxes are things) then we could spend tons and tons of time talking about all of the stuff that I want to talk about."

in what sense is a paradox a "thing"? my definition of an omnipotent being is something that has the power to do anything that is logically possible. something tells me that is the way people you are challenging understand it, and also what the bible meant, which's really what this's about - 'omnipotent' is only mentioned once and it is a translation of the greek word for all mighty, so i don't really understand what everyone's dancing on about.

But if you are going to wait around for the people on this forum to stop pointing out the many, many, many reasons that--supreme being or no--there could never be a truly omnipotent one, you are going to be waiting...

depends on your definition of omnipotent, and i think you've gotten it marginally wrong for the use intended. as i suspect above the people you refer to are attacking strawmen. also, in my opinion the original poster seems bent on disproving the existence of god, chooses the most childish way to approach it, and then fails miserably in his implementation.

You can certainly, positively, talk about the stuff you want to talk about. Hell, you can even ask questions, and a lot of people will probably answer you. You will, of course, probably be asked a lot of questions too. Maybe you can answer them more straightforwardly than CT does (see <url removed>).

i haven't read the thread but you want me to explain the uses of ID? i'd say its use is to give religious fundamentalists a few more years to hide from real science. other uses would just be incidental if there are any.

 

[c4ts]

God can't make his followers stop killing each other over his ideas, apparently.

 

[lordcow]

or won't ..

 

[Klaymore]

Then, once again. Fortunately, I've an iron stomach.

You're lucky... I usually do too, except that peanuts give me the s[rule8]ts something awful, and I just love 'em! What does that have to do with God again? (Can God cook chilli so spicy it gives him the runs?)

All powerful. Power is the ability to act. Powerful is the state of possessing power. All powerful, then, is the state of possessing the ability to do all actions.

A four-sided triangle is conceptually null. Not only is it not a real thing, it is a thing which cannot exist by definition. It can be said (and has been said ad nauseam) but it represents nothing. That which cannot exist cannot be brought into existence. There is no action of creating a four-sided triangle. Simply, the creation of a four-sided triangle is not contained in the set of all actions. So there is no need for a being to be able to do it to claim omnipotence.

Thanks for clarifying that. We disagree on what "omnipotent" means. However, for purposes of further debate I will accept your definition, as I understand it.

For all of you T'ai Chis and Buzz Lightyears out there who think that insults, obfuscation, and repetition are the best ways to win an argument, you should pay attention to what MdC just did: He acknowledged that, under my definition, God couldn't do "anything," while still making it clear that he rejected my definition as illogical. Then he gave me his definition. I must now either:

A) agree to accept his definition for the purposes of further argument;

B) just keep repeating my original point, as though I had not heard him, or;

C) insult MdC.

Or, given that MdC's original point was simply that my argument was a straw man, I can simply shut up and allow the debate to end here. Notice that MdC did not make any claims other than that my post about omnescience was based on specious logic. So what we just did was like a debate, only fun (at least for me), and now it can either be over or keep going.

 

[Klaymore]

in what sense is a paradox a "thing"?

In the sense that it is a noun. A paradox is a "member of a class of words that typically can be combined with determiners to serve as the subject of a verb, can be interpreted as singular or plural, can be replaced with a pronoun, and refer to an entity, quality, state, action, or concept." Merriam-Webster Online.

my definition of an omnipotent being is something that has the power to do anything that is logically possible. something tells me that is the way people you are challenging understand it, and also what the bible meant, which's really what this's about - 'omnipotent' is only mentioned once and it is a translation of the greek word for all mighty, so i don't really understand what everyone's dancing on about.

Ditto my post to MdC above. Also ditto thank you for giving me a definition and actually debating instead of calling me a butthole or telling me I was not intelligent enough to understand your mystical hyperenlightenment, or whatever.

depends on your definition of omnipotent, and i think you've gotten it marginally wrong for the use intended. as i suspect above the people you refer to are attacking strawmen.

Again, we disagree on what omnipotent means, and that's all right. We can even debate which definition is better or more accurate, but I think we understand each other's definitions, and will continue to mutually reject them, so there's probably no point in that.

As for attacking straw men, my understanding of a straw man attack is where I take your definition, and then oversimplify and/or mischaracterize it, so that--by rhetorical sleight of hand--I appear to have argued against your position, when actually I have not done so.

Since I never said that your position concorded with my definition of "omnipotent," I maintain that I have not been hitting a straw man. I believe that I have addressed both your and MdC's criticisms of my original argument in good faith, albeit with some attempts at humor, which I hope will be taken in the spirit of their intent.

also, in my opinion the original poster seems bent on disproving the existence of god, chooses the most childish way to approach it, and then fails miserably in his implementation.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

One other thing you said did intrigue me, though. You said that the bible only mentions the word "omnipotent" once. How many times does the bible have to say something before it is true?

Now, please understand that I am not trying to ascribe to you any belief which you do not have. I don't know if you are a Christian, theist, whatever. But I would still like your opinion on the question of how one determines what parts of the bible are binding and true, if any.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

(Can God cook chilli so spicy it gives him the runs?)

I believe that's how he created the universe.

Thanks for clarifying that. We disagree on what "omnipotent" means. However, for purposes of further debate I will accept your definition, as I understand it.

For all of you T'ai Chis and Buzz Lightyears out there who think that insults, obfuscation, and repetition are the best ways to win an argument, you should pay attention to what MdC just did: He acknowledged that, under my definition, God couldn't do "anything," while still making it clear that he rejected my definition as illogical. Then he gave me his definition. I must now either:

I hope you understand that it is not merely my definition. I certainly should not be allowed to redefine words willy-nilly and expect anyone else to respect my ramblings. If the theological consensus was that omnipotence is as you define it, I would have no choice but to acknowledge your definition as correct. However, there is a long theologic tradition of not accepting such a clear-cut definition of omnipotence.

Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. [emphasis added]

Catholic Encyclopedia

...Augustine claims that God is unable to die or be deceived, and he concludes that "it is precisely because He is omnipotent that for Him some things are impossible. Anselm adds that God "cannot be corrupted, or tell lies, or make the true into the false (such as to undo what has been done)." And Aquinas gives a lengthy list of things God cannot do, including moving, failing, tiring, making the past not to have been, making himself not to be, and making what he did not foreknow that he would make.

...Saadiah ben Joseph spoke of "those absurdities that cannot be attributed to divine omnipotence, such as the bringing back of yesterday and causing the number five to be more than ten."

...Moses Maimonides wrote, "that which is impossible has a permanent and constant property, which is not the result of some agent, and cannot in any way change, and consequently we do not ascribe to God the power of doing what is impossible.

Source

In light of that, I feel it's best to debate a theist using his own definitions. Omnipotence is their concept in the first place.

That said, there are those theists who do hold to the definition you are using, but as I noted previously, they have already thrown logic out, so it's of little use even bothering with them.

Or, given that MdC's original point was simply that my argument was a straw man, I can simply shut up and allow the debate to end here. Notice that MdC did not make any claims other than that my post about omnescience was based on specious logic. So what we just did was like a debate, only fun (at least for me), and now it can either be over or keep going.

Debates are not allowed to be over until at least one of us has questioned the heritage, cleanliness, and fashion decisions (particularly in regards to footwear) of the other. I'm pretty sure it;s in the membersip agreement somewhere.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

One other thing you said did intrigue me, though. You said that the bible only mentions the word "omnipotent" once. How many times does the bible have to say something before it is true?

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has some good stuff [PDF] on the Scriptural references to omnipotence. The word omnipotent is only there once in the KJV, but see especially section 4 on page 2 for a load of verses that describe or allude to omnipotence, though they do not use the term.

 

[Klaymore]

In light of that, I feel it's best to debate a theist using his own definitions. Omnipotence is their concept in the first place.

Sold, sold, and sold.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I agree with the Marquis on the topic of illogical stuff not counting (like 4 sided triangles and such). I said that stuff early in the thread as a joke (see also Cubs winning another World Series).

For a real one though: how can god be omniscient and humans still have free will?

And if there's no true free will (predestination) how can there be sin, mercy, forgiveness, redemption, salvation, damnation, etc.?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

For a real one though: how can god be omniscient and humans still have free will?

I can think of one way to resolve this.

To be omniscient is to know all things which it is possible to know. As such, God knows everything about the present and the past, but His knowledge of the future is limited to knowledge of the probabilities of future consequences for present actions. He cannot know for certain. Still, He has the most complete knowledge possible, i.e greater than any other being does or can possess. (Note that this definition demands a non-deterministic universe.)

I do not wish to defend this position because it is a definition of omniscient I have never actually heard a theist use. They seem to insist on God's perfect knowledge of the future. By that definition, I see no possible reconciliation with human free will.