Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Jobar]

Just for the giggles, and those who haven't already seen them:
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6-zi25GgVE[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdxeqEoDXco[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Learner]

You'll have to describe and give a little explanation - if not a full transcript, just in case Rhea and others who are unable to see video's want to know.

Its rude you know.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where does it say that move was NOT allowed at any time during the game? Or that God changed the rules?
The scenario merely shows that God knows the rules better than the other player.

Also, God can see the future, so he'd have known that he would be making that move and stuck a note about how it's legal into one of the appendices in the rule book.

Ah, so are you saying that God's omnisience is a limit to his free will? but then his omniscience would be a formal limit to his omnipotence and that would lead to a paradox: could God predict he's going to do something in the future then choose to do something else? If he can he's not omniscient if he can't then he's not all powerful.

Omnimax deities, like shooting fish in a barrel...

No, we've already had this discussion. Omnipotent people can rewrite the rules of logic and make logically compatible paradoxes without any difficulty. There's nothing stopping him from predicting he's going to do something and then going ahead and doing something completely different without any logical conundrums because mutually incompatible actions are a thing when he wants them to be a thing.

If someone is omnipotent, then the answer to the question of whether he can do something is yes, no matter what the question is.

 

[Subsymbolic]

It certainly doesn't. My point is that God certainly can't be beyond the rules of chess or logic and any claim that he can merely shows ignorance of how chess or logic works.

Ah...I think I got the gist because I couldn't understand the significance of "Cheating" ( Quite sure Lion too) and whether I should either accept it as faith and that it was ok because it was God or unless I see it otherwise ...not abiding by the chess rules and cheating.

Why didn't you use Satan instead ...the right character? I would of understood the "logic" perspective a little sooner.

Or are you secretly an agent of the adversary trying to make us theists proffess from our own mouths; that God is a cheater? I jest.

(both choices in your analogy is the same: By faith and acceptance or by calling out the cheater ... the entity is still a cheat either way!)

Once you know all the rules of chess there are no higher extra rules. The same is true of logic.

God wouldn't cheat ,abiding by the rules of the "game" HE would also be many chess games (moves) ahead. HE would imo make it as easier (to learn the moves) cause HE loves you (from the theist POV).

That's absolutely heartwarming. However, you are now fixated on the analogy rather than the thing the analogy was meant to illuminate. So now you appear to have accepted that an omnimax God would be bound to the rules of logic. That's unfortunate as I demonstrated earlier that the rules of logic demonstrate quite clearly that an omnimax god is impossible and that the definition of Jesus given at Nicea, ratified at Constantinople and still accepted and stated as a dogmatic truth by the WCC and anyone who accepts the Nicene Creed gives those who accept it a stark choice: faith or logic.

It shouldn't be hard to acknowledge the primacy of faith over logic, if you are a Catholic, the catechism is quite explicit. If you belong to some breakaway denomination then the path is a little more challenging.

 

[Copernicus]

You'll have to describe and give a little explanation - if not a full transcript, just in case Rhea and others who are unable to see video's want to know.

Its rude you know.

The first video dealt with the problem of being omniscient and therefore knowing what it is like to want to do sinful things, especially sinful things involving sex.

The second video is even better, IMO. It was about God's inability to forgive people, despite being omnipotent. He is unable to forgive sin. It goes on to explain that God came up with a workaround that involved impregnating a virgin that would give birth to himself and be punished for all of humanity's sins, thereby making it unnecessary for God to forgive people.

 

[Lion IRC]

See, this is a good example of the recurring problem in this thread.
Non-theists are telling us that God can't forgive sin because He is ALL powerful.

I'm just gonna go ahead and concede my inability to fathom why an atheist would hold such an incoherent POV

Where does it say that move was NOT allowed at any time during the game? Or that God changed the rules?
The scenario merely shows that God knows the rules better than the other player.

Really? Perhaps you can point out where in the rules of chess this can happen:

God jumped his pawn across eight squares to take your king.

If you really want to deliberately twist everyday phrases like 'playing a game of chess' into playing a game of fairy chess and so on, then all you do is look like you are trying to be slippery.

It's YOUR scenario. You said they were playing "a" game not "the" game and you didn't specifically state that God actually cheated - just that He played a move the other player didn't know was possible. (As I explained en passant is not cheating and Fairy Chess is a type of chess game.)

/thread

 

[Subsymbolic]

Ah, so are you saying that God's omnisience is a limit to his free will? but then his omniscience would be a formal limit to his omnipotence and that would lead to a paradox: could God predict he's going to do something in the future then choose to do something else? If he can he's not omniscient if he can't then he's not all powerful.

Omnimax deities, like shooting fish in a barrel...

No, we've already had this discussion.

Have you? With a qualified logician? Perhaps a link?

Omnipotent people can rewrite the rules of logic and make logically compatible paradoxes without any difficulty.

Really? So God, for example, can make a four sided triangle?

That's a cool thing to be able to say, but it's an act of faith, not an act of logic.

There's nothing stopping him from predicting he's going to do something and then going ahead and doing something completely different without any logical conundrums because mutually incompatible actions are a thing when he wants them to be a thing.

Sure, you can make that claim as a faith claim, but again, not as a logical claim. It's pretty well the very first point I made, back in post 339:

The fact is that you can either accept logic as your route to truth or faith. If you accept faith then that's just dandy. I respect your decision and your faith. However, if you want to move beyond simply stating that you have faith, whatever the logic or evidence, then you have a problem.

If someone is omnipotent, then the answer to the question of whether he can do something is yes, no matter what the question is.

Thank you, that's precisely the point I've been making: Committing to an omnipotent or omni anything God involves a rejection of one of the fundamental principles of logic. You have to believe that God can make a ball that is composed of all and only gold and all and only lead, of P &¬P. You see this as a dogmatic certainty you can be proud of. I see it differently; I see Winston Smith convinced that 2+2 =5.

I'll make the same point again:

This leads to the fundamental problem, as faith is basically unconvincing, you want to use the tools that work. Logic, science and so on. The problem is that the moment you want to use them it's a double edged sword and they can be used on you. You want to believe in an omnimax God then I'm sorry you are just going to have to put up with people pointing out that such a God violates the law of the excluded middle. This is at the heart of logic and is why things like the internet, your computer and Air traffic control work.

Let me tell you the story of Jen. She was a student I taught a long time ago. She was a fine student and a young woman anyone would be proud of. At the heart of this was her remarkable faith, she was a Jehovah's witness. at the beginning of her final year, she began getting migraines which got worse and worse. Eventually her father had a lapse of faith and took her to see a doctor for rather invasive tests, it turned out that she had a brain tumour that was perfectly operable. At this point, Jen took her life in her own hands. She regretted allowing her father to convince her to get treatment and instead she chose to follow God's will. She died. Eventually. On the way out, she struck everyone with her quite noble attempts to minimise the hurt of her death and she was a fine witness. I went to her funeral and her grieving parents gave me a Bible. I'm still struck by how this story, and unlike most it's true, emphasises the best and worst of faith. She died better than most can expect to and was generally inspirational. However, she also died when she didn't need to, because her dogma was a little more consistent about faith V medicine.

It irritates me more than you would expect that people who help themselves smugly to the fruits of those who take the trouble to learn how the world really works while holding faith that if unsupported by modern science, medicine and tech would throw them back into the dark ages, you know, when EVERYONE really had faith...

 

[Subsymbolic]

See, this is a good example of the recurring problem in this thread.
Non-theists are telling us that God can't forgive sin because He is ALL powerful.

I'm just gonna go ahead and concede my inability to fathom why an atheist would hold such an incoherent POV

Really? Perhaps you can point out where in the rules of chess this can happen:



If you really want to deliberately twist everyday phrases like 'playing a game of chess' into playing a game of fairy chess and so on, then all you do is look like you are trying to be slippery.

It's YOUR scenario. You said they were playing "a" game not "the" game and you didn't specifically state that God actually cheated - just that He played a move the other player didn't know was possible. (As I explained en passant is not cheating and Fairy Chess is a type of chess game.)

/thread

Cool, you think you have shot down my analogy to introduce the idea of consistency, I'm content for you to believe that, although frankly I suspect you must realise how weak your quibbling about 'a' game or 'the' game sounds. I would explain about the maxims of conversational impliciture, but what is the point?

Now all you have to do is repeat it for the actual argument that the analogy was elucidating.

Remember?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yes, God, being omnipotent, could forgive sin. The problem is, why he didn't do that when supposedly original sin was created. And it is a mystery why this supposed sin came about and why it condemns all mankind, and all those cute fury animals. The whole sin thing makes no sense.

Again, God creates the nature of mankind. God has three choices.

A. Create mankind with an evil moral nature.
B. Create man with an indifferent moral nature
C. Create man with a good moral nature.

B. does NOT give man free will. It condemns all men or women to sometimes fail and to sin. So why doesn't mankind have a good moral nature? God gets the blame, not man. And so much for free will defenses ala Plantinga. and if mankind does not get it's moral nature from creator God, where does all of that come from? Man's nature will affect his free will no matter what God chooses, A., B., or C.

I call this little thought experiment the Man's Created Nature argument.

 

[Learner]

The first video dealt with the problem of being omniscient and therefore knowing what it is like to want to do sinful things, especially sinful things involving sex.

The second video is even better, IMO. It was about God's inability to forgive people, despite being omnipotent. He is unable to forgive sin. It goes on to explain that God came up with a workaround that involved impregnating a virgin that would give birth to himself and be punished for all of humanity's sins, thereby making it unnecessary for God to forgive people.

Again Copernicus saves the day!

 

[Learner]

That's absolutely heartwarming. However, you are now fixated on the analogy rather than the thing the analogy was meant to illuminate. So now you appear to have accepted that an omnimax God would be bound to the rules of logic. That's unfortunate as I demonstrated earlier that the rules of logic demonstrate quite clearly that an omnimax god is impossible and that the definition of Jesus given at Nicea, ratified at Constantinople and still accepted and stated as a dogmatic truth by the WCC and anyone who accepts the Nicene Creed gives those who accept it a stark choice: faith or logic.

It shouldn't be hard to acknowledge the primacy of faith over logic, if you are a Catholic, the catechism is quite explicit. If you belong to some breakaway denomination then the path is a little more challenging.

When I mentioned "I personally can't fathom it (especially when you put Omnimax God as part of the equation)."

The rules of logic would be (seeing different or wrong perhaps from you) that a god who is bound to the rules of logic is therefore NOT an "omnimax" God.

( similar to what Tom says basically)

 

[Copernicus]

That's absolutely heartwarming. However, you are now fixated on the analogy rather than the thing the analogy was meant to illuminate. So now you appear to have accepted that an omnimax God would be bound to the rules of logic. That's unfortunate as I demonstrated earlier that the rules of logic demonstrate quite clearly that an omnimax god is impossible and that the definition of Jesus given at Nicea, ratified at Constantinople and still accepted and stated as a dogmatic truth by the WCC and anyone who accepts the Nicene Creed gives those who accept it a stark choice: faith or logic.

It shouldn't be hard to acknowledge the primacy of faith over logic, if you are a Catholic, the catechism is quite explicit. If you belong to some breakaway denomination then the path is a little more challenging.

When I mentioned "I personally can't fathom it (especially when you put Omnimax God as part of the equation)."

The rules of logic would be (seeing different or wrong perhaps from you) that a god who is bound to the rules of logic is therefore NOT an "omnimax" God.

( similar to what Tom says basically)

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

 

[Jobar]

You'll have to describe and give a little explanation - if not a full transcript, just in case Rhea and others who are unable to see video's want to know.

Its rude you know.

Not nearly as rude as the motorboat noises in that first video.

If I'm asked for a synopsis of any video I link to, Learner, I may or may not give it; but nobody is required to do that. If someone is posting from a cellphone, or a system that won't support videos, they simply can't get the most from a board like this one. No short description of either of those videos would do them justice!

 

[Jobar]

See, this is a good example of the recurring problem in this thread.
Non-theists are telling us that God can't forgive sin because He is ALL powerful.

I'm just gonna go ahead and concede my inability to fathom why an atheist would hold such an incoherent POV

Did you actually watch that video, Lion?

It's a joke, you know. But one with a very sharp point, if you believe that God actually needed to send his own son (who is also Himself, mind you) to be bloodily sacrificed- in order to be able to appease God's anger at humanity.

I suppose you can't appreciate just how Rube Goldberg-ish that scheme appears to us unbelievers. But Dark Matter is trying to explain that. Granted his humor is pretty lowbrow, even sophomoric; but IMO it's still damn funny. (Even the motorboat noises!)

 

[Underseer]

See, this is a good example of the recurring problem in this thread.
Non-theists are telling us that God can't forgive sin because He is ALL powerful.

I'm just gonna go ahead and concede my inability to fathom why an atheist would hold such an incoherent POV

Did you actually watch that video, Lion?

It's a joke, you know. But one with a very sharp point, if you believe that God actually needed to send his own son (who is also Himself, mind you) to be bloodily sacrificed- in order to be able to appease God's anger at humanity.

I suppose you can't appreciate just how Rube Goldberg-ish that scheme appears to us unbelievers. But Dark Matter is trying to explain that. Granted his humor is pretty lowbrow, even sophomoric; but IMO it's still damn funny. (Even the motorboat noises!)

That is better explained through Loftus' outsider test for faith.

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2007/03/outsider-test-for-faith.html

What sounds reasonable from inside a religion can often sound ridiculous to people outside the religion. Hindus have no idea why non-Hindus find the notion of butter oceans in outer space funny. Muslims have no idea why non-Muslims laugh at their stories about Mohammed flying a winged horse into outer space or splitting the moon in two.

When you are surrounded by other people who think something sounds reasonable, it will sound reasonable to you.

For people who are not surrounded by others who think a liquor ocean in outer space sounds reasonable, then it sounds pretty ridiculous.

If Lion is like most theists, he won't be able to wrap his mind around this concept. To him it is simply unreasonable that non-Christians laugh at the central doctrine of his religion as incoherent nonsense. It can't be that the concept really is ludicrous, so it must be that all those other people are personally persecuting him as part of a Satanic plot or something.

 

[Tigers!]

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

Last time I looked a four-sided figure was a square or rectangle or rhomboid etc.

- - - Updated - - -

If Lion is like most theists, he won't be able to wrap his mind around this concept. To him it is simply unreasonable unwise that non-Christians laugh at the central doctrine of his religion as incoherent nonsense. It can't be that the concept really is ludicrous, so it must be that all those other people are personally persecuting him as part of a Satanic plot or something.

FIFY

 

[Jobar]

If Lion is like most theists, he won't be able to wrap his mind around this concept. To him it is simply unreasonable unwise that non-Christians laugh at the central doctrine of his religion as incoherent nonsense. It can't be that the concept really is ludicrous, so it must be that all those other people are personally persecuting him as part of a Satanic plot or something.

FIFY

I have no doubt that most Muslims would tell you that it's unwise to view God as a trinity, instead of a unity. And the Muslim Hell is at least as bad as the Christian one- maybe worse. I daresay that isn't going to make you unwilling to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

Well, it depends what definition of omnipotence you use.

If you define omnipotence as being able to override the rules of logic then yes, he can create a four-sided triangle because that's a thing now as a result of his deciding that it's a thing. If you define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically possible, then he cannot because a four-sided triangle is not a thing which is logically possible. Either way, there's no issue.

 

[Underseer]

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

Last time I looked a four-sided figure was a square or rectangle or rhomboid etc.

- - - Updated - - -

If Lion is like most theists, he won't be able to wrap his mind around this concept. To him it is simply unreasonable unwise that non-Christians laugh at the central doctrine of his religion as incoherent nonsense. It can't be that the concept really is ludicrous, so it must be that all those other people are personally persecuting him as part of a Satanic plot or something.

FIFY

How does that fix anything? It's a slight rewording at best.

- - - Updated - - -

Learner, Lion, or Tom, do any of you believe that an omnimax God can create a four-sided triangle? Why or why not?

Well, it depends what definition of omnipotence you use.

If you define omnipotence as being able to override the rules of logic then yes, he can create a four-sided triangle because that's a thing now as a result of his deciding that it's a thing. If you define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically possible, then he cannot because a four-sided triangle is not a thing which is logically possible. Either way, there's no issue.

The various definitions of omnipotence is kind of the point of the video.

These are their definitions and most of them lead to definitions that either make god impossible, or make every existing thing (including rocks) gods.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The various definitions of omnipotence is kind of the point of the video.

These are their definitions and most of them lead to definitions that either make god impossible, or make every existing thing (including rocks) gods.

How so? (Can't watch videos)

If God has the power to override logic, then saying that God is impossible is as trivial as saying God is wearing a red shirt and isn't any kind of argument against him. He just sits there being impossible in a completely possible manner because he decided that's a thing he can do.

If God does not have the power to override logic, then he's simply the most powerful being that can possibly be. More powerful than a rock, a locomotive, a quasar or even Superman. Although, Batman could probably still find a way to kick his ass if he had time to prepare ... because he's Batman.