Video: the incoherence of omnipotence

[Juma]

I know that God shares the same view and does not WANT to punish unrepentant sinners.

How do you know that?

He told me.

How? How do you know it was the god of abraham? How do you it wasnt Loke? Or satan?

 

[bilby]

I hope you artful dodgers didn't forget that Satan has a Dodge Omni.... which goes like hell.

You may be on to something.

1.Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?

2.Can God commit suicide?

Christians would think NO obviously."But...but.. you Christians think God can do anything" I hear you say. Well adding to the list which also answers the above two:


God cannot do stoopid

God cannot do unwise things.


Since you mentioned it: Theists may have to be Artful-Dodgers if it means countering
Artful-Dodgy-Questions.

The Problem of Evil doesn't require God to do "stoopid" or unwise things.

The question is, can God protect children from being raped? If not, he's not omnipotent. If he CAN, then why DOESN'T he? Does he not know when a child is about to be raped? Or does he not care?

Lots of bad things happen. Often witnesses are interviewed by the news media afterwards, and say things like "It was awful - I couldn't do anything to save them". But God is supposedly a witness to every event. So could he not do anything to save the victims? Was he incapable? Or just callous? If I see a child being swept away by flood-waters, then I will try to save him. And I will feel like shit if I am unable to do so, even if everyone else is saying 'You couldn't have done any more, there was no way to reach him without being swept away yourself, and then you would both be dead". But I am not a God. So does God do nothing because he CANT, or because he DOESN'T WANT TO, or because he DOESN'T KNOW that something bad is happening?

Never mind not making a rock he can't lift; Why doesn't God make a rock that the child can beat his rapist's head in with? Or a rock that a child can clamber onto to escape rising flood-waters?

Is it somehow unwise to save people from natural disasters, or from being attacked and abused by evil people? You would save a child in those situations if you could; So would I. But God doesn't - so presumably he either CAN'T, or he is UNAWARE, or he simply ISN'T AS MORALLY GOOD AS ME - and I am FAR from a paragon of moral virtue. Which is it?

 

[Learner]

Well I have posted a reply something similar to your post I think on another thread.
At the moment I'm getting ready to go to work this morn. I'll get back to you.

 

[Lion IRC]

He told me.

How? How do you know it was the god of abraham? How do you it wasnt Loke? Or satan?

satan and loki don't claim omnipotence.

 

[ruby sparks]

I would be ok with :"we just don't know (how to explain it) because of our limited abilities to understand..."

Very, very good choice of final answer on your part, imo. Arguably far superior to either 'I just know' (as a sometimes theist response) or even 'there is a way it can be explained' (as another possible or typical theist response) or 'it isn't logically possible or rationally coherent' (as a sometimes typical atheist response).

Now, bilby's questions (which in some ways are versions of mine) might still be tricky for you, but at least you have, imo, a valid answer.

You might of course need to follow it up with something about trust, belief and/or faith (in a just and/or ultimately loving god perhaps). But that's not too hard either. You just say, for whatever personal reasons, that you have those. It is, in many ways, a cinch, in the final, albeit subjective analysis.

 

[Atheos]

The  Free Will Defense is an attempt to resolve the Problem of Evil by arguing that it is logically impossible to create free moral agents who never sin. Your response indicates that you do not subscribe to that resolution.

Jesus was that very creation!

People can be "Christ-like" in which I'm sure people do exist although obviously requires those "will of choice(s)" or abstainance abilty in which no doubt can be infuentially difficult by the "knowledge/ now knowing / humans having already tasted" the urges of selfish desire, so to speak i.e."problem of evil" - powerful temptations that ignores but is harmful on the detriment and the well being of others .

Quite odd though when we (believers and non-believers) seem to understand there can be solutions with common sense to more or less solve these "evil" problems. An advanced mutual understanding and agreement with compassion "everyone treats his brother like himself" etc.... is required( using the terms of the theology or golden rule).

Not all Christians share your view of Jesus as a created being. Gospel of John 1:1-5 seem to indicate that Jesus was not a created being, but instead was the creator of everything - "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." This god-man who donned a human sock-puppet for a trifling moment of his eternal existence is not an effective counter to the "impossible to create a free moral agent who never sins" argument.

The problem of suffering goes a lot deeper than whether or not people follow the golden rule. It is argued that all the suffering that goes on in this world is related to the presence of sin. Every predated animal, every deformed baby, every guinea worm somehow is linked back to the fact that humans sinned against god.

Is god powerful enough to remove all of this suffering? Would god remove all this suffering if it could? Is god aware of all this suffering?

If the answer to any of these three questions is "no" then the Problem of Evil does not apply. God is either not quite all-powerful, or god could be more benevolent, or god is largely unaware of what's happening on this planet.

 

[Atheos]

I would be ok with :"we just don't know (how to explain it) because of our limited abilities to understand..."

Very, very good choice of final answer on your part, imo. Arguably far superior to either 'I just know' (as a sometimes theist response) or even 'there is a way it can be explained' (as another possible or typical theist response) or 'it isn't logically possible or rationally coherent' (as a sometimes typical atheist response).

Now, bilby's questions (which in some ways are versions of mine) might still be tricky for you, but at least you have, imo, a valid answer.

You might of course need to follow it up with something about trust, belief and/or faith (in a just and/or ultimately loving god perhaps). But that's not too hard either. You just say, for whatever personal reasons, that you have those. It is, in many ways, a cinch, in the final, albeit subjective analysis.

I agree that the "we don't yet know" answer is the only one I've ever heard that seems intellectually honest. Yet it is still unsatisfactory because of the simplicity of the Problem of Evil itself. If god is so powerful he can do anything he wants to do, but suffering exists, then either he wants suffering to exist or he is unaware of it. The "greater good" argument doesn't apply provided god is so powerful it doesn't require a means to get to any desired end. And of course if god is constrained to endure undesired consequences to arrive at a desired endpoint then there are limits to god's power.

I never suggested that's a problem, certainly not for me. I no longer believe such a being exists. But this is exactly the place where such debate should take place and I do enjoy bandying the topic back and forth.

 

[ruby sparks]

But this is exactly the place where such debate should take place and I do enjoy bandying the topic back and forth.

Sure. So do I. And then there are times, possibly when I'm in a certain frame of mind, that I come to the conclusion that there's probably nothing much we can, um, conclude for sure and no way to win or lose the debate.

At other times, and certainly in the past, I've enjoyed debating it in great detail. In fact, I started doing that in this thread with Lion IRC for example, and maybe others, and then I just pushed the ejector button this time around. I hope I don't seem like I'm being critical of anyone who wants to do otherwise.

 

[Atheos]

But this is exactly the place where such debate should take place and I do enjoy bandying the topic back and forth.

Sure. So do I. And then there ae times, possibly when I'm in a certain frame of mind, that I come to the conclusion that there's nothing we can conclude for sure.

At other times, and certainly in the past, I've enjoyed debating it in great detail. In fact, I started doing that with Lion IRC for example, and maybe others, and then I just pushed the ejector button this time around.

Concluding something "for sure" only invites being wrong for the rest of your life. This isn't about concluding something, it's about testing the validity of a theory.

Take the Theory of Evolution as an example. Although it has been adapted somewhat since Darwin proposed it, it remains a robust explanation of the diversity of life on this planet and it is at this point consistent with all of the evidence we have.

By comparison, some people hold the "theory" that there exists a tri-omni being. They define omnipotence, omni-benevolence and omniscience in the most unrestricted terms possible and insist that this theory of a tri-omni being is consistent with the evidence.

But the evidence includes suffering and there appears to be no way to resolve the presence of suffering with the existence of the posited being.

The rational thing to do with a theory that cannot be reconciled with the available evidence is to toss it aside or adapt it to fit the evidence.

 

[bilby]

I would be ok with :"we just don't know (how to explain it) because of our limited abilities to understand..."

Very, very good choice of final answer on your part, imo. Arguably far superior to either 'I just know' (as a sometimes theist response) or even 'there is a way it can be explained' (as another possible or typical theist response) or 'it isn't logically possible or rationally coherent' (as a sometimes typical atheist response).

Now, bilby's questions (which in some ways are versions of mine) might still be tricky for you, but at least you have, imo, a valid answer.

You might of course need to follow it up with something about trust, belief and/or faith (in a just and/or ultimately loving god perhaps). But that's not too hard either. You just say, for whatever personal reasons, that you have those. It is, in many ways, a cinch, in the final, albeit subjective analysis.

I agree that the "we don't yet know" answer is the only one I've ever heard that seems intellectually honest. Yet it is still unsatisfactory because of the simplicity of the Problem of Evil itself. If god is so powerful he can do anything he wants to do, but suffering exists, then either he wants suffering to exist or he is unaware of it. The "greater good" argument doesn't apply provided god is so powerful it doesn't require a means to get to any desired end. And of course if god is constrained to endure undesired consequences to arrive at a desired endpoint then there are limits to god's power.

I never suggested that's a problem, certainly not for me. I no longer believe such a being exists. But this is exactly the place where such debate should take place and I do enjoy bandying the topic back and forth.

The PoE only exists as a response to unfounded claims of certainty.

When a theist claims that God is all powerful, all knowing, and perfectly moral, the PoE demonstrates that this set of claims must be incorrect. But that's really to be expected - because the claimant has no way to justify a claim of knowledge on any of the three counts.

How the fuck could anyone know that God has any of these traits - or even that any Gods exist at all?

The various Omni- traits are monotheistic hyperbole. The PoE shows that they cannot possibly all be correct; but really they are as implausible as the claims of the schoolyard braggart that his dad can lift up a bus. It's obviously nonsense.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Young Jimmy Kent would disagree with you about that claim being nonsense.

 

[Elixir]

He told me.

How? How do you know it was the god of abraham? How do you it wasnt Loke? Or satan?

satan and loki don't claim omnipotence.

How do you know? Maybe the old loki and satan didn't, but neo-satan and neo-loki do. I don't believe you have any way to keep up with such changes.

some people hold the "theory" that there exists a tri-omni being.

Thank you for the quotes around "theory".

The rational thing to do with a theory that cannot be reconciled with the available evidence is to toss it aside or adapt it to fit the evidence.

The rational thing is to call it a hypothesis, not a theory. Theists like to use the word "theory" to describe every hairbrained idea that they think they can support using scripture. A theory is the highest level of confidence attainable via scientific method. No religious tenet rises to that level.

 

[ruby sparks]

But this is exactly the place where such debate should take place and I do enjoy bandying the topic back and forth.

Sure. So do I. And then there ae times, possibly when I'm in a certain frame of mind, that I come to the conclusion that there's nothing we can conclude for sure.

At other times, and certainly in the past, I've enjoyed debating it in great detail. In fact, I started doing that with Lion IRC for example, and maybe others, and then I just pushed the ejector button this time around.

Concluding something "for sure" only invites being wrong for the rest of your life. This isn't about concluding something, it's about testing the validity of a theory.

Take the Theory of Evolution as an example. Although it has been adapted somewhat since Darwin proposed it, it remains a robust explanation of the diversity of life on this planet and it is at this point consistent with all of the evidence we have.

By comparison, some people hold the "theory" that there exists a tri-omni being. They define omnipotence, omni-benevolence and omniscience in the most unrestricted terms possible and insist that this theory of a tri-omni being is consistent with the evidence.

But the evidence includes suffering and there appears to be no way to resolve the presence of suffering with the existence of the posited being.

The rational thing to do with a theory that cannot be reconciled with the available evidence is to toss it aside or adapt it to fit the evidence.

Sure. I mean, I find that so incredibly easy to agree with that it's almost.....dunno....boring (for me, I don't mean you are boring).

I've this half-baked idea that if you or anyone here wants to discuss omnipotence with me, I might be up for engaging on a sort of dare I call it devil's advocate basis, just to see if it's more interesting than either getting nowhere with believers on it or watching others get nowhere with believers on it.

 

[Atheos]

I am reminded of Monte Python's "Argument" sketch.

 

[Atheos]

satan and loki don't claim omnipotence.

How do you know? Maybe the old loki and satan didn't, but neo-satan and neo-loki do. I don't believe you have any way to keep up with such changes.

some people hold the "theory" that there exists a tri-omni being.

Thank you for the quotes around "theory".

The rational thing to do with a theory that cannot be reconciled with the available evidence is to toss it aside or adapt it to fit the evidence.

The rational thing is to call it a hypothesis, not a theory. Theists like to use the word "theory" to describe every hairbrained idea that they think they can support using scripture. A theory is the highest level of confidence attainable via scientific method. No religious tenet rises to that level.

I disagree with your assessment. To the devout believer the existence of a divine being rests at their highest level of confidence attainable and is the closest parallel to Theory in the scientific sense. It's 180 degrees opposite of the scientific method. The theistic method begins with the Theory. From that hypotheses are generated and discarded if they don't agree with the Theory. All evidence is reinterpreted to accommodate the Theory.

 

[jab]

Theist: God exists and is omnipotent.
Atheist: What do you mean by omnipotent?
(Hilarity ensues)

AntiCitizenX explores the different definitions of omnipotence used by religious philosophers.

Definition 1: logically incoherent, and would make the existence of God impossible
Definition 2: logically incoherent, and would make the existence of God impossible
Definition 3: An omnipotent God under this definition can possibly exist, but by this definition, every single thing that exists is omnipotent, including rocks. Rocks are omnipotent according to this definition.

What's really funny is that these are all their definitions.

re definition 2: An omnipotent being cannot be an being with limited powers--that would be illogical. re creating unliftable rocks or stating truthfully "I am not omnipotent"--both things that apply logically only to beings that are omnipotent. That attempted refutation falls back into attempting to refute the first definition. To refute this observation the video dude moves on to the irrelevant cannot tell a lie (a property of Christian God, but not of a truly omnipotent being). Deeply dumb (and I'm an atheist).

 

[jab]

Asking to be loved and worshiped by one's creations is not, imo, unconditional love. And I don't think getting that love under a threat of any sort of sanction is or can be receiving a love freely given.

I don't believe we choose to love God, I believe being in a relationship with him is by his choice of a given individual. Then love can be freely given to God, "we love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

So God as stalker.

Creepy. As. Fuck.

I don't follow the logic of this attempted riposte.

 

[jab]

No, I claim God bears suffering, in such a way that it's primarily him we sin against when we sin. Thus Jesus' outlandish claim to forgive sins.


Because good behavior generally involves some self-denial?

Many Christians confuse struggling with suffering. Because one can be beneficial in certain circumstances, they feel that the other must be beneficial in all circumstances.

Not all suffering is beneficial, though I can see how it might all be beneficial, if God indeed wipes away all tears from the eyes of his people, and if all may repent:

"They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes." (Rev 21:3–4)

Regards,
Lee

Someone who wipes the tears of humans whose suffering he has, ultimately, caused without their free consent. Sounds like a particular type of sadist to me. I'm an atheist, but a less unpalatable concept of an omnipotent god is a being who is indifferent to human suffering, or is willing to accept it as collateral damage for some bigger goal that has does neither the ultimate nor the mediate welfare of humans as a goal.

 

[jab]

No, I claim God bears suffering, in such a way that it's primarily him we sin against when we sin. Thus Jesus' outlandish claim to forgive sins.

I'm not following your point. The question was in relation to children getting raped. You're saying that when that happens, God is the real victim and it's his suffering we should be focusing on and not the kids?

God is primarily the one suffering, and the focus is on both. God bears suffering, which does not make it explicable, but gives me at least, hope--hope that God knows what he is doing in creating a world in which evil and suffering occur.

Regards,
Lee

So your omnipotent and therefore suffering causing god is a sadist and a masochist--such a combination is possible. But he chooses his own suffering but imposes it on others without their consent. This is an omnipotent god who is at least somewhat unjust.

 

[jab]

Asking to be loved and worshiped by one's creations is not, imo, unconditional love. And I don't think getting that love under a threat of any sort of sanction is or can be receiving a love freely given.

How many parents love their children unconditionally and yet still discipline them?

If you want an obsequious, fawning 'god' who lets you do whatever you want, perhaps you should buy a statue of buddah.

Yes, God - Jehovah - punishes unrepentant sinners. And if you deliberately sin against God it is quite disingenuous to whine about God's supposed lack of (unconditional) love.

non sequitur, straw man--the quotation from ruby is about punishing someone for one specific "wrongdoing"--not loving you., and is questioning whether that is even a wrongdoing. It is not about discipline in general.