Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Sheldon]

Sheldon got every form of apologism over this right in mentioning that the resolution is to limit one or both descriptors.  So it can know everything except that which would make it impotent, or do everything except that which would make it ignorant.  The whole thing is kind of moot in that people don't tend to believe in rational gods.  You could repair any given god to make it explicitly logical and the faithful will simply reject that in favor of one miracle or another.  People don't go to theistic gods for logic.  They go to gods because they have an impossible ask.  A desire.  A demand.  An idea of how the world should be which only makes sense in the context of it not being that way in mere reality.

The question is not whether or not there are limitations upon a specific conception, but rather whether those limitations are reasonable, rational, and defensible.

I agree, and of course this would not just be relative to the definition of those concepts but to how and when they are applied. Now take this back to the original point for example: That a deity created humans, allowed them free will, and that this deity was in no way culpable for their actions. Even without omniscience and omnipotence, the claim seems risible. 

Like breeding the largest most aggressive dog you could, then releasing it into a children's playground, and entirely blaming the outcome on the dog, is a preposterous notion.

This is before we address the idea that humans possess "free will" or more accurately how much autonomy of choice we really have in any given situation.

[Paleophyte]

Sheldon got every form of apologism over this right in mentioning that the resolution is to limit one or both descriptors.  So it can know everything except that which would make it impotent, or do everything except that which would make it ignorant.  The whole thing is kind of moot in that people don't tend to believe in rational gods.  You could repair any given god to make it explicitly logical and the faithful will simply reject that in favor of one miracle or another.  People don't go to theistic gods for logic.  They go to gods because they have an impossible ask.  A desire.  A demand.  An idea of how the world should be which only makes sense in the context of it not being that way in mere reality.

The question is not whether there are limitations on these concepts, as defining anything necessarily requires establishing both positive and negative characteristics of the thing, so defining itself is necessarily limiting.  So suggesting that there is something untoward or inappropriate about any limitations on a concept is itself a bit incoherent.  The question is not whether or not there are limitations upon a specific conception, but rather whether those limitations are reasonable, rational, and defensible.

The problem is that apologists have to invoke these limitations, and a limited deity is laughable.

[Angrboda]

Well, whatever.  You've now claimed that omnipotence and omniscience violate the law of noncontradiction.  Having claimed that, it seems reasonable to ask you to explain why you believe this to be the case, and explain how that occurs.  

There is the paradox of free will of course, or theological fatalism, but this might also apply to any deity itself, if it was omniscient it must necessarily know the future exactly as it will happen, or put a limit on it's knowledge. If it knew the future exactly as it would happen, then it could not change it, hence it would have no autonomy, let alone be omnipotent. 

Aquinas has suggested that to ascribe the ability to do the impossible to omnipotence is an error in conception, that while we can imagine the impossible, loosely speaking, we cannot actually dot the i's and cross the t's when it came to actually fitting it within reality. It raises the question of whether or not an omniscient being can make a triangle that has four sides? Now one certainly can answer this in two ways, but it doesn't immediately seem unreasonable to suggest that the very concept of a triangle is that it does not have four sides, and that suggesting that it could have four sides is to abuse reason and the very concept itself. Do you disagree?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you get the impression that theistic gods value to the religious is in their ability to do the possible, or the impossible? Did saint tom believe that 1+1+1=1 when gods were involved? He's a great example of how apologism is just a thin veneer of rationality - as he would impose logical limits in apologism and then reject them as a matter of faith and mysteries. The demonstration of gods power and authority.

[Silver]

Do you get the impression that theistic gods value to the religious is in their ability to do the possible, or the impossible?

When you have faith, what is impossible becomes illogically accepted as possible.

[Mister Agenda]

There is the paradox of free will of course, or theological fatalism, but this might also apply to any deity itself, if it was omniscient it must necessarily know the future exactly as it will happen, or put a limit on it's knowledge. If it knew the future exactly as it would happen, then it could not change it, hence it would have no autonomy, let alone be omnipotent. 

Aquinas has suggested that to ascribe the ability to do the impossible to omnipotence is an error in conception, that while we can imagine the impossible, loosely speaking, we cannot actually dot the i's and cross the t's when it came to actually fitting it within reality.  It raises the question of whether or not an omniscient being can make a triangle that has four sides?  Now one certainly can answer this in two ways, but it doesn't immediately seem unreasonable to suggest that the very concept of a triangle is that it does not have four sides, and that suggesting that it could have four sides is to abuse reason and the very concept itself.  Do you disagree?

My impression is that most theologians are fine with limiting God to the possible, while most other believers in God are not. After all, why should God be limited by logic when he is the reason logic works?

[The Grand Nudger]

The point of logic from an aggressive or expansionist religious view or movement is to possess it as an item, not follow it as pre/proscription, or accept it's limitations and modifications of religious claims.

[Angrboda]

Aquinas has suggested that to ascribe the ability to do the impossible to omnipotence is an error in conception, that while we can imagine the impossible, loosely speaking, we cannot actually dot the i's and cross the t's when it came to actually fitting it within reality.  It raises the question of whether or not an omniscient being can make a triangle that has four sides?  Now one certainly can answer this in two ways, but it doesn't immediately seem unreasonable to suggest that the very concept of a triangle is that it does not have four sides, and that suggesting that it could have four sides is to abuse reason and the very concept itself.  Do you disagree?

My impression is that most theologians are fine with limiting God to the possible, while most other believers in God are not. After all, why should God be limited by logic when he is the reason logic works?

Many people suppose that an advanced alien species could surpass the light-speed barrier. Is the fault in them, or is it a fault in relativity?

[The Grand Nudger]

Could be an example of people being able to loosely imagine the impossible. If what we mean by all whatever is actually just some whatever..and in any instance where that whatever seems impossible we contend that we're just wrong about the possibility of x...we're creating workarounds and carveouts and trapdoors to rationality, not doing it.

Apologism is like cultural insurance, trouble being that all the gods come with pre-existing conditions as a consequence of their arational origins. We need them to do The Thing..and if that thing has a disagreement with reality, genuine religious belief cannot accept any other conclusion than reality being wrong.

[Sheldon]

There is the paradox of free will of course, or theological fatalism, but this might also apply to any deity itself, if it was omniscient it must necessarily know the future exactly as it will happen, or put a limit on it's knowledge. If it knew the future exactly as it would happen, then it could not change it, hence it would have no autonomy, let alone be omnipotent. 

Aquinas has suggested that to ascribe the ability to do the impossible to omnipotence is an error in conception, 

That depends how you conceive omnipotence, I don't believe it is possible, so I don't need to rationalise it. 

it doesn't immediately seem unreasonable to suggest that the very concept of a triangle is that it does not have four sides, and that suggesting that it could have four sides is to abuse reason and the very concept itself.  Do you disagree?

No of course not, but then this very concisely exposes the contradiction in the notion of literarily limitless power. Though this has moved on from the original point, about a deity creating everything, then granting one species of evolved apes free will, then having no culpability for their actions.