Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Sheldon]

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?

Where does the weight of objective evidence fall? Only the first seems little more than fantasy.

[The Grand Nudger]

 a deity creating everything, then granting one species of evolved apes free will, then having no culpability for their actions.

An omnipotent god with an explicit and specific incompetence.

[Tonus]

 a deity creating everything, then granting one species of evolved apes free will, then having no culpability for their actions.

An omnipotent god with an explicit and specific incompetence.

Or a very cruel and sadistic personality. God as described by many Christians is an absolute nightmare.

[Angrboda]

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.

Generally speaking, theologians don't define or describe omnipotence as "limitless power," though some people may colloquially do so. The principle of charity obligates you to respond to the strongest version of an argument, to steelman it.

Incidentally, your objection cuts both ways. If Omnipotence implies being able to do the impossible, then pointing out something impossible isn't an argument against him as he is not bound by the law of noncontradiction, being limitless.

It sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

[The Grand Nudger]

The many ways the christian god is literally limitless is a crucial point to every christian ideology. Gods grace, for example, limitless.

The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted

For nothing will be impossible with God

....and on and on and on...

[The Grand Nudger]

Or a very cruel and sadistic personality. God as described by many Christians is an absolute nightmare.

Can't leave it around any kids, for sure.

[Sheldon]

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.

Generally speaking, theologians don't define or describe omnipotence as "limitless power," though some people may colloquially do so.  The principle of charity obligates you to respond to the strongest version of an argument, to steelman it.

Incidentally, your objection cuts both ways.  If Omnipotence implies being able to do the impossible, then pointing out something impossible isn't an argument against him as he is not bound by the law of noncontradiction, being limitless.

It sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

It sounds to me like you're straw manning me, read my original post for proper context. Tell you what I'll save you the time, here it is:

I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise. 

Now, @TheWhiteMarten, I have asked several times, can you demonstrate anything approaching any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible? I have noticed over the years, how reticent apologists become when anyone asks this. And to avoid semantics, all those words are in the dictionary for you.

I've emboldened the part where I very specifically made the point you are now suggesting I did not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Trying to stick within a limited logical possibility we can ask the same questions again. Is it logically possible that god possesses foreknowledge? If it's not..then we've limited omniscience and omnipotence and are even further from the god of magic book. If it is, we have the potency issue all over again within the new boundary conditions. Is a god a prisoner of it's predictions and past statements or predilections? A theologian would tell you no (and magic book provides receipts). This is yet another way that god is limitless...but if isn't, then did it ever possess foreknowledge in the first place, supposing foreknowledge was possible?

This has been an issue for christian apologists for some time, the simple fact of their spilling the ink concedes the apparent contraditions...but once upon a time it was not noticed at all, as people deeply believed in another supernatural whatsit called a fate.

[Silver]

A deity is always easier to peddle when no one questions its existence. When believers were forced into apologetics is when they really lost any credibility.

[The Grand Nudger]

One of the very first apologists provides an example of the aggressive approach to rationality as an item - in trying to establish that christianity is a rational ideology and addressed to emperor pius justin questions why pagans would prosecute christians for believing in the same things the pagans do, and posits that anyone who has ever spoken rationally was speaking christian, as they were connected to the logos.

This is how it started...and it has not gone well since!