The logical consequences of omnipotence

[fr0d0]

To be perfect, God must be capable of everything, or be nothing.

& how do you show that God isn't capable of everything?

Next, how do you show that this reality isn't perfect from God's perspective?

Next, how do you show that God intended this reality to be perfect?

So many problems right off the bat, but you are able to make a definite conclusion! How? Please show your reasoning, or explain that you didn't consider many problems with your statement.

---

I just found you in liquid form sis!

http://m.tesco.com/mt/www.tesco.com/groc...=270528971

[Esquilax]

For you, Frodo:

No matter how one attempts to work out this issue, the crux of christianity is God's perfection. A perfect deity has to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, as most christians I've spoken to have a habit of declaring, and for him to be perfect this is true. With this comes questions as to the absurdity that reality could possibly have been created by such a creature, unless it's all a cosmic joke and said god has a very twisted sense of humour.

If God is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then he's fallible, which means that his laws and manner by which he supposedly governs the universe are fallible and liable to interpretation, which means that the bible's laws can be subject to scrutiny and rational processing, which lets face it, we already do. We don't enslave people anymore, we don't stone children to death when they misbehave, we don't force rapists to marry their victims, we don't sacrifice people and animals to imaginary people int he sky.

To be perfect, God must be capable of everything, or be nothing.

The bolding is the important bit. He's not actually making the claim himself, and I know you don't hold to this claim yourself, but don't you think it's worth discussing what mainstream christianity believes and why? The fact is, there are a lot of christian proponents that hold this view about a limitless god, and isn't that worthy of a little consideration?

[Ryantology]

& how do you show that God isn't capable of everything?

I'll quote myself, here:

If God is forced to conform to logical rules, who made those rules, and what force compels even God to act within them? If you believe that our universe must have had a creator (because 'random chance' couldn't have done it), you logically have to believe that an even higher being made the rules God has to follow. This, of course, leads either to infinite regress, or to an assertion that God made rules even he cannot break, which is the ultimate expression of the "rock God can't lift".

Perhaps the simplest and most vital reason to believe in God is that there is no higher, more powerful, being to worship. The problem is, if God is subject to any limits he cannot overcome, including the limit of 'logically possible', then he cannot be the most powerful thing in existence. Logic must be more powerful than God. And, we are left to wonder where logic comes from? Is God subject to the same dumb natural forces a secularist already believes are responsible for the universe, or is there a being even higher than God?

In either case, there's no justification for worshiping Yahweh. Either he doesn't exist, or he's merely the next step up from us in a virtually infinite hierarchy (all of which themselves would suffer from the infinite regress argument; why worship any of them, either?).

Next, how do you show that this reality isn't perfect from God's perspective?

1. If a perfect being believes something is perfect, it should not be possible for us lesser beings to disagree.
2. That God has changed his mind on several occasions proves that he, himself, has seen ways to improve on reality by whatever standard he has set, even if it is in small ways.
3. That God claims to hate evil and wishes to eliminate it proves that he, himself, views creation as imperfect.

Next, how do you show that God intended this reality to be perfect?

If creation is not perfect but God is, that can only mean he intentionally made every flaw it has. If creation is not perfect and God is unhappy with this, it means he made mistakes and therefore cannot be perfect.

[fr0d0]

God is a logical God. We wouldn't have a concept of an illogical God, so your first theory collapses badly.

What you miss in your second paragraph, not that the question is directed at you, is God's perspective. You assume God from a human perspective, so your second set of objections fail.

Your third objection fails for the same reason.

You don't seem to know much about the idea of God.

[Celi]

God is a logical God. We wouldn't have a concept of an illogical God, so your first theory collapses badly.

Did you bother to read what he said at all? The whole point is that, if God is logical, meaning that he can't do anything that doesn't make sense, then he's limited by logic, so logic itself has higher authority than God does. So where did logic come from?

[fr0d0]

The whole point is that, if God is logical, meaning that he can't do anything that doesn't make sense, then he's limited by logic, so logic itself has higher authority than God does. So where did logic come from?

Thank you for demonstrating more clearly the idiocy of that point of view.

[Celi]

The whole point is that, if God is logical, meaning that he can't do anything that doesn't make sense, then he's limited by logic, so logic itself has higher authority than God does. So where did logic come from?

Thank you for demonstrating more clearly the idiocy of that point of view.

See, this is what I was talking about. There's no point in talking about this if you're just going to smugly dismiss whatever we say without offering an argument of your own.

[Mystical]

I've come to conclude that you see idiocy in everything because you're an idiot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPaK4J-sym4

[Esquilax]

God is a logical God. We wouldn't have a concept of an illogical God, so your first theory collapses badly.

What you miss in your second paragraph, not that the question is directed at you, is God's perspective. You assume God from a human perspective, so your second set of objections fail.

Your third objection fails for the same reason.

You don't seem to know much about the idea of God.

Interestingly, all of your arguments here only work if we take your reasoning at face value, yet you haven't proven a single one of your assertions. You've fallen back on circular reasoning for every single word of this post. Weird.

[Question Mark]

For you, Frodo:

No matter how one attempts to work out this issue, the crux of christianity is God's perfection. A perfect deity has to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, as most christians I've spoken to have a habit of declaring, and for him to be perfect this is true. With this comes questions as to the absurdity that reality could possibly have been created by such a creature, unless it's all a cosmic joke and said god has a very twisted sense of humour.

If God is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then he's fallible, which means that his laws and manner by which he supposedly governs the universe are fallible and liable to interpretation, which means that the bible's laws can be subject to scrutiny and rational processing, which lets face it, we already do. We don't enslave people anymore, we don't stone children to death when they misbehave, we don't force rapists to marry their victims, we don't sacrifice people and animals to imaginary people int he sky.

To be perfect, God must be capable of everything, or be nothing.

The bolding is the important bit. He's not actually making the claim himself, and I know you don't hold to this claim yourself, but don't you think it's worth discussing what mainstream christianity believes and why? The fact is, there are a lot of christian proponents that hold this view about a limitless god, and isn't that worthy of a little consideration?

Certainly I do, and that's why I gave my views on it here, and in a forum for people to see. If I didn't want people to either point out flaws in it, contradict me outright, or add to what I said, then I would have just kept it to myself. Did you have something specifically you wanted to add or point out?