(October 8, 2009 at 8:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote: This will be the thread for an informal discussion between Tiberius and Secularone about the all-powerful nature of gods, and whether or not arguments concerning this nature are valid.
In Adrian’s judgment, the concept of “all-powerful” means “able to do everything in the set of things that can be done. Logically impossible things are not in this set since they cannot be done.” (If this is not an accurate representation of his position, he will correct me.)
In my judgment, the concept of “all-powerful” means “able to do anything and everything, without limitation.”
My argument is fairly simple:
1. Many terms in the English language have definitions that demonstrate concepts that present paradoxes (logical contradictions that self-falsify).
2. The fact that a term introduces a concept that is, by definition, paradoxical (self-falsifying) does not mean that the definition is invalid.
3. The term all-powerful, presents a paradox as does omnipotent, infinite-power, unlimited-power. Essentially they all suggest the same concept, “power without limitation.”
4. I am unaware of any rule of the English language that mandates that terminology may only be defined such as to exclude the possibility of a paradox. If such were the case, there can be no such thing as a term that is paradoxical.
5. Further, I am unaware that society is obliged to accommodate the dumb-down agendas of the religious community whenever it wants to use words inappropriately to suggest concepts that don’t really apply.
6. And lastly, my life experiences with religion have convinced me that religion is an unscrupulous enterprise. It cares nothing for the truth. It’s efforts in defining terminology is always with the ultimate goal of placing false dogma beyond the reach of critical scrutiny and/or accountability.
Having stated the above, I am also aware that many intellectuals postulate alternative definitions for paradoxical terms with the view of demonstrating how the paradox might be nullified.
We need only visit Wikipedia and research the paradoxical terms mentioned above to observe the results of this effort.
There are two critical points I wish to make regarding this effort.
1. I maintain this to be a perfectly legitimate exercise when the agenda is to “facilitate a higher level of critical inquiry and human understanding.”
2. I maintain this is a totally unscrupulous exercise when the agenda is to nullify logical contradictions for the purpose of exempting from scrutiny or accountability false and/or misleading ideas.”
Regardless of the motive, the original term “all-powerful” retains its paradoxical nature. It is only by the acceptance of “alternative definitions” that we might find ways to nullify the paradox. However, once we open the door to alternative definitions, there is the danger that alternative definitions might create more problems than they solve.
To illustrate what I am talking about I’d like to point out the problem inherent in defining “unlimited-power” in such a way as to make some level of “limited-power” an acceptable equivalent. Logically, I reject the idea that these two concepts are reconcilable with each other.
However, to make the point, I’d like to create a new God and I will claim He is “all-powerful” despite the fact that He is “all-powerless.” That is to say, “God is capable of absolutely nothing.” Might we use alternative definitions postulated for “omnipotence” to claim this God is “all-powerful?”
From Wikipedia I copied the following.
Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following: (All links removed by me.)
1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do.
2. A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
3. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4. Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan
6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible.
Despite the fact that it is not logically possible for my god to do anything, I claim “omnipotence” as an atribute of my god by simply choosing to use Adrian’s definition, which is essentially the same as definition #1. “A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do.”
Of course you would cry “foul,” arguing that it is not logically possible for a "powerless" god to do anything. And I would reply “Thank you very much for pointing out this logical contradiction. You have just exempted my god from having to be able to do anything. To require an all-powerless god do “something” would necessitate that He do the logically impossible. He qualifies as omnipotent, because definitions #1, 3 & 4 exempts him from being required to have the power to do the logically impossible.”
Thus, using alternative definitions, we may create an all-powerful god whose “omnipotence” is limited to whatever level we desire. All we have to do is say, “My god doesn’t have to be able to do this, or that, or anything, by reason of logic, or my god’s laws, or my god’s nature or my god’s worldplan, etc.” And if the existing alternative definitions are not satisfactory to get the job done, my religion can insist on another. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me that alternative definitions do nothing but take a perfectly good term with a very clear meaning and reduce it to mean absolutely nothing.
And if you’re not happy about my god’s extremely limited-unlimited power, I might simply respond, “Thank you for granting my religion just the right definition it needed to avoid critical scrutiny of its absurd dogma. It’s your policy to allow alternative definitions. You live with it.”
By reading the Wikipedia articles, we can see that some insist on the acceptance of alternative definitions, while others reject them entirely.
I consider the word "all-powerful" to be an absolute concept that is paradoxical in nature. And while I support honest efforts to explore alternative definitions that might demonstrate solutions to the paradox problem, I remain hostile to their adoption, especially if in doing so we inadvertently facilitate and empower a dumb-down agenda. Therefore, I am among those who reject pandering to the religious community’s effort to nullify the “all-powerful” paradox with alternative definitions.
As I see it, the religious community can easily solve their problem. It can stop insisting God is all-powerful. And it can admit that the Bible is using misleading language whenever it says “With God all things are possible.”
It would simply matters if Christians simply claimed their god was “most-powerful.” Of course, I do not see them doing that anytime soon since it doesn’t imply, “With God all things are possible.”
I would now like to focus on two other considerations that may offer some insight as to why I am so adamant about this issue.
1. My experience as a Pentecostal Evangelist.
2. The critical elements necessary to place lies beyond the reach of scrutiny.
These two issues may, at first, seem irrelevant to the issue under discussion. I hope that if given adequate consideration, it may become clear why I view them relevant, even extremely important. I beg your patience.
My experience as a Pentecostal Evangelist:
At the age of sixteen, I gave my life to Jesus. In fact, I became a religious fanatic completely out of touch with reality. It did not take long before I became convinced that I had heard the voice of God calling me to preach His infallible word.
Unfortunately, I had not embarked upon this venture long before I began to meet challenges to my dogmatic beliefs.
Of course, many of these questions were reasonable and I was without an answer. So, it became necessary to study apologetics. Not wanting to be on the losing end of any debate, I made it my personal goal to have an answer that could nullify any challenge.
Unfortunately, the challenges were seemingly endless. I could not possibly have an apologetic answer handy for every occasion. Still not wanting to be on the losing end of any debate, I made it my personal goal to have a sophist tactic at the ready. These were very easy to learn, extremely effective and extremely difficult to defeat. In tough situations, I could simply overwhelm opponents with so much flim-flam, most would give up in frustration. However, privately I knew that my arguments were rarely reasonable, I was forced to use sophistry and I was often embarrassed by that fact.
As time went by, I became extremely skillful at nullifying any challenge, evidence, valid argument, logic, etc. I was so proud. Proud, until the day came when I realized how unscrupulous my motives and behavior were. An honest evaluation of my ministry and life were long overdue.
Was I defending truth or was I defending lies from truth?
I decided to abandon all of my “tools of deception” and re-examine the case for Jesus honestly.
Despite every honest effort to defend my faith, I found it to be impossible. And no other Christian I questioned could honestly defend their faith either. They “all” resorted to the same apologetic flim-flam and sophistry that I had used. None could or would address the issues honestly. So, kicking and screaming in protest, I evolved into the atheist freethinker I am today.
The Critical Elements Necessary To Place Lies Beyond The Reach Of Scrutiny.
Topics that bear on this question.
1. apologetics.
2. sophistry.
3. definition-manipulations.
4. special dispensations and double standards.
I briefly touch on these topics in an honest effort to warn of the difficulty faced by any freethinker trying to have an honest discussion with a Christian about their faith.
Apologetics is defined as “the branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.” (As I read this dictionary definition, it seems to me that Christians were given a free pass to define apologetics in a misleading way.)
I would argue that “apologetics” is actually something quite different, i.e. a plausible sounding excuses designed to nullify any challenge to problematic Christian dogma.
I think a more accurate definition would be, “the branch of theology that is concerned with preventing false dogma from being exposed.”
The Christian community has had nearly two-thousand years to perfect their flim-flam excuses. It should not surprise us that they have one ready to nullify any Biblical absurdity, scientific evidence or logical contradiction.
Sophistry is defined as “the practice of using arguments and/or tactics which seem clever, or plausible but are actually false and misleading.” All fallacies, tricks and manipulations of every sort fall under this category.
Definition-manipulations are attempts to define terms or concepts in ways that facilitate an agenda. (It falls under the heading of sophistry but I think it deserves special attention.) The manipulated definition may be deliberately designed to make a false argument plausible and/or it may be deliberately designed to place a false argument beyond the reach of critical scrutiny and accountability.
We see this sort of thing everyday. Religious nuts, hostile to dictionary definitions, take common terminology and manipulate the definition to suit their “dumb-down” agenda. When they are done, it no longer resembles what’s in a dictionary or in common usage.
Open a dictionary and read the definition of “religious.” Then ask a devout Christian if they’re religious. They meet the dictionary criteria to a tee but deny it pertains to them.
Open a dictionary and read the definition of religion. Then ask a Muslim if Islam is a religion. Don’t be surprised if they insist it is not. The same goes for the Christian. The same goes for the Jew. They’ll all deny their religion is a religion. But then they’ll insist that atheism is a religion. Even secularism is claimed to be a religion. Go figure. It’s all about dumb-down agendas.
So, if we want to give their flim-flam games with word meanings a free pass…
• No religion is a “religion.”
• No religious nut is “religious.”
• Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a “Christian denomination.”
• Science is a “religion.”
• Atheism is a “belief system” and a “religion.”
• A “scientific theory” is just an unsubstantiated hunch.
• A fertilized egg is “a baby, a person, with rights.”
• An abortion is “premeditated murder.”
• A miracle is “anything you want it to be.”
• Two-hundred thousand years from now is “soon.”
• God is “omnipotent,” etc.
It’s all the same kind of flim-flam. And this is only a small sample to illustrate the problem.
And we’re not sick and tired of this crap? Well, I am.
Special dispensations and double standards are extraordinary measures designed for extraordinary situations. They have one purpose only, to place problematic dogma beyond the reach of scrutiny or accountability.
A few examples of special dispensations and/or double standards…
• All things that exist necessarily must have a cause, a creator. But God does not need a cause or creator.
• Nothing could possibly have always existed. But God has always existed.
• Evil acts we despise in men, are righteous acts (we must defend) when committed by God.
• False promises are lies. But if God makes a false promise, it’s truth.
• There can be no evidence of the existence of God. But the existence of life proves the existence of God.
• “All-powerful” is a paradoxical concept that is logically impossible. But God is “all-powerful” because God is exempt from having to be able to do anything he logically can’t do.
In Conclusion:
As a Christian, I tried very hard to defend my faith with honesty instead of apologetic flim-flam and sophistry. I was not able to do so. And I could not find anyone else that could do so either. To this day, I keep looking. And to this day I am always disappointed.
As a freethinker, I haven’t forgotten this important fact.
So, when any religion insists on any definition or standard that places its God beyond the reach of scrutiny and/or accountability, I am averse to cooperating with that effort. I think we cooperate too much, already.
