I’m sorry, Adrian, if there is some misunderstanding here. But…
Sept 20th 2009 in a PM to Secularone concerning the proposed discussion, Tiberius wrote: “The issue that we really need to discuss is what "all-powerful" means. In my opinion it is being 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".”
1. Adrian, I never agreed to discuss the rock issue in this discussion thread.
2. I would remind you that this is not a debate. This is a discussion. Therefore, we have no obligation to defend our argument, but rather simply explain our position, reasoning and reasons for our position. In my opening post, I have done that. And I have no intention of arguing over whether it’s relevant or not. Those who don’t think it’s relevant are free to reject it. I don’t care. It’s there so you and others know where I’m coming from.
Now, I would really like to know your reasoning and where you are coming from. Not about some rock question, but about the definition of “all-powerful.” And please keep in mind, this is not about winning an argument or being right or wrong. It’s about helping each other understand.
3. Since we both recognize the paradoxical nature of the “all-powerful” concept (as it exists without alternative definitions) let’s not spend anymore time arguing over that. What is in issue here is whether it is appropriate to allow alternative definitions to replace the paradoxical definition.
4. In view of the paradox, I am on record that the “rock” question is a valid question simply because it illustrates the paradox. That is the intended purpose of the rock question, nothing more. It is not an attempt to manipulate someone. It is an attempt to illustrate a paradox. There is a big difference between these two agendas. Those who focus solely on asserting that it is a loaded question are ignoring its intended purpose and erecting a straw-man (manipulate someone agenda) so they can attack that instead.
5. Obviously, I have a problem with alternative definitions designed to nullify the paradox and thereby license the inappropriate use of the term “all-powerful.” Adding the wording, “being able to do everything in the set of things that can be done” is nothing more than a license to use the term inappropriately. I cannot understand why you or any other critical-thinker would choose to be so accommodating to the dumb-down community. It makes no sense to me. What motivates you to do so?
6. The alternative language in your definition seems to be an attempt to give the term omnipotence practical application where none existed before. But why do you feel it is necessary to do that? Why is it not acceptable for omnipotence to remain the paradox that it is? I can think of only one reason… “To facilitate the inappropriate use of the term by the religious community.”
7. You have now added language to further explain your definition, that an omnipotent being can do anything within it's nature. Further, you say that omnipotence is the ability to do the logically possible. In other words, for every action in the set of logically possible things, an omnipotent being can do them.
And who gets to define what is logically possible? The folks with the dumb-down agenda, of course!
8. You may not like my all-powerless god example. I did not think you would. Even I admit that such a concept is absurd. But I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn it as an invalid argument. I have pondered this long and hard and I think it can be argued that it is valid example of just how problematic this alternative definition business can be. That was the point I was making.
Are you maintaining that alternative definitions are not themselves problematic? (A question I would like answered, please.)
9. Yes, I deliberately chose to be as ridiculous as I could. But, it seems to me that “in the set of things that are logically possible” for a powerless god to do, the all-powerless god can do all them all. And so by your own definition may be called omnipotent. Sorry, it is irrelevant that “all the logically possible” adds up to zero.
10. There are other issues that bear on the question of omnipotence. One is the question of whether or not the Christian god is “ordered?” Of course, the answer is always, “yes.” But that presents another paradox. We know that everything that exists is ordered and everything that is ordered is a slave to that order.
This is not the answer Christians want to hear.
So they will try every flim-flam rationalization possible to get out of this quagmire. And what special dispensations are you willing to give them so their god gets a free pass and doesn’t have to be a slave to order?
I think you have already given them the special dispensation they need. It’s right there in your alternative definition for omnipotence.
So, Adrian, instead of licensing flim-flam, why not simply insist the term “all-powerful” is a paradox, plain and simple.
If the religious community wants to insist their god is “all-powerful,” fine. I will let them do that. But I will not allow an alternative definition. I will point out the paradox that falsifies their god. If they don’t like the paradox, I suggest they find another term more appropriate to defining their god.
In conclusion, no, I didn’t discuss the rock issue. I discussed what you said we would discuss:
Sept 20th 2009 in a PM to Secularone concerning the proposed discussion, Tiberius wrote: “The issue that we really need to discuss is what "all-powerful" means.
Sept 20th 2009 in a PM to Secularone concerning the proposed discussion, Tiberius wrote: “The issue that we really need to discuss is what "all-powerful" means. In my opinion it is being 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".”
1. Adrian, I never agreed to discuss the rock issue in this discussion thread.
2. I would remind you that this is not a debate. This is a discussion. Therefore, we have no obligation to defend our argument, but rather simply explain our position, reasoning and reasons for our position. In my opening post, I have done that. And I have no intention of arguing over whether it’s relevant or not. Those who don’t think it’s relevant are free to reject it. I don’t care. It’s there so you and others know where I’m coming from.
Now, I would really like to know your reasoning and where you are coming from. Not about some rock question, but about the definition of “all-powerful.” And please keep in mind, this is not about winning an argument or being right or wrong. It’s about helping each other understand.
3. Since we both recognize the paradoxical nature of the “all-powerful” concept (as it exists without alternative definitions) let’s not spend anymore time arguing over that. What is in issue here is whether it is appropriate to allow alternative definitions to replace the paradoxical definition.
4. In view of the paradox, I am on record that the “rock” question is a valid question simply because it illustrates the paradox. That is the intended purpose of the rock question, nothing more. It is not an attempt to manipulate someone. It is an attempt to illustrate a paradox. There is a big difference between these two agendas. Those who focus solely on asserting that it is a loaded question are ignoring its intended purpose and erecting a straw-man (manipulate someone agenda) so they can attack that instead.
5. Obviously, I have a problem with alternative definitions designed to nullify the paradox and thereby license the inappropriate use of the term “all-powerful.” Adding the wording, “being able to do everything in the set of things that can be done” is nothing more than a license to use the term inappropriately. I cannot understand why you or any other critical-thinker would choose to be so accommodating to the dumb-down community. It makes no sense to me. What motivates you to do so?
6. The alternative language in your definition seems to be an attempt to give the term omnipotence practical application where none existed before. But why do you feel it is necessary to do that? Why is it not acceptable for omnipotence to remain the paradox that it is? I can think of only one reason… “To facilitate the inappropriate use of the term by the religious community.”
7. You have now added language to further explain your definition, that an omnipotent being can do anything within it's nature. Further, you say that omnipotence is the ability to do the logically possible. In other words, for every action in the set of logically possible things, an omnipotent being can do them.
And who gets to define what is logically possible? The folks with the dumb-down agenda, of course!
8. You may not like my all-powerless god example. I did not think you would. Even I admit that such a concept is absurd. But I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn it as an invalid argument. I have pondered this long and hard and I think it can be argued that it is valid example of just how problematic this alternative definition business can be. That was the point I was making.
Are you maintaining that alternative definitions are not themselves problematic? (A question I would like answered, please.)
9. Yes, I deliberately chose to be as ridiculous as I could. But, it seems to me that “in the set of things that are logically possible” for a powerless god to do, the all-powerless god can do all them all. And so by your own definition may be called omnipotent. Sorry, it is irrelevant that “all the logically possible” adds up to zero.
10. There are other issues that bear on the question of omnipotence. One is the question of whether or not the Christian god is “ordered?” Of course, the answer is always, “yes.” But that presents another paradox. We know that everything that exists is ordered and everything that is ordered is a slave to that order.
This is not the answer Christians want to hear.
So they will try every flim-flam rationalization possible to get out of this quagmire. And what special dispensations are you willing to give them so their god gets a free pass and doesn’t have to be a slave to order?
I think you have already given them the special dispensation they need. It’s right there in your alternative definition for omnipotence.
So, Adrian, instead of licensing flim-flam, why not simply insist the term “all-powerful” is a paradox, plain and simple.
If the religious community wants to insist their god is “all-powerful,” fine. I will let them do that. But I will not allow an alternative definition. I will point out the paradox that falsifies their god. If they don’t like the paradox, I suggest they find another term more appropriate to defining their god.
In conclusion, no, I didn’t discuss the rock issue. I discussed what you said we would discuss:
Sept 20th 2009 in a PM to Secularone concerning the proposed discussion, Tiberius wrote: “The issue that we really need to discuss is what "all-powerful" means.
