1) The reason I originally suggested posting in a thread was so that we could discuss the rock argument, given that it was taking a lot of my time in PMs which is worthless for other forum users (since they cannot see them). We further agreed to also discuss the whole concept of what all-powerful means.
2) I know it is not a debate, but since when was a discussion just two people presenting their opposing ideas and saying "well, there we go". I have valid refutations of your ideas, and if you are not going to defend your ideas from them then what is the purpose of any of this happening? The idea I thought we agreed on was a casual format like the "discussion" EvF and fr0d0 had. You'll notice in that discussion that both parties defended their ideas, and responded to counter-arguments.
There is no reason for this discussion to take place otherwise, and certainly no reason for only two of us to be involved. If you don't make valid contributions to your argument, I'll just have to move it to the Discussion forum and hope that it can evolve into a proper discussion.
As for my definition, it's rather simple. Logically impossible things cannot be done, since they are contradictions and lead to more contradictions. To take an example, drawing a square with 5 sides is logically impossible. A square is defined as a shape with 4 sides of equal length, with 4 right-angles joining them together. To create a square with 5 sides would be to invalidate this definition, and so a square wouldn't exist in this definition anymore, given that it has just been contradicted. You cannot create a 5-sided square because a square only has 4 sides. If a square had any more sides, it wouldn't be a square, thus 5-sided squares are logically impossible.
Thus, the only things that can be done are logically possible things. An all-powerful being can do all the things in the set of logically possible things. This isn't a limit on it's power, because logically impossible things are simply not possible to do in any way. They are inherent contradictions in themselves.
4) It matters not if the rock argument is being used to reveal a supposed paradox. If it is using a loaded question to do so, then the argument fails. You cannot use a logical fallacy to make a logical assertion, since the assertion is based on a fallacious logical argument.
People who use the rock argument could easily argue that the actions of the argument are logically possible (and indeed they are, creating a rock and lifting a rock are both logically possible things). However they are placed together in such a way that both a "yes" and a "no" answer give victory to the questioner, who then uses this to make the claim that Gods cannot be omnipotent (with either definition).
I'm not making a strawman of your argument; I'm pointing out the logical fallacy contained within it. What you are doing by claiming I am making a strawman is actually making a red herring (another logical fallacy). If you have a valid logical argument against omnipotence, we can discuss it; however the rock argument is logically flawed since it uses a loaded question fallacy.
5) What motivates me is the fact that logically possible things are arguably the only things anyone can do. Since nobody can do logically impossible things, the most powerful being imaginable (all-powerful) must be able to do everything in the set of logically possible things. Logically impossible things simply do not come into it.
6) True omnipotence is logically impossible, this is easily demonstrable. The religious community rarely ever use this definition for their Gods though, so it seems futile to even bring it up. There are other definitions of omnipotence that have been used over the years which do not have the logical contradictions of true omnipotence. The Christian God is incapable of lying, since it is not within the nature of the Christian God to lie. Thus the action of the Christian God lying is in the set of logically impossible things (in the same way a human who cannot shoot wasps from his brain is). The Christian God is omnipotent under the definition of being able to do everything in the set of logically possible things.
7) No, logic defines what is logically possible. Everything in logic is based off logical principles, which are in turn self-proving given that one must use logic itself to try and refute them, and this leads to contradictions. These principles are what all of logic and human knowledge are based, and using these principles (whilst staying away from logical fallacies), we can determine what is logically possible and what is not.
8) "Are you maintaining that alternative definitions are not themselves problematic?" - Yes.
You have not demonstrated any valid argument against the definition of omnipotence covered by a being able to do everything in the set of logically possible things. Your all-powerless God was a strawman fallacy, since it ignored my argument completely and used another which I disagree with. As I said before, an all-powerless God can't do anything in the set of logically possible things (by definition), so to say it equates a God who can do everything in the set of logically possible things is absurd. Strictly speaking however, your all-powerless God cannot exist in the confines of my definition, since the ability "to exist" is in the set of logically possible things, and if your God cannot do any of the things that are in that set, it cannot possible exist. Thus at best your God can exist, but not do anything else.
9) As I said before, you are personifying the set of logically possible things. The set of logically possible things is a CONSTANT. It doesn't change. The set of logically possible things remains the same, nomatter who is trying to do them. Here is an example (courtesy of Arcanus through Chuck Johnson) of how the set works:
Let U stand for the universal set of tasks, and let T stand for some proposed task:
1. Omnipotence is the ability to perform every member of U.
2. If T is logically possible, then T is a member of U.
3. If T is logically impossible, then T is not a member of U.
4. If T is not a member of U, then T is a non-task nT.
5. All nT form a null set Ø.
10) Yet this is where the nature comes in. Just how it is a contradiction to God's nature to lie, it is a contradiction to God's nature to be ordered. It is logically impossible for the Christian God to be ordered, thus it is absurd to say this applies to God.
I'm not licensing flim-flam; I disagree that it is flim-flam. There are no viable contradictions to my definition of all-powerful.
2) I know it is not a debate, but since when was a discussion just two people presenting their opposing ideas and saying "well, there we go". I have valid refutations of your ideas, and if you are not going to defend your ideas from them then what is the purpose of any of this happening? The idea I thought we agreed on was a casual format like the "discussion" EvF and fr0d0 had. You'll notice in that discussion that both parties defended their ideas, and responded to counter-arguments.
There is no reason for this discussion to take place otherwise, and certainly no reason for only two of us to be involved. If you don't make valid contributions to your argument, I'll just have to move it to the Discussion forum and hope that it can evolve into a proper discussion.
As for my definition, it's rather simple. Logically impossible things cannot be done, since they are contradictions and lead to more contradictions. To take an example, drawing a square with 5 sides is logically impossible. A square is defined as a shape with 4 sides of equal length, with 4 right-angles joining them together. To create a square with 5 sides would be to invalidate this definition, and so a square wouldn't exist in this definition anymore, given that it has just been contradicted. You cannot create a 5-sided square because a square only has 4 sides. If a square had any more sides, it wouldn't be a square, thus 5-sided squares are logically impossible.
Thus, the only things that can be done are logically possible things. An all-powerful being can do all the things in the set of logically possible things. This isn't a limit on it's power, because logically impossible things are simply not possible to do in any way. They are inherent contradictions in themselves.
4) It matters not if the rock argument is being used to reveal a supposed paradox. If it is using a loaded question to do so, then the argument fails. You cannot use a logical fallacy to make a logical assertion, since the assertion is based on a fallacious logical argument.
People who use the rock argument could easily argue that the actions of the argument are logically possible (and indeed they are, creating a rock and lifting a rock are both logically possible things). However they are placed together in such a way that both a "yes" and a "no" answer give victory to the questioner, who then uses this to make the claim that Gods cannot be omnipotent (with either definition).
I'm not making a strawman of your argument; I'm pointing out the logical fallacy contained within it. What you are doing by claiming I am making a strawman is actually making a red herring (another logical fallacy). If you have a valid logical argument against omnipotence, we can discuss it; however the rock argument is logically flawed since it uses a loaded question fallacy.
5) What motivates me is the fact that logically possible things are arguably the only things anyone can do. Since nobody can do logically impossible things, the most powerful being imaginable (all-powerful) must be able to do everything in the set of logically possible things. Logically impossible things simply do not come into it.
6) True omnipotence is logically impossible, this is easily demonstrable. The religious community rarely ever use this definition for their Gods though, so it seems futile to even bring it up. There are other definitions of omnipotence that have been used over the years which do not have the logical contradictions of true omnipotence. The Christian God is incapable of lying, since it is not within the nature of the Christian God to lie. Thus the action of the Christian God lying is in the set of logically impossible things (in the same way a human who cannot shoot wasps from his brain is). The Christian God is omnipotent under the definition of being able to do everything in the set of logically possible things.
7) No, logic defines what is logically possible. Everything in logic is based off logical principles, which are in turn self-proving given that one must use logic itself to try and refute them, and this leads to contradictions. These principles are what all of logic and human knowledge are based, and using these principles (whilst staying away from logical fallacies), we can determine what is logically possible and what is not.
8) "Are you maintaining that alternative definitions are not themselves problematic?" - Yes.
You have not demonstrated any valid argument against the definition of omnipotence covered by a being able to do everything in the set of logically possible things. Your all-powerless God was a strawman fallacy, since it ignored my argument completely and used another which I disagree with. As I said before, an all-powerless God can't do anything in the set of logically possible things (by definition), so to say it equates a God who can do everything in the set of logically possible things is absurd. Strictly speaking however, your all-powerless God cannot exist in the confines of my definition, since the ability "to exist" is in the set of logically possible things, and if your God cannot do any of the things that are in that set, it cannot possible exist. Thus at best your God can exist, but not do anything else.
9) As I said before, you are personifying the set of logically possible things. The set of logically possible things is a CONSTANT. It doesn't change. The set of logically possible things remains the same, nomatter who is trying to do them. Here is an example (courtesy of Arcanus through Chuck Johnson) of how the set works:
Let U stand for the universal set of tasks, and let T stand for some proposed task:
1. Omnipotence is the ability to perform every member of U.
2. If T is logically possible, then T is a member of U.
3. If T is logically impossible, then T is not a member of U.
4. If T is not a member of U, then T is a non-task nT.
5. All nT form a null set Ø.
10) Yet this is where the nature comes in. Just how it is a contradiction to God's nature to lie, it is a contradiction to God's nature to be ordered. It is logically impossible for the Christian God to be ordered, thus it is absurd to say this applies to God.
I'm not licensing flim-flam; I disagree that it is flim-flam. There are no viable contradictions to my definition of all-powerful.
