RE: A Discussion of the "All-Powerful" Nature of Gods
October 11, 2009 at 12:21 am
(This post was last modified: October 11, 2009 at 9:53 am by Secularone.)
1) I believe I am discussing the whole concept of what all-powerful means. I even offered all the definitions from Wikipedia. But this concept doesn’t mean two entirely different things.
Concept A – Unlimited power - A being can do anything. (A paradox)
Concept B – Qualified Limited power - A being can do anything within logical limits (Most of which are personifications suggested by the religious community using their logic, specifically tailored to the limitations of their god). (No paradox.)
2) I never said I wouldn’t defend my ideas. In fact, that’s all I’ve done from the beginning. I simply do not intend to make this a pissing contest. But maybe that’s what you want. I don’t know.
You have reasons for your position. I want to hear them. If I think there’s a flaw, I’ll say so. But to suggest that I must disagree with you simply because you make an argument is ludicrous. If you’re looking for a point by point rebuttal, you might be disappointed. You may in fact offer valuable insight into this issue that I may not have considered before. If you do, I’ll acknowledge it rather than argue against it.
There are no winners in debates. Everyone is a loser, including the audience. That’s because nobody is willing to lose and so defend their bad arguments to the death. It is hoped that in this discussion setting, you and I can share both our good and bad arguments without fear we’re somehow going to be embarrassed. It seems you are averse to acknowledging any valid argument I might make, as though we’re in a debate. That’s your problem not mine. It’s not necessary. If I make a reasonable argument, the audience will know.
I would like to think that have some objectivity left in this brain of mine. Yes, it's been subjected to bullshit for its entire life. It has taken an enormous amount of effort on my part to screen out the bullshit. So, please don't get upset just because I don't jump to embrace your argument.
I make no claim to have all the answers. In fact, I know that I do not and readily admit it. I just don't know which of my answers are the wrong answers. If I did, I'd abandon them. I also know I cannot trust others to sort out the truth for me. That's what allowed me to be dumbed-down in the first place. This recognition has, I think, helped me find better answers.
From your posts, it sounds to me that you think I have not and will not bring anything of value to this discussion. If that’s your position, fine. I don’t care. I am simply offering what I think is reasonable. Others may or may not find value, I don’t know.
You seem to take the position that there can only be one correct approach to this issue and it’s yours. Thank you very much, but I like to think in less absolutist terms about complex issues.
3. I quite understand your definition. I also quite understand how it is abused by those with a religious agenda. Whether you admit it or not, you have opened the door to abuses and they are legion. I try to point out the problem, but you seem resistant to seeing any possibility of a problem.
And if this discussion continues, we may explore some of those abuses further. But for now, the all-powerless god example will suffice. Until we have opportunity to talk about this more, I haven’t found good reason to conclude that your alternative definition is without problems as you claim.
4) I have a fair amount of experience with sophistry and apologetic flim-flam. Enough to know when someone is trying to rob me of the ability to make an informed decision or whether someone is simply trying to make an honest effort to answer a complex issue. So, I am not as eager as you are to condemn something as sophistry. Especially, if I think the person or argument doesn’t spring from that agenda.
If one thinks about it… one can make the argument that many valid questions sound like they might be a loaded question in some respect or another. But many of these questions are valid questions. Accusations of “loaded question fallacy” can end up flying around without any real merit.
Consider this… “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Sounds like a loaded question to me. But suppose the person asking this question knows the responder has a history of beating his wife. Is it really a “loaded question” and thus unfair to the responder? I don’t think so.
Again… “Have you spent all the money you stole?”
Sounds loaded to me. But suppose the responder has just admitted stealing the money. Not a loaded question anymore from my point of view.
So, my point here is that mitigating circumstances or other information may have significant and relevant impact upon whether a question is loaded or is a valid question. You may not think that a reasonable position. I do.
I find no reason to believe the rock question was intended to deny the responder a reasonable alternative answer. Nor do I see the question as giving a victory to the questioner and denying it from the responder. Just as in the, “Have you spent all the money you stole?” question, the questioner had the victory long before even asking the question.
But let’s ask ourselves what this so-called reasonable alternative answer is supposed to be. When I was a Christian, I could think of lots of flim-flam alternative answers but I couldn’t think of a single reasonable alternative answer. And I still can’t.
All the answers I could contrive had only one objective, “Evade the obvious paradox problem. Pretend it doesn’t exist. But under no circumstances acknowledge the paradox.”
So, the so-called unfair question was given a very dishonest answer and never a reasonable answer.
I agree whole heartedly. However, “the most powerful being imaginable” is “most-powerful” and only “most-powerful.” He/she is not all-powerful, unlimited-power or omnipotent.
I agree with you that, “True omnipotence is logically impossible, this is easily demonstrable.”
So, why insist on trying to eliminate “true omnipotence” paradox with alternative definitions? You see the problem and even say so, but then you want to nullify the problem. I’m still trying to figure out why.
Adrian, I Googled “Sermon - With God all things are possible.” Thousands of Christian sermons were made available to me. I started reading. I read a total of nine sermons. The ninth was the first to mention anything about God’s power being limited in any way whatsoever. And that sermon, to the preacher’s credit, told the whole story. (True, nine sermons isn't many, but I got tired.)
So, it occurs to me that preaching about how nothing is impossible with god, over and over, and simply omitting the fact that maybe that’s not quite true in the literal sense, is totally dishonest and misleading. I am sure there are many young naïve, gullible and impressionable minds in those congregations that believe God can do anything. You say you have never met any of them but I have.
Maybe, if eight of those sermons mentioned the limits of God’s power, I might feel differently.
Again… Why wouldn’t it simply make more sense and be more honest of the religious community to simply define God as you did? “The most powerful being imaginable.”
OK, so you are maintaining that alternative definitions are not themselves problematic. At the moment, I seem to be at a loss as to what evidence you would accept that would convince you otherwise. Perhaps you could suggest some?
You claim that my all-powerless god example ignored your argument completely. I’m sorry Adrian. Maybe I’m just stupid, but I don’t think I was ignoring your argument, I think I was trying very hard to comply with it.
What is logically possible for my powerless god to do that it cannot do? If you respond with “exist,” I will respond by defining my powerless god’s nature to have the sole power to exist. Now what?
Surely, an objective inquirer should be able to see that I can simply redefine my god in response to your every objection and still qualify as omnipotent, using your definition. But, go ahead… give it a shot. What must my god be logically able to do, that you claim it cannot do? It would be a valuable experiment, if nothing else, and who knows, maybe you’ll present me with a hurdle I can’t overcome.
1. Omnipotence is the ability to perform every member of “universal set of tasks.”
2. If “proposed task” is logically possible, then “proposed task” is a member of “universal set of tasks.” (By definition of powerless god’s nature, it is logically possible for “powerless god to exist. Don’t see a problem here, Adrian. What's the problem?)
3. If “proposed task” is logically impossible, then “proposed task” is not a member of “universal set of tasks.” (By definition of powerless god’s nature, it is logically impossible for powerless god to perform other tasks. Therefore, no other tasks are a member of “universal set of tasks.” Again, don’t see a problem here, Adrian. What's the problem?)
4. If “proposed task” is not a member of “universal set of tasks.”, then “proposed task” is a “non-task”. (Looks like powerless god gets a free-pass by simply being able to exist. If not, why not?)
5. All “non-tasks” form a null set Ø.
Well, Adrian. One contradiction jumps out right away. Qualified limited-power isn’t unlimited-power.
Further, you accuse me of personifying the set of logically possible things and then you turn around and excuse the personifying of the Christian god’s logically possible things. Sorry, from where I sit, the nature of the Christian god is personifying. So are the Christian god’s laws. Both are unique to the Christian god. There are other god’s, you know. Hinduism has tens of thousands.
To define a powerless god’s nature as “not able do tasks” is no more personifying than defining the Christian god as unable to sin or break it’s own unique laws.
It appears to me that you are eager to give the nature of the Christian god a free-pass, (maybe other god's as well,) while refusing to give my powerless god equal considerations.
PS: I find it interesting that you think the Christian God is not ordered. But that’s a question for another time.
Concept A – Unlimited power - A being can do anything. (A paradox)
Concept B – Qualified Limited power - A being can do anything within logical limits (Most of which are personifications suggested by the religious community using their logic, specifically tailored to the limitations of their god). (No paradox.)
2) I never said I wouldn’t defend my ideas. In fact, that’s all I’ve done from the beginning. I simply do not intend to make this a pissing contest. But maybe that’s what you want. I don’t know.
You have reasons for your position. I want to hear them. If I think there’s a flaw, I’ll say so. But to suggest that I must disagree with you simply because you make an argument is ludicrous. If you’re looking for a point by point rebuttal, you might be disappointed. You may in fact offer valuable insight into this issue that I may not have considered before. If you do, I’ll acknowledge it rather than argue against it.
There are no winners in debates. Everyone is a loser, including the audience. That’s because nobody is willing to lose and so defend their bad arguments to the death. It is hoped that in this discussion setting, you and I can share both our good and bad arguments without fear we’re somehow going to be embarrassed. It seems you are averse to acknowledging any valid argument I might make, as though we’re in a debate. That’s your problem not mine. It’s not necessary. If I make a reasonable argument, the audience will know.
I would like to think that have some objectivity left in this brain of mine. Yes, it's been subjected to bullshit for its entire life. It has taken an enormous amount of effort on my part to screen out the bullshit. So, please don't get upset just because I don't jump to embrace your argument.
I make no claim to have all the answers. In fact, I know that I do not and readily admit it. I just don't know which of my answers are the wrong answers. If I did, I'd abandon them. I also know I cannot trust others to sort out the truth for me. That's what allowed me to be dumbed-down in the first place. This recognition has, I think, helped me find better answers.
From your posts, it sounds to me that you think I have not and will not bring anything of value to this discussion. If that’s your position, fine. I don’t care. I am simply offering what I think is reasonable. Others may or may not find value, I don’t know.
You seem to take the position that there can only be one correct approach to this issue and it’s yours. Thank you very much, but I like to think in less absolutist terms about complex issues.
3. I quite understand your definition. I also quite understand how it is abused by those with a religious agenda. Whether you admit it or not, you have opened the door to abuses and they are legion. I try to point out the problem, but you seem resistant to seeing any possibility of a problem.
And if this discussion continues, we may explore some of those abuses further. But for now, the all-powerless god example will suffice. Until we have opportunity to talk about this more, I haven’t found good reason to conclude that your alternative definition is without problems as you claim.
4) I have a fair amount of experience with sophistry and apologetic flim-flam. Enough to know when someone is trying to rob me of the ability to make an informed decision or whether someone is simply trying to make an honest effort to answer a complex issue. So, I am not as eager as you are to condemn something as sophistry. Especially, if I think the person or argument doesn’t spring from that agenda.
If one thinks about it… one can make the argument that many valid questions sound like they might be a loaded question in some respect or another. But many of these questions are valid questions. Accusations of “loaded question fallacy” can end up flying around without any real merit.
Consider this… “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Sounds like a loaded question to me. But suppose the person asking this question knows the responder has a history of beating his wife. Is it really a “loaded question” and thus unfair to the responder? I don’t think so.
Again… “Have you spent all the money you stole?”
Sounds loaded to me. But suppose the responder has just admitted stealing the money. Not a loaded question anymore from my point of view.
So, my point here is that mitigating circumstances or other information may have significant and relevant impact upon whether a question is loaded or is a valid question. You may not think that a reasonable position. I do.
I find no reason to believe the rock question was intended to deny the responder a reasonable alternative answer. Nor do I see the question as giving a victory to the questioner and denying it from the responder. Just as in the, “Have you spent all the money you stole?” question, the questioner had the victory long before even asking the question.
But let’s ask ourselves what this so-called reasonable alternative answer is supposed to be. When I was a Christian, I could think of lots of flim-flam alternative answers but I couldn’t think of a single reasonable alternative answer. And I still can’t.
All the answers I could contrive had only one objective, “Evade the obvious paradox problem. Pretend it doesn’t exist. But under no circumstances acknowledge the paradox.”
So, the so-called unfair question was given a very dishonest answer and never a reasonable answer.
Tiberius Wrote: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.
I agree whole heartedly. However, “the most powerful being imaginable” is “most-powerful” and only “most-powerful.” He/she is not all-powerful, unlimited-power or omnipotent.
Tiberius Wrote:True omnipotence is logically impossible, this is easily demonstrable.
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.
I agree with you that, “True omnipotence is logically impossible, this is easily demonstrable.”
So, why insist on trying to eliminate “true omnipotence” paradox with alternative definitions? You see the problem and even say so, but then you want to nullify the problem. I’m still trying to figure out why.
Tiberius Wrote:The religious community rarely ever use this definition for their Gods though, so it seems futile to even bring it up.
Adrian, I Googled “Sermon - With God all things are possible.” Thousands of Christian sermons were made available to me. I started reading. I read a total of nine sermons. The ninth was the first to mention anything about God’s power being limited in any way whatsoever. And that sermon, to the preacher’s credit, told the whole story. (True, nine sermons isn't many, but I got tired.)
So, it occurs to me that preaching about how nothing is impossible with god, over and over, and simply omitting the fact that maybe that’s not quite true in the literal sense, is totally dishonest and misleading. I am sure there are many young naïve, gullible and impressionable minds in those congregations that believe God can do anything. You say you have never met any of them but I have.
Maybe, if eight of those sermons mentioned the limits of God’s power, I might feel differently.
Again… Why wouldn’t it simply make more sense and be more honest of the religious community to simply define God as you did? “The most powerful being imaginable.”
OK, so you are maintaining that alternative definitions are not themselves problematic. At the moment, I seem to be at a loss as to what evidence you would accept that would convince you otherwise. Perhaps you could suggest some?
You claim that my all-powerless god example ignored your argument completely. I’m sorry Adrian. Maybe I’m just stupid, but I don’t think I was ignoring your argument, I think I was trying very hard to comply with it.
Tiberius Wrote: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.
What is logically possible for my powerless god to do that it cannot do? If you respond with “exist,” I will respond by defining my powerless god’s nature to have the sole power to exist. Now what?
Surely, an objective inquirer should be able to see that I can simply redefine my god in response to your every objection and still qualify as omnipotent, using your definition. But, go ahead… give it a shot. What must my god be logically able to do, that you claim it cannot do? It would be a valuable experiment, if nothing else, and who knows, maybe you’ll present me with a hurdle I can’t overcome.
Tiberius Wrote: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, no matter 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.
1. Omnipotence is the ability to perform every member of “universal set of tasks.”
2. If “proposed task” is logically possible, then “proposed task” is a member of “universal set of tasks.” (By definition of powerless god’s nature, it is logically possible for “powerless god to exist. Don’t see a problem here, Adrian. What's the problem?)
3. If “proposed task” is logically impossible, then “proposed task” is not a member of “universal set of tasks.” (By definition of powerless god’s nature, it is logically impossible for powerless god to perform other tasks. Therefore, no other tasks are a member of “universal set of tasks.” Again, don’t see a problem here, Adrian. What's the problem?)
4. If “proposed task” is not a member of “universal set of tasks.”, then “proposed task” is a “non-task”. (Looks like powerless god gets a free-pass by simply being able to exist. If not, why not?)
5. All “non-tasks” form a null set Ø.
Tiberius Wrote:I'm not licensing flim-flam; I disagree that it is flim-flam. There are no viable contradictions to my definition of all-powerful.
Well, Adrian. One contradiction jumps out right away. Qualified limited-power isn’t unlimited-power.
Further, you accuse me of personifying the set of logically possible things and then you turn around and excuse the personifying of the Christian god’s logically possible things. Sorry, from where I sit, the nature of the Christian god is personifying. So are the Christian god’s laws. Both are unique to the Christian god. There are other god’s, you know. Hinduism has tens of thousands.
To define a powerless god’s nature as “not able do tasks” is no more personifying than defining the Christian god as unable to sin or break it’s own unique laws.
It appears to me that you are eager to give the nature of the Christian god a free-pass, (maybe other god's as well,) while refusing to give my powerless god equal considerations.
PS: I find it interesting that you think the Christian God is not ordered. But that’s a question for another time.
