The logical consequences of omnipotence

[fr0d0]

Please note: I'm talking about psychologically and mentally training people, not about potty training

lol

I my sister

A Christian would persuade you EsQ of the positive benefits, and then invite you to believe to witness it for yourself.

That being the only way for you to understand it. There is literally no other way. It's really commendable that you're so interested to understand, and I wish I could help you more. Of course I will if it occurs to me how.

[Ryantology]

Seriously... God cannot be understood from a position of unbelief, it is completely not possible.

I was a believer for most of my life, as are many here, and I've conducted this argument from both sides. The loss or rejection of that faith does not mean you lose the understanding you once had.

The only real difference, fundamentally, is that I once argued from a position assuming that God was real and that his scriptures were basically sound and true. I no longer make that assumption, and now my understanding of God is that of a fictional character, like any of a million others in literature. As there exists no evidence to suggest God is anything but a fictional character, that is how I understand him, and in all likelihood, that is the correct way to understand him.

There is nothing 'stupid' about not taking someone else's assumptions to be factual when you are in a debate with them, and indeed, that would make it silly to do so. Pointing out the problems inherent with the God these people worship serves to illustrate what is the atheist debater's fundamental point: God is a human invention. The reason there is no answer to these problems is not because we lack an understanding, it is because the very concept is flawed.

Case in point:

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

This raises two enormous problems with the very idea of God the Absolutely Perfect Creator of the Universe:

1. The problem of Logic: if God is bound to comply with the rules of logic, then he necessarily cannot have created the rules. There already existed rules and God cannot act contradictory to those rules. This raises an insurmountable problem.

A common theist justification for the existence of God, and 'proof' that he created the universe, is the First Cause idea. They claim that the universe must have had a creator because 'something cannot happen from nothing'. Ignoring the fact that this reflects a complete lack of understanding about Big Bang theory, it moves the goalposts back one step. The universe cannot have come from nothing, but God can? It's special pleading, asking for an exception because the entire argument is invalid without it, and there is absolutely no reason to accept it, as it ultimately does not provide a satisfactory answer.

2. If God was the Prime Mover, he must have been, himself, moved, the result of other actions, and if you follow creationist logic, you have to assume that the Creator was, himself, the creation of a being even higher than he is. Of course, the Creator's Creator cannot have come from 'nothing', so it too must have had a Creator. And so on. Because you'll never be able to point to a specific time and say 'this is where everything, ever, in any possible frame of existence, began'.

The only way this can be terminated is to finally accept that dumb natural processes ultimately gave form to intelligence of some variety, in this case, God. That raises a completely different problem: if God is, himself, the result of a process just like an atheist is likely to believe we do, why worship it? The very basis of God worship in the monotheisms is the idea that God is the absolute highest everything. If he is not, then he is no more worthy of worship from us than we would be from a toaster or washing machine.

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.

There is no reason to 'assume' God from any other perspective until it can be demonstrated that any other perspective exists, and it is furthermore the height of arrogance to suggest that you are capable of doing it, as your understanding is every bit as subject to human prejudices and assumptions as mine. The evidence we have makes it all but certain that God is the invention of human perspectives, and on top of that, God as he is depicted in the Bible behaves in an entirely human fashion, with human emotions and human methods of thought progression, He is jealous, cranky, angry, disappointed, persuasive, happy and satisfied, vengeful and murderous. He states outright that he does what he does because he can. There is nothing about it which comes across as alien to human perspective, and while the theist will argue that it doesn't make sense because God thinks differently, the truth is, it makes perfect sense because there are plenty of people who show behavior traits identical to those displayed by God. Most of them we keep locked away in padded rooms.

Every suggestion that God's thinking is alien, or that he is not bound by the rules of time and space, is such naked conjecture that it is simply not worth considering, as it serves only to dodge questions and dance around bullets. It is a non-answer, and it is the 'dogpile of stupidity', because it requires no intellect and requires us to be satisfied with being ignorant. "Seeing things from God's perspective" is a nice way of say ing "Accepting baseless, illogical assertions, and defending them with more baseless, illogical assertions". It is an easy task. Any idiot can do it. The only limit is the scope of your imagination.

In short, fr0d0 is drowning in the deep end, and you're tossing him a life raft. You don't get to say 'nuh-uh' unless you've made a point and demonstrated it to be true beyond doubt.

[Violet]

I was a believer for most of my life, as are many here, and I've conducted this argument from both sides. The loss or rejection of that faith does not mean you lose the understanding you once had.

Umm, by definition it must. One *cannot* understand anything thing modified with 'with God'... without God. It's really that simple.

The only real difference, fundamentally, is that I once argued from a position assuming that God was real and that his scriptures were basically sound and true. I no longer make that assumption, and now my understanding of God is that of a fictional character, like any of a million others in literature. As there exists no evidence to suggest God is anything but a fictional character, that is how I understand him, and in all likelihood, that is the correct way to understand him.

You're making my point for me...

* Violet understands how fr0d0 feels now

There is nothing 'stupid' about not taking someone else's assumptions to be factual when you are in a debate with them, and indeed, that would make it silly to do so. Pointing out the problems inherent with the God these people worship serves to illustrate what is the atheist debater's fundamental point: God is a human invention. The reason there is no answer to these problems is not because we lack an understanding, it is because the very concept is flawed.

Even if God were a human invention (we're putting humans on a pedestal the really don't deserve here)... that does not change the fact that one cannot understand a thing with God... without.

This raises two enormous problems with the very idea of God the Absolutely Perfect Creator of the Universe:

1. The problem of Logic: if God is bound to comply with the rules of logic, then he necessarily cannot have created the rules. There already existed rules and God cannot act contradictory to those rules. This raises an insurmountable problem.

That God *does* comply with logic doesn't mean he necessarily must. Why would he create a rule he planned to break, however? You're overthinking things.

A common theist justification for the existence of God, and 'proof' that he created the universe, is the First Cause idea. They claim that the universe must have had a creator because 'something cannot happen from nothing'. Ignoring the fact that this reflects a complete lack of understanding about Big Bang theory, it moves the goalposts back one step. The universe cannot have come from nothing, but God can? It's special pleading, asking for an exception because the entire argument is invalid without it, and there is absolutely no reason to accept it, as it ultimately does not provide a satisfactory answer.

God didn't come from nothing under such an argument, as it's implied he is eternal and has always been. Funny thing about metaphysics: they don't have to work with physics.

If God was the Prime Mover, he must have been, himself, moved, the result of other actions, and if you follow creationist logic, you have to assume that the Creator was, himself, the creation of a being even higher than he is. Of course, the Creator's Creator cannot have come from 'nothing', so it too must have had a Creator. And so on. Because you'll never be able to point to a specific time and say 'this is where everything, ever, in any possible frame of existence, began'.

I don't know... I don't see any reason for him to have physically moved (ever). What would the purpose of that be?

You do realize that by proxy, you're also stating that the Big Bang couldn't have happened in a vacuum. Ultimately, this entire exercise is pointless because of this: Everything exists. And humans are pretty limited in their scope

The only way this can be terminated is to finally accept that dumb natural processes ultimately gave form to intelligence of some variety, in this case, God. That raises a completely different problem: if God is, himself, the result of a process just like an atheist is likely to believe we do, why worship it? The very basis of God worship in the monotheisms is the idea that God is the absolute highest everything. If he is not, then he is no more worthy of worship from us than we would be from a toaster or washing machine.

Assuming you're right... why not worship a being with the power to wipe your entire civilization out? It seems to me I'd rather be on its good side, or at least not on its bad side.

There is no reason to 'assume' God from any other perspective until it can be demonstrated that any other perspective exists, and it is furthermore the height of arrogance to suggest that you are capable of doing it, as your understanding is every bit as subject to human prejudices and assumptions as mine. The evidence we have makes it all but certain that God is the invention of human perspectives, and on top of that, God as he is depicted in the Bible behaves in an entirely human fashion, with human emotions and human methods of thought progression, He is jealous, cranky, angry, disappointed, persuasive, happy and satisfied, vengeful and murderous. He states outright that he does what he does because he can. There is nothing about it which comes across as alien to human perspective, and while the theist will argue that it doesn't make sense because God thinks differently, the truth is, it makes perfect sense because there are plenty of people who show behavior traits identical to those displayed by God. Most of them we keep locked away in padded rooms.

Because Solipsism, am I right? You *cannot* demonstrate that any other perspective than your own exists anywhere but in your own head. Much as I despise them for their absence of faith: they are right.

I'd note that the bible even states that we were made in God's image... so comparing us to him and finding no difference is to state precisely that the Bible is correct.

Every suggestion that God's thinking is alien, or that he is not bound by the rules of time and space, is such naked conjecture that it is simply not worth considering, as it serves only to dodge questions and dance around bullets. It is a non-answer, and it is the 'dogpile of stupidity', because it requires no intellect and requires us to be satisfied with being ignorant. "Seeing things from God's perspective" is a nice way of say ing "Accepting baseless, illogical assertions, and defending them with more baseless, illogical assertions". It is an easy task. Any idiot can do it. The only limit is the scope of your imagination.

Actually, it serves to assist in understanding precisely what God is (likely metaphysical). If one has assumed God, it is worth their consideration, if one has not taken God on faith, none of it is worth their consideration. You do have to believe in God to know God, belief being required as to whether one has faith or not.

What makes it a dogpile is that he's outnumbered by more than 5, and what makes it stupid is the requests being asked of him. It really does take no intellect to jump on a bandwagon that doesn't make any sense, only faith in its truth... and it does require one to be satisfied with their ignorance, as if they took a moment to question their party, they might find they disagree with its tenets.

Actually, once a thing as been assumed as true, it IS logical to use logic to defend it. The circular logic that many Christians use to defend their religion *is identical* to the circular logic that we use to defend *logic itself*. There is no evidence outside itself for it being so...

Finally... imagination is no easy task, and not even close to anyone is capable of it... you'll note my common complaint that people are simply not creative? Well, it's true

In short, fr0d0 is drowning in the deep end, and you're tossing him a life raft. You don't get to say 'nuh-uh' unless you've made a point and demonstrated it to be true beyond doubt.

I do demonstrate that which can be demonstrated... can't be helped when people ask for the impossible to be demonstrated

[fr0d0]

I am perpetually shocked at the ability of existentialists to understand this. I've noticed it elsewhere, but my sister is extraordinary if I say so myself.

In the following you're starting a new topic between us Ryan. Just to make that clear.

1. The problem of Logic: if God is bound to comply with the rules of logic, then he necessarily cannot have created the rules

2. If God was the Prime Mover, he must have been, himself, moved

1. God isn't compelled. God originates it. To make sense of everything coming from God, God must be logical. Otherwise we would need to assume that physics, for example, should be illogical. Our shared world view is that cause produces effect with reason.

2. That's a contradiction. If God wasn't the prime mover, ie he had to be moved by something, then he wasn't the prime mover. Prime mover means just that... prime.

[Ryantology]

Umm, by definition it must. One *cannot* understand anything thing modified with 'with God'... without God. It's really that simple.

That can only be true if God exists. And there is no evidence he does. We are all no more with God than we are with Harry Potter.

Even if God were a human invention (we're putting humans on a pedestal the really don't deserve here)... that does not change the fact that one cannot understand a thing with God... without.

Until there is evidence of God's existence, this is an unacceptable statement.

That God *does* comply with logic doesn't mean he necessarily must. Why would he create a rule he planned to break, however? You're overthinking things.

Then, we're back to "can God make a rock God cannot lift", and the unanswered problem of omnipotence. We've gotten nowhere.

God didn't come from nothing under such an argument, as it's implied he is eternal and has always been. Funny thing about metaphysics: they don't have to work with physics.

It is a baseless assertion (metaphysics) backing up another baseless assertion (God's existence) supported by a baseless assertion (it is possible for anything to be eternal).

Metaphysics is a term which gives respect to absurdity.

You do realize that by proxy, you're also stating that the Big Bang couldn't have happened in a vacuum. Ultimately, this entire exercise is pointless because of this: Everything exists. And humans are pretty limited in their scope

The Big Bang could not have happened in a vacuum. All the stuff that makes up the universe was already there, condensed into a singularity. We have no idea of what that state was like, but there is no paradox to avoid.

Assuming you're right... why not worship a being with the power to wipe your entire civilization out? It seems to me I'd rather be on its good side, or at least not on its bad side.

I don't worship a being who is said to have that power, and nothing has happened.

Because Solipsism, am I right? You *cannot* demonstrate that any other perspective than your own exists anywhere but in your own head. Much as I despise them for their absence of faith: they are right.

It is not solipsism at all. I can make the easy assumption that there are other human perspectives, because I see compelling evidence that other humans exist and operate, mentally, in a fashion very similar to myself. I can make a convincing argument, falling just short of objective evidence, that I am not the only conscious human in the world. Such does not apply to God.

I'd note that the bible even states that we were made in God's image... so comparing us to him and finding no difference is to state precisely that the Bible is correct.

Unless you can prove that the Bible is an infallible account of God, then all it proves is that the writers of the Bible were not as imaginative as we are.

What makes it a dogpile is that he's outnumbered by more than 5, and what makes it stupid is the requests being asked of him. It really does take no intellect to jump on a bandwagon that doesn't make any sense, only faith in its truth... and it does require one to be satisfied with their ignorance, as if they took a moment to question their party, they might find they disagree with its tenets.

This is mindblowing. If a person makes an assertion he cannot prove or in any way demonstrate to have any basis in reality, we're stupid to require him to make that demonstration? We may as well not have brains, if that is how we are supposed to think.

Actually, once a thing as been assumed as true, it IS logical to use logic to defend it. The circular logic that many Christians use to defend their religion *is identical* to the circular logic that we use to defend *logic itself*. There is no evidence outside itself for it being so...

It is not identical. Logic itself can be defensed by observation and empirical inquiry. It can be tested. Assertions of God are specifically designed to avoid testing, because testing that faith shows its fraudulent nature.

It is true that both ultimately end up requiring us to make assumptions, but logic has a definite buffer between itself and pure solipsism. God has none. It exists 100% as a subjective experience even according to those who accept it, and what better defines 'solipsism'?

[Violet]

That can only be true if God exists. And there is no evidence he does. We are all no more with God than we are with Harry Potter.

Everything exists, which is self-evidential. Just as with God, you cannot have 'X belief with Harry Potter'... without Harry Potter. It is simple logic, pick better battles.

Until there is evidence of God's existence, this is an unacceptable statement.

The evidence of God's existence is *all around you*. Literally. But only if you've arrived at the basis of God in the first place. Simply: by reaching this point, everything becomes evidence of God (since the being made everything), without coming to it: nothing is evidential of God. Which can actually be pretty damn convincing, if you think about it

Then, we're back to "can God make a rock God cannot lift", and the unanswered problem of omnipotence. We've gotten nowhere.

If God can contradict logic? He absolutely can. And then he can lift the rock he couldn't lift (we've abandoned logic, no?). Alternately... why would God perform a task that is impossible by his rules?

Use your head: What a thing is capable of INCLUDES their mentality. I'm not actually capable of killing anyone intentionally, despite my physical ability to do so.

Of course... I love seeing the word 'logic' thrown out in the same post as a loaded question. That shit's entertaining because it's stupid, you're not helping your case here... I mean, when did you last rape your daughter?

It is a baseless assertion (metaphysics) backing up another baseless assertion (God's existence) supported by a baseless assertion (it is possible for anything to be eternal).

Metaphysics is a term which gives respect to absurdity.

You do, of course, realize... METAPHYSICS ARE ABSURD. They do not comply with your tiny human understanding of physics. The cosmos IS eternal, as it has always been, so forever shall it be... and this is simple physics and philosophy, we're not even going into metaphysics or metaphor here: IT SHALL ALWAYS EXIST, regardless of what its existence consists of.

Unless of course, there is no universe at all, and we are just tiny bits data in a game. Metaphysics are not meant to be understood with physics, it is impossible Not applicable.

The Big Bang could not have happened in a vacuum. All the stuff that makes up the universe was already there, condensed into a singularity. We have no idea of what that state was like, but there is no paradox to avoid.

Well there you have it: the universe is eternal, by your own statement. Now you tell me: how must God not be *just like the universe you've stated to be an eternal process*?

I don't worship a being who is said to have that power, and nothing has happened.

* Violet shrugs.

Yet. It's nice when a god grows up and matures, isn't it?

It is not solipsism at all. I can make the easy assumption that there are other human perspectives, because I see compelling evidence that other humans exist and operate, mentally, in a fashion very similar to myself. I can make a convincing argument, falling just short of objective evidence, that I am not the only conscious human in the world. Such does not apply to God.

Oh, I'm sure you do. Because you can place blind faith into what you see, isn't that lovely? I can make a convincing argument for *anything in the fucking world*, and unless I am *actually generating the universe*: I will eternally fall short of objective evidence.

You are as likely the only conscious human in the world as there is not a God. I can make baseless and philosophically retarded statements too, only I don't pretend for a moment that I'm better than you. Regardless, you might want to learn about philosophy before you start shitting it out your left ankle, because girl: you got some work to do.

Unless you can prove that the Bible is an infallible account of God, then all it proves is that the writers of the Bible were not as imaginative as we are.

The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible tells me it is the word of God.
The Bible is infallible.

A=A
≠A≠A
A≠≠A

Neither of these things has *any* evidence except from itself. The first is the Bible, the second is Logic itself.

This is mindblowing. If a person makes an assertion he cannot prove or in any way demonstrate to have any basis in reality, we're stupid to require him to make that demonstration? We may as well not have brains, if that is how we are supposed to think.

You're building straw men here, fr0d0 has yet to make an assertion he cannot prove or demonstrate, but you've certainly asked him to make *many* demonstrations that cannot be made. I'm not really one for shifting crimes off on other people, yknow?

Indeed, you may as well not have brains, if this is how you mistreat them.

It is not identical. Logic itself can be defensed by observation and empirical inquiry. It can be tested. Assertions of God are specifically designed to avoid testing, because testing that faith shows its fraudulent nature.

... Only after assuming logic to be true, can it be defended by observation or empirical inquiry. Same goes for God, the moment God is assumed true: it can be defended by observation and empirical inquiry. Assertions of God are made by the faithful, who often do not understand that without God these assertions fall apart, just as assertions against God are made by the unfaithful, who often do not understand that with God: these assertions fall apart.

I call it 'bliss'.

It is true that both ultimately end up requiring us to make assumptions, but logic has a definite buffer between itself and pure solipsism. God has none. It exists 100% as a subjective experience even according to those who accept it, and what better defines 'solipsism'?

Oh definitely, but logic has ABSOLUTELY NO BUFFER between itself and doubt... if you doubt logic, then logic cannot defend the assertions made against it. QED.

God has none, it's true. Infact... nothing you can possibly believe has a buffer between itself and doubt... either there is faith and it is true and the universe works with it, or there is not faith and it is false and the universe does not apply to it.

What best defines solipsism is an absence of faith in any but logic. By logic, the only thing we can demonstrate is the self and logic. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity, as by itself: there is no functional difference between the two, as they exist one and the same.

All beliefs are 100% subjective, regardless of whether they are intersubjectively recognized as being true. So if they DIDN'T admit that God is subjective: they'd be wrong, like you in your intent of declaring it subjective.

[Ryantology]

That is the most impressive display of diversionary babble I have seen in a long time.

[Violet]

That is the most impressive display of diversionary babble I have seen in a long time.

Well, once you stop using terrible arguments, you might see yourself being agreed with by the esteemed philosophers of our forum

I miss Void and Rabbit, I even miss Revvie a little bit. Luckily, we still got us a Tiberius And a fr0d0 too, that bootlicker

Man, you should see me when I'm actually being diversionary, and not giving your posts an actual response (that is over your head)... I can make up some incredible stuff on the fly

[Ryantology]

If one loses a philosophical debate by not retreating all the way to the solipsistic barrier, than I am soundly defeated.

[Violet]

If one loses a philosophical debate by not retreating all the way to the solipsistic barrier, than I am soundly defeated.

You do make a sound case of nonsensical straw men, don't you?

I hate solipsism.