[ARCHIVED] - A Discussion of the "All-Powerful" Nature of Gods

[Tiberius]

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.

[Secularone]

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.

[Tiberius]

I'm not quite sure to make of all this. The discussion idea came from PMs sent between myself and Secularone over the debate between Arcanus and Saerules. I made a post somewhere on the forum about how the "rock fallacy" (The question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?") was a stupid argument, and Secularone wrote to me arguing how it was a valid question.

We decided quickly that it would be best to put this in some kind of public discussion.

What I expected was some kind of discussion about the argument, perhaps the concept of omnipotence, etc. Instead I find him arguing that omnipotence cannot possibly be the ability to do anything without exception (and I agree, as does any philosopher). I find him then giving an example and making a strawman of my argument, and then going on some unrelated mini-biography about his life as a Christian.

So the first chunk I can ignore; I agree with him completely. If an omnipotent being had the ability to do anything without exception, and we count a state of being in that set (since "to be" is an action), then this being must both exist and not exist, a blatant contradiction, since if it didn't exist it wouldn't have the power of omnipotence in the first place.

The third chunk I can also ignore; not entirely sure why it was even there, but hey.

The second, and unfortunately smaller chunk of his post says this:

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.”

Well no, that's not correct at all. My definition is completely different from the first definition given. My definition is perhaps more in line with the 3rd definition, that an omnipotent being can do anything within it's nature. Further, I 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.

Secularone's hypothetical God is powerless; it cannot do anything. So when presented with action x of the set of logically possible things, it cannot do it. Since it cannot do every one of these actions, it cannot be omnipotent.

I think the mistake Secularone is making is trying to personify the set of logically possible things. The set of logically possible things does not change depending on who is trying to do them. It stays the same, according to logic alone. A human might be able to do many of the logically possible things in the set, but if it cannot do them all, it is not omnipotent.

Onto the rock fallacy. The question "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" is an obvious loaded question. It poses two questions into one, in hopes that a person will answer the question as a whole rather than the two inner questions separately. The two inner questions are polar opposites of omnipotence (one in favour, one opposed) so that both a yes or a no answer to the loaded question negates one of the inner questions, allowing the questioner to claim victory.

The two inner questions are:

X) Can God create a rock?
Y) Can God fail at lifting that rock?

The possible answers to these two questions (asked together but as separate questions) are as follows:

X: Yes, Y: Yes - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can fail at lifting the rock).
X: No, Y: No - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can't create the rock).
X: Yes, Y: No - No contradiction of omnipotence. God can both create the rock and not fail at lifting it (i.e. he can lift it).
X: No, Y: Yes - Contradiction of omnipotence (since God can't create the rock).

You do not need to separate out the questions to see the loaded question fallacy either. The question relies on someone replying either "yes" or "no", as do many loaded questions. A common example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?", where either a "yes" or a "no" will incriminate you in some way to wife beating (either in the past or the present). However the question can easily be answered "I have never beaten my wife", revealing the loaded question.

Likewise with the rock fallacy, if someone asks "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?", a possible answer is "God can always lift the rocks he creates", again, revealing the loaded question.

[Secularone]

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.

[Tiberius]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.