Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[Caecilian]

So fr0d0 seems to think the following:

1. God is omnipotent.

and

2. God cannot do various things (lie, commit evil) that humans can do.

Well that would be wrong. But then you insist on looking at something logical illogically, I don't know why.

The statement is fallatious.

Omnipotent, all powerful (from the Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") - is the draining of/ the taking away of power also power? It seems you require this to be so. But that doesn't make it so does it?

So... an all powerful being can only be powerful, and not anti powerful, as that would be contradictory. If you care to think about the construct of the god idea you may notice that it is entirely positive. Obviously omnimax does not entail self destruction.

As far as I can tell, this is gibberish. I really have no idea at all what most of this is supposed to mean, if anything.

But then, on reflection, the whole concept of omnipotence may be gibberish too. Perhaps any definition of omnipotence turns out to be self-contradictory.

[fr0d0]

---

We're not talking about something of a conundrum, it's about you giving an account for WHY God necessarily has attributes he cannot go against - why he has a nature he is BOUND by.

Not only that, he can make things that don't abide by that nature. If he is the author of natural laws and he is omnipotent, there should be absolutely nothing stopping him from making a squared circle or acting against his nature.

However, in the sense you're describing, these laws prescribe God's actions rather than describe actions - by strictly giving him necessary attributes, something which you cannot do with an infinitely powerful being.

Omnipotent means he has the power to do absolutely anything, in any context. How is it at all possible for him not to be able to act in a certain way?

---

I can't limit God, and don't If I can help it. We have a construct ready made to work with, and I agree with it. You seemingly don't, for no good reason, as you keep pointing out. I agree with your disagreements with yourself. those are logical self refutations.

[Paul the Human]

Bullshit, fr0d0. You are failing to address the valid points and questions being raised in this thread. So far, everyone is making sense, but you. No offense...

[fr0d0]

---

So fr0d0 seems to think the following:

1. God is omnipotent.

and

2. God cannot do various things (lie, commit evil) that humans can do.

Well that would be wrong. But then you insist on looking at something logical illogically, I don't know why.

The statement is fallatious.

Omnipotent, all powerful (from the Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") - is the draining of/ the taking away of power also power? It seems you require this to be so. But that doesn't make it so does it?

So... an all powerful being can only be powerful, and not anti powerful, as that would be contradictory. If you care to think about the construct of the god idea you may notice that it is entirely positive. Obviously omnimax does not entail self destruction.

---

As far as I can tell, this is gibberish. I really have no idea at all what most of this is supposed to mean, if anything.

But then, on reflection, the whole concept of omnipotence may be gibberish too. Perhaps any definition of omnipotence turns out to be self-contradictory.

So no refutation then.

Let me try again, as I don't believe you're being deliberately dense.

If we had an unlimited power source - say electrical. What would that mean logically? Maybe we assume 1. It won't run out & 2. it's has infinite force.

What's missing using the descriptor 'unlimited'?

Yep... lack of force & of limited duration.

So to frame this in parallel with your dismissal of omnipotence: this unlimited force is not unlimited because it isn't the opposite of unlimited.

Is that clearer?

[tavarish]

---

We're not talking about something of a conundrum, it's about you giving an account for WHY God necessarily has attributes he cannot go against - why he has a nature he is BOUND by.

Not only that, he can make things that don't abide by that nature. If he is the author of natural laws and he is omnipotent, there should be absolutely nothing stopping him from making a squared circle or acting against his nature.

However, in the sense you're describing, these laws prescribe God's actions rather than describe actions - by strictly giving him necessary attributes, something which you cannot do with an infinitely powerful being.

Omnipotent means he has the power to do absolutely anything, in any context. How is it at all possible for him not to be able to act in a certain way?

---

I can't limit God, and don't If I can help it. We have a construct ready made to work with, and I agree with it. You seemingly don't, for no good reason, as you keep pointing out. I agree with your disagreements with yourself. those are logical self refutations.

So can God act against his nature?

---

---

So fr0d0 seems to think the following:

1. God is omnipotent.

and

2. God cannot do various things (lie, commit evil) that humans can do.

Well that would be wrong. But then you insist on looking at something logical illogically, I don't know why.

The statement is fallatious.

Omnipotent, all powerful (from the Latin: Omni Potens: "all power") - is the draining of/ the taking away of power also power? It seems you require this to be so. But that doesn't make it so does it?

So... an all powerful being can only be powerful, and not anti powerful, as that would be contradictory. If you care to think about the construct of the god idea you may notice that it is entirely positive. Obviously omnimax does not entail self destruction.

---

As far as I can tell, this is gibberish. I really have no idea at all what most of this is supposed to mean, if anything.

But then, on reflection, the whole concept of omnipotence may be gibberish too. Perhaps any definition of omnipotence turns out to be self-contradictory.

So no refutation then.

Let me try again, as I don't believe you're being deliberately dense.

If we had an unlimited power source - say electrical. What would that mean logically? Maybe we assume 1. It won't run out & 2. it's has infinite force.

What's missing using the descriptor 'unlimited'?

Yep... lack of force & of limited duration.

So to frame this in parallel with your dismissal of omnipotence: this unlimited force is not unlimited because it isn't the opposite of unlimited.

Is that clearer?

It's a horrible analogy, as electricity is still bound by laws. Just because there's an infinite amount of it doesn't change the fact that it is subject to certain criteria in order to be called electricity. God, on the other hand, is taken by your arguments to be the necessary author of these laws, a prescribing force rather than describing force. This raises the questions we've been asking you all along, and which you dodge continuously. For the sake of argument, I'll assume your version of God is plausible.

I'll make the questions easy and concise so you can respond to them in order.

1. What is your account for why God has a nature?
2. Can God go against that nature?
3. Why is God's will effective rather than ineffective?
4. How can an infinitely powerful being (i.e. the Christian God) have things he cannot do?

[fr0d0]

So can God act against his nature?

Why is anything we work out bound by our logical construct? Answer: because that's what makes sense to us. We can't conclude the illogical, unless that is our intention.

God isn't 'bound' by anything. He is omnipotent. You're saying that he isn't omnipotent because he can't act in an anti omnipotent way. Or something can't be 'something' because it can't be nothing as well as something.

<edit>
I just noticed your edit tav - same answer.

I can't quite believe the absurd strawmen you keep building.

[lrh9]

The strongest suggestion that there is a powerful God is the fact that we've been down here in the mud for 125,000 years being struck by natural disasters, disease, starving, fighting, dieing. If there is a God then he has certainly been screwing us over, but if such a God does exist then I don't have anything for him.

[Caecilian]

---

So can God act against his nature?

Why is anything we work out bound by our logical construct? Answer: because that's what makes sense to us. We can't conclude the illogical, unless that is our intention.

God isn't 'bound' by anything. He is omnipotent. You're saying that he isn't omnipotent because he can't act in an anti omnipotent way. Or something can't be 'something' because it can't be nothing as well as something.

<edit>
I just noticed your edit tav - same answer.

I can't quite believe the absurd strawmen you keep building.

---

The same old fr0d0 arguments. We've been here before, I think.

Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are 2 seperable qualities. Theres nothing to say that an omnipotent being would necessarily be good. Or that a purely good being would be omnipotent.

It follows from this that god's status as a 'positive being' has nothing to do with his being an 'all-powerful being'. The 2 statements refer to quite different properties.

If a being actually is omnipotent, then it can do anything that is logically possible for a being to do. This includes doing bad stuff.

However, your definition of god as a 'positive entity' precludes him from doing bad stuff.

Thus no 'positive entity' as you define it could possibly be omnipotent.

Your model of god is incoherent.

Clear?

[fr0d0]

Can an omnipotent being be the opposite of omnipotent Caecillian ...was my point. And we're conveniently forgetting the subject here. That human descriptions are found wanting says nothing about God, only the descriptions.

[Caecilian]

Can an omnipotent being be the opposite of omnipotent Caecillian ...was my point. And we're conveniently forgetting the subject here. That human descriptions are found wanting says nothing about God, only the descriptions.

Doing bad stuff is not the opposite of being omnipotent. Its the oppposite of being omnibenevolent.