Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1 A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1] 2 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).
3 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.[2] 4 A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
5 A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan. 6 Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
In which a deity's "nature" is invoked to avoid the simpler, straightforward explanation that the deity was made up by bronze age clerics and their ancestors and has no existence other than an incoherent concept in the clerics' minds. To counter this, apologists have to stretch, twist and torture logic to get to a point where the deity is no longer the logically inconsistent paradoxical thing described. Even then, they are only able to, under special circumstances, argue that such a being could exist, not give actual evidence that one does.
Although it is trotted out regularly as a "flaw" in the God hypothesis, it is both ignorant and illogical to define omnipotent = do anything.
There is evidence of the existence of God. You just don't believe it. Not my problem. I was merely correcting a theological mistake.
In which a deity's "nature" is invoked to avoid the simpler, straightforward explanation that the deity was made up by bronze age clerics and their ancestors and has no existence other than an incoherent concept in the clerics' minds. To counter this, apologists have to stretch, twist and torture logic to get to a point where the deity is no longer the logically inconsistent paradoxical thing described. Even then, they are only able to, under special circumstances, argue that such a being could exist, not give actual evidence that one does.
Although it is trotted out regularly as a "flaw" in the God hypothesis, it is both ignorant and illogical to define omnipotent = do anything.
There is evidence of the existence of God. You just don't believe it. Not my problem. I was merely correcting a theological mistake.
(March 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Dr. Craig, in his debate with Professor Sean Caroll, a cosmologist and physicist at the prestigious California Institute of Technology, stated that,
Quote:Both the naturalist and the theist can be stubbornly committed to their worldviews and not allow contrary evidence to overthrow it. Naturalists are just as adept as theists at explaining away evidence that they find inconvenient—I mean, even to the extent of asserting that the universe popped into being out of nothing! So that's a charge that, I think, goes both ways. It would be possible to falsify theism, for example, by showing a contradiction in the concept of God, as some have sought to do – that there could not be, for example, an omniscient person or a timeless person or something of that sort. So that would be a means of falsifying theism if one could go that route.
However, if Dr. Craig believes that theism is falsifiable, then Craig must admit that he is not 100% convinced that god exists:
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De factotheist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Because, to admit that something is falsifiable means to admit that one is not 100% certain of it being true. If Craig is 100% certain the god exists, then that would mean that he is 100% certain that no evidence exists to the contrary, which means that Craig's belief in god is not falsifiable.
Making the claim that such a fantastic creature as that exists and then not providing any evidence is the cosmological problem.
In theism it seems its fine to make a definition of a god, then make an argument that matches that definition, that way they seem at ease with using a definition of how they feel a god must be to be proof of a god.
Seems back to front to me
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
However, if Dr. Craig believes that theism is falsifiable, then Craig must admit that he is not 100% convinced that god exists:
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De factotheist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Because, to admit that something is falsifiable means to admit that one is not 100% certain of it being true. If Craig is 100% certain the god exists, then that would mean that he is 100% certain that no evidence exists to the contrary, which means that Craig's belief in god is not falsifiable.
Making the claim that such a fantastic creature as that exists and then not providing any evidence is the cosmological problem.
In theism it seems its fine to make a definition of a god, then make an argument that matches that definition, that way they seem at ease with using a definition of how they feel a god must be to be proof of a god.
Seems back to front to me
Craig never said that God was falsifiable, He said the way one would need to go about it is through who He is and to date no one has. We begin with faith in Christ and what He did on the cross. Then we will move on to belief as we experience God through Bible study and then in the personal relationship God will reveal to the faithful Christian that He is real and who He says He is. Before you come to Christ there will be no proof and after only you and those who live in a personal relationship with Him will understand what God has done in His revelation of himself to the believers.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(November 2, 2017 at 9:33 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Making the claim that such a fantastic creature as that exists and then not providing any evidence is the cosmological problem.
In theism it seems its fine to make a definition of a god, then make an argument that matches that definition, that way they seem at ease with using a definition of how they feel a god must be to be proof of a god.
Seems back to front to me
He said the way one would need to go about it is through who He is and to date no one has. We begin with faith in Christ and what He did on the cross. Then we will move on to belief as we experience God through Bible study and then in the personal relationship God will reveal to the faithful Christian that He is real and who He says He is. Before you come to Christ there will be no proof and after only you and those who live in a personal relationship with Him will understand what God has done in His revelation of himself to the believers.
GC
So if you believe because you believe, how do you distinguish reality from delusion. ?
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(November 2, 2017 at 9:33 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Making the claim that such a fantastic creature as that exists and then not providing any evidence is the cosmological problem.
In theism it seems its fine to make a definition of a god, then make an argument that matches that definition, that way they seem at ease with using a definition of how they feel a god must be to be proof of a god.
Seems back to front to me
Craig never said that God was falsifiable, He said the way one would need to go about it is through who He is and to date no one has. We begin with faith in Christ and what He did on the cross. Then we will move on to belief as we experience God through Bible study and then in the personal relationship God will reveal to the faithful Christian that He is real and who He says He is. Before you come to Christ there will be no proof and after only you and those who live in a personal relationship with Him will understand what God has done in His revelation of himself to the believers.
GC
Many would disagree with you, GC, that the concept of "god" is logically inconsistent and self-contradictory. I know that you and WLC do not agree, but there are prominent philosophers who hold prominent chairs who say otherwise.
(April 1, 2016 at 3:25 pm)JuliaL Wrote: Seems Plantiga wants to re-define omnipotent from "able to do anything," to "able to do anything that he is not limited in doing."
I'll go with pathetic behind door number three, Bob.
That comes up a lot here. Omnipotent does not mean what you think it means. Look at the bold from wikipedia...
The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1 A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1] 2 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).
3 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.[2] 4 A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.
5 A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan. 6 Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence
Nothing like having multiple definition for a word to cover your ass in an argument.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
