Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[R00tKiT]

The statement " can only do what it always knew it was going to do" is not problematic, and doesn't entail a contradiction with omnipotence, because God doesn't change His intention (because he's omniscient, we only change our mind when we are presented with new information/see the information from a new perspective, but God always has full information and knows all possible perspectives, so he never needs to change his decisions).

I can see why you consider that a good counter, but a fully omniscient being can't even change its mind about which finger to wiggle, that is, it can't even change its mind just to see if it can change its mind. It can't, not even for the most trivial of actions for which information makes no difference. It may not need to change its decisions, but it also can't change its decisions.

In order for you to prove that this is indeed a contradiction, you have to prove that the action "changing one's mind" is logically possible in the case of an omnipotent+omniscient being. And in fact, it's not.

If such a being decides to do A, then A becomes necessary, there is no possible world where A doesn't happen at some point. With this in mind, a deity not being able to avoid A after their decision is made, is not a problem, since it's not logically possible for A to not happen.

And it's not a threat to omnipotence to not be capable of doing the logically impossible.

[Jehanne]

As a PSA for readers who are just passing through, we spent 4 months in the latter half of 2021 discussing the Kalam argument with Klorophyll. I am not going to be sucked into it, again.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess we can add yet another thing to the list of things your omnipotent god can't do? Probably not going to stop with just the logically impossible, either, if we're being honest.

[Mister Agenda]

I can see why you consider that a good counter, but a fully omniscient being can't even change its mind about which finger to wiggle, that is, it can't even change its mind just to see if it can change its mind. It can't, not even for the most trivial of actions for which information makes no difference. It may not need to change its decisions, but it also can't change its decisions.

In order for you to prove that this is indeed a contradiction, you have to prove that the action "changing one's mind" is logically possible in the case of an omnipotent+omniscient being. And in fact, it's not.

If such a being decides to do A, then A becomes necessary, there is no possible world where A doesn't happen at some point. With this in mind, a deity not being able to avoid A after their decision is made, is not a problem, since it's not logically possible for A to not happen.

And it's not a threat to omnipotence to not be capable of doing the logically impossible.

It IS logically impossible, which is why I don't believe such a being can exist. I approve you reducing your god's omnipotence to resolve the contradiction. Your version of omnipotence is one I cited: Able to do anything but the logically impossible. You may think that would be obvious, but there's a whole branch of apologetics called presuppositionalism based on God determining what is logically possible...that is, a presuppositionalist would just claim it's not a contradiction because God isn't subject to logic. You have a more plausible God than that. Muslims, in my experience, are more likely to be aware of scholarly thought about their religion than most US Christians; but I grew up in the midst of American fundamentalists who can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

[The Grand Nudger]

Islamists are no different in this regard. They'll tell you they believe this, but also believe that their god does logically impossible things..as well as not being able to do at least some logically possible ones.

It's not logically possible for some fairy to have ever split the moon - since the moon was never split. It would be logically possible to create a better world, or to improve upon the world that exists, or to do -whatever- it does any number of other ways..and yet...

I think this happens as a consequence of requiring that a god be a slave to whatever a present apologists criteria happen to be.

[Simon Moon]

Kalam is a fallacious argument. It is invalid in form,

You are a joke. Professional philosophers write about this argument for a living, and they know how to make an argument that is valid in form. The Kalam is obviously valid, in the sense that if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. If you don't see that, I will go as far as saying you have comprehension issues.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're confusing validity and soundness, because soundness is the central issue, not validity. Otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.

Not to mention, even if it were valid and sound, it still would not demonstrate a god exists.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

God does not appear in either premise, nor the conclusion.

Therefore, Kalam is not an argument for the existence of a god, it is an argument for the existence of a cause for the universe.

There is of course the additional work of showing that the cause of the universe is identical to the God of classical theism, and the Kalam is a very important step towards this conclusion. And so it merits full consideration.

To be clear, I am a gnostic atheist regarding a God who is both omniscient and omnipotent, as I believe those attributes contradict each other and any God that is supposed to have them is a married bachelor. An omnipotent being can do anything, an omniscient being can only do what it always knew it was going to do. 

The statement " can only do what it always knew it was going to do" is not problematic, and doesn't entail a contradiction with omnipotence, because God doesn't change His intention (because he's omniscient, we only change our mind when we are presented with new information/see the information from a new perspective, but God always has full information and knows all possible perspectives, so he never needs to change his decisions).

No, I meant validity, not soundness.

Since the 2 uses of the term "begins to exist" are used to describe different things, modus ponens of the argument does not hold up. So, it is indeed invalid in structure.

Please list some examples in the set of, "things that begin to exist", that the first premise refers to.

Soundness is also questionable, for the argument.

[Jehanne]

The Universe is not "a thing"; that's why the Kalam is a non sequitur.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I can see why you consider that a good counter, but a fully omniscient being can't even change its mind about which finger to wiggle, that is, it can't even change its mind just to see if it can change its mind. It can't, not even for the most trivial of actions for which information makes no difference. It may not need to change its decisions, but it also can't change its decisions.

In order for you to prove that this is indeed a contradiction, you have to prove that the action "changing one's mind" is logically possible in the case of an omnipotent+omniscient being. And in fact, it's not.

If such a being decides to do A, then A becomes necessary, there is no possible world where A doesn't happen at some point. With this in mind, a deity not being able to avoid A after their decision is made, is not a problem, since it's not logically possible for A to not happen.

And it's not a threat to omnipotence to not be capable of doing the logically impossible.

I would have answered differently. God is the creator of time not subject to it.

[Jehanne]

If God created time, "when" did God decide to do that?

[The Grand Nudger]

In order for you to prove that this is indeed a contradiction, you have to prove that the action "changing one's mind" is logically possible in the case of an omnipotent+omniscient being. And in fact, it's not.

If such a being decides to do A, then A becomes necessary, there is no possible world where A doesn't happen at some point. With this in mind, a deity not being able to avoid A after their decision is made, is not a problem, since it's not logically possible for A to not happen.

And it's not a threat to omnipotence to not be capable of doing the logically impossible.

I would have answered differently. God is the creator of time not subject to it.

 The big bang is the creator of time, not subject to it.

You may have answered differently, but not in a way that would matter or revise you co-afflicteds misapprehensions.