Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

Bel may not be the most diplomatic in his approach, but I think he has a point in saying that we need to engage the actual arguments and conceptions of theologians. It's easy to start from what we imagine has to be the case, only to find that when we get to the end, some clever Christer has already anticipated our objection.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Generally they don't though or they don't understand the objection

[Silver]

Bel may not be the most diplomatic in his approach, but I think he has a point in saying that we need to engage the actual arguments and conceptions of theologians. It's easy to start from what we imagine has to be the case, only to find that when we get to the end, some clever Christer has already anticipated our objection.

In the end, their arguments amount for something that just doesn't exist. They need to learn to first prove its existence before expecting to begin the debate with their misconceived notion that a god already exists.

[Sheldon]

Bel may not be the most diplomatic in his approach, but I think he has a point in saying that we need to engage the actual arguments and conceptions of theologians.  It's easy to start from what we imagine has to be the case, only to find that when we get to the end, some clever Christer has already anticipated our objection.

Diplomacy isn't necessary, I'm pretty thick skinned, but I tire of someone lording and posturing all the time, mentioning great historical philosophers constantly, but failing to offer anything from them that directly addresses the post or point.

Yes it is clear one cannot address all concepts of deity at once, that is pretty obvious, and since Christianity has approx. 45k different sects and denominations globally, then of course apologists are ging to handwave objections away when it doesn't mesh exactly with their subjective version of theistic belief, but then I had not remotely suggested all theists believed in an omniscient or omnipotent deity, or that they all held the same idea of what those words mean for the deity they believe in, nor would I. Nor had I suggested no one had ever tried to rationalise the contradictions innate in concepts like omniscience and omnipotence, I have just have never found any of the arguments very compelling, if he thinks there is a compelling one, all he had to was offer it, without the arrogant and belittling posturing.

[Sheldon]

Bel may not be the most diplomatic in his approach, but I think he has a point in saying that we need to engage the actual arguments and conceptions of theologians.  It's easy to start from what we imagine has to be the case, only to find that when we get to the end, some clever Christer has already anticipated our objection.

In the end, their arguments amount for something that just doesn't exist. They need to learn to first prove its existence before expecting to begin the debate with their misconceived notion that a god already exists.

I wholeheartedly concur of course, or even demonstrate in some remotely objective way that a deity or anything supernatural is even possible. The same applies to accurately defining a deity they claim is real, and of course offer some epistemological justification for those claims as well. The fact you can imagine something, then imagine some characteristic it has that isn't in and of itself irrational, does not make it real.

The fact remains, that the more autonomy any entity has, the more culpable it would be for its actions. Yet we have in this very thread a theist claiming a deity exists that created humans (and everything else), and is in no way culpable for the result, that's an absurd claim, even were they not claiming that deity was omniscient, and omnipotent, and of course morally perfect.

[Angrboda]

Bel may not be the most diplomatic in his approach, but I think he has a point in saying that we need to engage the actual arguments and conceptions of theologians.  It's easy to start from what we imagine has to be the case, only to find that when we get to the end, some clever Christer has already anticipated our objection.

Diplomacy isn't necessary, I'm pretty thick skinned, but I tire of someone lording and posturing all the time, mentioning great historical philosophers constantly, but failing to offer anything from them that directly addresses the post or point.

Yes it is clear one cannot address all concepts of deity at once, that is pretty obvious, and since Christianity has approx. 45k different sects and denominations globally, then of course apologists are ging to handwave objections away when it doesn't mesh exactly with their subjective version of theistic belief, but then I had not remotely suggested all theists believed in an omniscient or omnipotent deity, or that they all held the same idea of what those words mean for the deity they believe in, nor would I. Nor had I suggested no one had ever tried to rationalise the contradictions innate in concepts like omniscience and omnipotence, I have just have never found any of the arguments very compelling, if he thinks there is a compelling one, all he had to was offer it, without the arrogant and belittling posturing.

Well, whatever. You've now claimed that omnipotence and omniscience violate the law of noncontradiction. Having claimed that, it seems reasonable to ask you to explain why you believe this to be the case, and explain how that occurs. While it's true that one cannot answer every potential description of a god, the theology behind omniscience and omnipotence of the Christian god is fairly well-developed and while there is some variation in conception, the contours of the debate concerning omnipotence and omniscience are fairly well-established. If you are not engaging mainstream beliefs, then in what way are you not constructing a straw man? You're certainly welcome in making the case to define which specific god and which specific versions of omnipotence and omniscience you are making the claim with respect to, but if very few if any people actually agree with your definitions, then what is the point of your demonstrating that a god which no one worships cannot exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sheldon got every form of apologism over this right in mentioning that the resolution is to limit one or both descriptors. So it can know everything except that which would make it impotent, or do everything except that which would make it ignorant. The whole thing is kind of moot in that people don't tend to believe in rational gods. You could repair any given god to make it explicitly logical and the faithful will simply reject that in favor of one miracle or another. People don't go to theistic gods for logic. They go to gods because they have an impossible ask. A desire. A demand. An idea of how the world should be which only makes sense in the context of it not being that way in mere reality.

Thus - the conceptual need for some super-powered intercessory agent, a personal thing that can be bargained with, defining traits of all theistic belief-sets. A thing which can remake reality. A thing no rules or circumstances can bind.

[Angrboda]

Sheldon got every form of apologism over this right in mentioning that the resolution is to limit one or both descriptors.  So it can know everything except that which would make it impotent, or do everything except that which would make it ignorant.  The whole thing is kind of moot in that people don't tend to believe in rational gods.  You could repair any given god to make it explicitly logical and the faithful will simply reject that in favor of one miracle or another.  People don't go to theistic gods for logic.  They go to gods because they have an impossible ask.  A desire.  A demand.  An idea of how the world should be which only makes sense in the context of it not being that way in mere reality.

The question is not whether there are limitations on these concepts, as defining anything necessarily requires establishing both positive and negative characteristics of the thing, so defining itself is necessarily limiting. So suggesting that there is something untoward or inappropriate about any limitations on a concept is itself a bit incoherent. The question is not whether or not there are limitations upon a specific conception, but rather whether those limitations are reasonable, rational, and defensible.

[Sheldon]

Diplomacy isn't necessary, I'm pretty thick skinned, but I tire of someone lording and posturing all the time, mentioning great historical philosophers constantly, but failing to offer anything from them that directly addresses the post or point.

Yes it is clear one cannot address all concepts of deity at once, that is pretty obvious, and since Christianity has approx. 45k different sects and denominations globally, then of course apologists are ging to handwave objections away when it doesn't mesh exactly with their subjective version of theistic belief, but then I had not remotely suggested all theists believed in an omniscient or omnipotent deity, or that they all held the same idea of what those words mean for the deity they believe in, nor would I. Nor had I suggested no one had ever tried to rationalise the contradictions innate in concepts like omniscience and omnipotence, I have just have never found any of the arguments very compelling, if he thinks there is a compelling one, all he had to was offer it, without the arrogant and belittling posturing.

Well, whatever.  You've now claimed that omnipotence and omniscience violate the law of noncontradiction.  Having claimed that, it seems reasonable to ask you to explain why you believe this to be the case, and explain how that occurs.  

There is the paradox of free will of course, or theological fatalism, but this might also apply to any deity itself, if it was omniscient it must necessarily know the future exactly as it will happen, or put a limit on it's knowledge. If it knew the future exactly as it would happen, then it could not change it, hence it would have no autonomy, let alone be omnipotent. 

I've seen a Muslim try to argue this away using relativity, it ended in a contradiction and they just vacillated between those contradictions. 

An omnipotent entity could not of course limit it's own actions, which one could argue sets a limit on its powers. 

the theology behind omniscience and omnipotence of the Christian god is fairly well-developed and while there is some variation in conception, the contours of the debate concerning omnipotence and omniscience are fairly well-established. If you are not engaging mainstream beliefs, then in what way are you not constructing a straw man? 

I was addressing a specific idea, I never assigned it generically, in fact I don't believe I assigned it to anyone, beyond addressing the notion of omnipotence and omniscience. It is a straw man only if I falsely assign a claim or belief to someone else they have not made. 

You're certainly welcome in making the case to define which specific god and which specific versions of omnipotence and omniscience you are making the claim with respect to, but if very few if any people actually agree with your definitions, then what is the point of your demonstrating that a god which no one worships cannot exist?

If you read my post you will see I was addressing the concepts themselves, and then added that some apologists I have read and encountered tried to rationalise those concepts, but that I did not find their arguments very compelling. I once had an apologist tell me I believed in god. I told them I certainly did not, they then said that god was the universe and everything that existed, so I was wrong. I don't find such semantics very compelling, and though this example is perhaps almost comical, it illustrates my point about "omniscient and omnipotent lite". After all, I did not create the definitions, nor assign them to any deity, I merely address them when the claims are made.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say the question is whether the conveniently redacted super powers still describe the god people actually believe in, the answer being a hard no. Christians believe that their god knows the future. Limiting it's omniscience in this regard to prevent an omni-impotence scenario through the inherent fatalism of foreknowledge would work logically, but not religiously.