Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Paleophyte]

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. 

Aquinas has suggested that to ascribe the ability to do the impossible to omnipotence is an error in conception, that while we can imagine the impossible, loosely speaking, we cannot actually dot the i's and cross the t's when it came to actually fitting it within reality.  It raises the question of whether or not an omniscient being can make a triangle that has four sides?  Now one certainly can answer this in two ways, but it doesn't immediately seem unreasonable to suggest that the very concept of a triangle is that it does not have four sides, and that suggesting that it could have four sides is to abuse reason and the very concept itself.  Do you disagree?

Are we talking about the same deity that creates all of reality from nothing, appears as a bush that burns but is not consumed, has a son born of a virgin who lives and dies and lives again, and violates reason on every second page of scripture in magical and horrifying ways? Even a cursory skim of the Bible shows that Aquinas' god only passingly flirted with reason. A four-sided triangle would seem downright normal compared to the usual shenanigans.

[Angrboda]

Generally speaking, theologians don't define or describe omnipotence as "limitless power," though some people may colloquially do so.  The principle of charity obligates you to respond to the strongest version of an argument, to steelman it.

Incidentally, your objection cuts both ways.  If Omnipotence implies being able to do the impossible, then pointing out something impossible isn't an argument against him as he is not bound by the law of noncontradiction, being limitless.

It sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

It sounds to me like you're straw manning me, read my original post for proper context. Tell you what I'll save you the time, here it is:

I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise. 

Now, @TheWhiteMarten, I have asked several times, can you demonstrate anything approaching any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible? I have noticed over the years, how reticent apologists become when anyone asks this. And to avoid semantics, all those words are in the dictionary for you.

I've emboldened the part where I very specifically made the point you are now suggesting I did not.

I understand your point, but I'm pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If omnipotence means no limits, then you cannot then argue that such an omnipotence is limited by the law of noncontradiction. You have to pick a lane. That's fine if you want to grouse that theists shouldn't be allowed to define their god in a way that you find inconvenient, but that isn't a logical objection. Moreover, anyone with even passing familiarity with the god of the bible knows that the idea that god has limits isn't something that apologists just conveniently pulled out of their ass, it's very plain from the biblical text that God has limits, such as his inability to lie. If you have a problem with that, tough. And no, I haven't strawmanned you. I've pointed out facts that you find inconvenient about your position.

[Paleophyte]

If omnipotence means no limits, then you cannot then argue that such an omnipotence is limited by the law of noncontradiction.

True, a deity that isn't bound by logic won't have to suffer the consequences of abusing it. However, us mortals are a different matter. Our little lumps of grey matter are still bound to thinking about things that don't explode our heads via logical contradiction. That's why you can't actually envision a square circle, a married bachelor, or a four-sided triangle. The moment that theology conjures something that violates reason it effectively removes it from human knowledge. Such a deity might exist but you'd never be able to understand it in any fashion. It would be much less Biblical and a lot more Lovecraftian.

[Angrboda]

If omnipotence means no limits, then you cannot then argue that such an omnipotence is limited by the law of noncontradiction.

True, a deity that isn't bound by logic won't have to suffer the consequences of abusing it. However, us mortals are a different matter. Our little lumps of grey matter are still bound to thinking about things that don't explode our heads via logical contradiction. That's why you can't actually envision a square circle, a married bachelor, or a four-sided triangle. The moment that theology conjures something that violates reason it effectively removes it from human knowledge. Such a deity might exist but you'd never be able to understand it in any fashion. It would be much less Biblical and a lot more Lovecraftian.

In the appendix to one of his works, Plato argues that what the gods comprehend, mortals cannot, and vice versa.

[Angrboda]

Trying to stick within a limited logical possibility we can ask the same questions again.  Is it logically possible that god possesses foreknowledge?  If it's not..then we've limited omniscience and omnipotence and are even further from the god of magic book.  If it is, we have the potency issue all over again within the new boundary conditions.  Is a god a prisoner of it's predictions and past statements or predilections?  A theologian would tell you no (and magic book provides receipts).  This is yet another way that god is limitless...but if isn't, then did it ever possess foreknowledge in the first place, supposing foreknowledge was possible?

This has been an issue for christian apologists for some time, the simple fact of their spilling the ink concedes the apparent contraditions...but once upon a time it was not noticed at all, as people deeply believed in another supernatural whatsit called a fate.

Yes, the old, "if they're innocent then why do they need a lawyer" ploy. Seriously?

[Paleophyte]

True, a deity that isn't bound by logic won't have to suffer the consequences of abusing it. However, us mortals are a different matter. Our little lumps of grey matter are still bound to thinking about things that don't explode our heads via logical contradiction. That's why you can't actually envision a square circle, a married bachelor, or a four-sided triangle. The moment that theology conjures something that violates reason it effectively removes it from human knowledge. Such a deity might exist but you'd never be able to understand it in any fashion. It would be much less Biblical and a lot more Lovecraftian.

In the appendix to one of his works, Plato argues that what the gods comprehend, mortals cannot, and vice versa.

And by extension, are incomprehensible to each other. Gods like that are a great deal more sensible, I don't expect to be able to wrap my mind around The Allmighty, but they're inconvenient to organized religion round about that the clergy decides to pick your pockets via god's will.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

There are inherent limits upon the Christian god. For instance, being perfect, it follows that this god would be perfectly merciful and just, yet we see it isn't; it is reputed to lay down infinite punishment for things as simple as saying "goddamn" in a conversation unless pleas for forgiveness are offered. "Hey, using the brain they say you gave me, I just don't think you make sense." "Right, off to Hell with you, don't forget your ice-water." Perfect vengeance? No doubt. Perfect forgiveness? Probably not. And so on.

It follows that the Christian conception of god is flawed. We have spotted a couple of imperfections. That is reasonable and defensible. We can accept the possibility of a god, of some sort or another, while saying at the same time that the Christian conception of god fails for internal contradiction.

Let's move on to some other conception of god, then.

[Belacqua]

But remember your a big dummy dumb according to Bel who can't seem to muster an actual criticism himself

I am a big dummy, or if one prefers a middling intellect, with a mediocre formal education. However he never actually addresses what I have said, and can't avoid sententious posturing and name dropping, without actually offering any depth or valid criticism. 

1. Dropped Plato's name in, check.
2. Pointed out I knew fuck all about [philosophy, check. 
3. Implying he does, check. 
4. Never actually addressed any specifics, check. 



It's beyond tedious now, and I no longer have the patience to indulge what has all the appearance of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

According to Plato, and many many Christians who were influenced by his thought, God takes no action and makes no decisions. I know this is different from the anthropomorphized version that many Christians describe, and that nearly all Internet Atheists argue against. However, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, and many others, up through Spinoza and Hegel, agree with Plato on this.

That's why it doesn't make sense, to these people, to talk about God "deciding" to do things. That would apply to the normal image of Zeus, but not to the Christian God. Decisions involve options, choosing this or that. God is already perfect, actus purus, and therefore doesn't change at all, has nothing to decide, and doesn't have the option to become unperfect. 

The usual follow-up to this is "but the Bible says God makes decisions!" and that's true. But the thinkers I've mentioned, unlike many Protestants and nearly all Internet Atheists, are not sola scriptura literalists, so they have no trouble building on an ancient conception of God which doesn't literally follow the Bible. 

I suspect that there are a lot of Christians who believe in the kind of God you're arguing against. I think you'd be surprised, though, at how many Christians follow the thinking that God is simply the Good, the Ground of Being, the Prime Mover (who himself has never taken any action). So if you want to argue against the anthropomorphized version, that would be useful if anyone who believes in that is posting here. It still leaves you, however, with the God of the Philosophers to deal with.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think most Christians reject the Prime Mover concept -- at least here in America. Most Christians seem to me to adopt the personal god. Of course, you're in Japan and not really in mainstream Christianity.

[Belacqua]

I think most Christians reject the Prime Mover concept -- at least here in America. Most Christians seem to me to adopt the personal god. Of course, you're in Japan and not really in mainstream Christianity.

Thank you for making a very reasonable objection and not typing an insult to go with it. 

I'm sure you're right that rank-and-file Christians, probably especially in America, think of God as a person. And I acknowledge that the kind of Christianity I have studied, and which I've been talking about here, is not what most people in churches probably think about. Although it is very much mainstream in terms of the history of theology. 

The term "personal," like so many others, may apply differently to God than to a flesh-and-blood human. 

For example, Wikipedia quotes Tillich:

'Personal God' does not mean that God is a person. It means that God is the ground of everything personal and that he carries within himself the ontological power of personality...

This is very compatible with philosophical views of God. For example, the Aristotelian/Thomist views which define the term "omnipotent" not as "can do anything," but as "the end and instigator of all potency." 

As always, Christianity has within itself so many variations that we can't make a simple blanket argument against all versions.