Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

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. 
 

Except I am not trying to have it both ways, as I am not making claims that any kind of omniscience or omnipotence is possible, I am just pointing out contradictions in certain ideas like omniscience and omnipotence that I have seen apologists present, nor did I invent the principles of logic, the efficacy of which is well supported. If the beliefs of others are irrational, that is for them to address, or not. FWIW the only beliefs that logic don't apply to, are irrational ones, by definition.

Yes, the efficacy of logic is well supported, as when it's used to point out that you're equivocating on the meaning of omnipotence by arguing that it is both limitless and limited within the same argument.  That makes your argument logically invalid.

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.  

Nor is it remotely what I am doing, is this not a debate forum, am I not aloud to examine ideas and claims?  That certain ideas I have seen apologists present, violate principles of logic, is absolutely a logical objection to those ideas. 

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.  

Great, care to show a single post of mine remotely stating or implying otherwise? You seem to have presented a straw man. 

You've been arguing about a god that is omniscient and omnipotent, it's no mystery which god you are arguing about.  It was heavily implied by the characteristics of the god you described.  One can identify a thing by a name or a description. You're just trying to avoid accepting responsibility for having been wrong about the meaning of omnipotence when it comes to the Judeo-Christian god.  If you want to be thorough about it, which god that is well-known to be omnipotent and omniscient are you claiming, now, that your argument applies to?

If you have a problem with that, tough.  And no, I haven't strawmanned you. 

Yes you have, here again, plainly. I can only suggest you read my original post, and go through this exchange, it's not that long, and explain where you think I said the bible doesn't suggest the deity depicted has limits to its power? I even quoted my original post, and very specifically emboldened my qualification of this view as held by "some apologists". Though apart from this being another straw man, the bible also has passages that make claim the deity's power has no limits of course, shall I sententiously suggest anyone with a "passing familiarity of the bible should know this" as you just did to me? 

You have repeatedly asserted that a god described as omnipotent and omniscient (the god of the bible) is defined as having "limitless power" (being omnipotent, and that's a direct quote).  As I've already noted, you want to have it both ways, that this god is both limited (by the principle of non-contradiction), and limitless (by the definition of omnipotence).  That is an inconsistency in your argument and it is fatal.  It has nothing to do with whether you personally believe such a god exists.

 I've pointed out facts that you find inconvenient about your position. 

You have not honestly represented any position I hold, and none of the claims you've made are inconvenient to any point I have made, you entirely ignored the context of my original post despite me requoting it and emboldening the part you've misrepresented. Try this. without going back roughly type what you think my original point was...in the context of the post I was responding to.
That there are different  views among theists an aphorists one what  they believe omniscience and omnipotence to mean has never remotely been disputed by me, nor have I once remotely suggested the view I assigned to some apologists I have encountered, was a mainstream view. my main original point was about a claim a theist made, about his chosen deity not being culpable in any way for its creation, you seem determined to ignore this, who knows why?

I could care less what your "original" point was.  I was interested in your claim that omniscience and omnipotence were essentially incoherent.   I am not under any obligation to address any and all points you have ever made.     I was interested in one thing, your arguments about omnipotence and omniscience, which I've shown to be flawed.  In no place have I argued against positions that you do not hold.  I appreciate that you want to talk about culpability, but that in no way obligates me to oblige.  I'm coming to the conclusion that you're a bit of a weasel.  Instead of responding to any point straight on, you throw up a bunch of evasions, qualifiers, and bogus accusations of having been misrepresented, none of which holds any water.

[Angrboda]

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

Unless there is something beyond the bare claim here, this has all the hallmarks of an appeal to authority fallacy.

And this has all the hallmarks of an incompetent moron revealing himself. It was an observation, not an argument, thus the concept of a fallacy does not apply.

Although I will credit you for going a full post without cluelessly and falsely crying "straw man!"

[Angrboda]

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.

And that has what to do with @TheWhiteMarten's claim, and my response? Do you even remember what he claimed, or what my original post responded with, and why? I do wish some people would read the post, and address what was actually said, instead of tilting at windmills they imagine have been offered.

Do you think the amount of culpability a being or entity has would increased, diminish or stay the same, as it's autonomy of choice increased? This is a pretty simple question, that addresses @TheWhiteMarten's original claim.

The forum trims the nesting level and so some of the context has been removed. However, you can restore the context by clicking on the green arrows to follow the trail back. Doing so reveals that the context of Bel's reply was a post in which you claimed that God takes 'actions' ("it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions"), thus prompting Bel's response pointing out that this is an incorrect view of Him according to the people named and described. So, no, Bel wasn't imagining things that you hadn't said but rather replying germanely in context to things you had written.

It's becoming clear that you use accusations of misrepresentation and straw-manning as a form of get-out-of-jail-free card, whether it's applicable or not.

[Sheldon]

Unless there is something beyond the bare claim here, this has all the hallmarks of an appeal to authority fallacy.

And this has all the hallmarks of an incompetent moron revealing himself.  It was an observation, not an argument, thus the concept of a fallacy does not apply.

Although I will credit you for going a full post without cluelessly and falsely crying "straw man!"

Straight to ad hominem, quelle surprise. FYI I never said it was an argument, nor need an observation and an argument be mutually exclusive of course, and it still has all the hallmarks of an appeal to authority. I think we both now where you can stick your credit, and your straw men are there for anyone to see.

[Angrboda]

And this has all the hallmarks of an incompetent moron revealing himself.  It was an observation, not an argument, thus the concept of a fallacy does not apply.

Although I will credit you for going a full post without cluelessly and falsely crying "straw man!"

Straight to ad hominem, quelle surprise. FYI I never said it was an argument, nor need an observation and an argument be mutually exclusive of course, and it still has all the hallmarks of an appeal to authority. I think we both now where you can stick your credit, and your straw men are there for anyone to see.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. It wasn't an appeal to authority, period. If you have a problem with that, too bad.

[The Grand Nudger]

case in point, the statement that God dooms people to hell rather than it being a result of their choices.

God dooms people to hell by creating a reality where hell is a necessary feature. Seriously, what sort of deity builds hell into the universe as if it were a cool add-on? You are arguing for a sane and competent deity here, yes?

The same kind that made this world a meat grinder full of heterotrophs..even though it could clearly magic autotrophs into being.  This is why natural theology failed christianity.  The natural world suggests things about a hypothetical god what created it which none of the faithful are willing to accept.

[Angrboda]

TheWhiteMarten 

...this is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine - God is not "damning" us anymore than a judge "damns" a criminal to prison; while it's not an entirely wrong word to use it seems to almost entirely fundamentally miss the mechanic at action and place some blame of the judge and not the criminal.

Another false equivalence, since a) we are able to objectively verify the laws of the land, and in this instance the "judge" is objectively real. We have no such evidence for any deity. One could also point out that people are damned for who they are in the bible, gay people for example, don't choose to be gay but were born that way, or you would say created. 

This is not a failure to understand Christian doctrine, it is a valid criticism of it. In that (hypothetically) if a deity existed, and created everything, it could not reasonably be excused all culpability for the result. Even leaving aside the question of how much autonomy humans really have, they demonstrably would have less than this hypothetical deity. Thus it would have to be more culpable for the result than the "pets" it's created in this hypothetical experiment.

No, it's not a valid criticism of it because you have misrepresented the bible. The bible states that the act of homosexual sex is wrong, not being homosexual. Most authorities agree that the concept of sexual orientation was somewhat problematic for the people of the time, which might explain why some passages in antiquity refer to same-sex behavior as acts typified by a specific gender or sex, rather than something related to an enduring sexual attraction. They basically had no words to refer to someone as having a specific sexual orientation, and so they didn't. Thus they were limited to hating the sin, and loving the sinner in this specific case.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The statement that God dooms people to hell rather than it being a result of their choices. That is entirely of our making.

1. If god creates everything he  is responsible for his choice to create everything and all the consequences of that choice  

2. If god creates freewill he  is responsible for his choice to create freewill and all the consequences of that choice  

3. If god creates hell he is 100% responsible for his choice to create hell and is responsible for everyone who ends up there 

Sorry god dooms people to hell he set up all the conditions to send people their by his own choice.

[Sheldon]

Straight to ad hominem, quelle surprise. FYI I never said it was an argument, nor need an observation and an argument be mutually exclusive of course, and it still has all the hallmarks of an appeal to authority. I think we both now where you can stick your credit, and your straw men are there for anyone to see.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.    It wasn't an appeal to authority, period.  If you have a problem with that, too bad.

I never claimed it was, if you actually read it carefully, try moving your finger more slowly over the words, see if that helps. The only problem I have is that I have wasted my time on another arrogant blowhard, that is overly impressed with themselves, not to worry, it's not a mistake I will be making again anytime soon.

[The Architect Of Fate]

If your choice is made with a prior warning, are you really exercising free will? I think everyone would answer, "Yes - obviously."

No they wouldn't as that doesn't change the fact duress is being used to push a choice.