post-it

I did not write this statement as an argument, I used this statement as an example of play on words such as the squared circle argument. A nonexistent God can't be a true since at least the word and meaning of God exists. Thus certain attributes of God exist once you and I understand the meaning of God. Sure this is silly, but so it making the claim that since a squared circle is an impossibility it would conflict with some "man-made" attribute of God, thus God can't exist. Non sequitur given that all attributes of a God may not exist within man's knowlege or understanding.

post-it

While I have several arguments for the omni problems atheists have. I will posit just one possibility at this time. Omnibenevolent means to "desire" to always do good; "Intention" to do good. It doesn't mean what you have implied... "Must" always do good. Thus your argument is unsound.

post-it

You have selected your own definition for the omni attributes. Your definitions and confines are without support from scripture, God very plainly gives up having certain knowledge of certain upcoming events or decisions which he allows through free choice, so while the word omniscient implies he has this capacity, the omnipotience allows it to be limited at his will. The closest one can define the omniattributes to any creature is that they are within that creature's capacity. Otherwise you would have a contridiction.

Wiploc

Suppose I said that,

1. The dress is white,

conflicts with

2. The dress is blue.

In that case, we would have a contradiction.

Of _course_ you can affect to misconstrue the words and pretend you don't understand what the contradiction is. Of _course_ you can redefine blue and white so that the sentences convey non-conflicting propositions. What is the point?

*My* point is that if god violates logic, we can't use logic to know anything about him. If we don't know anything about him, then we don't know that he exists. Therefore, no alleged proof of god's existence can be an actual proof if it involves contra-logical premises like, "God is not bound by logic."

Now that is a solid point. It is a slam dunk. You cannot effectively evade the conclusion by saying, "Well, what if I didn't know what 'blue' meant?"
crc

Dr Rick

Those that understand reason and logic can fully understand and recognize a contradiction..

This is called a strawman fallacy; no one made the claim that the impossibilty of a square circle negates god except you.

It is irrational to argue against your own argument.

Quote:

Non sequitur given that all attributes of a God may not exist within man's knowlege or understanding.

That is merely assertion begging substantiation, not an argument.

Quote:

Omnibenevolent means to "desire" to always do good; "Intention" to do good. It doesn't mean what you have implied... "Must" always do good.

If this was applicable to the Christian god, then he wouldn't be able to do everything he "desires," so he would not be omnipotent despite what the gospels say. This demonstates the point that the Christian god is a logical contradiction.

You cannot use logic to prove that a logical contradiction can exist.

There is no "otherwise;" you definitely do have a contradiction, which you are attempting to mitigate with an irrational series of ad hoc assertions. You are the one making up unsubstantiated claims: cite your evidence from gospel or scripture that "God very plainly gives up having certain knowledge" and then explain with logic how giving up certain knowledge would not make a god less than omniscient.

Rick

Automaton

Ignoring the majority of my (much more pertinent) points, you choose to offer a counter-argument to the idea that an omnibenevolent entity cannot do evil. I rebutt:
To an omnipotent entity, the words "will", "desire", and "intention" must be synonymous with actual action, the only reason our will is assymetric to our action is that we are limited by a physically bound and finite universe, to an omnipotent entity there are no limits and thus will is the same as action. Therefore, if you grant "God can never will to do evil." to be a true proposition, you must also necessarily grant the truth of "God can never actually do evil." No entity can be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, as one, in the context of the other, mandates the negation of the other.

post-it

You continue to miss the error you are making in your definitions. If an omnipotent God is omnipotent, then nothing is beyond his powers including limiting his attributes. If he couldn't do that, then he isn't omnipotent. If he limits his power and can still unlimit them if he so chooses, he continues to be omnipotent even though he is not omnipotent at the moment.

We see God limit his power and other attributes as he comes to earth as Jesus or when God grants man free will.

post-it

I don't believe God violates logic. Even given that logic is limited in its use in proving the truth of many things; in fact logic can be used to prove that a falsehood is most likely true. God can be held to certain definitions but not nearly all the definitions that most Christians and atheists attribute him.

not quite a slam dunk yet..., I am color blind and see colors as different than most. A green light looks white to me. This is due to a human flaw. A like human flaw, not defining attributes to God correctly will in the same manner cause faulty conclusions.

luvluv

I notice that the problem of evil is trotted out here a lot but it is rarely defended.

But post-it makes an excellent point. Though Christians believe that God cannot do the logically impossible, there is no reason to believe that there isn't a God who CAN do the logically impossible. The existence of any God who is said to do the logically impossible cannot be falsified. So really, all the hubris on this board is a bit misplaced. If there is a God, He would be such that He could not be effectively refuted by such as us. To think otherwise is just pride. There is no reason to assume that, if God exists, we should be able to prove His existence. There is no reason to assume that God is limited to logical possibilities (Christian philosophers believe this, but it is nowhere in Scripture). There is no reason to assume God's existence can be approached by human reason.

luvluv

I notice that the problem of evil is trotted out here a lot but it is rarely defended.

But post-it makes an excellent point. Though Christians believe that God cannot do the logically impossible, there is no reason to believe that there isn't a God who CAN do the logically impossible. The existence of any God who is said to do the logically impossible cannot be falsified. So really, all the hubris on this board is a bit misplaced. If there is a God, He would be such that He could not be effectively refuted by such as us. To think otherwise is just pride. There is no reason to assume that, if God exists, we should be able to prove His existence. There is no reason to assume that God is limited to logical possibilities (Christian philosophers believe this, but it is nowhere in Scripture). There is no reason to assume God's existence can be approached by human reason.