Lobstrosity

Hmmm, has Christianity existed since the beginning of time? No? If Christianity was the one religion that has always been around (as one would expect of the one true religion, since God has always been around and God is the one who spread this religion, right?), I might give your statements some credence. Sadly, Christianity is no different from any other religion. It sprang up at some point in our past and will run its course until it is overthrown by some new religion that provides an even better psychological security blanket for the masses. Religion is nothing more than an evolving con game. In the end, the best cons are the ones that spread, replacing those that aren't quite so good.

Clutch

Thomas,
I've twice now explain the problem with this line of thought. Consider:

- to make a sphere
- to make a cube
- to meet a married person
- to meet a bachelor

None of these is logically impossible, when taken analogously to your last two examples. It's only when you conjoin the incompatible properties that they become logical impossibilities.

Just as "to learn something" and "to be necessarily omniscient" are jointly incompatible.Is it your view that "being necessarily omniscient and learning something" is a logically possible description of an event?Done. Third time's the charm?

Xyzzy

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Magus55
You will NEVER get rid of Christianity. Christianity will exist till the end of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But humans change. A persons belief in the supernatural tends to be inversely related to their intelligence. It is already difficult for intelligent educated individuals to buy into the various bits of nonsense that christianity peddles.

What would happen were the average IQ of the general population to rise a couple of points?

Clutch

...indeed, this is just a specific case of the general incompatibility of "already being X" and "coming to be X". That is, one cannot both be dead and die; be in Chicago and making one's way to Chicago; be 30 years old and then turn 24; or know everything and then learn something.

I can see taking a definition of omnipotence upon which such inabilities count as failures of omnipotence. But I can't see distinguishing these cases from the spherical cube cases.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Clutch :

And "to scratch something other than one's ear" and "to be only able to scratch one ear" are jointly incompatible. As are "to do something" and "to be necessarily unable to do anything" (like McNothing is) are jointly incompatible. Ergo, a person who is unable to do anything is omnipotent.

I wish you'd post it. How about this...?

a person S is omnipotent iff for every task T, _________

Now all you have to do is fill in the blank, or reject the framework I've provided.

Fiach

That is understandable. The Graeco-Roman Gods were rather liberal. They permitted the existence of millions of Mithraists, millions of Druidists in Gaul, Spain, and Britain, millions adhering to the ancient Egyptian gods. They were tolerant. A citizen was not punished for switching from Jupiter to Dagda or Ra.

People did not live in fear of a God who kills. As a result people didn't feel that they had to get the priest's permission to think or opine on politics or science. They accepted the spherical world of the Ancient Greeks if they wanted or the Flat Earth of other cults. It didn't matter.

After Christianity overthrew the old religions and took over the Empire, they presented a far different god. Their god would tolerate no others. Their god might kill you in fit of spite. Their god could send you to Hell for an eternity of burning. This began the era of the very feared god. A good Christian was one who was terrified of his God, hence the term "God - fearing" which over time was twisted into a dark comment.

The fear of a violent killer God is why in Islamic/Christian cultures, the frightening killer God as presented by his spokesmen (Priests, Preachers, Imams, Ayatollahs, Mullahs) hve such influence.

The most powerful influence there is, is fear itself.
(thanks to President FDR for the paraphrasing of his quote.)

Fiach

Wizardry

I'm going to go ahead and end the suspense here. It's not.

But oddly enough, an omniscient being learning something is more like the spherical cube case than even your arguments let on.

If learning is described as adding a fact previously unknown to a knowledge pool to that knowledge pool, then the problem isn't that our omnibeing can't add fact X to its knowledge pool, where fact X is a fact not previously known to the omnibeing. If it was a problem of an omnibeing not being able to do something which any person could do, namely, learn fact X, then this would be a genuine objection. But the thing is that nobody can learn fact X, even in principle, because fact X does not exist.

Fact X is a logical impossibility. As such, it is not a limitation on an omnibeing's power that it cannot learn it just as it is not a limitation on an omnibeing's power to create a spherical cube.

This whole confusion results from the reflexive nature of the verb learn. If reflexive verbs like this are used then it is easy to create scenarios that "contradict" omnipotence. An example or two: "Answer the following question truthfully in the affirmative: 'I am not omnipotent.'", "Determine a logically possible task that you cannot accomplish."

Now any non-omnipotent entity can easily complete the above tasks, but an omnipotent one can't. However, if the reflexive portions of the above sentences are replaced with specific targets, then the apparent contradiction is eliminated.

Thomas Metcalf,

I think your McEar and McNothing examples are invalidated by the framework I've provided.

Peace.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Wizardry :

(Suppose our alleged omnibeing is McNothing, the being who can't perform any action at all.)

If performing some action is described as performing some action that a being can perform, then the problem is that our omnibeing can't do action X, where this action X is any action at all that the omnibeing can do. If it was a problem of an omnibeing not being able to do something which any person could do, namely, to perform action X, then this would be a genuine objection. But the thing is that nobody can perform action X, even in principle, because this action can't exist.

Action X is a logical impossibility. As such, it is not a limitation on an omnibeing's power that it cannot perform action X just as it is not a limitation on an omnibeing's power to create a spherical cube.

So McNothing is omnipotent. I really think you should present an alternate analysis of "omnipotence" so you don't have to accept that absurd conclusion. Maybe make use of the framework I provided for Clutch above. If you do, you'll see very clearly how McEar and McNothing preclude the analysis you seem to be using.

These are different because no omnipotent being could perform them, purely in virtue of its omnipotence. So we throw them out when we present a robust definition of "omnipotence." No problem.

Magus55

Shrug, most Christians don't fear God except maybe out of respect. We love God and want to be as close as possible to him.
The apostles didn't really fear Jesus other than his power and not being worthy to be in his presence, but Jesus didn't teach love, peace, and caring to people to get them to flee from him in terror.

diana

God will smite me
This I know
For the bible tells me so
Those who fear him not will die
In torment, eternal fire

If you don't fear him, Magus, bring the marshmallows. The bible doesn't give you any wiggle room on the fear requirement.

You just stumbled across one of the psychological impossibilities demanded by the god of the bible: LOVE and FEAR him.

At least, it's a psychological impossibility for me. I cannot love anyone I fear. The closest I am capable of coming is being afraid to not love them, which isn't the same thing.

d