Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Clutch :

I thought I already answered this, too.

Here's a lists of tasks.
- to make a spherical cube
- to meet a married bachelor
- to learn something
- to bake a pie

The first two are fundamentally different from the last two. The first two are logically impossible tasks, and the last two are logically possible tasks. My position is that an omnipotent being ought to perform every logically possible task.

Now, to argue against that analysis of omnipotence, you have to find a plausible alternative analysis, or a counterexample (either an omnipotent who couldn't perform every logically possible task, or a being who could perform every logically possible task that's not omnipotent).

AmericanHeretic

Magus, you misunderstand me. I would never argue for the erasure of your freedom to believe as you feel you need to. What I want is for Christianity's impact to be terminated as a cultural entity. You, individually, may believe in Santa if you wish. I just don't want to have to say "one nation, under Santa" when I pledge allegiance to my nation.

Christianity used to be the power in the world. Those who argued against did so at great peril. But then came science and Darwin and microbiological theory and medicine and technology, and each and every step of the way Christianity tried desperately to hold back progress because ignorance among the population and the status quo served the desires of powerful leaders and clergy.
At each advance of science, religion reeled backwards, as if stunned, weakened, afraid even to speak on the issues men and women of science mastered, and myth faded, and the Earth was not flat, after all.
We are winning this struggle, go ahead, tell us about 6 day creation as per Genesis and see if I, or anyone, believes you over the Big Bang. Say God created the universe, go on, do that. We'll all post links about the Big Bang, and anyone who reads, will learn, and when they learn, like humanity has now for centuries, your religion and it's myths and it's impact will continue to fade. And the Earth revolves around the sun, after all.

We have separation of church and state now. We have have separation of church and education, and separation of church and reason, it's only a matter of time before we have separation of church and impact.

We're already over half way there. We literally took the Beginning of the Universe away from God. We took evolution away from Noah. We took disease away from feeble prayer and cured it. We took morality away from Biblical absolutism.

Laugh now Magus. Time is most decidedly on our side.

You go right ahead and look forward to the end of the world, it isn't coming. Meanwhile, we'll look forward to the beginning of the next Age of Reason. That's why we post here, to bring it on sooner.

diana

Hi, Thomas.

For the sake of this discussion, there seem to be two possible definitions for omnipotence:

1. the ability to perform any logical task that is consistent with one's properties.
2. the ability to perform any logical task.

I think 2 is the only choice that gives the word a distinguishing characteristic, because 1 becomes tautological, and thus includes every being.

I'm exhausted and not the best at this on a good day, but it seems to me that any discussion of logical impossibilities such as "making a spherical cube" or "meeting a married bachelor" is a red herring here.

You aren't calling God impotent because he can't make a spherical cube. You're calling him on the fact that he is unable to perform tasks that are inconsistent with his properties.

Omniscience is a property. Learning is a task that is inconsistent with it. He can't learn because it would violate a basic property. Ergo, he is not omnipotent.

If we went with definition 1, all creatures great and small are omnipotent. For example, I cannot regurgitate lava, because it is in violation of my physical properties to do so; but, by definition number 1, this limitation cannot be held against me for that reason. But limitations are, by definition, things one cannot do; that is, they are things that are in violation of a being's properties.

Thus, anything I am incapable of doing is waivered by this clause and voila! I am omnipotent. I could be a crippled, blind, mutant hamster and still be omnipotent by this definition.

So unless we want to claim every creature is omnipotent (1st definition), we must claim the second definition. God doesn't get a waiver for his inability to do anything that is in violation of his properties. He can't learn. Ergo, he isn't omnipotent.

d

sourdough

I take an offense to that statement bud,
I'm an atheist and have never commited any crimes,ever,and have always lived my life with respect for all,
and most atheists I know are honest,righteous,law abiding,friendly,patriotic people.
unlike some xians who commit murder in the name of their god,or some of your "holly"ones who rape kids b/c God told them to.
to see how is it posible for atheists to be moral see
www.americanatheists.org

if you think all Christians are bad,I guess you have only God to blame,b/c he created you that way.

spurly

I would like to add why I am a Christian. Here's my story.

I was introduced to the Godhead of the Bible from the day I was born. I grew up in a family which had an incredible amount of faith in God. There are preachers, elders, deacons, and committed Christians hanging all over my family tree. (From my grandparents down, I can only think of one non-committed Christian on my family tree, and she is a Jewish believer who married into the family. We may convince her yet!)

But do I believe just because of the environment I grew up in? No. When I was a child that was the case, but when I reached the age of 18-19 years old, I began to really search things out on my own. As I studied God and asked questions of the Scriptures and people I respected, I began to really develop a faith of my own.

There was really only one time of doubt that I can remember. I was sitting in a theology class in college, and suddenly, for an instant, I had a quasi out of body experience. (I wasn't really out of body). But for some reason I saw things from a different perspective from an instant, like I was sitting in the upper corner of the room, looking down. Here's what I saw. In my mind I imagined that we were all just puppets whose strings were being pulled by God. We had no choice, we just had to do whatever he directed us to do. This experience only lasted a short while, five seconds at most, but I remember it vividly.

This led me to question more. But I kept coming back to the fact that God existed, and he was the God of the Bible. No matter which way my questions went, they always returned to that truth.

Now, because of further study, I have no doubt. God exists. Fulfilled prophecy demands it. The intelligent design of the universe demands it. And my own experience with him demands it.

Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it (as the old C & W song says).

Kevin

Muad'Dib

Hi Kevin,

You may get more of a response if you post your story in a new thread--this one is pretty busy already!

diana

Hi, spurly.

Welcome to EoG. Haven't seen you in here before.

Since this is EoG...let's discuss this. The fact of God's existence, you say. It's a truth?

How do you know?

This is a forum crossover post, I guess. I'm curious as to what you think is fulfilled prophesy, but that's primarily a discussion for BC&A.

How, exactly, do you determine what is "designed" and what isn't?

I'm anxious to hear more on this, as well. Can you expand?

Thank you,

d

diana

If you mean Apologetix, I think he's gone.

d

Muad'Dib

spurly signed his post "Kevin"--was Apologetix a Kevin too?

What's with all the Kevins lately?

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, since apologetix seems to be nothing more than an errant troll on a fool's mission and magus little more than an advocate for armegeddon...

Are you sure that wasn't maidenhead? Sorry, just having some late night fun on that one.

Funny, I've got all sorts of non-believers hanging from my family tree precisely because they were non-believers, but, again, I digress.

Careful in light of what you contend later. Don't worry, I'll point it out.

Yes. Again, I'll point it out when it comes up.

As you studied "scriptures?" What would those be? The New Testament? The same one you were "born" into believing?

Which God? The god your "non-commited" inlaw believes in?

Great, then you believe as your jewish inlaw believes. In Yahweh and not in Jesus. Right?

Again, which god are you referring to? Allah? Are those the scriptures you studied? Or was it "The Righteous One" of the Essenes? Or do you follow the original Jesus cult, the Gnostics, whose scripture (The Gospel of Thomas) was supposedly the first gospel of Jesus thrown out by the catholic cult around the fourth century (if memory serves) when they were creating the canon? You know the one, right? The one where Jesus says, in essence, that you don't need any intermediary (including Jesus) to communicate with and, ultimately, be God?

But surely you know of this, since you studied the "scriptures," i.e., the entirety of texts found at Nag Hammadi and the others found in and around the caves of the Dead Sea? Such as the "Song of Mary," a gospel allegedly written by either Mary Magdelaine or the other Mary at Jesus' tomb, depending, of course, upon which of the scriptures you read and which theologian you trust the most?

Would that be the same "fulfilled prophecy" that the Jewish non-commited believer in your family believes in? Because that would be Isaiah and no part of his prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. I could go into that if you would like, but I guess there's no reason to, since you studied the scriptures and found this to be true on your own, right?

Or didn't you actually read Isaiah, the pirmary source of the prophecy the New Testament authors claim establishes Jesus' messiah-hood?

I tell you what, study all 66 chapters of Isaiah in one sitting and without trying to find all of the apologetic cross-referrences in the New Testament and then come back here and detail where exactly there is any referrence to either Jesus' life or anything Jesus' life encapsulated or fulfilled from Isaiah before you answer.

We'll wait.

"Intelligent design," such as:

Or would that "intelligent design" be more along the lines of:

Or "intelligent design" like:

Would that be the "intelligent design" of the universe you speak of?

Or is that only for your Jewish non-commited believer to believe in? Oh, no, it can't be, since the New Testament confirms this myth as well:

So, Genesis was right and accepted as true by the New Testament authors.

So, please tell me where is the "intelligent design" you speak of is in Genesis? Or don't you believe the myth of Genesis as the authors of the New Testament did? Nothing that is written in that book corresponds to either our universe nor "intelligent design," but, again, you know this because you studied the scriptures, right?

That's some story. Unfortunately for you, that's all it is. A story. One that you didn't, apparently, study very seriously at all, IMO. But I'm glad that wasn't due to any influence from your family and friends and preachers, elders, deacons, and committed Christians hanging all over your family tree.

Pardon the sarcasm. It's late and I'm endlessly tired of theists who claim they have "studied" the Bible when it is abundantly clear that they have done anything but study it (or anything else outside of it, for that matter).

Reading something that confirms beliefs you were already inculcated with hardly passes for study, don't you think?

I could be wrong, of course, so please demonstrate where I am. I don't mean to belittle your beliefs, just the seriousness with which you claim you've studiend them.