Mageth

The Greco-Roman gods never had the influence that Christianity does. Hence why almost nobody believes in them these days.

Is that supposed to be an answer?

The amount of influence Xianity has today (about 1/3 of the world's population is at least nominally Xian) does not guarantee its continued existence indefinitely.

Muad'Dib

So when there are more Muslims than Christians (and Islam therefore has more influence), we'll know that eventually Islam will prevail and people will no longer be Christian? I don't see what principle you're appealing to.

Clutch

Yes, I have a bad feeling that the Christians will see to it...

Clutch

The claim was that it's incoherent to say both that god is omnipotent and that he can't learn anything. This is just the problem of logical possibility all over again, though. An inability to create spherical cubes is not normally taken to represent a limitation on God's power. Nor, given that he knows everything, does an inability to learn things. Nor forget things. Nor be late for a dance recital. I don't see any reasoning here to shore up the original claim.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Clutch :

Yes, that's my claim.

I am unable to fly under my own power. Yet, given that I am unable to fly, an inability to fly doesn't seem to be a limitation. After all, for a being who is unable to fly, it is logically impossible to fly.

"To learn" is a logically possible task, but "to create a spherical cube" is not. The latter therefore presents no problem for God's omnipotence, but the former does.

Biff the unclean

You know of course, Magus55, that the God's of Hellenism didn't "fade away." Theodosius the Great (r.379--395CE ) inaugurated an imperial decree that declared Christianity as the only religion allowed in the Roman Empire. It was high treason, punishable by death to be a Hellenist. Thousands upon thousands were put to death by the Christians, all the temples, and all their possesions, were confiscated by the church. You might want to read Edward Gibbions; The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (try chapter XXVIII, it's a really long and dry book) if you think the people of Europe were happy to put aside the religion they had believed in for thousands of years.

Clutch

...for an agent who does not know everything as a matter of logical necessity.

"To make a cube" is a logically possible task, too. Just not one that can be coincident with making a sphere. Mutatis mutandis...

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Clutch :

I answered this already, although I guess I could have been clearer. Here's what I said:

"I am unable to fly under my own power. Yet, given that I am unable to fly, an inability to fly doesn't seem to be a limitation. After all, for a being who is unable to fly, it is logically impossible to fly."

Take any task T you want. Now take a being S defined such that S is unable to perform T. It follows that T is only possible for an agent who does not possess S's properties as a matter of necessity. T is impossible for S, but this is a consequence of S's properties. Therefore, (if you accept your defense of God's omnipotence despite His omniscience) S might be omnipotent.

But this is surely false. Consider the notorious problem of McEar, the being who can only scratch his ear. It is only possible to scratch your ear if you don't possess the property "unable to scratch one's ear" as a matter of logical necessity. Just like it's only possible to learn if you don't possess the property "omniscient" as a matter of logical necessity.

So if God's omnipotent, then McEar is. (As is McNothing, the being defined such that he cannot perform any task at all.) But these beings aren't omnipotent. Therefore, God isn't, by modus tollens.

LordSnooty

Yes, but we have seen for the unintelligent and backward arguments presented by Christians when countering the claims of unbelievers. They don't stand up to much scrutiny, but then, they don't have to.

This is why Intelligent Design has so many fans. It's obvious rubbish to anyone with a properly functioning brain, but if someone wants to believe then they will hang on to any evidence - no matter how tatty or dubious - in order to do so.
In the same breath that you complain about being accused of ignorance, you say that we would automatically refuse to acknowledge these amazing facts of yours. So I don't really think you've got much to complain about.

It's a bit lame to come here and say 'I've got the facts, but they're too powerful for your feeble atheist minds!'. Spit it out!

Paul

Clutch

I already answered this. I said:

"'To make a cube' is a logically possible task, too. Just not one that can be coincident with making a sphere. Mutatis mutandis..."

If you think that the unlearnability problem demolishes the notion of omniscience, then you might as well have thought that the spherical cube problem did. Heck, maybe the s-c problem does, for that matter; I've never quite understood why the cruces in reasoning that our feeble minds call "contradictions" should somehow constrain God's infinite powers and understanding. I just don't see the fundamental difference between the two cases.