Automaton

Consider the following arguments:

• Challenge to omniscience: Gödelian self-referential paradoxes means that God cannot know all knowledge about all systems.
  Challenge to omnipotence: God is defined as omnibenevolent. Total benevolence precludes the ability for evil action. As God cannot do an evil act, God is not omnipotent.

Theists counter that God cannot do the logically impossible, such as create square circles, and is limited by his own being. But on closer inspection this definition of omniscience/omnipotence is circular:

• Why can't God do X? Because X is logically impossible.
  Why is X logically impossible? Because God cannot do it.

If one allows this definition, then I myself am omniscient/omnipotent, because the things I cannot do must be logically impossible because I cannot do them (and I am limited by my own being).

[ Edited because UBB is my mortal enemy. ]

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Automaton,

A few comments...

• This doesn't really present a problem at all. Note that if one defines knowable as 'that which can be known' then all-knowing means 'the state of knowing all that can be known.' This isn't really a problem about God...it is a problem about what the term 'all-knowing' means.
  
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally posted by Automaton: <strong> Challenge to omnipotence: God is defined as omnibenevolent. Total benevolence precludes the ability for evil action. As God cannot do an evil act, God is not omnipotent.

This big flaw here is the presupposition that certain 'actions' are inherently evil. This is simply wrong. For example: is 'pulling the trigger of a sidearm' inherently evil? No. If it's for recreation or self-defense it is not evil. If it is for murder or theft or some other evil intention it is. It becomes obvious that evil is more defined by intention than action.

This raises the question: "Who then defines what 'good' and 'evil' are?" Theists certainly hold that God does. I would go even further and claim that 'good' is in fact defined in terms of God's character. Saying 'God is benevolent' implies by definition that God can do no wrong. This is not saying there are certain 'evil' acts out there that God can't do because he is 'restricted' by benevolence. It's saying that
good is defined by the heart of God and evil is defined by 'anything contrary to the heart of God'.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

philechat

Another circular argument?

"What is good? Those that belong to the heart of God."
"What belongs to the heart of God? All that is good."

Meaningless tautology.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

philechat,
The statement 'good is defined as God's character' is not a circular argument for it is not attempting in any way to 'prove' God's goodness...a circular argument tries to prove something. This is merely a definition of good.


God's goodness IS a tautology. Just like math, logic and science are tautologies. These things
can't be proven...simply identified.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

philechat

Oh...well. I could also define all that belong to MY heart as good. And VOILA I am also omnibenevolent...

Who attribute the definition of omnibenevolence to GOD anyways? Math and linguistic definitions are all defined by HUMANS as far as I know...

The Other Michael

Hi Philechat,

Thou art God - I grok it.

cheers,
Michael

philechat

Actually God is Automaton.

Automaton

SOMMS: Thanks to philechat, we get down to the meat of the issue. The point of my post is that certain attributions of God are circular, and you have simply swapped one tautology (omnipotence) for another (benevolence). Actually, one of the most basic tenets of logic is that tautologies are meaningless, or in other terms, empty statements. By ascribing a tautology to God, you haven't actually said anything about that entity at all. Why are tautological definitions or descriptions empty? Because no actual definition is given, as I shall demonstrate below.<ol type="1">[*]The statement, "X is a baseball bat," ascribes the definition of baseball bat to entity X, and now entity X can be said to contain the properties of a baseball bat.[*]The statement, "X is X," ascribes nothing new to X, and is the same as merely "X". Without any properties ascribed to it, X is both empty and meaningless. This is a tautology.[*]The statement, "X is Y and Y is X," is the same as "X is X", because X is ascribed the properties of Y, and Y is ascribed the properties of X. It is merely adding another link to the chain, and is just as empty and meaningless as before. This is the tautology you use.[/list=a]Now, using let's replace X and Y with your terms shall we? You are saying "goodness is goodness" and "the heart of God is the heart of God." This gives zero information about God. It is meaningless. Any such tautology would have the same amount of value in describing God, and if you grant that tautologies are logical, then the word "God" can mean anything and everything.

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>

E_muse

As I have mentioned before, self defining statements are not necessarily wrong.. they are simply unreliable. Demonstrating that something is circular does not instantly mean that it should be considered incorrect a priori.

Some further explanation would be helpful here. In what way do Gödelian self-referential paradoxes prevent God from having complete knowledge about all systems? How do you understand these paradoxes? You haven't defined these paradoxes and how they relate to how we can understand God's knowledge.

In your example, x was a square circle.

A square circle is not simply logically impossible, it is actually impossible. It cannot have being, either as a real space-time event or a mental concept. It is the combining of two contradictory terms.

Square circle can only exist as a phrase that in no way relates to any experience and is therefore meaningless.

Correct. How is that a problem?

I'm not sure that God not doing evil is any reflection on his ability.

In my country we drive on the left. If ever you see me driving I will be on the left unless I am overtaking of course, but that isn't very often.

However, the fact that I am always seen to drive on the left does not mean that I lack the ability to drive on the right. Such a conclusion would be irrational.

Benevolence relates to the desire to do good - not lacking the ability to do evil.

Automaton

Mentioned before? I am unaware of this discussion, could you give me a link?
Wow, you gave that an odd wording. One does not demonstrate that a thing is circular, you do it with arguments and definitions. If the concept of "something" is circular, then that thing a priori lacks a meaningful concept, and like a square circle, cannot exist.
Well...

• Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced.
  
  - Boyer, History of Mathematics

If this is not a challenge to omniscience, I don't know what is!
I mentioned a square circle as an example of something that is logically impossible, not as an example of X. I thought I reasonably clearly stated that X is an action that God cannot do because God cannot do the logically impossible and for God to do something counter to his "being", as some theists put it, would be logically impossible. I was showing that this rationalization is circular.
Because circular definitions are meaningless.
Will God ever do evil? No, because God's ultimite desire, as you have described it, is to do good. Can God go against his ultimite desire? No, and as such, God's omnipotence is limited by his desires... or his being... and this leads us right back to where we started.

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Automaton ]</p>