Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Detached9 · 03-02-2002, 05:16 PM

Point out as many paradoxes in this definition of God as possible.

[1] Omniscient
[2] Omnipotent
[3] Ineffable
[4] Omnibenevolent
[5] Omnipresent
[6] Perfect
[7] Invisible (immaterial, supernatural)
[8] Creator of the universe
[9] Outside of time
[10] Desires communion with humans
[11] Has free will

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]

jpbrooks · 03-02-2002, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Detached9:
Point out as many paradoxes in this definition of God as possible.

[1] Omniscient
[2] Omnipotent
[3] Ineffable
[4] Omnibenevolent
[5] Omnipresent
[6] Perfect
[7] Invisible
[8] Creator of the universe
[9] Outside of time

Can omnipotence and omniscience be reconciled for example?

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]

Hello, Detached9.

As usual on topics of this nature, I'm more interested in what others might have to say. However, it might help if you could provide at least one example of a paradox that arises among your list of the characteristics that have been attributed to God above for those who may not be immediately aware of any inconsistencies among those characteristics, just to get things going. For example, how might there be a paradox involved in holding that God is both omniscient and omnipotent?

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

Detached9 · 03-02-2002, 06:10 PM

For example, how might there be a paradox involved in holding that God is both omniscient and omnipotent?

Thanks for the suggestion.

The omniscience and omnipotence paradox usually goes a little like this:

[1] God is omniscient (God knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen).

[2] God is omnipotent (God is able to do anything logically possible).

[3] From (1), God can know the future.

[4] From (2), God is able to alter the future.

[5] God knows what will happen in 'x' days (From [2])

[6] If God alters what will happen in 'x' days, then at one time God did not know what would happen in 'x' days.

[7] Therefore, omniscience and omnipotence are irreconcilable.

I'm not sure if I argued this correctly. Especially [6], maybe someone could toy with this argument a little.

Detached9 · 03-02-2002, 06:21 PM

This one deals with ineffability and any other given attribute for a deity's existence.

[1] God is ineffable (not capable of being expressed in words, indescribable).

[2] God is omniscient (knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen).

[3] By saying God is ineffable, you have described God, which is contradicting his ineffability.

[4] By saying God is omniscient, you are contradicting his ineffability as well.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]

jpbrooks · 03-02-2002, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Detached9:
[QB]

Thanks for the suggestion.

Sure.

(It feels odd for me to be giving people advice about writing when I only got a "c" in my english composition class. Though, I must admit that the Secular Web is giving me an incentive to learn more about writing.)

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

Grumpy · 03-02-2002, 07:19 PM

Maybe we should add a tenth: Desires communion with humans.

I don't know if this is on the classical list of God's attributes. It helps to pin down what kind of God we're talking about; this tenth quality would not apply to a Deistic God or a Brahma creator.

It also opens up new avenues for contradiction. Invisibility/immateriality goes against the goal of achieving communion with humans.

Detached9 · 03-02-2002, 07:23 PM

Maybe we should add a tenth: Desires communion with humans.

I agree... I edited it to have that attribute included.

Can someone critique the arguments I've formulated? Or maybe someone could formulate these same arguments in a more coherent manner? Or better yet, could someone else make an argument against the attributes listed?

Detached9 · 03-02-2002, 07:26 PM

Invisibility/immateriality goes against the goal of achieving communion with humans.

Could you argue this one out a bit more? Do we need to see something to conclude that it exists? There are somethings that are directly sensed, but other things are indirectly sensed, such as virtual particles, black holes, and the wind. These things that are indirectly sensed are sensed by their affects on their surroundings. Could an argument be made showing God's effect on it's surrounding?

John Page · 03-02-2002, 07:50 PM

My favorite is "The Unknowable". Kinda makes it difficult to disprove this kind of god, but then how did somebody come to know that the unknowable was unknowable in the first place!

nixon · 03-02-2002, 09:34 PM

Detached9 wrote ..."[6] If God alters what will happen in 'x' days, then at one time God did not know what would happen in 'x' days..."

This is not really applicable because God is "[9] Outside of time" and thus altered what will happen in "x" days from every (or any) point in time. Boy what omnipotence will do for you!

Now seriously, here is one I seen in the archives here somewhere...

If God is "[1] Omniscient" and "[2] Omnipotent", due to evil on Earth (Self declared in God's own book), He cannot be "[4] Omnibenevolent"

Actually I think I worded it better...Whatdaya no

03-02-2002, 05:16 PM	#1
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	Paradox Game Point out as many paradoxes in this definition of God as possible. [1] Omniscient [2] Omnipotent [3] Ineffable [4] Omnibenevolent [5] Omnipresent [6] Perfect [7] Invisible (immaterial, supernatural) [8] Creator of the universe [9] Outside of time [10] Desires communion with humans [11] Has free will [ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

03-02-2002, 06:21 PM	#4
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	This one deals with ineffability and any other given attribute for a deity's existence. [1] God is ineffable (not capable of being expressed in words, indescribable). [2] God is omniscient (knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen). [3] By saying God is ineffable, you have described God, which is contradicting his ineffability. [4] By saying God is omniscient, you are contradicting his ineffability as well. [ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2002, 06:10 PM	#3
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	For example, how might there be a paradox involved in holding that God is both omniscient and omnipotent? Thanks for the suggestion. The omniscience and omnipotence paradox usually goes a little like this: [1] God is omniscient (God knows all that has happened, is happening, and will happen). [2] God is omnipotent (God is able to do anything logically possible). [3] From (1), God can know the future. [4] From (2), God is able to alter the future. [5] God knows what will happen in 'x' days (From [2]) [6] If God alters what will happen in 'x' days, then at one time God did not know what would happen in 'x' days. [7] Therefore, omniscience and omnipotence are irreconcilable. I'm not sure if I argued this correctly. Especially [6], maybe someone could toy with this argument a little.

03-02-2002, 07:19 PM	#6
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Maybe we should add a tenth: Desires communion with humans. I don't know if this is on the classical list of God's attributes. It helps to pin down what kind of God we're talking about; this tenth quality would not apply to a Deistic God or a Brahma creator. It also opens up new avenues for contradiction. Invisibility/immateriality goes against the goal of achieving communion with humans.

03-02-2002, 07:23 PM	#7
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	Maybe we should add a tenth: Desires communion with humans. I agree... I edited it to have that attribute included. Can someone critique the arguments I've formulated? Or maybe someone could formulate these same arguments in a more coherent manner? Or better yet, could someone else make an argument against the attributes listed?

03-02-2002, 07:26 PM	#8
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	Invisibility/immateriality goes against the goal of achieving communion with humans. Could you argue this one out a bit more? Do we need to see something to conclude that it exists? There are somethings that are directly sensed, but other things are indirectly sensed, such as virtual particles, black holes, and the wind. These things that are indirectly sensed are sensed by their affects on their surroundings. Could an argument be made showing God's effect on it's surrounding?

03-02-2002, 07:50 PM	#9
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	My favorite is "The Unknowable". Kinda makes it difficult to disprove this kind of god, but then how did somebody come to know that the unknowable was unknowable in the first place!

03-02-2002, 09:34 PM	#10
nixon Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Valleyview, OH USA Posts: 6,638	Detached9 wrote ..."[6] If God alters what will happen in 'x' days, then at one time God did not know what would happen in 'x' days..." This is not really applicable because God is "[9] Outside of time" and thus altered what will happen in "x" days from every (or any) point in time. Boy what omnipotence will do for you! Now seriously, here is one I seen in the archives here somewhere... If God is "[1] Omniscient" and "[2] Omnipotent", due to evil on Earth (Self declared in God's own book), He cannot be "[4] Omnibenevolent" Actually I think I worded it better...Whatdaya no

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.