Philosoft

It must, however, be shown that there exists a being 'God' which has necessary characteristics that are logically incompatible with 'evil' for this analogy to hold.

<strong> Which runs headlong into the circularity problem already mentioned by Automaton.

Theli

I think you mean, evil doesn't exist outside the psycological realm.

Did you read this before you posted it?
It's a tautology based on unfounded premises. In other words -crap!-.

Beheaded_Goat

<a href="http://www.iljboards.com/showthread.php?s=86c38d7cbd5fd4367d26553ce9f28f22& threadid=8334" target="_blank">Here is the link to the argument.</a> Please give input as to what you think of this debate.

My opponent goes on to say that logic is a part of God's nature and therefore he cannot make squares circle, and so on. I stated that a being like God, unique in the universe and the only of its kind, cannot be understood to have a nature because there is nothing to compare that nature to. There is no standard for the nature of Gods.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Beheaded_Goat ]</p>

Philosoft

I think you might want to avoid debating presuppositionalists. A lost cause, as we've seen here rather recently.

Automaton

I'm sorry Philip, but this is still a strong argument against omnipotence:

• A: Why can't God do X?
  B: Because X is logically impossible.
  A: Why is X logically impossible?
  B: Because God can't do X.

See? Circular.

scumble

You get stuck on what God really means. Christians don't understand their own concepts really. Theologians have no trouble talking about God being in control of everything while we are still reponsible for our evil deeds.
The whole thing with Joseph goes like that. His brothers were bad in selling him, but apparently God intended this in a good way, while Joseph's brothers intended it in a bad way.

It's strange, you know. How can God grant free will and still know what we're going to do?

mibby529

@scumble:
Time travel maybe. Who knows? Gods usually end up being paradoxes. Only the master theologians end up realizing that the best answer is to say nothing. If you do not define a god, how can that god be proven to not exist? Of course, it cannot be proven to exist either.

@Blu:
If evil is darkness, then why can I only sleep in darkness, but I can't sleep when witnessing evil? Ergo evil!=darkness.

Olorin

I'm currently conversing with someone about what it means to be omnipotent. We have both agreed upon this definition: The ability to perform all actions not extending to illogical actions..

This definition entails that omnipotence is nothing more than the ability to do things that can be done in conjunction with other attributes.

I am trying to argue that I am omnipotent, because when I take my own nature into account, and the limitations that are derived from it, I am left with the ability to do anything that I am able to do. Therefore, the extent of my abilities does not extend to illogical actions, and I am thus omnipotent.

If my argument is good, I will have no other option but to laugh at all of those Christians who say that their deity is "all-powerful" or is "unlimited in power".

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Olorin ]</p>

Taffy Lewis

Olorin,

You define omnipotence as:

Then you claim:

I don't think this point undermines the above definition. The definition refers to "all actions". Clearly, you can't perform all logically possible actions. So the truism "I can do everything I can do." is not logically equivalent to "I can perform every logically possible action."

ManM

What would it mean if God could create a rock he could not lift?