Mageth

No hits, no biting the bullet.

Jack the Bodiless

Made it, unscathed!

The question that I found hardest was the first! It wasn't easy for me to decide whether God definitely did not exist, as I couldn't ask "which God"? So I decided to assume the Biblical one and say "no", and whenever I was then asked about what characteristics a God might have, I didn't choose the "omnimax" ones (as the Biblical God isn't omnimax).

Darkblade

and…

Question 13 (It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.) was the one I thought about for the longest (not that long, however).

VonEvilstein

Perfect score.

Seeing as the omnies lead to so many paradoxes, I disregarded them as possibilites in the defining God stage of the test. Also, my view of any potential God as non-moral and essentially uncaring made the test a lot easier, too.

fishbulb

Evidence of X is something which suggests that X is likely or at least plausible. Apart from in logic and mathematics, proof is essentially evidence strong enough to be considered proof. What constitutes evidence and what constitutes proof (and what consitutes niether) is highly subjective, but there are certain standards which are often agreed upon.

The more strongly something suggests that X is true, and the more it rules out other plausible explanations, the stronger that evidence can be said to be. Proof is evidence which is strong enough to convince you that there are no reasonable alternative possibilities to X.

Not everyone is equally critical when evaluating evidence, especially when evaluating evidence for or against something they want to believe is true or false. Not only are some people better equipped to evaluate evidence (particularly in areas where a certain amount of technical expertise, as well as critical thinking, is required), but some people are more emotionally committed to certain ideas or concepts than others, and are, consciously or unconsciously, more willing to ignore or reject evidence which tends to contradict their cherished views, as well as overstate the significance of observations which tend to support them.

I took the question as a test to determine whether the reader could differentiate between logical or mathematical proof and empirical proof, and understand that one is applicable to real-world phenomena and the other only to theoretical systems.

(By the way, I made it through with no hits or bitten bullets. I did so making no assumptions about what sorts of qualities a being called god must have, rather than assuming that "God" referred to an entity from a particular myth or cultural concept.)

diana

Indeed. Hence the myriad threads we've had about it here.

True. As opposed to the apologetic version, which hopes to redefine the concept into the realm of possibility, yet still somehow distinguished from mere "potence."

See, that's where I disagree. What I assert by saying "Omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible" is that omnipotence itself is outside the bounds of logic and rationality. On that basis, I conclude that "God" is impossible.

It's a nuance, but there's a difference.

I don't see this as an either/or, as you do.

I'm keen to hear your definition. I'm surprised you haven't used it, thus far, to quash Thomas Metcalf.

Well, I use it to rule that omnipotence is impossible and incoherent, myself, and any god with such a presumed quality is an utterly ridiculous concept.

I didn't take it as a compliment, but unlike many people I could mention, I don't mind saying that some people (or computerized tests, as the case may be) have a poor opinion of my viewpoint on theology.

The funny part is--hold your sides--is that my ideas on God are actually based on what the average fundy's ideas of God. The average fundy simply doesn't think twice about how reasonable those ideas are.

d

Albert Cipriani

Diana,
For something to be funny, it must not be too serious or even true. E.g. the guy who slips on the banana isn't hurt; the dumb blond joke is about no one we know.

Unfortunately, your perception is both true and serious. Hence, for someone like me who takes these matters seriously, it is not at all funny. But I don't blame you for feeling it's funny.

By way of explanation, you guys ought to try to remember that just as Islam was not a new religion but a heresy of an old religion (Judaism), so too is Protestantism a heretical offshoot from the Catholic, that is, Christian religion. So in rejecting the ideas of Islam or the Fundies, you are rejecting what the original religions have also rejected. Yet like throwing out the babe with the bath water, you throw out the original religions in the same fall swoop. -- Sadly, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Tercel

I don't have "my" definition. I'm just saying that most theists are happily to use as a working definition of Omnipotence one that does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. (Especially since most theologians would assert this to be the case anyway)
Omnipotence is often variously used by theologians to mean that God has power over all other entities, or that God has more power than any other being, or that God can actualise any possible (logically coherent) state of affairs, or that God has that power over this universe etc.

What's Thomas Metcalf got to do with anything, and why would I care enough to quash him? If he wants to say that God can't exist because "Omnipotence" is illogical then he's welcome to, I'll ignore him just the same as I'd ignore a fundy telling me God does exist because the Bible says so.

Perhaps you could be a bit charitable to the person asserting that, and take their assertion of an impossibly high degree of omnipotence to mean that God has as much power as you can accept as being logically coherent. (ie "God is omnipotent" could mean "The hypothetical entity 'God', has the attribute of having the maximum degree of power that it would logically be possible to have and still exist")

copernicus

Albert, you forgot to point out that Catholicism is not a new religion, but a heretical offshoot from Judaism. Indeed, some would regard modern christianity as a heretical offshoot of the broader, more complex communities of christians that existed before the pagan emperor Constantine (converted just before death) decided to make one authoritarian brand of christianity the official religion of the Empire. It was this zealous brand of christianity that first put the torch to the great library of Alexandria--long before the muslims got to it centuries later. Within the state-sponsored authoritarian brand of christianity, Roman Catholicism represented but a schism, whose authority is still not recognized by the Orthodox, Marionite, Coptic, etc., branches of old christianity. The Protestants are just a more recent schismatic offshoot of Roman Catholicism.

But is it accurate to say that islam was a heretical offshoot of judaism? Not quite. It was better considered a blend of judaism, christianity, and local pagan traditions. The Arabs that adopted it were abandoning polytheism, not judaism.

fishbulb

Power over all other entities: this is a very vague concept. Everything exerts some power, or at least potential power, no matter how small, over every other thing. Small though I may be, my presence on this planet serves to affect the movement of the sun, albeit in an immesurably small way.

Conversely, the only way (for God, for example) to not be subject to the power of other entities would be to have a monopoly on power. To be, in other words, all-powerful (or, "omnipotent").

More power than any other being: it is difficult to assess power in an overall sense. The sun has more illuminating power than the United States military, but less military power. Moreover, most powerful doesn't imply anything particularly special. The United States has the most military power of any nation on Earth, but that doesn't mean that it is inconceivable that another nation could defeat it in a military conflict. Of a 40, 99, and 100 Watt lightbulb, the 100 Watt lightbulb is more powerful than any other, but only marginally more powerful than its closest rival.

Bring about any logically coherent state of affairs: without charging this particular brick wall again, let me just say that this concept is, at best, under-defined. It can be interpreted in many different ways, many of which are clearly paradoxical themselves, despite being formulated in order to try to avoid a paradox. Without a more thoughtful and detailed explanation of what this means, I would have to classify this as vague and essentially meaningless.

Has power over this universe: not a concrete definition. This is an essentially meaningless statement.

I couldn't be that charitable, because that's a lazy definition. Power can take many forms, and it seems to be to be at best a monumental undertaking to asses all of the different kinds of powers a being possesses, convert them into abstract power units, and sum them all up to arrive at an aggregate total. What counts as more powerful? A being who can destroy anything that exists, or a being who is indestructable and therefore is unable destroy itself? If the definition offers no answer, then there is no way to actually evaluate whether any entity meets that definition.