xian

[Mod note: this thread was split from Theism vs Atheist: McHugh vs Krueger. There may be some crossover posts. -d]

the reply by the atheist is not sufficient refutation. first of all, his definitions are skewed and I do not think that C McHugh is in agreement with them. Where omnipotent means "all powerful" it has no meaning outside of a logical context. The atheist defines "all powerful" outside the confines of logic, hence it is meaningless.

The ontological argument, at its core, states that existence > non-existence.

something able to exist in reality > something that cannot exist.

Given 2 definitions of "omnipotent":

1. able to do all things that are consistent with logic
2. able to all things including self-contradiction


we know that #2 cannot logically exist, while #1 can.

Therefore, #1 is STRONGER and MORE POWERFUL than #2.

The atheist definition of "omnipotent" is actually weaker than a gnat...since a gnat can actually exist.


Christopher McHugh does not define "omnipotence" in a contradictory fashion, hence there is not even agreement as to the primary premise of the atheists definition of God. His whole rebuttal is debunk.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by xian :

I'm sorry, but I can't even figure out to what part of Krueger's presentation you're objecting. My only guess is the pair of incompatible-properties arguments, because he hasn't used "all powerful" as you claim he has to do any work in his argument elsewhere. But take the one about having the power to sin. God just doesn't have the power to perform "to sin," and "to sin" is a logically possible action. So God must fail to be omnipotent.

Where did McHugh define "omnipotence" in a contradictory fashion?

And I don't understand why you start talking about that classic ontological argument in the end. Do you just mean God is defined to be maximally great?

xian

"to sin" is contradictory to the definition of God as a perfect being.

Logic > illogic. now and forever, amen.

to argue against that premise means you must use logic to do so.

which means you cannot argue it. it is an axiom.


To define any attribute on a being that is contradictory and hence, illogical, is to set up a being that cannot possibly exist.

but existence > nonexistence.

therefore any being that can logically exist > than any being that cannot exist.

to define God as "to sin" (against himself) and at the same time as "perfect" sets up an illogical definition of God that cannot possibly exist.

Yet a bright pink gnat can logically exist.

Therefore a bright pink gnat is more powerful, stronger, more potent than the atheist definition of a an illogical potential god.

the greatest possible being is one that has no contradictory attributes...meaning that it can logically exist. this will always and forever be stronger, more powerful than a being defined with illogical attributes

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by xian

As I take it, your definition of "omnipotent" is something along the lines of "able to perform any task that's not contradictory to your definition."

No one's defining God as "to sin," but I think I see your point. And here it looks as if you're working with the definition I just offered.

But that definition must fail. Suppose I define Mr. McEar as a being who can only scratch his ear. He is logically unable to do anything else. Then suppose I say McEar is omnipotent. You'd surely disagree. But in my defense, I'd say that "to perform any action other than scratching one's ear" is contradictory to the definition of McEar as a being who can only scratch his ear. To describe McEar as performing some action other than scratching his ear and at the same time defining him not to be able to do that sets up a contradiction.

So McEar is omnipotent?

Silent Acorns

Excellent, TM. I was thinking of something similar, but your version is better. Xian is confusing two distinct alleged properties of God: omipotence and omnibenevolence (i.e. God can't sin).

Xian, if you want to point out that omnipotence is incompatable with omnibenevolence, go right ahead. You're only making our point for us.

xian

no.

What do we mean when we say "all" in "all-powerful?"

All means the natural world (and the supernatural one)- all there is. It means having power over all that exists. If God does not have complete power over the natural world, you cannot logically say that He is all-powerful. Although your being would be able to logically exist, he has no power over nature, thus is ultimately weak. To be all-powerful means that you have power over all that exists....AND...you are able to actually exist. To the extent of defining your power over that which exists that ends up in a logical fallacy....then you have misdefined "all powerful".


To put simple:

An Omnipotent being is a being that EXISTS....that has ultimate power such that no POSSIBLE being that COULD EXIST would have more power.
defining omnipotence under your terms would not fit this.

Defining God as a logical contradiction is a being that cannot exist, hence has power over nothing.

Theli

Omnipotence entails more than power of that wich exists. If it didn't then god could not have created the universe, as it did not exist at that point.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by xian :

Here's a possible being: a being just like God except that it could sin. That being would be more powerful than God, who cannot sin.

God doesn't even have complete power over nature. God can't bring about the situation in which someone or other freely sins, and that's certainly something that happens in nature.

Bill Snedden

Doesn't that rather depend upon how one defines sin? Isn't sin really a word used to describe the moral status of acts, rather than the acts themselves?

In other words, according to the 10C, the moral status of murder is defined as sinful. However, does this mean that god cannot murder?

God can certainly kill someone, but under Divine Command moral theory (and variants that postulate God as the source of moral law), God is the source of all law and therefore any killing in which he engages is automatically justified. God can, therefore, never commit a murder. However, he can still kill someone, which is the same action without the negative moral status.

So, in saying "God cannot sin", the apologist isn't really saying that there is no class of actions that God cannot do, merely that none of his actions can be classified as "sinful". God and the serial killer can undertake the same crime spree, but in God's case his actions are exempt from being considered sinful because, as the source of all moral law, his acts are justified. So God's inability to sin really doesn't affect his ability to take any action, it's just a statement regarding value judgements that may be made about the actions he takes.

This may be the approach that xian is taking (more or less). Of course, such an approach necessarily eviscerates any claim such a god might have to be omnibenevolent, not to mention pretty much gutting any attempts to define a moral system, but that's another thread...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Wiploc

Greater in what sense? Are you just expressing a preference?

Quote:

to argue against that premise means you must use logic to do so. which means you cannot argue it. it is an axiom.

You wouldn't try to conflate axiomatic with true, would you?

Quote:

To define any attribute on a being that is contradictory and hence, illogical, is to set up a being that cannot possibly exist.

Assuming axioms are true, right?

Quote:

but existence > nonexistence.

Another preference, right? Are we to assume this is prefered by the same preferrer as preferred logic over illogic? Or do you get to match perferrers to preferences in whatever manner it takes to prove your point?

Quote:

therefore any being that can logically exist > than any being that cannot exist.

In what sense?

Certainly, according to my preferences anyway, an impossible Jehovah is far far better than an existant (and therefore possible) Jehovah.

Quote:

to define God as "to sin" (against himself) and at the same time as "perfect" sets up an illogical definition of God that cannot possibly exist.

You got something against sin? I mean something logical. If you don't have a logical reason to object to sin, then this is another hole in your "proof."

Quote:

Yet a bright pink gnat can logically exist. Therefore a bright pink gnat is more powerful, stronger, more potent than the atheist definition of a an illogical potential god.

And way way better than a Jehovah, as least as the Christians describe him.

crc