Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xian · 03-17-2003, 04:12 PM

"Let's see. You claim that only your god satisfies a suitably specific definition of your god.

I point out that this is true of any object, and hence, that your point is trivial. "

Let's see, I am not claiming that only my god satisfies a specific definition of my god.

I am claiming that there can only be one GPB, irrelevant of one's subjective definitions, therefore excluding all other potential deities (like the IPU) as inferior. It doesn't matter what you or I think about the attributes of the GPB, since the GPB is an objective proposition.

Yet logic can at least give us SOME of those attributes, though not in the detail that you might like.

Logic gives us, for example:

Infinite > finite
Just > unjust
Good > evil

Autonemesis · 03-17-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xian
"So there is no limit to the evil God does, is that right? "

if evil was an attribute of the GPB, then it would have infinite scope. Infinite describes a scope.

And a scope delineates limitations.

Quote:

But Evil is not an attribute for the GPB, therefore your statement is invalid.

Therefore, your God has limits (can't do evil), and cannot be the GPB (can do evil, or good, or whatever). Certainly, you will not contest the obvious conclusion that a being that can do XYZ is greater than a being that can only do XY.

Limited scope means not the GPB. QED.

Soma · 03-17-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fishbulb
What is illogical is the notion of omnipotence. This argument succinctly demonstrates that nothing can be omnipotent. Either God can lift any rock or he can create an unliftable rock (or he can do niether), but he cannot do both. [...]

If God can do one impossible thing, then He can surely do another, can He not?

What if He simaltaneously creates and lifts the rock? Has He negated His omnipotence if no time passes between creation and lifting of the rock?

Quote:

This is a refutation of the "first mover" argument. For a very long time, some Christians have unconvincingly tried to provide a logical proof for God that rests on the premise that nothing can exist without having been caused (created), so the fact that the universe exists implies that it was created. By whom? By God, of course. Even if we accept this argument that the universe had to be created, it in no way establishes that the Christian God must have been that creator. But more fundamentally, the argument is self-contradictory because it posits an uncreated and eternal God as the solution to the problem that there cannot exist uncreated entities. If it is possible that an eternal God could exist, why is it impossibe that an eternal universe could exist?

The cosmological argument attempts to demonstrate the necessity of a prime mover which is itself unmoved. Without an unmoved prime mover, nothing would exist now. Every thing that has the potential to move will never be moved because an infinite number of things have yet to be moved. An infinite regression of causation is logically impossible, thus there must exist at least one unmoved thing which caused all movement.

Quote:

The God described in the Bible, especially but not exclusively the Old Testament, does many things that any well-adjusted person would find arbitrary, cruel, petty, and just plain evil.

God is free to commit evil acts without negating His perfect goodness.

xian · 03-17-2003, 04:15 PM

"Therefore, your God has limits (can't do evil), and cannot be the GPB (can do evil, or good, or whatever). Certainly, you will not contest the obvious conclusion that a being that can do XYZ is greater than a being that can only do XY.

Limited scope means not the GPB. "

this is not a limit. You are now moving into the "can god make a rock he cannot lift" argument, which I do not want to address here.

suffice to say that the GPB must be able to actually exist, and cannot be given contradictory attributes. A being that is given contradictory attributes cannot possibly exist, therefore it is and will always be inferior to even the tiniest, weakest being that actually CAN exist (like a gnat)

Dr Rick · 03-17-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xian
first let us define the Judeo Christian God.

God is simply defined as the greatest possible being possessing the attributes: infinite, sovereign, moral, omniscient, omnipotent, just, etc. Take an invisible pink unicorn, a proposed deity.
Now give it these attributes:

infinite
unlimited
independent
sovereign
moral
omnipotent (properly defined)
omniscient

and you no longer have an invisible pink unicorn

You now have God.

Welcome back, xian;

You're arguing a strawman.

The IPU argument isn't that gods don't exist; but rather what you attribute to gods could be attributed to whatever you make-up.

When theists argue that their gods exist, the IPU is used to illustrate an alternate being which has all of the characteristics that some ascribe to their particular gods. You have defined the Judeo-Christian god to have the characteristics of the "GPB." However, one could argue that your GPB is the IPU, not the J-CG.

Quote:

"There can be only one, or there can be NONE"

Yes, I agree.

thereby refuting the IPU argument. One or none. BUt not a google raised to the google.

That one is the IPU.

Rick

Clutch · 03-17-2003, 04:18 PM

And further to the topic of learning at least Thing One before pronouncing on this and that:

Quote:

It is philosophically impossible for 2 infinite beings to co-exist.

Midway through my reflections on this remarkable claim, I happened upon your further assertions that:

Quote:

I think the word "infinite" is pretty clear in its meaning... infinite means what the dictionary says it means. don't make me look it up for you.

You see, the word "infinite" is clear in its meaning(s) -- but you, by contrast, are not very clear on the meaning(s) of "infinite". Perhaps you should indeed go look it up -- not in Webster's, but in at least an elementary education resource. Because I know a bit about "philosophical possibility", and a bit about infinity, and your claims here are ill-informed fantasies.

Beetle · 03-17-2003, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xian:
A being that is given contradictory attributes cannot possibly exist

Speaking for myself, I have the ability to do both good and evil, and I'm relatively sure that I exist.

xian · 03-17-2003, 04:22 PM

"The GRB <SIC> is the IPU, which has all of the characteristics that some ascribe to their particular gods. "

if you give the IPU the objective attributes that would make it the GPB, then it is no longer an IPU. In the same way, if you were given the attributes of a brick, you would no longer be a human being.

xian · 03-17-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch
And further to the topic of learning at least Thing One before pronouncing on this and that:Midway through my reflections on this remarkable claim, I happened upon your further assertions that: [/b]You see, the word "infinite" is clear in its meaning(s) -- but you, by contrast, are not very clear on the meaning(s) of "infinite". Perhaps you should indeed go look it up -- not in Webster's, but in at least an elementary education resource. Because I know a bit about "philosophical possibility", and a bit about infinity, and your claims here are ill-informed fantasies. [/B]

please explain to me how 2 infinite beings could actually co-exist, and yet both be infinite.

it is impossible

K · 03-17-2003, 04:25 PM

xian:

Quote:

and before you say the IPU is infinite, remember the law of noncontradiction. It is philosophically impossible for 2 infinite beings to co-exist. iF you think that philosophically such a proposition is possible, please logically explain how it could be.

So now that you've proven that Jesus wasn't God, I'll have to assume that you chose the name 'xian' to poke fun at Christians.

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

03-17-2003, 04:12 PM	#41
xian Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 378	"Let's see. You claim that only your god satisfies a suitably specific definition of your god. I point out that this is true of any object, and hence, that your point is trivial. " Let's see, I am not claiming that only my god satisfies a specific definition of my god. I am claiming that there can only be one GPB, irrelevant of one's subjective definitions, therefore excluding all other potential deities (like the IPU) as inferior. It doesn't matter what you or I think about the attributes of the GPB, since the GPB is an objective proposition. Yet logic can at least give us SOME of those attributes, though not in the detail that you might like. Logic gives us, for example: Infinite > finite Just > unjust Good > evil

03-17-2003, 04:15 PM	#44
xian Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 378	"Therefore, your God has limits (can't do evil), and cannot be the GPB (can do evil, or good, or whatever). Certainly, you will not contest the obvious conclusion that a being that can do XYZ is greater than a being that can only do XY. Limited scope means not the GPB. " this is not a limit. You are now moving into the "can god make a rock he cannot lift" argument, which I do not want to address here. suffice to say that the GPB must be able to actually exist, and cannot be given contradictory attributes. A being that is given contradictory attributes cannot possibly exist, therefore it is and will always be inferior to even the tiniest, weakest being that actually CAN exist (like a gnat)

03-17-2003, 04:22 PM	#48
xian Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 378	"The GRB <SIC> is the IPU, which has all of the characteristics that some ascribe to their particular gods. " if you give the IPU the objective attributes that would make it the GPB, then it is no longer an IPU. In the same way, if you were given the attributes of a brick, you would no longer be a human being.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.