Thomas Metcalf

Well, mostly. I usually refer to "the God of the apologists" or "GA," shorthand for "an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being Who created the universe." I'm rather weary of seeing anyone claim that disproof of GA is impossible, de jure or de facto.

I always feel safe in asserting that all the versions of the GA have been impossible, because no one has provided a workable definition of "omnipotent" yet. The strongly omnipotent GA's existence is disconfirmed with the existence of suffering. The weakly omnipotent GA cannot be omniscient. The GA Who can bring about any logically possible state of affairs that can be brought about cannot in fact bring about any logically possible state of affairs that can be brought about; He cannot bring about the state of affairs in which a human freely chooses evil. There is also reason to reject this definition because it leads to certain other entities being omnipotent that we don't think would be so, and one can conceive of a more powerful logically possible being.

So consider this a challenge to those who believe in GA, to submit a definition of "omnipotent" that agrees with our intuitions but also agrees with the rest of GA's definition. I don't think it can be done, and because it can't, all the versions so far submitted lead to a GA who cannot possibly exist. If this is so, nothing short of a deductive argument for GA's existence can make belief therein rational. I'd be glad to evaluate those, too.

Kantian

Hello Thomas!
i remember posting a variant of Sartre's argument for atheism at a discussion board and the apologists came back with process theology.

What do you think of process theology, and how does it relate to your skepticism of "omni" properties that are often attributed to "God"?

~Transcendentalist~

Thomas Metcalf

Good question. I think process theology is probably the right way to go for apologists. As I understand it, they would abandon God's omnipotence in favor of something closer to the idea that God has the power to try to lure agents to be what God wishes them to be. This of course leaves God invulnerable to the paradoxes I mention about GA, but will be unacceptable to most apologists. In the end, I think process theology is far more defensible than traditional apologetics -- in this thread, I'm concerned with showing that GA is impossible, and I'm content to leave the God of process theologians alone for now.

As far as specific reasons to doubt the God of process theologians, there are far fewer. This version of God is simply much weaker and much more limited than GA, and therefore more acceptable.

Blu

Thomas Metcalf,

Your points are somewhat addressed on another thread that I created. I would love to read what you think about the ideas I presented.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000615" target="_blank">Lost and Confused by Cultural Definitions</a>

Keith Russell

Thomas:

I'm confused.

If one of these fine theists is able to provide a definition of 'God' or 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient' that meets your criteria, will you become a believer?

I mean, it would take more than that for me to convert to theism...

Keith.

Thomas Metcalf

No, sir. If a theist provides such, I will begin to believe that God is possible. I will still believe that He does not exist.

Thomas Metcalf

This is the only paragraph in which you argue for anything resembling a god:

"Is there an organized aspect of the Universe akin to Intelligence? If so how can you prove it? The Systems within the systems of the Universe is all the evidence you will ever need. If there was no intelligence, then there would be only chaos... if there is chaos, there would be no organization. If there is no organization, there would be no systems. If there are no systems, there would be no solar systems... there would be absolute nothing. There would be no presense of Energy. There would be no life. There would be no earth, NO NATURE, No gravity, No electrons, no atoms, ... there would be nothing but an absence, a void."

I think this is simply a non sequitur. I do not agree with "If there is no intelligence, then there would be only chaos." We have observed a great many instances order arising out of stochastic processes.

Philip Osborne

The strongly omnipotent GA's existence is disconfirmed with the existence of suffering. The weakly omnipotent GA cannot be omniscient. The GA Who can bring about any logically possible state of affairs that can be brought about cannot in fact bring about any....

Although I don't want this to turn into another argument from evil thread, I think this passage begs the question by assuming that the argument from evil disproves an omnipotent, omniscient God. For instance, I might start a thread called "To prove God is easy," which would say, among other things, "Atheists can't deny a supreme being, since the cosmological and ontological arguments work...." It seems to be that there is something wrong with this method. In other words, if you want to establish a given conclusion, it seems best to do so without assuming highly controversial ideas to be true.

Sincerely,

Philip

Infinity Lover

The only living beings capable of believing in the existence of a God, are also the living beings that are most destructive to themselves and their habitat; all supposedly created by that God.

You could almost draw up an equasion; the more a lifeform (so to speak) is created in the image of God, the less benificiary it is to God's creation.

Any (dis)agreements there?

sbaii

=================================================
That's a bit simplistic since human beings have existed for millions of years without doing the harm that we do today. Environmental degradation is more the result of corporations which have been given legal rights in the courts while they protect individual decision-makers from responsibility. We need to take into account also the mindset that making as much money as one can is more important than protecting the natural environment or the people with less education, less opportunities.