Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
And how will you define this "possible" supernatural creature?

One who can flood the Earth through an act of "will," perhaps?

It is not possible to do this (setting aside the "will" part and the "forty days and forty nights" nonsense), the Earth could not possibly be globally flooded--and then have those waters magically "recede"--due to the volume of water required; the position of the Earth in its orbit around the sun; the mass/inertia of the earth and how that would be altered; etc., etc.

So what do you intend on doing other than simply defining a being as "capable of doing this?"

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

We're talking about logical possibility here. It is logically possible for the world to flood and for this water to recede. That is, we do not utter a contradiction when we say that this flood happened. It is not physically possible, but we are not concerned with physical possibility here.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 12:37 PM

Exactly, which means you are engaging in nothing more than pointless semantical masturbation.

Have fun with that.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
Exactly, which means you are engaging in nothing more than pointless semantical masturbation.

Have fun with that.

Argument by assertion has never been a valid argument form. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-30-2002, 12:51 PM

I wasn't arguing, I was describing what you were doing. There's a difference.

Have fun with it.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
I wasn't arguing, I was describing what you were doing. There's a difference.

Have fun with it.

You were asserting that what I was doing was such, and not backing it up. So your post was, to me, a waste, because I had no reason to believe what you said.

TooBad · 07-30-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf:
I thought this was a philosophy forum.

It is, but Koy is not a philosopher. He's a New Yorker.

Welcome to the forum, Thomas. I agree, it's difficult to think of a definition of omnipotence which is both coherent and empirically meaningful.

Thomas Metcalf · 07-30-2002, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TooBad:


It is, but Koy is not a philosopher. He's a New Yorker.

Welcome to the forum, Thomas. I agree, it's difficult to think of a definition of omnipotence which is both coherent and empirically meaningful.

Thanks for the welcome.

I think I answered my own question for myself earlier today. The problem with a definition that precludes conflict with essential properties is that it really seems to be defining the problem away. The fact remains that there are logically possible actions that God cannot perform, and we should still worry about this fact.

Automaton · 07-30-2002, 06:19 PM

I don't think "can God learn" would represent a logically possible demand, for the same reason that rock-so-big arguments fail. If God is omniscient, there is nothing possible for him to learn, and thus learning anything would be impossible.

How does state-of-affairs omnipotence solve the legitamite paradoxes? It's merely a semantical distinction, as "possible worlds" is a semantical distinction in certain logics. Observe:

A: Can God create evil?
B: Can God bring about a state of affairs containing evil?
A: Can God eat an icecream?
B: Can God bring about a state of affairs in which he eats an icecream?

An apologist may defend this further by stating, "State-of-affairs omnipotence only refers to states of affairs seperate from God's being." This still does not invalidate the former argument, and creates a God that is unable to do logically possible things (which turns
"omnipotence" into "just quite a large amount of power").

Jobar · 07-30-2002, 06:28 PM

I think that when you start talking about absolutes- power, wisdom, benevolence, whatever- you are exceeding the capabilities of language. It is impossible to talk about. Oh, you can make up all the definitions you want- trouble is, you cannot make definite the infinite. In the words of Lao Tzu, "The Tao which can be talked about is not the ultimate Tao."

If theists would just accept this, and stop trying to talk about God, we atheists would be very very happy.

foursquareman · 07-30-2002, 06:37 PM

all this talk presumes that this omnipotent being must be able to be defined by our own laws of logic and knowledge. What is to say that this wasn't the case? What happens if the rules of logic need not apply to a being who created these rules? None of us has ever died and seen what exists (if anything) outside of the physical universe, so how can we conclude that everything must fit into our own little box?

hope this helps

07-30-2002, 06:19 PM	#18
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	I don't think "can God learn" would represent a logically possible demand, for the same reason that rock-so-big arguments fail. If God is omniscient, there is nothing possible for him to learn, and thus learning anything would be impossible. How does state-of-affairs omnipotence solve the legitamite paradoxes? It's merely a semantical distinction, as "possible worlds" is a semantical distinction in certain logics. Observe: A: Can God create evil? B: Can God bring about a state of affairs containing evil? A: Can God eat an icecream? B: Can God bring about a state of affairs in which he eats an icecream? An apologist may defend this further by stating, "State-of-affairs omnipotence only refers to states of affairs seperate from God's being." This still does not invalidate the former argument, and creates a God that is unable to do logically possible things (which turns "omnipotence" into "just quite a large amount of power").

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

07-30-2002, 12:37 PM	#12
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Exactly, which means you are engaging in nothing more than pointless semantical masturbation. Have fun with that.

07-30-2002, 12:51 PM	#14
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	I wasn't arguing, I was describing what you were doing. There's a difference. Have fun with it.

07-30-2002, 06:28 PM	#19
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I think that when you start talking about absolutes- power, wisdom, benevolence, whatever- you are exceeding the capabilities of language. It is impossible to talk about. Oh, you can make up all the definitions you want- trouble is, you cannot make definite the infinite. In the words of Lao Tzu, "The Tao which can be talked about is not the ultimate Tao." If theists would just accept this, and stop trying to talk about God, we atheists would be very very happy.

07-30-2002, 06:37 PM	#20
foursquareman Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 63	all this talk presumes that this omnipotent being must be able to be defined by our own laws of logic and knowledge. What is to say that this wasn't the case? What happens if the rules of logic need not apply to a being who created these rules? None of us has ever died and seen what exists (if anything) outside of the physical universe, so how can we conclude that everything must fit into our own little box? hope this helps

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.