Jobar

I would say that an *illogical* god, who could create a stone too heavy for himself to lift- and then lift it anyway- would be more powerful than a god constrained by logic.

The trouble with an illogical god is that language is useless to describe him.

HRG

A being which is able to change its character and to act contrary to its previous character is obviously more powerful than one which can only act according to its "eternal, unchanging nature/character" etc.

IOW, an omnipotent being isn't bound by any character, nature etc. This simple statement makes several theist arguments invalid(e.g. "God, being holy, cannot suffer sin ih his presence").

Regards,
HRG.

xian

i see you are using logic to refute that "logic > illogic"....very nice.
"You wouldn't try to conflate axiomatic with true, would you?"
You wouldn't be trying to say there is no "truth" would you? And if you did say such a statement, would it be true?
"Assuming axioms are true, right? "
Ahh, another person trying to say that there may indeed be "absolutely no absolutes" Stunning.
"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? "

Cool. I love how you continually make appeals to logic in order to challenge the statement "Logic > illogic".


now as for the debate, I find the whole premise of "faulty attributes" faulty in itself.
Defining attributes in a contradictory fashion sets up a logical fallacy that cannot possibly exist.
yet Existence > nonexistence (disregarding the previous post challenging that, i think most ppl would agree to that)
So when defining any GPB, the attributes must be assigned maximally where existence can still be logical.
When Kreuger made constant appeals to "all-knowing" by saying "God cannot know sex", ect., he is basically saying:

"God cannot know what it is like to not be God" which is equal to the law of noncontradiction.

to say "God cannot know what it is like to not be God" is to simply affirm the law of noncontradiction. It IS true...and it must be necessarily true!

Yet it does not infringe upon omniscience. "Can God cease being God?"
of course, the answer is no. The GPB, if it could cease to be the GPB, would be a logically non-existant being, hence it could not be the GPB.

The GPB is the greatest possible being that can actually exist!! ALL-KNOWING means able to know everything that can actually be known!. ANything that would render the GPB as something that cannot actually exist....of course, could not actually be known...since it could not be actual.

Silent Acorns

Thank-you once again, Xian, for demonstrating that all-knowing, all-powerfull, and all-good contradict each other. However, your proposed solution to this problem: "God is the smartest, strongest, and nicest of all beings" still leaves me wondering:

How do you measure "knowing"?
How do you measure "power"?
How do you measure "benevolence"?

We need an objective means to measure all these qualities before we can sort all beings in existence, select the winner, and declare him/her/it God.

Unfortunately, as you have admitted, there are some things that I know that your favourite being doesn't. Therefore no one can know all the answers to all possible questions and no one's knowledge is superior to everyone else's.

Just to be clear, there is a distinct difference between "A having more knowledge than B" and "A's knowledge being superior to B's knowledge". In the former, A might know 10 facts that B doesn't know and B might know 3 facts that A doesn't know. Therefore, A knows 7 more facts than B. But we can't determine who knows more since B's 3 facts may be much more important and/or powerful than A's 10 facts. In order to determine who knows more we need to assign a weight to each fact. But unless you can come up with a way to objectively determine these weights, this exersise will be inherently subjective. But even if you could come up with an objective system for weighing the value of every fact, A's knowledge will never be superior to B's because B still knows 3 facts that A doesn't.

Superior knowlege exists when A knows everything B knows, plus at least 1 additional fact. Only under these conditions can we be sure that A's knowledge is > B's knowledge by all objective measures. But as you've admitted, your God's knowledge is not superior to mine. At best, his/her/its knowledge is greater based on YOUR subjective system of weighing the values of facts.

And even if you come up with objective measures for all three, why must all these "bests" be contained in a single being?

xian

but they do not contradict each other if defined properly. When you say "all" we are referring to all that can actually be known, all that can actually be done. THe moment we violate the laws of logic, then we move from actual to non-existant. Since everything actual has potential existence, then it truly is ALL.

Experiential knowledge is a psychological term that sets up a form of knowledge dependent upon experiences. Kreuger is trying to make this a component of "all knowing" by setting up a contradictory fallacy.

God cannot "experience" what it is like to not be God. Krueger is saying that this fact makes it impossible for an all-knowing being to exist. When the only thing impossible to exist is Kreuger's fallacy. Experiential knowledge is NOT a component of omniscience. If it were, then omniscience itself would be defined as a logical contradiction. NO one can experience what it is like to not be themselves. Omniscience defined without the violation of the law of noncontradiction renders the word logically valid. When we use terms like "omniscience, omnipotent" they must be defined in potentially logically existant fashions.

I do not need to go to Russia to know everything there is to know about Russia. I will lack the experiential "knowledge", but I may indeed know far more about it than one who lives there. TO be honest with you, I have always rejected the "experiential knowledge" hypothesis as a component of knowledge. I do not believe experiences are a requirement of any kind of knowledge. That is something that psychologists "insert" into the criteria of knowledge. Facts stand outside of experience. All-knowing is to know all facts that exist....but not experience them. To say that unless God can know what it is like to not exist and then make that a logical requirement of God is NOT a problem with omniscience...but a problem with your definition of it. The GPB is the greatest possible being that can actually exist.

xian

but an illogical God could not exist.

logic is not constraining. it is a tool that we can use to deliniate what can be true, and what must be false. the smallest logical being that can actually exist will always be stronger and more powerful than any being that cannot exist.

Silent Acorns

There is really no point in you emphasizing this given that the claim "impossible things can't and therefore don't exist" is EXACTLY the tool that most atheists use to attack theism. We agree. The traditional "all" means everything interpretation of "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" leads to impossible beings. Most modern theists now arge something similar to your version "God knows everything that is possible for Him to know and can do everything that it is possible for Him to do".

But look at this closer. You have effectively defined "an all-powerful being" as "one who can do anything that is possible for him/her/it to do". By this definition, I'm all-powerful (an so are you and everything else in the universe). Even things that don't exist are all-powerfull by this definition.

Now you could redefine "all-powerful" as the power to do anything that any other being can do (i.e. every act that every being X can do, an all-powerful being can do as well). With this definition, I no longer qualify as all-powerfull (and neither do you nor do non-existent beings). Definitely an improvement on the previous definition. But there's still a problem. I can steal and murder while God can't. I can only see two defenses:

1) God can't murder because it's "not in his nature". He can't do what it is impossible for him to do ... (i.e. your usual defense)
2) (From Bill Snedden) To say God can't murder is irrelevent because murder is a judgemental value. God can't murder but he can kill. He is capable of the act of killing, but immune from the judgement of murder.

If you claim (1) then you are jumping back and forth between two different definitions of "all-powerful". This isn't a valid argument technique. Pick one definition and stick with it.

If you choose (2) then (as Bill said earlier) you successfully fix the "all-powerful" problem but do fatal harm to "all-good" since you are forced to define "good" as "whatever God does or wants".

If you know another way to resolve this, please let me know.

At a minimum, I would like to see a clear definiton of "all-powerful" (i.e. not just scattered elements that you think a good definition should or shouldn't include).

Apparently for no other reason than the fact that it is inconvenient for what you want God to be. I have heard a lot of talk (seen a lot of type?) about what omniscience and omnipotence is NOT in your and other theists opinions, but I have yet to see a clear defintion of either of these terms that does both of the following at the same time:

1) not result in contradictions, and
2) necessitates the Christian (or any similar) god.

If you have one, for either term, please let me know.

K

xian:

Then by your own definition, God is not all-powerful. If He can not sin, then He does not have power over all of the natural world. How do we know? Because we, limited natural beings, have the power to sin.

So, while I could create a lie (a perfectly natural act), God is incapable of doing so. He's stuck in the same boat as McEar - capable of doing everything He's defined to be capable of, but not having power over all of nature.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Bill Snedden :

Yes. But God cannot bring about the state of affairs "someone or other freely sins," or perform the action "some action which others will correctly call a sin." I don't think your move, or the move you attribute to xian, will offer much help.