Freethought & Rationalism Archive

wordsmyth · 01-25-2003, 01:27 AM

I mentioned this in another thread, but didn't really get a response, so I'll assume its a valid point.

Omnipotence requires omniscience.

A being cannot perform an action that requires a knowledge that that being lacks. The greater a beings lack of knowledge, the greater the impotence of action wheresoever that knowledge is a prerequisite.

While the claim that the xian God is not actually omniscient might appear to aid the "free-will" defense, it simultaneously countermands its alleged omnipotence.

Waning Moon Conrad · 01-25-2003, 07:03 AM

I've met a few clergymen into this kind of thing. They struck me as cowards.

Bright enough to realize that literalism and fundamentalism just don't work but too gutless to let go of Christianity and find something better.

I really couldn't help feeling that they were fabricating silver linings for very dark clouds.

Keith Russell · 01-25-2003, 07:18 AM

Greetings:

Why is it always the concept of 'God' that I'm supposed to accept? Do you believe in this concept of 'God'?

No?

Then, how about this one?

No one argues about the character of the sky, and even the things that are debated (the nature of quarks, for instance) are debated using evidence.

If an experiment yields a certain result, that result might very well defeat one's concept of quarks--and, unless one doubts the experiment, one cannot continue to hold onto a disproven concept.

'God' is not like this, however. If a given concept of 'God' is defeated (omniscience, for example) many refuse to give up that concept of 'God'. Further, others will simply introduce a new concept.

"So, you didn't like that 'God', huh? Well, how about this one?"

When will these concepts of 'God' ever be tied to reality; or at least to experiements as rigorous as those used to discover the attributes of quarks?

These floating abstractions get tiresome.

Even if one was able to devise a concept of 'God' that was possible, it still would not be valid evidence that 'God' does--in fact--exist.

Keith.

Shadowy Man · 01-25-2003, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I'm new to this forum- I'm not an atheist but find a lot of the arguments very intelligent and convincing. I have a question for the atheist/agnostic posters here- have you heard of a "new" idea in Christian theology involving the nature of God called openness? Basically, that God is not omniscient in the sense that it's classically been taught. That God cannot know the future b/c it is not here yet, etc.

This sounds a lot like the standard back-pedalling involved when the "God of the Gaps" gets smaller and smaller.

E.g.: "Ok... so now that we understand the Sun, I guess the Sun isn't a god, but maybe a god created the Sun! .. Oh, the Sun was created from collapsing interstellar clouds... well, maybe a god caused the clouds to collapse.... oh, they collapsed under gravity, well maybe a god invented gravity..."

Jayhawker Soule · 01-25-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I'm new to this forum- I'm not an atheist but find a lot of the arguments very intelligent and convincing.

How did another Chicagoan get my old username? How embarrassing.

Welcome aboard, ReasonableDoubt.

BTW: who cares whether or not someone claims that God(s) is/are omniscient? That Pixies and Leprechauns are apparently not omniscient gives me no more reason to believe in the Faerie Kingdom, and I don't recall omniscience being claimed for Ba'al, Mithras, Kali or Zeus.

Do me a favor: be kind to the name.

Philosoft · 01-25-2003, 11:47 AM

I think I'm having extended deja vu. Someone slap me.

ex-xian · 01-25-2003, 12:26 PM

Actually, Boyd's theology is an attempt to rework Whitehead and Hartshorne's Process theology into a Christian setting. I'll post more after dinner with my oh so lovely wife (in case she reads this

). Try looking up references for panentheism and process theology. That will give a little more insight into what ReasonableDoubt is talking about.

Biff the unclean · 01-25-2003, 02:48 PM

I can't help but be reminded of grade school arguments about just what superpowers Clark Kent has and what would happen to him if he was exposed to red kryptonite as opposed to green.
Classical Superman scholars say that he can leap a tall building in a single bound. However those that base their scholarship on Superman after the radio show say that you will believe that a man can fly.

Will God's "openness" effect his X-ray vision? Will Lex Luthor become omniscient? Stay tuned for the next exciting adventure!!

ReasonableDoubt · 01-27-2003, 07:08 AM

Thanks for all your comments, they make sense. I've heard people say that this view of God is more palatable to non-theists, so that possibly they will step back and rethink the issues. I didn't believe that, and that had been confirmed by the answers here! Thanks!

Biff the unclean · 01-27-2003, 07:59 AM

Non-theists, in general, don't use their personal preferences to determine if they think that beings exist. I really and truely don't like spiders, but what are ya goona do, there they are. I also really and truely want there to be a God. But it doesn't matter one lick how much I wanted him to exist.
Palatablity has nothing to do with it. Evidence is what you need.

01-25-2003, 07:03 AM	#12
Waning Moon Conrad Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Victoria. Australia Posts: 1,417	Re: Openness Theology I've met a few clergymen into this kind of thing. They struck me as cowards. Bright enough to realize that literalism and fundamentalism just don't work but too gutless to let go of Christianity and find something better. I really couldn't help feeling that they were fabricating silver linings for very dark clouds.

01-25-2003, 11:47 AM	#16
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Whoa. I think I'm having extended deja vu. Someone slap me.

01-25-2003, 12:26 PM	#17
ex-xian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 4,679	Not really Boyd's Actually, Boyd's theology is an attempt to rework Whitehead and Hartshorne's Process theology into a Christian setting. I'll post more after dinner with my oh so lovely wife (in case she reads this ). Try looking up references for panentheism and process theology. That will give a little more insight into what ReasonableDoubt is talking about.

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

01-25-2003, 01:27 AM	#11
wordsmyth Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Des Moines, Ia. U.S.A. Posts: 521	I mentioned this in another thread, but didn't really get a response, so I'll assume its a valid point. Omnipotence requires omniscience. A being cannot perform an action that requires a knowledge that that being lacks. The greater a beings lack of knowledge, the greater the impotence of action wheresoever that knowledge is a prerequisite. While the claim that the xian God is not actually omniscient might appear to aid the "free-will" defense, it simultaneously countermands its alleged omnipotence.

01-25-2003, 07:18 AM	#13
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Why is it always the concept of 'God' that I'm supposed to accept? Do you believe in this concept of 'God'? No? Then, how about this one? No one argues about the character of the sky, and even the things that are debated (the nature of quarks, for instance) are debated using evidence. If an experiment yields a certain result, that result might very well defeat one's concept of quarks--and, unless one doubts the experiment, one cannot continue to hold onto a disproven concept. 'God' is not like this, however. If a given concept of 'God' is defeated (omniscience, for example) many refuse to give up that concept of 'God'. Further, others will simply introduce a new concept. "So, you didn't like that 'God', huh? Well, how about this one?" When will these concepts of 'God' ever be tied to reality; or at least to experiements as rigorous as those used to discover the attributes of quarks? These floating abstractions get tiresome. Even if one was able to devise a concept of 'God' that was possible, it still would not be valid evidence that 'God' does--in fact--exist. Keith.

01-25-2003, 02:48 PM	#18
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I can't help but be reminded of grade school arguments about just what superpowers Clark Kent has and what would happen to him if he was exposed to red kryptonite as opposed to green. Classical Superman scholars say that he can leap a tall building in a single bound. However those that base their scholarship on Superman after the radio show say that you will believe that a man can fly. Will God's "openness" effect his X-ray vision? Will Lex Luthor become omniscient? Stay tuned for the next exciting adventure!!

01-27-2003, 07:08 AM	#19
ReasonableDoubt Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 86	Thanks for all your comments, they make sense. I've heard people say that this view of God is more palatable to non-theists, so that possibly they will step back and rethink the issues. I didn't believe that, and that had been confirmed by the answers here! Thanks!

01-27-2003, 07:59 AM	#20
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Non-theists, in general, don't use their personal preferences to determine if they think that beings exist. I really and truely don't like spiders, but what are ya goona do, there they are. I also really and truely want there to be a God. But it doesn't matter one lick how much I wanted him to exist. Palatablity has nothing to do with it. Evidence is what you need.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.