Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does if you read further instead of taking it out of context. I went on to talk of how making someone freely do something is logically impossible. God's omnipotence would only be contradicted if there was some power he lacked, but there is no such power as the ability to do what's logically absurd.
Or, if you want to insist that god's omnipotence entails the ability to do the logically impossible, the theist can always respond with "Very well. God exists even though this argument proves he doesn't since he can do the logically impossible".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Are you and Vic lovers?
I assume your ignorance of the concept of logical impossibilities prompted this inane remark. Try educating yourself instead of revealing your ignorance by such puerile responses.
Vic earlier: "even an omnipotent being could be "limited""
Vic now: "all-powerful"
I really dislike and don't the use or but am chuckling to the idea that omnipotent can be limited.
In other arguments on this and other forums, it's so often used as an excuse that god can do whatever the hell he wants whether it makes 'practical/scientific' sense or not, whether we understand it or not...….because he is omnipotent!!
I really dislike and don't the use or but am chuckling to the idea that omnipotent can be limited.
In other arguments on this and other forums, it's so often used as an excuse that god can do whatever the hell he wants whether it makes 'practical/scientific' sense or not, whether we understand it or not...….because he is omnipotent!!
I agree. I rarely use the symbol for posts. And, as demonstrated by the kerfuffle over my recent comments about dictionary definitions, I'm not one to get stuck on technical dictionary definitions. But sometimes the things that people say to support christianity are...well...inane. Some words are vague (such as good, bad), while other words -- like omnipotent -- are quite concrete. And add to that the number of christian rites that use phrases such as "all powerful and ever loving god", I just think trying to say god's omnipotence could be limited is bizarre. God (if we assume there is one) is either omnipotent or he isn't. And if he isn't...if he is limited...then there is some other word or phrase that is far more appropriate.
an all powerful thing can do what it wants. it did us. we think its limited because our perception of it is wrong. i don't believe in an all power thingie. But it doesn't take much to make stuff up. both anti-religious socist do it and fascist theist do it.
what i take from vic ... once we make up a all power thingie ... it doesn't take much to defend it.
I really dislike and don't the use or but am chuckling to the idea that omnipotent can be limited.
In other arguments on this and other forums, it's so often used as an excuse that god can do whatever the hell he wants whether it makes 'practical/scientific' sense or not, whether we understand it or not...….because he is omnipotent!!
thats all vic said.
we can make up what we want once we say there is an all powerful thingie. to me anyway.
Vic earlier: "even an omnipotent being could be "limited""
Vic now: "all-powerful"
You should probably quote full sentences, if your aim is to convince thinking people that I've contradicted myself or some such?
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
I really dislike and don't the use or but am chuckling to the idea that omnipotent can be limited.
Well there's absolutely nothing incoherent about it. It simply means that a being possessing every power will still not be able to make contradictions true. So for example, an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle. That wouldn't mean the omnipotent being wasn't all-powerful, just that such a "power" couldn't exist in the first place.
You should probably quote full sentences, if your aim is to convince thinking people that I've contradicted myself or some such?
Well there's absolutely nothing incoherent about it. It simply means that a being possessing every power will still not be able to make contradictions true. So for example, an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle. That wouldn't mean the omnipotent being wasn't all-powerful, just that such a "power" couldn't exist in the first place.
We only have to try and be honest, open, and agenda free.
What we see with Vic is Christian apologetics in disguise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I assume your ignorance of the concept of logical impossibilities prompted this inane remark. Try educating yourself instead of revealing your ignorance by such puerile responses.
It all depends on the context of the conversation. But typically, IME, the atheist will bring up the problem of evil specifically to claim or imply that if god exists he can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent at the same time. And they're never able to show the logical incompatibility, usually resorting to "How could a loving god allow (the most unsettling and disturbing examples of evil/suffering we can think of)?"
The word you are looking for is "omnibenevolent" not just "benevolent." Sure "benevolence" by itself doesn't require every good action possible, but omnibenevolence does require at least the "best" good action. Monotheists of the jealousy and wrath do posit that some "best action" will come along in the future in terms of their after-life or post the judgment times.
So YES, there is a contradiction. "Omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent" would directly lead to the logical conclusion of "capable and accomplished loving-heroism" and most people don't see procrastination or dragging things out as "loving" or "heroism." A monotheist would have to invent a good reason why the very capable and lovingly willing (omnibenevolent) God would not do the right thing "just yet."
The existence of evil and suffering doesn't even have to come into the picture. Simply having one "good" or state being better than another would be enough for a contradiction.
"Eternity" wouldn't matter either: once evil, always evil. The past having already occurred, it is immortalized as always having happened. A perfect being living only in and out of itself can't be "still completely perfect" if it allowed imperfection to exist "for just a millisecond, but then it was fixed."
The answer to the Problem of Evil in religion and philosophy is not "well there might be things we don't know" or "Well, let's wait for an eternity." Those are literally NOT the answers to anything (although they could apply as the meaningless answers regarding everything), and "you don't have an answer" does not mean "therefore my given answer is right."
"true" Mercy contradicts "true" Justice
and "true" omnipotence contradicts "true" omnibenevolence only when there are things within "omnipotence realm/reach" which are not "omnibenevolent". So again, evil and suffering don't even have to come into the picture of this obvious contradiction.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 01-19-2019 at 11:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
