God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient.

[Silent Mule Man]

Suicidesoldier#1

However, the point is, if you define God to mean your own made up thing and then prove that wrong, you haven't actually proven that God doesn't exist. You've just proven that your tailored definition can fit along with your argument, which has no bearing on the real world. In lay man's terms, it's known as a straw man argument.

Well you had the chance to come up with your own definition, and chose instead to toss the ball in my court. It's hardly sporting to get mad for taking a shot that you set me up for.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Silent Mule Man

Suicidesoldier#1

However, the point is, if you define God to mean your own made up thing and then prove that wrong, you haven't actually proven that God doesn't exist. You've just proven that your tailored definition can fit along with your argument, which has no bearing on the real world. In lay man's terms, it's known as a straw man argument.

Well you had the chance to come up with your own definition, and chose instead to toss the ball in my court. It's hardly sporting to get mad for taking a shot that you set me up for.

I'm not arguing for the existence of a God or not, I'm just arguing in hypotheticals.

Also I'm not mad. O.o


I don't think... sweatdrop

Or am I...? ninja

[The20]

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

How does knowing what will happen if you do x prevent you from doing x (Edit: or force you to do x, for that matter)?

[El Boriqua33]

No, because there where and are a s**t load of other deities that have been around way longer then the Abraham religion..

[anonymous attributes]

El Boriqua33

No, because there where and are a s**t load of other deities that have been around way longer then the Abraham religion..

I didn't know Abraham had a religion.

PS, at what point in time in history did the God of the bible create the heaven and the earth?

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

How does knowing what will happen if you do x prevent you from doing x (Edit: or force you to do x, for that matter)?

The omni- characteristics deny that there are any limitations to the characteristics in question. So, omniscience implies that there is no thing that God does not know, including the future. But that puts a constraint on what God can do, hence denying his omnipotence. And also, the omnipotence can deny the omniscience, if we posit God can create something beyond his capacity to understand.

I know there are attempts to rebut these, but they are all very ad hoc in nature and just dig deeper holes.

[The20]

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

How does knowing what will happen if you do x prevent you from doing x (Edit: or force you to do x, for that matter)?

The omni- characteristics deny that there are any limitations to the characteristics in question. So, omniscience implies that there is no thing that God does not know, including the future. But that puts a constraint on what God can do, hence denying his omnipotence. And also, the omnipotence can deny the omniscience, if we posit God can create something beyond his capacity to understand.

I know there are attempts to rebut these, but they are all very ad hoc in nature and just dig deeper holes.

So, what you are really asking is "can God defy logic"? Can he make true = false? I would like to know where you got the idea that this is possible.

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

How does knowing what will happen if you do x prevent you from doing x (Edit: or force you to do x, for that matter)?

The omni- characteristics deny that there are any limitations to the characteristics in question. So, omniscience implies that there is no thing that God does not know, including the future. But that puts a constraint on what God can do, hence denying his omnipotence. And also, the omnipotence can deny the omniscience, if we posit God can create something beyond his capacity to understand.

I know there are attempts to rebut these, but they are all very ad hoc in nature and just dig deeper holes.

So, what you are really asking is "can God defy logic"? Can he make true = false? I would like to know where you got the idea that this is possible.

If omnipotence entails defying logic, that's one good reason to conclude God isn't real.

On the other hand, if it doesn't entail that, what's "omni" about it anymore? Strangely enough, it not only doesn't save omnipotence from being incoherent as a concept, it makes it slippier if anything.

[The20]

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

How does knowing what will happen if you do x prevent you from doing x (Edit: or force you to do x, for that matter)?

The omni- characteristics deny that there are any limitations to the characteristics in question. So, omniscience implies that there is no thing that God does not know, including the future. But that puts a constraint on what God can do, hence denying his omnipotence. And also, the omnipotence can deny the omniscience, if we posit God can create something beyond his capacity to understand.

I know there are attempts to rebut these, but they are all very ad hoc in nature and just dig deeper holes.

So, what you are really asking is "can God defy logic"? Can he make true = false? I would like to know where you got the idea that this is possible.

If omnipotence entails defying logic, that's one good reason to conclude God isn't real.

On the other hand, if it doesn't entail that, what's "omni" about it anymore? Strangely enough, it not only doesn't save omnipotence from being incoherent as a concept, it makes it slippier if anything.

Would you also consider it necessary for omniscience to know the biggest possible integer? Or the smallest possible number larger than zero? Or the last digit of Pi?

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The problems with the viability of the concept of omnipotence are wll known; those of omniscience, not so much. This goes so far as to concern us with the definitions of these concepts. Neither of these are very well defined concepts, to be honest.

Given certain of these definitions, however, it's easy enough to demonstrate that such a God doesn't exist. For example, God's knowing the future would seem to contradict his omnipotence (he cannot change such a future, etc.)

There is one such treatment here. And another, with quotes showing that the Bible can be used to refute the idea that the Christian God is a God of the "omnis".

How does knowing what will happen if you do x prevent you from doing x (Edit: or force you to do x, for that matter)?

The omni- characteristics deny that there are any limitations to the characteristics in question. So, omniscience implies that there is no thing that God does not know, including the future. But that puts a constraint on what God can do, hence denying his omnipotence. And also, the omnipotence can deny the omniscience, if we posit God can create something beyond his capacity to understand.

I know there are attempts to rebut these, but they are all very ad hoc in nature and just dig deeper holes.

So, what you are really asking is "can God defy logic"? Can he make true = false? I would like to know where you got the idea that this is possible.

If omnipotence entails defying logic, that's one good reason to conclude God isn't real.

On the other hand, if it doesn't entail that, what's "omni" about it anymore? Strangely enough, it not only doesn't save omnipotence from being incoherent as a concept, it makes it slippier if anything.

Would you also consider it necessary for omniscience to know the biggest possible integer? Or the smallest possible number larger than zero? Or the last digit of Pi?

Well, we already know that there is no largest possible integer, and the smallest possible number larger than zero falls into the same category. As for the last digit of Pi....who knows? Ominscience would entail knowing ALL possible integers, hence literally infinite information retention capacity. Which is odd since it's the theists who have historically insisted that a physically realized infinite is impossible. Since Claude Shannon, that would have to fall under such a category.

[The20]

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The omni- characteristics deny that there are any limitations to the characteristics in question. So, omniscience implies that there is no thing that God does not know, including the future. But that puts a constraint on what God can do, hence denying his omnipotence. And also, the omnipotence can deny the omniscience, if we posit God can create something beyond his capacity to understand.

I know there are attempts to rebut these, but they are all very ad hoc in nature and just dig deeper holes.

So, what you are really asking is "can God defy logic"? Can he make true = false? I would like to know where you got the idea that this is possible.

If omnipotence entails defying logic, that's one good reason to conclude God isn't real.

On the other hand, if it doesn't entail that, what's "omni" about it anymore? Strangely enough, it not only doesn't save omnipotence from being incoherent as a concept, it makes it slippier if anything.

Would you also consider it necessary for omniscience to know the biggest possible integer? Or the smallest possible number larger than zero? Or the last digit of Pi?

Well, we already know that there is no largest possible integer, and the smallest possible number larger than zero falls into the same category. As for the last digit of Pi....who knows? Ominscience would entail knowing ALL possible integers, hence literally infinite information retention capacity. Which is odd since it's the theists who have historically insisted that a physically realized infinite is impossible. Since Claude Shannon, that would have to fall under such a category.

Pi has infinitely many digits. See, i think asking the definition of omnipotence to include things that are logically impossible is on the same level as the examples i just posted. The whole argument that being omnipotent would require the ability to defy logic is a strawman.

[azulmagia]

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

So, what you are really asking is "can God defy logic"? Can he make true = false? I would like to know where you got the idea that this is possible.

If omnipotence entails defying logic, that's one good reason to conclude God isn't real.

On the other hand, if it doesn't entail that, what's "omni" about it anymore? Strangely enough, it not only doesn't save omnipotence from being incoherent as a concept, it makes it slippier if anything.

Would you also consider it necessary for omniscience to know the biggest possible integer? Or the smallest possible number larger than zero? Or the last digit of Pi?

Well, we already know that there is no largest possible integer, and the smallest possible number larger than zero falls into the same category. As for the last digit of Pi....who knows? Ominscience would entail knowing ALL possible integers, hence literally infinite information retention capacity. Which is odd since it's the theists who have historically insisted that a physically realized infinite is impossible. Since Claude Shannon, that would have to fall under such a category.

Pi has infinitely many digits. See, i think asking the definition of omnipotence to include things that are logically impossible is on the same level as the examples i just posted. The whole argument that being omnipotent would require the ability to defy logic is a strawman.

And I cannot only respond by quoting this:

Quote:

One solution of the omnipotence paradox is to make God omnipotent but still bound within the laws of logic. So while God could happily create matter out of absolutely nothing, violating conservation of energy, suddenly reverse the orbit of the planet Earth, violating conservation of momentum, or perhaps even make a Pot Noodle taste nice God would still be bound within the laws of logic. This is, of course, playing with the definition of omnipotence and it's generally up to the religion in question to determine the extent of the deity's omnipotence. This response if often said as something similar to, "God is able to do all that is able to be done." This approach could be interpreted as skewering itself on the horns of a metaphysical version of the Euthyphro dilemma - why is God the ultimate authority if there exist things even more fundamental?

(link)

And I'd add that the Trinity in Christianity isn't particularly logical.

[Chibi_Akutenshi]

anonymous attributes

If the Christian God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, can there be absolute proof of Gods non-existence?

Better question: can you prove any of these things?

[anonymous attributes]

Chibi_Akutenshi

anonymous attributes

If the Christian God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, can there be absolute proof of Gods non-existence?

Better question: can you prove any of these things?

You would not have to ask that question if you took into account the grammar being used in OP.
Read it again and let me know what you find out.

[The20]

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

The20

azulmagia

If omnipotence entails defying logic, that's one good reason to conclude God isn't real.

On the other hand, if it doesn't entail that, what's "omni" about it anymore? Strangely enough, it not only doesn't save omnipotence from being incoherent as a concept, it makes it slippier if anything.

Would you also consider it necessary for omniscience to know the biggest possible integer? Or the smallest possible number larger than zero? Or the last digit of Pi?

Well, we already know that there is no largest possible integer, and the smallest possible number larger than zero falls into the same category. As for the last digit of Pi....who knows? Ominscience would entail knowing ALL possible integers, hence literally infinite information retention capacity. Which is odd since it's the theists who have historically insisted that a physically realized infinite is impossible. Since Claude Shannon, that would have to fall under such a category.

Pi has infinitely many digits. See, i think asking the definition of omnipotence to include things that are logically impossible is on the same level as the examples i just posted. The whole argument that being omnipotent would require the ability to defy logic is a strawman.

And I cannot only respond by quoting this:

I know you are referring to the quote below, but this sentence still doesn't make sense. Maybe you meant "can" instead of "cannot"?

azulmagia

Quote:

One solution of the omnipotence paradox is to make God omnipotent but still bound within the laws of logic. So while God could happily create matter out of absolutely nothing, violating conservation of energy, suddenly reverse the orbit of the planet Earth, violating conservation of momentum, or perhaps even make a Pot Noodle taste nice God would still be bound within the laws of logic. This is, of course, playing with the definition of omnipotence and it's generally up to the religion in question to determine the extent of the deity's omnipotence. This response if often said as something similar to, "God is able to do all that is able to be done." This approach could be interpreted as skewering itself on the horns of a metaphysical version of the Euthyphro dilemma - why is God the ultimate authority if there exist things even more fundamental?

(link)

And I'd add that the Trinity in Christianity isn't particularly logical.

If omnipotence includes being able to defy logic how does doing what you want despite knowing exactly what you will do in advance pose a problem? The problem is of a logical nature, you just proposed that God, as ultimate authority, shouldn't be stopped by such trifles as logic.