And the biblical God vanished in a puff of logic!

[Zarathustra]

Hi all
This is one of my absolute favorites on the topic of christian dogma. This makes God vanish by being a paradox in nature. It is based on their own assumtions on Gods attributes:

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. - Can God create a math problem, which is so difficult that he does not know the answer?

 

[Koliat]

If God were to solve impossible math problem, he should be that math problem itself, or be a method withinit.

[Asmodean]

That was good.   I think I've heard it before with something other than mathematics though.

[Sophus]

The argument that theists now use against this is that omnipotence simply means never to fail. Although I have to say if he didn't want anyone to go to hell then he did a magnificent job of imitating failure there.

[Zarathustra]

The argument that theists now use against this is that omnipotence simply means never to fail. Although I have to say if he didn't want anyone to go to hell then he did a magnificent job of imitating failure there.

Exactly. The counter argument is invalid though. What the paradox shows is that it is inherently impossible to be both omnipotent and omniscient at once. Not that he's not omnipotent   The whole christian god concept is logically impossible. What you added really adress his third attribute: "All-good"... Now that is even more absurd, given the state of this planet. The point is that when you combine the three, you have to tie some serious inner epistemical knots, to accept this particular god. (Or you just have to be brought up among people of faith...Then it comes as natural as breathing.)

[Martian]

I don't see the problem.

God cannot do what is logically impossible.
God cannot make something that is beyond his power of might and intellect.
God can do anything else.

[Zarathustra]

I don't see the problem.

Then you should not have written this:

God cannot do what is logically impossible.

If that assumption is true, then he cannot exist! Congratulations, you just proved that! I just proved that it is logically impossible to exist in a way, in which he posses all three attributes.

God cannot make something that is beyond his power of might and intellect.

Do you know what "omni" means? What do you mean by "beyond"?

_______________________________________
This I am writing after this thread has gone to page 6:
This was ment as a thread for fun comments. And I would like to give it the chance to return to that. I think it started out that way, but then this problem arose:

It has all of a sudden become a theist trap. Well that is; Asmodean and I, who has taken him on, has that theory about him and it is still not falsified at page 6. (The suspicion arose around page 3.) Martian has all of a sudden taken over this debate, on the pretence of being an atheist who has a "disliking for bad arguments against God". He has been here for 10 months. In that time numerous bad arguments has been posted here both for and against god. Not one has he responded to before this. Maybe because it is sound, and causes him a lot of agony. The paradox remains unattacked, since he is aiming way off the mark. But he debates like a typical theist: He continously misrepresents the OP, by stating that premise 1 is redundant (although it is clearly part of christian dogma), and simply misrepresenting 3 as if I claim "There exists a math piece which is...!" The questions above in this post remains unanswered still at page six. He didn't even fill out his worldview until asked in this thread. Or write his new signature in red until we went to page 5. He later, when pressured by Asmo, claimed to be an "agnostic atheist" (whatever that is supposed to be, he thought some wiki definition was sound.)  Yet he continously (as above) writes "God" not "god", not thinking out of the box.. Most importantly he continues to misrepresent the OP in the fashion I described above, and write in a very condescending manner. Happy atheist? - I think not! Why the resistance?  

[MariaEvri]

I think ive read about that somewhere before
btw I like your reference to the hitchikers...
is that what it is right?

[Martian]

God cannot do what is logically impossible.

If that assumption is true, then he cannot exist! Congratulations, you just proved that! I just proved that it is logically impossible to exist in a way, in which he posses all three attributes.

Right, right. All of the three attributes cannot exist at once, because there is suffering in the world and God would alleviate all of it if he was "all-good", "all-knowing", and "all-powerful". That is true, if you take "good" to mean "that which alleviates suffering". If "good" means "that which is the will of God" then all three attributes could exist at the same time. I suppose you have to ask the theist what he/she means by "good".

Just so you know, I was just responding to the opening post where you analyzed only two attributres: omniscience and omnipotence.

God cannot make something that is beyond his power of might and intellect.

Do you know what "omni" means? What do you mean by "beyond"?

1) "Omni" means "all". Of course, this only refers to things which are possible.
2) "Beyond" = "something that requires more than". So rephrasing my original statement, "God cannot make something that requires more than his power of might and intellect."

In your math problem you create a paradox. So, I suppose we could say, "God cannot do something that is logically impossible or creates a logical paradox. God can do everything else." and we wouldn't have any contradictions between his intellect and might.

[Asmodean]

In your math problem you create a paradox. So, I suppose we could say, "God cannot do something that is logically impossible or creates a logical paradox. God can do everything else." and we wouldn't have any contradictions between his intellect and might.

I can create a mathematical problem I can not solve. Been there, done that, but I do not pretend to be anything near omni-anything. So what logical impossibility are you talking about?

I'm with Zarathustra on this one. If you can not create a problem you can not solve, you are not omnipotent. And if you can not solve that problem, you are not omniscient. Both are critical qualifications for something to be defined as the common "god" and thus, god is not a god since it does not even meet the criteria its "followers" set.

If god can create such a mathematical problem, it is not omniscient. And if it can solve any problem it creates, it's not omnipotent. Simple.

EDIT: if you are interested, my mathematical problem was finding a roadmap to solving an equasion given by x^x=n, where x is a variable and n is a constant.

[Martian]

In your math problem you create a paradox. So, I suppose we could say, "God cannot do something that is logically impossible or creates a logical paradox. God can do everything else." and we wouldn't have any contradictions between his intellect and might.

I can create a mathematical problem I can not solve. Been there, done that, but I do not pretend to be anything near omni-anything. So what logical impossibility are you talking about?

I'm with Zarathustra on this one. If you can not create a problem you can not solve, you are not omnipotent. And if you can not solve that problem, you are not omniscient. Both are critical qualifications for something to be defined as the common "god" and thus, god is not a god since it does not even meet the criteria its "followers" set.

If god can create such a mathematical problem, it is not omniscient. And if it can solve any problem it creates, it's not omnipotent. Simple.

That's a minor technicality. We understand what the theist means. I challenge you to provide a way for the theist to describe his/her God as being able to do everything but what is logically impossible or makes something that requires more than his intellect and might. As far as I can see, omniscience and omnipotence are good enough.

EDIT: if you are interested, my mathematical problem was finding a roadmap to solving an equasion given by x^x=n, where x is a variable and n is a constant.

I am interested, though I don't know how you could solve for n. It doesn't seem to have enough information to be solved.

[Asmodean]

I challenge you to provide a way for the theist to describe his/her God as being able to do everything but what is logically impossible or makes something that requires more than his intellect and might.

Well, its kid changed molecular structure of water with the power of will. And it itself managed to carve a fully grown human (or so the tale goes, yes..?) out of another's rib... Logically impossible for a number of reasons.

I am interested, though I don't know how you could solve for n. It doesn't seem to have enough information to be solved.

You can solve an equasion of the type x^y=n where x is the variable and y and n are constants. But I was never able to calculate nor find a third party solution for my x^x=n  

[bowmore]

Another approach to create a paradox between the two is :

Can an omnipotent and omniscient being deceive it's own knowledge?

Or in the form of an argument :

1. A being that is omnipotent can deceive it's own knowledge.
2. An omniscient being's knowledge cannot be deceived.
3. Therefore if an omniscient being exists, no omnipotent being can exist.
4. Therefore no being can exist that is both omnipotent and omniscient.

[Zarathustra]

1) "Omni" means "all". Of course, this only refers to things which are possible.

Now you're adding an ad hoc defintion. That's a no-no! Especially since Omni potence means that anything is possible, your definition is evidently in conflict with the concept....

2) "Beyond" = "something that requires more than". So rephrasing my original statement, "God cannot make something that requires more than his power of might and intellect."

Hmmm, Houston we have a problem....

makes something that requires more than his intellect and might. As far as I can see, omniscience and omnipotence are good enough.

I'm sorry Martian. But this quote shows me you still don't quite understand the meaning of the words "omniscient" and "omnipotent" - strange. You should consult a good dictionary. But I guess the book can only explain the concept to you... it cannot make you understand it.
At first I was puzzled by the way you stated your counterargument, since it made no sense. But this quote made me understand why you continued up the wrong alley..  your counter-argument is invalid due to this fact.
If you wish to continue challenging the paradox, you should do so according to the real definition of the words.

[Zarathustra]

btw I like your reference to the hitchikers...
is that what it is right?

Yup. That's about right  
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful the Babel fish could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
     The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
     "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
     "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p 5