And the biblical God vanished in a puff of logic!

[Martian]

It is not *logically* impossible for you to fly. There isn't a logical restriction (contradiction) that says you cannot fly, rather you lack the ability to cause yourself to fly. Ergo, you cannot do all that is logically possible and hence, not omnipotent.

I lack the ability to fly, therefore it is logically impossible for me to fly.  

But you haven't come to that conclusion through a logical contradiction. If "you" are a thing that is, by definition, something that cannot fly, then it is logically impossible for you to fly. But of course, you are not defined that way. It *is* possible for you to fly, there is no contradiction. You just lack the means to make yourself fly, which is a perfectly logical thing.

I think that flying is a bad example to look at, because "flying" is pretty vague. Instead, lets imagine a quadroplegic lying on a bed. In this situation, can the quadroplegic raise his arm? No he can't. But realize why he can't. He cannot do that because he has a deficiency, not because it's a logical impossibility. His arm certainly can be raised, there is no denying this. One could easily raise his arm (the just need to pick it up), but *he can't*.

Perhaps this will make things more clear. An omnipotent object can do all that is permitted by logic. That means that omnipotent objects cannot make married bachelors, square circles, and the living dead. When one asks for God to "make a math problem that he himself cannot solve", we have a similar contradition. Who can make a problem which cannot be solved by God? Can you? Can Einstien? Can a supercomputer? Perhaps a more powerful God? The answer is that no-one can make such a thing. God can solve ALL math problems, so if there is a math problem which God cannot solve, it cannot exist logically (square circle). It doesn't matter how much power you have, it makes no sense to do the action that is requested in the argument. To show this we can put the question in it's purest form, "Can a math problem exist (which is solvable) but cannot be solved?" The absurdity of this question is where the issue lies.

The task is to create a math problem you cannot solve yourself. That is not logically impossible, since there are beings that can do this without a problem. If one is omniscient, the omniscience is a limit on omnipotence, since it precludes being able to perform that task.

Actually, I think there is some confusion about what we are refering to. We are refering to "a math problem, which is so difficult that he [God] does not know the answer." We are speaking exclusively about a math problem relative to God, not relative to each person. God could logically make a math problem you could not solve (if you couldn't solve all math problems). Maybe Einstien can make a math problem that you cannot solve. There's no problem here. But who can make a math problem that, specifically, cannot be solved by *God* (not just reflexively anyone)? Obviously that is a logical impossibility.

To rephrase the issue here, "the task to create a math problem you cannot solve yourself" is not a logical question that can be applied the same way to everyone. The instance of the action being requested is changing because the instance we are asking for is different from person to person. The request for "a problem you cannot solve" is not the same as a request for "a problem God can solve." Those are two different things. For clarity, the statement should be:

"Can anyone make a problem that cannot be solved by *God*?"

The bottom line remains that gods that are not omniscient can do more than those that aren't.

That is not true. If we have God A and God B, and God A is omnipotent and omniscient, while God B is only omnipotent, it is still logically impossible for God B to make a math problem that God A cannot solve.
I think I have demonstrated the problems with your objections to my objection to the alleged disproof of God. What do you think?

Oh... and for Zarathustra...

You pause for a week, and then return just to restate your exact same empty claims once again. Not one new thought.... what a surprise. (I did warn you that he would just blow you off, bowmore.) Martian: Will you please refine your argument or stop posting in this thread, this is just getting stupid.

I was cramming for school in the past *two* days (not a week) and I didn't want any distractions, so I stayed away. Thanks for your concern.

If anyone has been blowing people off, it's you. I've tried to get you to say how you think I'm wrong, but you won't do that. Bowmore can do it, why can't you?

*in general regarding Zarathustra*
I have to say, you have done extensive work to make me look bad, whilst you have yet to really get into the debate. You have made many claims that I am wrong, but you refuse to discuss them. Bowmore has done an excellent job in bringing up points, and addressing my arguments. So far, he is doing better than you have in this entire thread. I have exausted much time and energy trying to explain my arguments to you, but you don't do the same in return. I am sorry that I was condesending in some parts of this topic, but it was out of the immense frustration with how you talked about me being a theist (I tried so hard to get you back on topic) and your unbacked claims. Most of the posts you made don't actually address my arguments, rather, they are filled with statements like, "You don't understand the paradox" or "your points are off the mark". And you edited a post on the first page to tell everyone your misunderstandings (I doubt that) about me, and that makes me really sad. Why are you so personal? I wanted you to show what you were talking about, to back up your claims so that I could see what you mean. I'm not going to expect you to start now, I just want you to know that I forgive you.

[bowmore]

I lack the ability to fly, therefore it is logically impossible for me to fly.  

Also this is not a disproof of god. It's a clarification that no being can be both omnipotent and omniscient. So the gods that are claimed to be such are disproved, or their followers should review their definitions.

I fear we'll never agree on the issue, as you will call whatever logical contradiction I point out between omniscience and omnipotence you'll just claim the task god cannot perform is not covered by omnipotence.

One last thought though. Why is it omnipotence that has to give way for omniscience. You could turn it all around and say : Can god know the answer to the math question he has made too difficult for him to solve. By your reasoning god isn't even required to know the answer in order to be omniscient, because it would logically be impossible to know what god has made too difficult to solve.

But all I've done is lowered the limit omniscience imposes on omnipotence, and now it is omnipotence that limits the omniscience.
Your approach fails to successfully cover the symmetry. Mine works either way : they are just incompatible.

[Wechtlein Uns]

I agree with bowmore. I think Martian is making the mistake of holding omnipotence above omniscience. But I wonder, is omnipotence more important than omniscience?

There's nothing logical that proves they have to be equal, or I haven't seen any logical argument. If omnipotence does overtake omniscience, then wouldn't martians argument be valid?

[Martian]

I lack the ability to fly, therefore it is logically impossible for me to fly.  

Also this is not a disproof of god. It's a clarification that no being can be both omnipotent and omniscient.

Haha. I am not in denial.
I disagree with what you have said here, or rather the way you phrased it. The argument would disprove the God concept in question, if the argument is valid. I think that's what you meant. Though, I still maintain that a being can be omnipotent and omnicient at the same time, for the reasons stated.

I fear we'll never agree on the issue, as you will call whatever logical contradiction I point out between omniscience and omnipotence you'll just claim the task god cannot perform is not covered by omnipotence.

I guess we won't agree. But you must agree that I'm not just pulling stuff out at random. I always give a reason for what I say.

One last thought though. Why is it omnipotence that has to give way for omniscience. You could turn it all around and say : Can god know the answer to the math question he has made too difficult for him to solve. By your reasoning god isn't even required to know the answer in order to be omniscient, because it would logically be impossible to know what god has made too difficult to solve.

I'm glad you brought this up. The reason that omniscience seems to have precident over omnipotence is that in this situation (the argument I'm objecting to) we are calling up the object, something defined in terms of God's ability to solve problems (omniscience). That's why I said we must see if the thing we are asking God to make is logically feasible. I hope that this has answered your question, Wechtlein Uns.

I agree with bowmore. I think Martian is making the mistake of holding omnipotence above omniscience. But I wonder, is omnipotence more important than omniscience?

But all I've done is lowered the limit omniscience imposes on omnipotence, and now it is omnipotence that limits the omniscience.
Your approach fails to successfully cover the symmetry. Mine works either way : they are just incompatible.

I don't know about this. Can you provide an example of this asymetry?

[bowmore]

I don't think you got my point. If you agree to this, then you must understand that it is nonsense to make a non-flying object to fly (I don't see why anyone would agree that you cannot fly). It would be the same as saying, "make the letter 'a' fly" or  "add 1 to red". It makes no sense to ask for such a thing. I suspect though that you would maintain there is a logical possibility that you can fly (why else would you ask for that?). But I think we should refer to an action that is clear (raising a hand).

Ok : I cannot flap my wings.

And God can make a math problem that you cannot solve too. But in the argument we are talking about a math problem relative to God. A math problem you cannot solve =/= a math problem God cannot solve. Those are two different things, and the action that you are talking about is not the same as in the argument.

Yes, I understand you object to tasks that are reflexive in their description, but they are tasks nevertheless.

I want you to actually think about a real life situation in which God's power is limited. Just think about it. Let's change God's knowledge from being able to solve all math problems to being able to solve all but one math problem. Now, can this God make a math problem that cannot be solved by himself? Yes. That one specific math problem which God couldn't solve. Now, let's go back to a God that can solve all math problems. Now, God can solve that one math problem, and now there isn't any other math problems. So, there is no such math problem because they are all solvable.

This shows exactly how his omniscience limits him, it leaves him no solution for the task.

On the other hand it is not quite accurate, as you suppose all math problems to be known. If god creates a new math problem, the question is what kind of math problem will it be : one he can solve or one he cannot solve. We'll both agree he can only produce the former if he is omniscient. But we must then conclude he cannot create the latter.

I guess we won't agree. But you must agree that I'm not just pulling stuff out at random. I always give a reason for what I say.

I have not said you were unreasonable. But I think this goes both ways.

I don't know about this. Can you provide an example of this asymetry?

What's wrong with the math problem example?

But I'll supply another. Can god do what he knows he won't do?

Is his omnipotence limited so that he knows everything he will do

or

Is his omniscience limited so that he can do everything regardless of what he thinks he'll do.

Which of both gives way?

My view is clear, neither should give way, and this situation shows the incompatibility.

I think your option is to give priority to one of both omnis, which would lead to an assymetry in the omni definitions. This in turn would justify my claim that you're watering down at least one of the omni- definitions.

[Martian]

Ok : I cannot flap my wings.

Right. So you cannot flap your wings. But your wings are still flappable. I can flap your wings. It's logically possible to flap your wings.

Or in other words, you logically cannot do something that is a logical possibility.

But if you didn't have wings, then flapping your wings wouldn't be a logically possible action. Nobody can flap your wings if you don't have any.

I don't know about this. Can you provide an example of this asymetry?

What's wrong with the math problem example?

But I'll supply another. Can god do what he knows he won't do?

Is his omnipotence limited so that he knows everything he will do

or

Is his omniscience limited so that he can do everything regardless of what he thinks he'll do.

Which of both gives way?

My view is clear, neither should give way, and this situation shows the incompatibility.

I think your option is to give priority to one of both omnis, which would lead to an assymetry in the omni definitions. This in turn would justify my claim that you're watering down at least one of the omni- definitions.

Interesting. I agree, this argument certainly shows that God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. And actually, it shows that no one can know the future if they have any part of it. The only thing that can know the future is a thing that makes no action. Because if a thing knows something about the future, then that addition of information could cause someone to do something that would change the future, and hence a paradox. Very interesting.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Or in other words, you logically cannot do something that is a logical possibility.

You said to apply this to god, but i'm inclined to suggest that A god that can not do something that is a logical possibility is not omnipotent?

[Martian]

Or in other words, you logically cannot do something that is a logical possibility.

You said to apply this to god, but i'm inclined to suggest that A god that can not do something that is a logical possibility is not omnipotent?

Exactly.

[Whitney]

I have received a couple of private messages concerning this thread.  I have read and skimmed the first part of the thread and noticed that it seems to be locked into both sides repeating their argument over and over again in an attempt to show why the other side is at fault.  Please let me know if I am getting the wrong impression and need to read more closely.

The OP is basically like the "Can God make a rock so big even he cannot lift it" argument.  This argument is sound when applied to god concepts that include an omnimax god.  

As Martin has pointed out, not all Christians may apply omnimax in the same manner as others.  However, I think it is important to point out that many Christians will argue that their god can do anything, even the logically impossible (in which case the OP argument is useless since the theist isn't using logic).

So, let's try to look at this a different way.

Let's say that a God has the power to do anything, know anything etc, except for the logically impossible.  But now we have a problem.  God is also claimed to be all powerful yet logic now has power over God.  This realization would cause the thinking theist to decide that logic is an intrinsic part of God's nature, right?  Since we are talking about the Christian God, if logic is part of his nature then that leaves a big question as to why he would require something very illogical, such as faith to be the only means to know him.

If the above is acceptable to both sides, maybe that can help get the conversation moving forward.  If not, then maybe a clean thread would be better since this one appears to be going nowhere, I'll let those participating make the call.  Please try to be respectful of each other...remember, just because the other person isn't 'getting' your argument doesn't mean they are purposely misinterpreting it.  The issue of god's nature and logic can theologically complex.

Btw, I am aware there are those who think Martian is a theist or even a Christian.  Frankly, I don't care.  I don't think it is possible to know what others really think unless they tell us.  I have been known to argue the theist side myself.

[bowmore]

Interesting. I agree, this argument certainly shows that God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. And actually, it shows that no one can know the future if they have any part of it. The only thing that can know the future is a thing that makes no action. Because if a thing knows something about the future, then that addition of information could cause someone to do something that would change the future, and hence a paradox. Very interesting.

I guess then this is the point where we shake hands.

I have received a couple of private messages concerning this thread.  I have read and skimmed the first part of the thread and noticed that it seems to be locked into both sides repeating their argument over and over again in an attempt to show why the other side is at fault.  Please let me know if I am getting the wrong impression and need to read more closely.

With all due respect, it seems you're just a few posts too late, as we seem to have reached an agreement

[Whitney]

With all due respect, it seems you're just a few posts too late, as we seem to have reached an agreement

Sorry...I'm glad you have reached an agreement.

[Zarathustra]

If anyone has been blowing people off, it's you. I've tried to get you to say how you think I'm wrong, but you won't do that. Bowmore can do it, why can't you?

Yeah yeah, you are so right, I never took the time for extensive answers as everyone can see clearly on the preceding pages.  

Also this is not a disproof of god. It's a clarification that no being can be both omnipotent and omniscient. So the gods that are claimed to be such are disproved, or their followers should review their definitions.

I fear we'll never agree on the issue, as you will call whatever logical contradiction I point out between omniscience and omnipotence you'll just claim the task god cannot perform is not covered by omnipotence.[/quote]
I agree with bowmore, and would like to add that I have said the same things repeatedly!! You are in denial, hence my guess you are a theist. But I am glad that it is finally beginning to dawn in your rather slow mind.  
(And thanks to the rest for your patience with Martian).
I don't need your forgiveness, but I forgive you all the time and space you have wasted for the rest of us.

What I don't forgive is this:
You claim knowledge about philosophy. Why have you never responded to Titans numerous false claims about the findings and content of philosophy? This is actually my main reason for regarding you as a theist.

For Wechtlein: Thank you for the extensive, and interesting, viewpoint. I'll post a thorough answer shortly.  

[Martian]

If anyone has been blowing people off, it's you. I've tried to get you to say how you think I'm wrong, but you won't do that. Bowmore can do it, why can't you?

Yeah yeah, you are so right, I never took the time for extensive answers as everyone can see clearly on the preceding pages.  

Also this is not a disproof of god. It's a clarification that no being can be both omnipotent and omniscient. So the gods that are claimed to be such are disproved, or their followers should review their definitions.

I fear we'll never agree on the issue, as you will call whatever logical contradiction I point out between omniscience and omnipotence you'll just claim the task god cannot perform is not covered by omnipotence.

I agree with bowmore, and would like to add that I have said the same things repeatedly!! You are in denial, hence my guess you are a theist. But I am glad that it is finally beginning to dawn in your rather slow mind.  
(And thanks to the rest for your patience with Martian).
I don't need your forgiveness, but I forgive you all the time and space you have wasted for the rest of us.

What I don't forgive is this:
You claim knowledge about philosophy. Why have you never responded to Titans numerous false claims about the findings and content of philosophy? This is actually my main reason for regarding you as a theist.

For Wechtlein: Thank you for the extensive, and interesting, viewpoint. I'll post a thorough answer shortly.  [/quote]
Bowmore has presented an argument that works, that's all I've said. I didn't say that the argument that you posted worked.

This is a bit condesending. Where did I ever not understand the topic? "Slow mind"? Throughout this thread you've made a lot of claims about me and my arguments. That was the root of my frustration and why I eventually posted "put up or shut up" to get you to back up your claims or stop saying that I was wrong. I don't want to do a commentary of this thread so that I can explain how each of your posts didn't talk about my argument, so we'll just have to let readers decide for themselves.

And I find it ironic that you would complain about me not debating against Titan (for a specific thread? I don't remember seeing that thread, and just because I didn't argue in it doesn't mean I agree with it). I debated against Titan in the Golden rule thread and made an argument against Titan about the implausibility of God in a thread called "my battle with titan". I post when I believe I have a good point to make, and that's what I've done.

Oh yes, and it didn't take 5 people to show me that the argument is valid (nobody has btw). Asmodean was caught up with "all" refering to logical possibilities. Wechtlein Uns did not debate me and doesn't count. Bowmore was the only person who made lots of good arguments against mine. He made me retract my claim that omniscience and omnipotence were compatible, by posting a new, valid argument. That's 3 people debating against me, not schooling me. And I'm done with this.

/thread

[Zarathustra]

I don't want to do a commentary of this thread so that I can explain how each of your posts didn't talk about my argument, so we'll just have to let readers decide for themselves.

No that's gonna be impossible since I did answer you quite explicitly in several posts, but yes: Let the readers decide.

And I find it ironic that you would complain about me not debating against Titan (for a specific thread? I don't remember seeing that thread, and just because I didn't argue in it doesn't mean I agree with it). I debated against Titan in the Golden rule thread and made an argument against Titan about the implausibility of God in a thread called "my battle with titan". I post when I believe I have a good point to make, and that's what I've done.

... Titan has made numerous false claims in a lot of threads, ask anyone.

Oh yes, and it didn't take 5 people to show me that the argument is valid (nobody has btw). Asmodean was caught up with "all" refering to logical possibilities. Wechtlein Uns did not debate me and doesn't count. Bowmore was the only person who made lots of good arguments against mine. He made me retract my claim that omniscience and omnipotence were compatible, by posting a new, valid argument. That's 3 people debating against me, not schooling me. And I'm done with this.

Oh I stand corrected then: It "only" took 3 people... Since you think you can disregard the objections made by the last two.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Chill. chill... please, chill.