Attributes of the Abrihamic God - further disproof

[Ryytikki]

I've been talking with a friend of mine about the three apparently 'Perfect aspects' of the abrihamic god, Omnipotence, Omnicience and omnibinevolence.

The first of them, omnipotence can be removed with the 'Immovible Object' argument

Wikipedia - Either God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
If God can create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot lift the stone in question).
If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent (since he cannot create the stone in question).
Therefore God is not omnipotent.

This shows that Gods power isnt infinite, just very high

This also disproves Omnicience as for god to be all knowing, he would have to know everything that is going to happen in the universe. For this to happen, God would have to have infinite capacity for knowlege. The only way to do this would be to have infinite power. I think you can work out the rest.

Or in algebreic terms:
Gods power = x
All time = a
all knowlege = k

a*k = infinity
x =/= infinity (as shown in the 'immovible object' argument)
.'. x =/= ak

As for Onmibenevolence, if God created an immovible object, it would have to have infinite mass, creating a dip in the space time continuum so steep that the whole universe would be destroyed
now thats what i call love  :brick:

Ryy  

[PipeBox]

The immovable object argument has long since been trashed by all but the most inept theists.  Omnipotent means possessing all logically possible powers, it doesn't address whatever nonsensical, paradoxical sentence we throw at theists, and indeed, they are easy to make.  God cannot make something simultaneously light and dark, either, nor exist while not existing.  Alternatively, he can, and our logic is wholly incapable of handling the concept, this being a fault of logic, if it were true, rather than a problem with God.  Either way, it breaks under strain.

Omniscience and omnipotence are fundamentally at odds, though, as if God knows all of the future, then he cannot change it, otherwise he indeed did not know the future.  The reply I've heard is that God sees all possible outcomes, but that's useless because then he never actually knows what might happen.  It's equivalent to my saying anything might happen, which isn't at all helpful.

However, not being omnipotent doesn't mean God cannot be omniscient.  You seem to be mincing words, where infinite energy equates to infinite power.  Indeed, if God is external to the universe, he may not require it, but let's say he does.  Possessing infinite space and energy does not equate to being omnipotent, as there may be no way for God to utilize this energy or space beyond omniscience.

Finally, space, if not time, is a property of this universe, so there may reasonably be no space to bend with an object of infinite mass.  Also, if indeed such an object would destroy the universe, it clearly has not been created, so this actually supports there being an omnibenevolent God.  Indeed, your statement can easily be turned around on you, as you're asking for God to prove herself, so you're the selfish one who would be willing to sacrifice the universe, where God is not, demonstrating benevolence.  In other words, do not use this argument.  

If you want some logical inconsistencies, I recommend the Epicurean Paradox:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing, then he is malevolent.
If he is both willing and able, whence cometh evil?
If he is neither willing nor able, why call him God?

The problem this one runs into is that it's up to you to define evil.  That may not sound like a problem, but there's no all-encompassing objective definition (hmmm, isn't that strange, theists?).  God may not allow any true evil in the universe, or it may be an absolute minimum of evil.  Still, the paradox raises good questions, even if it isn't a true paradox while evil is undefined.

[Ryytikki]

meh

Anyway, for the god to be outside of the universe then he cannot be made out of matter or energy. This is because the definition of 'universe' is a space where matter or energy exists. For a God to be able to manipulate the universe, he would have to use energy. as energy cannot be created or destroyed then where is this energy coming from if the God does not contain any?

You're right with the 'Immovible object' argument and i admit that we were basing the whole thing on a very shaky foundation but as i said, this god has to exist, if it does, inside this universe.

Ryy

[PipeBox]

God cannot, by definition, be a denizen of this universe, otherwise he couldn't have created it.  No theist will suggest that she exists soley in this universe.  And space is not just a place where matter and energy exist, indeed space can exist without either being present, and it is necessary, lest space not exist wherever matter and energy are not.

No, the theist idea seems to be more that God is external to the universe, but possess the ability to interact with it.  Presumably, God draws off some private, external pool of energy, or requires none at all, just being able to effect change (after all, she did start the universe, presumably without energy).  Simply put, there is not enough data to say it can't happen, sort of like the people who occasionally remark that a mind cannot exist without matter comprising it.  This is all fine and good around these parts, but as theists like to remind us, we can't know that 100%  

Isn't it great how all of God lies in a lack of certainty, made into a certainty itself.  So perverse...

[Ryytikki]

Isn't it great how all of God lies in a lack of certainty, made into a certainty itself. So perverse...

Not as perverse as the things done in the name of these Gods..

Anyway, should i take Philosophy at A level? if i do it will mean i have 5 A levels to do  

[Hitsumei]

Alternatively, he can, and our logic is wholly incapable of handling the concept, this being a fault of logic, if it were true, rather than a problem with God.  Either way, it breaks under strain.

I think that you outlined the counter positions well, but I just wanted to comment on this part. This is a position some take, but I would suggest that taking such a position is a self-induced auto de fe, the likes of which the intellect does not survive.

[PipeBox]

It is, but it still has a point beyond the typical "you can't know God meshes with logic!"  That being that if God does exist and we've got it wrong, the fault lies with logic.  Still, it throws all reasoning out the window.  Didn't say I liked it, but I've heard it, and my reply was that the same could be said of Thor.  The important thing to the person defending God is that you can't disprove their assertion.

[PipeBox]

Isn't it great how all of God lies in a lack of certainty, made into a certainty itself. So perverse...

Not as perverse as the things done in the name of these Gods..

Anyway, should i take Philosophy at A level? if i do it will mean i have 5 A levels to do  

Take philosophy, by all means.  I know nothing of it, but I have it brought against me endlessly in debate with theists, and constructing a valid philosophical argument on the spot is very hard to do.  I often miss something and there's every chance my arguments might get leveled by an argument that isn't water-tight itself.

*EDIT*

Don't take what you can't reasonably handle, though, too many classes makes Jack a dull, burnt-out boy.

[Hitsumei]

Debates are more like a game of chess than they are a game of trivia. I don't need to be right in order to win, I merely need to be better at it than you. It is a common, and false assumption that being right is all that is required to win. The most important requirement is persuasiveness, and no good debater is above employing the odd rhetorical device in order to fill in the gaps.

[PipeBox]

Debates are more like a game of chess than they are a game of trivia. I don't need to be right in order to win, I merely need to be better at it than you. It is a common, and false assumption that being right is all that is required to win. The most important requirement is persuasiveness, and no good debater is above employing the odd rhetorical device in order to fill in the gaps.

You are correct, sir!  But knowing the rebuttals to the philosophy they employ gives you a much better chance of winning if your opponent or audience is intelligent.  Otherwise, start yelling and go for the arguments from authority, ad populum, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion.  Get loud and inform your opponent they are WRONG.  Generally, people and audiences will fall somewhere between extremes, but I think even the layperson is more impressed if you can undermine the other person's argument rather than the person.

[Hitsumei]

You are correct, sir!  But knowing the rebuttals to the philosophy they employ gives you a much better chance of winning if your opponent or audience is intelligent.  Otherwise, start yelling and go for the arguments from authority, ad populum, ad hominem, and appeals to emotion.  Get loud and inform your opponent they are WRONG.  Generally, people and audiences will fall somewhere between extremes, but I think even the layperson is more impressed if you can undermine the other person's argument rather than the person.

It would be "Ma'am", but neither are required.  

I didn't mean employ fallacious and sophomoric retorts. I meant knowing how to phrase things, and present them as maximally persuasive to the audience, and with style and class. I am saying that even if right you need to do this if you hope to win against a half decent rhetorician. Being uppity, insulting, and emotional is rarely a good strategy. The audience also has to like you. People that like you are far less critical of the things you say than people that don't.

Debate is an art form. What memorably comes out of debates are often witty, and clever quotable retorts that don't really help bolster points or arguments. Like Huxley's famous retort to Bishop Wilberforce when asked "“Was it from your mother’s side or your father’s side that you were descended from an ape?”, he retorted "If the question is whether I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man of means and influence who uses these gifts to introduce ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape!”

Those are the things that people remember. Not the technical, axiomatic validity of your points, but the wit, class, lucidity, eloquence and force with which you deliver them.

[joeactor]

Here's an interesting thought:

Jesus is the way... out of the "Omni" problems!

How?  3 steps:
1) God manifests himself as a man (Jesus).
2) God creates a big rock
3) Jesus (who is God) is unable to lift the big rock.

Done!

You can play this game with any of the "Omni" connundrums, nes pas?
JoeActor

[Hitsumei]

Here's an interesting thought:

Jesus is the way... out of the "Omni" problems!

How?  3 steps:
1) God manifests himself as a man (Jesus).
2) God creates a big rock
3) Jesus (who is God) is unable to lift the big rock.

Done!

You can play this game with any of the "Omni" connundrums, nes pas?
JoeActor

Now you just have to square the logical circle that allows god to simultaneously be two separate and different people, and have both people be the same person.

[Sophus]

Perfection does not produce flawed results. Therefore God is myth or God is not God.

Good enough?

[Hitsumei]

Perfection does not produce flawed results. Therefore God is myth or God is not God.

Good enough?

What is a "flaw" is largely a matter of opinion unless one knows the standard by which a model is meant to fit. So, unless you know "god's mysterious plan" (which is by definition mysterious) you cannot assert that anything is a flaw. It is logically possible that everything in existence is exactly how god wants it to be, and is thus without flaw with regard to the standard the universe was built to meet.