Happy Atheist Forum

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?

 

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

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

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.)

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.

Quote from: "Martian"I don't see the problem.

Then you should not have written this:

QuoteGod 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.

QuoteGod 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? :D  

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

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "Martian"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  

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.

Quote from: "Martian"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....

Quote2) "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....

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "MariaEvri"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

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Is it logically impossible? Or do humans lack the means to make such an operation, whilst God has that ability?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"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  

I don't think it's logically possible to solve the problem you provided. God cannot do logically impossible things.

Quote from: "Martian"God cannot do logically impossible things.

:hail:  
now you stated it again, thank you! Martian has now disproved God, twice! Wow! (Although in a circular fashion, but hey... what is good enough for the theists..)

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"God cannot do logically impossible things.

:hail:  
now you stated it again, thank you! Martian has now disproved God, twice! Wow! (Although in a circular fashion, but hey... what is good enough for the theists..)

No. No. No.

If a theist, out of hand, claims that their God is not bound by logic, then God is logically impossible and your proof is redundent.

On the other hand, if they claim that their God is bound by logic, then it would do you well to analyze what these theists are actually saying when they say God is all-knowing and all-powerful. It would obviously mean that God can do anything WITHIN LOGIC. "All-" refers to that which is a logical possibility, NOT that which is logically impossible.

I don't know about you, but I don't care about those who say their God is not bound by logic, because they have ALREADY SAID that there is no reasoning with them by saying "God is not bound by logic". I care about the intelligent theists that actually proport something which is logically defensible. Let me show you how a conversation would be between an atheist using this argument and an intelligent theist.

Atheist: "I have proven that your God can't do or know logically impossible things."
Theist: "I don't care. I never meant that God could do logically impossible things. I meant that he can do and know everything that is logically possible. Having "all" include things which are logically impossible is really stupid and pointless. And it's petty that you would harp on such a technicality that's not actually part of my God concept."
Atheist: "Oh, but that's not the real definition of the the words, omnicience and omnipotence!"
Theist: "Fine. Give me a term that describes what I'm trying to say, so that I can use them to describe my God concept."

In this case, just to satisfy you, I will create two new terms to represent what a respectable theist would mean: "logical omniscience" and "logical omnipotence".

Logical omnipotence - having all powers might that are logically possible.
Logical omniscience - having all the powers of intellect that are logically possible.

God is logically omnipotent.
God is logically omnipscient.

God cannot make a math problem that he cannot solve, because a math problem that is too difficult for him to solve is a logical impossibility (it can't exist, because God can solve any math problem that's solvable). God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it, because a rock that is too heavy to lift is a logical impossibility (it can't exist, because God can lift anything).

Harping on technicalities will get us nowhere. This argument will not impress any theist for the reason that it's either redundent (they already accept that God can do logically impossible things) or that it's analyzing things which are not part of their God concept (they mean that God can do anything that is logically possible).

Quote from: "Martian"In this case, just to satisfy you, I will create two new terms to represent what a respectable theist would mean: "logical omniscience" and "logical omnipotence".

Logical omnipotence - having all powers might that are logically possible.
Logical omniscience - having all the powers of intellect that are logically possible.

God is logically omnipotent.
God is logically omnipscient.

I don't see why your ad hoc creating two new terms, should satisfy me. In fact I find it most dissatisfying because it is, a repetition of your ad hoc definition eluding the real one. When you restrain "omni" by something (in your case logic), it is simply not "omni" any longer. Especially since omniscience and omnipotence are both inherently illogical, which makes "logically omnipotent" a conceptual selfcontradiction.
Furthermore it really doesn't save the god concept from the paradox, because:

QuoteThis argument will not impress any theist for the reason that it's either redundent (they already accept that God can do logically impossible things) or that it's analyzing things which are not part of their God concept (they mean that God can do anything that is logically possible).

the paradox works regardless of whether god can or can't do logically impossible things. (That is just something you added.) How about changing your comments according to what I wrote you about earlier?
Considering the second part, I agree as long as the theist in question is not a christian. This thread is about the christian-god concept though. If they assume the premise you stated, they have an awful lot of explaining to do explaining exactly what it is they believe in.

QuoteHarping on technicalities will get us nowhere.

I am not planning to convince a theist! (Now there's a logical impossibility.... or?) I am simply restating the paradox, because I like it and wanted to share it with you guys.

I'd like to see anyone dismantle it, without a number of ad hoc definitions or changing the god concept. Then I'll be the first to admit it doesn't work. So far, you've got a loooong way to go Martian.    But please do give it your best shot, if you want.

Omnipotence = All powerful

Omniscent = All knowing

Power = control

knowing = (in the simplest case) memory

Control implies the existense of desire. Desire implies the existence of an outside object that does not = what an inside subject believes it to equal.

The existence, or rather, division of the universe of phenomena into subject and object is immaterial. No such devision can be made, or rather, an infinite number of infinitely different divisions can be made, any of which is equally valid. But that being the case, it is apparent that the division does not actually exist. If no such division of subject and object can be made, then no such thing as desire can be made apparent, thus no such thing as control can be exerted, thus there is no real ground for power to exist, let alone omnipotence.

knowing: It is my conclusion through a long and exhaustive inquiry into the nature and definitions of the term "knowledge" and the terms that define it that omniscience would require an equivalency to all things that whatever possesing the trait of omniscience would seek to know. This is , again, because of the lack of a division between subject and object.

It is not the case, in my opinion, that there can be a being or entity that is both omniscient and omnipotent. However, all phenomena is all phenomena, and what it does equals all things capaple of doing, being done, or doing to. Also, without a division between subject and object, it can be said that there is an omniscience of sorts. It would be held by all things. Everything. But only as a whole.

Hello Wechtlein

I agree with some of what you are saying, since I have been there myself.And philosophically I have high esteem for phaenomenology, so you won't get an argument from me against dissolving the subject/object distinktion!
 I have a few suggestions, though.
- Since your argumentation is quite incoherent, and could easily be refined.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Omnipotence = All powerful

Omniscent = All knowing

Yes, we can agree as far  :) Others strongly disagrees.

Quotethen no such thing as desire can be made apparent, thus no such thing as control can be exerted, thus there is no real ground for power to exist, let alone omnipotence.

Whoops!! There you lost everyone! Maybe you should take a look back at your beginning again   - because this leads you even further:

Quoteknowing: It is my conclusion through a long and exhaustive inquiry into the nature and definitions of the term "knowledge" and the terms that define it that omniscience would require an equivalency to all things that whatever possesing the trait of omniscience would seek to know. This is , again, because of the lack of a division between subject and object.

It is not the case, in my opinion, that there can be a being or entity that is both omniscient and omnipotent. However, all phenomena is all phenomena, and what it does equals all things capaple of doing, being done, or doing to. Also, without a division between subject and object, it can be said that there is an omniscience of sorts. It would be held by all things. Everything. But only as a whole.

Or better yet: Read some of the philosophers I mentioned above.

When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic), what are you trying to accomplish? It seems to me that you are suggesting that God cannot have immense power because it is logically impossible for him to do logically impossible things, which is a false conclusion. Rather, you can only conclude that God is not able to do logically impossible things, BUT it is possible that he is able to do all other things, as I said earlier.

Also, I think you are confused about what Ad Hoc means. It refers to making explanations for specific events that doesn't fit within the theory specified before the event. For example:

If, say, someone presented the arguement, "God cannot be omniscient because it is impossible for anything/anyone to make a math problem that requires more intelligence than that thing/person already has," and I made excuses like "math problems don't apply to God", then that would be Ad Hoc. Also, if you provide the rock-argument and I say "rock weights don't apply to God," then that is also Ad Hoc. But, if I provide a better theory that explains the exceptions, then it is not Ad Hoc. In fact, science is based on this principle of self-correction: make an explanation, and when data comes in that doesn't corroborate with that explanation, make another explanation that fits that data into that new explanation (without being Ad Hoc). But anyway, what we're talking about here is not even an argument, it's redefining (in this case simply specifiying) a certian word to reflect the concept that user wants it to represent. We do this all the time in philosophy.

Omni- means all. All of what, is not specified. Obviously, the theist didn't really think about the logical contradictions that technically arrise from this wording and thought that the definition that was made would suffice to express the way they wanted to describe God. Now that pradoxes (which are incredibly stupid technicalities) like the one you provided have come to light, the theist must specify that they didn't mean to include things that are LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE (as if anyone has to make such an obvious specification). Also, Logic is not a limitation, because it is a platform for all existing things to exist, everything else is meaningless, like square circles. You can't say that God is limited from making a square circle because it's a meaningless concept.

And remember, if this argument does not work against the theist's concept of God, then it's not a very good one. Look at the following options and see why it's not very useful.
1) If the math problem paradox does apply to a theist's God concept, then the theist won't have a problem with it because they already accept that their God can do illogical things. So this impacts nothing.
2) If the math problem paradox does not apply to a theist's God concept, then the theist won't have a problem with it because it has nothing to do with their beliefs. So this impacts nothing.

Also, you mentioned that you were talking about the Christian God concept. It certainly is true that there are a lot of Christians who believe that God is "not limited by man, math problems, rocks, nor logic." But they are just copying what they have seen other people say, without thinking about the logical implications. They are sheep that can't think. Rather, an intelligent Christian, someone who actually knows what "logic" means, would see the folly of saying God is beyond logic, and he/she would declare that God can do all LOGICAL things. So, the Christian God concept is not really tied down to being able to do logically impossible things, and I don't think the bible goes against any of this.

Quote from: "Martian"When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic), what are you trying to accomplish? ....(long smeer about this misconception, and a lecture on philosophy in which I have a degree. Thank you).... So, the Christian God concept is not really tied down to being able to do logically impossible things, and I don't think the bible goes against any of this.

I agree with your last statement, because the bible contains miracles. But I'm sorry that is not what the paradox shows. And you're still misunderstanding the paradox. It shows that they are saying "God is both tall and short at the same time" or "2+2=5"... Maybe someone besides me or Asmodean should try to explain it to you, since obviously we fail.   ;)

Quote from: "Martian"When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic)...

If it can't do illogical things, it's not omnipotent.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic), what are you trying to accomplish? ....(long smeer about this misconception, and a lecture on philosophy in which I have a degree. Thank you).... So, the Christian God concept is not really tied down to being able to do logically impossible things, and I don't think the bible goes against any of this.

I'm sorry that is not what it shows.And I agree because the bible contains miracles. You're still misunderstanding the paradox. It shows that they are saying "God is both tall and short at the same time" or "2+2=5"... Maybe someone besides me or Asmodean should try to explain it to you, since obviously we fail.   ;)

Wow. I made two counterpoints against your Ad Hoc allegation, and you failed to understand ad hoc whilst ignoring my second point about the ad hoc fallacy not applying to what we are talking about because we are not making arguments. I will try again.

Ad Hoc fallacy, is a error made when a person modifies a theory to allow for a specific event or there is no good reason to suggest that modification is true. Or in other words, the modification to that theory cannot be generalized to apply to other exceptions. What you have presented here is not Ad Hoc for two reasons.

1) The modification to the "theory" (it's not a theory) is generalized, and does not refer only to a specific event.
2) What we are talking about here is not a theory. It is just a definition of God. There is no data, and we're not testing to see if it's true. We're just defining things. If you have a degree in philosophy, then I'd imagine you'd understand this.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic)...

If it can't do illogical things, it's not omnipotent.

Who cares about making explanations? Asmodean said it, ergo case closed!

But seriously...

Quote from: "Martian"What are you talking about? I'm at a loss about what your criticism about my post is.

[
Wow. I made two counterpoints against your Ad Hoc allegation, and you failed to understand ad hoc whilst ignoring my second point about the ad hoc fallacy not applying to what we are talking about because we are not making arguments. I will try again.

Ad Hoc fallacy, is a error made when a person modifies a theory to allow for a specific event or there is no good reason to suggest that modification is true. Or in other words, the modification to that theory cannot be generalized to apply to other exceptions. What you have presented here is not Ad Hoc for two reasons.

1) The modification to the "theory" (it's not a theory) is generalized, and does not refer only to a specific event.
2) What we are talking about here is not a theory. It is just a definition of God. There is no data, and we're not testing to see if it's true. We're just defining things. If you have a degree in philosophy, then I'd imagine you'd understand this.

I know you are at a loss. And neither Asmodean nor I can explain it to you I guess    And your cons against my ad hoc presentation,.... please..1 applies to any ad hoc explanation. Two is a sophist claim. If YOU know a little about philosophy, then you would know that definitions is exactly what we spend a lot of time testing. That makes me repeat my question:

Are you by any chance a christian?

Quote from: "Zarathustra"I know you are at a loss. And neither Asmodean nor I can explain it to you I guess    And your cons against my ad hoc presentation,.... please..1 applies to any ad hoc explanation. Two is a claim that makes me repeat my question:

Are you by any chance a christian?

I think you are confused about what I said. What you claim to be an ad hoc explanation is not an ad hoc explanation because it is not a modification to the "theory" that only applies to a specific event. And in any case, Ad Hoc does not apply to what we're talking about because this is not a theory or hypothesis, it is a modification to a definition. And I would argue that it's hardly even that. Reason:

When we say "all", we automatically refer to "all logical things" (obviously). Illogical things are impossible. Just because it's not specified that we are only talking about logical things, doesn't mean we are also talking about illogical things. All we have done is make the distinction that we are only talking about logical things, which should have been obvious without anyone being explicit.

As for your Christian question (which you edited into your earlier post after I was responding to that earlier post), I am not. I'm a total atheist, but I still don't like bad arguments, for or against God.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"I know you are at a loss. And neither Asmodean nor I can explain it to you I guess  ;)

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"When you do your proof that shows that God cannot possibly do illogical things (which is obvious and axiomatic)...

If it can't do illogical things, it's not omnipotent.

Who cares about making explanations? Asmodean said it, ergo case closed!

Indeed.

It's all in definition of omnipotence. Last I asked a fundie type if there was something - anything - his god couldn't do, I got "no" for an answer. Well, Zarathustra illustrated (in but one way of many) how such a god is no more than a bunch of BS.

Now since you claim to be an atheist, why should I even work with your definitions and your take on semantics? You have no god so it needs no debunking.

...You already know that god is a load of crap so why the need to hear me/us confirm it for you?

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Hello Wechtlein

I agree with some of what you are saying, since I have been there myself.And philosophically I have high esteem for phaenomenology, so you won't get an argument from me against dissolving the subject/object distinktion!
 I have a few suggestions, though.
- Since your argumentation is quite incoherent, and could easily be refined.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Omnipotence = All powerful

Omniscent = All knowing

Yes, we can agree as far  :) Others strongly disagrees.

Quotethen no such thing as desire can be made apparent, thus no such thing as control can be exerted, thus there is no real ground for power to exist, let alone omnipotence.

Whoops!! There you lost everyone! Maybe you should take a look back at your beginning again  :D

Thanks for the help, zarathustra.  

Quote from: "Zarathustra"That was just restating the same once again, and I tend to disagree, but I won't stray. I'm not in this thread to debate about the meaning of ad hoc.

Good. You have withdrawn your Ad Hoc allegation.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Good for you! And I don't like bad arguments either, which is why I am so puzzled why you accept this "logic-claim" of yours. But that aside, you do come across as christian. Why not fill out worldview or write god with a small 'g'?  

Your posts lack criticisms, and I am forced to rephrase and expand upon my original point. I'll try again.

Point 1:

The God concept that your disproving is a God that is able to do everything, including illogical things. We'll call this "illogical God".
In contrast, there is another God concept where God is able to do everything logical. We'll call this "logical God".

When you are trying to disprove illogical God, you are successful. But the ironic thing here is that illogical God is already disproven by the very fact that he is illogical. So, your disproof is redundent. You have proven that illogical God is illogical.
But, when you are trying to disprove logical God, the argument fails. That is because logical God can only do things which are logically possible, whilst the argument shows only that an illogical God is illogical. So, your disproof is not applicable.

So, either the argument is redundent (effectively proving nothing), or it's not applicable. Yes, there are people who are stupid and believe an illogical thing can exist (they obviously don't know what they're talking about). But, the disproof doesn't change anything though; they've already said that their God is "illogical" (the equivilant of "disproven").

Point 2:

As for the definitions of "omnipotence" and "omniscience", there isn't a problem. Omnipotence means "all powerful". Omniscience means "all knowing". To harp on the fact that these definitions don't sepcify that "all" refers to "everything that is logical" is just asking for them to state the obvious. What you're doing is the equivilant of a child lifting the toys in his room an inch off of the ground and then putting them back down in quick movements, after his/her parents asked him/her, "pick up your toys". The pandering to this petty technicality, where the actual meaning is understood perfectly, is just annoying.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Last I asked a fundie type if there was something - anything - his god couldn't do, I got "no" for an answer. Well, Zarathustra illustrated (in but one way of many) how such a god is no more than a bunch of BS.

No, the fundie person whom you spoke to illustrated how his god concept is a BS. That is, if he knew that you meant "anything" to include illogical things. If so, then he basically said, "my god concept is disproven by logic, but I don't care."

Quote from: "Asmodean"Now since you claim to be an atheist, why should I even work with your definitions and your take on semantics? You have no god so it needs no debunking.

In my book, any bad argument needs debunking, especially the ones that atheists will use to defend atheism.

Quote from: "Asmodean"...You already know that god is a load of crap so why the need to hear me/us confirm it for you?

I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say anything like this?

Quote from: "Martian"I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say anything like this?

You stated that you were an atheist... Went as far as to say "I'm a total atheist" actually, did you not? So if you do not know the god for a bunch of bs that it is, why did you use the term? I believe the proper one for you would then be "Agnostic" or "pretender". NOT total atheist. I will not speculate into which one of the two is correct, but one of them ought to be, no?

EDIT: Just to address the first issue: Everything does include the realm of illogical, physically impossible and every other denomination of things unless specified otherwise. For instance, everything within my body excludes everything outside. Everything within the universe excludes everything outside. And everything within the realm of logical possibility excludes everything outside.

Everything by itself means just that.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I say anything like this?

You stated that you were an atheist... Went as far as to say "I'm a total atheist" actually, did you not? So if you do not know the god for a bunch of bs that it is, why did you use the term? I believe the proper one for you would then be "Agnostic" or "pretender". NOT total atheist. I will not speculate into which one of the two is correct, but one of them ought to be, no?

I meant to say that I am totally unconvinced that God exists.

Quote from: "Asmodean"EDIT: Just to address the first issue: Everything does include the realm of illogical, physically impossible and every other denomination of things unless specified otherwise. For instance, everything within my body excludes everything outside. Everything within the universe excludes everything outside. And everything within the realm of logical possibility excludes everything outside.

Everything by itself means just that.

A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

There is nothing outside of logic, and many theists don't realize this.

Quote from: "Martian"I meant to say that I am totally unconvinced that God exists.

Not a "total" atheist then. You corrected yourself though so I withdraw the original statement which was aimed at a "total" - or as I understood it - strong atheist.

Quote from: "Martian"A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

There is nothing outside of logic, and many theists don't realize this.

A square circle is a square.

To answer the point though, the word "everything" does, and now I am repeating myself, encompass not only what lies within the realm of logical possibility but that which lies outside it too. For example, fantasy is as much a part of "everything" as reality, and there are many logical paradoxes in that particular realm. (Yes, I could probably think of a better example but at the moment I'm well into my tenth hour of reading math books I can barely lift off the table and thus am not in the best state of mind to do so   )

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

There is nothing outside of logic, and many theists don't realize this.

A square circle is a square.

To answer the point though, the word "everything" does, and now I am repeating myself, encompass not only what lies within the realm of logical possibility but that which lies outside it too. For example, fantasy is as much a part of "everything" as reality, and there are many logical paradoxes in that particular realm. (Yes, I could probably think of a better example but at the moment I'm well into my tenth hour of reading math books I can barely lift off the table and thus am not in the best state of mind to do so   )

A square circle is not a square. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. A square circle is nothing. It is not a square and it is not a circle. Try imagining a circle that has four perpendicular corners and four straight sides of equal lengths while not having four perpendicular corners and not having four sides of equal lengths. A = ~A. It's impossible.

In an fantasy world everything must be logical in order for it to be imaginable. Like I said, you can't imagine a square circle.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"That was just restating the same once again, and I tend to disagree, but I won't stray. I'm not in this thread to debate about the meaning of ad hoc.

Good. You have withdrawn your Ad Hoc allegation.

Nope not at all. But if that is the meaning you get from my sentence, then no wonder the paradox is problematic for you. Your dismissal of god (a proposed entity, with certain attributes) not being a theory or hypothesis  - which you seem to think implies, that I can't allegate you of ad hoc - is simply false!
- But I won't go there here, as I said. You can start up another thread if you need to refine your notions on this subject!

QuoteYour posts lack criticisms, and I am forced to rephrase and expand upon my original point. I'll try again.

You don't have to    You are still basing your idle sophistery on a misconception. Your original point is off the mark!! How can I put it more clear than that? That's why my posts are lacking "critcisms". We don't disagree about what YOU are saying (as to logical acting and God), but you haven't really read my explanations, why this is a misunderstanding.... Will someone else please explain the nature of the Paradox, since Martian keeps objecting with the same thing?

Quote from: "Martian"A square circle is not a square. I don't know how you come to that conclusion. A square circle is nothing. It is not a square and it is not a circle. Try imagining a circle that has four perpendicular corners and four straight sides of equal lengths while not having four perpendicular corners and not having four sides of equal lengths. A = ~A. It's impossible.

Now you are getting too cryptic with a simple thing. Let us examine the "square circle" here; "square" is an attribute of "circle" which is an object having that attribute. Everything square has four Ï€/2 corners with the sides of equal length. Thus, our "circle" - which is the name of the object having the attribute square - is a square - which is a physical condition of object. You see, this square peg does fit into the round hole  

Quote from: "Martian"In an fantasy world everything must be logical in order for it to be imaginable. Like I said, you can't imagine a square circle.

Sure I can imagine a square circle. It is, after all, just a humble square. For the overall point, I disagree.

Quote from: "Martian"A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

Exactly. That is what the paradox shows.
But I think that Asmodean is right, you seem to be agnostic or a pretender.
My current theory is that you are the latter. There are various reasons why this is. Your resistance from adressing the problem in a proper manner, is only one of these.
I have seen people revealed as pretenders on other atheist forums. Your way of writing/arguing resembles their writing a great deal. Especially when viewed all at once, they really shows that you are not truthful about your original claim to me, that you are a "total atheist". (Anyone else reading this thread, that thinks I'm wrong: Try this.) This is the main reason.
You don't fill out the worldview for 10 months, and now when asked you write "naturalism"...  :upset:

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

Exactly. That is what the paradox shows.

Well, in the square circle case I have to disagree. You can have a square rug, bottle or picture on your square wall. Here, rug, bottle, picture and wall are names of the objects while square is their defining characteristic. By the same, a square circle is a square-shaped object named "circle". You can argue that this name is then inappropriate for the named object, but that is a whole different story.

Another thing that comes to mind when you mention square circle is a thick disk with thickness equal diameter. From two opposing sides, it's a circle. from the other two, it's a square. Thus, it is both a square AND a circle when viewed in two-dimentional space.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Lol, Zarathustra, I admire your intellect. As I'm sure you know, I am not a professional philosopher, and I did oversimplify things a bit. I am interested in you're etymologies though, of "potence" and "scient". Those were very interesting definitions that I had not previously thought of directly.

Thanks. As I wrote earlier I have been there myself. That's why I decided to study philosophy.

QuoteHowever, with the defintion of "potence" as the ability to do all things, I think we can agree that there can not be an entity that weilds omnipotence.

No problem here  :lol:[/quote]
No problem. I think with your interest in the subject/object distinktion and intentionality, you'd really like Husserl.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Another thing that comes to mind when you mention square circle is a thick disk with thickness equal diameter. From two opposing sides, it's a circle. from the other two, it's a square. Thus, it is both a square AND a circle when viewed in two-dimentional space.

That is called a cylinder, since there are also proper names for three-d geometrics   "Circle" and "square" are both two-d geometric terms, which is why they are mutually exclusive.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Another thing that comes to mind when you mention square circle is a thick disk with thickness equal diameter. From two opposing sides, it's a circle. from the other two, it's a square. Thus, it is both a square AND a circle when viewed in two-dimentional space.

That is called a cylinder, since there are also proper names for three-d geometrics   "Circle" and "square" are both two-d geometric terms, which is why they are mutually exclusive.

Bold text.

Anyhow, the point is still being my first example since it's the attributes that define something, not its name. You can call anything a circle without it actually being circular

Quote from: "Asmodean"Anyhow, the point is still being my first example since it's the attributes that define something, not its name. You can call anything a circle without it actually being circular

Of course you can :)
Omniscience and omnipotence are both described as attributes of God, so no confusion as to what their linguistic function is. (Except for one confused individual, who thinks that they have a "real" (strangely hidden) meaning. Now where have we heard things like that before   )

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Of course you can :)
Omniscience and omnipotence are both described as attributes of God, so no confusion as to what their linguistic function is. (Except for one confused individual, who thinks that they have a "real" (strangely hidden) meaning. Now where have we heard things like that before  :banna:

Quote from: "Asmodean"In our case we were given a "circle"(n). What kind of "circle"? A square (adj) one. Thus, this "circle"(n) has four π/2 corners and 4 equal sides. This is also known as a common square(n) in geometry.

If we define a circle as the set of points that lie at a given distance (radius) from a given point (center), it may be possible to define a distance metric that would result in a square. In fact I think a taxi distance metric (Manhattan distance metric (http://www.improvedoutcomes.com/docs/WebSiteDocs/Clustering/Clustering_Parameters/Manhattan_Distance_Metric.htm)) will do this nicely.

 

Quote from: "bowmore"If we define a circle as the set of points that lie at a given distance (radius) from a given point (center), it may be possible to define a distance metric that would result in a square. In fact I think a taxi distance metric (Manhattan distance metric (http://www.improvedoutcomes.com/docs/WebSiteDocs/Clustering/Clustering_Parameters/Manhattan_Distance_Metric.htm)) will do this nicely.

 :hmm: ... ...  :nerd:  :cool:

A square has four sides. A circle has no sides. It is impossible to imagine a shape that has sides while not having sides. That is why it's illogical and cannot exist in the mind nor reality.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is a square circle? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

Exactly. That is what the paradox shows.
But I think that Asmodean is right, you seem to be agnostic or a pretender.
My current theory is that you are the latter. There are various reasons why this is. Your resistance from adressing the problem in a proper manner, is only one of these.
I have seen people revealed as pretenders on other atheist forums. Your way of writing/arguing resembles their writing a great deal. Especially when viewed all at once, they really shows that you are not truthful about your original claim to me, that you are a "total atheist". (Anyone else reading this thread, that thinks I'm wrong: Try this.) This is the main reason.
You don't fill out the worldview for 10 months, and now when asked you write "naturalism"...  :upset:

1) As far as I can tell, you're accusing me of having a double standard. That is not true. This is because Ad Hoc is an established fallacy with a specific definition for it to be as a fallacy. If you change it, it's not a fallacy anymore. Science would be entirely Ad Hoc then. But that wouldn't be a problem, because Ad Hoc wouldn't represent something that is fallacious anymore. You could say that my argument is Ad Hoc, but then it wouldn't be an objection.

But as for the definition of omnipotence/omniscience, they are used to describe the Christian God concept. The Christian God concept is what Christians interpret the bible as saying. Back in the day when people were writting the bible (or maybe even the time of it's translations), people weren't worrying about refering to things as logical or illogical. All they wanted to convey was that God had a lot of power. So they said "all powerful" and "all knowing" etc. But they didn't care to specify for whether it is illogical power and illogical knowledge or logical power and logical knowledge because it's obvious. If someone says, "All matter has mass" must we specify that we are talking about all logical matter? No, it is implied.

2) When you're being debated, in mostly any case, your debator is questioning your understanding of at least one concept. (You falsely accused me of using the Ad Hoc fallacy. What did you expect me to do?)

3) I did not call you a child. If you think that, then you probably didn't see the analogy.


As a finisher, I will remind you that your argument will never work against a theist for the reason that it's either redundent (they already stupidly believe it) or that it's not applicable. I posted a thread at the Christian Forums to see what response I would get, and as expected, they said that God is logical. http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7315251

Quote from: "Martian"A square has four sides. A circle has no sides. It is impossible to imagine a shape that has sides while not having sides. That is why it's illogical and cannot exist in the mind nor reality.

Well, I defended the square circle about as much as I can be bothered to and I'm not willing to engage in a yes/no argument with you so... Think what you will.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Martian"A square has four sides. A circle has no sides. It is impossible to imagine a shape that has sides while not having sides. That is why it's illogical and cannot exist in the mind nor reality.

Well, I defended the square circle about as much as I can be bothered to and I'm not willing to engage in a yes/no argument with you so... Think what you will.

And the same to you.

Here's something that may make things a bit more understandable if you care to look into this subject: http://www.dougshaver.com/philos/squarecircle.pdf

Hey, zarathustra, remember how I said I was pretty good at sniffing out problems in arguments? Something doesn't smell right. I say this because of you're definition of the term "everything" as encompassing all things, including, well, illogical things. You see, If "everything" exists, and god has been proven by your argument to be a logical impossibility, doesn't that mean that god still exists, seeing as how he would be a logical contradiction, and thus included in "everything" that exists?

On the other hand, if we were to say that "everything" did not exist, then we would have a logical contradiction on our hands, as what is it that "everything" would be reffering to, if whatever it was, it did not exist?

I get the feeling that in order for the argument to work, when you use the term "everything", the term should only encompass that which exists. After all, every-thing. If something is not a thing, how can it be included? I think, however, what everything does encompass includes not logical impossibilites, but the concepts of illogical imposibilites. In this sense, it is possible to have a concept of a god able to do illogical impossibilities, sure. The concept of omnipotence can imply logical impossibilities, but I get the feeling that in practice, if something can not be done, it can not be done. Protons do not decay, and I don't think that the act of a proton decaying is included in everything. Still, the concept of a proton decaying might be.

Yeah, so... about my beliefs. I'm definitely strong atheist when it comes to any entity that might call itself god. I also don't believe the universe as a whole is an entity, nor do I give it the label "god", so that cuts out deism, too. I am absolutely sure that there is no god. At the same time, however, I am absolutely sure that what exists, exists so to speak. I just don't think that among those things is anything I can call god. To me, god is a logical impossibility.

yeah. but like I said, I thought I smelled something fishy. Any comments?

Quote from: "Martian"So, my arguments are circular too now? I'm going to ignore the allegation that my argument is circular until you can provide some support.

Gladly, because you even continue now:

QuoteI've explained Ad Hoc and shown how it doesn't apply. Ad Hoc refers to a modification to a theory to explain away a specific contradictory datum. Notice though, that I didn't explain a specific contradictory datum, I explained away general contradictory data, which is, in fact, a fundamental principle to the scientific method.

You are quite mistaken. Take it up in another thread please (oh yeah admit, that last sentence was circular... I think it's the third time I asked you that...).
Then you say all the same once again.  ;)
I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Again I say: Please have someone explain the paradox to you, and stop discussing "ad hoc" here.
The issue at hand is whether or not your posited implicit understanding of the concepts were always-already present. They weren't. That's why I call it ad hoc.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Asmodean was trying to politically correctly avoid that particular bag of worms, but he too made this observation. (Yes, I do refer to myself in third person sometimes)

What I am interested in, Martian, (now that I'm going for the potential worms) is why you claimed to be a "total atheist" when you are not? You said you were "unconvinced" of the existence of god. Almost all people I know who hold that view define themselves as agnostics. The rest define themselves as agnostic atheists or weak atheists or... pick your poison, but nothing as heavily laden with implications as "total" atheist (which is, and DO correct my grammar if I'm wrong again (   ), another way of saying "strong" atheist).

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Hey, zarathustra, remember how I said I was pretty good at sniffing out problems in arguments? Something doesn't smell right. I say this because of you're definition of the term "everything" as encompassing all things, including, well, illogical things. You see, If "everything" exists, and god has been proven by your argument to be a logical impossibility, doesn't that mean that god still exists, seeing as how he would be a logical contradiction, and thus included in "everything" that exists?

I didn't define "everything" as encompassing illogical things. (I don't even know what "illogical things" should refer to.) (Martian tried saying this though.) The point is: There is nothing illogical about creating a math problem that is so hard that you can't solve it. And there's nothing illogical to knowing the answer to all mathproblems. (Athough this is highly improbable, but that is a different story). The problem is that the combination of the two, is undoable. Or illogical, in the sense that it is a paradox.

QuoteI get the feeling that in order for the argument to work, when you use the term "everything", the term should only encompass that which exists. After all, every-thing. If something is not a thing, how can it be included?

I agree.  :D  And you were right that it smells when viewed that way.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"So, my arguments are circular too now? I'm going to ignore the allegation that my argument is circular until you can provide some support.

Gladly, because you even continue now:

QuoteI've explained Ad Hoc and shown how it doesn't apply. Ad Hoc refers to a modification to a theory to explain away a specific contradictory datum. Notice though, that I didn't explain a specific contradictory datum, I explained away general contradictory data, which is, in fact, a fundamental principle to the scientific method.

You are quite mistaken. Take it up in another thread please (oh yeah admit, that last sentence was circular... I think it's the third time I asked you that...).
Then you say all the same once again.  ;)
I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Again I say: Please have someone explain the paradox to you, and stop discussing "ad hoc" here.
The issue at hand is whether or not your posited implicit understanding of the concepts were always-already present. They weren't. That's why I call it ad hoc.

What is your complaint with what I'm saying? Please, state what the problem with my argument is and be clear about it. I don't want to hear any of this "you're commiting an Ad Hoc and your arguments are circular, but I don't want to talk about it" nor "you're really a theist, so you are wrong" nor "you don't understand the paradox."

Edit: For simplicity, refer to the following for your criticisms:

Here's what I'm saying. The argument asks God to make a math problem that can't be solved by him. But that's logically impossible because a math problem which cannot be solved by God, does not exist, for God can solve all math problems. Therefore, to ask God to make a math problem that he himself cannot solve is an illogical request. That is the equivilant of asking God to make a square circle, and then concluding that God is not all powerful or all knowing. Omnipotence and omniscience don't refer to the logically impossible (aka: nonsense). And that's the problem with your disproof.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Asmodean was trying to politically correctly avoid that particular bag of worms, but he too made this observation. (Yes, I do refer to myself in third person sometimes)

What I am interested in, Martian, (now that I'm going for the potential worms) is why you claimed to be a "total atheist" when you are not? You said you were "unconvinced" of the existence of god. Almost all people I know who hold that view define themselves as agnostics. The rest define themselves as agnostic atheists or weak atheists or... pick your poison, but nothing as heavily laden with implications as "total" atheist (which is, and DO correct my grammar if I'm wrong again (   ), another way of saying "strong" atheist).

*sigh*

I'm sorry that I confused you. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Though, I never expected people to concentrate on that, because what-I-believe is not part of this thread.

Quote from: "Martian"*sigh*

I'm sorry that I confused you. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Though, I never expected people to concentrate on that, because what-I-believe is not part of this thread.

Pointing no fingers here, I raised the question because most atheists or agnostics or anything inbetween know exactly where they stand and don't like being put into the other cathegories. Especially, the agnostics and agnostic atheists don't like being put into the "strong" atheist cathegory.

Quote from: "Martian"*sigh*
I'm sorry that I confused you. I'm an agnostic atheist.

And you are also a square circle? Well then I am a christian muslim... You cannot be both atheist and agnostic, this may be why you are so confused. I still don't think you are being truthful, though.

QuoteThough, I never expected people to concentrate on that, because what-I-believe is not part of this thread.

It has become, since your reasoning is flawed and it has become evident that religious dogma is a big part of this.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"So, my arguments are circular too now? I'm going to ignore the allegation that my argument is circular until you can provide some support.

Gladly, because you even continue now:

QuoteI've explained Ad Hoc and shown how it doesn't apply. Ad Hoc refers to a modification to a theory to explain away a specific contradictory datum. Notice though, that I didn't explain a specific contradictory datum, I explained away general contradictory data, which is, in fact, a fundamental principle to the scientific method.

You are quite mistaken. Take it up in another thread please (oh yeah admit, that last sentence was circular... I think it's the third time I asked you that...).
Then you say all the same once again.  ;)
I especially noticed, that the one thing you failed to adress, was Asmodeans and my own points concerning your religion.

Again I say: Please have someone explain the paradox to you, and stop discussing "ad hoc" here.
The issue at hand is whether or not your posited implicit understanding of the concepts were always-already present. They weren't. That's why I call it ad hoc.

What is your complaint with what I'm saying? Please, state what the problem with my argument is and be clear about it. I don't want to hear any of this "you're commiting an Ad Hoc and your arguments are circular, but I don't want to talk about it" nor "you're really a theist, so you are wrong" nor "you don't understand the paradox."

Edit: For simplicity, refer to the following for your criticisms:

Here's what I'm saying. The argument asks God to make a math problem that can't be solved by him. But that's logically impossible because a math problem which cannot be solved by God, does not exist, for God can solve all math problems. Therefore, to ask God to make a math problem that he himself cannot solve is an illogical request. That is the equivilant of asking God to make a square circle, and then concluding that God is not all powerful or all knowing. Omnipotence and omniscience don't refer to the logically impossible (aka: nonsense). And that's the problem with your disproof.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I raised the question because most atheists or agnostics or anything inbetween know exactly where they stand and don't like being put into the other cathegories.

But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I raised the question because most atheists or agnostics or anything inbetween know exactly where they stand and don't like being put into the other cathegories.

But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

1. My beliefs have NO BEARING on this topic. (Ad Hominum)
2. You keep on making making accusations a dime a dozen, WITH NO SUPPORT. (Ad... uh... Ad Non-argumentum)
3. Arguments HAVE NO BELIEFS. My argument is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is just logical.

I have made many elaborate attempts to explain to you the problem, but you never explain anything in return. I said I was an Atheist, even though that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. So, until you can respond with an argument, I'm going to have to conclude that you acknowledge my argument as true and are just evading the argument.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I raised the question because most atheists or agnostics or anything inbetween know exactly where they stand and don't like being put into the other cathegories.

But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

1. My beliefs have NO BEARING on this topic. (Ad Hominum)
2. You keep on making making accusations a dime a dozen, WITH NO SUPPORT. (Ad... uh... Ad Non-argumentum)
3. Arguments HAVE NO BELIEFS. My argument is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is just logical.

QuoteI said I was an Atheist,

And you were lying, why?

QuoteI'm going to have to conclude that you acknowledge my argument as true and are just evading the argument.

Like any theist would do: Exactly the same strategy as when you assumed that I had dropped my ad hoc allegation.. I have refuted your silly argument several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care!
As long as you won't correct the "agnostic atheist" stance.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"But Martian who obviously knows enough about all these concepts, does not know exactly where he stands...... Cannot even (or won't) use them correctly. And he has made untrue claims about this before.
I have decided that I am not going to debate him until he comes out of the closet. (Or until he stops his sophistery, and debates within reason.) His counterarguments are clearly christian in their complete lack of cohesive thinking anyway.

1. My beliefs have NO BEARING on this topic. (Ad Hominum)
2. You keep on making making accusations a dime a dozen, WITH NO SUPPORT. (Ad... uh... Ad Non-argumentum)
3. Arguments HAVE NO BELIEFS. My argument is neither theistic nor atheistic. It is just logical.

QuoteI said I was an Atheist,

And you were lying, why?

QuoteI'm going to have to conclude that you acknowledge my argument as true and are just evading the argument.

Like any theist would do. I have refuted your silly argument several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care!
As long as you didn't correct the "agnostic atheist" stance.

Shhhh. Please don't say stupid things anymore. It appears that YOU are the imposter! You don't know that agnosticism and atheist are not incompatible things... *shakes head*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Hey, zarathustra, remember how I said I was pretty good at sniffing out problems in arguments? Something doesn't smell right. I say this because of you're definition of the term "everything" as encompassing all things, including, well, illogical things. You see, If "everything" exists, and god has been proven by your argument to be a logical impossibility, doesn't that mean that god still exists, seeing as how he would be a logical contradiction, and thus included in "everything" that exists?

I didn't define "everything" as encompassing illogical things. (I don't even know what "illogical things" should refer to.) (Martian tried saying this though.) The point is: There is nothing illogical about creating a math problem that is so hard that you can't solve it. And there's nothing illogical to knowing the answer to all mathproblems. (Athough this is highly improbable, but that is a different story). The problem is that the combination of the two, is undoable. Or illogical, in the sense that it is a paradox.

QuoteI get the feeling that in order for the argument to work, when you use the term "everything", the term should only encompass that which exists. After all, every-thing. If something is not a thing, how can it be included?

I agree.  :D  And you were right that it smells when viewed that way.

aha! That makes a lotta of sense. After all, if the ability to solve all math problems is not illogical, and the ability to make one that you can't solve is not illogical, but... you're right. There can be no entity that can do both. The complaint martian was lodging, and I'm not too sure I understand his argument, I think is that... Well...

Let me put it this way. The concept of a god being able to do illogical things is itself logical, and thus existent. I suppose that if christians wanted to have a god be able to do all things, they could believe in a god capable of performing absurdities. Thing is, and playing devil's advocate for a moment, if a philosopher was trying to define god, would he include in it's concept the ability to perform absurdities? I'm not sure he would. But I'm not philosopher. I'm just a guy who's got a really good head on his shoulders. Anyways, I think what martian is trying to say is that it doesn't matter what christians think about their god, because(playing devil's advocate again here.) if an entity existed that was god, it itself would have to be bound by logic. What martian fails to understand, however, is that a god bound by logic could not be both omnipotent and omniscient, which cause a contradiction.

By the way, after giving it some thought, I do believe I've stumbled upon an entire mathematical field I've called paradox theory. It involves sets of theorems that are dependent on other theorems for proof in the negative or positive. It has been my conclusion, that while the singular theorem inside the set of recursive theorems can not be proven negative or positive, the set as a whole can. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that there are an infinite number of these "mega-theorems" which are simply the set of theorems that when examined individually produce a paradox. The result is a new class of numbers that correspond to these mega-theorems, and have inherent vilidity or non-validity!

Quote from: "Martian"[

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"[

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

Thank you for complying.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"The complaint martian was lodging, and I'm not too sure I understand his argument, I think is that... Well...

You are right... There is nothing to understand. He doesn't answer my points except with technicalities, and his original argument is simply nonsense. It only makes sense, when you understand it for what it is: A theist desperately trying to save his god concept. But that aside, since I have decided I wont spend any more time on his religious "logic" providing basis for a skewed ontology. (For instance he contradicts himself several times in this thread, that god can't do illogical things, and that he can....)

So back to your counterargument that - although you don't (like others) use the same formal terms - is much more challenching... thanks  ;)

QuoteBy the way, after giving it some thought, I do believe I've stumbled upon an entire mathematical field I've called paradox theory. It involves sets of theorems that are dependent on other theorems for proof in the negative or positive. It has been my conclusion, that while the singular theorem inside the set of recursive theorems can not be proven negative or positive, the set as a whole can. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that there are an infinite number of these "mega-theorems" which are simply the set of theorems that when examined individually produce a paradox. The result is a new class of numbers that correspond to these mega-theorems, and have inherent vilidity or non-validity!

That sounds truly interesting! 2 questions: How did you "stumble upon" anything that complex? Could you describe these theorems further? (In a new thread)

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"[

And to give you a taste of your own medicine, I will say this to you (which is all I get from you).

"I have refuted YOUR silly argumnt several times...But please maintain that assumption, I don't really care either!"

Put up or shut up.

:|

... P.S. Why were you lying about your faith?

Quote from: "Zarathustra"... P.S. Why were you lying about your faith?

Please elaborate on what you're talking about. I am an atheist, and I didn't say I was anything else. What lie are you talking about? I can assure you that I don't have a hidden agenda. I am an atheist and I see the problem with the "paradox" that you have provided.

Also, I don't believe I have been contradicting myself. So far, I have been refining the argument down, and I don't think I've contradicted myself within one post. But perhaps I have been inconsistent with way I go about my argument, from post to post. I'm sorry for that, I am merely trying to find a way to communicate the argument effectively. If you wish to respond to my argument, then please respond to the following:

Quote from: "Martian"Here's what I'm saying. The argument asks God to make a math problem that can't be solved by him. But that's logically impossible because a math problem which cannot be solved by God, does not exist (is illogical), for God can solve all math problems. Therefore, to ask God to make a math problem that he himself cannot solve is an illogical request. That is the equivilant of asking God to make a square circle, and then concluding that God is not all powerful or all knowing. Omnipotence and omniscience don't refer to the logically impossible (aka: nonsense). And that's the problem with your disproof.

I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses. It seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical. But I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

---

If the above content has not satisfied you, then I encourage you to explain the paradox and we can work from there. Please specify what "all" refers to. Does it include logical things as well as illogical things? Because if you think that, then I believe that that is a misrepresentation of the Christian God concept and the root of the problem.

P.S. I'm sorry for acting macho earlier, but I was really annoyed by the way you were responding to my arguments. I am an atheist and sincerely believe that there is an issue with the argument you've posted. If you are willing to discuss this, then I would prefer that we discuss it on the forums, but we could discuss it via PMs just as well.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Zarathustra"... P.S. Why were you lying about your faith?

Please elaborate on what you're talking about. I am an atheist, and I didn't say I was anything else.

Reread page 3 there you will find both the elaboration, and where you are saying something else...

Quote from: "Martian"I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses.

It isn't!
- I think it is your willingnes to bend terms like omni, ignore what "attribute" means and thereby get the wrong idea. And even claiming this to be logical, which I have PM'ed you that I have checked up on with my old professor. It is not.

QuoteIt seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical.

I know you think so, and that is part of the problem. Try look at Wechtlein Uns two last posts. Maybe his explanation makes it easier to see how you are missing the target.

QuoteBut I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

I never claimed that it did!! (And this is the last time I'll write this!!) What the paradox shows is that, omnipotence and omniscience is mutually exclusive. Not that either is illogical. (although I do think they are, but that is an entirely different discussion.)

QuoteIf the above content has not satisfied you, then I encourage you to explain the paradox and we can work from there.

I have tried this several times I think, but now I tried again. :)

QuoteI am an atheist and sincerely believe that there is an issue with the argument you've posted.

OK.I don't even consider it an argument, but a fun little paradox... And there very well might be problems with it. But what you objected originally isn't one of them. As I have written you: I checked this with my old professor who has a ph.d. in logic from Harvard and a doctor degree in this from the University of Copenhagen. She did not think that I blew you off, but that I have been extremely patient.... well I hope reading the remarks between me and Wechtlein helps. I don't know how else to explain this.

QuoteIf you are willing to discuss this, then I would prefer that we discuss it on the forums, but we could discuss it via PMs just as well. :lol:

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses.

It isn't!
- I think it is your willingnes to bend terms like omni, ignore what "attribute" means and thereby get the wrong idea. And even claiming this to be logical, which I have PM'ed you that I have checked up on with my old professor. It is not.

Quote from: "Martian"It seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical.

I know you think so, and that is part of the problem. Try look at Wechtlein Uns two last posts. Maybe his explanation makes it easier to see how you are missing the target.

Quote from: "Martian"But I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

I never claimed that it did!! (And this is the last time I'll write this!!) What the "paradox" shows is that, omnipotence and omniscience is mutually exclusive. Not that either is illogical. (although I do think they are, but that is an entirely different discussion.)

I'd appreciate if you explain the "paradox" and what you think is wrong with my argument against your "paradox". Don't direct me to various places for answers, respond directly, or at least provide quotes of what you said earlier that you want me to see.

I am not willing to take your word, nor the word of your professor that my argument is invalid. My argument is in front of you. Discredit it by showing the problem that you think it has in the manner I have specified above.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"If the above content has not satisfied you, then I encourage you to explain the paradox and we can work from there.

I have tried this several times I think, but now I tried again. :)

I am always willing to discuss this and other subjects. I prefer the forums. I am just not into a redundant debate, where we keep repeating ourselves.
My problem is: I posted the paradox. (Just for fun, but it has been taken surprisingly serious.) You responded with an objection. I showed you how that was off the mark. You then proceeded to dismiss this (based on technicalities), repeat your statements and condescend. From here we went in a circle.[/quote]
If you have shown me that I was wrong, then do it again here, and be clear about what you think I was wrong about.

--------------------------

Here is a reference for you to respond:

If my understanding of your argument is incorrect, then please correct me.

My formal understanding of your argument: (I haven't taken a class in logic, but I hope you can follow this and accept it.)
1. God can do all things. (God is omnipotent)
2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.
3. God can make X.
4. God can solve X.
5. Iff (3) and (4), then (1).
6. Iff (4), then ~(3).
7. Iff (3), then ~(4).
8. [ (3) and ~(4) ] or [ ~(3) and (4) ].
9. ~(5) or ~(5).
10. ~(1).

Ergo, God cannot do all things. (God is not omnipotent)


My formal objection to my formal understanding of your argument:
Premise (2) is a logical impossibility if you are working with premise (1). Let me show you.

1. God can do all things. (God is omnipotent)
2. There exists a math problem that God cannot solve, X.
3. Iff (1), then ~(2).
4. [ (1) and ~(2) ] or [ ~(1) and (2) ].
5. ~(1) or ~(2).

We have concluded that at least one of the premises for the argument is false. The theist's claim is that God can do all things, therefore the premise that there is a problem which God cannot solve, X, (2) is false, and invalidates the conclusion that God is not omnipotent.

---

My informal understanding of your argument:
God cannot be all powerful (do all things) because he cannot simultaneously make a math problem he cannot solve and solve it.


My informal objection to my informal understanding of your arugment:

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Martian"Here's what I'm saying. The argument asks God to make a math problem that can't be solved by him. But that's logically impossible because a math problem which cannot be solved by God, does not exist (is illogical), for God can solve all math problems. Therefore, to ask God to make a math problem that he himself cannot solve is an illogical request. That is the equivilant of asking God to make a square circle, and then concluding that God is not all powerful or all knowing. Omnipotence and omniscience don't refer to the logically impossible (aka: nonsense). And that's the problem with your disproof.

I think the core problem in our dispute is what "all" ecompasses. It seems to me that you're saying that "all" encompasses that which is illogical and nonsensical as well as that which is logical. But I maintain that "all" refers to the power and knowledge that only logically make sense. Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

Ok, Martian. First of all. I thought you agreed to stop the condescending tone:

Quote from: "Martian"I'd appreciate if you explain the "paradox" and what you think is wrong with my argument against your "paradox". Don't direct me to various places for answers, respond directly, or at least provide quotes of what you said earlier that you want me to see.

Second of all. That is what I have done so far, but you didn't understand. This has been very frustrating for me. Therefore I will thank you for putting up your argument in a formal manner. I don't mind you don't use the right symbols  :beer:

QuoteIf my understanding of your argument is incorrect, then please correct me.

It is, as I have said repeatedly, so consider yourself corrected:

QuoteMy formal understanding of your argument: (I haven't taken a class in logic, but I hope you can follow this and accept it.)
1. God can do all things. (God is omnipotent)
2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.
3. God can make X.
4. God can solve X.
5. Iff (3) and (4), then (1).
6. Iff (4), then ~(3).
7. Iff (3), then ~(4).
8. [ (3) and ~(4) ] or [ ~(3) and (4) ].
9. ~(5) or ~(5).
10. ~(1).

Ergo, God cannot do all things. (God is not omnipotent)

 :)

Quote2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.

Whoooops!!! :eek2:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:
(Sorry. Just had to do that.  :borg:
SO:

Quote from: "Martian"My formal objection to my formal understanding of your argument:

Is, as I have said all along, way off the mark since you leave out premise 1 from my original statement.

QuoteMy informal understanding of your argument:God cannot be all powerful (do all things) because he cannot simultaneously make a math problem he cannot solve and solve it

This is of course wrong in the same manner. Can you understand why I did not respond more thoroughly before? You kept disregarding part of the original paradox.

I hope you see the paradox now, as clearly as if I asked: Will you draw me a square circle?

And I'll end this by paraphrasing you. Because I hope we are on the same ground now.  :D

Quote from: "Zarathustra"The problem is: Your representation goes wrong at number 2! That is the point you failed to see, but I am glad you showed this to me.

Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God? I have to disagree for the reasons specified below.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.

I NEVER postulated that. That would be a paradox in itself. Have you even read the OP?

But more importantly: What happened to premise number 1 clearly stated in my OP?

What you should have written in your reformulation was at least:
2. God knows everything. (God is omniscient)
How can you just forget that?

I didn't forget that. I left it out because it's redundent to have. Omnipotence encompasses all God can do, including making and solving math problems. Omniscience would have made the issue unecessarily complicated. But it seems as though you're saying that it's important to your argument somehow. Though, I am not aware of how that is.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"Now these two concepts are proposed as both intrinsic to God, as his attributes. What I am saying is: That cannot be! That is a paradox!

I think "contradiction" would be a more accurate word then "paradox" to describe this argument. Though, I do not agree that it is even that if you accept omnipotence and omniscience at the same time. (In my view, you would only need omnipotence, and you would have to have omnipotence be true continually. But don't worry about this, I'll work from your perspective.)

Quote from: "Zarathustra"It is exactly like saying: 1. X is a two dimensional figure shaped like a triangle. 2. X is a two dimensional figure shaped like a circle. It is illogical and therefore also a paradox. An as you stated yourself earlier:

This analogy is false. The reason is that omniscience and omnipotence do not contradict each other. "Omniscience" is the ability to do all that is logically possible. "Omniscience" is the ability to know all that is logically knowable. Omniscience and omnipotence refer to what is logical, and when something becomes illogical, it is no longer applicable to "omnipotence"/"omniscience". In contrast, the definition of a circle and square are fixed to a definition with terms that cannot change based on the argument. I believe that I have seen the problem with what you're saying.

You are looking at one attributes (omnipotence/omniscience) seperately when analyzing them with the question. You are saying omnipotence is true while saying omniscience is false, and then you revert back after you have made the conclusion, and that's what makes the paradox happen. That is the only way you can have a paradox. But that's not the way you're supposed to look at this. The question needs to be looked at when both of the attributes are true at the same time. Omnipotence/omniscience limit the logical possibilities to make the question, "Can God create a math problem, which is so difficult he cannot solve it himself?" invalid, specifically this part: "[a math problem] so difficult he cannot solve himself". That is because when we said that God is omnipotent/omniscient, that indicated that there wasn't a math problem that could logically be made (that God could not solve). So the "paradox" ends there, and hence is not a paradox. The request for God to make something which is illogical does not count as a disproof of his omnipotence/omniscience, because illogical things were are not part of it.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "MARTIANZARATHUSTRA"A thing which is illogical is technically not a thing. What is an omniscient, omnipotent being? It's nothing. Nonsense. A logical contradiction is nothing.

... and God vanished in a puff of logic!

Now you make me feel bad for not disagreeing.

Quote from: "Martian"Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God?

No. I am saying that you are misrepresenting it! Are you so thickheaded that you think, that to ask: "Does there exist a celestial teapot?" is the same as postulating: "There exists a celestial teapot!"

QuoteI have to disagree for the reasons specified below.
I didn't forget that. I left it out because it's redundent to have.

No, it is not. Do you really think that to know something is the same as, to act?
You cannot just leave something out of an argument that you are trying to refute. I am done debating you as long as you maintain that.

My original theory regarding you must be right after all. Since your argumentation is based on misrepresentation as is so common with you guys.

And here is something for a farewell

1. x is a two dimensional object that is a square
2. x is a two dimensional object that is a circle
3. - Can you draw X?

Martians logical answer: Yes, I can. Because 1 is redundant.
Here it is:  [attachment=0:22g3hwg0]circle.jpg[/attachment:22g3hwg0]  

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God? I have to disagree for the reasons specified below.
I didn't forget that. I left it out because it's redundent to have.

No it is not. You cannot just leave something out of an argument that you are trying to refute. I am done debating you as long as you maintain that.

My original theory regarding you must be right after all.

Look at what I said:

Quote from: "Martian"(In my view, you would only need omnipotence, and you would have to have omnipotence be true continually. But don't worry about this, I'll work from your perspective.)

I was hoping that you wouldn't respond this way. I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I am working using both "omnipotence" and "omniscience".

Quote from: "Zarathustra"And here is something for a farewell

1. x is a two dimensional object that is a square
2. x is a two dimensional object that is a circle
2. - Can you draw X?

Martians logical answer: Yes, I can. Because 1 is redundant.

I went over why the analogy does not apply in my response.

Quote from: "Martian"This analogy is false. The reason is that omniscience and omnipotence do not contradict each other. "Omniscience" is the ability to do all that is logically possible. "Omniscience" is the ability to know all that is logically knowable. Omniscience and omnipotence refer to what is logical, and when something becomes illogical, it is no longer applicable to "omnipotence"/"omniscience". In contrast, the definition of a circle and square are fixed to a definition with terms that cannot change based on the argument. I believe that I have seen the problem with what you're saying.

Here's another way to say it:
Omni-x refers to what is logically possible.
So when something is not logically possible, it's not omni-x.
Ergo, omni-x can change based upon what the premises say is logical.

In contrast a circle and square each are defined in terms that do not change based on the premmises.
They are defined in contradictory ways. So no matter what your premises are, a square circle will always be a contradiction.

Please, tell me what you don't understand if you are confused about what I'm saying.

Quote from: "Martian".....
Here's another way to say it:
Omni-x refers to what is logically possible.
So when something is not logically possible, it's not omni-x.
Ergo, omni-x can change based upon what the premises say is logical.

Please, tell me what you don't understand if you are confused about what I'm saying.

I am not confused:

QuoteIn my view, you would only need omnipotence, and you would have to have omnipotence be true continually. But don't worry about this, I'll work from your perspective.

But you did not. You misrepresented it yet again. That does not appear to be coming from a rational mind, hence our guess that you are a pretender.
And by the way: It is not my perspective. It is christian dogma. Again clearly stated in the OP.
NOW I am done. Maybe Asmodean wants to continue with your clinging on to the abrahamic god. Good luck.
 
Whatever helps you keep your faith.

I am of course still ready to debate the rest of you fine people here concerning this.  :banna:

Quote from: "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.

Hi Bowmore
  Great twist! Yeah when a construct is a paradox, I guess you can show it in many ways

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "Martian"Hm. Are you saying that the argument doesn't involve a math problem which cannot be solved by God?

No. I am saying that you are misrepresenting it! Are you so thickheaded that you think, that to ask: "Does there exist a celestial teapot?" is the same as postulating: "There exists a celestial teapot!"

I did not say anything like this. We are speaking in logical terms, that means we work with statements. So we must draw out statements from the question to make an argument. The original question is, "Can God make a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it?" Before pressing on, we must ask ourselves the additional question, "Can there exist a math problem that God cannot solve?" the answer is a flat out, "no" because God can solve all math problems. But realize this, a question is not a postulation and cannot be used for an argument. I think that you're just using this as an excuse to evade the argument.

Here is how we answer the question:

"Can God make a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it?"

To answer this question we must see if God's omnipotence will allow him to make X. What is this X that we are talking about, and is it logical? X is the following, "a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it". Now, let us compare this to God's attributes, because it is true that God can solve all math problems. So, is it possible to have a math problem that God cannot solve when God can solve all math problems (omniscience)? Of course not. Therefore, X is illogical (in a comparison to God's attribute of omniscience). Now we look back at the question, "Can God make something illogical (nonsense)?" Well, the answer is no because God can only do what is logical.

Your argument can be generalized like this, "Can God use one attribute to undermine another one of his attributes?" Even you must be able to see that the answer to this question is "no." Like I said before:

Quote from: "Martian"Omnipotence does not meanâ€"and has never meantâ€"the ability to bring about a self-contradiction.

Take it or leave it. I don't care. You are not a fun debator because you dwell way too much on ad hominums.

Quote from: "Zarathustra"My original theory regarding you must be right after all. Since your argumentation is based on misrepresentation as is so common with you guys.

You just love to taunt me, don't you? That won't help you one bit in a real life debate.

Quote from: "Martian"To answer this question we must see if God's omnipotence will allow him to make X. What is this X that we are talking about, and is it logical? X is the following, "a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it". Now, let us compare this to God's attributes, because it is true that God can solve all math problems. So, is it possible to have a math problem that God cannot solve when God can solve all math problems (omniscience)? Of course not. Therefore, X is illogical (in a comparison to God's attribute of omniscience). Now we look back at the question, "Can God make something illogical (nonsense)?" Well, the answer is no because God can only do what is logical.

Now let's assume a god that is only omnipotent, and not omniscient. So a god that cannot solve all math problems. Such a god would be able to fashion a math problem he could not solve.
So the god that is omnipotent and omniscient, is somehow not able to do something which the god I propose can do. Which of both is then more powerful?
And which of those is then the only one who can rightly be called omnipotent. Indeed the one I proposed.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Martian"To answer this question we must see if God's omnipotence will allow him to make X. What is this X that we are talking about, and is it logical? X is the following, "a math problem so hard that he himself cannot solve it". Now, let us compare this to God's attributes, because it is true that God can solve all math problems. So, is it possible to have a math problem that God cannot solve when God can solve all math problems (omniscience)? Of course not. Therefore, X is illogical (in a comparison to God's attribute of omniscience). Now we look back at the question, "Can God make something illogical (nonsense)?" Well, the answer is no because God can only do what is logical.

Now let's assume a god that is only omnipotent, and not omniscient. So a god that cannot solve all math problems. Such a god would be able to fashion a math problem he could not solve.
So the god that is omnipotent and omniscient, is somehow not able to do something which the god I propose can do. Which of both is then more powerful?
And which of those is then the only one who can rightly be called omnipotent. Indeed the one I proposed.

They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

Quote from: "Martian"They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

You are only watering down the definition of omnipotence. In fact by your definition I am omnipotent, because I can do everything that I can logically do. I cannot fly, but since it isn't logical that I can fly (having no wings and such) that doesn't harm my omnipotence at all.
The point of the matter is that omniscience restricts god's power to such a degree that we cannot rightly call it omnipotence, as without that restriction he could be more powerful. Just as I would be more powerful if I weren't restricted in my ability to fly.

Quote from: "Martian"I did not say anything like this.

Yes you did:

Quote from: "Martian"2. There exists a problem that God cannot solve, X.

You also said:

QuoteWe are speaking in logical terms, that means we work with statements. So we must draw out statements from the question to make an argument.

:lol:  :borg:

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Martian"They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

You are only watering down the definition of omnipotence. In fact by your definition I am omnipotent, because I can do everything that I can logically do. I cannot fly, but since it isn't logical that I can fly (having no wings and such) that doesn't harm my omnipotence at all.
The point of the matter is that omniscience restricts god's power to such a degree that we cannot rightly call it omnipotence, as without that restriction he could be more powerful. Just as I would be more powerful if I weren't restricted in my ability to fly.

Nice description, Bowmore. I have pointed out in numerous posts that you can't restrict omnipotence. (Or omniscience for that matter.) But he has just blown that off... And he probably will with you as well.
Anyways. Since Martian also thinks that omniscience is intrinsic to omnipotence:

You are hereby proclaimed my new God. Since you are both omniscient and omnipotent by Martians "logic".
  Almighty Bowmore!

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Martian"They can both be called omnipotent, because omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. When we add the premise that God can solve all math problems, then that makes the statement, "there can be a math problem the God cannot solve" illogical. Then it's not a logical possibility and therefore not part of omnipotence. If you start with a different logical premise you can get to a different conclusion of what is possible, but omnipotence will always cover that which is possible.

You are only watering down the definition of omnipotence. In fact by your definition I am omnipotent, because I can do everything that I can logically do. I cannot fly, but since it isn't logical that I can fly (having no wings and such) that doesn't harm my omnipotence at all.
The point of the matter is that omniscience restricts god's power to such a degree that we cannot rightly call it omnipotence, as without that restriction he could be more powerful. Just as I would be more powerful if I weren't restricted in my ability to fly.

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.  

Quote from: "Martian"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.

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

BTW I think there is a difference between creating a square circle and creating a math problem you cannot solve yourself, the former is logically impossible, the latter isn't.

Quote from: "Martian"....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.

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.

Hmm... Interesting.

Here might be an interesting take on the omnipotent/omniscient paradox. This is just food for thought. Not an actual argument:

What do the two axioms depend upon for their validity? If something is said to be omnipotent, what does that statement depend upon to be proven true or false? I think it would have to depend upon a will. Or rather, that something would have to be the cause to all things that "happen" so to speak.

This is a problem, because I don't think there is anything we can find in this something that would lead us to deduce all the myriad effects of the universe. Its the same problem that Hume put forth: There is nothing within any cause that, when examined, would lead us to deduce the effect in question. The only thing I can think of that would make even a little bit of sense is for "god" to be synonymous with all effects. But can you really say that a god that is synonymous with all effects is causing those effects? I don't think so.

Still, let's assume that god's cause is desire, for the sake of interest. So god desires something, and for some reason unkown, it happens in the physical world. Whatever God desires, somehow, it automatically happens, how god wants it, when god wants it, where god wants it. I think this is about as close to omnipotence as we can get.

Now, omniscience is a troublesome term. I don't even know where to begin with defining it. What is knowledge? Neurologically, the human mind has in memory an "idea" of a chair, and when the human encounters the chair, he/she "Knows" it by matching up whats in his head and what he sees. That's basic memory. Unfortunately, that chair doesn't just "pop" into the human's brain. It has to be experienced first, and the human has to examine it's function, properties, essense, so to speak. It is clear that neurologically, a human brain must first experienice the universe to get any form of knowledge of the universe.

This opens up a question. Did god "experience" the entire universe in order to get his omniscience, or has he always been omnsicent. If we are going by martian's "god must be logically restricted" point-of-view, then I don't think god could know the universe before he experienced it. Is that logically impossible? There must be some other method of knowing then, but only god knows what it might be. He would have to be radically different from an "entity". The possibility is open, but I'm afraid I can't pursue it any further, it just doesn't make sense to me.

So what about god having to experience the entire universe in order to become omniscient? Well, God certainly would experience the answer to all math problems, right? Maybe. I'm not sure. But if this god one day wanted a math problem he couldn't solve, and it just miraculously happened because of his omnipotence... The question becomes will he eventually be able to solve the mathproblem? Or does he want a math problem he can never solve? If he wanted a math problem he could never solve, but then later wanted to be able to solve it, would he be able to? I don't think any of these desires are logical impossibilities in themselves. It's perfectly possible to have a math problem you can never solve. god would simply lose his omniscience in order to have such a problem. I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Of course, can't it also be argued that the ability to not know a math problem is a type of will, consistent with omnipotence?

I guess the big factor relies on whether God's omniscience is immutable or knot. But what I'm interested is, is what does omniscience depend upon in order to be recorded true or false? It depends upon both god and the universe, I guess.

I wonder... what does the paradox of omnipotence/omniscence taken together depend upon? I think they both depend upon all phenomena. All things do happen. All that is capable of being known does exist. The question is, is there an entity behind the scenes, directing it all? If there is, it would not be an entity. The omnipotence/omniscience issue takes for granted that god is an entity. As an entity, it would certainly be illogical. But as something else? Perhaps God is schizoid, divided into two forces, "change" and "Identity"? Identity for all phenomena at one point. And change for the range of phenomena over two points. Perhaps there is an entity in charge of both? It's plausible.

Well, this wasn't meant to come up with a conclusion. Just to explore the argument, which I think is always better than trying to force an argument into what you all ready think. discussion?  

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "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*.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Martian"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*?"

Quote from: "bowmore"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...

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "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.

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?

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "bowmore"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.

Quote from: "bowmore"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.

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "bowmore"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?

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "bowmore"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.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Martian"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.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"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

Quote from: "bowmore"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.

Quote from: "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.[/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.  

Quote from: "Zarathustra"

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "Martian"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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteOh 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.

Chill. chill... please, chill.

why are you still arguing about this, the religion describes their god very precisely, and even if one example contradicts his description, then it is absolutely clear that the god (the one that they described) does not exist, which is exactly what happens when you try to comprehened the math paradox. since a whole religion is based on that central belief in a god that cannot exist in the form/way that he is described, the whole religion must be incorrect/unreal.