Infinitely Powerful

[Just thinking]

Yes, but there are certain folks -- around here even -- that would contest that "I" doesn't even exist. So, which "I" are we referring to then? The one that exists as a concept? Or, the one that exists in the "id?" Of course when referring to the former, we would have to ask how a concept is capable of conceptualizing itself? Very strange. But then again, if both do arise from the same source (the id), that would satisfy the notion of conceptualized "I," as well as the realized "I."

That may be nothing more than a form of appeal to autority, or an appeal to plurality -- "if enough folks say it's so ... ". But even if true, the 'I' can still be independent and significantly different than the concepts it conceives. 'I' can be nothing more than another level of awareness, the ability to be aware of being aware. No concepts are necessary in order for me to realize (or believe) I exist. (I consider the term 'believe' to not mean the same as 'conceive' -- as belief arises from a conclusion based on evidence, experience and/or bias, whereas concepts arise from independent thought, not always based on experience.) Concepts are models created from one's 'self', as I believe it necessary for one to realize one's existance in order to construct models of interaction, whether personal or independent. In that respect concepts are quite different and separate from the 'self'.

In which case we have to ask, however, if there is another continuum, that exists beyond the realm of our senses and, time and space?

I simply don't see the need for this level of extension.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Well you said it. Only if you remove contradictions altogether can the contradiction be removed. Therefore, you either have a being which exists beyond logical contradictions or one that is limited by them. Either way, such a being is logically impossible (in both senses - either logic cannot be applied or it has already been so).

 

[jjramsey]

Well you said it. Only if you remove contradictions altogether can the contradiction be removed.

No, that is not what I said. What I said what that a meaningless statement cannot be a limitation because it is, well, meaningless.

If you have to distort my position to defend yours, you've lost the argument.

 

[kuroyume0161]

This has been discussed ad nauseum. A being that can do contradictory things cannot exist. Maybe it can 'exist' somewhere where we could never find it, but for all intensive purposes - it doesn't exist. We can discuss it hypothetically and ideally, but beyond that - nothing.

So, once you 'take off the gloves' and allow this being the ability to do anything, even contradictory things, it is pointless to further discuss it at all.

A being that can/cannot create a rock too heavy for it to lift can/cannot be omnipotent. We might as well be discussing the last number in an infinite set.

 

[Bri]

Which is why few people define "omnipotent" as "able to do anything including the impossible" but rather "able to do all that is possible." Similarly, "omniscient" is seldom defined as "able to know anything including the unknowable," but instead "able to know all that is knowable." Start there if you wish to attempt to disprove the existance of gods.

Although it's easier to prove that exercising an ability to do the logically impossible would result in a logical impossibility, I don't think anyone would be particularly surprised with such a "revelation."

-Bri

 

[kuroyume0161]

And that is precisely the direction from which I was arguing until someone started on the 'but if it is going to be all powerful, then it can do contractory things' line of reasoning. I didn't bring that up.

My argument, basically, is that there is no way to define some thing with infinite anything - with the qualification that we are not talking about idealistic or abstract concepts, but something supposedly 'real'. And that's all, folks.

And, finally, as I stated (and you can read it here, I think) - I am not trying disprove the existence of gods. I am trying to show the improbability, if not impossibility, of a god defined with infinite qualities.

 

[jjramsey]

And that is precisely the direction from which I was arguing until someone started on the 'but if it is going to be all powerful, then it can do contractory things' line of reasoning. I didn't bring that up.

I looked back at the posts, and it was you and Tricky who were insisting that 'omnipotence' involved the ability to do the logically impossible.

 

[Bri]

My argument, basically, is that there is no way to define some thing with infinite anything - with the qualification that we are not talking about idealistic or abstract concepts, but something supposedly 'real'. And that's all, folks.

The fact that we don't know of anything that is infinite (perhaps space or time?) doesn't mean that it is impossible for a god to be infinite -- unless you can prove that the very concept is impossible. Of course, the concepts of omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) don't necessarily imply infinitely powerful or infinitely knowledgable. There may actually be a limit to the number of things that can be done or known. In addition, many theists believe that their gods "restrict" or "hold back" their power or knowledge for various reasons.

I would guess that more accurate definitions would be along the lines of an ability to do all that is possible to do or to know all that is possible to know.

-Bri

 

[kuroyume0161]

I looked back at the posts, and it was you and Tricky who were insisting that 'omnipotence' involved the ability to do the logically impossible.

Okay, here we go:

I should also qualify that I'm using omnipotent (to continue the pace), but this really concerns omniscience - so changes made (I'm not perfect! - heh). Either way, infinitely or totally anything is only ideal and usually leads to paradoxes and contradictions.

If you take this to be evidence, you are mistaken. I did not say that an omnipotent/omniscient being could do contradictory things. I said that these qualifications introduce contradictions (such as the heavy rock).

But if you really are to say some being is 'omniscient', then there is an immediate paradoxical situation. OMNI - all ... SCIENT - knowing. This word has a particular meaning. If a being is all-knowing, then putting qualifications and restrictions on the extent of that knowledge defeats the qualification.

Therefore, all-knowing and imbuement of freewill to some creation thereof are contradictory...

Here again, the contradiction is between freewill and omniscient, not that omniscient can know in contradictory ways. This is a situation where omniscience on one part excludes some quality on another.

This just allows open and even contradictory attributes to be accepted...

This is probably where it all began (on your accusation to my part). Note that I am not championing that omni... must include contradictory abilities, but that arguing about it can lead to this idea bein introduced potentially (and obviously it has, so it is no longer potential). As mentioned, this is endemic to discussions where infinite qualities are introduced for consideration.

There is one analog here, so let's make the distinction clear and vivid. When we discuss the notion of an 'infinite universe', we are discussing maybe space and time over the extent of the contents therewithin. Even this notion is still just hyperbole. But when we discuss attributing infinite human-like qualities to a being that exists outside of existence, what muck this creates through which to tread. It does not even require making the step into allowing that these qualities include contradictory abilities before contradictions occur, not self-contained, but between these abilities and observations of the state of the so-called things over which such a being supposedly has both rule and creation.

(And all of this before my first cup of coffee - damn you!)

 

[kuroyume0161]

The fact that we don't know of anything that is infinite (perhaps space or time?) doesn't mean that it is impossible for a god to be infinite -- unless you can prove that the very concept is impossible. Of course, the concepts of omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) don't necessarily imply infinitely powerful or infinitely knowledgable. There may actually be a limit to the number of things that can be done or known. In addition, many theists believe that their gods "restrict" or "hold back" their power or knowledge for various reasons.

I would guess that more accurate definitions would be along the lines of an ability to do all that is possible to do or to know all that is possible to know.

-Bri

I'll withold judgement on your first statement since this is the very thing being discussed.

On reflection of the other (all over infinite), I agree. As long as we can delineate what 'all' encompasses within the set of knowledge or power. Most often, the logical step, for theists mind you, is to 'all' equalling 'infinite'. Certain gods, whose names will be witheld, seem to need not only be one (or one in three aspects - as if that doesn't introduce some logical contorsions), but also so more great than any other god as to require the qualification of infinite - thus my note in another post.

Note that the title of this thread is not "Omnipotent", but "Infinitely Powerful". One definition of the former is exactly the latter. One may need to realize that 'infinite' has a sort of temporal usage as well - "His mercy was infinite." - which implies that the person about which this is said is being given a magnanimous ability wherein the person always showed mercy even for a finite time period (their lifetime, perhaps).

I don't know why I get into discussions like this as they end up seemingly pointless. We cannot in a rigorous way imagine anything with infinite human-like qualities - we can conceive of them, yes - but we cannot cast them into a mold and make a worthy hypothesis. And the real problems begin when one places such qualities on a being which has supposed reign over our existence. Questions quickly arise over why things are as they are here (seemingly very hostile and imperfect) under the purview of something seemingly perfect.

(Still no coffee)

 

[vIQleS]

Well, they convinced me over in the welcome thread to participate, so here I am...

But the illogic is simple.
Premise one: God can do anything.
Premise two: God does not want evil.
Premise three: Evil exists.

I'm glad you used the word illogic, because you are using a logical fallacy:

The flaw in this part of your argument is the assumption of premise two, namely that God does not want evil to exist.

The only logical way you could come up with an idea like that is if you were deliberately trying to come up with a paradox. Because the first assumption one should make when presented with the other two premises (which you seem to be accepting) is the exact opposite.

The logical progression would be:

1. God Exists
2. God is omnipotent (All powerful)
3. God is good (edit)
4. Evil Exists
therefore
5. Evil has a Divine purpose. (Reason for existing.)

Leading us to the following:

Evil must exist for good to be knowable.

Easily demonstrated: Ask a friend to slap you in the face as hard as they can. Feels good when it stops doesn't it?

God is good. If there were no evil, then how would you know what good was? Good and evil can not exist independently of each other. To know God we must know evil...

One of the rules extablished by God was that man should have free will, the right to choose to serve God or not. Without the distinction between good and evil man has no choice. We can debate about why this rule should exist, but to do so makes about as much sense as asking why gravity makes things fall down, rather than up. (The concept of 'gravity' has been simplified for the purpose of analogy)

 

[Elind]

Well, they convinced me over in the welcome thread to participate, so here I am...

Welcome again.

1. God Exists
2. God is omnipotent (All powerful)
3. God is good (edit)
4. Evil Exists
therefore
5. Evil has a Divine purpose. (Reason for existing.)

How is this different?

1. God Exists
2. God is omnipotent (All powerful)
3. God is evil
4. Good Exists
therefore
5. Good has a Devious purpose. (Reason for existing.)

 

[bruto]

Other possibiities arise. for example:

1. God exists

2. God is omnipotent

3. God doesn't care



or:

1. God may have existed.

2. God has moved and left no forwarding address.

We keep assuming that if there is a god at all we must be his darlings, but that does not necessarily follow.

 

[Elind]

Other possibiities arise. for example:

1. God exists

2. God is omnipotent

3. God doesn't care



or:

1. God may have existed.

2. God has moved and left no forwarding address.

We keep assuming that if there is a god at all we must be his darlings, but that does not necessarily follow.

Yes, and others too, but I think that the bit about good and evil is more enlightening, or banal.

Certainly while there are plenty of examples of Good, Evil wins hands down, so God must be Evil.

 

[vIQleS]

Welcome again.


How is this different?

1. God Exists
2. God is omnipotent (All powerful)
3. God is evil
4. Good Exists
therefore
5. Good has a Devious purpose. (Reason for existing.)

The difference is that the God we are talking about is commonly understood to be:

Omnescient
Omnipotent
Omnipresent
and
Benevolent, or good.

That's why the argument appears to 'logic' God out of existence...

I think your post counts as a straw man argument, except that it appears to not actually be relevent in anyway to the discussion...

Other possibiities arise. for example:

1. God exists

2. God is omnipotent

3. God doesn't care



or:

1. God may have existed.

2. God has moved and left no forwarding address.

We keep assuming that if there is a god at all we must be his darlings, but that does not necessarily follow.

It does actually. You've got to look at your source material, as long as we're all accepting the basic premise that God exists, then the data we have is the experiential and emperical evidence (the beauty of nature etc), and the first hand accounts / inspired word of God - the Bible. And the Bible states that God is Love and God is Good. (references go here)

The actual point is that the logical 'paradox' is already assuming that God is benevolent / compasionate, and i've just demonstrated how the paradox is flawed...

 

[Tricky]

Well, they convinced me over in the welcome thread to participate, so here I am...



I'm glad you used the word illogic, because you are using a logical fallacy:

The flaw in this part of your argument is the assumption of premise two, namely that God does not want evil to exist.

There is no flaw in the premise and no flaw in the syllogism, you simply do not accept one of the premises, which is fine. I don't accept them either. It is just to show that an omnipotent, evil-hating God is illogical if evil exists. Very simple.

The flaw in this part of your argument is the assumption of premise two, namely that God does not want evil to exist.

Yes, this point has been made many times. God must want evil. But then, this calls into question the point about God being "good". It must be a very different definition of "good" than the one we normally use.

The only logical way you could come up with an idea like that is if you were deliberately trying to come up with a paradox. Because the first assumption one should make when presented with the other two premises (which you seem to be accepting) is the exact opposite.

The logical progression would be:

1. God Exists
2. God is omnipotent (All powerful)
3. God is good (edit)
4. Evil Exists
therefore
5. Evil has a Divine purpose. (Reason for existing.)

You too have set up a paradox. If evil has a divine purpose, the it's really good, not really evil, isn't it? So you see, in order for your syllogism to work, you must completely disregard the standard meanings of "good" and "evil", thus any logic that uses those terms is meaningless.

Leading us to the following:

Evil must exist for good to be knowable.

Easily demonstrated: Ask a friend to slap you in the face as hard as they can. Feels good when it stops doesn't it?

I would prefer that my friend did not slap me at all.

But again, you simply illustrate the impossibility of defining good and evil. If your friend were doing you a favor by slapping you (so that you could learn the difference between good and evil), then you could not say that slapping you was evil.

God is good. If there were no evil, then how would you know what good was? Good and evil can not exist independently of each other. To know God we must know evil...

One of the rules established by God was that man should have free will, the right to choose to serve God or not. Without the distinction between good and evil man has no choice.

I do not believe you can make a clear distinction between good and evil. There are simply "things which conform to your moral code" and "things that go against your moral code". But moral codes are not absolute things. They vary between people, and indeed they change during your life. For something to be truly evil, in my opinion, it must be always evil and serve no good purpose under any circumstances whatsoever (including teaching). I don't know of anything that fits this definition.

That is why it is pointless to discuss God in such absolute terms as "good" and "evil" because we simply have no idea what God wants. If He believes it is good to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a tsunami, then He must be using a very different meaning of "good" than we use, so why even bother to call Him "good"? He's simply unfathomable.

One of the rules established by God was that man should have free will, the right to choose to serve God or not. Without the distinction between good and evil man has no choice. We can debate about why this rule should exist, but to do so makes about as much sense as asking why gravity makes things fall down, rather than up (The concept of 'gravity' has been simplified for the purpose of analogy)

You can demonstrate that things fall down rather than up (or more correctly, "toward the center of gravity of the largest nearby mass"). You can not demonstrate that a particular action is good or evil.

 

[jjramsey]

It is just to show that an omnipotent, evil-hating God is illogical if evil exists. Very simple.

It's only illogical if it is logically possible for there to be a universe with at least as much good as this one, but with less evil, taking into account whatever afterlife goodness there may be. It is easy to argue that such a universe could likely exist, but it is questionable whether it is feasible to logically prove that such a universe could exist. This is at least one reason why your argument is simplistic, not elegantly simple.

 

[Tricky]

It's only illogical if it is logically possible for there to be a universe with at least as much good as this one, but with less evil, taking into account whatever afterlife goodness there may be. It is easy to argue that such a universe could likely exist, but it is questionable whether it is feasible to logically prove that such a universe could exist. This is at least one reason why your argument is simplistic, not elegantly simple.

What is simplistic is trying to make clear dichotomies between good and evil. My syllogism only shows why that is too simplistic to be logical.

I am waiting for anyone to provide me a clear, unambiguous example of something that is evil.

 

[jjramsey]

What is simplistic is trying to make clear dichotomies between good and evil. My syllogism only shows why that is too simplistic to be logical.

Except that what you wrote was this:

It is just to show that an omnipotent, evil-hating God is illogical if evil exists.[emphasis mine]

This is a far more sweeping statement than saying that an "omnipotent, evil-hating God" is illogical if a simplistic definition of "evil" is used, since evil may exist even under more sophisticated moral philosophies.

Your syllogism is simplistic because it assumes that a benevolent, omnipotent God could never have a reason for allowing evil to happen.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Your syllogism is simplistic because it assumes that a benevolent, omnipotent God could never have a reason for allowing evil to happen.

Then he is (by the common definition of the word evil) evil himself because he allows evil to happen when he could prevent it. If he couldn't prevent or achieve his goals another way then he is not omnipotent.

This is one of the age old paradoxes about why there is evil in the world that Christians in particular have had to struggle with. And considering many of the finest intellects of the ages have struggled to resolve the paradox I would be surprised if we manage to do so on this little 'o forum of ours.