Infinitely Powerful

[jjramsey]

You apparently didn't read your own link.

So, for example, the false proposition the sky is green is also logically possible, so long as we are able (as we indeed seem to be) to conceive of some logically coherent world in which the sky is green.

I read the link. You just thoroughly misunderstood it, and you're digging a deeper hole for yourself.

 

[Belz...]

That is a fair point. But perhaps God doesn't judge us on those things as long as we're doing what we feel is right.

That's extremely vague, Bri. This basically puts pretty much everyone on the good side. Who on thie Earth does things he thinks is bad ? All according to their own values, I'd say. This basically means there is no evil, and makes the word useless.

If God created humans, he is responsible for providing our ability to determine right and wrong.

Not necessarily directly, assuming he allowed for some random elements to creep in.

 

[sphenisc]

Then you admit that "invisible" and "pink" are not contradictory. Meet my unicorn.

The problem is that you must maintain the same definition throughout your logic. You can't say "I can see the invisible" and then say "by 'see' I mean 'imagine'". I can see right through that ploy.

There are three men on a train. One of them is an economist
and one of them is a logician and one of them is a mathematician.
And they have just crossed the border into Scotland (I don't
know why they are going to Scotland) and they see a pink unicorn
standing in a field from the window of the train (and the unicorn is
standing parallel to the train). And the economist says, `Look,
the unicorns in Scotland are pink.' And the logician says, `No.
There are unicorns in Scotland of which one, at least, is pink.'
And the mathematician says, `No. There is at least one unicorn
in Scotland, of which one side appears to be pink.' Then the unicorn
turned round, and they couldn't see it at all...

Adapted from 'The curious incident of the dog in the night-time'
by Mark Haddon.

 

[Tricky]

I read the link. You just thoroughly misunderstood it, and you're digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Sure jj. Whatever you say.

 

[Tricky]

"Impossible" means "logically impossible," not "something that God can't do." If God can't do something that is logically possible, then he wouldn't be omnipotent by that definition.

As the link that jj put in demonstrates, it is quite easy to say something that is factually incorrect, yet still logically possible (like "the sky is green"). Perhaps you mean "nomologically impossible".

 

[Bri]

But in order to discuss the possibility of a given concept of God, you must define that concept. That's a pretty tough chore, given that one of the ways we describe God is "beyond our knowledge".

Of course, if something isn't completely knowable, the best you can do is to disprove one or more of its properties. If you can disprove a commonly-held property of God, anyone for whom that property is a deal-breaker would have to admit that their God doesn't exist (or redefine their God). Of course, if you only choose to disprove a property such as "God must be able to logically do the logically impossible," you wouldn't really be surprising anyone since very few theists hold that as a property of their God (those that believe their God to be able to defy logic don't generally expect to be able to logically understand the result). Other, more commonly-held properties of God are more difficult to disprove.

So how can you show that things "beyond our knowledge" exist? You can't. That's where faith comes in. But faith is a double-edged sword. If you are willing to accept that one thing "beyond our knowledge" exists, then it is illogical to state that other things "beyond our knowledge" (like Santa Clause) do not exist.

Perhaps this is the source of the confusion. The truth is that we all believe things we cannot prove. These are called opinions (as opposed to facts). There is very little that we can prove as fact. Some opinions are based on more evidence than others, and we all weigh the evidence available and come to an opinion. When it comes to the possibility of something existing, then the only evidence against it would be irrefutable proof that it cannot or does not exist. Which pretty much proves my point.

If you're saying that it is irrational to have an opinion about anything for which there is no proponderance of evidence, then it would be irrational to believe in intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It would also be irrational to believe that there are no gods since the only evidence that the existance of a god is impossible would be irrefutable proof that no god can or does exist.

In my mind, it is wiser to restrict the things we believe in to those things of which we have knowledge.

Is it better if you only believe in one thing "beyond our knowledge"? I submit that such a stance is self-contradictory.

By your logic, when it comes to the existance of a god the only rational opinion is to have no opinion at all. I don't think it is irrational to believe that a god does exist or to believe that no gods exist -- as long as those beliefs are claimed to be opinion rather than fact.

-Bri

 

[kmortis]

So how can you show that things "beyond our knowledge" exist? You can't. That's where faith comes in. But faith is a double-edged sword. If you are willing to accept that one thing "beyond our knowledge" exists, then it is illogical to state that other things "beyond our knowledge" (like Santa Clause) do not exist.

Oh, ho, ho...you can't fool me, there ain't no thing such as a sanity clause

<kaf>I think you have one too many "e"'s in that, there Tricky. <kaf>

 

[Bri]

Let's say someone threatened you with ETERNAL TORTURE for doing wrong instead of doing good? That's a hell of a lot worse than a gun to your head, wouldn't you think?

Since people still commit crimes even when "threatened" with eternal damnation, there is obviously a difficiency in your analogy. When someone holds a gun to your head, you're pretty sure you'll die if you don't do as they ask. Likewise, you're much more certain that hitting your hand with a sledgehammer is going to hurt like hell, but apparently not so certain that committing wrong will send you to hell.

Do we have equal freedom to do wrong instead of doing good?

Apparently, the balance of the possibility of gain from wrongdoing and punishment due to wrongdoing is equal enough that people make the choice to do wrong. Likewise, if there were enough to gain from hitting your hand with a sledgehammer, you might be compelled to do it.

Your premise was that God could somehow tip the scales such that nobody would ever choose to do wrong, which I would argue would absolutely restrict freedom to do wrong, just as would having a gun pointed at your head.

BTW, I forgot to mention, your whole suggestion that "free will is for the greater good" is unsupportable, and my responses here should not be construed as agreement that free will is even necessary (if god wants to grant it, it is HIS option, and not essential). But as my responses show, even if free will is present and necessary, it fails in attempting to use it to rationalize wrongdoing.

I disagree, as do many others, that free will is unnecessary to our being able to choose between right and wrong. Without free will there is no choice at all.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

That's extremely vague, Bri. This basically puts pretty much everyone on the good side. Who on thie Earth does things he thinks is bad ? All according to their own values, I'd say. This basically means there is no evil, and makes the word useless.

People steal, lie, kill, cheat all the time. Are you saying that none of them know that these things are wrong? People do things they know to be wrong all the time, especially if there is something to gain from it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

As the link that jj put in demonstrates, it is quite easy to say something that is factually incorrect, yet still logically possible (like "the sky is green"). Perhaps you mean "nomologically impossible".

No, I mean "logically impossible." I would think that an omnipotent God could turn the sky green or cause a pig to fly if he chose. Those things aren't nomologically possible, but they are logically possible. But if God can do the logically impossible (such as creating a married bachelor or a square circle) then there would be no reason to expect it to result in something that can be discussed or understood logically.

-Bri

 

[pgwenthold]

I disagree, as do many others, that free will is unnecessary to our being able to choose between right and wrong. Without free will there is no choice at all.

Yes, I know free will means we have the ability to chose.

And given that, there is nothing that says that the greater good requires the freedom to chose. This is your unsupported assumption.

There is no basis for the claim that the lack of the ability to chose is worse than the case where we have the ability to chose. Yes, we would all be "robots," but such an objection basically begs the question of why being robots is bad. Particularly since if we ARE robots, we feel as if we are behaving on our own accord, so we act that way, and apparently are none-the-unhappy about it.

If we have true free will, as opposed to just apparent free will, it is only because God choses to give us true free will. However, it is clear that free will is not required to make us happy because we would be equally happy with only apparent free will.

 

[pgwenthold]

Your premise was that God could somehow tip the scales such that nobody would ever choose to do wrong, which I would argue would absolutely restrict freedom to do wrong, just as would having a gun pointed at your head.

It's not my premise that God will tip the scales such that no one will ever chose an available option. That is an observation of reality.

For example, God has tipped the scales such that I never choose to pound my hand with a sledgehammer. Why isn't that a restriction on freedom?

I am suggesting nothing different for the ability to do right and wrong. Why doesn't God just make things that are so abhorent to us (in whatever way he wants - remember, he is an omnipotent god so he has the ability to do that - it's not illogical) that we don't want to do them?

 

[kmortis]

I am suggesting nothing different for the ability to do right and wrong. Why doesn't God just make things that are so abhorent to us (in whatever way he wants - remember, he is an omnipotent god so he has the ability to do that - it's not illogical) that we don't want to do them?

Except, to the religious mind, didn't He already do that? I mean, He was mono-e-mono with Adam and Eve, right? HE walked with them in the Garden and told them that the only thing that would piss Him off was for them to eat from that Tree. They KNEW Gunderscored. Not like how we "know" Him. They knew Gunderscored like you know your parents, siblings, friends et al. They STILL ate the gamned apple. (Personally, I think it was a plum, myself. I like plums better than apples)

So, again to the religious mind, He's done the "personal touch" thing. Now it's up to us.

I need a shower now.

 

[jjramsey]

As the link that jj put in demonstrates, it is quite easy to say something that is factually incorrect, yet still logically possible (like "the sky is green"). Perhaps you mean "nomologically impossible".

Nope. The point of omnipotence according to Bri's definition is that it could make any logical possibility a reality, even if the logical possibility is nomologically impossible. So, yes, "the sky is green" is currently factually incorrect, but an omnipotent being could make the sky become green.

 

[Tricky]

Of course, if something isn't completely knowable, the best you can do is to disprove one or more of its properties. If you can disprove a commonly-held property of God, anyone for whom that property is a deal-breaker would have to admit that their God doesn't exist (or redefine their God).

Well, that is the whole point behind the "question of evil". It shows that some of the characteristics that some theists give to their concept of God are logically inconsistent with each other. Some of those people will actually redefine their God, but more often, they redefine the words used to describe Him.

Of course, if you only choose to disprove a property such as "God must be able to logically do the logically impossible," you wouldn't really be surprising anyone since very few theists hold that as a property of their God (those that believe their God to be able to defy logic don't generally expect to be able to logically understand the result).

Logic, in and of itself, is not the proof of a things existence. It is just a tool for showing if a concept is internally consistent. Many works of science fiction are quite logical, internally, provided you accept the premises.

The concept of "nomologically possible" establishes the premises as "obeys natural law". A supernatural god would be nomologically impossible.

Other, more commonly-held properties of God are more difficult to disprove.

Possibly. Give us some examples. Or I will. How about this commonly-held property of God:
God is good (I used to say it every day at grace).
As we have discussed, it can be shown that a god that is okay with anything that you "feel in your heart is right", is not good. He is amoral.

What other commonly-held properties of God would you like to discuss?

Perhaps this is the source of the confusion. The truth is that we all believe things we cannot prove. These are called opinions (as opposed to facts). There is very little that we can prove as fact.

I will agree with this. Proof is for math. Evidence is for science. Don't get me started on politics.

Some opinions are based on more evidence than others, and we all weigh the evidence available and come to an opinion. When it comes to the possibility of something existing, then the only evidence against it would be irrefutable proof that it cannot or does not exist. Which pretty much proves my point.

You can show that it is illogical within it's own defined premises. But that old adage, "you can't prove a negative" has some validity. You can never prove a thing, anything, doesn't exist because that would require that you know every single thing about the universe. So we are pretty much restricted to gathering evidence for a thing in order to establish its validity. In my opinion, there is no evidence for any sort of God, based on the concepts of God that I have heard.

You can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.

If you're saying that it is irrational to have an opinion about anything for which there is no preponderance of evidence, then it would be irrational to believe in intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

Actually, no. We realize that we have very little access to evidence about most of the universe, but we are aware that such evidence exists. But we also know that it is possible for intelligent life to arise, given the right situation. If you look at the universe, you might calculate that the right situation is likely to have occurred more than once given that many billions of opportunities.

On the other hand, it there is a great deal of evidence that there is no other intelligent life in this solar system. Possibly no other life at all.

It would also be irrational to believe that there are no gods since the only evidence that the existence of a god is impossible would be irrefutable proof that no god can or does exist.

If we had even just one god for which we had evidence, then it would be more likely. But one of the commonly-held notions of God is that he intercedes on Earth, even though no strong evidence can be presented for such a notion. I find that to be irrational, if understandable.

By your logic, when it comes to the existence of a god the only rational opinion is to have no opinion at all. I don't think it is irrational to believe that a god does exist or to believe that no gods exist -- as long as those beliefs are claimed to be opinion rather than fact.

LOL. Okay, I'm cool with that. But tell me, what sort of opinions do you value more highly, informed opinions, or uninformed opinions?

 

[Tricky]

<kaf>I think you have one too many "e"'s in that, there Tricky. <kaf>

Dam. Their seams two bee sum era inn my spell checquer.

 

[Tricky]

No, I mean "logically impossible." I would think that an omnipotent God could turn the sky green or cause a pig to fly if he chose. Those things aren't nomologically possible, but they are logically possible. But if God can do the logically impossible (such as creating a married bachelor or a square circle) then there would be no reason to expect it to result in something that can be discussed or understood logically.

Well, I am a married bachelor. I have a wife and a BS in geology.
And the people I hang with are rather straight-laced, so you could say I run with a square circle of friends. (See what fun you can have when you are allowed to change definitions?)

But of course I understand that what you are describing are things which are both a thing and not that thing, which makes them illogical under their own premises. Sort of like a supernatural part of a natural universe.

 

[Bri]

Yes, I know free will means we have the ability to chose.

And given that, there is nothing that says that the greater good requires the freedom to chose. This is your unsupported assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's a possibility. Another poster was attempting to use the Problem of Evil to disprove certain properties of God, and I was simply giving a counter-example that demonstrates that the Problem of Evil doesn't necessarily hold for those properties of God.

If we have true free will, as opposed to just apparent free will, it is only because God choses to give us true free will. However, it is clear that free will is not required to make us happy because we would be equally happy with only apparent free will.

What makes you think that the greater good must have anything to do with our being happy? I was simply suggesting that the greater good might have something to do with our ability to choose.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It's not my premise that God will tip the scales such that no one will ever chose an available option. That is an observation of reality.

For example, God has tipped the scales such that I never choose to pound my hand with a sledgehammer. Why isn't that a restriction on freedom?

It is most certainly a restriction of your freedom. So what? God restricts your ability to do a lot of things, including flying (as you pointed out).

I am suggesting nothing different for the ability to do right and wrong. Why doesn't God just make things that are so abhorent to us (in whatever way he wants - remember, he is an omnipotent god so he has the ability to do that - it's not illogical) that we don't want to do them?

Because perhaps the greater good is achieved by allowing the freedom to choose between right and wrong, as I said previously.

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

Since people still commit crimes even when "threatened" with eternal damnation, there is obviously a difficiency in your analogy. When someone holds a gun to your head, you're pretty sure you'll die if you don't do as they ask. Likewise, you're much more certain that hitting your hand with a sledgehammer is going to hurt like hell, but apparently not so certain that committing wrong will send you to hell.

Yes, we call that rationalization. People do things that, supposedly, will damn their souls, but to them, they always have good reasons. So much for moral objectivism.