Things that god can't do!

[Dorian Gray]

To be guilty of a no true Scotsman fallacy, I would have had to contend that one who believes God can perform the logically impossible is not truly a theist. Nowhere did I contend that. What I did say is that such people are not worth arguing with.

You implied it. 'Few serious theists' is not far from 'few true theists.'

Only linguistically. If the prepositional phrase represents a logical impossibility, there is no need to consider the creation of it a real action. It is meaningless babble. That something can be said is no reason to assign any reality to its referent.

With God, all things are possible. Not all logical things. ALL things. It says that right there in the Bible, the word of God. Are you calling the Bible a liar? The word 'omnipotent' doesn't have a qualifier. 'Unlimited' power means, surprisingly, that there is no limit to the power.

By the way, have you noticed that arguing that something is a logical impossibility is itself a linguistic argument?

 

[Dorian Gray]

What part of the body lies at the center of your heart? Ear.

 

[slingblade]

Ear.

Thanks, man. I thought you were gonna bogart that thing all night.

 

[The Grave]

Correct!

What part of the body lies at the center of your heart? Ear.

God can't...Make a Black hole - white.

IT could, if IT was 'all' powerful cause a Black hole to emit the entire EM spec., but then it wouldn't be a Black hole any more!

Griff...

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You implied it.

You inferred it. There is a difference.

'Few serious theists' is not far from 'few true theists.'

Only in your mind. I am not in any way calling into question the veracity or fervency of their belief. (On the contrary, theists who believe their god capable of the logically impossible may rank among the most fervent, and in that sense truest, theists of them all.) What I am calling into question is the utility of engaging such a theist in any sort of rational debate. There is none. By putting their god outside the realm of logic, they have moved discussion of their god out of the realm of serious discourse. It is in this sense that they are not serious, and should not be treated with as such.

With God, all things are possible. Not all logical things. ALL things.

Why should a logically impossible "thing" be considered a thing in any sense other than linguistic? Four-sided triangle and rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it, to cite the classic examples are not things. They are not even concepts. They are empty strings of words, bereft of referents, mere curious artifacts of language itself.

It says that right there in the Bible, the word of God. Are you calling the Bible a liar?

I'd be happy to call the Bible a liar, but that seems beside the point.

The word 'omnipotent' doesn't have a qualifier. 'Unlimited' power means, surprisingly, that there is no limit to the power.

Surprisingly, your preferred usage of the word omnipotent is not universally accepted.

By your definition, of course omnipotence is logically incoherent. But that argument is useless. It will either be used against a theist who doesn't feel his god beholden to logic anyway, in which case it is wasted breath, or against a theist who does not agree to the definition, in which case it is a strawman.

Or it can be used as a non-theist circle-jerk, which is the most common application.

By the way, have you noticed that arguing that something is a logical impossibility is itself a linguistic argument?

Of course. That's the entire point. These logical impossibilities are entirely semantic. They refer not to anything, real or imagined. That is why they can be, and I think should be, disregarded.

 

[tsg]

He appears to be making a distinction between 'theists' and 'serious theists', in the same way that someone would make a distinction between 'Scotsman' and 'true Scotsman.'

That does not, in itself, make it a No True Scotsman fallacy.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

A: "No Scotsman would eat his porridge with honey."
B: "I'm a Scotsman and I eat my porridge with honey."
A: "Well, no true Scotsman would eat his porridge with honey."

It is a fallacy because the claim "no true Scotsman would eat his porridge with honey" is proven simply by defining a "true Scotsman" as one who doesn't eat porridge with honey. The important part is that the counter evidence provided by B above is discounted by the claimant simply because it doesn't adhere to his claim. A has now changed his claim to one of "people who don't eat porridge with honey don't eat porridge with honey" as opposed to "people from Scotland don't eat porridge with honey" as stated first. It is a form of cherry picking data.

If MdC was discounting theists who do believe omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible from being "serious theists" based on that belief, then it would be a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. He hasn't. In fact he qualified his statement saying "few serious theists believe". If you doubt that claim, you can certainly challenge him to back it up, but there is no logical fallacy in the statement.

 

[Dorian Gray]

That does not, in itself, make it a No True Scotsman fallacy.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

A: "No Scotsman would eat his porridge with honey."
B: "I'm a Scotsman and I eat my porridge with honey."
A: "Well, no true Scotsman would eat his porridge with honey."

It is a fallacy because the claim "no true Scotsman would eat his porridge with honey" is proven simply by defining a "true Scotsman" as one who doesn't eat porridge with honey. The important part is that the counter evidence provided by B above is discounted by the claimant simply because it doesn't adhere to his claim. A has now changed his claim to one of "people who don't eat porridge with honey don't eat porridge with honey" as opposed to "people from Scotland don't eat porridge with honey" as stated first. It is a form of cherry picking data.

If MdC was discounting theists who do believe omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible from being "serious theists" based on that belief, then it would be a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. He hasn't. In fact he qualified his statement saying "few serious theists believe". If you doubt that claim, you can certainly challenge him to back it up, but there is no logical fallacy in the statement.

Oh, sure, take a hundred words to point out he said 'few' rather than 'no'. Fine, then:

The "Few Serious Theists" fallacy:

A: "No theists would think an omnipotent being would be able to do that which is logically impossible."
B: "He's a theist and he thinks that."
A: "Well, few serious theists would think an omnipotent being would be able to do that which is logically impossible."

Aren't hypothetical conversations convenient, in that they can say whatever you want them to?

 

[Dorian Gray]

There is none. By putting their god outside the realm of logic, they have moved discussion of their god out of the realm of serious discourse. It is in this sense that they are not serious, and should not be treated with as such.

Not true. There is serious discussion on mythology, music, art, fiction, and all manner of subjects outside the realm of logic.

Why should a logically impossible "thing" be considered a thing in any sense other than linguistic? Four-sided triangle and rock so big an omnipotent being cannot lift it, to cite the classic examples are not things. They are not even concepts. They are empty strings of words, bereft of referents, mere curious artifacts of language itself.

Why shouldn't it? The things you mentioned are every bit as valid as concepts as 5-dimensional space, events inside a black hole, the edge of the universe, etc.

Surprisingly, your preferred usage of the word omnipotent is not universally accepted.

NOthing is universally accepted, so that sure is a bold outside-the-box statement for you to make. However, I am starting to notice something about you. More later.

By your definition, of course omnipotence is logically incoherent. But that argument is useless. It will either be used against a theist who doesn't feel his god beholden to logic anyway, in which case it is wasted breath, or against a theist who does not agree to the definition, in which case it is a strawman.

Or it can be used as a non-theist circle-jerk, which is the most common application.


Of course. That's the entire point. These logical impossibilities are entirely semantic. They refer not to anything, real or imagined. That is why they can be, and I think should be, disregarded.

Okay, it's later. Your problem is with the word 'omnipotent', and your notion that God doesn't exist is clouding your ability to discuss this topic. For the record, I don't believe God exists either. However, if a deity existed and was omnipotent, it could do anything, including things which TO HUMANS appear to be logically impossible. That's the key.

A being that is omnipotent may very well know of a way that a triangle could have 4 sides - perhaps in higher dimensions - what looks to you and me like a triangle in 3D may actually be a multisided shape in higher dimensions. An omnipotent being may be able to divide itself into two portions that even you would accept as both being the deity, with the smaller portion being unable to lift the rock, while the larger portion remains capable of doing so. Weaselly? Sure. Almost like cheating. But in both of the above cases, what originally seemed to you to be logical impossibilities I have now rendered possible. And arguably, if I can do that, an omnipotent being certainly could do it.

Arthur C. Clarke's comment would seem to apply here:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Restated, it would say that any sufficiently advanced being is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[tsg]

Oh, sure, take a hundred words to point out he said 'few' rather than 'no'. Fine, then:

There is a subtle but important difference that you aren't getting, but if you're not even going to make an attempt to understand, I fail to see why I should bother explaining it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not true. There is serious discussion on mythology, music, art, fiction, and all manner of subjects outside the realm of logic.

Those would all be great analogies if theists tended to believe their god was mythology, music, art, or fiction. It is quite simple, and should be uncontroversial: if someone believes their god (or anything else) to be unbound by logic, there is precisely no point in formulating a logical argument against the existence of said deity.

Why shouldn't it? The things you mentioned are every bit as valid as concepts as 5-dimensional space, events inside a black hole, the edge of the universe, etc.

There is a difference between things that are difficult (or even impossible) for a human being to understand and things which contain within their description an explicit contradiction.

NOthing is universally accepted

So, why are you unable to allow for other definitions of omnipotence than your own?

Okay, it's later. Your problem is with the word 'omnipotent', and your notion that God doesn't exist is clouding your ability to discuss this topic. For the record, I don't believe God exists either. However, if a deity existed and was omnipotent, it could do anything, including things which TO HUMANS appear to be logically impossible. That's the key.

The key is, this is true only according to your interpretation of the word. I ask again, why are you unable to allow for other definitions?

[edit]Upon further reflection, I note with interest your addition of the qualifier "TO HUMANS". Certainly, if something was not logically impossible, but merely appeared that way to a human, an omnipotent being may very well be able to pull it off. I had thought you were saying that an omnipotent being must be able to do what is actually logically impossible. Is this not the case?[/edit]

A being that is omnipotent may very well know of a way that a triangle could have 4 sides - perhaps in higher dimensions - what looks to you and me like a triangle in 3D may actually be a multisided shape in higher dimensions. An omnipotent being may be able to divide itself into two portions that even you would accept as both being the deity, with the smaller portion being unable to lift the rock, while the larger portion remains capable of doing so. Weaselly? Sure. Almost like cheating. But in both of the above cases, what originally seemed to you to be logical impossibilities I have now rendered possible. And arguably, if I can do that, an omnipotent being certainly could do it.

No dice. God must be able to do these things without resorting to trickery.

 

[The Grave]

Oh yeah....

Wow...cool it guys...actually I love it...debate!

A point to raise here is :: What exactly is omnipotent?

Encarta - possessing complete, unlimited power...

Simple ones are the best!

If an entity "possessed" complete & unlimited power...there'd be none left!

Ergo 'IT' can not be such a THING. If IT possessed the power of the universe...completely...then there'd BE nothing else.

IT wouldn't be able to create anything...because the 'us' IT creates would:-

a) already be created (complete) so there's no creation, a pinacle of religion.

b) if IT created using the 'power'...IT would reduce IT's 'completeness' and thereby invalidate IT's 'omnipotence'.
​

Keep at it!

Griff...​

 

[The Grave]

Just another thing that IT can't do.....create!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Dorian,

The more I consider that curious "TO HUMANS" bit you included, the more I wonder what is your argument with me.

My position is that the omnipotence paradox is a useless argument against theism because the theist has two outs by which it does not apply. They may simply declare their god above logic, a declaration which renders further logical discussion with them impotent. Or, they may declare that the definition of omnipotence used in the paradox is not the definition they believe applies to their god, so its refutation of omnipotence is irrelevant.

Indeed, the last out is one many theists do take, stating that omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible (and sometimes other caveats, as well).

Now, your assertion that an omnipotent being can do things that seem logically impossible to humans implies that such things are not actually logically impossible, but that humans lack the capacity to understand the logic involved. As such, there is no problem with paradox, because our omnipotent being is not contravening logic, merely surpassing human understanding of it. All this does is provide the theist yet another out. The point still stands: the omnipotence paradox is a useless argument against theism.

 

[The Grave]

No easy way out..

Dorian,

The more I consider that curious "TO HUMANS" bit you included, the more I wonder what is your argument with me.

My position is that the omnipotence paradox is a useless argument against theism because the theist has two outs by which it does not apply. They may simply declare their god above logic, a declaration which renders further logical discussion with them impotent. Or, they may declare that the definition of omnipotence used in the paradox is not the definition they believe applies to their god, so its refutation of omnipotence is irrelevant.

Indeed, the last out is one many theists do take, stating that omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible (and sometimes other caveats, as well).

Now, your assertion that an omnipotent being can do things that seem logically impossible to humans implies that such things are not actually logically impossible, but that humans lack the capacity to understand the logic involved. As such, there is no problem with paradox, because our omnipotent being is not contravening logic, merely surpassing human understanding of it. All this does is provide the theist yet another out. The point still stands: the omnipotence paradox is a useless argument against theism.

This has been the main-stay for philosophy for millennium, the deep-throat...sorry I mean deep-thought..."Oh our puny little minds are far from being able to understand the workings of IT's mind".

Sorry but that bucket (of...) doesn't hold water...

Of course I'd explain it to you...but...you know what I'm going to say...you do....yes, you wouldn't understand, so I won't waste my time...

Sounds like the "Oracle"...Matrix

To refute logic and claim that IT can surpass logic is nothing short of a side-step and would require the protagonist of "such a theory" to provide evidence of the "failed" application of Human logic, not the rather pathetic, grandiose statement that basically "we're all to stupid...but you scientist types are more stupid for not getting it!"

I'm sorry, that train's gone...there'll be another shorty...I mean shortly...

Griff...

IT can't make an egg, inside out!

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

polaris,

Of course it's a crap. But it is effective crap. Saying God is beyond logic is like bricking up one's goalposts before a soccer game. It won't prove the team's defense is great (in fact, it may lead one to wonder if you lack confidence in them), but it will stop a goal from being scored on them.

At the same time, I would have to wonder about the intelligence of a team that would play against them.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Those would all be great analogies if theists tended to believe their god was mythology, music, art, or fiction. It is quite simple, and should be uncontroversial: if someone believes their god (or anything else) to be unbound by logic, there is precisely no point in formulating a logical argument against the existence of said deity.

In response, allow me to remind you of Zeno's arrow, and then shoot an arrow that hits the target. In other words, logic isn't the same as reality.

There is a difference between things that are difficult (or even impossible) for a human being to understand and things which contain within their description an explicit contradiction.

Historically, there isn't. Let's start with the logical impossibility that the sun revolves around the earth. Sure, we look back on it and laugh NOW, but back then that was widely accepted as logical.

So, why are you unable to allow for other definitions of omnipotence than your own?

First of all, what other definition could there be for omnipotence? Second, I'll allow that you may have another definition for omnipotence if you allow that I will accuse you of moving the goalposts.

The key is, this is true only according to your interpretation of the word. I ask again, why are you unable to allow for other definitions?

So it's your belief that I am the only one that has this definition of 'omnipotence'? Again, I think that you're redefining 'omnipotence' so you can be right.

[edit]Upon further reflection, I note with interest your addition of the qualifier "TO HUMANS". Certainly, if something was not logically impossible, but merely appeared that way to a human, an omnipotent being may very well be able to pull it off. I had thought you were saying that an omnipotent being must be able to do what is actually logically impossible. Is this not the case?[/edit]

NO!!!! What I am saying is that to an omnipotent being, nothing is logically impossible!!!!

No dice. God must be able to do these things without resorting to trickery.

I didn't say it was trickery. I said it appeared to be trickery.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Wow...cool it guys...actually I love it...debate!

A point to raise here is :: What exactly is omnipotent?

Encarta - possessing complete, unlimited power...

Simple ones are the best!

If an entity "possessed" complete & unlimited power...there'd be none left!

Ergo 'IT' can not be such a THING. If IT possessed the power of the universe...completely...then there'd BE nothing else.

IT wouldn't be able to create anything...because the 'us' IT creates would:-

a) already be created (complete) so there's no creation, a pinacle of religion.

b) if IT created using the 'power'...IT would reduce IT's 'completeness' and thereby invalidate IT's 'omnipotence'.
​

Keep at it!

Griff...​

This is not true. If there is infinite power, then an omnipotent being could have unlimited power and still create.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Historically, there isn't. Let's start with the logical impossibility that the sun revolves around the earth. Sure, we look back on it and laugh NOW, but back then that was widely accepted as logical.

That's not a logical impossibility. Physical impossibility, yes, given what we know about physical laws and the physical properties of the two bodies. But there's no way to prove, just using logic, that it can't happen.

This is not true. If there is infinite power, then an omnipotent being could have unlimited power and still create.

But the issue is not infinite power, but unlimited power. It's possible to be infinite, but not unlimited. For instance, omega nought is infinite, but is limited by omega one, which is it turn limited by omega two, etc.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

In response, allow me to remind you of Zeno's arrow, and then shoot an arrow that hits the target. In other words, logic isn't the same as reality.

Maybe Zeno's logic was wrong, but that's another thread.

Historically, there isn't. Let's start with the logical impossibility that the sun revolves around the earth. Sure, we look back on it and laugh NOW, but back then that was widely accepted as logical.

Sorry, but because some things that were once held to be impossible turned out not to be does not mean everything thought to be impossible will do so. And we have been heretofore discussing things which involve inherent contradictions, not just things people thought were untrue.

First of all, what other definition could there be for omnipotence? Second, I'll allow that you may have another definition for omnipotence if you allow that I will accuse you of moving the goalposts.


So it's your belief that I am the only one that has this definition of 'omnipotence'? Again, I think that you're redefining 'omnipotence' so you can be right.

Just because you are ignorant of where the goalposts were when we began does not mean I moved them. I've already provided links to other definitions of omnipotent, ones that have been around quite some time.

NO!!!! What I am saying is that to an omnipotent being, nothing is logically impossible!!!!

Then the omnipotence paradox fails again.

I didn't say it was trickery. I said it appeared to be trickery.

God must be able to do these things without the appearance of trickery.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian,

The more I consider that curious "TO HUMANS" bit you included, the more I wonder what is your argument with me.

My position is that the omnipotence paradox is a useless argument against theism because the theist has two outs by which it does not apply. They may simply declare their god above logic, a declaration which renders further logical discussion with them impotent. Or, they may declare that the definition of omnipotence used in the paradox is not the definition they believe applies to their god, so its refutation of omnipotence is irrelevant.

Indeed, the last out is one many theists do take, stating that omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible (and sometimes other caveats, as well).

Now, your assertion that an omnipotent being can do things that seem logically impossible to humans implies that such things are not actually logically impossible, but that humans lack the capacity to understand the logic involved. As such, there is no problem with paradox, because our omnipotent being is not contravening logic, merely surpassing human understanding of it. All this does is provide the theist yet another out. The point still stands: the omnipotence paradox is a useless argument against theism.

My argument with you is basically that you have a particular definition of omnipotence, and anyone who uses a different definition you dismiss with phrases like 'not worth arguing with' and 'no serious theist'. In other words, you resort to ad hominem attacks rather than attacking the position.

You keep saying that if someone holds that their deity is beyond logic, etc., that there is no point having a logical discussion. But that presupposes that you can always have a logical discussion about beliefs! Beliefs of this sort are literally irrational, i.e., they are based on faith, not necessarily reason.

Ultimately, our difference lies with the definition of omnipotence, and I insist that for someone to be truly omnipotent, there must be no barriers whatsoever, no limits whatsoever, to that omnipotence, including logical contradictions, etc.

To go way back to the OP (remember that?) I interpreted the thread title as having a silent 'if he existed'. Thus, I would say that if God exists, he would be omnipotent, and therefore there would be nothing he couldn't do.

Note, our argument wasn't whether God existed, or even if an omnipotent being existed, but what an omnipotent being would be capable of. As I said before, an omnipotent being would be utterly and absolutely limitless without exception, by definition.

Had our discussion turned to whether an omnipotent being existed, I would have insisted that one could not. However, in light of what I have been saying, I'd have to say "I don't know". That's still not to say that this being would be aware of or give a crap about us, or even exist in the same dimension or state of awareness as we do.

Bottom line: An omnipotent being is possible. My belief in a magic sky daddy is not.