| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jack" |
| Date: |
23 May 2006 07:43:15 AM |
| Object: |
Making God Impossible by Definition |
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Of course, if you start with a logical impossibility, you are bound to
land at a contradiction.
Now, whether God is able to bend and break logic according to His will
is not the point. The point is that such a statement IS illogical. If we
leave the world of logic behind in making asserting such a statement we
cannot justify any further use of logic.
If a hard-line believer maintains that an Omnipotent being is able to do
the logically impossible then they have, in saying this, left the realms
of Logic and uttered an illogical and contradictory statement: "The
impossible is possible".
I would argue that an Omnipotent (all powerful) being is one which is
able to do all that which is possible, because that which is impossible
does not exist (except as a concept) and cannot be done. This is not a
limitation on the power but a logical necessity if the concept is to be
accepted by rational beings.
Thus, by defining Omnipotence in an illogical way, we have made an
Omnipotent Being impossible by definition and not by logic.
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 10:48:00 AM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44730361$0$145$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch...
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Can God create a will so free that even he can't
change it?
<snip>
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 04:20:06 PM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44730361$0$145$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch...
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Can God create a will so free that even he can't
change it?
<snip>
Heh!
Can god create a will so free he cannot limit it?
If he could, should he?
Must he?
How important is free will in the scheme of things?
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
24 May 2006 06:17:57 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44730361$0$145$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch...
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Can God create a will so free that even he can't
change it?
<snip>
Heh!
Can god create a will so free he cannot limit it?
If he could, should he?
Must he?
How important is free will in the scheme of things?
IMHO Free Will is critical. If we are not free to choose then we cannot
be judged on our actions and most of the Bible falls apart on logical
grounds. You cannot judge predestined beings and this is why
predestination makes no sense in combination with a God of any sort. Why
do believers in predestination even get up in the morning?
The Bible points clearly to our ability to choose, the responsibility we
carry and the consequences thereof.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 12:48:57 PM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Can God create a will so free that even he can't
change it?
That is an interesting question. Stated another way: How free is Free?
Is Free Will eternal? Can it be taken back?
I see no requirement for it to be eternal or irrevocable. Freedom is a
state, as is imprisonment - both are temporal unless otherwise stated.
We have no guarantee that our free will is lasting.
My assertion in the original post is that God cannot do the logically
impossible - it's not "doable" so saying he can't do it is like saying
he can't do "Nothing". Thus, depending on how you define Free Will, He
can or cannot change it.
For the purposes of validating or invalidating God, Free Will need not
be eternal as far as I can see.
See the "Logical Argument from Evil" discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5bbfa4f6bfd51ff/ffb01f771a51746b?
<snip>
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 01:48:35 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44734b08$0$148$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Can God create a will so free that even he can't
change it?
That is an interesting question. Stated another way: How free is Free? Is
Free Will eternal? Can it be taken back?
I am not refering to starting or ending a free will.
Can God alter what a free will will will?
I see no requirement for it to be eternal or irrevocable. Freedom is a
state, as is imprisonment - both are temporal unless otherwise stated. We
have no guarantee that our free will is lasting.
My assertion in the original post is that God cannot do the logically
impossible - it's not "doable" so saying he can't do it is like saying he
can't do "Nothing". Thus, depending on how you define Free Will, He can or
cannot change it.
Indeed. What is free will?
For the purposes of validating or invalidating God, Free Will need not be
eternal as far as I can see.
See the "Logical Argument from Evil" discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5bbfa4f6bfd51ff/ffb01f771a51746b?
I am familiar with it but not every detail.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 02:32:35 PM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different definitions
and interpretations depending on the person using them. We have all seen
people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The ability of God to do
anything, even the logically impossible", constructing an argument based
on this definition and using the resulting contradiction(s) to conclude
the non-existence of an Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Can God create a will so free that even he can't
change it?
That is an interesting question. Stated another way: How free is Free? Is
Free Will eternal? Can it be taken back?
I am not refering to starting or ending a free will.
Can God alter what a free will will will?
Aha, you mean can God change my will? Well, if it's to remain free then
no. If he changes it, it ceases being free. To alter what a free will
will will is no revoke the privilege. To alter it is to remove it.
I see no requirement for it to be eternal or irrevocable. Freedom is a
state, as is imprisonment - both are temporal unless otherwise stated. We
have no guarantee that our free will is lasting.
My assertion in the original post is that God cannot do the logically
impossible - it's not "doable" so saying he can't do it is like saying he
can't do "Nothing". Thus, depending on how you define Free Will, He can or
cannot change it.
Indeed. What is free will?
I'll have to take a rain check on any kind of rigorous definition. My
knowledge of free will is largely subjective based on my experience and
it can best be described as follows: Close both your hands and think
about which one you will open first. Do you feel like you are
predestined to open the left or the right? Could anyone convince you
that the answer is fated or predetermined? Do you feel free to choose
which hand to open, even down to the last split second? That's free will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 02:08:56 AM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44736352$0$147$fb624d75@newsspool.solnet.ch...
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Controversial concepts, like Omnipotence, can have different
definitions and interpretations depending on the person using them. We
have all seen people using the "Omnipotence of God" to imply "The
ability of God to do anything, even the logically impossible",
constructing an argument based on this definition and using the
resulting contradiction(s) to conclude the non-existence of an
Omnipotent God or Being because it is illogical.
Can God create a will so free that even he can't
change it?
That is an interesting question. Stated another way: How free is Free?
Is Free Will eternal? Can it be taken back?
I am not refering to starting or ending a free will.
Can God alter what a free will will will?
Aha, you mean can God change my will? Well, if it's to remain free then
no. If he changes it, it ceases being free. To alter what a free will will
will is no revoke the privilege. To alter it is to remove it.
So God couldn't stop 9/11 because that would
contradict free will.
So free will must be absolutely and unconditionally free
in order to be considered free at all?
God can never ever influence free will even once without
totally cancelling out free will?
Does God change or influence anything in
the world?
There are examples in the Bible of God influencing human will.
"God hardened Pharoh's heart"
Is the Bible wrong?
I see no requirement for it to be eternal or irrevocable. Freedom is a
state, as is imprisonment - both are temporal unless otherwise stated.
We have no guarantee that our free will is lasting.
My assertion in the original post is that God cannot do the logically
impossible - it's not "doable" so saying he can't do it is like saying
he can't do "Nothing". Thus, depending on how you define Free Will, He
can or cannot change it.
Indeed. What is free will?
I'll have to take a rain check on any kind of rigorous definition.
I'll take a rain check on accepting what you say
as true.
My
knowledge of free will is largely subjective based on my experience and it
can best be described as follows: Close both your hands and think about
which one you will open first. Do you feel like you are predestined to
open the left or the right? Could anyone convince you that the answer is
fated or predetermined? Do you feel free to choose which hand to open,
even down to the last split second? That's free will.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 07:48:54 AM |
|
|
So God couldn't stop 9/11 because that would contradict free will.
My post is limited to the assertion that God cannot do the logically
impossible, or rather that this statement is illogical and must be
rejected (or at least identified) in any logical argument.
To apply this assertion adequately to your 9/11 question would require
a lengthy digression which I will not attempt here - not least because
of the limits of my own thinking. I will however attempt to give you
some sort of answer:
If we assert that God is Omnipotent and Omnipotent means, the ability
to do all that is logically possible at any time, we can deduce that if
stopping 9/11 or any other evil is logically possible, God *can* do it.
Any attack on this reasoning will have to deny one or more of the
premises or the validity of the argument. I myself am not sure that
this definition of Omnipotence can be justified but if we accept it and
the rest of the argument then the answer to your question is "Yes!".
The argument as to whether benevolence dictates that he *must* is
something I wish to address in the future. My first impulse is to say
that it does, just like many folks do. While it appears to us probable
that evil can be stopped by temporarily terminating free will we must
aknowledge that we do not have all the facts and the logical
possibility of this "stopability" is not certain. The jump from can to
must is likewise uncertain unless we define benevolence to exactly
that: the imperative link between can and must where the outcome is
certainly Good.
You may think I am purposely confusing the issue or rationalizing but I
have found that quick, simple answers are often wrong and sometimes
inherantly illogical. Thus I venture on carefully...
So free will must be absolutely and unconditionally free in order to be considered free at all?
God can never ever influence free will even once without totally cancelling out free will?
No, Free Will is logically possible, so is Predestination. Their
co-existance is also possible even though they are opposed. The
co-existance of Light and Dark is logically and indeed physically
possible - just not in the same place at the same time. You may argue
that dawn or dask are examples of both being present but the mix of
light and dark is just an approximation from a macro-perspective. At
the quantum level, a photon is light and the area where it is absent is
dark. Before I digress too much... God can allow Free Will to reign in
some individuals and not others, or in certain persons at certain
times. It is illogical to speak of both acting on the same human at the
same time.
Does God cange or influence anything in the world?
According to the Bible He does do this occasionally. I happen to
believe this and find nothing illogical about it. It is reconcilable
with Free Will in that, when God controls, Free Will is temporarily
withdrawn. A just God cannot judge Pharaoh on matters out of his
control. Conversely when a man, like Moses, does God's will, the
resulting miracle or glory is to God's credit. Moses get's credit for
one thing alone, the courage or faith to follow God. Thus it is written
that we are saved by our Faith and not our Deeds (Romans 3:28).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 02:41:01 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148561334.768709.85980@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So God couldn't stop 9/11 because that would contradict free will.
My post is limited to the assertion that God cannot do the logically
impossible, or rather that this statement is illogical and must be
rejected (or at least identified) in any logical argument.
To apply this assertion adequately to your 9/11 question would require
a lengthy digression which I will not attempt here - not least because
of the limits of my own thinking.
OK. So this is not a weasely hedge. You are not preparing
excuses in advance.
I will however attempt to give you
some sort of answer:
If we assert that God is Omnipotent and Omnipotent means, the ability
to do all that is logically possible at any time, we can deduce that if
stopping 9/11 or any other evil is logically possible, God *can* do it.
Any attack on this reasoning will have to deny one or more of the
premises or the validity of the argument. I myself am not sure that
this definition of Omnipotence can be justified but if we accept it and
the rest of the argument then the answer to your question is "Yes!".
So God can influence free will.
The argument as to whether benevolence dictates that he *must* is
something I wish to address in the future. My first impulse is to say
that it does, just like many folks do. While it appears to us probable
that evil can be stopped by temporarily terminating free will we must
aknowledge that we do not have all the facts and the logical
possibility of this "stopability" is not certain. The jump from can to
must is likewise uncertain unless we define benevolence to exactly
that: the imperative link between can and must where the outcome is
certainly Good.
So you can't say what benevolence is?
You may think I am purposely confusing the issue or rationalizing but I
have found that quick, simple answers are often wrong and sometimes
inherantly illogical.
Seems to be the only type of answer you have though.
Thus I venture on carefully...
So free will must be absolutely and unconditionally free in order to be
considered free at all?
God can never ever influence free will even once without totally
cancelling out free will?
No, Free Will is logically possible, so is Predestination.
So predestination is true? What is predestination?
Their
co-existance is also possible even though they are opposed. The
co-existance of Light and Dark is logically and indeed physically
possible - just not in the same place at the same time. You may argue
that dawn or dask are examples of both being present but the mix of
light and dark is just an approximation from a macro-perspective. At
the quantum level, a photon is light and the area where it is absent is
dark. Before I digress too much... God can allow Free Will to reign in
some individuals and not others, or in certain persons at certain
times. It is illogical to speak of both acting on the same human at the
same time.
Does God cange or influence anything in the world?
According to the Bible He does do this occasionally. I happen to
believe this and find nothing illogical about it. It is reconcilable
with Free Will in that, when God controls, Free Will is temporarily
withdrawn. A just God cannot judge Pharaoh on matters out of his
control.
So God can't influence free will?
What matters are out of God's control?
Conversely when a man, like Moses, does God's will, the
resulting miracle or glory is to God's credit. Moses get's credit for
one thing alone, the courage or faith to follow God. Thus it is written
that we are saved by our Faith and not our Deeds (Romans 3:28).
So a good deed is not a good deed if there
was no faith?
Overall it sounds like you are saying that God
could have prevented 9/11 but didn't.
Why didn't he prevent it?
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 06:08:12 PM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Overall it sounds like you are saying that God
could have prevented 9/11 but didn't.
Why didn't he prevent it?
Joshua 10
7 So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him,
and all the mighty men of valour.
8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them
into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.
9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all
night.
10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great
slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to
Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the
going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven
upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with
hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
So, god helps kill people and joins in those festivities himself, but does
nothing to discomfit Hitler who is about to inflict 10 million genodical
deaths on humanity.
Joshua 10 is a damning document.
And why did the Lord not appear to the people of Gilgal in a suitably
impressive form, say a pillar of fire 100 feet tall and tell them,
"Whatsoever the Israelites require of you, that shall you give them, for it
is my command, I who am the only existing god, require it of you, the
people of Gigal. Then shall I the Lord, tell you of my laws you will
henceforth uphold and live by".
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Happy Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 May 2006 01:27:55 AM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
So God couldn't stop 9/11 because that would contradict free will.
My post is limited to the assertion that God cannot do the logically
impossible, or rather that this statement is illogical and must be
rejected (or at least identified) in any logical argument.
As long as you get to define "logically impossible", this works. That the
christ-besotted, like yourself, can't see the simplest errors that render
their arguments infantile in the face of anyone armed with a grade school
education in logic is the real tough question. Listen git:
Can god make a rock too heavy for him/her/whatever to lift?
You would probably say that the inherent logical problem with this statement
exempts it from anything that your great hairy thunderer need concern
himself, and thus you, with. But, what's the problem? Is there a limit to
how much god can lift or how big a rock he can make? Does the bible answer
this? Does one or the other of these abilities fall outside a reasonable
definition of "omnipotent"? Hint: No. This is so simple that an idiot can
see the problem with anything described as having infinite powers. And you
god-sucking twits steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it.
moo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 05:59:07 PM |
|
|
Jack wrote:
So God couldn't stop 9/11 because that would contradict free will.
My post is limited to the assertion that God cannot do the logically
impossible, or rather that this statement is illogical and must be
rejected (or at least identified) in any logical argument.
This is an old argument and the problem is, the answer to "What is logically
possible?" is not clear. Decartes, Liebenz and others argued this very
point.
If logic is a limit to god, good is limited and thus not omnipotent.
To apply this assertion adequately to your 9/11 question would require
a lengthy digression which I will not attempt here - not least because
of the limits of my own thinking. I will however attempt to give you
some sort of answer:
If we assert that God is Omnipotent and Omnipotent means, the ability
to do all that is logically possible at any time, we can deduce that if
stopping 9/11 or any other evil is logically possible, God *can* do it.
Any attack on this reasoning will have to deny one or more of the
premises or the validity of the argument. I myself am not sure that
this definition of Omnipotence can be justified but if we accept it and
the rest of the argument then the answer to your question is "Yes!".
The argument as to whether benevolence dictates that he *must* is
something I wish to address in the future. My first impulse is to say
that it does, just like many folks do. While it appears to us probable
that evil can be stopped by temporarily terminating free will we must
aknowledge that we do not have all the facts and the logical
possibility of this "stopability" is not certain. The jump from can to
must is likewise uncertain unless we define benevolence to exactly
that: the imperative link between can and must where the outcome is
certainly Good.
You may think I am purposely confusing the issue or rationalizing but I
have found that quick, simple answers are often wrong and sometimes
inherantly illogical. Thus I venture on carefully...
So free will must be absolutely and unconditionally free in order to be
considered free at all? God can never ever influence free will even once
without totally cancelling out free will?
No, Free Will is logically possible, so is Predestination. Their
co-existance is also possible even though they are opposed. The
co-existance of Light and Dark is logically and indeed physically
possible - just not in the same place at the same time. You may argue
that dawn or dask are examples of both being present but the mix of
light and dark is just an approximation from a macro-perspective. At
the quantum level, a photon is light and the area where it is absent is
dark. Before I digress too much... God can allow Free Will to reign in
some individuals and not others, or in certain persons at certain
times. It is illogical to speak of both acting on the same human at the
same time.
Does God cange or influence anything in the world?
According to the Bible He does do this occasionally. I happen to
believe this and find nothing illogical about it. It is reconcilable
with Free Will in that, when God controls, Free Will is temporarily
withdrawn. A just God cannot judge Pharaoh on matters out of his
control. Conversely when a man, like Moses, does God's will, the
resulting miracle or glory is to God's credit. Moses get's credit for
one thing alone, the courage or faith to follow God. Thus it is written
that we are saved by our Faith and not our Deeds (Romans 3:28).
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 May 2006 02:14:31 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Jack wrote:
So God couldn't stop 9/11 because that would contradict free will.
My post is limited to the assertion that God cannot do the logically
impossible, or rather that this statement is illogical and must be
rejected (or at least identified) in any logical argument.
This is an old argument and the problem is, the answer to "What is logically
possible?" is not clear. Decartes, Liebenz and others argued this very
point.
If logic is a limit to god, [god] is limited and thus not omnipotent.
And if logic is not a limit to god, then god could exist despite any
(and all) rock-solid logical argument(s), based on rock-solid true
premises, that no god exists. So your point is?
(It seems logic is a limitation on us _humans_ in _our_ reasoning.
Defining "omnipotent" to include "not limited by logic" does not get
you where you want to go (showing the unlikelihood of any god).)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 04:22:41 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that did attempt to escape
burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
snip
Indeed. What is free will?
I'll have to take a rain check on any kind of rigorous definition. My
knowledge of free will is largely subjective based on my experience
and it can best be described as follows: Close both your hands and
think about which one you will open first. Do you feel like you are
predestined to open the left or the right? Could anyone convince you
that the answer is fated or predetermined? Do you feel free to choose
which hand to open, even down to the last split second? That's free
will.
There is another interpretation - it could also be a very good *illusion*
of free will :-)
--
Stuart AA #2053
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
24 May 2006 03:20:49 AM |
|
|
Walking on Glass wrote:
Indeed. What is free will?
I'll have to take a rain check on any kind of rigorous definition. My
knowledge of free will is largely subjective based on my experience
and it can best be described as follows: Close both your hands and
think about which one you will open first. Do you feel like you are
predestined to open the left or the right? Could anyone convince you
that the answer is fated or predetermined? Do you feel free to choose
which hand to open, even down to the last split second? That's free
will.
There is another interpretation - it could also be a very good *illusion*
of free will :-)
Maybe, but who is creating the illusion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
24 May 2006 03:25:47 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that did attempt to escape
burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
Walking on Glass wrote:
Indeed. What is free will?
I'll have to take a rain check on any kind of rigorous definition.
My knowledge of free will is largely subjective based on my
experience and it can best be described as follows: Close both your
hands and think about which one you will open first. Do you feel
like you are predestined to open the left or the right? Could anyone
convince you that the answer is fated or predetermined? Do you feel
free to choose which hand to open, even down to the last split
second? That's free will.
There is another interpretation - it could also be a very good
*illusion* of free will :-)
Maybe, but who is creating the illusion?
Why would a creator be needed? If somebody believes they have something,
but they don't in fact have it, aren't they simply mistaken?
--
Stuart AA #2053
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 03:44:09 PM |
|
|
Walking on Glass wrote:
And lo, it came to pass that did attempt to escape
burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
Walking on Glass wrote:
Indeed. What is free will?
I'll have to take a rain check on any kind of rigorous definition.
My knowledge of free will is largely subjective based on my
experience and it can best be described as follows: Close both your
hands and think about which one you will open first. Do you feel
like you are predestined to open the left or the right? Could anyone
convince you that the answer is fated or predetermined? Do you feel
free to choose which hand to open, even down to the last split
second? That's free will.
There is another interpretation - it could also be a very good
*illusion* of free will :-)
Maybe, but who is creating the illusion?
Why would a creator be needed? If somebody believes they have something,
but they don't in fact have it, aren't they simply mistaken?
Don't backpedal without a reason. You spoke of an *illusion* not a
mistake. Who is creating the illusion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 05:31:41 PM |
|
|
And lo, it came to pass that did attempt to escape
burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
Walking on Glass wrote:
And lo, it came to pass that did attempt to escape
burning at the stake, by proclaiming in alt.atheism:
Walking on Glass wrote:
Indeed. What is free will?
I'll have to take a rain check on any kind of rigorous definition.
My knowledge of free will is largely subjective based on my
experience and it can best be described as follows: Close both
your hands and think about which one you will open first. Do you
feel like you are predestined to open the left or the right? Could
anyone convince you that the answer is fated or predetermined? Do
you feel free to choose which hand to open, even down to the last
split second? That's free will.
There is another interpretation - it could also be a very good
*illusion* of free will :-)
Maybe, but who is creating the illusion?
Why would a creator be needed? If somebody believes they have
something, but they don't in fact have it, aren't they simply
mistaken?
Don't backpedal without a reason. You spoke of an *illusion* not a
mistake. Who is creating the illusion?
No backpedalling involved. Illusions do not *need* a creator. For
example, a mirage is a type of illusion. Who creates mirages? No-one
does. A mirage is easily explained by the laws of optics. There is no
need for a creator.
OTOH, you seem to be insisting that illusions (or just free will, don't
let me put words in your mouth) are created by something. What is your
evidence? If you think someone or something is creating this, explain
further.
--
Stuart AA #2053
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 04:53:58 PM |
|
|
on 23 May 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Jack (cawoodm@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
Can God alter what a free will will will?
Aha, you mean can God change my will? Well, if it's to remain free then
no. If he changes it, it ceases being free. To alter what a free will
will will is no revoke the privilege. To alter it is to remove it.
Then the god is not omnipotent as claimed. Next.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
23 May 2006 11:26:19 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
on 23 May 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Jack (cawoodm@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
Can God alter what a free will will will?
Aha, you mean can God change my will? Well, if it's to remain free then
no. If he changes it, it ceases being free. To alter what a free will
will will is no revoke the privilege. To alter it is to remove it.
Then the god is not omnipotent as claimed. Next.
I know i shouldnt get into this... two (2) things
(1)
Omnipotent says he *can* do anything (anything possible) - not that he
will do something.
So just becasue he doesnt do something doesnt itself rule out
omnipotence.
(2)
And taking away your free will while not taking away your free will is
not something that is possible to do - it's a non thing - and the
failure to not be able to do a non-thing is no failure at all.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
24 May 2006 10:47:58 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1148444779.336313.98050@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Vic wrote:
on 23 May 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Jack (cawoodm@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
Can God alter what a free will will will?
Aha, you mean can God change my will? Well, if it's to remain free
then
no. If he changes it, it ceases being free. To alter what a free will
will will is no revoke the privilege. To alter it is to remove it.
Then the god is not omnipotent as claimed. Next.
I know i shouldnt get into this... two (2) things
(1)
Omnipotent says he *can* do anything (anything possible)
Not just anything considered possible by us mere mortals, 'omni' means ALL,
as in all powerful, able to do ANYTHING.
http://wordmentor.placementor.com/vocabulary_powerkit/02.htm
For instance, God is alleged to have created the universe, a feat humans
know is impossible for any entity to have done, as Russell explains.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
That is why the idea there might be a God/Creator/First Cause is ruled out
as not even being worth considering. The very idea of it entails special
pleading out the arse, so it is reasonably rejected.
... not that he
will do something.
The question is on what theists insist God allegedly CAN do ('omnipotent',
'all powerful'), not on what God allegedly will or will not do.
'God can do anything, even be the First Cause, the Creator of the universe,
he just will not do some things' is merely fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis.
"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to
refute one's theory." -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Mark.
Didn't you say you are godless, Mark? Then why do you post to Usenet theist
apology like this for believing that there might be a God?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
24 May 2006 10:17:09 PM |
|
|
Pitt wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1148444779.336313.98050@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Vic wrote:
on 23 May 2006 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Jack (cawoodm@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
Can God alter what a free will will will?
Aha, you mean can God change my will? Well, if it's to remain free
then
no. If he changes it, it ceases being free. To alter what a free will
will will is no revoke the privilege. To alter it is to remove it.
Then the god is not omnipotent as claimed. Next.
I know i shouldnt get into this... two (2) things
(1)
Omnipotent says he *can* do anything (anything possible)
Not just anything considered possible by us mere mortals, 'omni' means ALL,
as in all powerful, able to do ANYTHING.
http://wordmentor.placementor.com/vocabulary_powerkit/02.htm
An impossible thing is not anything at all.
For instance, God is alleged to have created the universe, a feat humans
know is impossible for any entity to have done, as Russell explains.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
I have read it (many times) - it doesnt say that that it is impossible.
It says that the argument FOR the necessity of a first cause fails. I
agree with him.
If I have a FALSE argument that the earth is a spheroid - the failure
of my argument doesnt prevent the earth from actually being a spheroid.
A FALSE statement neither implies its conclusion nor the negation of
its conclusion.
(See a truth table for "implies" )
... not that he
will do something.
The question is on what theists insist God allegedly CAN do ('omnipotent',
'all powerful'), not on what God allegedly will or will not do.
That is one question - if you read carefully what I was replying to you
will see a second question is implied - he is saying (or at least
implying) "God hasnt taken away your free will == God cannot take away
your free will."
This is clearly false.
Didn't you say you are godless, Mark?
Yeah, sure - I was raised to tell the truth.
I was raised to believe that honesty is one of the most important and
admirable virtues a person can have.
Why? Would you like me to pretend that I believe in a god?
I might *pretend* to believe to escape torture or threat of death (for
myself or my family) - short of that its not going to happen.
Then why do you post to Usenet theist
apology like this for believing that there might be a God?
Why do you imagine that is what I am doing?
You are a very strange beast Donald!
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 09:57:50 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
Pitt wrote:
<...>
For instance, God is alleged to have created the universe, a feat humans
know is impossible for any entity to have done, as Russell explains.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
I have read it (many times) - it doesnt say that that it is impossible.
It says that the argument FOR the necessity of a first cause fails. I
agree with him.
If I have a FALSE argument that the earth is a spheroid - the failure
of my argument doesnt prevent the earth from actually being a spheroid.
A FALSE statement neither implies its conclusion nor the negation of
its conclusion.
(See a truth table for "implies" )
<...>
Hmmm... This might depend on *how* the First Cause argument fails.
Certainly, there can be fallacious arguments for First Cause. "Pitt
denies there is a First Cause; Pitt is always wrong; therefore, there
is a First Cause" is an (arguably;-)) fallacious argument.
But "If there is First Cause, then argument A is not fallacious; but
argument A is fallacious, therefore, there is not First Cause" would
be a case in which the fallaciousness of an argument implies that
there is not first cause. If argument A is fallacious, that is.
Which sort of argument is Russell's?
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 08:05:20 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
Pitt wrote:
<...>
For instance, God is alleged to have created the universe, a feat humans
know is impossible for any entity to have done, as Russell explains.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
I have read it (many times) - it doesnt say that that it is impossible.
It says that the argument FOR the necessity of a first cause fails. I
agree with him.
If I have a FALSE argument that the earth is a spheroid - the failure
of my argument doesnt prevent the earth from actually being a spheroid.
A FALSE statement neither implies its conclusion nor the negation of
its conclusion.
(See a truth table for "implies" )
<...>
Hmmm... This might depend on *how* the First Cause argument fails.
Certainly, there can be fallacious arguments for First Cause. "Pitt
denies there is a First Cause; Pitt is always wrong; therefore, there
is a First Cause" is an (arguably;-)) fallacious argument.
This argument looks valid to me!
The premise "Pitt is always wrong" has never been observed to fail -
but it is possible an exception could invalidate it.
8-)
But "If there is First Cause, then argument A is not fallacious; but
argument A is fallacious, therefore, there is not First Cause" would
be a case in which the fallaciousness of an argument implies that
there is not first cause. If argument A is fallacious, that is.
This is a named fallacy - I forget the name for the moment but its the
one about reversing the implication (ie treating "implies" as "if and
only if")
Which sort of argument is Russell's?
I think his point (not really an argument more a statement of fact) is
that "the argument fails" NOT that "the argument fails THEREFORE..."
which is Pitts reading of it.
The failure is special pleading where God is grated an exception to the
premise "everything has a cause" with no other reason than to make the
argument work.
It is a disguised version of assuming your conclusion - or circular
argument.
The Cosmological argument is more sophisticated in the lengths it goes
to to hide the circularity/special pleading.
A good summary for me is
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail" is a statement of fact.
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail THEREFORE God doesnt
exist" is a invalid argument.
Russell is much too clever to make the invalid argument and Pitts claim
that Russell is stupid enough to be making such an argument is absurd.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
25 May 2006 11:49:09 PM |
|
|
said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Richo" < > said:
Pitt wrote:
<...>
For instance, God is alleged to have created the universe, a feat humans
know is impossible for any entity to have done, as Russell explains.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
I have read it (many times) - it doesnt say that that it is impossible.
It says that the argument FOR the necessity of a first cause fails. I
agree with him.
If I have a FALSE argument that the earth is a spheroid - the failure
of my argument doesnt prevent the earth from actually being a spheroid.
A FALSE statement neither implies its conclusion nor the negation of
its conclusion.
(See a truth table for "implies" )
<...>
Hmmm... This might depend on *how* the First Cause argument fails.
Certainly, there can be fallacious arguments for First Cause. "Pitt
denies there is a First Cause; Pitt is always wrong; therefore, there
is a First Cause" is an (arguably;-)) fallacious argument.
This argument looks valid to me!
The premise "Pitt is always wrong" has never been observed to fail -
but it is possible an exception could invalidate it.
8-)
But "If there is First Cause, then argument A is not fallacious; but
argument A is fallacious, therefore, there is not First Cause" would
be a case in which the fallaciousness of an argument implies that
there is not first cause. If argument A is fallacious, that is.
This is a named fallacy - I forget the name for the moment but its the
one about reversing the implication (ie treating "implies" as "if and
only if")
Which sort of argument is Russell's?
I think his point (not really an argument more a statement of fact) is
that "the argument fails" NOT that "the argument fails THEREFORE..."
which is Pitts reading of it.
The failure is special pleading where God is grated an exception to the
premise "everything has a cause" with no other reason than to make the
argument work.
It is a disguised version of assuming your conclusion - or circular
argument.
The Cosmological argument is more sophisticated in the lengths it goes
to to hide the circularity/special pleading.
A good summary for me is
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail" is a statement of fact.
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail THEREFORE God doesnt
exist" is a invalid argument.
Russell is much too clever to make the invalid argument and Pitts claim
that Russell is stupid enough to be making such an argument is absurd.
If all *possible* attempts to argue proposition P fail, why should
that not be taken as adequate proof that ~P? (Not that I give any
credence to Pitt.) It seems that if one can show that all possible
attempts to show P fail, that is tantamount to showing ~P. But if P is
defined as "true but undisprovable"... so I'm not sure.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 May 2006 08:43:08 AM |
|
|
In article <br1d72939nup8rr0iros3tv8vd2fa7nuda@4ax.com>,
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
Pitt wrote:
<...>
For instance, God is alleged to have created the universe, a feat humans
know is impossible for any entity to have done, as Russell explains.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
I have read it (many times) - it doesnt say that that it is impossible.
It says that the argument FOR the necessity of a first cause fails. I
agree with him.
If I have a FALSE argument that the earth is a spheroid - the failure
of my argument doesnt prevent the earth from actually being a spheroid.
A FALSE statement neither implies its conclusion nor the negation of
its conclusion.
(See a truth table for "implies" )
<...>
Hmmm... This might depend on *how* the First Cause argument fails.
Certainly, there can be fallacious arguments for First Cause. "Pitt
denies there is a First Cause; Pitt is always wrong; therefore, there
is a First Cause" is an (arguably;-)) fallacious argument.
This argument looks valid to me!
The premise "Pitt is always wrong" has never been observed to fail -
but it is possible an exception could invalidate it.
8-)
But "If there is First Cause, then argument A is not fallacious; but
argument A is fallacious, therefore, there is not First Cause" would
be a case in which the fallaciousness of an argument implies that
there is not first cause. If argument A is fallacious, that is.
This is a named fallacy - I forget the name for the moment but its the
one about reversing the implication (ie treating "implies" as "if and
only if")
Which sort of argument is Russell's?
I think his point (not really an argument more a statement of fact) is
that "the argument fails" NOT that "the argument fails THEREFORE..."
which is Pitts reading of it.
The failure is special pleading where God is grated an exception to the
premise "everything has a cause" with no other reason than to make the
argument work.
It is a disguised version of assuming your conclusion - or circular
argument.
I don't think it attains the "level" of being a begging of the question
since no premise assumes the conclusion, but, to my thinking, it
certainly does quickly bring to mind the question, why is God the only
exception? For example, why can't the universe as an aggregate whole
also be an exception? Unless one can somehow prove by further argument
that God is the only possibly exception, the argument pretty much goes
nowhere - except if one just assumes it to be true that God is the only
exception. Of course, one can prove anything (except logical
contradictions) by choosing to accept that certain premises are true, so
the rubber really meets the road in providing convincing arguments for
disputed premises. I don't see how a theist could provide a cogent
argument that God is the only exception to the supposed "rule" that
everything has a cause.
The Cosmological argument is more sophisticated in the lengths it goes
to to hide the circularity/special pleading.
A good summary for me is
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail" is a statement of fact.
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail THEREFORE God doesnt
exist" is a invalid argument.
Russell is much too clever to make the invalid argument and Pitts claim
that Russell is stupid enough to be making such an argument is absurd.
If all *possible* attempts to argue proposition P fail, why should
that not be taken as adequate proof that ~P?
I think Mark's statement, "'All attempts to argue God into existence
fail" is a statement of fact", needs a slight modification" "All
attempts to argue God into existence have failed" is a statement of fact.
To accomplish the goal of showing that all possible arguments of a type
fail, wouldn't one have to demonstrate that it is inherent in all such
arguments that they lead to a logical contradiction (absurdity)? It's
hard to imagine the nature of such a demonstration with respect to
arguments for the existence of God - especially since "God" is such an
amorphous concept.
(Not that I give any
credence to Pitt.) It seems that if one can show that all possible
attempts to show P fail, that is tantamount to showing ~P. But if P is
defined as "true but undisprovable"... so I'm not sure.
--- Jim07D6
What are some examples of (possibly) true but undisprovable notions?
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 May 2006 10:29:47 AM |
|
|
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said:
In article <br1d72939nup8rr0iros3tv8vd2fa7nuda@4ax.com>,
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au said:
Jim07D6 wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> said:
Pitt wrote:
<...>
For instance, God is alleged to have created the universe, a feat humans
know is impossible for any entity to have done, as Russell explains.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
I have read it (many times) - it doesnt say that that it is impossible.
It says that the argument FOR the necessity of a first cause fails. I
agree with him.
If I have a FALSE argument that the earth is a spheroid - the failure
of my argument doesnt prevent the earth from actually being a spheroid.
A FALSE statement neither implies its conclusion nor the negation of
its conclusion.
(See a truth table for "implies" )
<...>
Hmmm... This might depend on *how* the First Cause argument fails.
Certainly, there can be fallacious arguments for First Cause. "Pitt
denies there is a First Cause; Pitt is always wrong; therefore, there
is a First Cause" is an (arguably;-)) fallacious argument.
This argument looks valid to me!
The premise "Pitt is always wrong" has never been observed to fail -
but it is possible an exception could invalidate it.
8-)
But "If there is First Cause, then argument A is not fallacious; but
argument A is fallacious, therefore, there is not First Cause" would
be a case in which the fallaciousness of an argument implies that
there is not first cause. If argument A is fallacious, that is.
This is a named fallacy - I forget the name for the moment but its the
one about reversing the implication (ie treating "implies" as "if and
only if")
Which sort of argument is Russell's?
I think his point (not really an argument more a statement of fact) is
that "the argument fails" NOT that "the argument fails THEREFORE..."
which is Pitts reading of it.
The failure is special pleading where God is grated an exception to the
premise "everything has a cause" with no other reason than to make the
argument work.
It is a disguised version of assuming your conclusion - or circular
argument.
I don't think it attains the "level" of being a begging of the question
since no premise assumes the conclusion, but, to my thinking, it
certainly does quickly bring to mind the question, why is God the only
exception? For example, why can't the universe as an aggregate whole
also be an exception? Unless one can somehow prove by further argument
that God is the only possibly exception, the argument pretty much goes
nowhere - except if one just assumes it to be true that God is the only
exception. Of course, one can prove anything (except logical
contradictions) by choosing to accept that certain premises are true, so
the rubber really meets the road in providing convincing arguments for
disputed premises. I don't see how a theist could provide a cogent
argument that God is the only exception to the supposed "rule" that
everything has a cause.
The Cosmological argument is more sophisticated in the lengths it goes
to to hide the circularity/special pleading.
A good summary for me is
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail" is a statement of fact.
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail THEREFORE God doesnt
exist" is a invalid argument.
Russell is much too clever to make the invalid argument and Pitts claim
that Russell is stupid enough to be making such an argument is absurd.
If all *possible* attempts to argue proposition P fail, why should
that not be taken as adequate proof that ~P?
I think Mark's statement, "'All attempts to argue God into existence
fail" is a statement of fact", needs a slight modification" "All
attempts to argue God into existence have failed" is a statement of fact.
To accomplish the goal of showing that all possible arguments of a type
fail, wouldn't one have to demonstrate that it is inherent in all such
arguments that they lead to a logical contradiction (absurdity)? It's
hard to imagine the nature of such a demonstration with respect to
arguments for the existence of God - especially since "God" is such an
amorphous concept.
It could also be shown that they contain a falsehood, contain an
equivocation, etc.
(Not that I give any
credence to Pitt.) It seems that if one can show that all possible
attempts to show P fail, that is tantamount to showing ~P. But if P is
defined as "true but undisprovable"... so I'm not sure.
--- Jim07D6
What are some examples of (possibly) true but undisprovable notions?
I have read that there are such conjectures in math, wherein the
conjecture can be *shown* to be both unprovable and undisprovable. I
will do a bit of searching.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
26 May 2006 09:42:58 PM |
|
|
In article <5i7e72pb2d7cl92kpolrhv9nlnm5e3ha0j@4ax.com>,
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said:
The Cosmological argument is more sophisticated in the lengths it goes
to to hide the circularity/special pleading.
A good summary for me is
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail" is a statement of fact.
"All attempts to argue God into existence fail THEREFORE God doesnt
exist" is a invalid argument.
Russell is much too clever to make the invalid argument and Pitts claim
that Russell is stupid enough to be making such an argument is absurd.
If all *possible* attempts to argue proposition P fail, why should
that not be taken as adequate proof that ~P?
I think Mark's statement, "'All attempts to argue God into existence
fail" is a statement of fact", needs a slight modification" "All
attempts to argue God into existence have failed" is a statement of fact.
To accomplish the goal of showing that all possible arguments of a type
fail, wouldn't one have to demonstrate that it is inherent in all such
arguments that they lead to a logical contradiction (absurdity)? It's
hard to imagine the nature of such a demonstration with respect to
arguments for the existence of God - especially since "God" is such an
amorphous concept.
It could also be shown that they contain a falsehood, contain an
equivocation, etc.
Oh yeah, I should have realized that. It's probably pretty much a moot
point, though, I suppose. It doesn't seem likely that anyone would be
able to construct any conclusive argument, based on any of those
problems, that all possible "God exists" arguments are doomed to
failure.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 May 2006 10:10:03 AM |
|
|
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said:
In article <5i7e72pb2d7cl92kpolrhv9nlnm5e3ha0j@4ax.com>,
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said:
<...>
To accomplish the goal of showing that all possible arguments of a type
fail, wouldn't one have to demonstrate that it is inherent in all such
arguments that they lead to a logical contradiction (absurdity)? It's
hard to imagine the nature of such a demonstration with respect to
arguments for the existence of God - especially since "God" is such an
amorphous concept.
It could also be shown that they contain a falsehood, contain an
equivocation, etc.
Oh yeah, I should have realized that. It's probably pretty much a moot
point, though, I suppose. It doesn't seem likely that anyone would be
able to construct any conclusive argument, based on any of those
problems, that all possible "God exists" arguments are doomed to
failure.
Well, at the very least, the definition of "God" and "exists" need
elaboration. We could rather easily define these words such that "God
exists" entails logical contradiction, and vast hordes of things
called God would be denied entry to the realm of existent things. But
for the proof to be of theological interest, the definitions have to
match how those words are used by at least some in the theistic
community. A theist might simply say, "That's not what I mean by "God"
and/or by "exists"". Then you have to try to get them pinned down on
what they do mean. That's not easy.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: Making God Impossible by Definition |
27 May 2006 07:32:28 PM |
|
|
In article <h8qg721n65d1peqeha84hq5enfbl9pmra9@4ax.com>,
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said:
In article <5i7e72pb2d7cl92kpolrhv9nlnm5e3ha0j@4ax.com>,
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said:
<...>
To accomplish the goal of showing that all possible arguments of a type
fail, wouldn't one have to demonstrate that it is inherent in all such
arguments that they lead to a logical contradiction (absurdity)? It's
hard to imagine the nature of such a demonstration with respect to
arguments for the existence of God - especially since "God" is such an
amorphous concept.
It could also be shown that they contain a falsehood, contain an
equivocation, etc.
Oh yeah, I should have realized that. It's probably pretty much a moot
point, though, I suppose. It doesn't seem likely that anyone would be
able to construct any conclusive argument, based on any of those
problems, that all possible "God exists" arguments are doomed to
failure.
Well, at the very least, the definition of "God" and "exists" need
elaboration. We could rather easily define these words such that "God
exists" entails logical contradiction, and vast hordes of things
called God would be denied entry to the realm of existent things. But
for the proof to be of theological interest, the definitions have to
match how those words are used by at least some in the theistic
community. A theist might simply say, "That's not what I mean by "God"
and/or by "exists"". Then you have to try to get them pinned down on
what they do mean. That's not easy.
--- Jim07D6
It would seem so.
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
