Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

An interesting notion

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We've probably all heard of the "omnipotence paradox" and the "omniscience paradox"; you might have even heard of the "problem of Evil". However, I've just heard of something called the "omnibenevolence paradox" that is not quite the same as the problem of Evil.

It's more of a train of thought:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.
Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.
But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].
Therefore God is not all powerful.

A counter-argument is that God is incapable of doing evil things because it goes against his nature. But, if going against nature is a counter-argument, then I'm omnipotent, you're omnipotent, we're all omnipotent! If omnipotence is simply the ability to do everything that is within one's nature then we are all omnipotent.

But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good]."

How do we know that it is because he "cannot", and not that he "chooses not to"?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 11:26:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 3:43:06 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good]."

How do we know that it is because he "cannot", and not that he "chooses not to"?

Well, if he can, instead of cannot, that means it is possible for an all good being to do evil. However, an all good being necessarily always does good by essence of what it means to be all good. Thus, God cannot do evil, and this is logically necessary.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 11:30:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
We've probably all heard of the "omnipotence paradox" and the "omniscience paradox"; you might have even heard of the "problem of Evil". However, I've just heard of something called the "omnibenevolence paradox" that is not quite the same as the problem of Evil.

It's more of a train of thought:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.
Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.
But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].
Therefore God is not all powerful.

A counter-argument is that God is incapable of doing evil things because it goes against his nature. But, if going against nature is a counter-argument, then I'm omnipotent, you're omnipotent, we're all omnipotent! If omnipotence is simply the ability to do everything that is within one's nature then we are all omnipotent.

But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

I would rebut that by saying we can do everything within our nature, but we have a contingent nature which is dependent and chosen by God himself. God would have a necessary nature, and would not be contingent. Which seems to create the distinction between us and him required to avoid your dilemma.


Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 11:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bad argument. One can just say that god doing gratuitous evil is logically impossible, so it's within his omnipotence if he can't do it.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 11:44:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
We've probably all heard of the "omnipotence paradox" and the "omniscience paradox"; you might have even heard of the "problem of Evil". However, I've just heard of something called the "omnibenevolence paradox" that is not quite the same as the problem of Evil.

It's more of a train of thought:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.
Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.
But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].
Therefore God is not all powerful.

A counter-argument is that God is incapable of doing evil things because it goes against his nature.

Genocide is not evil?

But, if going against nature is a counter-argument, then I'm omnipotent, you're omnipotent, we're all omnipotent! If omnipotence is simply the ability to do everything that is within one's nature then we are all omnipotent.

Counter question: If you were omniscient and knew everything, how would you know you knew everything? How would you be able to measure that everything was known to you? How do you know there is even such a thing as an everything?

But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

One calls it omnipotent because it is word-magic. A simple way of dispelling all rational inquiry with unprovable wild claims and absolving one of the burden of proof.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:22:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 11:40:52 PM, Sargon wrote:
Bad argument. One can just say that god doing gratuitous evil is logically impossible, so it's within his omnipotence if he can't do it.

That was part of my point. It's only logically impossible because he is omnibenevolent and a limitation. Just like it's logically impossible for me to fly to another star (not the Sun) in 10 minutes. So does that make me omnipotent, because the opposite is just impossible, so my omnipotence is unhindered.

If I declare myself omnipotent, anything I cannot do I can just say is nomologically impossible and thus it doesn't go against my omnipotence.

I suppose this is where Rational's response kicks in, though.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:24:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 11:30:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
We've probably all heard of the "omnipotence paradox" and the "omniscience paradox"; you might have even heard of the "problem of Evil". However, I've just heard of something called the "omnibenevolence paradox" that is not quite the same as the problem of Evil.

It's more of a train of thought:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.
Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.
But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].
Therefore God is not all powerful.

A counter-argument is that God is incapable of doing evil things because it goes against his nature. But, if going against nature is a counter-argument, then I'm omnipotent, you're omnipotent, we're all omnipotent! If omnipotence is simply the ability to do everything that is within one's nature then we are all omnipotent.

But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

I would rebut that by saying we can do everything within our nature, but we have a contingent nature which is dependent and chosen by God himself. God would have a necessary nature, and would not be contingent. Which seems to create the distinction between us and him required to avoid your dilemma.

So you're saying that we are felled in our "omnipotence" by our contingency; but God isn't because he's necessary? Correct?



Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 3:26:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 11:44:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
We've probably all heard of the "omnipotence paradox" and the "omniscience paradox"; you might have even heard of the "problem of Evil". However, I've just heard of something called the "omnibenevolence paradox" that is not quite the same as the problem of Evil.

It's more of a train of thought:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.
Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.
But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].
Therefore God is not all powerful.

A counter-argument is that God is incapable of doing evil things because it goes against his nature.

Genocide is not evil?

I should hope we would all say yes with a ":O" face! However, by "evil" here; we mean gratuitous evil. i.e. Evil which is unnecessary.


But, if going against nature is a counter-argument, then I'm omnipotent, you're omnipotent, we're all omnipotent! If omnipotence is simply the ability to do everything that is within one's nature then we are all omnipotent.

Counter question: If you were omniscient and knew everything, how would you know you knew everything? How would you be able to measure that everything was known to you? How do you know there is even such a thing as an everything?

Don't know, good question. The theist answer would probably be "He just does by His nature".


But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

One calls it omnipotent because it is word-magic. A simple way of dispelling all rational inquiry with unprovable wild claims and absolving one of the burden of proof.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 7:15:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 11:26:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:43:06 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good]."

How do we know that it is because he "cannot", and not that he "chooses not to"?

Well, if he can, instead of cannot, that means it is possible for an all good being to do evil. However, an all good being necessarily always does good by essence of what it means to be all good. Thus, God cannot do evil, and this is logically necessary.

Does the Bible explicitly state that God is all good, or is it merely implied?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 9:21:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 3:26:57 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/2/2013 11:44:49 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
We've probably all heard of the "omnipotence paradox" and the "omniscience paradox"; you might have even heard of the "problem of Evil". However, I've just heard of something called the "omnibenevolence paradox" that is not quite the same as the problem of Evil.

It's more of a train of thought:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.
Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.
But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].
Therefore God is not all powerful.

A counter-argument is that God is incapable of doing evil things because it goes against his nature.

Genocide is not evil?

I should hope we would all say yes with a ":O" face! However, by "evil" here; we mean gratuitous evil. i.e. Evil which is unnecessary.

But is it necessary to commit Genocide just because something isn't working the way you intended it? Note: This is also evidence of God's infallibility. He created humans, he realised he'd made a mistake when it went wrong, tried to erase the mistake with an act of Genocide.

Don't know, good question. The theist answer would probably be "He just does by His nature".

That doesn't demonstrate that he knows everything nor demonstrate that there is an everything.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 3:09:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.

Logic being His Will, not something forced on Him as you imagine.

Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.

What is evil ? what you think is evil ?!

But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].

What He does is called Good, He is able to do anything , and whatever He does is called Good, (even things you subjectively regard upon as evil !)

Therefore God is not all powerful.

All premises are flawed and built upon fallacies.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 3:45:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 3:09:47 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.

Logic being His Will, not something forced on Him as you imagine.

Logic cannot be his will. Otherwise, things like the stone paradox have no meaning.


Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.

What is evil ? what you think is evil ?!

This is reductio ad absurdum reasoning.


But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].

What He does is called Good, He is able to do anything , and whatever He does is called Good, (even things you subjectively regard upon as evil !)

Exactly.


Therefore God is not all powerful.

All premises are flawed and built upon fallacies.

*sighs*
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 4:08:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 3:45:52 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/4/2013 3:09:47 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.

Logic being His Will, not something forced on Him as you imagine.

Logic cannot be his will. Otherwise, things like the stone paradox have no meaning.

The paradox is a fallacy ! it has no meaning, not applicable for God. For sure it cannot be logical. there is nothing He couldn't lift, and nothing he couldn't create except a thing he doesn't want to create.

The fallacy is inside the paradox expecting God to be (unable to lift what he creates ?! in order to be able to do anything, duh!

Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.

What is evil ? what you think is evil ?!

This is reductio ad absurdum reasoning.

You can't escape this easily sir, you have to develop here, if your argument is about good and evil, define these first.

But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].

What He does is called Good, He is able to do anything , and whatever He does is called Good, (even things you subjectively regard upon as evil !)

Exactly.


So "he cannot" is wrong, "He doesn't ' is true.

Therefore God is not all powerful.

All premises are flawed and built upon fallacies.


*sighs*

I join you for a sincere sigh!
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 4:13:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 4:08:27 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/4/2013 3:45:52 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/4/2013 3:09:47 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.

Logic being His Will, not something forced on Him as you imagine.

Logic cannot be his will. Otherwise, things like the stone paradox have no meaning.

The paradox is a fallacy ! it has no meaning, not applicable for God. For sure it cannot be logical. there is nothing He couldn't lift, and nothing he couldn't create except a thing he doesn't want to create.

The fallacy is inside the paradox expecting God to be (unable to lift what he creates ?! in order to be able to do anything, duh!

Name the fallacy. Can he create the stone or not? Yes or no?


Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.

What is evil ? what you think is evil ?!

This is reductio ad absurdum reasoning.

You can't escape this easily sir, you have to develop here, if your argument is about good and evil, define these first.

Good is something God does. Evil...not sure. Depends on your point of view.


But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].

What He does is called Good, He is able to do anything , and whatever He does is called Good, (even things you subjectively regard upon as evil !)

Exactly.


So "he cannot" is wrong, "He doesn't ' is true.

Ah, no. If God could do evil things then it goes against his great making properties. This is logically incoherent.


Therefore God is not all powerful.

All premises are flawed and built upon fallacies.


*sighs*

I join you for a sincere sigh!

Aha! :D
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 4:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 4:13:58 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/4/2013 4:08:27 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/4/2013 3:45:52 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 11/4/2013 3:09:47 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.

Logic being His Will, not something forced on Him as you imagine.

Logic cannot be his will. Otherwise, things like the stone paradox have no meaning.

The paradox is a fallacy ! it has no meaning, not applicable for God. For sure it cannot be logical. there is nothing He couldn't lift, and nothing he couldn't create except a thing he doesn't want to create.

The fallacy is inside the paradox expecting God to be (unable to lift what he creates ?! in order to be able to do anything, duh!

Name the fallacy. Can he create the stone or not? Yes or no?

N/A, The question is just wrong, a similar question would be you saying I can kill any animal , and me saying can you kill a dead ant!, you not being able to kill a dead ant doesn't mean you can't kill any animal. My question was a fallacy.



Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.

What is evil ? what you think is evil ?!

This is reductio ad absurdum reasoning.

You can't escape this easily sir, you have to develop here, if your argument is about good and evil, define these first.

Good is something God does. Evil...not sure. Depends on your point of view.

Good is whatever God does, called good by definition, that's for God only. Evil is what He labels as evil for his own self and decides to never do.



But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].

What He does is called Good, He is able to do anything , and whatever He does is called Good, (even things you subjectively regard upon as evil !)

Exactly.


So "he cannot" is wrong, "He doesn't ' is true.

Ah, no. If God could do evil things then it goes against his great making properties. This is logically incoherent.

Well what he does is called good things aren't labelled as good until he does them, and aren't labelled as evil until he labels them not because he can't, he's the one who decides he doesn't do certain things that he calls evil, not that he can't , he doesn't want to, his free will is his only limit, and this is not a limit but a choice.

He can, but he doesn't do.

Therefore God is not all powerful.

It really seems to me now that your definition of all powerful is also flawed..as if He got to do what He doesn't want to do in order to be all powerful ?

All premises are flawed and built upon fallacies.


*sighs*

I join you for a sincere sigh!

Aha! :D
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2013 10:37:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J

Using this idea, the argument can be reformed to make a similar argument without appealing to benevolence.

If God is omnipotent, he can only do that which is logically possible. Can God change his own omnipotence so he can do the logically impossible? No, because it's against his nature. Then we're all omnipotent.

They could say that God can't change his omnipotence, because it's logically impossible. But that's begging the question.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 2:04:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2013 10:37:35 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J

Using this idea, the argument can be reformed to make a similar argument without appealing to benevolence.

If God is omnipotent, he can only do that which is logically possible. Can God change his own omnipotence so he can do the logically impossible? No, because it's against his nature. Then we're all omnipotent.

They could say that God can't change his omnipotence, because it's logically impossible. But that's begging the question.

Logic is God's will, it's not forced upon Him like it's forced upon you.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 11:47:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 2:04:25 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/5/2013 10:37:35 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J

Using this idea, the argument can be reformed to make a similar argument without appealing to benevolence.

If God is omnipotent, he can only do that which is logically possible. Can God change his own omnipotence so he can do the logically impossible? No, because it's against his nature. Then we're all omnipotent.

They could say that God can't change his omnipotence, because it's logically impossible. But that's begging the question.

Logic is God's will, it's not forced upon Him like it's forced upon you.

So, if logic is decided by God, he can do logically impossible things?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 12:08:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 4:08:27 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
The paradox is a fallacy ! it has no meaning, not applicable for God. For sure it cannot be logical. there is nothing He couldn't lift, and nothing he couldn't create except a thing he doesn't want to create.

The fallacy is inside the paradox expecting God to be (unable to lift what he creates ?! in order to be able to do anything, duh!

The whole point is that if he can do anything then he can both create a stone he cannot lift and lift that stone. This is a logical impossibility due to the rule of non-contradiction. The problem for theists is that if god is not constrained by logic, he is unknowable and indescribable. If he is constrained by logic, he isn't truly able to do anything and then a lot of other atheist critiques kick in.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 1:51:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 11:47:35 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:04:25 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/5/2013 10:37:35 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J

Using this idea, the argument can be reformed to make a similar argument without appealing to benevolence.

If God is omnipotent, he can only do that which is logically possible. Can God change his own omnipotence so he can do the logically impossible? No, because it's against his nature. Then we're all omnipotent.

They could say that God can't change his omnipotence, because it's logically impossible. But that's begging the question.

Logic is God's will, it's not forced upon Him like it's forced upon you.

So, if logic is decided by God, he can do logically impossible things?

Logic is basically his will, Logic is the truth, and He is the truth, He is the origin of logic, if there was no God, there would be no logic.

But He could have made logic a different thing.

Where does Logic come from ?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 1:55:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 1:51:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/6/2013 11:47:35 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/6/2013 2:04:25 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/5/2013 10:37:35 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J

Using this idea, the argument can be reformed to make a similar argument without appealing to benevolence.

If God is omnipotent, he can only do that which is logically possible. Can God change his own omnipotence so he can do the logically impossible? No, because it's against his nature. Then we're all omnipotent.

They could say that God can't change his omnipotence, because it's logically impossible. But that's begging the question.

Logic is God's will, it's not forced upon Him like it's forced upon you.

So, if logic is decided by God, he can do logically impossible things?

Logic is basically his will, Logic is the truth, and He is the truth, He is the origin of logic, if there was no God, there would be no logic.

Is God under logic?

But He could have made logic a different thing.

So he could have made it possible for him to create a stone he can't lift?

Where does Logic come from ?

Logic comes from the very nature of something. Existence itself has logic in its nature. Existence is existence, nonexistence is nonexistence, they're not both at the same time, ect.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 1:57:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 12:08:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

The whole point is that if he can do anything then he can both create a stone he cannot lift and lift that stone. This is a logical impossibility due to the rule of non-contradiction. The problem for theists is that if god is not constrained by logic, he is unknowable and indescribable. If he is constrained by logic, he isn't truly able to do anything and then a lot of other atheist critiques kick in.

If logic constrained God he wouldn't be God, but He set Logic, and He is unknowable except through His messengers and through the universe, but one can still with reason know there is God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 1:59:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 1:57:52 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/6/2013 12:08:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

The whole point is that if he can do anything then he can both create a stone he cannot lift and lift that stone. This is a logical impossibility due to the rule of non-contradiction. The problem for theists is that if god is not constrained by logic, he is unknowable and indescribable. If he is constrained by logic, he isn't truly able to do anything and then a lot of other atheist critiques kick in.

If logic constrained God he wouldn't be God, but He set Logic, and He is unknowable except through His messengers and through the universe, but one can still with reason know there is God.

So, God could exist and not exist at the same time? That's the implications of God being able to violate logic. Can you create a painting that is not a painting? If logic can be violated, then you have no rational basis to argue, as logic presumes it cannot be violated.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 1:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Argument from Evil Square circles.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 2:00:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 1:57:52 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/6/2013 12:08:50 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

The whole point is that if he can do anything then he can both create a stone he cannot lift and lift that stone. This is a logical impossibility due to the rule of non-contradiction. The problem for theists is that if god is not constrained by logic, he is unknowable and indescribable. If he is constrained by logic, he isn't truly able to do anything and then a lot of other atheist critiques kick in.

If logic constrained God he wouldn't be God, but He set Logic, and He is unknowable except through His messengers and through the universe, but one can still with reason know there is God.

Also, you hold a very rare view. Most sophisticated theistic philosophers (like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga) believe that God can only do what is logically and metaphysically possible. This is the only sensible view of God. Because otherwise, you throw out logic all together if you say it can be violated.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 8:37:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 11:26:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:43:06 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
"But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good]."

How do we know that it is because he "cannot", and not that he "chooses not to"?

Well, if he can, instead of cannot, that means it is possible for an all good being to do evil. However, an all good being necessarily always does good by essence of what it means to be all good. Thus, God cannot do evil, and this is logically necessary.

OMG, people. "Omnipotent", "Omniscient", and "Omnibenevolent" are just WORDS! They are just powerful words used to attempt to describe an indescribable entity. The Bible consistently just uses the word "good" to describe God. I personally feel that the best way to describe God is "all-loving" and "all-forgiving". It doesn't matter how you describe him; it only matters if you truly believe in a love God from the bottom of your heart.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 10:02:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 12:50:54 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
We've probably all heard of the "omnipotence paradox" and the "omniscience paradox"; you might have even heard of the "problem of Evil". However, I've just heard of something called the "omnibenevolence paradox" that is not quite the same as the problem of Evil.

It's more of a train of thought:

God is all powerful and can do anything within logic.
Since God is all powerful he can do evil things.
But God cannot do evil things [because he is all good].
Therefore God is not all powerful.

A counter-argument is that God is incapable of doing evil things because it goes against his nature. But, if going against nature is a counter-argument, then I'm omnipotent, you're omnipotent, we're all omnipotent! If omnipotence is simply the ability to do everything that is within one's nature then we are all omnipotent.

But no one calls me omnipotent EXACTLY BECAUSE of my natural limitations. So which is it? You cannot have both. Can you still be omnipotent if you're limited to do things by your nature? If not, then God isn't omnipotent because he is limited by his nature to try and solve the paradox. If so, then why aren't I omnipotent? Am I omnipotent?

Just doodling and conveying. What're your thoughts?

Thanks,
J

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.