Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

No I don’t suppose we will. I reckon it’ll definitely be, you know, dire though. Oh, and consequential too. Yep, definitely consequential.
     

Of course there are no consequences of anything in this universe.

Aaargh........................ it's the invasion of the Simulated Universal Deist geriatric hippy ecoantitheists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course there are no consequences of anything in this universe.

Aaargh........................ it's the invasion of the Simulated Universal Deist geriatric hippy ecoantitheists.

That's two Scrabble sets you've dropped now - look, there are random groups of letters all over the place!

[SteveH]

HV,

Again? OK, I'll copy and paste it for you here:

There you go.

I suggested, you may recall, that "omnipotent" could be defined as "able to do everything that can be done", and then suggested that that may be less than we think, because matter is intrinsically intransigent and obdurate. Whatever "omnipotent" means, it doesn't mean "having unlimited power", since that is a logically incoherent idea. For starters, God can't perform logical contradictions, such as creating a square circle. God also can't, famously, create an object too heavy for God to lift, which isn't a logical contradiction. God also can't, presumably, swim, since God does not have a physical body.

[Walter]

Vlad,

That's two Scrabble sets you've dropped now - look, there are random groups of letters all over the place!

I've just dropped my scrabble set on the road !
Really, what's the word on the street?


Tim Vine

[Sebastian Toe]

I suggested, you may recall, that "omnipotent" could be defined as "able to do everything that can be done", and then suggested that that may be less than we think, because matter is intrinsically intransigent and obdurate. Whatever "omnipotent" means, it doesn't mean "having unlimited power", since that is a logically incoherent idea. For starters, God can't perform logical contradictions, such as creating a square circle. God also can't, famously, create an object too heavy for God to lift, which isn't a logical contradiction. God also can't, presumably, swim, since God does not have a physical body.

Walking on water?
Is that not a kind of swimming? The sole-stroke?

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

I suggested, you may recall, that "omnipotent" could be defined as "able to do everything that can be done", and then suggested that that may be less than we think, because matter is intrinsically intransigent and obdurate. Whatever "omnipotent" means, it doesn't mean "having unlimited power"…

Er, yes it does. Here for example:

“Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence...” (emphasis added).

(Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence)

…since that is a logically incoherent idea.

No it isn’t. It just means that there is no limit on the power the entity has.

For starters, God can't perform logical contradictions, such as creating a square circle. God also can't, famously, create an object too heavy for God to lift, which isn't a logical contradiction. God also can't, presumably, swim, since God does not have a physical body.

Ah, but here you’re conflating logical constructions that are incoherent (eg “four-sided triangles”) so aren't power apt with physical events that are coherent but, apparently, are a bit too difficult for your “God” to do (eg curing little Timmy of his rickets) and that are power apt.

In the latter case “He" wouldn't be omnipotent at all. 

And that’s your problem right there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's two Scrabble sets you've dropped now - look, there are random groups of letters all over the place!

Your'e looking at one of your own posts...........should have gone to Specsavers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your'e looking at one of your own posts...........should have gone to Specsavers.

But why given that they're coherent and cogent whereas your are, well, you know, gibberish?

Consider for example how many times you've fired up the random word generator today alone.

[Shaker]

I suggested, you may recall, that "omnipotent" could be defined as "able to do everything that can be done",

... which in knocking out the omni- bit isn't omnipotence. It's a-lot-of-potence-but-not-omnipotence.

Whatever "omnipotent" means, it doesn't mean "having unlimited power"

Actually it does. That's literally and exactly what it means.

since that is a logically incoherent idea. For starters, God can't perform logical contradictions, such as creating a square circle. God also can't, famously, create an object too heavy for God to lift, which isn't a logical contradiction.

Well done on identifying the obvious problem with omnipotence (and the reason why so many people have wasted so much time and brainroom doing mental calisthenics trying to make omnipotence mean 'not really omnipotence'. Much as you've just done, in fact).

God also can't, presumably, swim, since God does not have a physical body.

But could do - yes? (Indeed, presumably for some Christians God did have a physical body, albeit temporarily).

[ippy]

Well nothing has had the power to counteract it since atheism is merely the disbelief in Gods and that's it.
There are a number of definitions of secularism from what the NSS says and does to a secularist like myself who believes in a kind of amicable 1970's British secularity and I rather think you are trying to pass the former of as the latter.

As for what's on the side of the atheist bus........,

As you know Mr wind up man Vlad, why would anyone disbelieve in something that's not there to be believed in, in the first place; that would be even dafter than believing something when there's no evidence that could support the believing of the something, say believing in a religion, just for instance?

Although that saying on the bus makes sense, I'm sure that they could have come up with something better than that.

It's even worse than I thought, it appears you've been reading some of the output of the N S S, and still you haven't got the foggiest idea about secularism?

Kind regards ippy

[SteveH]

HV,

Er, yes it does. Here for example:

“Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence to only the deity of their faith. In the monotheistic philosophies of Abrahamic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence...” (emphasis added).

(Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence)

No it isn’t. It just means that there is no limit on the power the entity has.

Ah, but here you’re conflating logical constructions that are incoherent (eg “four-sided triangles”) so aren't power apt with physical events that are coherent but, apparently, are a bit too difficult for your “God” to do (eg curing little Timmy of his rickets) and that are power apt.

In the latter case “He" wouldn't be omnipotent at all. 

And that’s your problem right there.

I think I've explained myself well enough for anyone who isn't determined to misunderstand. As for "he", I deliberately, as I always do, avoided using any gendered pronoun for God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

I think I've explained myself well enough for anyone who isn't determined to misunderstand.

Doesn’t wash. Here are your options:

1. “Ah, now I see where I went wrong bluehillside. Thanks for explaining this – I’ll clearly have to re-think my position"; or

2. “I’ve read your rebuttal and think you’re mistaken, and here’s why…”

What you actually did though was to accuse me of dishonesty (“determined to misunderstand”) presumably to avoid rather than engage with your problem.

I suspect that the irony will be lost on you, but on balance where do you think any dishonesty here actually lies?

As for "he", I deliberately, as I always do, avoided using any gendered pronoun for God.

Irrelevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you know Mr wind up man Vlad, why would anyone disbelieve in something that's not there to be believed in, in the first place; that would be even dafter than believing something when there's no evidence that could support the believing of the something, say believing in a religion, just for instance?

Although that saying on the bus makes sense, I'm sure that they could have come up with something better than that.

Had they put there is no God such a claim would have had demands for justification.
This would have undermined the stealth aspect of Dawkins big antireligious project.

If one can say there is no God then they are perceiving the absence of something. Just like the absence of flying spaghetti monsters or Leprechauns.
What then is the God which is not there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Had they put there is no God such a claim would have had demands for justification.
This would have undermined the stealth aspect of Dawkins big antireligious project.

If one can say there is no God then they are perceiving the absence of something. Just like the absence of flying spaghetti monsters or Leprechauns.
What then is the God which is not there?

Leaving aside the paranoid fantasy stuff ("stealth aspect of Dawkins big antireligious project" eh? Woooooooo....), as ever you have it ass backwards. Atheism is merely the finding that the arguments some attempt for "God" are wrong. That's it. No more, no less. What those people mean by the term "God" when they try fallaciously to argue for it is a matter for them. 

[Walter]

Had they put there is no God such a claim would have had demands for justification.
This would have undermined the stealth aspect of Dawkins big antireligious project.

If one can say there is no God then they are perceiving the absence of something. Just like the absence of flying spaghetti monsters or Leprechauns.
What then is the God which is not there?

this is not the removal of something leaving a space, its never having the perception of that thing in the first place . There is no absence to be perceived .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Leaving aside the paranoid fantasy stuff ("stealth aspect of Dawkins big antireligious project" eh? Woooooooo....), as ever you have it ass backwards. Atheism is merely the finding that the arguments some attempt for "God" are wrong. That's it. No more, no less. What those people mean by the term "God" when they try fallaciously to argue for it is a matter for them.

That the New Atheism,and I take that thread from Dawkins TED mini biography, is a stealth religion is taken from the atheist biologist D Sloan Wilson who imho has done more leg work and more critical scholarship on the matter than a lot of other studies.

Let's suppose the atheist bus had said. Don't worry there is no God. The pressure to justify would have been tremendous and public........

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Leaving aside the paranoid fantasy stuff ("stealth aspect of Dawkins big antireligious project" eh? Woooooooo....), as ever you have it ass backwards. Atheism is merely the finding that the arguments some attempt for "God" are wrong. That's it. No more, no less. What those people mean by the term "God" when they try fallaciously to argue for it is a matter for them.

Funnily enough I recently read both Feser and Evolution News commenting on how some new atheists didn't properly understand theistic arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That the New Atheism,and I take that thread from Dawkins TED mini biography, is a stealth religion is taken from the atheist biologist D Sloan Wilson who imho has done more leg work and more critical scholarship on the matter than a lot of other studies.

Let's suppose the atheist bus had said. Don't worry there is no God. The pressure to justify would have been tremendous and public........

And irrelevant to your repeated mistake about what “atheism” means.

Why have you just ignored that again?

Funnily enough I recently read both Feser and Evolution News commenting on how some new atheists didn't properly understand theistic arguments.

Relevance?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And irrelevant to your repeated mistake abut what “atheism” means.

Why have you just ignored that again?

Relevance?

No you and others have criticised me self and others for using the title New Atheist or talking about the New Atheism and yet here we have TED using it. We are left wondering whether yet again something has appeared in print that the Doctor didn't want in there. In any case it rather undoes your argument about the use of the phrase..........as NDGTyson undid your argument about the impossibility of justifying talking about an outside of the universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No you and others have criticised me self and others for using the title New Atheist or talking about the New Atheism and yet here we have TED using it. We are left wondering whether yet again something has appeared in print that the Doctor didn't want in there. In any case it rather undoes your argument about the use of the phrase..........

Again, why have you just ignored your mistake about what the term 'atheism" means?

"New" atheism by the way (a term you regularly use when you actually mean "atheism", just as you often use "antitheist" when you mean "atheist") is just a term coined in the 2000s to describe the belief that religious privilege should actively be argued against. I happen to agree with that, but you can't just conflate the two whenever it suits.

...as NDGTyson undid your argument about the impossibility of justifying talking about an outside of the universe.

Again with the same lie? Why do you bother?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Again, why have you just ignored your mistake about what the term 'atheism" means?

"New" atheism by the way (a term you regularly use when you actually mean "atheism", just as you often use "antitheist" when you mean "atheist") is just a term coined in the 2000s to describe the belief that religious privilege should actively be argued against. I happen to agree with that, but you can't just conflate the two whenever it suits.

Again with the same lie? Why do you bother?

Let me put you straight when I use the words antitheist I mean antitheist and when I use the phrase New Atheist I mean New Atheist.

[Walter]

Let me put you straight when I use the words antitheist I mean antitheist and when I use the phrase New Atheist I mean New Atheist.

'andles, just to let you know. I am sick to death of your intellectual lying and outright blatant refusal to understand definitions .
I don't know why you do this but it certainly makes you look an absolute fool

ps I cleaned all that up before posting !!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Let me put you straight when I use the words antitheist I mean antitheist and when I use the phrase New Atheist I mean New Atheist.

Let me put you straight: no you don't.

[Gordon]

Let me put you straight when I use the words antitheist I mean antitheist and when I use the phrase New Atheist I mean New Atheist.

I take it, Vlad, you've resorted to channelling your inner Humpty Dumpty ('"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less").*

From 'Through the Looking-Glass'.

[SteveH]

HV,

Doesn’t wash. Here are your options:

1. “Ah, now I see where I went wrong bluehillside. Thanks for explaining this – I’ll clearly have to re-think my position"; or

2. “I’ve read your rebuttal and think you’re mistaken, and here’s why…”

What you actually did though was to accuse me of dishonesty (“determined to misunderstand”) presumably to avoid rather than engage with your problem.

Not consciously, therefore not dishonest.

Irrelevant.

Then why did you put "he" in inverted commas, implying I'd used the pronoun?