Omnipotence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's closer to it than materialism (your claim) but what you're actually thinking of is generally referred to a metaphysical naturalism (or a variant of it) - ie, the position that the natural is all there is. I have some sympathy for it because the alternative - "supernaturalism" - is incoherent, but on the ground that I suppose someone might one day come up with a cogent meaning for it I limit myself to materialism - ie, that the materialist model is the most reliable way to model the universe and thus to derive truths because that's all we have that's investigable and verifiable with intersubjective experience.

   

I'm not really happy with the term naturalism since it has evolved into merely an apparent reaction against spirits,ghosts ghoulies nonmaterial substances etc.

I think therefore terms like materialism and physicalism as positives rather than antis are more 'accurate'. They do have the problem though that there could be a physical creator of a universe but supernaturalism aversion smacks of Goddodging.

[Gordon]

Be still my beating heart...we might be actually be in sweet agreement.
let's see, I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?

That sounds awfully like the NPF getting its morning workout.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That sounds awfully like the NPF getting its morning workout.

Sounds like you've awoken from some dream.

We are arguing philosophically here. I don't think there is anything near an NPF here you strange and wonderful man.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

I pointed out that Sam the Cham was brainy and learned. I didn't draw any conclusions.

You implied them. Why else would you tell us, “As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum” (Reply 24) if not suggest that he was therefore right and the contributors here wrong to disagree?

The consequentialist fallacy is that of thinking that a belief which is pleasant or has good results is true, and one which is unpleasant or has bad results is false. I haven't committed that one, either. I pointed out that if we have no free will, we were pre4destined to believe what we believe, so how can we know that it's true? In other words, we may or may not have free-will, but if we haven't, we can never know it, or anything else. We all behave as though we can know things, so in practise we all believe in free-will.

No you didn’t. The construction of the argumentum ad consequentiam is, “if X is true, then consequence Y follows, therefore X can’t be true” as if “consequence Y” in some way reaches back into the truth or otherwise of “X”.

That’s what you did with, “We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals.” Punishing criminals being “unjustified” (which is isn’t by the way) tells you nothing about the nature of free will

Judgemental language? Where?

Here: “I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum” (Reply 24). You might think 2+2=4 to be “sterile, obsessive ratiocination” too, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Anyway, your thesis was that there is a God who’s omnipotent but that there are parts of the universe (human minds for example) that are ring fenced from that. My response is that, definitionally, this god can’t therefore be omnipotent at all then.

Any chance of addressing that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Be still my beating heart...we might be actually be in sweet agreement.

Only if you can now see that it wasn't "my idea" at all. My idea was the opposite of that.
 

let's see, I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?

No. It fails because you can't have the "omni" bit and at the same time a part of the universe where it doesn't apply. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Only if you can now see that it wasn't "my idea" at all. My idea was the opposite of that.
 
No. It fails because you can't have the "omni" bit and at the same time a part of the universe where it doesn't apply.

Rrrrright, So where in the Universe do you think it does not apply and How can you tell it isn't, er, applied there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not really happy with the term naturalism since it has evolved into merely an apparent reaction against spirits,ghosts ghoulies nonmaterial substances etc.

What you're not happy with is a matter for you. What you don't get to do though is to redefine words to mean something you're happier with in order to attack them.

I think therefore terms like materialism and physicalism as positives rather than antis are more 'accurate'. They do have the problem though that there could be a physical creator of a universe but supernaturalism aversion smacks of Goddodging.

First, you don't get to conflate "materialism" with "physicalism" as if they mean the same thing.

Second, if there's a physical creator of the universe then it's not "God" - or at least not the god of any religious faith I'm aware of. Scientology maybe?

Third, you've had the "Goddodging" nonsense falsified countless times - axiomatically you can't "dodge" something you have no good reason to think to be real in the first place.   

[SteveH]

The construction of the argumentum ad consequentiam is, “if X is true, then consequence Y follows, therefore X can’t be true” as if “consequence Y” in some way reaches back into the truth or otherwise of “X”.

That’s what you did with, “We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals.” Punishing criminals being “unjustified” (which is isn’t by the way) tells you nothing about the nature of free will

My point there was that we all behave in various ways as though we have free-will, whatever we believe in theory about it. I wasn't arguing for the reality of free-will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Rrrrright, So where in the Universe do you think it does not apply and How can you tell it isn't, er, applied there?

READ THE FREAKIN' OP!

ACCORDING TO HV it can't apply inside human minds because of "free" will.

I'm the one saying that, if he thinks it can't apply there, then the "omni" but fails necessarily.

Dear god man...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

READ THE FREAKIN' OP!

ACCORDING TO HV it can't apply inside human minds because of "free" will.

I'm the one saying that, if he thinks it can't apply there, then the "omni" but fails necessarily.

Dear god man...

Just checking....There are those atheists who say God can't be omnipotent because Man has free will.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First, you don't get to conflate "materialism" with "physicalism" as if they mean the same thing.

Oh dear the dictatorial tone. Go on then what's the difference?

Second, if there's a physical creator of the universe then it's not "God" - or at least not the god of any religious faith I'm aware of. Scientology maybe?
 

That is a religion.
[/quote]

First, you don't get to conflate "materialism" with "physicalism" as if they mean the same thing.

Oh dear the dictatorial tone. Go on then what's the difference?

Second, if there's a physical creator of the universe then it's not "God" - or at least not the god of any religious faith I'm aware of. Scientology maybe?
 

That is a religion.

[SteveH]

God is omnipotent in theory, but in practice has voluntarily limited it by giving us free-will. It's not that difficult to understand, so British Home Stores' angry capital letters and general sarcasm are just making him look foolish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Third, you've had the "Goddodging" nonsense falsified countless times - axiomatically you can't "dodge" something you have no good reason to think to be real in the first place.

You have to show you have no good reason and as far as I am aware it has not been done.
On the other hand evasive behaviour caused by controlled references to the word God is observable as in, say, a phobia.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God is omnipotent in theory, but in practice has voluntarily limited it by giving us free-will. It's not that difficult to understand, so British Home Stores' angry capital letters and general sarcasm are just making him look foolish.

I see where you are coming from but a case can be made that giving us free will does not violate his omnipotence.
I believe Blue Hillside to be in a bit of trouble vis a vis his usual methodology since Wikipedia gives six definitions of Omnipotence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

My point there was that we all behave in various ways as though we have free-will, whatever we believe in theory about it. I wasn't arguing for the reality of free-will.

If that was intended to be your point framing it as an argumentum ad consequentiam didn't make it. Behaving as if the "free" of "free will" is actually free though is a commonplace - Johnson's error was thinking that "as if" and "is" are the same thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh dear the dictatorial tone. Go on then what's the difference?

Look it up for yourself.

That is a religion.

Try reading what I said.

[floo]

I think the word is impotent rather than omnipotence, one is looking for in connection with god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the word is impotent rather than omnipotence, one is looking for in connection with god.

You've spelt the word important incorrectly.

[Gordon]

Sounds like you've awoken from some dream.

We are arguing philosophically here. I don't think there is anything near an NPF here you strange and wonderful man.

So when you say ' I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?' what exactly do you mean?

[bluehillside Retd.]

A L"Eau,

God is omnipotent in theory, but in practice has voluntarily limited it by giving us free-will.

Then he's not omnipotent at all. You can have omnipotent and unlimited, or you can have not omnipotent and limited. You can't have both though, whether or not you qualify the omnoptence with "in theory". The "in theory" collapses as so as you limit the omnipotence.

It's not that difficult to understand...

Yes it is because it's incoherent.

...so British Home Stores' angry capital letters and general sarcasm are just making him look foolish.

They were used after telling Vlad several times that it was your argument, in reply to which he told me that it was my argument. What other approach would you suggest to get the point across?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You have to show you have no good reason and as far as I am aware it has not been done.

That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED   

On the other hand evasive behaviour caused by controlled references to the word God is observable as in, say, a phobia.

Is there a coherent thought in there somewhere?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I see where you are coming from but a case can be made that giving us free will does not violate his omnipotence.

Then make it.

I believe Blue Hillside to be in a bit of trouble vis a vis his usual methodology since Wikipedia gives six definitions of Omnipotence.[/quote

Then you believe wrongly. If L'eau intends a different meaning of "omnipotence" from the usual one, it's up to him to tell us what it is. So far at least though, it seems to be something like "omnipotent but not really omnipotent".   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED   

Is there a coherent thought in there somewhere?

There are no good reasons Hillside is a positive assertion.
I've never seen you or any one refute all the arguments for God! There have been a few turds produced by you and the posse and I've seen you back the basically theological iidea of a creator.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then make it.

I believe Blue Hillside to be in a bit of trouble vis a vis his usual methodology since Wikipedia gives six definitions of Omnipotence.[/quote

Then you believe wrongly. If L'eau intends a different meaning of "omnipotence" from the usual one, it's up to him to tell us what it is. So far at least though, it seems to be something like "omnipotent but not really omnipotent".

But there is no usual ONE Hillside.

[floo]

You've spelt the word important incorrectly.

HA! HA!