Omnipotence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

He never will. I’m pretty much of the view that trying to talk logic with Vlad is akin to Scott Weitzenhoffer’s comment about debating with creationists:

“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

Vlad’s “contribution” here is nihilistic: it consists entirely of lies, misrepresentations, avoidance, ignoring every correction and falsification followed by the repetition of them, re-definitions of terms to suit his purpose and, to crown it all, accusing people who do none of these things of doing them. He’s utterly shameless.

I'm not talking about evolution. So another category ballsup Johnny.
You are the one's redefining terms.
If you think SU reasonable then i'm afraid you are negating a career spanning years
of arguing against it's central argument an intelligent creator who creates a universe and is independent of it. Which is the central argument of deism at least.

Also in the words of the song:
Weitzenhoffer?, Weitzenhoffer? who the fuck is Weitzenhoffer?

I don't know about outside this universe but I think the evidence is that not many intelligent or creative people can be looking in on the microcosm of religionethics.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not talking about evolution. So another category ballsup Johnny.
You are the one's redefining terms.
If you think SU reasonable then i'm afraid you are negating a career spanning years
of arguing against it's central argument an intelligent creator who creates a universe and is independent of it. Which is the central argument of deism at least.

Also in the words of the song:
Weitzenhoffer?, Weitzenhoffer? who the fuck is Weitzenhoffer?

I don't know about outside this universe but I think the evidence is that not many intelligent or creative people can be looking in on the microcosm of religionethics.

What do you get out of turning up at a message board to tell lies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah Scott D Weitzenhoffer. He argues for evolution. He has chosen wisely....
    S.T. Ranger He argues that the religious have not argued for an intelligent designer or that atheists have argued against it. He has chosen foolishly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's getting heavily personal and hanging around to act as a spittoon for certain folks is not obligatory.

M'off.

Have a nice day y'all.

[Sebastian Toe]

M'off.

Indefinitely?

[Stranger]

I think in set theory, it's saying that a sub-set is not normally equivalent to its superset, but correct me if I'm wrong, folks.

Yes, in general a subset is not the same as its superset, although the subsets of a set are taken to include the set itself - and the empty set - it makes a lot of stuff more straightforward and (for the same reason) leads to the neat conclusion that a set of N elements has 2^N subsets.

But I digress (although, I would argue that that is somewhat more interesting than anything Vlad is saying at the moment).

[SteveH]

I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.
I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention. Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do. If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.
Now go to hell.

I'm not specially pleading, either: I defined omnipotence as "able to do anything that can be done", which is simply the definition of it.

[SteveH]

I'm going to go through all your posts from now on with a fine tooth comb, and if I ever find a fallacy in any of them, I am going to publish it in giant, red, capital letters on every single thread. Well, maybe not, because the mods'd be a bit cross, but I'm watching, all the same.

[floo]

I'm going to go through all your posts from now on with a fine tooth comb, and if I ever find a fallacy in any of them, I am going to publish it in giant, red, capital letters on every single thread. Well, maybe not, because the mods'd be a bit cross, but I'm watching, all the same.

Sad you haven't anything better to do?

[bluehillside Retd.]

L’Eau,

I'm not specially pleading, either: I defined omnipotence as "able to do anything that can be done", which is simply the definition of it.

Yes you are and no it isn’t. “Omnipotence” is actually defined as “the quality of having unlimited power”. If you want to try the “anything that can be done” line then the question is, “that can be done by whom?” I can lift the cup of tea in front of me, but I can’t pick up my car. Thus for me “anything that can be done” excludes car lifting. Does that mean that I too am theoretically omnipotent nonetheless?

If you want to posit an omnipotent god, “anything that can be done” means anything at all. Suggesting that your god is omnipotent but, say, couldn’t have pushed back the Boxing Day tsunami because that was a really, really big wave so was beyond “His” capabilities is special pleading. It’s also arbitrary by the way – how would you propose to distinguish between the stuff that god can do and the stuff that’s a bit too hard for him?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

L’Eau

I'm going to go through all your posts from now on with a fine tooth comb, and if I ever find a fallacy in any of them, I am going to publish it in giant, red, capital letters on every single thread. Well, maybe not, because the mods'd be a bit cross, but I'm watching, all the same.

It’s “fine-tooth comb” and that’s a bit creepy, but by all means give it a go. In the event that you do manage to find one though, then the decent thing for me to do would be either to withdraw it or to counter-argue (for example by explaining why it’s not a fallacy at all, as I did recently here in respect of Vlad’s misunderstanding of the ad hom).

Do you agree that that would be the decent thing to do?

Good. Then perhaps you’d extend to me the same courtesy when the arguments you attempt are falsified rather than just ignore the problem. Here for example a while back I explained:

“Second, it’s wrong in any case. As I explained to you (but you just ignored) you could have re-defined any of the other omnis and equally created a space for “evil”. Look, I’ll show you:

1. “Omniscience is only theoretical, therefore there stuff god doesn’t know in practice which is where evil can hide.”

2. “Omnipresence is only theoretical, therefore there are places god can’t access in practice which is where evil can hide.”

3. “Omnibenevolence is only theoretical, therefore there are bad things god doesn’t care about in practice which is where evil can hide.”

See? It “works” regardless of which one you arbitrarily pick.”

"Actually yes it is (if some “eminent theologians” like it, so what?) and it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam too – (yet) another fallacy"

Rather than spit the dummy, why not engage with the argument? If you think I'm wrong, tell us why you think that.

[wigginhall]

I'm afraid it does since Creator God or gods is a label or name for intelligent creators of universes etc. In other words the argument is the same for SU's and creator gods. Not to refer to a club promoted to a premier league club as a premier league club because it was in the first division last season is an analogy for what you are trying to say.

I believed I referenced Stranger to the article on creator gods. He seems to think that some strange how they are not referring to an intelligent creator who creates a universe but is not part of it/independent of it.

The argument is therefore Mammals are mammals.

Well, you seem to be saying that advanced aliens who can build universes qualify as gods.   Does this mean that you envisage multiple gods scattered around, all building universes, which may themselves contain gods, also building universes?  This is an exciting addition to theology, I say, and polytheism is due its day in the sun.   

[SteveH]

L’Eau

It’s “fine-tooth comb” and that’s a bit creepy, but by all means give it a go. In the event that you do manage to find one though, then the decent thing for me to do would be either to withdraw it or to counter-argue (for example by explaining why it’s not a fallacy at all, as I did recently here in respect of Vlad’s misunderstanding of the ad hom).

Do you agree that that would be the decent thing to do?

Good. Then perhaps you’d extend to me the same courtesy when the arguments you attempt are falsified rather than just ignore the problem. Here for example a while back I explained:

“Second, it’s wrong in any case. As I explained to you (but you just ignored) you could have re-defined any of the other omnis and equally created a space for “evil”. Look, I’ll show you:

1. “Omniscience is only theoretical, therefore there stuff god doesn’t know in practice which is where evil can hide.”

2. “Omnipresence is only theoretical, therefore there are places god can’t access in practice which is where evil can hide.”

3. “Omnibenevolence is only theoretical, therefore there are bad things god doesn’t care about in practice which is where evil can hide.”

See? It “works” regardless of which one you arbitrarily pick.”

"Actually yes it is (if some “eminent theologians” like it, so what?) and it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam too – (yet) another fallacy"

Rather than spit the dummy, why not engage with the argument? If you think I'm wrong, tell us why you think that.

I've answered all that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, you seem to be saying that advanced aliens who can build universes qualify as gods.   Does this mean that you envisage multiple gods scattered around, all building universes, which may themselves contain gods, also building universes?  This is an exciting addition to theology, I say, and polytheism is due its day in the sun.

I can't add much to that.

[SteveH]

I've answered all that.

And another thing: God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here.

[Stranger]

I believed I referenced Stranger to the article on creator gods. He seems to think that some strange how they are not referring to an intelligent creator who creates a universe but is not part of it/independent of it.

Not sure why I'm bothering but this is a blatant misrepresentation of my position.

I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes - but as several people have pointed out, that doesn't mean that all intelligent creators of universes are gods (cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats). You have still not supplied a single source that says that universe creation alone qualifies an entity or entities for godhood.

You seem (in other posts) to be suggesting that 'gods' is just another term for intelligent creators of universes but (quite apart from you being unable to back it up with a reference) that is obvious nonsense because some gods aren't universe creators (as wiggs has pointed out).

You seem terribly confused.

PS: And you still haven't answered my question about what sort of universe one needs to create in order to qualify for godhood in your bizarre cult.

[floo]

And another thing: God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here.

Past, present and future could be on a circular timeline, and each of us plays out part on our particular area of the circle. 

[Stranger]

And another thing: God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here.

Had to laugh at "irreducibly free actions of agents" - how do they work?

Either reality (including minds) is deterministic or it isn't and those aspects that are not determined must be random because random means not determined by anything (as has been extensively discussed on the "Searching for GOD..." topic).

Free will in the sense that most people think of it and in the way you seem to be using the idea, is logically incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure why I'm bothering but this is a blatant misrepresentation of my position.

I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes - but as several people have pointed out, that doesn't mean that all intelligent creators of universes are gods (cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats). You have still not supplied a single source that says that universe creation alone qualifies an entity or entities for godhood.

You seem (in other posts) to be suggesting that 'gods' is just another term for intelligent creators of universes but (quite apart from you being unable to back it up with a reference) that is obvious nonsense because some gods aren't universe creators (as wiggs has pointed out).

You seem terribly confused.

PS: And you still haven't answered my question about what sort of universe one needs to create in order to qualify for godhood in your bizarre cult.

Your analogy of mouse killing was poor. First of all SU merely proposes a mouse killer. Somehow your analogy manages to conjure up a cat and mousetrap. SU does not afford that luxury because cats and mouse traps are subject to science. We know for sure we have an option there.

Secondly theism has got their first and labelled the intelligent creator. That you seem to think the idea of an intelligent creator isn't a central theme in religion shows how shockingly ignorant you are of theology. I think you've been influenced there by New Atheism.

You make a fair point by asking what constitutes a universe. Here we can go with Tyson who hazards basically that there is a high probability that this universe is simulated. So we could go with this universe as the model. Where the simulator seems to be separate and independent from it.
This is distinguished from simulations which are built inside and share materiality and physicality of a universe and are therefore part of the same universe as the simulator.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Past, present and future could be on a circular timeline, and each of us plays out part on our particular area of the circle.

How does a line contain an area?

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

I've answered all that.

No you haven't, at least not unless you think that telling someone to go to hell is an answer.

The offer to help you with a basic understanding of reason and logic stands by the way despite your behaviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

And another thing...

You can't have another thing when you don't have a prior thing.

... God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here.

If the universe is deterministic and causal, why couldn't this god of your calculate every possible future event in order to know precisely the future? Even as a practical matter, it would make the whole answering prayers schtick highly risky if he couldn't I'd have thought. Say for example that Hitler's mum had prayed for her baby to be cured from some life-threatening illness – unless this god knew the consequences how would he know whether acceding was a good idea or not?

"One baby vs six million Jews? Hmmm..."

[bluehillside Retd.]

L'Eau,

Just had a quick look at your link and found this:

...but ultimately the future includes irreducibly free actions of agents, which might defy odds and expectations

...so stopped reading there. He's really not a thinker this chap is he.

Coda: Just noticed that Stranger got to the same point. Sorry for the repetition.

[Stranger]

Your analogy of mouse killing was poor. First of all SU merely proposes a mouse killer. Somehow your analogy manages to conjure up a cat and mousetrap. SU does not afford that luxury because cats and mouse traps are subject to science. We know for sure we have an option there.

I wasn't referring to that analogy in the post you are ostensibly replying to, but to run with it anyway; even if you insist the SU only suggests a mouse killer (universe creator), then you are insisting that it's a cat (god).

In fact it's worse than that because SU proposes a naturalistic, technological civilization and theism proposes a supernatural being.

Secondly theism has got their first and labelled the intelligent creator. That you seem to think the idea of an intelligent creator isn't a central theme in religion shows how shockingly ignorant you are of theology. I think you've been influenced there by New Atheism.

Firstly, what part of "I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes" are you finding difficult? I've also never denied that an intelligent creator is a central theme in many religions.

Secondly, this isn't a kindergarten game - you can't bagsy a concept just because you arrived at it first. As I said before, medical cures for previously incurable diseases don't have to be described as supernatural because religions had stories of them being miraculously cured first.

Thirdly, you still haven't provided a single reference that says that all universe creators are gods rather than gods being universe creator.

Fourthly, you haven't addressed the point that gods and universe creators cannot mean the same thing because some gods aren't universe creators.

You make a fair point by asking what constitutes a universe. Here we can go with Tyson who hazards basically that there is a high probability that this universe is simulated.

The "high probability" is based on a set of assumptions and is anyway irrelevant to my question.

So we could go with this universe as the model. Where the simulator seems to be separate and independent from it.
This is distinguished from simulations which are built inside and share materiality and physicality of a universe and are therefore part of the same universe as the simulator.

Sorry but I can't make any sense of that. A simulation would have to run on something (a computer or something equivalent) and that something would have to be in the same universe as the simulator. The 'physicality' of the simulation would be, err... simulated.

My point was that humans already run (limited, partial^*) simulations of this universe and explore 'universes' based on simple rules - like the Game of Life that can actually contain self-replicators and Turing machines - despite it's simple rule set ('physicality' or 'basic physics', if you like).

PS: Please take your time a read the above think about the points before replying.

^* And if we are in a simulation, we can't be sure that it is a complete simulation of the/our universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

PS: Please take your time a read the above think about the points before replying.

Again, he never will. Never, ever, ever, ever...

Did I mention the "never ever" part?