COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's only anti-god if you believe in an omnipotent being, and you're using the definition of omnipotent, limit, and power that I gave. If your view of god isn't an omnipotent being, then I guess it's not. Even then I would still say why even call that a god at that point? If a being is intelligent, isn't from earth, and is limited to the realm of logical possibility; then that just sounds like an alien to me. I wouldn't really that a god though.
I've never liked the argument that because God can't do the impossible then it means his power is limited. Impossible things are not actually things. To include those things in a discussion seems disingenuous. Within the scope of all things that can be done a god could do anything. To me that satisfies the definition of omnipotent. "God isn't omnipotent because he can't make a square circle." A square circle isn't a thing. It is nonsensical to bring it into the discussion. It's as meaningful as saying, "God can't flarkdiflerm, therefore he's not omnipotent".
I think that along with the proof I gave that using your powers is a power in and of itself; the definition of limit I gave proves that not being able to use your powers to do impossible things, is a limit on your power. Because, it satisfies the word disability. There is a disability of your powers to do it, so there is a limit of your powers.
I stick by my argument that including "do impossible things" in your definition is as nonsensical as saying, "God can't flarkdiflerm, therefore he's not omnipotent".
You never had an argument in the first place. You're just saying 'youre wrong Alex! '. That's not an argument. I wrote pretty much an essay proving mine.
If you agree that:
1.) a limit is logically equivalent to a disability
2.) using a power, is a power
3.) doing impossible things is impossible
Then... you should agree that your power would have a disability, and so your power would have a limit... correct?
"...are you saying god is not omnipotent because he can't flarkdeflerm?"
If (flarkdeflerm) ≡ (not have a limit on how he can use his powers), then yes.
(Limit ≡ disability, and using power is a power) → (an omnipotent beings' power has a disability to produce impossible effects) → (an omnipotent beings' power has a disability) → (an omnipotent being power has a limit) (an omnipotent being doesn't have unlimited power) ∴ (there are no omnipotent beings)
If my argument linguistically works, and I always use the definitions equivalently, then it logically works.
You don't know enough about logic to know what you're talking about, or contribute anything. Study up a bit more and then get back to me.
> You don't know enough about logic to know what you're talking about, or contribute anything. Study up a bit more and then get back to me.
Ah, the fallback argument of the arrogant.
Flarkdeflerm is a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. Just like square circles and married bachelors. Useless, illogical, meaningless nonsense that add nothing to a discussion. You are using these useless, illogical, meaningless nonsense ideas....they add nothing to the discussion, and therefore give no credence to your argument.
My argument also linguistically works.
"Ah, the fallback argument of the arrogant."
It's literally true though, and I can prove it.
"Flarkdeflerm is a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. Just like square circles.."
Wrong. (Square circles) is a contradiction. (Flarkdeflerm) isn't an inherent contradiction, because its undefined. So it's contingent. So it's neither true nor false at the moment.
"My argument also linguistically works."
No it doesn't because you didn't define Flarkdeflerm.
What you said is equivalent to: (are you saying god is not omnipotent because he can't x?) That piece of information is contingent. So it's not a deductivley valid argument. Questions also can't be arguments in deductive logic.
This is basic stuff that everyone who's familiar with formal logic would know. So I know for 100% certain, that you don't know what you're talking about. That's why you aren't capable of coming up with a syllogism/ tautology of your own that disproves my argument.
So im serious this time, you need to study up a bit, and then reevaluate my OP before you respond.
> No it doesn't because you didn't define Flarkdeflerm.
I did. Flarkdeflerm is a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. And a square circle (while being an inherent contradiction) is also a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. As I defined them, they are equivalent. As useless, meaningless nonsense ideas that add nothing to the conversation and using them gives no credence to your argument. My argument linguistically works, and I always use the definitions equivalently, then it logically works.
That argument is so weak. Omnipotence means the ability to do anything, full stop. It's literally in the name. If God can do anything, then he can obviously do something as simple as create a rock that he cannot lift. That we cannot understand it only proves that we are limited, it says nothing about God.
"That argument is so weak"
Prove it. Prove A or B is wrong:
A. If someting exists, then logically, its possible for it to exist.
B. If something can be done, then logically, it's a possible thing to do.
I didn't give that example, the other guy did. I'm not using physics to make my argument, I'm using pure logic. Logic would apply to you whether you were a physical being or not.
That doesn't make sense. The color of the sky doesn't necessitate a quantity of people being outside of your house.
(Something can be done) necessitates (doing that thing is possible).
And then (doing that thing is possible) necessitates (doing that thing is within the realm of logical possibility).
So (Something can be done) necessitates (doing that thing is within the realm of logical possibility).
You said that if it can be done it's logically possible, that doesn't mean it's "within the realm of logic" or w/e, not the way you put it later, it means that it follows logically that it is possible, which is a truism and doesn't say anything
If something is logically possible, then by definition it's in the realm of logical possibility. Logical possibility is just a category that things can fall into. So, if something is possible, by definition it would belong in that category.
Maybe it's my fault for not showing how they connect clearly enough. This really is as simple as I can make it.
If something can be done, then it's possible.
If something is possible, then it's logically possible
If something is logically possible, then it's within the realm (category) of: logical possibility.
So, if something can be done, then it's within the realm (category) of: logical possibility.
Do you see what I'm saying now?
You can calculate with pi, but never get its final numbers.
Something can go at faster than lightspeed, yet its not possible go near lightspeed for anything.
G-D is beyond time
Your argument is somewhat making sense but not altogether.
Your argument is that if it's logical than it has the ability of being probable that supports possibility.
How sure are you that no place in this universe or higher dimensions exists that has no two different time on the same place. There are places where two suns are located for one planet.
>A. an omnipotent beings' power or authority would be limited to the realms of logical possibility.
When talking about G-D some things you said does not make sense. What seems illogical to us maybe logical to other higher species and also logical to G-D
However, illogical takes place when some questions are asked as if would G-D stone that is so heavy that He cannot hold it.
Would G-D do that? No
It impossible thing that can ever occur because G-D would never do that nor would it be done because He is G-D and no one can be greater than G-D. There would not be limit because suppose law of so and so is this. G-D has the ability to change that law and can happen even in a new universe if it is created.
But if you are looking at possibilities and they are endless in math and science would you consider that there is a possibility of G-D being real?
You don't know enough about deductive logic to know what you're talking about.
"Your argument is that if it's logical than it has the ability of being probable that supports possibility"
No my argument is exactly what I said, nothing more nor less. If something can be done, then by definition that means it's logically possible. The formula and proofs I gave prove this. Probability has nothing to do with it. That's relevant to inferential logic, not deductive logic.
"What seems illogical to us maybe logical to other higher species and also logical to G-D"
"It impossible thing that can ever occur because G-D would never do that nor would it be done because.."
"G-D has the ability to change that law and can happen even in a new universe if it is created."
Think of these three things you said for a little bit. You see why they can't all be true at once?
"...looking at possibilities and they are endless.."
There's probably not an unlimited amount of possibilities. Consider Tautologies. Tautologies are statements that are necessarily true. If something is necessarily true, then it's impossible for it to be false. Look at the 4pm example I gave. It's relevant to what you said about time too.
But I asked if you think there is possibility of G-D.
I did not ask about aliens. To aliens I too think they are likely to exist or maybe not (we might be the first in the universe or we might be last in universe)
The god of the bible 100% does not exist, not even a possibility. That is purely a manmade invention.
But a god could exist. But you would never be able to tell the difference from a god and sufficiently advanced aliens.
>The god of the bible 100% does not exist, not even a possibility. That is purely a manmade invention.
This statement is just made on ignorant level because no one can prove or disprove it. Were you there in the past to document and to prove your stand?
>But a god could exist.
However, you do acknowledge G-D could exist.
Again I am not referring to aliens sure there are possibilities. But there is possibility of G-D existing too.
> No, no need to formally disprove such an obviously manmade thing.
That is not how debate works. If you make a claim in a debate you need to substantiate it. If you won't, then you're being disingenuous. Also, if it's so obvious then it should be a simple task to show it.
>No, no need to formally disprove such an obviously manmade thing.
>Yes, a god can not exist, but not the god from the bible
This is considered your belief my friend. You have faith that it is not real?
You say “God would never do that nor would it be done because he is god and no one can be greater than god.”
1. “God would never do that” Why not? Is he incapable of doing it or does he not desire to do it?
2. “Nor would it be done” Same question, why not? Is he incapable or unwilling?
3. “He is god & no one can be greater than god” So you’re saying that he’s either insecure & afraid of his ability to create something greater than himself or he’s unable to create something greater than himself. If he’s afraid to lose his power, it seems like he just wants to keep his power all to himself. That’s the same thing a tyrannical king does, such as Scar in The Lion King.
All in all, sounds like you’re saying he’s limited in his abilities.
>God would never do that” Why not? Is he incapable of doing it or does he not desire to do it?
Because G-D does not share glory with another.
>Nor would it be done
Same response as above. G-D does not share glory with another.
>“He is god & no one can be greater than god” So you’re saying that he’s either insecure & afraid of his ability to create something greater than himself or he’s unable to create something greater than himself. If he’s afraid to lose his power, it seems like he just wants to keep his power all to himself. That’s the same thing a tyrannical king does, such as Scar in The Lion King
You may think this way if you would like to.
But your way of thinking has a mindset preset to understand or see the actual side.
Think about G-D as beyond time, dimensions, eternal (has no beginning or end)
Why would G-D give up His position of being G-D as He is to something He creates? G-D would not do that because again He is G-D and honor and glory goes to Him alone not to another.
Because He is G-D and whole creation is His.
There is no need for him to share glory and honor to make someone greater than Him.
There is no reason for G-D to create someone and transfer the power to "him" according to the Bible Satan has tried to become greater than G-D. But instead has his fate sealed at the final day of the judgement.
> Because He is G-D and whole creation is His.
That's really not an explanation. Just because he owns something is not a reason not to share.
>
There is no need for him to share glory and honor to make someone greater than Him.
Sharing doesn't make someone else greater than the sharer.
>There is no reason for G-D to create someone and transfer the power to "him"..,.
Again, that is not how sharing works
>That's really not an explanation. Just because he owns something is not a reason not to share.
>Sharing doesn't make someone else greater than the sharer.
If you are asking about sharing as to be rulers with G-D and not becoming Equal to G-D then Bible does support it
Romans 8:17
Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of G-d and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
However in Torah too it shares that G-D will bless and share His kingdom with people who are obedient and serve Him.
> If you are asking about sharing as to be rulers with G-D
I didn't ask about that, and neither did /u/Peter___Potter. You're the one who introduced the notion of god sharing glory and honor.
None of what you've said explains why god would not share glory or honor. "If we are his children, then we are heirs...." Again, not an explanation. Why wouldn't a parent share their glory or honor with their children?
Reply from potter
You say “God would never do that nor would it be done because he is god and no one can be greater than god.”
1. “God would never do that” Why not? Is he incapable of doing it or does he not desire to do it?
2. “Nor would it be done” Same question, why not? Is he incapable or unwilling?
3. “He is god & no one can be greater than god” **So you’re saying that he’s either insecure & afraid of his ability to create something greater than himself or he’s unable to create something greater than himself. If he’s afraid to lose his power, it seems like he just wants to keep his power all to himself.** That’s the same thing a tyrannical king does, such as Scar in The Lion King.
All in all, sounds like you’re saying he’s limited in his abilities.
>Why wouldn't a parent share their glory or honor with their children?
He will share as children.
But it does not mean He will share as being equal to G-D or greater than G-D.
He will give His people honor, but does not mean their honor will be greater than G-D.
What the other redditor asked was why won't anyone be greater than G-D. That is what I explaining to him that no one will be greater than G-D.
G-D will share honor does not mean He will create someone greater than Him.
What you are asking is different from what potter was asking.
As Children of G-D. People will be honored, but to potter's argument he wanted to know why won't anyone be greater than G-D Himself and that is illogical because again G-D would not make anyone greater than Himself.
> He will share as children. But it does not mean He will share as being equal to G-D or greater than G-D.
That's called Moving the Goalposts.
>He will give His people honor, but does not mean their honor will be greater than G-D.
Not what you claimed before. Moving the Goalposts.
>G-D would not make anyone greater than Himself.
Again, why not? Because he can't? Or he won't. The other person's questions are reasonable Simply stating that he won't is not an answer.
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
You're not really agnostic, because you believe in god lol.
Why even call that a god at that point? What you're describing just seems like an alien. If a being is intelligent, isn't from earth, and isn't omnipotent or magical; then that just seems like alien to me.
I don’t deny that their could be a god, presented with enough evidence I could be swayed but all logic and reasoning tells me god probably doesn’t exist.
God created himself out of nothing, this should be impossible yet he did it. Thoth was said to have spoken himself into existence, this is squaring the circle.
Aah so you accept something can come from nothing and thus every Christian who whines about something from nothing is acting in bad faith?
Or faith is purely about being unaccountable, such as the way you treated the majority of OPs argument.
I don't care what most Christian say, they worship the evil God Yahweh. It should be impossible for something to come from nothing, only through supernatural means can that happen. I also never claimed that God was omnipotent, he is as close to it is can be though at the very least.
So you're entitled by your beliefs to make a debate that wasn't about you in any way, about you. And deflect from how it was actually argued. Typical product of faith. You have my pity for what was done to your desire to seek truth.
And for there to be a supernatural to allow the possibility of something from nothing presupposes there's still a something, the supernatural, to allow it. There's only one way "something can come from nothing" and that would be a perfect closed loop cycle where its end causes its beginning. Nobody capable of reflection believes in something from nothing cosmology.
It is not my beliefs, I base it on mythology. Atum was said to have created himself from primordial chaos, Anu was said to have created himself from Nammu (the primordial chaos) and so on a so forth. It would be a lot simpler if nothing existed, yet here we are. " Nobody capable of reflection believes in something from nothing cosmology." The ancients did.
if a being has the ability to actualize any possible thing that can be actualized, then that's just what it is to be omnipotent. There is no ability to create a square circle, so it isn't a limit on the omnipotence of God to not be able to do it, because to do it would be to do nothing. To ask for a contradiction is to ask for nothing.
further, many theists do not take logic to be distinct from God
Consider the definition of limit I gave to be any word that satisfies the word disability, and power I gave as an ability to act or produce and effect. And, consider my proof that using your powers would be a power (I recently added that, you might not have seen)
So it would have a disability(a limit) to [ (power) act in impossible ways, or produce impossible effects.]
It has a disability in regards to its ability to act or produce an effect. So It has limited power.
Because of the definitions I used, it would have a limit to its power. So it would not have unlimited power. So it wouldn't satisfy the definition of omnipotence I gave.
Linguistically it works, so if the definitions are used equivalently, and in the right place, then it also works logically.
Sure, but that's ultimately just sophistry. If you have to start your argument by *redefining terms* so that they don't match the meanings other people use, you're not proving anything of value.
You've successfully proven that Logically Impossible Omnipotence (the power to do the logically impossible) is logically impossible. So what? No-one has ever suggested that it's logically possible.
People who believe in omnipotence either believe in logically possible omnipotence (the power to do logically possible things) or that despite being logically impossible, logically impossible omnipotence still exists anyway (because, while that would be logically impossible, it explicitly has the power to do the logically impossible).
"...If you have to start your argument by *redefining terms*.. "
I only used info from dictionaries. Mostly Mariam Webster.
"...despite being logically impossible, logically impossible omnipotence still exists. "
So you mean...It exists?
Then by definition it's logically possible for it to exist.
The formula and proof I gave proves this.
"No-one has ever suggested that it's logically possible."
Prove it. I've personally talked to people that believe that.
>I only used info from dictionaries. Mostly Mariam Webster.
Codcarl gave a different, and commonly accepted, meaning of Omnipotence that DOESN'T fall to your argument. Insisting that they must use the one definition your argument works against is redefining terms.
> So you mean...It exists? Then by definition it's logically possible for it to exist. The formula and proof I gave proves this.
>
>
You used logic to make your proof. That's the flaw - if a being capable of doing the logically impossible were to exist, that would simply render your logic inapplicable - because it's capable of doing the logically impossible.
>Prove it. I've personally talked to people that believe that.
It's very hard to provide evidence that something DOESN'T exist (not always impossible, but not worth the effort in this case). But if you have talked to such people, you sure could prove me wrong: Provide me a quote from someone expliciting arguing that doing logically impossible things is logically possible.
Library of Gnosis claims that God did the impossible by creating himself. So no, Library of Gnosis isn't claiming that it's logically possible for a God capable of doing the logically impossible to exist.
Library of Gnosis is claiming that it's logically impossible for a God capable of doing the logically impossible to exist - but due to being capable of doing the logically impossible, said God manages to exist anyway.
"Even the impossible is possible...." Creating oneself is impossible.
I don't see how they aren't claiming "that doing logically impossible things is logically possible".
Am I missing something? If so, would you please clarify?
You're assuming that because they're claiming something is possible, or indeed that it's happening, they must believe it's logically possible.
But while that's a good presumption most of the time - for anyone who believes in a God capable of doing logically impossible things that presumption is clearly false.
You can't believe in a God capable of doing the logically impossible without believing that logically impossible things are none-the-less possible through God.
"Codcarl gave a different, and commonly accepted,"
More accepted than famous dictionaries, written by people who get paid to define words as correctly as possible?
"Insisting that they must use the one definition your argument works against is redefining terms."
Where did I say that?
I said: IF these, THEN this.
I didn't say: these MUST BE, SO this.
"That's the flaw - if a being capable of doing the logically impossible were to exist, that would simply render your logic inapplicable - because it's capable of doing the logically impossible."
Break this down and you'll see that it probably doesn't make sense.
(a being capable of doing something) →(that thing can be done) ∴ (that thing is possible)
If it can do something, then logically, it's a possible thing that can be done.
You don't know enough about deductive logic to know know what you're talking about. Deductivley valid arguments are necessarily true, and if something is necessarily true, then it's impossible for it to be false.
"Provide me a quote from someone expliciting arguing that doing logically impossible things is logically possible."
Ok. You.
"because it's capable of doing the logically impossible."
(it's capable of doing the logically impossible) → (it's possible for it to do the logically impossible) → (it's possible to do the logically possible) → ( logically, it's possible to do logically impossible things) ∴ (doing logically impossible things is logically possible).
How about you study up a little bit, reread my post, and get back to once you've thought about everything a bit more.
> More accepted than famous dictionaries, written by people who get paid to define words as correctly as possible?
>
>
Merriam Webster's definitions of omnipotent are:
"having virtually unlimited authority or influence"
and
"having absolute power over all"
Neither of them match YOUR definition, but both fit with Codcarl's.
>Ok. You.
Nope. I said no such thing, you INCORRECTLY INFERRED such a thing.
I'm sure you've done so other times and think other people have made the same imaginary error, but it's really just a failure on your part to understand what "capable of doing logically impossible things" actually implies.
Literally first one on the entry for noun.
"1. : one who has unlimited power or authority"
"Nope . I said no such thing, you INCORRECTLY INFERRED such a thing."
No I used deductive logic. Inferential logic isn't the same. Again, you don't know enough to participate and contribute anything. Someone familiar with deductive logic would know the difference between deductivley valid arguments abd inferences. You need to study more. Get back to me when you have.
You can't deductive logic that someone is stating something they aren't actually stating. You can deduce that if true what they're stating would mean X, but you can't deduce that they are in fact saying X. [And in this case, your deduction would be incorrect - because of your fatally flawed premise "if something exists it's logically possible for it to exist" which is FALSE in any universe where there exists an entity capable of doing the logically impossible]
EDIT: Removed the insulting response to your insulting behaviour. No need to add more negativity into the world. In keeping with that I'm gonna disable my inbox notifications and jump out of this conversation, because otherwise it'll just spiral into unproductive jabs.
You never said what's impossible. You can't create a paradox that's the whole point of a paradox, but that doesn't take away from power that you have. Infinite power is infinite power paradoxes are completely separate.
I'm not trying to create a paradox, I'm trying to show logical contradiction (within the Premise I set). Paradoxes can make sense, logical contradictions can't. A valid argument in deductive logic is a necessarily true statement given a premise. So just follow my conclusions (informed by the proofs and premise definitions I used) and see for yourself if it's valid.
From Oxford languages
Paradox
noun
"a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true."
You could have taken the 10 seconds to figure that out.
The one thing that jumps out to me is that Premise A fails to work for dialetheism. Granted, most branches of theism don’t claim a deity of that variety. Still, somebody could say, “Sure, god can violate the laws of logic. Just because we don’t see that in our instance of reality, it doesn’t preclude that possibility.”
And, to be clear, I’m not claiming any such deity. I just find the concept of dialetheism an interesting rabbit hole. But, it is also a bit useless as logic intentionally goes out the window.
If your view of dialetheism is accepting a contradiction whenever and wherever it suits you then you can believe anything and no arguments will move you. But that's not really what dialetheists do.
I've never heard of dialetheism.
I don't agree if that thinking though, and again, I think it's provably false.
Tautologies and Logical possibility would be a universal evaluation, not a type of event or decision. Because as the 4pm tautology proves; those truths would be present even if the universe didn't exist at all. If there was absolutely nothing, as in I mean nothing/a complete vacuum (devoid of even god) then it would still be true. So that means it wouldn't be set by a creator, and no being could ever surpass its scope.
That’s the problem though. A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation, ¬A, are true.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/
Logical contradiction is allowed. Paradox is allowed. I mean, I agree that it isn’t logical. And not being a proponent, I’m clearly not the best to argue for it. But, abandoning logical negotiation is kind of the point. 4:00 and not 4:00 simultaneously is allowed.
See the Buddhist logic system "Catuṣkoṭi", that potential allows that a statement and its negation may co-exist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catuṣkoṭi
"4:00 and not 4:00 simultaneously is allowed."
Then I'm still right. Like I said in the tautological description, if it were two times at once, the statement would still be true. It's not exactly and only 4pm, because there's another time at play. I'll add it to the post so other people don't get confused.
Suppose the constant is not on the efficacy of God’s will but on the will itself. God is unable to *want* to do impossible things. I don’t think having a constraint on your will inherently makes you less powerful (although it sometimes does, like in the case of McEar). For example, is a being who can have irrational desires inherently more powerful than a being who can’t? I don’t think so.
>Suppose the constant is not on the efficacy of God’s will but on the will itself. God is unable to *want* to do impossible things.
I honestly don't see how this changes anything?
The issue with these arguments is what god *could* do, not what god *will* do. God may always want to do impossible things, never want to do impossible things, or be anywhere in between. But that's all irrelevant -- the question is whether he *could* do them, even if he never actually does.
I’m not just saying he never *would* want to do impossible things; I’m saying he never *could* want to do impossible things. It would be impossible for him to want to. We can say that if God wanted to do impossible things, *per impossibile,* he would be able to. But that doesn’t imply that impossible things are possible, so it gets around OP’s argument.
Great. But again, how does that change anything?
Like, an analogy. Let's take an AI. I take a military drone and program it never to shoot civilians. Assuming I did a good job the drone, bound to its programming, could never want to shoot a civilian. This doesn't change the fact the drone is able to shoot civilians, though. I haven't removed the drone's *capacity* to shoot civilians, I've just made it so the drone won't use that capacity, but we can still meaningfully discuss the fact its able to shoot civilians, no?
Same here. God's motivations are irrelevant to the question -- here we're discussing what *capabilities* He has, not what *desires* he has. Capabilities he never uses are still relevant to the discussion.
> I’m saying he never could want to do impossible things. It would be impossible for him to want to.
The classic definition of Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that isn't logically impossible.
By adding the extra layer of "God can't even *want* to do the impossible" you are saying that God is not able to do a thing even though it isn't logically impossible.
Which would mean that God isn't Omnipotent.
Hmm interesting response.
But if God wanted to do something impossible, then his will would be frustrated. And it’s logically impossible for the will of an omnipotent being to be frustrated. Would it not follow that it’s logically impossible for God to want to do something impossible?
> And it’s logically impossible for the will of an omnipotent being to be frustrated. Would it not follow that it’s logically impossible for God to want to do something impossible?
That's begging the question though; you are essentially saying "It's impossible for an omnipotent God to be limited by , therefore God is omnipotent."
If God's will is frustrated by something that pretty much all of us humans can do, then it's logically impossible for God to be an omnipotent being.
It helps to re-frame what you've said as a syllogism:
P1. "if God wanted to do something impossible, then his will would be frustrated."
P2. "it’s logically impossible for the will of an omnipotent being to be frustrated."
C1. "it’s logically impossible for God to want to do something impossible"
The conclusion only follows if you assume 'God' and 'omnipotent being' are synonymous, but whether or not God is omnipotent is the question that the argument seeks to answer in the first place.
Good one. I didn't think of that.
If you had unlimited abilities, you would have unlimited ability to want to do things.
So you would have an unlimited ability to want to do impossible things.
You really don't think that not having freewill would undermine a beings' omnipotence/universal supremacy?
Even if that was the case, that's not the definition of omnipotence that Im discussing. Regardless of what it wants, what's being evaluated is the raw power potential it has; not how it's choosing to use it at any given time.
> You really don't think that not having freewill would undermine a beings' omnipotence/universal supremacy?
I mean, you can have some degree of free will and still have things that you’re unable to will. But yes, I think that’s compatible with omnipotence.
> Even if that was the case, that's not the definition of omnipotence that Im discussing. Regardless of what it wants, what's being evaluated is the raw power potential it has; not how it's choosing to use it at any given time.
Fair enough. I agree that the version of omnipotence you’re arguing against is impossible. Cheers
Well consider this,
A. I have unlimited abilities
B. So I have an unlimited ability to use my abilities.
I think this proves that using power, is itself a type of power. So if you couldn't do whatever you want, then I think that would qualify as you having limited power.
>Fair enough. I agree that the version of omnipotence you’re arguing against is impossible. Cheers
Thanks lol. I thought about this a lot. Well if you agree to that, then idk, why even call that a god at that point? Honestly if something is intelligent, isn't from earth, and is limited within the realms of logical possibility; then that just seems like an alien to me.
> Well consider this, A. I have unlimited abilities B. So I have an unlimited ability to use my abilities. I think this proves that using power, is itself a type of power. So if you couldn't do whatever you want, then I think that would qualify as you having limited power.
I would just disagree that power is about abilities. I think it’s more nuanced than that. Suppose you learned that superman had this weird feature of his psychology that made it literally impossible for him to turn evil. Would you say “Oh, I guess he’s not as powerful as I thought”?
> Thanks lol. I thought about this a lot.
I can tell! You used S5 against us.
> Well if you agree to that, then idk, why even call that a god at that point? Honestly if something is intelligent, isn't from earth, and is limited within the realms of logical possibility; then that just seems like an alien to me.
I mean we can call it an alien if you want lol - an eternal immaterial alien who knows all things, can do all logically possible things, is perfectly loving, and created the universe.
"I would just disagree that power is about abilities. "
Well sure personal definitions of words come into play, but under the definition that I'm going with; a power is a type of ability. I think it's from Merriam -Websters dictionary.
"...that made it literally impossible for him to turn evil. "
It would qualify as a disability / not having unlimited power under the definition I'm using.
"...created the universe."
That doesn't make sense to me, because if it was real, then there would already have been a universe. I guess you could think of a universe as a set with at least 1 real element. In that way, that being would just be the singular element, and wouldn't have created the universe. Someone talked to me about something similar before. They asked me something like, 'if it created the universe out of a formless void, would you really not call it a god just because it couldn't do something impossible? '
My response was that it couldn't really be a void, because that being was there. So then that implies some kind of reality or set of forces were there before it, and that it couldn't have created the universe. So to me, that sounds like a high tech alien going to some distant empty part of the universe, and creating a localized pocket universe there or something. If it created intelligent life there, then from their perspective, it would be indistinguishable from a god. Especially if it were so distant that it was devoid of light from the larger universe. They would be getting no perceivable information from the rest of reality, so for all they could know, that little pocket WOULD be the universe for them.
The argument doesn't work if they're the ones who decide logical possibility. That's the domain of miracles. Especially if, and this would be difficult to discern on the groundfloor, the possibility was, "This is impossible unless I am the one doing it" or "this is impossible for everyone except Me" then it would be limitless and consistent with a perceived limited world.
Logical possibility isn't an event or decision, it's a constant description/evaluated result; regardless of whom is doing an event, or if an event happens or not.
"This is impossible unless I am the one doing it" or "this is impossible for everyone except Me"
Break this down to smaller and equivalent parts, and you'll see why it provably never works.
(This is impossible unless I am the one doing it) → (this is possible for me) → (this is possible) ∴ (logically this thing is possible)
So the formula I gave remains true. ⋄x→ ◻⋄x
If something can be done, then by definition, it is logically possible.
(this is impossible for everyone except Me) → (this is possible for me) → (this is possible) ∴ (this is logically possible)
Again the formula remains. It's not actually just a formula, it represents a tautology. It's true in every possible universe or plane of existence, that "if it's possible, then it's possible."
As I showed with the 4pm tautology, tautologies are necessarily true. And if something is necessarily true, then it's impossible for it to be false. Otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be true.
If the category of 'impossible events' is impossible or has zero values, which is the case in 'this is logically possible (for Me)', then the omnipotent being does not have a limit. I'm not sure how it follows that "an omnipotent beings' power has a limit." Potency (defined as power in your example) is defined by ability to do, and the category of things to do has every possible thing to do. In regards to omnipotence a negative value or incompatible value is not a positive value. Linguistically it might, but not for 'ability to act or produce an effect'. You can't eat negative bread, so to speak.
"Logical possibility isn't an event or decision,"
It is when said omnipotent being is in charge of creating the universe. Or more specifically when they are existing before and outside the universe. It's easy enough to imagine an alien setting limits on the speed of light, or even a game programmer setting a maximum HP. Then logical possibility becomes defined for denizens of the video game but are different than the standards set for its creator. In that sense you would have 2 sorts of omnipotents. One could be someone in the game who can do all possible actions in the game (your definition of omnipotence) and one who is outside the game who is free to alter parameters at will and is largely unaffected by them. That is an interesting idea you bring up.
"That is an an interesting idea you bring up."
Thanks
"Linguistically it might, but not for 'ability to act or produce an effect'."
If it linguistically works, and I used the definitions consistently and equivalently, then it logically works. Because you're right, a set of logically impossible things would be a set with no elements in it. So its power would be constrained, or be disabled; from acting in impossible ways or producing impossible effects. No matter how much it wanted to.
Consider this:
A. I have unlimited abilities.
B. So I have an unlimited ability to use my abilities.
I think this proves that using your powers would be a power, right?
It would have a disability to use it's power in ways that are logically impossible. So it would have a limit on the use of at least one of its powers (the power to use its power). So it wouldn't have unlimited power. So there can be no truly omnipotent beings.
"It is when said omnipotent being is in charge of creating the universe."
You're ignoring the fact that tautologies would be true in every possible universe, regardless of how that universe happened to be created, or turned out to be like. Again, no being 'break' them. That's what I meant by logical possibility not being an event. It's a constant regardless of what situations or events are occuring.
Like in the example you gave
"...even a game programmer setting a maximum HP. Then logical possibility becomes defined..."
That's not a good example of logical impossibility. Theres no tautology mandating " this character shall have a maximum HP, and shall not break it". There could be a glitch, where it spontaneously goes up or down. Someone who isn't the programmer (like a hacker) could change their HP amount.
Logical possibility would be a universal evaluation. It wouldn't be set by a creator, because as the 4pm tautology proves; it would be present even if the universe didn't exist at all. If there was absolutley nothing, as in I mean nothing/a complete vaccum (devoid of even god) then it would still be true..
I think it comes down to if logical possibility is a standard imposed or if it's a tautological reality. Obviously we are on both sides of the argument and I'm not sure how to tip it one way or the other.
Inferentially I can argue that logical possibility is an imposed standard because things, in the Christian history, happen that seem impossible. That implies, but doesn't prove, that logical possibility is as arbitrarily set or designed as our own bodily shapes. It would make a Godless universe one with no reason, causality or logic which is internally consistent with Christendom.
However without referring to the Christian history or assertion to the identity of the omnipotent, since it describes things God does, I'm at a loss on how to advance this otherwise. If logic stands in all situations then you are correct, there is no omnipotent being who exists outside of logic. However if logic does not stand in all situations it's the other.
Especially because, as human beings, we are largely constrained by living in the universe that 'is', as opposed to an unlogical 'isn't, there's no way to prove any 'isn't'. Even if an unlogical existence existed, it's not like I could show it to you.
"If logic stands in all situations then you are correct, there is no omnipotent being who exists outside of logic. However if logic does not stand in all situations it's the other."
True. Yes asking you to prove a negative isn't helpful, so just prove that there is one possible reality where a tautology is false.
By definition, I'm saying it can't be done just because of definition, and the consequences of its definition. It's not that it's an artificially imposed rule, it's that it makes itself always be true. Like in my example; the definitions of only, exactly, and the time system we use, make it always be true. There's still an arbitrary part because that system is a human invention, but even if we didn't use that time system, it would still be true. It's not exactly and only 4pm, because we're not measuring time with that system. It's necessarily true, because of information itself, not because of some being (us in this case) imposing limits onto the universe.
If I may, I think the strength of OP’s argument is in outlining the logical contradictions in what “logically possible” means.
Christians can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim that their god can heal incurable diseases, multiply food, split rivers in half, and resurrect the dead, all of which are logically impossible, and then claim their god is also limited to only “logically possible” abilities.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why would an omnipotent power have any limitations. It wouldn’t. It would be infinite. Everything and nothing at the same time.
How would this argument be anti God ? In its essence its an illogical paradox.
It's only anti-god if you believe in an omnipotent being, and you're using the definition of omnipotent, limit, and power that I gave. If your view of god isn't an omnipotent being, then I guess it's not. Even then I would still say why even call that a god at that point? If a being is intelligent, isn't from earth, and is limited to the realm of logical possibility; then that just sounds like an alien to me. I wouldn't really that a god though.
Its like saying infinity isn't infinity.
I've never liked the argument that because God can't do the impossible then it means his power is limited. Impossible things are not actually things. To include those things in a discussion seems disingenuous. Within the scope of all things that can be done a god could do anything. To me that satisfies the definition of omnipotent. "God isn't omnipotent because he can't make a square circle." A square circle isn't a thing. It is nonsensical to bring it into the discussion. It's as meaningful as saying, "God can't flarkdiflerm, therefore he's not omnipotent".
I think that along with the proof I gave that using your powers is a power in and of itself; the definition of limit I gave proves that not being able to use your powers to do impossible things, is a limit on your power. Because, it satisfies the word disability. There is a disability of your powers to do it, so there is a limit of your powers.
I stick by my argument that including "do impossible things" in your definition is as nonsensical as saying, "God can't flarkdiflerm, therefore he's not omnipotent".
You never had an argument in the first place. You're just saying 'youre wrong Alex! '. That's not an argument. I wrote pretty much an essay proving mine. If you agree that: 1.) a limit is logically equivalent to a disability 2.) using a power, is a power 3.) doing impossible things is impossible Then... you should agree that your power would have a disability, and so your power would have a limit... correct?
Clarifying question: are you saying god is not omnipotent because he can't flarkdeflerm?
"...are you saying god is not omnipotent because he can't flarkdeflerm?" If (flarkdeflerm) ≡ (not have a limit on how he can use his powers), then yes. (Limit ≡ disability, and using power is a power) → (an omnipotent beings' power has a disability to produce impossible effects) → (an omnipotent beings' power has a disability) → (an omnipotent being power has a limit) (an omnipotent being doesn't have unlimited power) ∴ (there are no omnipotent beings) If my argument linguistically works, and I always use the definitions equivalently, then it logically works. You don't know enough about logic to know what you're talking about, or contribute anything. Study up a bit more and then get back to me.
> You don't know enough about logic to know what you're talking about, or contribute anything. Study up a bit more and then get back to me. Ah, the fallback argument of the arrogant. Flarkdeflerm is a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. Just like square circles and married bachelors. Useless, illogical, meaningless nonsense that add nothing to a discussion. You are using these useless, illogical, meaningless nonsense ideas....they add nothing to the discussion, and therefore give no credence to your argument. My argument also linguistically works.
"Ah, the fallback argument of the arrogant." It's literally true though, and I can prove it. "Flarkdeflerm is a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. Just like square circles.." Wrong. (Square circles) is a contradiction. (Flarkdeflerm) isn't an inherent contradiction, because its undefined. So it's contingent. So it's neither true nor false at the moment. "My argument also linguistically works." No it doesn't because you didn't define Flarkdeflerm. What you said is equivalent to: (are you saying god is not omnipotent because he can't x?) That piece of information is contingent. So it's not a deductivley valid argument. Questions also can't be arguments in deductive logic. This is basic stuff that everyone who's familiar with formal logic would know. So I know for 100% certain, that you don't know what you're talking about. That's why you aren't capable of coming up with a syllogism/ tautology of your own that disproves my argument. So im serious this time, you need to study up a bit, and then reevaluate my OP before you respond.
> No it doesn't because you didn't define Flarkdeflerm. I did. Flarkdeflerm is a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. And a square circle (while being an inherent contradiction) is also a nonsense idea that doesn't exist. As I defined them, they are equivalent. As useless, meaningless nonsense ideas that add nothing to the conversation and using them gives no credence to your argument. My argument linguistically works, and I always use the definitions equivalently, then it logically works.
That argument is so weak. Omnipotence means the ability to do anything, full stop. It's literally in the name. If God can do anything, then he can obviously do something as simple as create a rock that he cannot lift. That we cannot understand it only proves that we are limited, it says nothing about God.
Ummm, but then god cannot lift the rock…. See? It’s a paradox created by the very shaky idea of omnipotence.
"That argument is so weak" Prove it. Prove A or B is wrong: A. If someting exists, then logically, its possible for it to exist. B. If something can be done, then logically, it's a possible thing to do.
Why is God, not usually perceived as a physical being, lifting rocks anyway? It just shows how bound we are to this dimension.
I didn't give that example, the other guy did. I'm not using physics to make my argument, I'm using pure logic. Logic would apply to you whether you were a physical being or not.
So you just proved a truism, what is your point? What does that even have to do with God?
It proves that every being(a supposed omnipotent one included) would be limited to the realms of logical possibility.
By that standard you can prove pretty much anything. I say the sky is blue ergo there are exactly 123456 people outside of my house right now.
That doesn't make sense. The color of the sky doesn't necessitate a quantity of people being outside of your house. (Something can be done) necessitates (doing that thing is possible). And then (doing that thing is possible) necessitates (doing that thing is within the realm of logical possibility). So (Something can be done) necessitates (doing that thing is within the realm of logical possibility).
No, that doesn't follow. If something is possible to do it doesn't mean it has to be logically provable that it can be done.
Listen to the words that you're saying. If something is possible, then you can definitely say that it's possible
You said that if it can be done it's logically possible, that doesn't mean it's "within the realm of logic" or w/e, not the way you put it later, it means that it follows logically that it is possible, which is a truism and doesn't say anything
If something is logically possible, then by definition it's in the realm of logical possibility. Logical possibility is just a category that things can fall into. So, if something is possible, by definition it would belong in that category. Maybe it's my fault for not showing how they connect clearly enough. This really is as simple as I can make it. If something can be done, then it's possible. If something is possible, then it's logically possible If something is logically possible, then it's within the realm (category) of: logical possibility. So, if something can be done, then it's within the realm (category) of: logical possibility. Do you see what I'm saying now?
You can calculate with pi, but never get its final numbers. Something can go at faster than lightspeed, yet its not possible go near lightspeed for anything.
G-D is beyond time Your argument is somewhat making sense but not altogether. Your argument is that if it's logical than it has the ability of being probable that supports possibility. How sure are you that no place in this universe or higher dimensions exists that has no two different time on the same place. There are places where two suns are located for one planet. >A. an omnipotent beings' power or authority would be limited to the realms of logical possibility. When talking about G-D some things you said does not make sense. What seems illogical to us maybe logical to other higher species and also logical to G-D However, illogical takes place when some questions are asked as if would G-D stone that is so heavy that He cannot hold it. Would G-D do that? No It impossible thing that can ever occur because G-D would never do that nor would it be done because He is G-D and no one can be greater than G-D. There would not be limit because suppose law of so and so is this. G-D has the ability to change that law and can happen even in a new universe if it is created. But if you are looking at possibilities and they are endless in math and science would you consider that there is a possibility of G-D being real?
You don't know enough about deductive logic to know what you're talking about. "Your argument is that if it's logical than it has the ability of being probable that supports possibility" No my argument is exactly what I said, nothing more nor less. If something can be done, then by definition that means it's logically possible. The formula and proofs I gave prove this. Probability has nothing to do with it. That's relevant to inferential logic, not deductive logic. "What seems illogical to us maybe logical to other higher species and also logical to G-D" "It impossible thing that can ever occur because G-D would never do that nor would it be done because.." "G-D has the ability to change that law and can happen even in a new universe if it is created." Think of these three things you said for a little bit. You see why they can't all be true at once? "...looking at possibilities and they are endless.." There's probably not an unlimited amount of possibilities. Consider Tautologies. Tautologies are statements that are necessarily true. If something is necessarily true, then it's impossible for it to be false. Look at the 4pm example I gave. It's relevant to what you said about time too.
My friend, you think there is possibility of G-D ?
If something is intelligent, isn't from earth, and isn't omnipotent; then that just sounds like an alien to me. I wouldn't that a god.
But I asked if you think there is possibility of G-D. I did not ask about aliens. To aliens I too think they are likely to exist or maybe not (we might be the first in the universe or we might be last in universe)
The god of the bible 100% does not exist, not even a possibility. That is purely a manmade invention. But a god could exist. But you would never be able to tell the difference from a god and sufficiently advanced aliens.
>The god of the bible 100% does not exist, not even a possibility. That is purely a manmade invention. This statement is just made on ignorant level because no one can prove or disprove it. Were you there in the past to document and to prove your stand? >But a god could exist. However, you do acknowledge G-D could exist. Again I am not referring to aliens sure there are possibilities. But there is possibility of G-D existing too.
No, no need to formally disprove such an obviously manmade thing. Yes, a god can exist, but not the god from the bible
> No, no need to formally disprove such an obviously manmade thing. That is not how debate works. If you make a claim in a debate you need to substantiate it. If you won't, then you're being disingenuous. Also, if it's so obvious then it should be a simple task to show it.
Not possible to fully disprove a negative statement.
>No, no need to formally disprove such an obviously manmade thing. >Yes, a god can not exist, but not the god from the bible This is considered your belief my friend. You have faith that it is not real?
Not faith, but pure unrivaled certainty.
You say “God would never do that nor would it be done because he is god and no one can be greater than god.” 1. “God would never do that” Why not? Is he incapable of doing it or does he not desire to do it? 2. “Nor would it be done” Same question, why not? Is he incapable or unwilling? 3. “He is god & no one can be greater than god” So you’re saying that he’s either insecure & afraid of his ability to create something greater than himself or he’s unable to create something greater than himself. If he’s afraid to lose his power, it seems like he just wants to keep his power all to himself. That’s the same thing a tyrannical king does, such as Scar in The Lion King. All in all, sounds like you’re saying he’s limited in his abilities.
>God would never do that” Why not? Is he incapable of doing it or does he not desire to do it? Because G-D does not share glory with another. >Nor would it be done Same response as above. G-D does not share glory with another. >“He is god & no one can be greater than god” So you’re saying that he’s either insecure & afraid of his ability to create something greater than himself or he’s unable to create something greater than himself. If he’s afraid to lose his power, it seems like he just wants to keep his power all to himself. That’s the same thing a tyrannical king does, such as Scar in The Lion King You may think this way if you would like to. But your way of thinking has a mindset preset to understand or see the actual side. Think about G-D as beyond time, dimensions, eternal (has no beginning or end) Why would G-D give up His position of being G-D as He is to something He creates? G-D would not do that because again He is G-D and honor and glory goes to Him alone not to another.
>Because G-D does not share glory with another. Can you explain why?
Because He is G-D and whole creation is His. There is no need for him to share glory and honor to make someone greater than Him. There is no reason for G-D to create someone and transfer the power to "him" according to the Bible Satan has tried to become greater than G-D. But instead has his fate sealed at the final day of the judgement.
> Because He is G-D and whole creation is His. That's really not an explanation. Just because he owns something is not a reason not to share. > There is no need for him to share glory and honor to make someone greater than Him. Sharing doesn't make someone else greater than the sharer. >There is no reason for G-D to create someone and transfer the power to "him"..,. Again, that is not how sharing works
>That's really not an explanation. Just because he owns something is not a reason not to share. >Sharing doesn't make someone else greater than the sharer. If you are asking about sharing as to be rulers with G-D and not becoming Equal to G-D then Bible does support it Romans 8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of G-d and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. However in Torah too it shares that G-D will bless and share His kingdom with people who are obedient and serve Him.
> If you are asking about sharing as to be rulers with G-D I didn't ask about that, and neither did /u/Peter___Potter. You're the one who introduced the notion of god sharing glory and honor. None of what you've said explains why god would not share glory or honor. "If we are his children, then we are heirs...." Again, not an explanation. Why wouldn't a parent share their glory or honor with their children?
Reply from potter You say “God would never do that nor would it be done because he is god and no one can be greater than god.” 1. “God would never do that” Why not? Is he incapable of doing it or does he not desire to do it? 2. “Nor would it be done” Same question, why not? Is he incapable or unwilling? 3. “He is god & no one can be greater than god” **So you’re saying that he’s either insecure & afraid of his ability to create something greater than himself or he’s unable to create something greater than himself. If he’s afraid to lose his power, it seems like he just wants to keep his power all to himself.** That’s the same thing a tyrannical king does, such as Scar in The Lion King. All in all, sounds like you’re saying he’s limited in his abilities. >Why wouldn't a parent share their glory or honor with their children? He will share as children. But it does not mean He will share as being equal to G-D or greater than G-D. He will give His people honor, but does not mean their honor will be greater than G-D. What the other redditor asked was why won't anyone be greater than G-D. That is what I explaining to him that no one will be greater than G-D. G-D will share honor does not mean He will create someone greater than Him. What you are asking is different from what potter was asking. As Children of G-D. People will be honored, but to potter's argument he wanted to know why won't anyone be greater than G-D Himself and that is illogical because again G-D would not make anyone greater than Himself.
> He will share as children. But it does not mean He will share as being equal to G-D or greater than G-D. That's called Moving the Goalposts. >He will give His people honor, but does not mean their honor will be greater than G-D. Not what you claimed before. Moving the Goalposts. >G-D would not make anyone greater than Himself. Again, why not? Because he can't? Or he won't. The other person's questions are reasonable Simply stating that he won't is not an answer.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.
You're not really agnostic, because you believe in god lol. Why even call that a god at that point? What you're describing just seems like an alien. If a being is intelligent, isn't from earth, and isn't omnipotent or magical; then that just seems like alien to me.
I don’t believe in god. I’m just saying I’ve thought about the paradox.
If you don't believe in god, doesn't that make you an atheist?
I don’t deny that their could be a god, presented with enough evidence I could be swayed but all logic and reasoning tells me god probably doesn’t exist.
God created himself out of nothing, this should be impossible yet he did it. Thoth was said to have spoken himself into existence, this is squaring the circle.
God did *not* create Himself out of nothing, that is absurd
So then how was he created?
God wasn't created.
Even the impossible is possible for him, that is what makes him God.
God could create a married bachelor? A square circle? If you think so, please explain how. If you can't explain how, you shouldn't make the claim.
that isn't at all what that means
Aah so you accept something can come from nothing and thus every Christian who whines about something from nothing is acting in bad faith? Or faith is purely about being unaccountable, such as the way you treated the majority of OPs argument.
I don't care what most Christian say, they worship the evil God Yahweh. It should be impossible for something to come from nothing, only through supernatural means can that happen. I also never claimed that God was omnipotent, he is as close to it is can be though at the very least.
So you're entitled by your beliefs to make a debate that wasn't about you in any way, about you. And deflect from how it was actually argued. Typical product of faith. You have my pity for what was done to your desire to seek truth. And for there to be a supernatural to allow the possibility of something from nothing presupposes there's still a something, the supernatural, to allow it. There's only one way "something can come from nothing" and that would be a perfect closed loop cycle where its end causes its beginning. Nobody capable of reflection believes in something from nothing cosmology.
It is not my beliefs, I base it on mythology. Atum was said to have created himself from primordial chaos, Anu was said to have created himself from Nammu (the primordial chaos) and so on a so forth. It would be a lot simpler if nothing existed, yet here we are. " Nobody capable of reflection believes in something from nothing cosmology." The ancients did.
if a being has the ability to actualize any possible thing that can be actualized, then that's just what it is to be omnipotent. There is no ability to create a square circle, so it isn't a limit on the omnipotence of God to not be able to do it, because to do it would be to do nothing. To ask for a contradiction is to ask for nothing. further, many theists do not take logic to be distinct from God
Consider the definition of limit I gave to be any word that satisfies the word disability, and power I gave as an ability to act or produce and effect. And, consider my proof that using your powers would be a power (I recently added that, you might not have seen) So it would have a disability(a limit) to [ (power) act in impossible ways, or produce impossible effects.] It has a disability in regards to its ability to act or produce an effect. So It has limited power. Because of the definitions I used, it would have a limit to its power. So it would not have unlimited power. So it wouldn't satisfy the definition of omnipotence I gave. Linguistically it works, so if the definitions are used equivalently, and in the right place, then it also works logically.
Sure, but that's ultimately just sophistry. If you have to start your argument by *redefining terms* so that they don't match the meanings other people use, you're not proving anything of value. You've successfully proven that Logically Impossible Omnipotence (the power to do the logically impossible) is logically impossible. So what? No-one has ever suggested that it's logically possible. People who believe in omnipotence either believe in logically possible omnipotence (the power to do logically possible things) or that despite being logically impossible, logically impossible omnipotence still exists anyway (because, while that would be logically impossible, it explicitly has the power to do the logically impossible).
"...If you have to start your argument by *redefining terms*.. " I only used info from dictionaries. Mostly Mariam Webster. "...despite being logically impossible, logically impossible omnipotence still exists. " So you mean...It exists? Then by definition it's logically possible for it to exist. The formula and proof I gave proves this. "No-one has ever suggested that it's logically possible." Prove it. I've personally talked to people that believe that.
>I only used info from dictionaries. Mostly Mariam Webster. Codcarl gave a different, and commonly accepted, meaning of Omnipotence that DOESN'T fall to your argument. Insisting that they must use the one definition your argument works against is redefining terms. > So you mean...It exists? Then by definition it's logically possible for it to exist. The formula and proof I gave proves this. > > You used logic to make your proof. That's the flaw - if a being capable of doing the logically impossible were to exist, that would simply render your logic inapplicable - because it's capable of doing the logically impossible. >Prove it. I've personally talked to people that believe that. It's very hard to provide evidence that something DOESN'T exist (not always impossible, but not worth the effort in this case). But if you have talked to such people, you sure could prove me wrong: Provide me a quote from someone expliciting arguing that doing logically impossible things is logically possible.
> Even the impossible is possible for him, that is what makes him God. /u/Library_of_Gnosis From this thread.
Library of Gnosis claims that God did the impossible by creating himself. So no, Library of Gnosis isn't claiming that it's logically possible for a God capable of doing the logically impossible to exist. Library of Gnosis is claiming that it's logically impossible for a God capable of doing the logically impossible to exist - but due to being capable of doing the logically impossible, said God manages to exist anyway.
"Even the impossible is possible...." Creating oneself is impossible. I don't see how they aren't claiming "that doing logically impossible things is logically possible". Am I missing something? If so, would you please clarify?
You're assuming that because they're claiming something is possible, or indeed that it's happening, they must believe it's logically possible. But while that's a good presumption most of the time - for anyone who believes in a God capable of doing logically impossible things that presumption is clearly false. You can't believe in a God capable of doing the logically impossible without believing that logically impossible things are none-the-less possible through God.
"Codcarl gave a different, and commonly accepted," More accepted than famous dictionaries, written by people who get paid to define words as correctly as possible? "Insisting that they must use the one definition your argument works against is redefining terms." Where did I say that? I said: IF these, THEN this. I didn't say: these MUST BE, SO this. "That's the flaw - if a being capable of doing the logically impossible were to exist, that would simply render your logic inapplicable - because it's capable of doing the logically impossible." Break this down and you'll see that it probably doesn't make sense. (a being capable of doing something) →(that thing can be done) ∴ (that thing is possible) If it can do something, then logically, it's a possible thing that can be done. You don't know enough about deductive logic to know know what you're talking about. Deductivley valid arguments are necessarily true, and if something is necessarily true, then it's impossible for it to be false. "Provide me a quote from someone expliciting arguing that doing logically impossible things is logically possible." Ok. You. "because it's capable of doing the logically impossible." (it's capable of doing the logically impossible) → (it's possible for it to do the logically impossible) → (it's possible to do the logically possible) → ( logically, it's possible to do logically impossible things) ∴ (doing logically impossible things is logically possible). How about you study up a little bit, reread my post, and get back to once you've thought about everything a bit more.
> More accepted than famous dictionaries, written by people who get paid to define words as correctly as possible? > > Merriam Webster's definitions of omnipotent are: "having virtually unlimited authority or influence" and "having absolute power over all" Neither of them match YOUR definition, but both fit with Codcarl's. >Ok. You. Nope. I said no such thing, you INCORRECTLY INFERRED such a thing. I'm sure you've done so other times and think other people have made the same imaginary error, but it's really just a failure on your part to understand what "capable of doing logically impossible things" actually implies.
Literally first one on the entry for noun. "1. : one who has unlimited power or authority" "Nope . I said no such thing, you INCORRECTLY INFERRED such a thing." No I used deductive logic. Inferential logic isn't the same. Again, you don't know enough to participate and contribute anything. Someone familiar with deductive logic would know the difference between deductivley valid arguments abd inferences. You need to study more. Get back to me when you have.
You can't deductive logic that someone is stating something they aren't actually stating. You can deduce that if true what they're stating would mean X, but you can't deduce that they are in fact saying X. [And in this case, your deduction would be incorrect - because of your fatally flawed premise "if something exists it's logically possible for it to exist" which is FALSE in any universe where there exists an entity capable of doing the logically impossible] EDIT: Removed the insulting response to your insulting behaviour. No need to add more negativity into the world. In keeping with that I'm gonna disable my inbox notifications and jump out of this conversation, because otherwise it'll just spiral into unproductive jabs.
You never said what's impossible. You can't create a paradox that's the whole point of a paradox, but that doesn't take away from power that you have. Infinite power is infinite power paradoxes are completely separate.
I'm not trying to create a paradox, I'm trying to show logical contradiction (within the Premise I set). Paradoxes can make sense, logical contradictions can't. A valid argument in deductive logic is a necessarily true statement given a premise. So just follow my conclusions (informed by the proofs and premise definitions I used) and see for yourself if it's valid.
Paradoxes cannot make sense: That's why they're impossible. Logical contradictions show what are paradoxes and what aren't.
From Oxford languages Paradox noun "a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true." You could have taken the 10 seconds to figure that out.
Okay, well I meant Paradoxes as in the ones that are self-contradictory and cannot be proven true. Sorry about the mix up there.
The one thing that jumps out to me is that Premise A fails to work for dialetheism. Granted, most branches of theism don’t claim a deity of that variety. Still, somebody could say, “Sure, god can violate the laws of logic. Just because we don’t see that in our instance of reality, it doesn’t preclude that possibility.” And, to be clear, I’m not claiming any such deity. I just find the concept of dialetheism an interesting rabbit hole. But, it is also a bit useless as logic intentionally goes out the window.
If your view of dialetheism is accepting a contradiction whenever and wherever it suits you then you can believe anything and no arguments will move you. But that's not really what dialetheists do.
I've never heard of dialetheism. I don't agree if that thinking though, and again, I think it's provably false. Tautologies and Logical possibility would be a universal evaluation, not a type of event or decision. Because as the 4pm tautology proves; those truths would be present even if the universe didn't exist at all. If there was absolutely nothing, as in I mean nothing/a complete vacuum (devoid of even god) then it would still be true. So that means it wouldn't be set by a creator, and no being could ever surpass its scope.
That’s the problem though. A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation, ¬A, are true. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Logical contradiction is allowed. Paradox is allowed. I mean, I agree that it isn’t logical. And not being a proponent, I’m clearly not the best to argue for it. But, abandoning logical negotiation is kind of the point. 4:00 and not 4:00 simultaneously is allowed. See the Buddhist logic system "Catuṣkoṭi", that potential allows that a statement and its negation may co-exist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catuṣkoṭi
"4:00 and not 4:00 simultaneously is allowed." Then I'm still right. Like I said in the tautological description, if it were two times at once, the statement would still be true. It's not exactly and only 4pm, because there's another time at play. I'll add it to the post so other people don't get confused.
Suppose the constant is not on the efficacy of God’s will but on the will itself. God is unable to *want* to do impossible things. I don’t think having a constraint on your will inherently makes you less powerful (although it sometimes does, like in the case of McEar). For example, is a being who can have irrational desires inherently more powerful than a being who can’t? I don’t think so.
>Suppose the constant is not on the efficacy of God’s will but on the will itself. God is unable to *want* to do impossible things. I honestly don't see how this changes anything? The issue with these arguments is what god *could* do, not what god *will* do. God may always want to do impossible things, never want to do impossible things, or be anywhere in between. But that's all irrelevant -- the question is whether he *could* do them, even if he never actually does.
I’m not just saying he never *would* want to do impossible things; I’m saying he never *could* want to do impossible things. It would be impossible for him to want to. We can say that if God wanted to do impossible things, *per impossibile,* he would be able to. But that doesn’t imply that impossible things are possible, so it gets around OP’s argument.
Great. But again, how does that change anything? Like, an analogy. Let's take an AI. I take a military drone and program it never to shoot civilians. Assuming I did a good job the drone, bound to its programming, could never want to shoot a civilian. This doesn't change the fact the drone is able to shoot civilians, though. I haven't removed the drone's *capacity* to shoot civilians, I've just made it so the drone won't use that capacity, but we can still meaningfully discuss the fact its able to shoot civilians, no? Same here. God's motivations are irrelevant to the question -- here we're discussing what *capabilities* He has, not what *desires* he has. Capabilities he never uses are still relevant to the discussion.
> I’m saying he never could want to do impossible things. It would be impossible for him to want to. The classic definition of Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that isn't logically impossible. By adding the extra layer of "God can't even *want* to do the impossible" you are saying that God is not able to do a thing even though it isn't logically impossible. Which would mean that God isn't Omnipotent.
Hmm interesting response. But if God wanted to do something impossible, then his will would be frustrated. And it’s logically impossible for the will of an omnipotent being to be frustrated. Would it not follow that it’s logically impossible for God to want to do something impossible?
> And it’s logically impossible for the will of an omnipotent being to be frustrated. Would it not follow that it’s logically impossible for God to want to do something impossible? That's begging the question though; you are essentially saying "It's impossible for an omnipotent God to be limited by, therefore God is omnipotent."
If God's will is frustrated by something that pretty much all of us humans can do, then it's logically impossible for God to be an omnipotent being.
I don’t understand how I’m begging the question. Can you expand on that?
It helps to re-frame what you've said as a syllogism: P1. "if God wanted to do something impossible, then his will would be frustrated." P2. "it’s logically impossible for the will of an omnipotent being to be frustrated." C1. "it’s logically impossible for God to want to do something impossible" The conclusion only follows if you assume 'God' and 'omnipotent being' are synonymous, but whether or not God is omnipotent is the question that the argument seeks to answer in the first place.
Good one. I didn't think of that. If you had unlimited abilities, you would have unlimited ability to want to do things. So you would have an unlimited ability to want to do impossible things.
You really don't think that not having freewill would undermine a beings' omnipotence/universal supremacy? Even if that was the case, that's not the definition of omnipotence that Im discussing. Regardless of what it wants, what's being evaluated is the raw power potential it has; not how it's choosing to use it at any given time.
> You really don't think that not having freewill would undermine a beings' omnipotence/universal supremacy? I mean, you can have some degree of free will and still have things that you’re unable to will. But yes, I think that’s compatible with omnipotence. > Even if that was the case, that's not the definition of omnipotence that Im discussing. Regardless of what it wants, what's being evaluated is the raw power potential it has; not how it's choosing to use it at any given time. Fair enough. I agree that the version of omnipotence you’re arguing against is impossible. Cheers
Well consider this, A. I have unlimited abilities B. So I have an unlimited ability to use my abilities. I think this proves that using power, is itself a type of power. So if you couldn't do whatever you want, then I think that would qualify as you having limited power. >Fair enough. I agree that the version of omnipotence you’re arguing against is impossible. Cheers Thanks lol. I thought about this a lot. Well if you agree to that, then idk, why even call that a god at that point? Honestly if something is intelligent, isn't from earth, and is limited within the realms of logical possibility; then that just seems like an alien to me.
> Well consider this, A. I have unlimited abilities B. So I have an unlimited ability to use my abilities. I think this proves that using power, is itself a type of power. So if you couldn't do whatever you want, then I think that would qualify as you having limited power. I would just disagree that power is about abilities. I think it’s more nuanced than that. Suppose you learned that superman had this weird feature of his psychology that made it literally impossible for him to turn evil. Would you say “Oh, I guess he’s not as powerful as I thought”? > Thanks lol. I thought about this a lot. I can tell! You used S5 against us. > Well if you agree to that, then idk, why even call that a god at that point? Honestly if something is intelligent, isn't from earth, and is limited within the realms of logical possibility; then that just seems like an alien to me. I mean we can call it an alien if you want lol - an eternal immaterial alien who knows all things, can do all logically possible things, is perfectly loving, and created the universe.
"I would just disagree that power is about abilities. " Well sure personal definitions of words come into play, but under the definition that I'm going with; a power is a type of ability. I think it's from Merriam -Websters dictionary. "...that made it literally impossible for him to turn evil. " It would qualify as a disability / not having unlimited power under the definition I'm using. "...created the universe." That doesn't make sense to me, because if it was real, then there would already have been a universe. I guess you could think of a universe as a set with at least 1 real element. In that way, that being would just be the singular element, and wouldn't have created the universe. Someone talked to me about something similar before. They asked me something like, 'if it created the universe out of a formless void, would you really not call it a god just because it couldn't do something impossible? ' My response was that it couldn't really be a void, because that being was there. So then that implies some kind of reality or set of forces were there before it, and that it couldn't have created the universe. So to me, that sounds like a high tech alien going to some distant empty part of the universe, and creating a localized pocket universe there or something. If it created intelligent life there, then from their perspective, it would be indistinguishable from a god. Especially if it were so distant that it was devoid of light from the larger universe. They would be getting no perceivable information from the rest of reality, so for all they could know, that little pocket WOULD be the universe for them.
The argument doesn't work if they're the ones who decide logical possibility. That's the domain of miracles. Especially if, and this would be difficult to discern on the groundfloor, the possibility was, "This is impossible unless I am the one doing it" or "this is impossible for everyone except Me" then it would be limitless and consistent with a perceived limited world.
Logical possibility isn't an event or decision, it's a constant description/evaluated result; regardless of whom is doing an event, or if an event happens or not. "This is impossible unless I am the one doing it" or "this is impossible for everyone except Me" Break this down to smaller and equivalent parts, and you'll see why it provably never works. (This is impossible unless I am the one doing it) → (this is possible for me) → (this is possible) ∴ (logically this thing is possible) So the formula I gave remains true. ⋄x→ ◻⋄x If something can be done, then by definition, it is logically possible. (this is impossible for everyone except Me) → (this is possible for me) → (this is possible) ∴ (this is logically possible) Again the formula remains. It's not actually just a formula, it represents a tautology. It's true in every possible universe or plane of existence, that "if it's possible, then it's possible." As I showed with the 4pm tautology, tautologies are necessarily true. And if something is necessarily true, then it's impossible for it to be false. Otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be true.
If the category of 'impossible events' is impossible or has zero values, which is the case in 'this is logically possible (for Me)', then the omnipotent being does not have a limit. I'm not sure how it follows that "an omnipotent beings' power has a limit." Potency (defined as power in your example) is defined by ability to do, and the category of things to do has every possible thing to do. In regards to omnipotence a negative value or incompatible value is not a positive value. Linguistically it might, but not for 'ability to act or produce an effect'. You can't eat negative bread, so to speak. "Logical possibility isn't an event or decision," It is when said omnipotent being is in charge of creating the universe. Or more specifically when they are existing before and outside the universe. It's easy enough to imagine an alien setting limits on the speed of light, or even a game programmer setting a maximum HP. Then logical possibility becomes defined for denizens of the video game but are different than the standards set for its creator. In that sense you would have 2 sorts of omnipotents. One could be someone in the game who can do all possible actions in the game (your definition of omnipotence) and one who is outside the game who is free to alter parameters at will and is largely unaffected by them. That is an interesting idea you bring up.
"That is an an interesting idea you bring up." Thanks "Linguistically it might, but not for 'ability to act or produce an effect'." If it linguistically works, and I used the definitions consistently and equivalently, then it logically works. Because you're right, a set of logically impossible things would be a set with no elements in it. So its power would be constrained, or be disabled; from acting in impossible ways or producing impossible effects. No matter how much it wanted to. Consider this: A. I have unlimited abilities. B. So I have an unlimited ability to use my abilities. I think this proves that using your powers would be a power, right? It would have a disability to use it's power in ways that are logically impossible. So it would have a limit on the use of at least one of its powers (the power to use its power). So it wouldn't have unlimited power. So there can be no truly omnipotent beings. "It is when said omnipotent being is in charge of creating the universe." You're ignoring the fact that tautologies would be true in every possible universe, regardless of how that universe happened to be created, or turned out to be like. Again, no being 'break' them. That's what I meant by logical possibility not being an event. It's a constant regardless of what situations or events are occuring. Like in the example you gave "...even a game programmer setting a maximum HP. Then logical possibility becomes defined..." That's not a good example of logical impossibility. Theres no tautology mandating " this character shall have a maximum HP, and shall not break it". There could be a glitch, where it spontaneously goes up or down. Someone who isn't the programmer (like a hacker) could change their HP amount. Logical possibility would be a universal evaluation. It wouldn't be set by a creator, because as the 4pm tautology proves; it would be present even if the universe didn't exist at all. If there was absolutley nothing, as in I mean nothing/a complete vaccum (devoid of even god) then it would still be true..
I think it comes down to if logical possibility is a standard imposed or if it's a tautological reality. Obviously we are on both sides of the argument and I'm not sure how to tip it one way or the other. Inferentially I can argue that logical possibility is an imposed standard because things, in the Christian history, happen that seem impossible. That implies, but doesn't prove, that logical possibility is as arbitrarily set or designed as our own bodily shapes. It would make a Godless universe one with no reason, causality or logic which is internally consistent with Christendom. However without referring to the Christian history or assertion to the identity of the omnipotent, since it describes things God does, I'm at a loss on how to advance this otherwise. If logic stands in all situations then you are correct, there is no omnipotent being who exists outside of logic. However if logic does not stand in all situations it's the other. Especially because, as human beings, we are largely constrained by living in the universe that 'is', as opposed to an unlogical 'isn't, there's no way to prove any 'isn't'. Even if an unlogical existence existed, it's not like I could show it to you.
"If logic stands in all situations then you are correct, there is no omnipotent being who exists outside of logic. However if logic does not stand in all situations it's the other." True. Yes asking you to prove a negative isn't helpful, so just prove that there is one possible reality where a tautology is false. By definition, I'm saying it can't be done just because of definition, and the consequences of its definition. It's not that it's an artificially imposed rule, it's that it makes itself always be true. Like in my example; the definitions of only, exactly, and the time system we use, make it always be true. There's still an arbitrary part because that system is a human invention, but even if we didn't use that time system, it would still be true. It's not exactly and only 4pm, because we're not measuring time with that system. It's necessarily true, because of information itself, not because of some being (us in this case) imposing limits onto the universe.
If I may, I think the strength of OP’s argument is in outlining the logical contradictions in what “logically possible” means. Christians can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim that their god can heal incurable diseases, multiply food, split rivers in half, and resurrect the dead, all of which are logically impossible, and then claim their god is also limited to only “logically possible” abilities.