This may seem like a cheap shot but I think the question deserves an answer, preferably by a theist. The concept of God which is accepted by theologians and philosophers alike, possesses the quality of omnipotence, or unlimited power. To first express my worry in layman's terms:
Can God create a stone which he himself cannot lift? (paradox of the stone)Now obviously no matter how you answer this question it contradicts the virtue of omnipotence.
This contradictory idea can be observed in multiple concepts which are rather important. The problem of existential suffering and free will for example. Many theists like to argue that evil and suffering exists because God gave us free will. But by the definition of omnipotence, shouldn't God be able to give us free will and get rid of evil as well? Maybe by formulating a grand, abstract and incomprehensible loophole to do so?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The concept of omnipotence is one of the most obvious failures of those who concocted the bible/torah/qur'an.
This topic has been discussed many times and it always ends with theists tryen to shift what omnipotence means.
You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
At one point I managed to make a Muslim admit that god cannot do everything but he is also bound by logic too.
Then I told him to be a good believer and defend his faith with his fellow members by telling them that god cannot do everything.
If his head is still attached, then and only then I would concede that some version of islam could be a religion of peace :P
He did not reply, maybe he did loose his head :)
I apologize for the redundancy of the topic , I know it's been played out. But the the reason I brought it up is the aspect of existential suffering, and how it undermines the omni-potency of God, even in the face of free will, which is as far as I know a relatively new angle. Hoping to get a theist perspective.
The main difference being that the christian response can't be that of logical absurdities by changing the definition of omni-potency but, to address problems of abstract complexities.
Please refrain from referring people to links and wikipedia pages, or at least me. It's a bit presumptuous to assume someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
"It's a bit presumptuous to assume someone doesn't know what they're talking about."
It's a bit presumptuous to assume "everyone knows" what they're talking about too.
"The main difference being that the christian response can't be that of logical absurdities by changing the definition of omni-potency but, to address problems of abstract complexities."
If they are so unreasonable to change the meaning of omnipotence how much more unreasonable they will be with abstract complexities (assuming you are referring to: love/hate, etc..) and their implications.
You cannot start comparing omnipotence with "abstract complexities" if there is disagreement on what omnipotence is.
You have to start by first agreeing on the basics, the problem is that theists just want to disagree on anything you say because they do not want to discuss this topic at all.
I didn't assume everyone knows what they are talking about, in fact I mentioned "at least me". And no that's not what I mean by abstract complexities, it's a term we philosophers use to explain situations which can be logically sound but it is impossible to derive their validity by virtue of sentential logic.
In this case I am referring to the possibility to solve the problem of giving everyone free will and at the same time freeing everyone from existential suffering.
There's no disagreement of the definition of omnipotence. There is the well established right definition and the wrong one used by some theists to evade the paradox. I'm not bothered with those people, I just want my question answered.
I'm sorry but I do not consider myself slow to understand, so if I cannot fully understand your question, most won't either.
What do you mean by:
"existential suffering"
"sentential logic"
(give examples)
"There's no disagreement of the definition of omnipotence."
There is , simply because different people have different concepts of the term.
You will find people that would say, when I mean omnipotent it means, this and that.
EG: some say omnipotent is related to power and not to the ability of doing everything. Some say that it includes the power to do everything, etc...
You cannot ignore this problem and jump in to comparing omnipotence to anything since it makes a huge difference.
Also it helps a lot if you give examples of some of the technical terms you philosophers use.
It does help a lot the communication.
"There is the well established right definition"
Show your opinion of this well established definition since you seem to expect everybody to know it but I do not know it.
"I just want my question answered."
If you could put your question in a simpler way for us maybe you will get a more liked answer.
I can't explain to you an entire sub-discipline of one of the largest disciplines ever to exist in the history of mankind on a forum.
And I also think you misunderstand the technicality of the language I used. There maybe difference in the conceptual understanding of omnipotence, but the definition is absolute. If you do not know when something is well established, get a dictionary or get your facts right in some other way.
You maybe quick to understand but that shows no reflection of your subjective and objective knowledge whatsoever, don't count others out, they might have a higher technical knowledge than you which I have seen in action before on atheist republic.
I also don't need a likable answer, I just want a sensible answer from someone who is capable of understanding. If you can't understand it's totally fine. I've asked this question on many platforms and in many places. I'm sure i'll get an answer from somewhere and someone.
"I'm sorry but I do not consider myself slow to understand, so if I cannot fully understand your question, most won't either."
Sorry to say so, but that's just an unbelievably condescending thing to say, especially on a forum full of intellectuals. I'm tempted to say how religious and self-righteous of you.
Lol me "religious and self-righteous" because i asked you to clarify some terms for your own good.
If that is your approach to communication you will never find anybody to answer your question.
Basic common sens you seem to lack.
"I can't explain to you an entire sub-discipline of one of the largest disciplines ever to exist in the history of mankind on a forum."
You do not need to explain anything if you are half as good as you claim to be, you would ask a question in the simplest of form to make sure everybody does not misunderstand what you are asking.
I am not asking the question to everyone, It's for those who do understand it or will make an effort to understand it. I'm not claiming to be good, rather the opposite. Disciplines which take years of training are not based on common sense, they are counter intuitive and you wouldn't understand anyway if you didn't have the training or pre-requisite knowledge. Just like quantum physics or three-dimensional calculus. I'm simply stating that this isn't the appropriate platform to explain it to you.
I didn't call you religious and self-righteous because you asked me a question, I called you that because you assumed that because you don't understand no one else will either.
This isn't a a problem about my communication skills, it's a problem of technical understanding. I've probably asked many questions to many people that you probably wouldn't understand but I've gotten my answer.
"I didn't call you religious and self-righteous because you asked me a question, I called you that because you assumed that because you don't understand no one else will either."
This is a fine example of a Straw Man.
I did not say "no one else will either", I said "most won't either" and you seemed to agree "I am not asking the question to everyone, I only need those who do know the answer to give it to me."
My reply is simply, your communication skills suck so much that even if anybody knows the answer, he would most likely fail to understand the question and all it's not well defined implications.
Start by defining what you mean by Omnipotent.
EG:
A semi decent debater would start like this:
If you agree with this definition of Omnipotence:
(give your definition here)
Then how do you combine this definition with this claim:
(put claim here)
Be as clear as possible, do not assume that everybody thinks like you, I can assure you, few do.
You're committing the same fallacy over and over again, there is no this definition and that definition. There is only the definition of omnipotence just like there is only THE definition of up or down or anything else. The rest are false opinions. Your perception of my clarity is a reflection of your perception and not of my clarity.
If you need confirmation of definition, a google search or dictionary search is all you require.
Which fallacy, name it please?
Your insistence of not stating "THE definition" simply proves that you do not want to commit yourself to any definition.
State what you understand by omnipotence else NO ONE can honestly answer your question without making a lot of assumptions.
You are the one making a claim about a contradiction between omnipotence and some claim.
It is you that must provide the definition you are using for such a claim.
If you even know how to ask a mature question, you have to accept this fact.
If I ask:
Why does god hate gays?
The first thing I need to define is which god i'm referring to, since I am making a Hasty generalization fallacy if I do not.
(Apart from the assumption that god exists, etc...)
You claimed more then once that there is just one definition of omnipotence, yet you fail to support your claim.
The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim.
I'm not failing to support my claim, I just find it redundant to search for the dictionary definition and send you the link. I'm simply encouraging you to do some useful browsing. Lest you accuse me of avoiding the question again let me say the following.
The fallacy you are committing is the masked man fallacy by attempting to assume that it's possible to substitute the absolute definition of something by opinion. I clearly mentioned in the initial post that I am referring to the definition of God and his virtues as accepted my the majority of theologians and philosophers. If you do not know what these definitions are, it's your responsibility to find out before you comment on them or on my communication skills.
masked man fallacy???
masked man fallacy deals with an illicit use of Leibniz's law in an argument.
I did not make any such use.
I only asked you to support your claims.
"virtues as accepted my the majority of theologians and philosophers."
You just claim to be taking their perspective, you did not actually take it since you lacked to clarify which perspective you are taking about. You are committing a Generalization Fallacy.
You are assuming that there is total agreement on the subject, which is a fallacious assumption.
You insist on claiming this agreement as a fact and you do not need to support your claim but i need to go and look for this fact myself.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
EG
You claim to agree with what the scientific community thinks about the dark matter.
Which property of dark matter are you talking about? There is a huge debate about some of the properties of dark matter in the scientific community.
There is even more debate about what omnipotence is.(you seem to ignore this concept completely)
That is the reason why there is no one that knows for sure what omnipotence is, since it cannot be measured, it is theoretical, it is an idea that was created on opinions regarding a deity.
"If you do not know what these definitions are, it's your responsibility to find out before you comment on them or on my communication skills."
Exactly, I seriously do not think you know what you are talking about.
Prove me wrong by supporting your claims.
As far as i know from my research, there is a huge debate on the definition of omnipotence but suddenly you come up with a very specific definition(you do not want to explain) and also claim that "the majority of theologians and philosophers." agree about it.
Support this claim please.
which type of omnipotence are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Types_of_omnipotence
You keep calling it a claim. It's an academically established fact. Now you leave me no choice but to resort to redundant methods.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
There's no need to prove anyone wrong when they are refuting a fact. You can assert your opinion as much as you want. It's just plain wrong to have differing opinions about something that is fact, at least pertaining to a specific discipline. I don't know who these debaters are that you speak of, but in the realm of academic philosophy and theology, God and his virtues have established definitions.
"masked man fallacy deals with an illicit use of Leibniz's law in an argument."
Let's see here, you claimed to know nothing about sentential logic, and you're trying to explain to me what logical fallacies are? I think this conversation is over.
which type of omnipotence are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Types_of_omnipotence
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
Here it clearly shows that there is no clear definition, there is a lot of disagreements on the implications, just as I claimed and contradicting your claim.
"One sense of ‘omnipotence’ is, literally, that of having the power to bring about any state of affairs whatsoever, including necessary and impossible states of affairs."
"A second sense of ‘omnipotence’ is that of maximal power, meaning just that no being could exceed the overall power of an omnipotent being. It does not follow that a maximally powerful being can bring about any state of affairs, since, as observed above, bringing about some such states of affairs is impossible."
etc...
"There's no need to prove anyone wrong when they are refuting a fact. You can assert your opinion as much as you want."
A fact, is that you make unsupported and undeclared assumptions.
I never placed my opinion on the matter yet.
"Let's see here, you claimed to know nothing about sentential logic, and you're trying to explain to me what logical fallacies are? I think this conversation is over."
I never claimed I did not know, I asked you to clarify those terms to the rest of us since i doubt you know what you are talking about.
You committed several logical fallacies in our discussion, do you deny them?
Up until now you only ignored them, not even denied them.
"I think this conversation is over."
The choice is yours, you still proved you are unable to support your claims.
Which is satisfactory to me.
These difference you speak of are difference in act and result theories. Not a difference in meaning and definition. Now you're going to want me to explain these subtleties.
Good of you to worry about the greater good when you asked me to explain what sentential logic was. By all means if you are adept at it, feel free to derive my logical fallacies sententially to prove them wrong.
I think we aren't gaining anything from this conversation. We've passed into the realm of un-substantive rhetoric. I'm here to partake in some fruitful intellectual conversation.
Those "act and result theories" are relevant for my answer to your question.
Depending on which type of omnipotent you are talking about in your question, it will have a huge effect on my answer, for any answer for that matter.
EG:
ADITYA KIRAN BUKKAPATNAM:-
"Can God create a stone which he himself cannot lift? (paradox of the stone)Now obviously no matter how you answer this question it contradicts the virtue of omnipotence."
If you take Omnipotence type number 2 for example in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Types_of_omnipotence
It does not contradict omnipotence type 2, though it could raise more questions about who created logic?
If you take Omnipotence type number 1 then yes your statement would be correct.
So it matters a lot for you to be clear on which definition of Omnipotence are you using for the comparison.
That is why I asked for it, not to be mean or anything.
I seriously could not answer your question with the same answer without that piece of information.
@Aditya Kiran Bu...
"There's no disagreement of the definition of omnipotence. There is the well established right definition and the wrong one used by some theists to evade the paradox. I'm not bothered with those people, I just want my question answered."
Your “paradox” had been solved thousands of years ago and not even by theologians.
In the legends of the Norsemen it is said that a huge boulder run down a hill slope and came to stop just in front of the entrance of the cave of the gods, blocking it.
The gods could not move the boulder. So, what did they do?
They called a giantess who gave a push to the boulder and the boulder was gone.
You see, theologians are smarter than scientists but not smarter than laymen. :-D
To the dumb scientists the theologians would say that God, having foreseen the case of the stone he would not be able to lift, had made arrangements so that someone who could do the job would be available.
Theology cannot be beaten (philosophy too) for being unbeatable due to the amount of idiocy involved. ;-)
@ Dimitrios
I think you missed the point of my question. I am well aware of the responses to the paradox of the stone. My question was about the mutual exclusiveness of free will and existential suffering,that theologians like to point out, and that theologians should stop using free will as a justification for evil and suffering.
"But by the definition of omnipotence, shouldn't God be able to give us free will and get rid of evil as well?"
Clarify, please, what is included as evil?
What I mean here is that, a lot of theists when asked why God allows suffering, they say so that he allows it because he gave us free will.
My question is that, if God has unlimited power, why are free will and the problem of evil mutually exclusive of each other? Isn't there a way to have free will and also a way for God to get rid of evil?
By evil I refer to all types of suffering in the world, especially the ones that seem unnecessary such as the agonizing death of innocent infants, war, poverty, famine, etc.
Then I do think that if that god exists and is omnipotent, it surely could provide free will to its minions and eradicate needless suffering.
I see no direct connection between, nor any dependency on, free will and, say, childhood leukemia.
Yes I think we agree. The argument for free will is entirely unrelated and shouldn't be used to refute the problem of evil, as most theists do.
We do indeed agree.
Mintaka - "Einstein's famous equation doesn't make mass move at twice the speed of light, it only explains what happens when it does."
Science fail, it does no such thing.
------------------------
Mintaka - "Arranging numbers is no more precise than any other aspect of our language we use"
That is exactly wrong. Numbers and math are precise in exactly the way language is not.
There are many questions theists themselves don't really answer.. For example if you ask a christian "What created god?" they would reply "He was always there." But, they also claim that nothing can come from nothingness! They contradict their own arguments multiple times, and still think they win.
There are profesors who study Biblical History for a living... they all agree that the information in the Bible ( no matter how many Testaments) is unfounded, and not based on any logic...wow, what a surprise!!
Mintaka "it appears highly unlikely that matter and energy can be eternal."
Matter is not time invariant.
Energy is time invariant, and that is the best definition of eternal I can think of.
----------------
Mintaka - "How does the skeptic know what God would be like?"
Simple, we are told the attributes by the believers, and these attributes create an inconsistent set. That is one way we know that god does not exist. Now perhaps what the believers tell us is not 100% accurate, in which case the door is still open.
----------------
Mintaka - "energy gave us a cosmos filled with photons (cosmic background radiation) and swirling, zooming galaxies. Was that energy always here?"
There is a non-zero probability for any system to evolve to any other system so long as those systems share the same conserved quantum numbers. There is a 0 probability for any system to evolve to any other system if they don't have the same conserved quantities. So let's take a guess at some of those quantum numbers of nothing:
-----Nothing-----
Electric charge: 0
Angular momentum: 0
Energy:0
So if you can show that the universe does not have those values, you have succeeded. However there is a problem: The estimates for the universe are:
-----Universe-----
Electric charge: 0
Angular momentum: 0
Energy:0
Your question "Was that energy always here?" does not seem to make a lot of sense in that context...
Mintaka - "then energy likewise had a beginning and is not in fact time-invariant"
Mintaka - "Let's also say all your zeros add up. This only describes the state of things now"
Those numbers are not functions of time, they are time-invariant. Their time invariance is what makes prediction possible.
--------------------------
Mintaka - "Probabilities are causally inefficacious"
If you believe that, then it is easy to establish there are effects without causes.
--------------------------
Mintaka - "My inconsistent accounts and explanations of God over the years certainly don't disprove His existence, but rather my own inconsistencies!"
Yes, but it does prove that the god you described does not exit.
Pages