If God can do anything can he make a mistake?

If God can do anything can he make a mistake? Dec 23, 2020 23:26:49 GMT

Quote

Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 23:26:49 GMT

Dec 23, 2020 21:35:57 GMT Admin said:

Dec 23, 2020 13:14:53 GMT FilmFlaneur said:

But it would not be unreasonable to ask that an omnipotent dragon which is otherwise undetectable (which is after all what we are discussing) in the event prove itself by any impossible act, if one also wishes to prove omnipotence. Or failing that, any clearly attributable act at all. Which would inevitably bring forth reasons why it could, or would not - qualifications sceptics are only too familiar with. You seem to be following in the usual footsteps by offering up reasons why what you suppose cannot, ever, be evidenced or shown. All very convenient.

However the defence ultimately crumbles for, if such a god can really do the illogical or even the impossible, then the undetectable deity can be detectable even if, er, it isn't. So, by the standard of your own qualified exceptionalism, where's the dragon?

What you think is reasonable is entirely up to you, but the possibility of complete omnipotence is just not a view held by (for instance) the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy as I have shown, for the reasons they and I give. All you seem to be saying is that such a thing can be and so there it is.

It is those who make more and more qualifications as to why their dragon, or deity, cannot be evidenced who make the snags to fit. Or those who tell us that the deity can do anything except, it seems, show itself unambiguously.

I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be having some trouble understanding why the dragon story isn't a valid analogy. I'll try once more, a bit more simplified:

Carl didn't know the dragon was invisible because Rick "neglected to mention" that, so Carl asked to see it.

LOL A bit desperate this. Such hair-splitting represents just the belated introduction of the same old qualification under a different name (and why would Rick 'forget to mention something' so important and unique an aspect when describing his dragon? Why would Carl ask to see the dragon at all if it was not invisible?) Also, the main point we are discussing is a being which is omnipotent just as much as invisible. Since you now go onto mention this then I can assume you really know it.

The title of this thread does not neglect to mention that "God can do anything," and yet some still ask if there's something he can't do, while others are outright saying he can't do some things, such as putting thought into action without time.

The consensus, of which the entry from Stanford is pretty typical, is that "It does not follow that a maximally powerful being can bring about any state of affairs, since ... bringing about some such states of affairs is impossible." But this has been patiently explained to you already.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to question the comprehension of someone who asks to see something described as invisible.

As already mentioned if, as you insist your being is utterly omnipotent and can really do the impossible then, along with other self-contradictory things, then it can be both invisible and visible at the same time, in effect killing two birds of contention with one stone - a fact which, as already mentioned, destroys your argument. What further excuse this time would be offered for something impossible not being done, even by an invisible being? Perhaps one of the more common ones I mentioned earlier?

Note how Carl stopped asking to see it when he was told that the dragon couldn't be seen.

This however would, in our example still not stop Carl then asking to see the invisible being doing the impossible. For which a further excusing qualification (or special pleading) would, inevitably have to be made by Rick. And suppose Carl had then asked to see the dragon's breath fogging a mirror, or to smell its invisible droppings, or just hear it roar? (I would have) More excuses! LOL

Likewise, it wouldn't be unreasonable to question the comprehension of someone asking if there's something that God (described as being able to do anything) can't do.

There is nothing wrong with the comprehension of anyone in this instance. It is perfectly clear, for instance that, promised an invisible dragon which can do the impossible living in the garage, there would be - no surprise - once qualified or special pled for, absolutely no difference between a garage which contains nothing of the sort and one that does. The burden of proof has not been discharged, it has just been dodged.

I never said, nor even implied, that such a being can be. It is presumed in the title of this thread for the sake of discussion. You are told this upfront because the OP, unlike Rick, did not neglect to mention it.

Once again, this just sounds disingenuous. I can't see the difference when such special pleading is made, it is still basically an excuse. Whether or not one is in the garage to be confronted by such qualifications or not the result will always be just as disappointing.

If you could be a werewolf or a vampire, which would you be? Let me guess. That question is to be dismissed in favor of an argument about the existence of vampires and werewolves during which you will accuse me of merely saying that werewolves and vampires can be and so there they are.

This is rather tangled logic for, if I make a claim, then then burden of proof is with me not with you. But if one qualifies a claim enough then that does not make the burden of proof go away, it just makes it more impossible to discharge. Which in the case of those who argue for the existence of a deity which exists but cannot be unambiguously discovered, or can supposedly do things which can't be and so is logically incoherent, is the ultimate point of it all.